Another thing you can't eat

[Ja'chyra]

Yet another thing that's bad for you

Link

Pretty soon we won't need to worry about cancer because we'll all have starved to death

[Al Khalifah]

Bowel cancer risk was a third higher for those who regularly ate over two 80g portions of red or processed meat a day, compared to less than one a week.

Who actually eats that much red meat a day, every day? Eating that much red meat has many other health risks attached anyway, so this isn't really new.

Personally I don't eat pork and lamb. I eat medium ammounts of beef and large amounts of fish and poultry:

Eating poultry had no impact but the risk for people who ate one portion or more of fish every other day was nearly a third lower than those who ate fish less than once a week.

Looks like the Jews are right again - say no to pork.

[doc_bean]

I thought this was already known ?

[Byzantine Prince]

This was already known. The reason isn't even red meat itself. It's the burned fat that release black smoke that goes back to the meat from the flame. That smoke contains carcenogens. Eating steamed pork for example has no effect at all. I think this study is pretty simplistic though. "Red meat causes cancer!" WTF?!? That's what your research yielded? It's gotta be a little more complicated then that.

[Ser Clegane]

"Red meat causes cancer!" WTF?!? That's what your research yielded? It's gotta be a little more complicated then that.

Actually they say a little bit more than just that:

She believes the most likely explanation is that compounds called haemoglobin and myoglobin, which are found in red meat, trigger a process called nitrosation in the gut, which leads to the formation of carcinogenic compounds.

Alternatively, the problem might be caused by compounds called heterocyclic amines, carcinogenic compounds created in the cooking process.

What you describe, BP, is something that happens when you e.g., have a barbecue and is not just limited to red meat.

[Al Khalifah]

Its a bit Daily Mail for me.

[Papewaio]

Not hard to eat that much red meat. I like to have a piece of steak once at least once a week. The portion is normally about 350 to 440 grams.

[Xiahou]

What you describe, BP, is something that happens when you e.g., have a barbecue and is not just limited to red meat.

And it's not just limited to barbeque either. I remember when that study came out- it was hailed by vegetarian groups. However, it quickly fell off the radar when it was found that breads, toast, cereal, ect had many more times the acrylamides than a grilled steak. Funny, at first it proved why you shouldn't eat meat, but when bread was found to have more everyone came out and said 'of course this isn't a reason to stop eating bread'.

I'm glad they found a new study to hang their hat on.

[Ser Clegane]

However, it quickly fell off the radar when it was found that breads, toast, cereal, ect had many more times the acrylamides than a grilled steak.

AFAIK, it's not the the acrylamides that cause the problems for grilled steaks.

If I remember my toxicology classes correctly, in the case of grilled meat benz-[a]-pyrenes were the culprits.

I agree with you - if you really look for it you will probably find out something terrible and life-threatening for each food item.

I will certainly not quit eating red meat - I will continue to just try to have a balanced diet and also to enjoy what I eat

[Fragony]

I. don't. care.

A life without red meat, you kidding??? No bloody bloody steak? No T-Bones on the barbeque??? No half-cooked lambchops??????????????????????

stop. this. madness.

[bmolsson]

As I understand it, as long as you cook the meat first it should be ok....

[Sensei Warrior]

What is this the newest don't eat this or you'll die study. I'm sure I don't have to remind you that a decade ago they thought eggs would kill you too. Around the same time as they were whining about butter. Then years later they changed their minds on those two.

Of course I am sure any one thing is bad for you if thats all you eat. Remember what Benjamin Franklin said, "Everything in moderation."

[Duke Malcolm]

Damned vegetarians. I'll bet that the study was funded by them, evil, heathenous, treacherous people... I would hardly say that a difference of 5 is cause to blame red meat for cancer. If the difference was more in the region of, say, 20, then I might be intrigued, but 5? No... This is the work of vegetarians...

We shall fight them on the grazing fields, we shall fight them in the farms and in the slaughter houses, we shall fight them in the butcher's shop, we shall never surrender...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

We shall fight them on the grazing fields, we shall fight them in the farms and in the slaughter houses, we shall fight them in the butcher's shop, we shall never surrender...

Here here!

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I think I'll take my chances.

[TheSilverKnight]

We shall fight them on the grazing fields, we shall fight them in the farms and in the slaughter houses, we shall fight them in the butcher's shop, we shall never surrender...

Malcolm for Prime Minister! Just make me King first *raises Malcolm for Prime Minister sign*

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I've seen to many false reports promoting vegetarianism to trust this.

[Papewaio]

As I understand it, as long as you cook the meat first it should be ok....

Sashimi

[Don Corleone]

Come on, this is ludicrous. Doesn't anyone recognize the 'need to be published in a medical journal' when they see it? Research physicians don't make any money when they come out and say "yep, just eat a little less, exercise a little more and keep on doing what you're doing". Everying is a crisis, because a crisis is the only thing that sells copies. Sure, you could blame PETA for this, and I'm sure they loved the study and would do what they could to support it, but you're tilting at windmills with that. It's like blaming the cattle ranchers for the Atkins diet.

Seriously folks, as long as we, the consuming public, keep insisting that doctors produce the next 'medical & longevity miracle', we're going to keep getting crap like this. And if you're really that concerned about toxic substances, better switch to nothing but bottled air. Water is one of the most perfect solutions for biochemicals that exists. In other words, every glass you drink removes something you needed.

And I'm going to part with this final question... why do we assume that living to be 90 instead of 85 is such a fantastic goal? Why is it assumed to be a desirable end, in and of itself?

[Papewaio]

My Grandmother is 89, I'm sure she would appreciate the difference.

Mind you she is very spry and already a Great-Great Grandmother... in other words her Grandchild is a Grandparent.

When he husband gave up smoking in his seventies, he did so in a week. My Grandmother took up smoking in response as she had been a passive smoker for so long.

Quality * Quantity of life.

[Don Corleone]

So we should bankrupt our economies and deplete our resources so we can all live longer than nature ever intended us to? Look, I'm not a heartless freak, and I'm sure your grandmother wants to get every last day she can, and she should, that's natural. But should we continue to throw everything we have at accomplishing that goal, not just for her, but for everyone, without ever stopping to ask why?

[Papewaio]

If you notice, my grandmother ignores the health warnings and is healthier then most people half her age. She has chosen quality of life over quantity but has gotten more of the last then most people.

[Don Corleone]

Oh, fair enough. I apologize, I misunderstood the intent of your post.

[Papewaio]

Part of a quality of life is the ability to make an informed choice.

I don't think a uniform bland existence is any more exciting then concrete grey.

I don't agree with smoking however and it is going to be tough stopping my mum and grandmother breathing smoke on my newborn in a couple of weeks.

I am going to have to make it clear no smoking near him, in the apartment or 30 minutes before meeting him... or one angry dad.