Archive for Active No-Carber Forums A veggie-free zone
 



       Active No-Carber Forums Forum Index -> Naysayers & Contrarians
Avalon

New Cancer Report

Low Meat recommendations ahead- turn back now or good luck with that...

I'm posting this because I think it's important, whether anyone believes it or not. I'm posting also because it's like a week or so ago I was saying virtually the same things based on the Hunza, Cornaro and other long lived cultures-

A New Study stating Less red meat, less body fat, less alcohol Shock less cancer healthier life.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21562474/

Quote:
The report, which selected 7,000 studies from a worldwide pool of 500,000 written since records began in the 1960s, includes five key findings.
Processed meats, alcohol
They are that processed meats, such as ham and bacon, increase the risk of colorectal cancer, and should be eaten sparingly.
Another is the link between red meat and colorectal cancer, for which the evidence is stronger than ever. People should not eat more than 500g (17 ounces) of cooked red meat a week.
A further finding was the strongest evidence yet that alcohol is a cause of cancer. If people must drink, the report said, they should limit their intake to two units a day for a man or one for a woman. A unit is a half pint of beer or a small glass of wine.


http://canadianpress.google.com/a...LeqM5gNh7lj8uqb0KuJxT_UWg3r1bz4yA

Quote:
WASHINGTON - Many kinds of cancer could be prevented with simple lifestyle choices, says a comprehensive new report, which recommends keeping a lean body weight, limiting red meat consumption and ditching processed foods like bacon, hot dogs and luncheon meats except for the odd special occasion.
The 517-page report, released Wednesday by the American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund, says there is also convincing evidence linking consumption of alcohol to elevated cancer risk.
But the report by the groups' expert panel - its second in 10 years - aimed its prevention guns at excess body fat as a prime contributor to numerous forms of malignancies, including cancer of the esophagus, pancreas, colon, kidney and uterus, as well as breast cancer in post-menopausal women.


Okay the alcohol thing sucks! And it may get me to cut back to maybe hell if I know times a month with the drinky Cry

The rest, well, here we are Yup Group hug anyway Big Hug

Sharing Grin
brklx

Dueling researchers?

Quote:
Men who drink one glass a wine a day are likely to reduce their risk of the most aggressive forms of prostate cancer by 50 percent, according to a cancer research study. The cancer-fighting compound, resveratrol, is found in the red grapes that are used to make red wine. Resveratrol is also found in peanuts and raspberries. Upon testing other liquors such as beer and hard liquor, researchers found they produced no significant effects.

How Does Resveratrol Help Control Cancer Development?

*

Because it is an antioxidant, it has the ability to clear dangerous cancer-inducing radicals from the body
*

Its anti-inflammatory properties prevent certain enzymes from forming that trigger tumor development
*

It cuts down cell reproduction, which helps reduce the number of cell divisions that could contribute to the progression of cancer cell growth
* May play a similar role to estrogen by its ability to reduce testosterone levels, which promote the cancer growth

The study involved interviewing two groups of men: 753 recently diagnosed prostate cancer patients and 703 healthy patients, who acted as the control group. The goal of the study was to evaluate the possible benefits of drinking red wine. The participant's ages ranged from 40-64, with the majority under the age of 60.

This youthful range was considered one of the strong asp
adwred

This report is a perfect, PERFECT example of the 'bad science' that Taubes talks about in his new book. To me, it's very humorous that it should come out right after Taubes' book, actually. It's not a study, Ava, it's a report - a blanket statement that certain dietary factors are correlated to cancer, based on a review of a selection of studies (that add up to 1.4% of the studies looked at, by the way).
Avalon

The Methodology Task force came from the Uk, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and the USA

http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/

Quote:
About the Report

The production of the second expert report has been a huge undertaking for the WCRF global network, involving over 100 scientists from 30 different countries. WCRF/AICR commissioned and funded the report, but the content has been driven by an independent panel of 21 world renowned scientists. The Expert Panel worked for five years to assess the research and their conclusions and recommendations are firmly based on the scientific evidence.

I understand humans can be sef serving... What if there is no conspiracy here?
Quote:
The SLRs include evidence published up to the end of 2005, and the Panel's conclusions are based on those SLRs. To ensure that the Panel's recommendations, which are derived from their conclusions and judgements, take into account developing evidence, a further review of studies published during 2006 was conducted. This review was more limited than the full SLRs, being confined to exposures that had been judged "convincing", "probable", "substantial effect on risk unlikely", and "limited-suggestive", based on the SLRs.

This study was underway long before Taubes's book and whether this report has any truth or not to it, only time will tell. If you were to own a baby crib that is being recalled for defects, and yet not all cribs may have the defect, will you keep it anyway and hope for the best? Or a car? Is it wise to completely dismiss such a study? I don't think so. But it's okay, I understand there are countless contradictions out there. And I am willing to sway with the wind, when it changes direction.

p.s. I wish everyone a healthy long life, except for those who have hurt me in some way and I will make them pay. Oh I will MAKE THEM PAY! HOOOHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! HHOOOOHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
barb0324

ROTFL



I'm glad I'm on your good side, Ava... I am, amen't I??? Shock
adwred

Ava, again, it's not a study. This is not a new double-blind controlled study that has been released. It's a rehashing of many studies, most of which have been observational studies. The baby crib analogy isn't a fair comparison. The idea is not that 1.4% of the studies say that meat leads to cancer and I'm ignoring them because they don't suit my needs or beliefs. Trust me, if a double-blind controlled study came out that said beef causes cancer, I'd shit myself. The idea is that the studies that support the idea that meat diets cause cancer are not good science.

Have you read Taubes' book, yet? You should, it's eye-opening and might just bring you some peace of mind about all these studies. I do feel that part of you probably doesn't want peace, especially if it's peace that supports a meat-eating diet, due to the fact that it goes against what you feel morally. That is something you'll have to reconcile on your own. I'm not saying stop questioning - I'm saying make sure you understand that what you're reading may not be accurate. Not because of a mass conspiracy, but because it's based in flawed studies.

There are numerous studies out there that show that meat-eating is actually beneficial in its role against cancer. http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/PIIS0016508506022402/abstract But they, too, are observational and should not be accepted as 100% fact. I think if you're going to go by anything observational, it should be from observing the good health and lack of cancer in meat- and fat-eating cultures, not studies that are observing people eating mixed diets.

You know, Ava, I don't think I've ever once said that an all-meat diet is the only way to health. I know you think that I think that because you quote me and argue against my meat-loving diatribes so much, Wink but I don't actually believe that all-meat is necessary for good health. I think some people who don't have damaged metabolisms can handle some carbs and be very healthy eating them in moderation. I am not one of those people. On the same token, I think someone can be very unhealthy on an all-meat diet, depending on what they're eating and how they're preparing it. Someone eating nothing but hotdogs is not going to live a long life.

I incorporate many ideas of what is healthy into my regime. My regime doesn't end with 'Zero-carb'. Failsafe is just as important to me as meat-eating. So is Optimal Nutrition (Jan Kwasniewski) and getting a good ratio of fat.

Definitely question things. But know that generally speaking, we as carnivores are big questioners! Most of us have come to after exhaustive research and self-experimentation. If anything, it takes a very strong person to not eat carbs, not just because of cravings, but because of the serious social, moral and behavioral implications this diet has. No one doing a meat diet is doing it without lots of thought being put into it. It's too fucking hard to do to be doing it without careful consideration, if I'm being honest.

Please read the book. But first, as a great appetizer, check out these great articles from Eades about meat-eating, cancer and why observational studies are generally incredibly inaccurate and misleading:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmik.../08/30/colon-cancer-and-red-meat/[url]

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmik...e-colon-cancer-and-red-meat-post/

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmik...ore-on-red-meat-and-colon-cancer/
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmik...9/19/observational-studies/[/url]

And best of luck in your health journey. Yup Kiss I love you, you know, Miss Potato-Head!
Avalon

Dear Adwred, Big Hug

I will read those links. And I promise to read them without judgement. My moral issues about not eating fury beasties is not linked to diet and health. If I read tomorrow that yes, high meat, most meat and down to some meat is our natural diet- and I believed the presentation hey, fine. Fine for everyone. Fine for my Cat. But you also know that Humans have choices and there are usually more ways than one, to do something. So even if I knew the 'answer' which I still feel is unknown, I'm not sure what I would do.
Quote:
Have you read Taubes' book, yet? You should, it's eye-opening and might just bring you some peace of mind about all these studies. I do feel that part of you probably doesn't want peace, especially if it's peace that supports a meat-eating diet, due to the fact that it goes against what you feel morally. That is something you'll have to reconcile on your own. I'm not saying stop questioning - I'm saying make sure you understand that what you're reading may not be accurate. Not because of a mass conspiracy, but because it's based in flawed studies.

I feel your feelings regarding my feelings, though they are valid from your own perspective are inacurate. I lived with a Vegetarian for six months and had no desire to become one, at that time. In fact another firend was a pescatarian and I remember thinking "Why eat this way?" . Not long ago I was believeing all the wonderful testimonials over at the AV books site. Raw meat cures cancer and many other illnesses. Well, you know maybe raw meat does cure. I don't think many of us are living AV fulltime except maybe Geoff Happy and all the yahoo groups. I don't think many of us are living example of tribal hunter gatherers even while eating meat. I think I could be content eating meat or fish every blue boon or so. But I reserve the right to change my mind.

Prove that these 7000 studies are all flawed. Is there no truth in any of them? How can you be so sure? You know, if you are that's great. I'm not and that's why I posted. I'm not sure. In fact my beliefs aren't hinged to Vegan or Vegetarian but to Human Health and what I've been learning and I believe at this moment in my life that less red meat might be safer. Fish Dunno eggs Dunno
Quote:
There are numerous studies out there that show that meat-eating is actually beneficial in its role against cancer. http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/PIIS0016508506022402/abstract But they, too, are observational and should not be accepted as 100% fact. I think if you're going to go by anything observational, it should be from observing the good health and lack of cancer in meat- and fat-eating cultures, not studies that are observing people eating mixed diets.

By admitting this is also an observational study, this will not be permitted as evidence. The jury shall disregard the above Yup
Quote:
Definitely question things. But know that generally speaking, we as carnivores are big questioners! Most of us have come to after exhaustive research and self-experimentation. If anything, it takes a very strong person to not eat carbs, not just because of cravings, but because of the serious social, moral and behavioral implications this diet has. No one doing a meat diet is doing it without lots of thought being put into it. It's too fucking hard to do to be doing it without careful consideration, if I'm being honest.

I appreciate your honsety. I hope you can appreciate my concern even if it is not your own.

I will read your links.

Have you read about Neu5Gc?

Sometimes those little warning signs on the side of the road really are warning signs. I would be happy actually for my families' sake if meat was an anti cancer food Yay! That is truth.

Remember, I have no problem feeding my cat raw chicken, beef and I've even thought of feeding him real mice because I believe he is a true carnivore. Why do I believe this? Because of things I've read, things I've heard something something.

Lastly if Naysayers were to disapper, I'd be more quite, unless somehow guided into a thread. But since it is there Roll Eyes

I'm okay with diasgreeing with you, really(rassahfrassah) what? Cool
Hope you are too Happy
adwred

Quote:
So even if I knew the 'answer' which I still feel is unknown, I'm not sure what I would do.


As I said above, I don't think there is one 'answer'. I believe I've found a good answer for myself for the time being. I think being a Failsafe Optimal Carnivore is working great for me right now and I can't imagine giving that WOE up for anything, right now, having been an obese, food chemical intolerant my whole life and never having felt particularly good until quite recently.

Quote:
I feel your feelings regarding my feelings, though they are valid from your own perspective are inacurate.


Well that very well may be. Maybe you save all your 'Meat is healthy' posts for the vegan forums you post on. Laugh Maybe not. Dunno It just seems like you don't particularly want to think meat is healthy because you appear to get behind every study that supports meat being unhealthy. But pardon me for being inaccurate. Cool Appearances aren't everything, I suppose.

Quote:
Prove that these 7000 studies are all flawed. Is there no truth in any of them? How can you be so sure?
Well, first of all, I don't have to prove it. I'm not a scientist and the onus is not on me to prove or disprove anything. It's the scientists' job to do that and so far, they have done a shitty job of proving that eating meat is the cause of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, obesity or inflammation. And secondly, we'll never know whether there's any truth in them because they're not the kind of studies that show causation.


