4 ms·
It's it the searing that contains the problematic components and not so much the red meat in and of itself?
by hvidgaard 6y ago
It's it the searing that contains the problematic components and not so much the red meat in and of itself?
- vitus 6y agoIf it were just the sear, you might expect the same sort of issue with fish consumption, but alas, that's not clearly the case. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15342453/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15342453/ "Consumption of fresh red meat and processed meat seemed to be associated with an increased risk of rectal cancer. Consumption of chicken and fish did not increase risk." (admittedly, that conclusion is a stronger statement than it should be. More precise: consumption of chicken and fish was not linked to increased risk, as they merely did not reject the null hypothesis.) Some potential culprits are listed here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/ Loosely: curing, searing, heme iron (from blood; what gives red meat its color), fat content, and some other things that can't be summed up as nicely. It's plausible that all of them contribute to some degree, leading to a more potent effect than any of them in isolation.
- scythe 6y agoIt's at least partially the iron, particularly bioavailable iron. Cancer cells need lots of iron. It's also the very same nutrient that motivates you to eat red meat in the first place. Chicken and fish contain less heme iron and don't contribute to colorectal cancer. What I wonder is if adding heme iron to fake meat cf. Impossible Burger would reproduce the same effect.