Red meat increased risk of colon cancer

Bit of an overreaction to the study, no?

If your base risk is (let's just say) 1% then eating an extra 55g a day of red meat increases your risk to 1.2%.

If that triggers you into disbelieving all of science, you're fucked if you ever have to think for yourself.
People usually get angry when something they enjoy gets attacked.
My question was, with the impact mass cattle farming has on the environment and the ever increasing studies pointing to an increase in Cancer should we look at our personal choices. I'm certainly considering reducing.
 
Having completed a chemotherapy treatment once increased my chances of developing a secondary cancer by 300% later in life (that is a cancer that isn’t related to the one I had). I know I need to do everything I can to reduce my chances but it’s so hard to cut out red meat from my diet seeing as it is a staple of a North American diet.
 
Live Enjoy Die.

Its hilarious people trying to eek out another few years of rheumatism and incontinence <45>
 
Last edited:
My issue with these types of studies is that they are correlation based and not causation based.

If I did a study via their methods I can find that 100% of people that sit on toilets will get "enter anything here" and thus my study will find that sitting on toilets causes "enter same thing here".

There is nothing in red meat that causes your cells to mutate.

Here is what I mean, below is a photo of global cases of colon cancer...even India, where they do not eat red meat has many cases of it yet Pakistan, where they do eat red meat has less.

F1.large.jpg
 
If you think that is a anecdote, I don't know what to say to you.

Did you know that 97% of people who smoke, don't develope cancer associated to the cigarette use?

Even really bad carcinogens, have to be taken in huge amounts to have a cancer mortality level above 10%.

Heavy smokers (5+ cigarettes a day) have a 25% increase to develop lung cancer. If you want to go all anecdotal, two of my uncles were heavy marlboro smokers, they both got lung cancer and died at 50, my dad and the other uncle who didn't smoke marlboro (which as I understand have a higher toxic load than other brands) and smoked less in general than them are still alive despite being the older brothers.
 
Last edited:
What I do to avoid colorectal cancer is sunbathe. A couple studies have found sunbathing reduces the risk of developing colorectal cancer by 75%.

A little on that can be read here:

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/01/12/what-causes-heart-disease-part-44/

excerpt:

....Instead, here is a list of benefits that have been found from increased sun exposure. I am giving you the most positive figures here (these are relative risk reductions).:

  • 75% reduction in colorectal cancer
  • 50% reduction in breast cancer
  • Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma 20 – 40% reduction
  • Prostate cancer 50% reduction
  • Bladder cancer 30% reduction
  • Metabolic syndrome/type II diabetes 40% reduction
  • Alzheimer’s 50% reduction
  • Multiple sclerosis 50% reduction
  • Psoriasis 60% reduction
  • Macular degeneration 7-fold reduction in risk
  • Improvement in mood/well-being.6,7
Well, what do you know. If you raise your gaze from malignant melanoma there is a world of benefits associated with greater exposure to the sun. With all these benefits, you would expect to see a real improvement in life expectancy. Does this happen?

Indeed, it does. There have been a series of studies in Denmark and Sweden looking at the benefit of sunshine. One of them, which looked at overall life expectancy, concluded that avoiding the sun was as bad for you as smoking.

‘Non-smokers who avoided sun exposure had a life expectancy similar to smokers in the highest sun exposure group, indicating that avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking. Compared to the highest sun exposure group, life expectancy of avoiders of sun exposure was reduced by 0.6-2.1 years.’’8

This was a twenty-year study. If average life expectancy is around eighty years, we can safely multiply those figures by four, to work out that a decent amount of sun exposure can add somewhere between three, to eight years, to your life expectancy. Let’s call it five....

Plot twist: Sunbathing will give you skin cancer
 
If you think that is a anecdote, I don't know what to say to you.

Did you know that 97% of people who smoke, don't develope cancer associated to the cigarette use?

Even really bad carcinogens, have to be taken in huge amounts to have a cancer mortality level above 10%.
I don't think that's true. Tobacco is estimated to cause about 40% of cancer in the US according to the CDC, and lifetime chance of getting cancer for all Americans is about 38% according to the American Cancer Society:
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/p1110-vital-signs-cancer-tobacco.html
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cance...ility-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer.html

That means the average person's lifetime risk (the total population of both smokers and non-smokers) of getting cancer from tobacco is about 15% (total cancer chance * percentage of total cancer caused by tobacco). How can the smoker's risk of developing cancer from cigarette use be 80% lower than the average person's risk of getting cancer from tobacco? Kick me if I'm making a silly error here (it's late), but it doesn't add up.
 
Last edited:
People usually get angry when something they enjoy gets attacked.
My question was, with the impact mass cattle farming has on the environment and the ever increasing studies pointing to an increase in Cancer should we look at our personal choices. I'm certainly considering reducing.
I've cut red meat down myself for a bunch of reasons, but honestly the environment isn't one lol. I'll take it as a side effect though.
 
I don't think that's true. Tobacco is estimated to cause about 40% of cancer in the US according to the CDC, and lifetime chance of getting cancer for all Americans is about 38% according to the American Cancer Society:
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/p1110-vital-signs-cancer-tobacco.html
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cance...ility-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer.html

That means the average person's lifetime risk (the total population of both smokers and non-smokers) of getting cancer from tobacco is about 15% (total cancer chance * percentage of total cancer caused by tobacco). How can the smoker's risk of developing cancer from cigarette use be 80% lower than the average person's risk of getting cancer from tobacco? Kick me if I'm making a silly error here (it's late), but it doesn't add up.

Surprisingly, fewer than 10 percent of lifelong smokers will get lung cancer. Fewer yet will contract the long list of other cancers, such as throat or mouth cancers. In the game of risk, you're more likely to have a condom break than to get cancer from smoking.

That the majority of smokers beat cancer doesn't make for effective anti-smoking campaigning. So the statistics are turned around: Smoking accounts for 30 percent of all cancer deaths and 87 percent of lung cancer deaths; the risk of developing lung cancer is about 23 times higher in male smokers compared to non-smokers; smoking is associated with increased risk of at least 15 types of cancer; or that smoking causes millions of deaths worldwide.

What does this mean? To the happy and dedicated smoker, it means nothing. The Internet is rife with pro-smoking sites dismissing these kinds of facts. There are billions of people, the argument goes, and they have to die of something, even rare diseases.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/3093-smoking-myths-examined.html

See, it is kind of a trick of math. You have to subtract the number of people that would die of lung cancer without smoking, from the number that die and do smoke. So while almost 10% of smokers die of lung cancer, a few % die of lung cancer whether they smoke or not. So those few % don't really count.

The 97% number is old though I guess. Apparently lung cancer rates amongst smokers has risen despite smoking less.
 
Last edited:
Heavy smokers (5+ cigarettes a day) have a 25% increase to develop lung cancer. If you want to go all anecdotal, Two of my uncles were heavy marlboro smokers, they both got lung cancer and died at 50, my dad and the other uncle who didn't smoke marlboro (which as I understand have a higher toxic load than other brands) and smoked less in general than them are still alive despite being the older brothers.

And yet,

burns1.jpg


Smoked 15 cigars a day and lived to be 725, died of a heart attack.
 
Surprisingly, fewer than 10 percent of lifelong smokers will get lung cancer. Fewer yet will contract the long list of other cancers, such as throat or mouth cancers. In the game of risk, you're more likely to have a condom break than to get cancer from smoking.

That the majority of smokers beat cancer doesn't make for effective anti-smoking campaigning. So the statistics are turned around: Smoking accounts for 30 percent of all cancer deaths and 87 percent of lung cancer deaths; the risk of developing lung cancer is about 23 times higher in male smokers compared to non-smokers; smoking is associated with increased risk of at least 15 types of cancer; or that smoking causes millions of deaths worldwide.

What does this mean? To the happy and dedicated smoker, it means nothing. The Internet is rife with pro-smoking sites dismissing these kinds of facts. There are billions of people, the argument goes, and they have to die of something, even rare diseases.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/3093-smoking-myths-examined.html
Interesting site. I guess the consensus on there is you'll die at 64 as an average smoker. 14 years earlier than a non smoker. And that before the cancer gets you, you'll likely have heart disease or a stroke. So thr reason cancer isn't killing off smokers is they're already dead..


Part of the problem of the misconception of real risks is the emphasis on smoking and lung cancer. The greater danger is from vascular diseases leading to heart attacks and stroke, which kill more smokers than all cancers combined. Toxins in the tobacco smoke cause inflammation and hardening in the arteries.

Nearly as common as lung cancer among smokers is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which entails the narrowing of airways in the lung, largely in the form of chronic bronchitis or emphysema. Bronchitis is a result of smoking-induced inflammation; emphysema stems from cigarette smoking hardening the alveoli, the little sacks in the lungs where oxygen meets blood.

If painful death as a middle-age adult doesn't move you, consider life-quality issues. Smokers get sick more often because smoke paralyzes tiny hair-like structures in the lungs called cilia, which otherwise sweep dirt and bacteria out of your lungs. Smokers have less endurance, particularly sexual endurance, because carbon monoxide replaces oxygen in the blood.
 
Last edited:
We should all start wearing brown ribbons to support people that are being attacked by colon cancer in their butts!

Pink ribbons for those with potential "mono shelves"!
Blue ribbons for all those with the doctor's middle finger in the place where the sun doesn't shine!
 
Red meat doesn't mix will with my body, so I avoid. I'll certainly eat it, however I don't seek it.
 
According to a recent study, eating as little as 2 rashers of bacon, slices of ham or 2 small slices of roast beef will increase your chances of getting colon cancer. Also, according to the study alcohol was linked with an increase in colorectal cancer too. whereas fibre from bread and breakfast cereals was associated with a reduced risk.

I have an issue with these studies in general, but I must admit, it looks pretty evident in this study. Relying on modern data.

So my question is, given the climate impact cattle farming has on the environment and the ever growing links to cancer, is it time we looked at red and processed meat consumption?

https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyz064/5470096

Abstract

Background
Most of the previous studies on diet and colorectal cancer were based on diets consumed during the 1990s.

Methods
We used Cox-regression models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios for colorectal cancer by dietary factors in the UK Biobank study. Men and women aged 40–69 years at recruitment (2006–10) reported their diet on a short food-frequency questionnaire (n = 475 581). Dietary intakes were re-measured in a large sub-sample (n = 175 402) who completed an online 24-hour dietary assessment during follow-up. Trends in risk across the baseline categories were calculated by assigning re-measured intakes to allow for measurement error and changes in intake over time.

Results
During an average of 5.7 years of follow-up, 2609 cases of colorectal cancer occurred. Participants who reported consuming an average of 76 g/day of red and processed meat compared with 21 g/day had a 20% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4–37] higher risk of colorectal cancer. Participants in the highest fifth of intake of fibre from bread and breakfast cereals had a 14% (95% CI: 2–24) lower risk of colorectal cancer. Alcohol was associated with an 8% (95% CI: 4–12) higher risk per 10 g/day higher intake. Fish, poultry, cheese, fruit, vegetables, tea and coffee were not associated with colorectal-cancer risk.

Conclusions
Consumption of red and processed meat at an average level of 76 g/d that meets the current UK government recommendation (≤90 g/day) was associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Alcohol was also associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer, whereas fibre from bread and breakfast cereals was associated with a reduced risk.
Learn what the word “associated” means, please. Your title is a lie.
 
Every time I've added red meat to.my diet I've always responded rather well so it sucks to hear this.
 
Live Enjoy Die.

Its hilarious people trying to eek out another few years of rheumatism and incontinence <45>

I'm kind of on board with this. I work very closely with our geriatric population in healthcare. The quality of life most people have in their late 80's and 90's is garbage. Sure, you can do allllll kinds of things to increase your longevity. But if your body is in constant, unrelenting pain, your eye sight and hearing is gone, or your quality of mind is in the toilet during the last 5-10 years of your life then what kind of existence is that?

This study was done with a food questionnaire? We are ALL BAD, horrible, at remembering what we've eaten, and how much......not to mention most of us are liars and are going to underestimate/overestimate our consumption of various foods out of embarrassment or pride. These questionnaires often have questions like, "How often did you eat a cup's worth of ribs over the last 3 months?"

Animal studies are not perfect because our physiology isn't exactly the same, but most variables can be controlled which can greatly increase the accuracy of the data. The only way to figure out what food really does to our body, is to lock away a huge group of humans for 50 years and treat them like rats. Regiment every single aspect of their lives and we'll find the answer. You might be able to treat people like that in a 3rd world prison but they'd never have the funding or resources to feed their lifers steak everyday until they die in order to conduct the research. We'll never get to the bottom of this.
 
I admittedly haven't read the study but the question I always ask of these studies is what other kinds of habits do the people in these studies have. The vast majority of people eat red meat. The vast majority of people are also eating far too much sugar and far too many empty carbs and bad fats from all kinds of sources. The vast majority of people also do not partake in nearly enough high intensity exercise. Are all of these factors taken into consideration as well?

I just find that red meat seems to get a bit of a undue bad rap. Especially if you are getting a good organic grass fed source and are eating it without cooking it to death. I admittedly am biased because I love red meat and probably am not open enough to the other side of the argument but that said I also do all of the things I mentioned above religiously. All in all, the age old adage of "everything in moderation" probably holds true with red meat.
 
My opening line is 'according to a study' the title really doesn't matter.
“According to a recent study, eating as little as 2 rashers of bacon, slices of ham or 2 small slices of roast beef will increase your chances of getting colon cancer.”

The study doesn’t say that either.
 
Back
Top