• If this is your first visit, please visit the FAQ. Please register before posting. To start viewing messages, select a forum below.
The world’s premier network for those seeking to share and discuss high-impact,high results, super practical information for the developmentof superiorphysical performance.

Does eating red meat cause cancer?

maxreps

New member
To be honest guys everything causes cancer these days the air that you breath the food that you eat the booze we all drink

end of the day just eat the meat haha
 

MostlyFull

New member
If you read the Q and A on the study you realize what a farce it is. The answers take pain to show there is no actual proof that red meat increases the risk of cancer, but maybe if we could prove it, then we could actually say there is some risk.

They also said that high temp cooking has not proven that it increases cancer, but certain compounds found in air pollution are created during high temp cooking of red meat.

The whole thing smacks of collusion, sorta like when the Sugar industry paid a couple of Harvard researchers to suggest that saturated fat is a major cause of heart disease, but sugar was no problem at all. Or when butter was vilified in favor of the healthier trans-fats in margarine. Oops.

The study stated that eating 2 ounces, or 50 grams, of processed meat per day probably increases your odds of colo-rectal cancer by 18%. That is all it is reasonably certain of. It is now classed as a schedule 1 carcinogen along with smoking and air pollution. They say that worldwide, 35,000 deaths per year can be attributed to processed meat. At least that's what they can agree on.

Keep your mitts off my grass finished T-Bone.
 
Last edited:

Eoin Kenny

New member
Sure you can't "prove" meat causes cancer, but you also can't prove that global warming exist, or that smoking causes cancer because doing so would be quite unethical and likely take too much time and resources.

It's just a mound of evidence which builds and builds until there is little doubt.
 

MostlyFull

New member
Kenny,

Respectfully, where are these mounds of evidence??? The WHO had medical reps from 10 different countries look at ALL relevant studies that they could find. The slant of the panel was to find a causation between red meat and cancer. They found NOTHING. Science has found nothing. No causation. Yet it is listed as a Schedule 2 carcinogen.

Sugar feeds cancer. That is a fact. Cancer cannot survive if you are burning fat for energy. If a person is on a ketongenic diet, free of any sugar, the cancer will die. That is a fact proven in many studies. So why don't we ban sugar? Why doesn't the WHO take a position on it?
 
Last edited:

ad5ly

New member
In every dose of medicine there is a little bit of poison. Too much of anything (perhaps even carrots and lettuce) might be harmful. But that would be mostly boring. You only have one life to live. Enjoy what you like to eat - just be mindful that bbq rib roast with mom's special German mashed potatoes and Samuel Adam's lager beer to wash it all down with three times a week might be too much. So eat that T-bone. Staying sane but reasonable is what will get you through to a long life. Frankly I have grown tired of all the "scientific" studies about food and all the "good" and "bad" of it all. This year coffee "good". But then the year before it was "bad". All these studies are nothing but schemes to garnish gov'tment grants based on bogus science. From Global Warming to coffee drinking to wearing underwear thats too tight. And don't forget about cow farts. We all should be getting tired of being jerked around by this kind of foolishness. Old fart rant over..hehe!!...Dennis
 

Eoin Kenny

New member
If a person is on a ketongenic diet, free of any sugar, the cancer will die. That is a fact proven in many studies.
I didn't know this, is that really true or is it something you read on a blog like mark's daily apple etc?

If it were true I'm sure the whole world would know that there is now a cure for cancer, so, with respect my friend, I think this is probably exaggerated.

The scientific concencous of the last century has strongly correlated animal nutrients (sat. fat, cholesterol) with disease. This is also true in large scale population studies, I suggest you look into the "Blue Zones" and what was discovered there, it correlates exactly with the scientific norm of limiting red meat to once a month, eating mostly fish(maybe 2 times a week) and mostly whole plants for calories.

I'm no research scientist so I can't quote studies or I'd just embarrass myself :)
 

ComradeCat

New member
Sugar feeds cancer. That is a fact. Cancer cannot survive if you are burning fat for energy. If a person is on a ketongenic diet, free of any sugar, the cancer will die. That is a fact proven in many studies. So why don't we ban sugar? Why doesn't the WHO take a position on it?

Because the Warburg hypothesis is still being investigated; although the results on solid tumors are promising.

It would appear that the Warburg effect is a result of cancerous mutations, but not necessarily the cause. So banning sugar is kinda taking the extreme approach of fighting the symptoms, not the cause.

That said, the WHO is blatantly politicized, behind the times and pretty much no more accurate than a monkey diagnosing an illness by pure chance. The fact that they supported the Rio Olympics despite the peak in Zika transmission tells you how credible they are and that they are motivated by money and not public health.
 

