Animal Protein Causes Cancer

[SPQR]

I came across this interesting little bit of info while discussing humans' evolution dependence on meat with a vegan in another forum.

It seems a little clear-cut to me and the fact that the ad for the book linked there says the book was, "Summarily ignored by the mainstream media," makes me a little suspicious.

Has anyone else heard anything about this?

 

[ponderingturtle]

With all the mentioning of how well seared meat can cause cancer I am not inclinded to find it highly credible that it would be totaly ignored

 

[fuelair]

Last I heard, that was well seared meat that had not been marinated.

 

[NeilC]

I wouldn't be remotely surprised if a diet high in animal proteins compared to a diet high in unrefined vegetables is more likely to cause diseases like cancer.

I've replaced a reasonable amount of animal products I used to eat with veg/fruit myself. I can't say i feel any better for it but is sure is cheaper and my piles love me for it.

 

[casebro]

I wouldn't be remotely surprised if a diet high in animal proteins compared to a diet high in unrefined vegetables is more likely to cause diseases like cancer.

I've replaced a reasonable amount of animal products I used to eat with veg/fruit myself. I can't say i feel any better for it but is sure is cheaper and my piles love me for it.

Adequite fiber is a good addition to your diet. But I don't think there is any study showing that vegetarians live any longer. If not, then what is the advantage?

 

[robinson]

Back in 73 a study was conducted that showed vegetarians had less heart troubles. It took 6 years I think, and involved over 24 thousand subjects. Since then a lot of studies have been done, showing clear evidence that eating cooked animal foods causes a multitude of health problems, everything from heart attacks to bone, prostate and breast cancer, reduced bone mineral density, hypertension, shortened life span, and other stuff.

The most recent I saw reported on TV was really funny. They used DNA to trace a group of black people in America back to their ancestors in Africa. The exact village where they came from something like two hundred years before. The researchers started out to prove that the modern American diet was better than the near starvation, mostly vegetarian diet of the Africans. (I know, that sound biased, but it was what they were looking to find).

They were shocked to discover, after hard scientific work, that the native people, who ate very little meat, a lot of raw and cooked grains and vegetables, and walked a lot, (no cars, no TV, no electricity, etc), they were shocked to find that in almost every way, the primitive people were far more healthy. Almost none of the health problems that are common to the same people (DNA evidence) living in an American city.

I'm sure all of this is online somewhere. From a scientific point of view, there is no doubt that cooked meat increases the chance of cancers, as well as a host of other health problems. It has been shown over and over in studies. In fact, there are no studies that show anything else.

I wouldn't post in such a sure manner, except I have studied the evidence for many years, and it is without doubt. All that being said, I still eat meat, so don't think I am trying to convert anyone.

 

[robinson]

As to the ignored by the media issue, there is no doubt in my mind that the "media" is run by profit oriented people and corporations, and of course they are not going to focus on the facts that some of their revenue streams (alcohol, meat, dairy, drugs) could be bad for you, in any way. That is how the world works.

Nothing woo about that.

 

[Dogdoctor]

robinson, I did not know there was a specific American diet which is supposed to be good. Did these Americans eat that diet? Did they use controls for drugs, tobacco, alcohol and exercise in the study? Did they include life expectancy in the study? Sorry but that study just sounds difficult to accomplish.

 

[joe87]

But I don't think there is any study showing that vegetarians live any longer.

See http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516S

This is a study of mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that concludes that

vegetarians had a 24% lower mortality from ischemic heart disease than nonvegetarians, but no associations of a vegetarian diet with other major causes of death were established.

 

[Dogdoctor]

See http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516S

This is a study of mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that concludes that

That study shows an advantage to eating fish (fish are animals)

 

[fls]

Adequite fiber is a good addition to your diet. But I don't think there is any study showing that vegetarians live any longer. If not, then what is the advantage?

The studies (like the one referred to in the OP) are mostly observational. Since the groups can and do differ in many ways, not just on diet, one can't really infer causality. Many associations found on observational studies disappear when subjected to controlled experiments. So it isn't clear that there is an advantage.

Linda

 

[NeilC]

There are plenty of studies showing that a diet high in vegatables is healthy in lowering risk of various diseases: cancer and heart disease to name two. It stands to reason that since animal protein containing foods are usually very nutrient dense (meat, cheese, milk etc) that lowering the amount you eat will automatically increase the amount of vegetables you eat, which might increase their effectiveness.

Re: vegetarians living longer. Vegetarians tend to eat a lot of dairy products for containing animal protein so I'm not sure that statistic would be useful in demonstrating a link. You'd need to look at vegans. And since we all know they are hippy pots smokers you'd need to factor that in too;-)

 

[skeptifem]

Back in 73 a study was conducted that showed vegetarians had less heart troubles. It took 6 years I think, and involved over 24 thousand subjects. Since then a lot of studies have been done, showing clear evidence that eating cooked animal foods causes a multitude of health problems, everything from heart attacks to bone, prostate and breast cancer, reduced bone mineral density, hypertension, shortened life span, and other stuff.

The most recent I saw reported on TV was really funny. They used DNA to trace a group of black people in America back to their ancestors in Africa. The exact village where they came from something like two hundred years before. The researchers started out to prove that the modern American diet was better than the near starvation, mostly vegetarian diet of the Africans. (I know, that sound biased, but it was what they were looking to find).

They were shocked to discover, after hard scientific work, that the native people, who ate very little meat, a lot of raw and cooked grains and vegetables, and walked a lot, (no cars, no TV, no electricity, etc), they were shocked to find that in almost every way, the primitive people were far more healthy. Almost none of the health problems that are common to the same people (DNA evidence) living in an American city.

I'm sure all of this is online somewhere. From a scientific point of view, there is no doubt that cooked meat increases the chance of cancers, as well as a host of other health problems. It has been shown over and over in studies. In fact, there are no studies that show anything else.

I wouldn't post in such a sure manner, except I have studied the evidence for many years, and it is without doubt. All that being said, I still eat meat, so don't think I am trying to convert anyone.

You are linking eating less and moving around to vegetarianism when you havent provided a reason to do so. Calorie restriction alone seems to prevent cancer.

 

[robinson]

Eating less, at almost a starvation level, seems to have been proved to "cure" cancer, prevent cancer, reduce cancer, and increase life span. (in Lab rats and other creatures of no import).

This reminds me of the story about the 50 year old man at his Doctors.

Man:"Will I live to 90?"

Doc: "Do you smoke?"

Man:"No."

Doc: "Drink?"

Man:"No."

Doc: "Eat a lot of rich foods?"

Man:"No."

Doc: "Fool around with wild women?"

Man:"No! Does this mean I will live to 90?"

Doc: "Why would you want to?"

 

[robinson]

The studies (like the one referred to in the OP) are mostly observational. Since the groups can and do differ in many ways, not just on diet, one can't really infer causality. Many associations found on observational studies disappear when subjected to controlled experiments. So it isn't clear that there is an advantage.

Linda

The studies I have read accounted for everything, and still showed benefits from vegetarian diets. It seems no matter what other factors there are, eating a lot of meat is bad for you. In the long run.

 

[fls]

The studies I have read accounted for everything, and still showed benefits from vegetarian diets. It seems no matter what other factors there are, eating a lot of meat is bad for you. In the long run.

No researcher would make the claim that they "accounted for everything" with a straight face. We've been burned too many times.

The best that you can hope for is that you've "accounted for the stuff that you think should be accounted for and can reasonably be measured and that was actually measured". Unfortunately, we can't always measure (or can't measure very accurately) important stuff, and we don't always know what should be accounted for in advance. And adjusting for relevant variables is a gross method of accounting.

ETA: This is in reference to the observational studies.

Linda

 

[Scott Haley]

A lot of children get liver cancer in the Philippines. This Doctor Campbell believes that this is caused by a chemical called aflatoxin that gets into their food, and that people who get exposed to this chemical are more likely to get the cancer if they eat a high protein diet. He blames this on the casein in the milk in the high protein diet. That's OK, but then he jumps to the weird conclusion that Americans shouldn't drink milk. That's poor reasoning. Liver cancer is much rarer here in the United States than it is in Asia. I found a web page saying that about nine thousand men get liver cancer in the United States each year. That's 9,000 men in a country of 300 million people.

In the United Kingdom, the people eat a lot of protein, and the kids get plenty of milk. http://www.cancerbackup.org.uk says:

"Approximately 10 children in the UK develop liver tumours each year. Boys are affected more commonly than girls. Liver tumours can be non-cancerous (benign) or cancerous (malignant)."

CNN.com's health library says:

Chronic infection with hepatitis B or C is by far the most important risk factor for liver cancer. Worldwide, HBV infection is involved in the majority of cases of HCC. In the United States, hepatitis C infection is a greater risk factor.

The article about Dr. Campbell does not mention that there's a high rate of hepatitis infections in the Philippines.

--Scott

 

[Iamme]

As to the ignored by the media issue, there is no doubt in my mind that the "media" is run by profit oriented people and corporations, and of course they are not going to focus on the facts that some of their revenue streams (alcohol, meat, dairy, drugs) could be bad for you, in any way. That is how the world works.

Nothing woo about that.

I've heard they add additives that cause you to crave to want their product more.

Regarding cancer in general: I was recently enlightened, watching a show on it one recent night, that cancer was a result of the DNA malfunctioning due to the exposure.

 

[enjoytheview]

A friend of mine follows the lifestyle outlined here right to the nearest dot point, and although they offer reasoning for why the ideas listed prevent the risks of cancer I don't see much difference (aside from the red meat issue) between this diet and any other diet recommended by nutritionists. The basics are there: fruit, vegetables, nutrients, minerals, exercise, reduced fat as well as avoiding cigarettes and alcohol.
Is there any real difference between an "anti-cancer" diet and a well balanced nutritional diet combined with exercise?

Also, i've often heard fiber reduces the risk of cancer (a claim also stated in the article mentioned above) however i've also read that fiber can be a cause of cancer, specifically colon cancer. How can it be that fiber can both cause and prevent cancer?

 

[Iamme]

A. How can it be that fiber can both cause and prevent cancer?

I'm getting a headache now, considering if this could happen with the same person.