4 ms·

Is it really true that eating meat causes cancer? The argument is vague but this seems to be an important part of it.

by 0-_-0 6y ago

Guthur 6y ago
At this stage I'm pretty convinced that everything can be shown to cause cancer. A lot of food research is also just very bad.
- andreareina 6y ago
  It's true! https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/everything-causes-cancer/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/everything-causes-cancer/
kesor 6y ago
No, it is not true. What is true, and shown in a lot of research, is that eating a lot of sugar and processed food causes a plethora of health issues. That might include processed meat products, or in other words meat that has fat removed from it (making it taste awful) and sugar added (to make it taste okay again). And most sugar is produced (in the US) from corn syrup, which is also heavily subsidized and thus very cheap, making processed meat much cheaper than selling proper meat.
- EForEndeavour 6y ago
  What makes you so confidently dismiss the link between (red) meat and cancer? Prominent scientific and nutritional voices on this topic disagree, and it's frankly confusing and frustrating to me as a non-scientist. But what I can confidently say about the healthfulness-of-red-meat debate is that it's by no means as settled as your "no, it is not true" statement implies. This Feb 2020 article sums up the scientific debate well: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/whats-the-beef-with-red-meat https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/whats-the-bee... Takeaways copied from the article: Red and processed meats do increase health risks. You don't need to eat red meat. "You can get the same amounts — and in some cases even more — from poultry, fish, eggs, and nuts, and as well as by following a plant-based diet."
  - kesor 6y ago
    I have read my fair share of studies, in none of them "purely red meat" was the cause of the hypothetical health problems. I have yet found a study that directly links red meat with any health problem. You are welcome to share one if you found it. It is always the processed food that is present in the studies, and most studies are "questionnaire studies", where they ask people if they eat red meat, which usually means they ate burgers, and then they ask if these same people have health problems. Bullshit studies with bullshit results. Please do find a study that can show the contrary (not an article).
    - EForEndeavour 6y ago
      Can you please produce a link to any of the "fair share" of studies you allude to? And can you please refute the points in the link I shared above, the ones implicating red meat with health problems?
elorant 6y ago
It is true, but for processed meat. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-34615621 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-34615621
brudgers 6y ago
Everything gives you cancer -- Joe Jackson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM2MGN_w4sU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM2MGN_w4sU
pravus 6y ago
I have grave doubts about these claims. I don't have a copy handy but I seem to recall the author of "The China Study" making this claim and then presenting his lab evidence to support it. The evidence includes the admission that the laboratory mice used are a specific breed chosen for their predisposition to certain types of cancers and that they are fed diets of protein far in excess of what they would normally choose to eat. With these two factors combined he was barely able to get a statistically significant signal regarding health effects related to the long-term ingestion of protein. He summarizes that extrapolating his results to human scale would be the equivalent of a person eating something like 2,000 hot dogs a day which he admits is ridiculous. This isn't a one-time event but an ongoing level of protein intake which would result in potentially harmful future health outcomes. His conclusion is that despite all of this, protein is a great risk to human health and the consumption of meat and meat-based products should be reduced if not eliminated. No evidence is ever given related to normal levels of protein intake in healthy mice or humans. No mention of confounding factors like smoking, exposure to environment, or simply other dietary factors like gut bacteria. The only controls are the fact that the mice used are genetically pure and therefore many of these variables have already been eliminated. This book has been heralded as a great example of nutrition science and why things like vegetarianism and veganism are superior to omnivorous or carnivorous diets. It has been directly contrasted with Gary Taubes' work who has pages full of analysis on many fairly modern studies using reasoned arguments against the worries about cancer and health related to meat. The laboratory science in "The China Study" was at least 30 years old and did not incorporate new information. For the record I have been hard-core ketogenic since 2013 and pretty much strictly eat dairy, meat, and meat by-products. I am at the healthiest I have ever been in my entire life by any standard you want to measure and even if I'm wrong I am perfectly willing to continue this way of life because it is higher quality than what I was doing before.
- z3rgl1ng 6y ago
  There are many studies that show a link between incidence of cancers and meat consumption as well as increased risk of heart disease[0]. The relative risk is minor, though, and you can live unhealthily on any diet. [0] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francesco_Sofi/publication/293329136_Vegetarian_vegan_diets_and_multiple_health_outcomes_A_systematic_review_with_meta-analysis_of_observational_studies/links/59404e51a6fdcce572339749/Vegetarian-vegan-diets-and-multiple-health-outcomes-A-systematic-review-with-meta-analysis-of-observational-studies.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francesco_Sofi/publicat... for example

Is it really true that eating meat causes cancer? The argument is vague but this seems to be an important part of it.

by 0-_-0 6y ago

Is it really true that eating meat causes cancer? The argument is vague but this seems to be an important part of it.

At this stage I'm pretty convinced that everything can be shown to cause cancer. A lot of food research is also just very bad.

andreareina 6y ago
It's true! https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/everything-causes-cancer/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/everything-causes-cancer/

kesor 6y ago

No, it is not true. What is true, and shown in a lot of research, is that eating a lot of sugar and processed food causes a plethora of health issues. That might include processed meat products, or in other words meat that has fat removed from it (making it taste awful) and sugar added (to make it taste okay again). And most sugar is produced (in the US) from corn syrup, which is also heavily subsidized and thus very cheap, making processed meat much cheaper than selling proper meat.

EForEndeavour 6y ago
What makes you so confidently dismiss the link between (red) meat and cancer? Prominent scientific and nutritional voices on this topic disagree, and it's frankly confusing and frustrating to me as a non-scientist. But what I can confidently say about the healthfulness-of-red-meat debate is that it's by no means as settled as your "no, it is not true" statement implies. This Feb 2020 article sums up the scientific debate well: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/whats-the-beef-with-red-meat https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/whats-the-bee... Takeaways copied from the article: Red and processed meats do increase health risks. You don't need to eat red meat. "You can get the same amounts — and in some cases even more — from poultry, fish, eggs, and nuts, and as well as by following a plant-based diet."
- kesor 6y ago
  I have read my fair share of studies, in none of them "purely red meat" was the cause of the hypothetical health problems. I have yet found a study that directly links red meat with any health problem. You are welcome to share one if you found it. It is always the processed food that is present in the studies, and most studies are "questionnaire studies", where they ask people if they eat red meat, which usually means they ate burgers, and then they ask if these same people have health problems. Bullshit studies with bullshit results. Please do find a study that can show the contrary (not an article).
  - EForEndeavour 6y ago
    Can you please produce a link to any of the "fair share" of studies you allude to? And can you please refute the points in the link I shared above, the ones implicating red meat with health problems?

elorant 6y ago

It is true, but for processed meat. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-34615621 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-34615621

brudgers 6y ago

Everything gives you cancer -- Joe Jackson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM2MGN_w4sU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM2MGN_w4sU

pravus 6y ago

I have grave doubts about these claims. I don't have a copy handy but I seem to recall the author of "The China Study" making this claim and then presenting his lab evidence to support it. The evidence includes the admission that the laboratory mice used are a specific breed chosen for their predisposition to certain types of cancers and that they are fed diets of protein far in excess of what they would normally choose to eat. With these two factors combined he was barely able to get a statistically significant signal regarding health effects related to the long-term ingestion of protein. He summarizes that extrapolating his results to human scale would be the equivalent of a person eating something like 2,000 hot dogs a day which he admits is ridiculous. This isn't a one-time event but an ongoing level of protein intake which would result in potentially harmful future health outcomes. His conclusion is that despite all of this, protein is a great risk to human health and the consumption of meat and meat-based products should be reduced if not eliminated. No evidence is ever given related to normal levels of protein intake in healthy mice or humans. No mention of confounding factors like smoking, exposure to environment, or simply other dietary factors like gut bacteria. The only controls are the fact that the mice used are genetically pure and therefore many of these variables have already been eliminated. This book has been heralded as a great example of nutrition science and why things like vegetarianism and veganism are superior to omnivorous or carnivorous diets. It has been directly contrasted with Gary Taubes' work who has pages full of analysis on many fairly modern studies using reasoned arguments against the worries about cancer and health related to meat. The laboratory science in "The China Study" was at least 30 years old and did not incorporate new information. For the record I have been hard-core ketogenic since 2013 and pretty much strictly eat dairy, meat, and meat by-products. I am at the healthiest I have ever been in my entire life by any standard you want to measure and even if I'm wrong I am perfectly willing to continue this way of life because it is higher quality than what I was doing before.

z3rgl1ng 6y ago
There are many studies that show a link between incidence of cancers and meat consumption as well as increased risk of heart disease[0]. The relative risk is minor, though, and you can live unhealthily on any diet. [0] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francesco_Sofi/publication/293329136_Vegetarian_vegan_diets_and_multiple_health_outcomes_A_systematic_review_with_meta-analysis_of_observational_studies/links/59404e51a6fdcce572339749/Vegetarian-vegan-diets-and-multiple-health-outcomes-A-systematic-review-with-meta-analysis-of-observational-studies.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francesco_Sofi/publicat... for example