MostlyFull

New member
Kenny,

You may not be a research scientist, but you can Google "New York Times Sugar Pays Harvard".
What pops up is a bunch of stories, not just printed by the NYT, but others as well of how in the 1960's the sugar industry paid three Harvard researchers $50k to publish "research" blaming saturated fat and cholesterol for heart disease and saying sugar played no part in it. Totally false research, yet it shaped the dietary habits of the world for the next 50 years. Has that been a good time?

Cholesterol is produced by the body. It is used by the brain, the blood, and also the gonads to produce testosterone. Studies have shown that the cholesterol we eat has no bearing on the cholesterol levels in our blood. Even the US RDA has finally dropped cholesterol intake as a measurable.

I was only half serious about banning sugar. Will never happen. Sugar is addictive, as is cheese. I am a cheesaholic but have been able to stay off it for a few months. People have the right to make choices about what they put in their bodies. But it is very difficult to make the right decisions. Marketing, restaurants, groceries, and budget all play into how we decide what to eat. If you ask your doctor, he will probably regurgitate the same low fat diet he learned about in medical school.
 
Last edited:

grayson

New member
I have to rely on the old 'my grandparents eat red meat and no cancer found' saying. Eating everything in moderation seems fine. It's just that we use too much chemicals and antibiotics nowadays...
 

MostlyFull

New member
The cholesterol theories have been largely debunked over the last several years. The US RDA no longer has any recommendations on cholesterol intake.

What at the study stated is that processed meats intake increases disease risk. That is it.
 
The whole thread is TL;DL but here's my 2 cents, keeping it real basic -

Your digestive sytem is basically an organic plumbing system. It processes food, waste and absorbs nutrients from things you eat.

Animal products have a high amount of densly packed nutrition. It's difficult to get as much protein from any other source. However, animal products are harder to digest - with red meat being at the extreme end of that spectrum. They labour your digestive system a hell of a lot more than fruit, vegetables, nuts and grains etc. Labour any organ too much and you will suffer, whether it happens immediately or after decades. The organ may fail, get cancerous or develop some other problem.

Eating a moderate amount of meat once or twice a week is going to give you good nutrients without labouring your digestive system too much, presuming you eat lots of other fibrous foods like fruit and veg.

What I do - make up most of your protein from plant based stuff and animal sources that are much easier to digest - like eggs (cheap, too). I treat myself to some pork or red meat once or maybe twice a week max. One day i'll have some chicken, another some fish. I try and have a few days a week where I only eat vegetarian or vegan just to give my digestive system a rest.
 

DocWookie

New member
Hello all,

The truth hurts but yes, red meat contains cancer-causing agents. But not red meat, mostly processed meats (hams, salami, sausages..what have you) are the one which is loaded with carcinogens.

But why would the meat processing industry do that?

That's because the kind of chemicals that are used to increase the shelf life of meat products and also enhance their appearance - such as make them look more red and realistic - are potential carcinogens.

The main constituent element in those chemicals are nitrites and when these nitrite-containing meats are cooked in high temperature they become lethal.

These have been proved by extensive studies.


If you wanna go for a red meat luncheon, stick to the organic or grass-fed type.

Hope this answers your concern! :)
 

DocWookie

New member
It is not the red meat that causes the cancer per se, it is the horde of chemicals mixed with the meat to make it look more appealing and increase its shelf life - that's what causing cancer. The recent surge in the number of cancer cases reported especially colon cancer is linked with high consumption of processed meat. The chemicals, mostly nitrites, when cooked at a high temperature becomes a highly toxic substance.

So in order to reduce the risk of cancer - it is advisable that you consume fresh meat only, that too once a week.
 

john01

New member
How do we know red meat is awesome? Serious question BTW...

[FONT=&quot]Everything we eat causes cancer. Sort of. It’s important to understand absolute risks versus relative risks. And how the relative and absolute risk from eating red meat compares to significantly more scary environmental issues. Like smoking.And that old adage about “everything in moderation” – it’s applicable to eating meat and cancer. A little every once in a while probably has a negligible effect on your risk. Eat a lot every day, and it has an effect, but on the scale of cancer risks, it’s not that high. from https://www.skepticalraptor.com/ske...ating-meat-causes-cancer-lets-get-this-right/

[/FONT]
 

alexjordan

New member
[FONT=&quot]There’s no need to completely cut red meet out of your diet, though. Just pay attention to how you’re preparing it and how much of it you consume.[/FONT]
 
Free Course
Top