Limited Time: Grab your FREE Box of Dark Chocolate Almond Bars Get Yours>>Close
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Red meat

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2011

    Red meat

    Shop Now
    HI Grokkers,

    Has anyone read this news item? I heard it on the radio coming into work and just found it on Google. Is there any truth in this or is it tosh?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Fairfax VA
    "Red meat contains substances that have been linked to bowel cancer. One compound in particular, haem, which gives red meat its colour, has been shown to damage the lining of the colon in some studies."

    Haem, or heme in the US, is a hemoprotein present in ALL animal tissues. It's derived from hemoglobin, a component in blood. It's basically the iron we get from eating meat, and the foods highest in heme are oysters, mussels, pork livers, and chicken livers, followed by "meats". This iron is more readily absorbed by the body than plant irons.

    Under oxidative stress the heme separates from the protein compound and can contribute to the production of free radicals, programmed cell death, and inflammation. That's just what I gathered in a half hour of internet research. There is no information suggesting that this compound CAUSES any disease, and the iron is actually vital to our survival. It's the processing and cooking of the meats that separates the compound in the first place, by oxidation.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Northern NJ
    wheat causes cancer, period the mother@#!$ing end.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    They aren't even clear what they are talking about - red meat, or processed meat? And anyhow I'm not re-organizing my entire diet and lifestyle to slightly reduce the risk of bowel cancer, even IF anything in there is true. Since when am I on the "bowel cancer avoidance diet" to the exclusion of any other health concerns?
    You gotta eat something and I vote for ribeye.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Indiana, USA
    Shop Now
    No worries for me. I read this "news release" and immediately wondered about the veracity of the study and/or its interpretation by the media.

    Things like: "The average person has a risk of bowel cancer of five in 100 but this rises to six in 100 if they eat 50g of processed meat a day" as the "news release" says, makes me wonder about what the real report has to say.

    What I notice here is that there is only a 1% increase for eating this amount of processed meat. Who knows how small that increase might be for eating unprocessed meat? (The authors of the "news release" seem to be saying that processed meat is worse; note where they write, "people should avoid processed meats altogether because of the even higher risk of bowel cancer").

    Other things to consider might be the number of persons in the study, the controls, who funded the study, etc.

    I guess my view is to look at the broader picture. And to eat a wide variety of foods in general. Heck, you could still 4 steaks a week (if a steak is 145 g and they "allow" 500 g of red meat a week) and be within those guidelines. I don't eat 4 steaks a week, but YMMV. Still, it's a pretty generous window considering we all should be eating fish, poultry, and eggs as well as beef and pork (not sure where lamb falls into the "colors" of meat--I suppose it is "red," too).

    For my money, the data I am finding on paleo/primal eating is much more convincing than anything I am hearing from the CW these days. They lost their credibility with the low-fat/high-carb thing they have been pushing for the past 30 years or so.
    Everything I eat has been proved by some doctor or other to be a deadly poison, and everything I don't eat has been proved to be indispensable for life. But I go marching on. ~George Bernard Shaw

    Starting Weight (1/3/2011): 189
    Current Weight: 173

    Goal: To be in the best shape ever by age 50! (5/11/2012)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts