Skip to comments.Large Study Links Red, Processed Meat to Certain Cancers
Posted on 12/11/2007 8:23:57 AM PST by Froufrou
People who eat a lot of red and processed meats have a higher risk of developing several types of cancer, including lung cancer and colorectal cancer, according to a new study from the National Cancer Institute.
For the study, researchers examined data from a large U.S. diet and health study, which began in 1995 and involved 500,000 men and women ages 50-71.
The research was conducted by Amanda Cross and colleagues at the National Cancer Institute and is published in the latest issue of PLoS Medicine.
This is what the study found.
People who ate the most red were 25 percent more likely to be diagnosed with bowel, liver, lung and esophageal cancer during the eight-year study, compared to those who consumed small amounts of this type of meat.
The researchers also found that people who ate the most processed meats, including bacon, ham and lunch meat, had a 20 percent higher risk of colorectal cancer and a 16 percent higher risk of lung cancer.
Researchers say 1 in 10 colorectal and 1 in 10 lung cancers could be avoided if people reduced their red and processed meat intake to very low amounts.
Most of the study participants were non-Hispanic white males and females, so these findings may not apply to people with different genetic backgrounds, the authors said.
But the findings add to the evidence that suggests that decreased consumption of red and processed meats could reduce the incidence of several types of cancer. The American Cancer Society, for example, has warned for more than a decade of a connection between red meat and colon cancer.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
We’re all gonna die...
...and be taxed all the way...
By this reckoning every Southerner should die early of colorectal cancer because we all live on bacon and ham. God gave us pigs for a reason.
Note to self: buy more bacon. We're almost out!
Everything will kill you if you give it enough time.
Just drink some wine with the meal and you’ll be fine.
Poor dear Amanda will be distressed to know I had a brat for lunch. (OK it was TWO) Beats the sprouts & tow-phooey she would probably have us eat.
Give it time Amanda. We’re all gonna die of something.
Because we’re hungry!
Thanks, BC, but, uhm, should I choose red or white wine to go with bacon? ;o)
trisham, you’re feeling saucy today...
It would appear that I’ve given up chicken fried steak for no good reason...
100% of people who died of cancer also ate carrots.
I love brats, and they’re especially good in Germany.
Carrots are kind of wasted on me. That chick in The Partridge Family said she turned orange from carrots.
Yes, it is. One more reason Muslims are crazy.
I hate carrots.
Yep. I’d rather have yams or sweet potato for beta carotene...
“God gave us pigs for a reason.”
Yeah, to mix with venison!
First, the time period of the study is too short for meaningful results. This kind of study would need to go on for decades to be credible.
Second, there's no way the researchers could have accurately collected the data needed for this study from a group as large as 500,000. Just think of the logistics required. There's no one on planet Earth who could accurately collect the data needed.
Finally, the 500,000 would need to have been selected randomly and all of the random selections would have had to agree to participate in the study. There's no way the study population could have been a true random selection.
In short, any reported results from this charade are pure BS.
Actually, most medical research studies are similarly flawed, which is why so much of what we think we know from such bogus studies turns out to be pure crap.
Is any crap really pure?