Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / February 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Red Meat & Colon Cancer

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ruth - 12 Jan 2005 20:07 GMT
Red Meat and Colon Cancer: News Stories Miss Real Point

By Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D.

It would be easy to infer from headlines on many news articles that
eating red meat increases the risk of developing colon cancer.  For
example, "Red Meat increases Colon Cancer Risk," states one, while
another trumpets "Red meat newly linked to colorectal cancer."

In fact, the story is significantly more nuanced than such headlines
(and many of the associated articles) make it seem.

The source of the furor was a report published in the Journal of the
American Medical Association (Chao A ,Thun MJ, Connell CJ, McCullough
ML, et al. Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer. JAMA
2004;293(2):172-182).  It described the results of a major
epidemiologic study by researchers associated with the American Cancer
Society and Emory University.
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.492/news_detail.asp
gehayw@hotmail.com - 14 Jan 2005 02:28 GMT
The thing I don't like is that, like most studies condemning red meat,
they don't distinguish between the different types of red meat. Cured
"lunch meat" is totally different, for example, than good quality roast
beef. I'm sure that there is considerable difference in their
carcinogenicity.
Rene - 14 Jan 2005 18:15 GMT
> The thing I don't like is that, like most studies condemning red meat,
> they don't distinguish between the different types of red meat. Cured
> "lunch meat" is totally different, for example, than good quality roast
> beef. I'm sure that there is considerable difference in their
> carcinogenicity.

And what about the difference between pastured grass fed beef and feed lot
corn fed beef?

Ren?
John Que - 30 Jan 2005 01:36 GMT
The Press often doesn't get it science right.
It rarely asks hard questions on the topic
of science or most other topic for that matter.

> In fact, the story is significantly more nuanced than such headlines
> (and many of the associated articles) make it seem.

Science articles are often nuanced even when they shouldn't be.
With meat it is an issue of moderation, context, and cooking
method.

> The source of the furor was a report published in the Journal of the
> American Medical Association (Chao A ,Thun MJ, Connell CJ, McCullough
> ML, et al. Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer. JAMA
> 2004;293(2):172-182).  It described the results of a major
> epidemiologic study by researchers associated with the American Cancer
> Society and Emory University.

<link snipped>
montygram - 30 Jan 2005 18:53 GMT
The nasty combination in "red meat" is cholesterol and iron, though the
unsaturated fatty acids don't help.  There is also some arachidonic
acid in all the cells, so you can't get that out by cutting the fat
off.  Then there's processing, transportation, and cooking techniques.
It's no surprise that frying ground beef is rather unhealthy compared
to boiled chicken breast, for example.  Then there's the excess
calories consumed, in addition to few (if any) anitoxidant-rich foods
consumed.  It's all about oxidative stress.  The scientific literature
is clear, just do a pubmed search for oxysterol or oxidized cholesterol
and you'll see what I mean.
John Que - 01 Feb 2005 06:27 GMT
> The nasty combination in "red meat" is cholesterol and iron, though the
> unsaturated fatty acids don't help.  There is also some arachidonic
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> is clear, just do a pubmed search for oxysterol or oxidized cholesterol
> and you'll see what I mean.

Powdered eggs and dried milk would likely be some
of the foods richest in oxysterols. Many prepared
foods contain these two products. Ground meat is
a questionable food for a number of reasons. It is
multisourced both in terms of cattle and nations.
And as you say it likely does contain a little
extra oxidation. Even quite conservative sources
suggest the amount of beef to be eaten is the
size of a deck of cards. I'll suggest pork and
bacon have their downsides as well.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.