Cancer

ntlbell

Just wondering if there is much evidence that vegan's and vege's are less prone to types of cancer?

Slaphead07

ntlbell wrote: »

Just wondering if there is much evidence that vegan's and vege's are less prone to types of cancer?

loads and loads... did you try google?

Tar.Aldarion

ntlbell wrote: »

Just wondering if there is much evidence that vegan's and vege's are less prone to types of cancer?

"The American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada have found a properly-planned vegetarian diet to satisfy the nutritional needs for all stages of life, and large-scale studies have shown vegetarianism to significantly lower risks of cancer, ischemic heart disease, and other fatal diseases."

Key, Timothy J, et al., 1999 "Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies" American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 70, No. 3, 516S-524S, September 1999 http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516S

Key, Timothy J, et al., "Mortality in British vegetarians: review and preliminary results from EPIC-Oxford" American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 3, 533S-538S, September 2003 http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/533S

"Vegetarian Diets". American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada. Retrieved on 2007-12-29

"Meat can raise your lung cancer risk, too", MSNBC (2007-12-11). Retrieved on 2007-12-29.

There's loads yeah.

kraggy

One of the largest studies on the subject ever to be undertaken.

500,000 people over more than 8 years:

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Red-meat-again-linked-to-cancer-study

ntlbell

kraggy wrote: »

One of the largest studies on the subject ever to be undertaken.

500,000 people over more than 8 years:

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Red-meat-again-linked-to-cancer-study

Thanks for that.

I had started reducing my red meat intake to once a week I'll strongly consider removing it all together..

kraggy

No problem.

Here is the link to the actual report by the World Cancer Research Fund.

Hopefully it will bring you to the right part of the report (Red meat, fish, poultry) but if not, they're at page 54 of the pdf document.

Something everyone should read.

http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/downloads/chapters/chapter_04.pdf

cozmik

kraggy wrote: »

One of the largest studies on the subject ever to be undertaken.

500,000 people over more than 8 years:

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Red-meat-again-linked-to-cancer-study

In their discussion of the results, the researchers postulated that dietary fat from the meat, compounds like N-nitroso compounds (NOCs), heterocyclic amines (HCAs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) formed during high temperature cooking, and iron may be behind the potential risk increases.

Postulate: Definition

To assume or assert the truth, reality, or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument.


http://www.answers.com/postulated&r=67

kraggy

cozmik wrote: »

Postulate: Definition

To assume or assert the truth, reality, or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument.


http://www.answers.com/postulated&r=67

Ok first of all, the journalist saying the researchers postulated doesn't equate to what they are claiming as being false.

Secondly, that study isn't the World Cancer Research Fund study which is actually the bigger one. I cited 2 reports. The WCRF one is the second one I linked to.

And what they are claiming in it is not false. They're simply saying that the people they studied showed different medical characteristics and experienced various illnesses while also monitoring their diet. And more red meat was consumed by those who suffered from various types of cancer including colo-rectal.

cozmik

kraggy wrote: »

Ok first of all, the journalist saying the researchers postulated doesn't equate to what they are claiming as being false.

Maybe not, but imho assumption rarely, if ever, holds true in the real world.

kraggy

Did you read the WCRF pdf file I've linked to?

You won't be able to deny the link between a red meat-rich diet and cancer then.

cozmik

kraggy wrote: »

Did you read the WCRF pdf file I've linked to?

Your link doesn't work.

kraggy

Works fine for me.

Google it so.

cozmik

kraggy wrote: »

Works fine for me.

Google it so.

Better yet, why don't you provide me with a working link and I'll read it then.

regards

cozmik

kraggy

cozmik wrote: »

Better yet, why don't you provide me with a working link and I'll read it then.

regards

cozmik

It works.

But here's the link to the main page of same website anyway http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/ not that I care if you read it or not with an attitude like that.

Tar.Aldarion

All the links are fine, also all the national health associations I have seen have agreed with ole kraggy.

cozmik

As I said the link doesn't work for me.

kraggy wrote: »

Works fine for me.

Google it so.

Yeah and that's real helpful

Thanks

Sam Kade

If you listened to scientists telling you which food is bad for you you would eat nothing.

ntlbell

Sam Kade wrote: »

If you listened to scientists telling you which food is bad for you you would eat nothing.

Well you could always eat brocoli and super sprouts

Weyhey

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

All the links are fine, also all the national health associations I have seen have agreed with ole kraggy.

Same for me - links work and I have to agree everything does seem to lean to a link between red meat and the big C.

Tar.Aldarion

Sam Kade wrote: »

If you listened to scientists telling you which food is bad for you you would eat nothing.

All you need is spinach, did you learn nothing from popeye?

cozmik

Weyhey wrote: »

Same for me - links work and I have to agree everything does seem to lean to a link between red meat and the big C.

Thirty adequate case-control studies have been published up to 1999 (from 16 different countries). Twenty of them found no significant association of (red) meat with colorectal cancer.

http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n1s/abs/1601349a.html

dynastygal

cozmik, there's several types of cancer. Just because some studies find no link between one type of cancer and red meat, doesn't mean to say red meat is therefore not a cause of all cancer or other types.

By bringing up evidence for one type of cancer you still aren't dismissing other types, and it seems you've yet to read the articles and information people have given you which are all on links that work. Given that the pg45 one someone was on about is a pdf chances are you didn't give it enough time to load.

kraggy

cozmik wrote: »

As I said the link doesn't work for me.




Yeah and that's real helpful

Thanks

I'm not your servant. If you wish to argue something don't insist a link provided doesn't work just because you don't have Adobe or you can't use the internet. Try googling...

cozmik wrote: »

http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n1s/abs/1601349a.html

...which is what you've done. Good for you!

However, you seem to have chosen to ignore the date of that journal. It's March, 2002.

So, not only is it not the report that I cited, but it's also 6 years old. So basically, not relevant at all.

Cozmik, I'm interested as to why you are in denial of the fact that there is indeed a link between red meat consumption and cancer. Have you a vested interest? Are you a beef farmer? Or a butcher perhaps? No problem if you are, that's your business. But stop trying to convince me of something when the evidence on hand clearly illustrates otherwise.

dynastygal

He probably just doesn't want to admit that meat eating isn't good for humans.

cozmik

kraggy wrote: »

I'm not your servant.

Wow don't take things so personally. It just a matter of netiquette my friend that when you post a link the onus is on you (the poster) to help if someone has difficulties accessing it.

As for the rest of your condescending diatribe, as the old saying goes...'Some things are best left unsaid' :eek:

Sam Kade

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

All you need is spinach, did you learn nothing from popeye?

Until a scientist says it's bad for you. How come all of a sudden people believe what they see on the internet. There is a lot of good info on the net but there is also plenty rubbish.

kraggy

cozmik wrote: »

Wow don't take things so personally. It just a matter of netiquette my friend that when you post a link the onus is on you (the poster) to help if someone has difficulties accessing it.

As for the rest of your condescending diatribe, as the old saying goes...'Some things are best left unsaid' :eek:

I agree. Better left unsaid if you've nothing substantial to say.

cozmik

kraggy wrote: »

I agree. Better left unsaid if you've nothing substantial to say.

When you are able to come down off your high horse, then maybe someone could have an actual dialoge with you. :rolleyes:

Tar.Aldarion

Sam Kade wrote: »

Until a scientist says it's bad for you. How come all of a sudden people believe what they see on the internet. There is a lot of good info on the net but there is also plenty rubbish.

Well you shouldn't believe a lot of stuff on the net. Things from reputable journals, specific cancer researchers and national dietary associations are good and a lot of stuff won't be on the net(googling for two seonds shows that the british/american/whatever health associations thinks meat causes some cancers. This is a better source than from any vegetarian site for example as they have no vested interest. Not everything is bad for you, most of the food people eat nowadays is bad for you, processed with bad ingredients etc. I do know I was told by a non vegetarian doctor to be a vegetarian for my health due to a genetic disorder I have, un related to cancer though!

look at the cancer rate from one country and these get higher every year. This is 6 years ago.

* All types of cancers except basal and squamous cell skin cancers and in situ carcinomas except urinary bladder cancer: 1,284,900 new cases, and an estimated 555,500 deaths in the year 2002. The breakdown of some of these cancers are as follows:
*

An estimated 205,000 new cases of Breast Cancer, with an estimated number of deaths at 40,000.
*

An estimated 189,000 new cases of Prostate Cancer, with 30,200 estimated deaths.
*

An estimated 183,200 new cases of Lung and bronchial Cancer, with 161,400 estimated deaths.
*

An estimated 279,100 new cases of Genital system cancers, with 57,100 estimated deaths.
*

An estimated 30,300 new cases and 29,700 deaths due to Pancreatic Cancer.
*

An estimated 107,300 new cases of Colon Cancer, with 48,100 estimated deaths.
*

An estimated 17,000 new cases of brain and nervous system cancers, with 13,100 estimated deaths.
*

An estimated 30,800 new cases of leukemias, with 21,700 estimated deaths.
*

An estimated 2,400 new cases of bone and joint cancer, with 1,300 estimated deaths.
*

An estimated 28,900 oral and pharynx cancers, with 7,400 estimated deaths.
*

An estimated 58,300 new cases of skin cancer, such as skin melanoma (excluding basal & squamous), with an estimated 9,600 deaths.
*

Multiple myeloma - an estimated 14,600 new cases and 10,800 deaths
*

Lymphomas - an estimated 60,900 new cases and 25,800 death
*

Other and unspecified primary sites - an estimated 30,200 new cases, with 43,700 deaths.
*

For childhood cancers, an estimated 9,100 new cases are expected to occur among children aged 0 -14, with 1,400 deaths. Cancer is the chief cause of death by disease in children between the ages of 1 and 14.

Apparantly over 1/3 of people will get cancer at the moment with it still rising.

rockbeer

Not disagreeing that red meat is cancer causing... but there a strong argument that says cancer will always get you in the end if something else doesn't get you first.

Tar.Aldarion

It could indeed get you in the end, however it is happening far too early in peoples lives at the moment, no need to help it along.

Sapsorrow

TRy PUBMED or Science direct for reports, studies etc that are 100% reliable, scientific and very highly regulated for the most truthfull info. I love when my food choices (being vegetarian) are backed by hard conserative science!

Sapsorrow

No scientist would deny the link between cancer of the colon and rectum and meat consumption. As far as I know it is widely accepted that we have not yet had time to evolve the capacity to properly digest meat hich has been cooked. All carnivores and omnivores have evolved to digest meat that has it natural enzymes (primarily lipases for fat digestion and proteases for protein digestion) intact in the raw flesh. These are destroyed in the cooking process.

rubadub

ntlbell wrote: »

Just wondering if there is much evidence that vegan's and vege's are less prone to types of cancer?

Are there any studies saying they are more prone?
Have they ever done tests/studies on animals? I ask that since I would expect on average veggies & vegans would have a healthier lifestyle in general, so that would skew any humans studies. This is the case for loads of stats, they use the faulty logic that 1million meateaters and veggies are the exact same in every respect except for what they eat. If they care so much about what they eat they will also be less likely to smoke & drink and eat poor nutritional food, probably more likely to exercise too.

Macha

Ok well one study from ScienceDirect. Basically having a vegetarian diet can result in hormonal changes and if a person has a type of cancer that is influenced by hormones, the adoption of a vegetarian diet can have a positive impact:

"Abstract

This study reports the effect of a vegetarian diet and dexamethasone administration on the hormone status of healthy Caucasian men and premenopausal women. A lower nocturnal release of prolactin and testosterone occurred in men fed a vegetarian diet, while in women, dexamethasone administration decreased the nocturnal release of prolactin and caused a greater decrease of plasma dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA). These results show that diet modification can induce hormonal changes. If similar changes occur in patients with breast and/or prostatic cancer, diet modification may be of benefit in these patients with tumors known to be hormonally dependent."

sweet-rasmus

that really interesting taconnol. thanks for the research

Sapsorrow

heterocyclic amines are carcinogenic chemicals produced from cooking muscle meat, 17 of which have been identified that may pose human cancer risk.
NCI's Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics found a link between individuals with stomach cancer and the consumption of cooked meat, and other studies for colorectal, pancreatic, and breast cancer is associated with high intakes of well-done, fried, or barbecued meats.
Other sources of protein (milk, eggs, tofu, and organ meats such as liver) have very little or no HCA content naturally or when cooked.

Sapsorrow

Sorry tried to put in some of my college notes there and it didn't work very well !

Tar.Aldarion

MAYO Clinic:

"Vegetarians have lower rates of some cancers, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure and non-insulin-dependent diabetes. A study of nearly 2,000 vegetarians and part-time vegetarians conducted by German cancer researchers found eating little or no meat cut death rates from heart and circulatory disease in half and deaths from cancer by 25 to 50 percent. Vegetarians are also less likely to have gallstones, kidney stones and constipation and they weigh less on average."

"Studies show that a well-planned vegetarian diet offers numerous health benefits, such as a lower risk for obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, and some cancers."

Are there any studies saying they are more prone?
Have they ever done tests/studies on animals? I ask that since I would expect on average veggies & vegans would have a healthier lifestyle in general, so that would skew any humans studies. This is the case for loads of stats, they use the faulty logic that 1million meateaters and veggies are the exact same in every respect except for what they eat. If they care so much about what they eat they will also be less likely to smoke & drink and eat poor nutritional food, probably more likely to exercise too.

In my experience vegetarians are not less likely to drink. Don't now how much they exercise or smoke. If it is a moral/religious decision it wouldn't make a difference and most poeple are vegetarian for these reasons.

rubadub

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Sorry tried to put in some of my college notes there and it didn't work very well !

If you right click on your desktop you can go to NEW and make a new text document. If you cut and paste into a *.txt file you can then recopy it and when it pastes again it should get rid of any font info. Also good if you are pasting into word from the internet, as no pictures or fonts etc will be carried into a basic txt file.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

In my experience vegetarians are not less likely to drink. Don't now how much they exercise or smoke..

Of the only 2 tee total people I (knowingly) ever met one was a vegan. And most veggies I meet seem far more aware of what they put in their bodies than others who have no clue about food at all.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

If it is a moral/religious decision it wouldn't make a difference and most poeple are vegetarian for these reasons.

Even then they will have learned how to read nutritional info and ingredients lists, I highly recommend all people learn how to read packets, most meateaters I know have no clue how to read a packet. I am always reading packets and get comments about it "do you know what all that stuff means??" as though it is rocket science.

And of course some veggies do eat solely for health reasons, I still think it is more likely that the average veggie would take better care of themselves. I know a few people who do not eat red meat (is there a name for them?) for health reasons, they drink, but nowhere near as much as others I know.

They say 1 glass of wine a day is good for you, then some study was saying women who drank on average 2 or more glasses per day were in worse health. This is faulty logic, presuming that the only difference between 2 groups of women is their drinking. I expect non-drinkers or "low volume drinkers" are also less likely to smoke and more likely to exercise etc.

However reading all the reports I would think, all else being the same, the veggie would be in better health than his twin brother meateater. Just wondering if any study had said the opposite.

I expect moral & religious people are inherently less likely to break laws, and hence less likely to take illegal recreational drugs or generally lead a hedonistic lifesytle.

enda1

Assuming its true that people who eat meat are more prone to cancer than those who don't is not in any way proof that we are not designed to eat meat.

People are living for longer now than they ever have. We are kicking the asses of diseases left right and centre. So of course the rates of cancer are rising - you have to die somehow!

Its in natures and the biological ecosystem that we die and nature has programmed lots of traps for us. In animal terms, its unhealthy for a pack to have old members - they don't contribute and are more a burden than help so its in the packs interest for their members to die before becoming a burden.

The natural processes behind aging are the same which can lead to cancerous cells.

Here's a guess - a successful hunter eats a lot of meat and therefore is damaging disproportionatly the stock of meat for everyone else and for the animal he's hunting - so maybe its a sort of species defence mechanism that this hunter gets cancer from the over indulgence in his kills. Who knows but nothing is black and white!

(I swear my post made a lot more sense in my head than it does here...)

Sam Kade

All the studies seem to be done in America and Canada where they still use growth promoters and drugs in cattle that have been banned in Europe over 25 years ago. Theres a big difference between grass based Irish beef and American and Canadian beef.

Macha

Sam Kade wrote: »

All the studies seem to be done in America and Canada where they still use growth promoters and drugs in cattle that have been banned in Europe over 25 years ago. Theres a big difference between grass based Irish beef and American and Canadian beef.

Doh, I was actually just about to say that. It isn't just a question of quantity but also quality. Basically people eat too much crappy meat. Instead, they should be eating far smaller quantities of high quality, high welfare meat.

Tar.Aldarion

rubadub wrote: »

Of the only 2 tee total people I (knowingly) ever met one was a vegan. And most veggies I meet seem far more aware of what they put in their bodies than others who have no clue about food at all.

Of the 8 I know one is vegetarian, Althought that might still be a higher percentage vegetarian ones!

I'd mostly agree with the rest of your post, when you read packets youstop buying as much crap, and I don't drink as much because you come around to wanting to be healthy when you think about diet a lot.

Mentalmiss

ntlbell wrote: »

Just wondering if there is much evidence that vegan's and vege's are less prone to types of cancer?

Have you read "The China Study" by T Colin Campbell. It is a great book. In it, his research (and he was a dairyman) proved that you can not develop a tumour if you keep your animal protein intake to below 5% of your calories.
His tests were primarily done comparing milk protein and veg protein. Milk feeds tumours veg does not. He and his family are now all vegans.

Sapsorrow

lol funny i just finished reading that book a week ago, my food toxicology lecturer lent me it, he worked with colin T. Campell in the states when they did the experiements with aflatoxins and rats on low protein diets, he's mentioned in the book too!

Mentalmiss

khrystyna100 wrote: »

lol funny i just finished reading that book a week ago, my food toxicology lecturer lent me it, he worked with colin T. Campell in the states when they did the experiements with aflatoxins and rats on low protein diets, he's mentioned in the book too!

What are you studying and where. Sounds like you are lucky with your lecturer.

Sapsorrow

Ya he's the best alright, had him for two years now last year for food chemistry and for food toxicology this year but only really became friends with him this year. I'm in third year nutritional science in UCC.

I-like-eggs,mmm

Definitely a lower rate of cancer in vegetarians and vegans.
I did my thesis on the primary prevention of colorectal cancer by diet....

While I wasn't focusing on vegetarian diets, they were the most prevalent in the prevention of cancer. In particular low fat vegan diets. This may be because of the fact that being overweight, consuming too many animal fats and too little vegetables increases the risk of cancers. By following a low fat vegan diet, you're more likely to have a healthy weight and body fat index... Other diets that came up were Japanese diets and Mediterranean diets. Was very interesting! Well to me it was...:)

On the red meat argument... while there is a risk associated with colorectal cancer..it's moreso processed meat that increases risk as it's it's higher in salt and saturated fats.

Oh and the WCRF report is a brilliant piece of evidence!!! I don't know if you got the link sorted for it... but here's a quick link for a summary of their recommendations: http://www.wcrf-uk.org/research_science/recommendations.lasso

There's also a reading supplement on the WCRF website called "Informed" which is also a good read.

Anyway.... eating meat is pure plain freaky don't you think? Not knowing what exactly is in the meat and what type of food it was fed...hmm. Anyone ever read the book "Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser"...?