A filet mignon steak is seen in an undated product photo. Scientists said on Tuesday they may have found a reason why eating too much red meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer. By studying cells from volunteers eating different diets, they discovered that red meat raises levels of compounds in the large bowel, which can alter DNA and increase the likelihood of cancer. REUTERS/PRNewsFoto
I have yet to see a healthy vegan. A common sense diet with exercise has served mankind for a long time. Beef. It is what is for dinner.
Okay- so, a balanced diet keeps one healthy. This is news? And how much did British taxpayers spend on this?
Humans are omnivores, not carnivores or herbivores. A vegetarian diet supplimented by red meat is close to what our ancestors ate, and probably best for us.
Good news for steak lovers. This should bring down the price of that ribeye steak!! Can't wait to fire up the grill!
I missed this the first time. The French are world renowned for brilliance and foresight, conducting research that is irrefutable. /freakin falling down laughing
hip hip hooray for the hunters ...
The Japan Times June 14, 2000 The amount of meat in their diet shows they weren't simply scavengers Neanderthals likely were skilled hunters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) Neanderthals feasted on meat, meat and more meat, researchers said Monday in a report that adds to a growing body of evidence that they were skilled hunters and not grunting, witless cave men, as they are often portrayed. Chemical analyses of bones found in caves in Croatia showed Neanderthals ate a diet similar to that of wolves and lions, and probably hunted woolly mammoths, the researchers reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"Our findings provide conclusive proof that European Neanderthals were top-level carnivores, who lived on a diet of mainly hunted animal meat," said Fred Smith, chairman of the Department of Anthropology at Northern Illinois University.
Erik Trinkaus, an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis, said the findings will help settle the debate about how advanced the Neanderthals were.
"It is becoming clear that Neanderthals were not randomly wandering around the landscape, stumbling on an animal they could kill or a carcass they could scavenge," said Trinkaus, who worked on the study.
The researchers analyzed the 29,000-year-old bones looking for variants, or isotopes, of nitrogen. The isotopes preserved in mammal bone collagen can reveal whether an animal had been consuming primarily animals or plants during the last several years of its life.
The verdict was clear these two Neanderthals, found in Vindija Cave near the Croatian capital, Zagreb, ate a lot of meat, Trinkaus said.
"With a diet dominated by animal protein, the Neanderthals must have been effective predators," he said. "This implies a much higher degree of social organization and behavioral complexity than is frequently attributed to the Neanderthals."
Trinkaus said the new evidence adds to an evolving picture that scientists have of the Neanderthals. Just a few years ago, they were thought to be primitive offshoots of the prehuman line, who were well-adapted to cold Ice Age conditions but who died out as a species.
Anthropologists have since found that Neanderthals lived with modern humans as recently as 24,000 years ago, that they made and wore jewelry, had fairly sophisticated tools and weapons and, perhaps most controversially, may have interbred with modern Homo sapiens.
"In terms of their ability to produce art and complex burials, the differences between them and early modern humans are becoming smaller and smaller," Trinkaus said.
"There's no reason to believe Neanderthals were any less efficient exploiters of the environment than modern humans," Smith added.
Nonetheless, life for them was nasty, brutish and short.
"We see a lot of trauma, a lot of developmental lesions, a lot of low life expectancy," he said.
Trinkaus said if Neanderthals ate a lot of meat, they would have had to hunt, because they could not have survived by scavenging alone.
"The only committed scavengers are birds," he said.
"If you are walking around, the time and energy it takes to find (carcasses) is too great for what you get."
Trinkaus said the diet would have been unhealthy by today's standards, but the Neanderthals were trying to survive in a cold climate, where not a lot of plant food was available.
"If you have low life expectancy and you are very physically active, you don't worry about cholesterol," he said. "In fact, you want cholesterol. And they weren't just eating steaks off these animals they were eating everything that was edible. They were smashing up the skulls and eating brains. They were eating tongues."
Or eggs.
Or.....what ever the panic of the moment was / is.
As is the rule - too much of anything is probably not a good thing.
Sat or Sun night is steak night in this house, not always, but usually.
The rest of the week we eat Lobster and Fettucine. We're cool. And clogged.
They finally found the conclusion they were looking for.
Humans are omnivores; our digestive system is designed to be able to handle whatever we can get our hands on. Since plants can't run, we evolved on a diet dominated by plants. However, given our natural abilities plus the advantages of intelligence, we are also predators who have gotten to eat meat.
However, Americans and other such cultures eat a lot more meat than we got as we evolved. It's not surprising that this can cause problems. Also, due to modern medicine we are surviving long enough for things like colo-rectal cancer to develop; back in the day people generally died of trauma or some kind of disease before such cancers had a chance to develop and kill us.
My dad fit these guidelines for the last 25 years. Pretty much swore off redmeat, except for about 1 serving per week, and became a vegetarian when he turned 40.
He was diagonsed with colon cancer two years ago. The docs removed the tumor and he has been cancer free since.
Note that later in the article they lump together red meat and processed meat, which muddles the whole issue. Processed meats that are preserved with nitrites are a concern because they form the nitroso compounds that these scientists mention. I have never heard of fresh meat producing nitroso compounds, but I am not an expert so maybe I am wrong. It does seem questionable to me that they would make no distinction between processed and fresh meat for this study.
My ass they did.
Have a salad with that steak and you'll be OK:
http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/26/2/387
In other news, leading health experts say that human beings should live like hampsters. With fresh air, fresh water, hiegenic woodchips, bland (but nourishing) food, and excellent excercise facilities, humans are expected to live, on average, two and a half minutes longer.
Acting on this advice, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy have sponsored a bill in the Senate to begin enacting the Hampster Habitation Program to test the results of the health experts studies.
/sarcasm [as if you didn't know].
Isn't this a very flawed/misleading study??!! Aren't N-nitrosocompounds due to nitrites or nitrates in the meat and not the meat itself?
Colon cancer should not be a major cause of mortality within ten years. I predict deaths per year will go under 10,000.
The reason is that if polyps are removed before they become malignant, it's very unlikely for cancer to develop. And polyps are often in the colon for many years before becoming cancerous.
The key, therefore, is early detection. Methods of detection are getting better and cheaper. In ten years, it's very possible that as part of an annual exam, a patient will get a CT scan that will be able to detect any polyps. The only ones who will die of colon cancer are those too foolish to have a painless CT scan once a year and those who are extremely unlucky and have some unusual form of cancer that is not detectable.
Here's a question, however. Let's say we get to the point in twenty years that:
1. Detection methods and improved treatment mean that heart problems are more of an inconvenience than a life-threatening ailment for people under the age of 80.
2. Improved detection, surgical techniques, and drugs mean that prostate cancer is neither life-threatening nor much of an impediment to lifestyle.
3. Improved detection causes a significant cut to the risk of mortality from breast cancer.
4. The aforementioned CT scan takes out most of the risk of colon cancer.
If that were all true, a nonsmoker would have a greatly reduced chance of premature death. All the leading cancer killers would be much less of a threat, as would heart disease. Would people be rational actors and then start eating terrible diets to their heart's content? There's some evidence to suggest people are doing that already as treatment for heart disease improves.
"I'll have the roast duck with mango salsa."