Skip to comments.Red meat fuels bowel cancer risk
Posted on 06/20/2005 9:35:28 PM PDT by SupplySider
LONDON, England -- People who eat too much red and processed meat increase their risk of bowel cancer by up to a third, according to a new study. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) concluded the risk of developing the disease for people who regularly ate more than two portions of red and processed meat a day was a third (35 percent) higher than for those who ate less than one portion a week. The latest research, published Wednesday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, used data from a study of the diets of more than half a million people across Europe. The study also found the risk of developing bowel cancer increased for those people who had a diet low in fiber. Poultry was not found to influence the risk, but the researchers did find that people who ate more fish faced less chance of developing the disease. The risk of bowel cancer dropped by nearly a third (30 percent) for people who ate one portion or more of fish every other day -- compared to those who ate fish less than once a week. The research was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Obesity risks Professor Sheila Bingham, a principal investigator of the study from the MRC Dunn Human Nutrition Unit in Cambridge, eastern England, told the Press Association: "People have suspected for some time that high levels of red and processed meat increase risk of bowel cancer, but this is one of the largest studies worldwide and the first from Europe of this type to show a strong relationship. "The overall picture is very consistent for red and processed meat and fiber across all the European populations studied."
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
So what they're saying is that if you eat equal amounts of red meat and fish, you will break even.
Pass the mustard guys. I'm going to Whataburger. Cover me.
Or break wind.
My girlfriend has been pushing me to eat more fishfood. I certainly don't want ass cancer.
Sean Hannity promptly fainted upon hearing the news.
Notice how red meat, which is as close to nature as you can get, is lumped in with processed meat, which has all kinds of crap in it. What would happen if they had just surveyed red meat alone?
Beans, beans, good for your .....heart
I would love to see where the funding for this study came from - a 35% increase of risk is not a statistically significant amount.
This means absolutely bumpkiss, except to the food police who will use it to further pound on the "obesity epidemic" or whatever it is they are calling it this week.
"The research was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK and the International Agency for Research on Cancer."
I'm not familiar with these. Perhaps a British freeper can comment. It's an important point. Many of these food studies do seem to be funded by interested parties on one side or the other.
If you eat too much fish, you increase the likelihood of heavy metal contamination (especially mercury). Let's face it... you can't win. might as well eat what you like in sensible portions and enjoy life while you can.
"a 35% increase of risk is not a statistically significant amount. "
And pray tell me, how large are their "portions"? Indeed it is high time to discard the idea of "portion" or "serving" and shift to the approximate weight. Say, 1 serving of fruit is 4 (or would it be 6?) ounces.
Between a smoked pork chop for breakfast, and red meat for the other two meals, I am so dead.
The only time I crave vegetables at all is in the summertime, but my theory is who wants to eat vegetables, when they just take up room in your stomach that could be filled with a rare juicy steak.
Obviously the author of this study has never had a beef brisket breakfast taco from Bill Miller's on Sunday mornings...mmmm, slow cooked brisket.
If your risk for colon cancer is 1 in 300,000 (about a 3.3 in a million chance) a 35% increase amounts to a 4.5 in 1,000,000 chance. Hardly statistically significant...
Drinking milk increases your cancer risk by about 35% - second hand smoke by 17%.
When it comes to statistical risk increases for "whatever" it must cross a certain threshold to become a significant risk increase.
In epidemiology, the risk increase needs to cross a minimum of 2 (200%) or preferably 3 (300%) for it to be statistically significant for a certain risk fact to cause a certain disease.
I couldn't find the numbers used in this particular study and so I am going by the press report that is generally just a rewrite of a press release.........35% increase makes for a great headline, but it means nothing without seeing all of the numbers - something most reporters don't bother with.
My skepticism of the numbers was expressed in my comment about where the funding for this study originated.