Quote:
Have you read about Neu5Gc?
Yes I have. I've read every link that you've posted, plus looked it up on my own. And all I can say is that correlation is not causation. There are too many 'probablys' and 'we hypothesizes' in the study for me to be convinced just yet that I should give up meat. They say nothing of the diet of the people whose tissues they're studying and how much of anything they were eating. The only testing they did of 'diet' wasn't even diet. It was of the scientists doing the study, measuring how much Neu5Gc was absorbed into cells after ingesting pure purified Neu5Gc.

http://health.ucsd.edu/news/2003/09_29_Varki.html

Quote:
When the three volunteers drank Neu5Gc purified from pork sources and dissolved in water, there were no immediate ill effects. An analysis of the volunteers’ urine, blood, serum (the clear liquid that can be separated from clotted blood), hair and saliva, both before ingestion and regularly for several days after, determined that the human body eliminates most of the Neu5Gc, but retains and metabolically absorbs small amounts of the foreign sugar. At approximately two days following ingestion, the Neu5Gc levels were two to three times the baseline level prior to ingestion. By four to eight days following ingestion, the levels had dropped nearly to baseline.

The authors cautioned that a causal relationship between Neu5Gc expression in human tissues with any human disease would be premature and scientifically speculative at best. Instead, they said their findings point to the need for population-level analyses of the presence of Neu5Gc in human tissues in relationship to disease incidence, and the mechanisms of human incorporation and antibody response against this sugar.


No I'm not dismissing it. I just don't feel there's anything really solid in that one study and the paragraph at the end of the study, which I've quoted above, even agrees!
Johnny Ace

Does this new study distinguish between different beef meals? There's a serious difference between a steak with roasted non-starchy vegetables and a Big Mac Value Meal, although both are beef-based meals.
Jake

Eating meat does NOT cause cancer, EVER, in ANYONE. Do you know how many thousands of studies claim that cholesterol causes heart disease. Many people are sure it does. Guess what, it is complete bullshit. That cholesterol causes heart disease or that the body does not perfectly regulate it (which it does) is one of the biggest farces ever construed.

Furthermore, this report claims correlation, not causation. Ever considered that the incredible bias of researchers may lead them to view carbs as innocent while waiting patiently to pounce on red meat the moment they can.

Let me put it this way, if someone ate a diet of twinkies, soda, potato chips, ice cream, french fries, and red meat, and they got cancer, the researchers who put out this report would conclude "red meat causes cancer, avoid it".

Remember, humans evolved on a diet consisting of animals (especially the fat), meat and fat are the only things are body can work best on.

Another consideration: there was practically no cancer anywhere in the world prior to 1900, even though people ate meat almost everywhere. People have tons of cancer today. How can this be? What is the main difference between now and then? Mainly that we consume tons of polyunsaturated veggie oils, eat processed foods galore, and the nutrient levels in our soil have declined significantly (as in 90%+ in many places) etc.

Before you ever read a study or health report again, remember to THINK and not lap everything up that is placed before you, like most people do (who incidentially get lots of cancer).
Avalon

Jake wrote:
Quote:
Before you ever read a study or health report again, remember to THINK and not lap everything up that is placed before you, like most people do (who incidentially get lots of cancer).

ookay.

Red, I'm sure you'll be fine Yup
Carne Vorare

Jake wrote:
Eating meat does NOT cause cancer, EVER, in ANYONE. Do you know how many thousands of studies claim that cholesterol causes heart disease. Many people are sure it does. Guess what, it is complete bullshit. That cholesterol causes heart disease or that the body does not perfectly regulate it (which it does) is one of the biggest farces ever construed.

Furthermore, this report claims correlation, not causation. Ever considered that the incredible bias of researchers may lead them to view carbs as innocent while waiting patiently to pounce on red meat the moment they can.

Let me put it this way, if someone ate a diet of twinkies, soda, potato chips, ice cream, french fries, and red meat, and they got cancer, the researchers who put out this report would conclude "red meat causes cancer, avoid it".

Remember, humans evolved on a diet consisting of animals (especially the fat), meat and fat are the only things are body can work best on.

Another consideration: there was practically no cancer anywhere in the world prior to 1900, even though people ate meat almost everywhere. People have tons of cancer today. How can this be? What is the main difference between now and then? Mainly that we consume tons of polyunsaturated veggie oils, eat processed foods galore, and the nutrient levels in our soil have declined significantly (as in 90%+ in many places) etc.

Before you ever read a study or health report again, remember to THINK and not lap everything up that is placed before you, like most people do (who incidentially get lots of cancer).


packed, succint & precise.
bold letters r highlighted by ME

i hear u, brother.
this doctor once recommended a diet based along these lines
http://www.lowcarb.ca/atkins-diet...-plans/eskimo-diet-donaldson.html

       Active No-Carber Forums Forum Index -> Naysayers & Contrarians
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum