Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: More 'red meat = bowel cancer' shenanigans page

  1. #1
    firestarter's Avatar
    firestarter is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    12

    More 'red meat = bowel cancer' shenanigans

    Primal Fuel
    Just read this on the BBC website : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12571576

    which is based on the following report: http://www.sacn.gov.uk/reports_posit...th_report.html

    just wondered if anyone had spotted it/ read it yet. I'm gonna read it later this evening, but thought I'd point it out all the same..

  2. #2
    Hilary's Avatar
    Hilary is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,281
    Well, at least at the end it says
    Some experts, though, say the advice should distinguish between red and processed meat, which is thought to carry a higher bowel cancer risk.
    Bravo, 'some experts'.

    As insight into how government comes up with recommendations, it's scary stuff.
    Red
    and processed meat is probably associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer.
    We don't have any numbers for this at all. We reckon advising people who eat a lot of red meat to eat less probably won't make any difference to people with iron deficiency. (I dare say it won't, as they're probably not eating much red meat to start with.)

    The report is entirely about iron, with the exception of a little bit tacked on the end that mentions zinc. No other nutrients in red meat are mentioned at all. The relative merits of the things people might eat instead of red meat don't get a look in. And bingo, one new recommendation.

    Ye gods... is that it? Total consideration before handing out official government-sanctioned advice to the whole populace? I had vaguely imagined they actually thought about these things a bit.

  3. #3
    Stabby's Avatar
    Stabby is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Stabsville
    Posts
    2,462
    First, he shouldn't say that it increases risk matter-of-factly since it is just a correlation. Do those who eat more red meat eat more sugar and junk food and are there other confounding factors? Yes, of course everyone already thinks it will kill you dead with a heart attack so the most health-conscious people are eating less of it and the least health conscious are eating the most. But there are other differences between the populations. That's what we are supposed to think when we see a correlation, not "omg that's causation" but "there is a difference between populations. Why?"

    Hilary is right about distinguishing between normal beef and processed meats, and beef/pork or organic and regular for that matter. See what happens when you do distinguish? You get different numbers. No association, even. Red and processed meat consumption and risk of inc... [Circulation. 2010] - PubMed result

    Here is a recent journal article evaluating all of the data (you know, not cherry-picking like a vegan author...) Red meat and colorectal cancer: a critical summary... [Obes Rev. 2010] - PubMed result Not significant, even without controlling for important things. Although meta analysis is inaccurate, so are all of these little poorly adjusted single studies; I just want to emphasize that the literature isn't one-sided and so we can't use this epidemiology to derive any sort of conclusion. Not it causes cancer, not that it definitely doesn't, not anything.

    More Meta-analysis of animal fat or animal protein intake and colorectal cancer

    My last sand most important point on the matter is that even if we could prove that it was the meat that was causing the disease, (we can't, it's epidemiology. We can form a hypothesis with it and no more...) it still doesn't mean that meat causes cancer.....what, Stabby? Have you lost your mind, Stabby? No, Stabby what I mean is that just because A causes B doesn't mean that A necessarily causes B; what if variable X is introduced? My cousin is a professor of epidemiology - he works with infectious diseases. Infectious diseases are mostly correlation strongly implies causation if you adjust for a few basic things. How would he know whether or not his vaccine is working? He compares two comparable populations with one using the vaccine and one without and looks at the difference.

    So what does that have to do with nutrition? Nutrition is in truth the domain of biochemistry and in the body it is never so simple as A in therefore B effect. What every single paleo person who has been paying attention to Mark and other paleo authors knows is that omega 3:6 ratio is super important and so we track the respective amounts so our eicosanoids balance and don't kill us with our own immune systems. It is undeniable that the general population is as a whole deficient in omega 3 DHA from too much linoleic acid, too little fish, and grain feeding of the meat, and I'm willing to wager that those eating the most red meat are probably getting the least omega 3 since they aren't health conscious,. Thesis: in a DHA-deficient population, omega 6 strongly predicts diseases of all kinds. Proof: Omega-6 Fat Research News & Commentary: Prostate Cancer Growth Increases with Omega-6 Diet, but Slows with Omega-3. )and the one linked to in there. From the China Study too! The real China Study, not the silly book). But the thing isn't that omega 6 arachidonic acid omgwtf kills you dead and so a low fat vegan diet is key. There is literally no difference in key blood markers as long as the ratio in the tissue HUFA is fairly good. Eat fish, eat meat. Badabing badaboom. This is the fallacy that dishonest people try to implicate fat in heart disease or insulin resistance with too. Of course if you feed them industrial lard they will die, you radically distorted their tissue HUFA. Just add fish oil Fish oil prevents insulin resistance induced by hi... [Science. 1987] - PubMed result

    The conclusion is that we can't know a damn thing about meat and disease unless we control for tissue HUFA, not fish or fish oil intake because that is terribly inaccurate and inexact and much fish oil is poor quality, not absorbed, etc. So meat-hating epidemiologists need to chill out and do something useful instead.

    Or maybe the vegans with their finger-waging about factory farming are right and all of that human adulteration really is fucking with the food and causing disease. I kinda doubt it but in either case, grassfed and organic is better. Although I still wouldn't say that grainfed factory farmed is bad unless you have an auto-immune disease, in which case it's actually the little bits of grain lectins that are bad. Although nowhere near as bad as actually eating the grains.

    Whew. Anybody have any more points?
    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

  4. #4
    Bushrat's Avatar
    Bushrat is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Stabby View Post
    First, he shouldn't say that it increases risk matter-of-factly since it is just a correlation. Do those who eat more red meat eat more sugar and junk food and are there other confounding factors? Yes, of course everyone already thinks it will kill you dead with a heart attack so the most health-conscious people are eating less of it and the least health conscious are eating the most. But there are other differences between the populations. That's what we are supposed to think when we see a correlation, not "omg that's causation" but "there is a difference between populations. Why?"

    Hilary is right about distinguishing between normal beef and processed meats, and beef/pork or organic and regular for that matter. See what happens when you do distinguish? You get different numbers. No association, even. Red and processed meat consumption and risk of inc... [Circulation. 2010] - PubMed result

    Here is a recent journal article evaluating all of the data (you know, not cherry-picking like a vegan author...) Red meat and colorectal cancer: a critical summary... [Obes Rev. 2010] - PubMed result Not significant, even without controlling for important things. Although meta analysis is inaccurate, so are all of these little poorly adjusted single studies; I just want to emphasize that the literature isn't one-sided and so we can't use this epidemiology to derive any sort of conclusion. Not it causes cancer, not that it definitely doesn't, not anything.

    More Meta-analysis of animal fat or animal protein intake and colorectal cancer

    My last sand most important point on the matter is that even if we could prove that it was the meat that was causing the disease, (we can't, it's epidemiology. We can form a hypothesis with it and no more...) it still doesn't mean that meat causes cancer.....what, Stabby? Have you lost your mind, Stabby? No, Stabby what I mean is that just because A causes B doesn't mean that A necessarily causes B; what if variable X is introduced? My cousin is a professor of epidemiology - he works with infectious diseases. Infectious diseases are mostly correlation strongly implies causation if you adjust for a few basic things. How would he know whether or not his vaccine is working? He compares two comparable populations with one using the vaccine and one without and looks at the difference.

    So what does that have to do with nutrition? Nutrition is in truth the domain of biochemistry and in the body it is never so simple as A in therefore B effect. What every single paleo person who has been paying attention to Mark and other paleo authors knows is that omega 3:6 ratio is super important and so we track the respective amounts so our eicosanoids balance and don't kill us with our own immune systems. It is undeniable that the general population is as a whole deficient in omega 3 DHA from too much linoleic acid, too little fish, and grain feeding of the meat, and I'm willing to wager that those eating the most red meat are probably getting the least omega 3 since they aren't health conscious,. Thesis: in a DHA-deficient population, omega 6 strongly predicts diseases of all kinds. Proof: Omega-6 Fat Research News & Commentary: Prostate Cancer Growth Increases with Omega-6 Diet, but Slows with Omega-3. )and the one linked to in there. From the China Study too! The real China Study, not the silly book). But the thing isn't that omega 6 arachidonic acid omgwtf kills you dead and so a low fat vegan diet is key. There is literally no difference in key blood markers as long as the ratio in the tissue HUFA is fairly good. Eat fish, eat meat. Badabing badaboom. This is the fallacy that dishonest people try to implicate fat in heart disease or insulin resistance with too. Of course if you feed them industrial lard they will die, you radically distorted their tissue HUFA. Just add fish oil Fish oil prevents insulin resistance induced by hi... [Science. 1987] - PubMed result

    The conclusion is that we can't know a damn thing about meat and disease unless we control for tissue HUFA, not fish or fish oil intake because that is terribly inaccurate and inexact and much fish oil is poor quality, not absorbed, etc. So meat-hating epidemiologists need to chill out and do something useful instead.

    Or maybe the vegans with their finger-waging about factory farming are right and all of that human adulteration really is fucking with the food and causing disease. I kinda doubt it but in either case, grassfed and organic is better. Although I still wouldn't say that grainfed factory farmed is bad unless you have an auto-immune disease, in which case it's actually the little bits of grain lectins that are bad. Although nowhere near as bad as actually eating the grains.

    Whew. Anybody have any more points?
    Who is this know it all noob?


    Just kidding, welcome back Stabby.

  5. #5
    Hilary's Avatar
    Hilary is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Bushrat View Post
    Who is this know it all noob?


    Just kidding, welcome back Stabby.
    +1

    Ah, a raccoon with more sense than my government. Wait... make that another raccoon with more sense than the government. I assume there are plenty.

  6. #6
    firestarter's Avatar
    firestarter is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    12

    Wow

    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Stabby smacks it out of the park. Can't really add anything much to it to be honest - a far better job done than I could have hoped to pull off.

    It just sent up massive red flags for me, and it's the kind of sensationalist journalism I'd expect from the Daily Mail.

    I've got half a mind to email the author in protest.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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