Does Red Meat Cause Colon Cancer?
I was involved in a discussion recently where the statement of “red meat causes colon cancer” was spoken. Figuring that to be a gross overgeneralization, I decided to do some sleuthing and see what the record shows regarding red meat and colon cancer. I meandered over to Google, typed in “red meat” and came up with a screen full of search results. Of the first five hits, four are irrelevant (a comic strip called “Red Meat” and a honky tonk band called…”Red Meat”) and the fifth is to Wikipedia.
But the sixth result is where the fun begins: Eating Lots of Red Meat Linked to Colon Cancer. It’s also a prime example of how data is twisted to create news that sells.
The verdict: Eating large amounts of red or processed meat over a long period of time can indeed raise colorectal cancer risk. But the risks from such a diet are smaller than those from obesity and lack of exercise, both for colon cancer and for overall health. [my emphasis]
Now, go back and read the headline. Then reread this quote. Obesity and physical inactivity are greater risks to colorectal health, but the report focuses on the red meat. And most people read the headline and perhaps a couple paragraphs. Unfortunately the above quoted text wasn’t until the third paragraph. How ’bout them apples?
Digging Into The Data
Let’s look at several variables that I think are important when considering whether or not red meat as a whole is a bad thing for your rectum. Here is a quick list of three major ones:
- How was the meat raised?
- How was the meat processed?
- How was the meat prepared?
Grass-fed vs. Conventional Meats
The type of meat makes a difference:
The general belief is a reduction of red meat intake [reduces colorectal cancer risk], and subsequent nutritional advice usually strongly recommends this. Paradoxically, beef together with whole milk and dairy derivatives, are almost the only sources for conjugated linoleic acid (CLAs) family. Furthermore CLAs are the only natural fatty acids accepted by the National Academy of Sciences of USA as exhibiting consistent antitumor properties at levels as low as 0.25 ‘ 1.0 per cent of total fats.
Remember that Conjugated Linoleic Acids are found in much higher quantities in grass-fed meats vs. conventional grain-fed meats. Unfortunately, we’re not going to get beyond putting two and two together since no studies (that I’ve found) are comparing grass-fed to grain-fed meats in terms of cancer.
Processed vs. Fresh Meats
In most studies I’ve seen, there is little to no differentiation between “red meat” and “processed red meat”. Salami and pepperoni are red meat. Does that mean someone that eats a lot of pepperoni pizza has a high intake of red meat in studies? How does a steak compare to a sausage?
Processed meat intake, CYP2A6 activity, and risk of colorectal adenoma:
Our results suggest that nitrite and nitrate intake from processed meat intake increases the risk of colorectal adenoma after accounting for HCA and PAH. [2-fold increased risk in the highest, compared to the lowest, quartile]
Recall The Diet-Cancer Study? It found a 21% increase in colorectal cancer risk for each 1.7oz of processed (smoked, salted, cured, chemical preservatives) meat. Nitrates, present in most any preserved meat you’ll find in the grocery, have been found to increase colon cancer risk…even when water is the source.
It’s How You Cook It
There have been studies that looked beyond just total red meat intake to examine how the meat was cooked:
No associations were found for red roasted or for boiled meats.
Conclusion: Increased risk seems to be related to cooking temperature and close contact of the food to the heating source, because higher risks were observed for heavily browned surfaces when meats were barbecued or iron-pan cooked.
Note that how the meat is cooked is what determined risk in this study. Roasting or boiling showed no association with risk. That’s because high temperature cooking increases the creation of carcinogens known as heterocyclic amines. Low temperature cooking, on the other hand, do not promote heavy creation of HCAs.
Other Study Examinations
There have been three discussions on Weston A. Price regarding red meat and colon cancer.
Here is the first one:
Colon cancer was also tied to beef in an erroneous interpretation of the National Cancer Institute Japanese-Hawaiian study which actually showed macaroni, green beans and peas to have higher risk associated with colon cancer than beef or lamb.1
And the second:
Myth: Beef causes colon cancer
Truth: Argentina, with higher beef consumption, has lower rates of colon cancer than the US. Mormons have lower rates of colon cancer than vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists (Cancer Res 35:3513 1975)
Correct me if I’m wrong…if the hypothesis holds, shouldn’t the country with the highest beef consumption in the world also have the highest rates of colon cancer? And shouldn’t meat eaters (Mormons) have higher rates of colon cancer compared to vegetarians, especially when both groups are likely living squeaky clean lives in terms of drinking and smoking (considering religious restrictions)?
And number three:
Two American studies conducted in the 1990′s have found a higher risk of colon cancer among those who eat red meat.8 However, no study done in Europe has ever shown an association between meat consumption and cancer.9
…
While two US studies have implicated meat consumption as a cause of colon cancer, there are several that contradict these findings. In 1975, Rowland Philips compared Seventh-Day Adventists physicians, who do not eat meat, with non-Seventh Day Adventist physicians, and found that the vegetarian doctors had higher rates of gastrointestinal and colon-rectal cancer deaths.10 National Cancer Institute data show that Argentina, with very high levels of beef consumption, has significantly lower rates of colon cancer than other western countries where beef consumption is considerably lower.11 A 1997 study published in the International Journal of Cancer found that increased risk of colon and rectal cancer was positively associated with consumption of bread, cereal dishes, potatoes, cakes, desserts and refined sugars, but not with eggs or meat.12 [my emphasis]
Here are links to some the studies WAPF used in that last quote there:
- Meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk
- Frequent consumption of red meat is not risk factor for cancer
- Role of Life-style and Dietary Habits in Risk of Cancer among Seventh-Day Adventists
So What’s The Word?
I think the data shows no issues from eating quality grass-fed meats, fatty or not. Grass-fed meats contain CLA, known to be an anti-cancer compound. Further, I think cooking “low and slow” is the safest way, along with avoiding chemically-preserved meats. I don’t think there’s anyway that anyone can say there is definitive proof that red meat is harmful, especially considering that nobody is looking at properly-raised meats.
What do you think about the association of red meat with colorectal cancer? Is there data that I’ve missed one way or the other?
About Scott
Scott Kustes loves to cook and loves to eat. He started Real Food University to help you get maximum enjoyment out of the meals that you eat. To find out more about how he has rebelled against the fast food culture and counting calories or carbs, join the Real Food Revolution.
44 Reader Comments
Feel free to leave a comment below... and as always please keep it in good taste. Comment spamming ONLY to promote your website is NOT allowed. So please use your real name in the field below otherwise it may be edited or removed. Constructive discussion is always welcome, personal attacks or useless bickering is not. Not all comments may be answered directly by editors/writers.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Nice work.
Thanks very much for the clear, concise data.
Jay
Scott – good job. This is a post I will be forwarding to a few people.
I have not dug into each of the studies you list, but to me this makes sense from a paleo perspective anyway. If we accept the premise that hunter gatherers evolved eating large amounts of red meat, it would be odd if we had evolved bodies that responded to that by producing malignant tumors…
Scott:
Good analysis and explanation.
But by far the biggest issue with those ‘red meat/colon cancer’ studies is that they are basically epidemiological. At best they can show some correlation, never, ever, any causal relation.
The correlations noted in the first study you quote were based on TWO diet recall surveys people filled out many years apart. Very iffy data at best. And even then, the study produced a Relative Risk (RR) of 30% to 40%. Which is virtually meaningless. You need 200% to 300% to suggest anything meaningful may be going on. Further, the epidemiology needs to be proven out with clinical studies, not just statistical analysis.
Even worse, far larger and more extensive studies weren’t able to eke out any correlation at all.
http://www.aacrmeetingabstracts.org/cgi/content/abstract/2004/1/113?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=cho+E&title=Meat+and+fat+intake+and+colorectal+cancer+risk&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=re
On the shortcomings of epidemiology for diet recommendations:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html
Thanks Scott,
This was a very good presentation, can I forward it via my email news group, for my beef?
Thanks,
John
Great post.
Dr Briffa and Bary Groves both had good pieces on this a little while ago. I think I link to them here:
http://conditioningresearch.blogspot.com/2007/11/red-meat-gives-you-canceroh-really.html
Also it is important to note that Argentinians, with lower rates of cancer despite eating huge amounts of beef, also eat grass fed beef and not grain fed beef. It would be interesting if similar studies have been done in New Zealand and Australia that do not find any correlation between meat eating and cancer since these two countries both only produce and supply grass fed beef to their populace. I still think it is largely related to insulin and the carbohydrate hypothesis, which seems to be backed up with the study you show that increased cancer risk increases with refined carbs.
Good article scott, the information about cooking method was very interesting.
I agree with KWalt’s comments that these studies don’t show a causal effect, they can only show a correlation.
I’d like to take you up on the offer you made in the sentence “Correct me if I’m wrong, if the hypothesis holds, shouldn’t the country with the highest beef consumption in the world also have the highest rates of colon cancer?”
Premises:
(1) Argentina has the highest beef consumption in the world.
(2) Beef consumption causes colon cancer
Your conclusion doesn’t logically follow. There could be other factors causing low colon cancer in argentina or higher cancer rates in the countries it was compared to.
Well, let’s look at how beef might cause colon cancer.
Maybe I’m off, but it seems like if you eat tons of any kind of beef, grass fed or not, with no fiber, then everything is going to be hanging out (see: festering) in your intestine and colon for longer than foods with lots of fiber. I believe that beef is harder to digest than say chicken.
Could this be a factor here?
Dr Dan,
I have heard that it is illegal to sell grain fed NZ beef unless it’s specifically stated. However, Aussie beef seems to be a little less clear. I’ve seen both grain and grass fed varieties. That’s why I tend to buy NZ beef just to be sure.
I’ve also seen Brazilian grass fed beef, but I’m not sure if Brazil only produces grass fed? Given their close proximity to Argentina, is this the case?
Also, how do you prepare a good steak without high heat and close proximity to the heat source? Seems like the grill is out of the question. I usually broil my steak in a tray in my oven, is this fine?
Another well-researched and written article–thanks Scott. I have an idea for another post: both bison and lamb (including NZ lamb) are grass-fed, but fed a diet of grain for a period before slaughter to both increase their weight, but to also change their fat profile, hence the flavor when eaten. I’ve heard that with the NZ lamb, for instance, they only do this practice for the American market and not lamb for the European market, etc.
Calvin
Methuselah, my thoughts exactly.
KWalt, good reads. Thanks!
john, definitely!
Chris, great post and links to those articles. Thanks for that.
Dr. Dan, that’s a valid point and I think also goes to the fact that Argentinians have the highest rate of beef consumption and lower rates of colon cancer than we do. Even if beef causes colon cancer (which I don’t believe), it’s obvious that certain types of beef – that is, those that are properly-raised on grass – are having a different effect.
TJ, exactly. I was articulating the conclusion based on the faulty premise that red meat is so bad. There are many other factors and as one study showed, it’s the highly carborific foods that are associated.
Sam, the data doesn’t necessarily support the need for dietary fiber either. Check out Mike OD’s article here on fiber. Gut health is more important in bowel movements than is fiber.
Cheers
Scott
[...] Read the full article here. [...]
[...] read on red meat Does red meat cause colon cancer? Check out this discussion from The Modern [...]
Sam,
I think if anything is going to be “festering” it would be carbohydrates. Particularly in the case of gluten sensitivity which leads to constant inflammation and may develop into intestinal/colon cancer.
This might explain some of it. http://11thhouraction.com/node/1672
“Americans are the biggest resource consumers on the planet. An average American will consume 13,056 pints of milk in a lifetime, a whopping 12,129 hamburger buns and 87,520 slices of bread.”
Assuming most of those buns come with beef patties, giving someone eighty years to eat those burgers, that’s 151.6 burgers a year. That’s a hamburger almost every other day, and if true would account for an awful lot of the beef consumption for the average American.
What about the radical vegans who say all animal protein causes cancer, like T. Colin Campbell in “The China Study”? My gut tells me he’s distorting facts, but I am not good enough at reading academic stuff to figure out how.
Hey Scott,
I’ve got a quick question, coming from a guy who eats lots of meat (Paleo style). If you don’t know for sure if the meat you are ingesting is in fact grass fed, would it be a good idea to supplement with CLA pills? I do tend to buy higher quality products, but I’m just not sure if it’s grass fed, I’ll definitely ask next time.
Thanks for the awesome post, I delicious-ed it!!
All the Best,
Andrew R
Go Healthy Go Fit
Did early man get cancer? If so, what kind?
Donny, but the question still remains…does red meat cause colon cancer? Indications are that the answer is no. So perhaps it’s the buns that come with those burgers, not the burgers themselves. Perhaps it’s those 87k slices of bread we’re eating… It seems incredibly simplistic to look at the overall Western dietary pattern and blame red meat.
Jenjen, very distorted. Chris Masterjohn took The China Study to task masterfully here.
Andrew, if you’re buying your meat at the grocery, it’s a safe assumption that it’s not grass-fed. Even that which is claimed to be grass-fed is typically finished on grain for marbling and “flavor”. I don’t know anything about supplementing with CLA, such as safe dosages and where the CLA comes from. The ultimate goal is to befriend farmers in your area and buy grass-fed meat in bulk. If you have the money to drop on a freezer, I think it takes about 8 cubic feet to hold 1/8 of a cow and the price works out to at least as good as buying at the grocery. I paid $4/lb for ~75lbs of meat, half of which was steaks and roasts which go for more than $4/lb typically.
Chad, good question. Of course, there is no solid answer for that, but looking at modern hunter-gatherer tribes, incidence of cancer is remarkably low until the adoption of Western dietary patterns.
Cheers
Scott
Hello,
I had thought I had read that the cooking process helped to create additional CLA’s in grass-finished meat. Do you have any information on this subject.
Thank You,
John
Heh, I’d just like to point out here that it may not be fair to compare us Mormons to other groups without taking into account the fact that we do not consume coffee, tea, alcohol or tobacco and have one of the lowest cancer rates for any group (I don’t have a citation for that, but I’ve heard it cited).
Just a thought.
I think that the article did that, as both groups are supposed to abstain for the aforementioned substances.
John, the little I just read says that CLA concentration increases during cooking. It’s not that additional CLA is being created but that other components of the meat and fat are reducing under heat.
Dave, as John mentioned, that’s why the Mormons were compared to Seventh Day Adventists, a group with similar restrictions.
Cheers
Scott
Ah, that part I missed. Thanks!
18 November 2008
Hi Scott,
I am giving you a copy of the Anti-Cancer Diet based on an interview by Ching Alano of Philippine Star with me last year. I hope you find it interesting…. Angel
The anti-cancer diet
CONSUMERLINE By Ching M. Alano
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Yes, there’s a diet that protects against the modern scourge (which they say is the price we pay for lifes excesses) that is cancer.
Truly, cancer is one of the most dreaded diseases, Dr. Angel Respicio, nutrition adviser, The Sleeplab at Hawaii Medical, writes in his e-mail. True, there have been great strides in cancer research regarding treatment options available, but unfortunately, not everybody can afford proper treatment. The best defense, therefore, is prevention for the general population. For those in remission, maintaining a healthy and strong immune system is vital.
Our good nutritionist clears some misconceptions (presenting the food fats and facts). He quotes a mouthful from Dr. Mary Enig’s Know Your Fats, 2000: In 1965, Ernst Wynder, MD of the American Health Foundation presented a slide in a meeting which showed that animal fat and colon cancer were positively correlated across many countries. Unfortunately, the data on the slide, represented mostly processed vegetable fat for the many countries. For the US, about 89 percent of the number represented processed vegetable fats. This fraudulent data have many times subsequently been shown as being fundamental in support of the meat and fat hypothesis. These were not animal fat data. And now, after more than three decades, the anti-animal fat hypothesis continues to lead nutrition agenda. It was a false issue then, and it remains a false issue today.
The British Medical Journal (15 January 2005) reports, Evidence grows that eating red meat increases cancer risk.
According to Dr. Respicio, FYI, œtheir definition of red meat included ” hold your breath now ” bacon, sausage, hamburgers, cheeseburgers, meatloaf, or casserole with minced beef, beef steak, beef roast, beef stew, pot pie, liver, pork, hotdog, ham, bologna, salami, and luncheon meat. Only God knows which of the above could have caused cancer. It could be the preservatives, food coloring, processed fats, etc. and not red meat per se.
Respicio poses this mind-piquing question: If it is true that red meat eaters increase their risk of colorectal cancers, why is it that people who eat nothing but red meat like the Canadian Inuit, American Indians, hunters, as well as the Masai tribes of Kenya did not suffer any forms of cancer at all?
Dr. Respicio takes note of another biased reporting by media in the news article which goes, Colon cancer survivors who followed the high-fat Western diet are more likely to have recurrence. This was based on the report published in JAMA (The Journal of American Medical Association Vol. 298 No 7, August 15, 2007) titled “Association of Dietary Patterns With Cancer Recurrence and Survival in Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer. The findings were only observational, Respicio gingerly notes, and there wasn’t any proven causality that animal fat or meat was linked to cancer. The Western diet studied consisted of meat, fat (vegetable fat or meat fat), refined grains or flour, and high-sugar dessert. And the media tried to implicate meat as the culprit. Only God knows which of these caused the cancer recurrence.
Respicio makes these meaty observations, The anti-beef agenda has gathered momentum and eventually became accepted by media who pushed it and by the unfortunate consumer who swallowed this big fraud, hook, line, and sinker. The Japanese have the longest lifespan in the world and they have moderate fat consumption from eggs, pork chicken, beef, seafood, and organ meats What the Japanese do not consume is a lot of vegetable oil, white flour, or processed food. The Swiss rank second in longevity and they live almost as long on one of the fattiest diets in the world. Tied for third in longevity stakes are Austria and Greece, both with high-fat (animal) diets (Thomas Moore, Lifespan: What Really Affects Human Longevity, 1990).
The experts behind Weston A. Price Foundation (according to Dr. Respicio, is an independent group of scientists not funded by any self-serving interest groups; they have no biases and simply give pure and sound advice based on objective scientific research) have identified the compounds in processed foods that can cause cancer. Do take note:
- Trans fatty acids: Imitation fats in shortenings, margarines, and most commercial baked goods and snack foods. Strongly associated with cancer of the lungs and reproductive organs.
- Rancid fats: Industrial processing creates rancidity (free radicals) in commercial vegetable oils.
- Omega-6 fatty acids: Although needed in small amounts, an excess can contribute to cancer. Dangerously high levels of omega-6 fatty acids are due to the overuse of vegetable oils in modern diets.
- MSG: Yes, monosodium glutamate (vetsin) is associated with brain cancer. It’s found in almost all processed foods, even when “MSG†does not appear on the label. Flavorings, spice mixes, and hydrolyzed protein contain MSG.
- Aspartame: This imitation sweetener in diet foods and beverages is associated with brain cancer.
- Pesticides: Found in most commercial vegetable oils, fruit juices, vegetables and fruits, pesticides are associated with many types of cancer.
- Hormones: Found in animals raised in confinement on soy and grains. Plant-based hormones are plentiful in soy foods.
- Artificial flavorings and colors: Associated with various types of cancers, especially when consumed in large amounts in a diet of junk food.
- Refined carbohydrates: Sugar, high fructose corn syrup and white flour are devoid of nutrients. The body uses up nutrients from other foods to process refined carbohydrates. Tumor growth is associated with sugar consumption.
So, what are the nutrients that can protect us against cancer? Here they are, according to Weston Price Foundation:
- Vitamin A: Strengthens the immune system. Essential for mineral metabolism and endocrine function, it helps detoxify. True vitamin A is found only in animal foods such as cod liver oil; fish and shellfish; and liver, butter, and egg yolks from pasture-fed animals. Traditional diets contain 10 times more vitamin A than the typical modern American diet
- Vitamin C: An important antioxidant that prevents damage by free radicals. It is found in many fruits and vegetables but also in certain organ meats valued by primitive peoples.
- Vitamin B6: Deficiencies are associated with cancer. It contributes to the function of over 100 enzymes and is mostly available from animal foods.
- Vitamin B12: Deficiencies are associated with cancer. Found only in animal foods.
- Vitamin B17: Found in a variety of organically grown grains, legumes, nuts, and berries.
- Vitamin D: Required for mineral absorption, it is strongly protective against breast and colon cancers. Found only in animal foods such as cod liver oil, lard, shellfish and butterfat, organ meats and egg yolks from grass-fed animals.
- Vitamin E: Works as an antioxidant at the cellular level. Found in unprocessed oils as well as in animal fats like butter and egg yolks.
- Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA): Strongly protective against breast cancer. Found in the butterfat and meat fat of grass-fed ruminant animals.
- Cholesterol: A potent antioxidant that protects against free radicals in cell membranes. Found only in animal foods.
- Minerals: The body needs generous amounts of a wide variety of minerals to protect itself against cancer Minerals like zinc, magnesium, and selenium are vital components of enzymes that help the body fight carcinogens. Minerals are more easily absorbed from animal foods.
- Lactic acid and friendly bacteria: Contribute to the health of the digestive tract. Found in old fashioned lacto-fermented foods.
- Saturated fats: Strengthen the immune system. Needed for proper use of the essential fatty acids. The lungs cannot function without saturated fats. Found mostly in animal foods.
- Long-chain fatty acids: Arachidonic acid (AA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) help fight cancer on the cellular level. They are found mostly in animal foods such as butter, organ meats, cod liver oil, and seafood.
- Co-enzyme Q10: Highly protective against cancer, it is found only in animal foods.
Angel, Good read. Thanks for posting that.
Cheers
Scott
Very informative post and comment from Angel Respicio, Jr. MD. The long list of compounds which cause cancer sure makes you wonder what food has not been contaminated by them? ? ? It almost seems like there is nothing out there that’s healthy and unaffected by additives and chemicals.
I just wrote a blog post on this issue as well, though not as data based. I loved this info. I’m sick of generalized risks.
Great article…..also another great summary of it all is here:
Which means just keep it simple and:
- eat real meats (not processed)
- eat real fats (not processed)
- eat real foods (full of anti-cancerous vitamins and minerals)
and funny how the rest just seems to work itself out in the end.
I lived in Argentina, where there are virtually no seriously overweight people versus the U.S. where over 60% of the population is overweight. As another person commented, your statement that if red meat caused cancer, then the country with the highest red meat consumption should have the highest colon cancer rates is not logical as it ignores other factors (e.g. the much healthier body weights of Argentinians).
It is logical because you’re introducing other factors beyond red meat. If it has to do with obesity (it does), then it’s not solely (or even largely) due to red meat. Think about what you just said.
Cheers
Scott
No one said that red meat was the only contributing factor and just because obesity may be a contributing factor does not mean that red meat is not ALSO a contributing factor. I suggest you read all of the research that indicates that red meat IS a contributing factor. You cherry-pick one outlier (Argentina) and ignore all of the other countries and then jump to conclusion about causality without considering all of the other factors (obesity, exercise, etc.) that may be at work.
Give me a laboratory and a million dollars and I can prove anything you want (probably take more than a million in reality). Anyway, there are so many variables at play. If one eats meat and potatoes together they tend to not digest properly festering in the gut. That is probably more of a problem then simply the red meat.
Actually, there’s very little real research on red meat solely. It’s all based around lifestyle and epidemiological types of studies are pretty well useless. If you think about the types of people that avoid red meat in the US and other Westernized nations, they also tend to do other things that make them healthy, such as exercising, focusing on unprocessed foods, eating plenty of fruits and vegetables, not smoking, drinking less, fewer sweets, etc.
There is simply no real research (that I’ve seen) that measures a) the effects of only red meat, b) healthy red meat (see my issues in the article about lumping processed meats in with steaks and roasts, along with the grass-fed/grain-fed issue), or c) red meat consumption amongst all-around healthy red meat eaters, like those of us that eat more vegetables than your average vegetarian along with our grass-fed beef.
In fact, if anyone is jumping to conclusions, it’s the study authors that take a study with myriad variables and say “yep, it was the red meat.” They’re merely jumping to the conclusion they had before the study. There have been far too many cultures that have been healthy on diets with lots of red meat for Argentina to be considered an outlier….besides that outliers often point to holes in the premises.
Cheers
Scott
Exactly! Too many studies fail to take into account all of the variables, instead focusing on the author’s pet ideas.
Cheers
Scott
Apart from the poor logic of the Argentine example, that was highlighted earlier, the 1975 Rowland Phillip’s study (of 7th-day adventists versus non-7th day adventists doctors) stated that:
“Adventists show statistically significant relative risks for colon cancer of 2.8 for past use of meat. For current food use, the significant relative risks are 2.3 for beef, 2.7 for lamb, and 2.1 for a combined group of highly saturated fat foods. This strongly suggests that the lactoovo-vegetarian diet may protect against colon cancer. ”
Yet the author of this article stated that: “In 1975, Rowland Philips compared Seventh-Day Adventists physicians, who do not eat meat, with non-Seventh Day Adventist physicians, and found that the vegetarian doctors had higher rates of gastrointestinal and colon-rectal cancer deaths.”
IN OTHER WORDS, HE CLAIMS THE VERY OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE STUDY ACTUALLY SHOWED !?!?!?
In summary, there are lots of variable involved, but lots of evidence that red and processed meats increase the risk for colon cancer. That said, I think that this uses poor logic, explicitly wrong claims (e.g. the Phillips study), and an overall biased agenda to try and prove otherwise. I’m not sure what his agenda is for doing so, but I fear that he may be giving some people a false sense of security with their red-meat-rich-diets. I eat a decent amount of red meat so would love to believe him, but I see no reason to do so.
Click on the link, below and look at figure 27-13, for a more comprehensive chart of meat consumption versus colon cancer rates for different countries. Quite a different story when you don’t just cherry-pick one example (Argentina).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=cmed6&part=A6663
What I get from all this is that all “red meat” by generic definition is not created equal (as a processed burger is not the same as a grass fed steak), higher intakes of fruits/vegetables is recommended, vegetable oils (and other unstable cooking fats) need to be removed, and most societies who have a history of meat usually see their health turn for the worse once more modern (westernization) foods are introduced.
That being said the amount of protein one actually “needs” per day is pretty low compared to what many eat as well (although you still do need calories to come from some place).
[...] Stop being stupid. Here you go, nice little article with linked sources for your convenience: http://www.fitnessspotlight.com/2008…-colon-cancer/ As far back as history dates we have imported/exported goods all over the world. We were made [...]
the basic lesson is, anything in excess is bad for you. you have to moderate your meat consumption and balance it with fruits and veggies.
___________
advantage flea control for dogs
[...] Have to be Part of a Complete Breakfast, and Just Say No…To Juice? for more on this topic. Colon cancer has been linked to eating red meat in some studies, notably in North and South America, but there [...]
[...] Unprocessed red meat may also slightly raise the chance of colon cancer, but the risks are less than those incurred by obesity or lack of exercise. And before you smack me in the face with your copy of The China Study, please read this detailed critique by nutrition blogger Denise Minger. [...]
[...] name it. Plus, the quality of the meat and how its raised and processed matters. Google search- Does Red Meat Cause Colon Cancer? : Naked Food Cooking That Paleo Guy: Carnosine, Colons, and Cancer I narrowly avoided colon cancer myself in 1991. I [...]
[...] [...]