Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Cancer

  • 30-08-2008 03:04PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,287 ✭✭✭✭


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


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,323 ✭✭✭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?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,119 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,287 ✭✭✭✭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..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 984 ✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 984 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 984 ✭✭✭cozmik


    kraggy wrote: »
    Did you read the WCRF pdf file I've linked to?


    Your link doesn't work.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭kraggy


    Works fine for me.

    Google it so.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 984 ✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,119 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 984 ✭✭✭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 :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,297 ✭✭✭✭Sam Kade


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,287 ✭✭✭✭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 ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 763 ✭✭✭Weyhey


    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.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,119 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 984 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 63 ✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭kraggy


    cozmik wrote: »
    As I said the link doesn't work for me.




    Yeah and that's real helpful

    Thanks :confused:

    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: »

    ...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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 63 ✭✭dynastygal


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 984 ✭✭✭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:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,297 ✭✭✭✭Sam Kade


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 984 ✭✭✭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:


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,119 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,119 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement