Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"High protein diet linked to spiked cancer risk akin to smoking 20 cigarettes a day: U.S. study"
National Post ^ | Mar. 5, 2014 | Sarah Knapton

Posted on 09/01/2014 4:30:03 AM PDT by Jacob Kell

Eating too much protein could be as dangerous as smoking for middle-aged people, a study has found.

Research which tracked thousands of adults for nearly 20 years found that those who eat a diet rich in animal protein are four times more likely to die of cancer than someone with a low-protein diet.

The risk is nearly as high as the danger of developing cancer from smoking 20 cigarettes each day.

Previous studies have shown a link between cancer and red meat, but it is the first time research has measured the risk of death associated with regularly eating too much protein.

(Excerpt) Read more at ww2.nationalpost.com ...


TOPICS: Agriculture; Food; Health/Medicine; Science
KEYWORDS: antimeat; cancer; cigarettes; diet; food; foodnazis; foryourowngood; meat; protein; redmeat; risk; smoking; veganism; vegetarianism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-116 next last
To: Brother Cracker

I keep waiting for him to slip and knick a finger.

Still waiting... :-)


41 posted on 09/01/2014 5:47:51 AM PDT by thatjoeguy (Every law passed is one person forcing their morals on someone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

I prefer Soylent Red. More of a tangy flavor.


42 posted on 09/01/2014 5:49:07 AM PDT by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CAluvdubya

LOL!


43 posted on 09/01/2014 5:49:48 AM PDT by Gosh I love this neighborhood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jacob Kell
The risk is nearly as high as the danger of developing cancer from smoking 20 cigarettes each day.

A pack a day.

Selling/buying/eating red meat will soon be regulated.

44 posted on 09/01/2014 5:52:44 AM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: amigatec

What time should I bring the beans and potato salad?


45 posted on 09/01/2014 5:56:33 AM PDT by poobear (Socialism in the minds of the elites, is a con-game for the serfs, nothing more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jacob Kell

One more rubbish study to try and keep people from a protein diet. A balanced and moderate diet is fine. Binging on lettuce is harmful too.


46 posted on 09/01/2014 5:57:46 AM PDT by Jimmy Valentine (DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacob Kell
"Research which tracked thousands of adults whose ancestors had a history of various types of cancers for nearly 20 years found that those who eat a diet rich in animal protein are four times more likely to die of cancer than someone with a low-protein diet."

Yet life expectancy continues to rise...
47 posted on 09/01/2014 6:01:32 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacob Kell

On the surface, this study appears to be one of the worst types of studies that still manages to get printed in the medical literature. It is a longitudinal study of food intake, with the methodology probably depending on food diaries. That is extremely unreliable methodology—does every single person write down every single thing they eat, in exact quantities? That’s hard to do, even when motivated by (for example) a desire to maintain a reasonable weight. So I don’t believe the study at all.

Some political agenda was apparent when the study authors claimed that plant proteins are not as damaging as animal proteins. Really? Your body can tell the difference when an amino acid is made by a plant instead of an animal using the exact same biosynthetic pathway??? I do know that some plant proteins can be structurally different in a way that makes them harder to digest, so they are not as high quality (i.e. digestible) as meat proteins, but still...

One real difference the study authors might have been seeing is the difference in diets, between people who eat a lot of fresh produce (and tend to be vegetarians or semi-vegetarian), versus people who eat a lot of dense foods (who tend to consume large amounts of meat and prepackaged foods to the exclusion of produce). But that is not a difference in WHAT is being eaten, rather it is a difference in PROPORTIONS of different macronutrients.

I have noticed that many of these studies that supposedly find that a favorite food causes all kinds of horrid disease is that they always compare strict “meat and potato” diets to diets that are nearly vegetarian; the difference in disease incidence is most likely a result of different proportions of macronutrients, and not from the meat, potatoes, soda, or any other single component of the diet.

I notice that the study authors do not recommend a change in the protein daily intake recommendations, which the FDA sets at 0.8 grams protein per kilogram body weight (or about 40-70 grams per day, depending on size; more, if you are highly athletic).

So, go ahead and enjoy your barbecued steak, ribs, chicken, etc. Just eat it in moderation—portions should be about the size of a pack of cards—and accompany it with a nice salad or heap of seasoned steamed veggies.

Check this link for more on this “study”, which I used for my comments above: https://news.usc.edu/59199/meat-and-cheese-may-be-as-bad-for-you-as-smoking/


48 posted on 09/01/2014 6:01:34 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

Only 20-24 percent of smokers get lung cancer. Something like 15 percent of those with lung cancer never smoked.

The media has us to the point that if we even look at a picture of cigarettes, we think we will get cancer.


49 posted on 09/01/2014 6:03:11 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple (The Bible doesn't say what I think it says and it says a lot of things I didn't know..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jacob Kell

It is the accumulation of of excess intracelllar iron from the red meat that causes the cancer.


50 posted on 09/01/2014 6:04:52 AM PDT by kruss3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacob Kell

Just keep eating protein. Next week they’ll tell us it will cure cancer.


51 posted on 09/01/2014 6:06:23 AM PDT by TangoLimaSierra (To win the country back, we need to be as mean as the libs say we are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: southern rock

As of 7:00 this morning I had 60 hours of a 72 hour fast in and I believe I am going to make it the whole way and them some. Decided to do it this weekend because my family are all out of town and I’m home alone. Two went to Vermont , one went to Texas, the other went to Maryland. I’m home taking care of the plants and animals.
I have wanted to do this for some time but with the invitations to do dinner or lunch it would have been difficult to get three days together.
Your reference to Dr. Furman caught my interest.


52 posted on 09/01/2014 6:07:27 AM PDT by depenzz ("it isn't a chance you take, its a choice you make")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
I wonder if preparation methods are a factor. Does steaming and braising vs barbecuing, broiling and frying make any difference in cancer rates?

Meats that are prepared at high temperature tend to produce heterocyclic amines, which are carcinogenic.

I do, on rare occasion, eat at a restaurant where meats are prepared in such a way that they form heterocyclic amines. However, for my daily cooking at home, I use a crock pot or fry at low temperatures (if the oil splatters or the meat sizzles, the temperature is too high). You want the meat cooked just to safe temperature, not overcooked, not crisped.

This has nothing to do with the study described above, and is based on more rigorous methodology (as in, the meats cooked under various conditions were actually chemically analyzed and the heterocyclic amines were demonstrated to promote tumor formation in animals).

53 posted on 09/01/2014 6:09:55 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jacob Kell

Which is why tens of thousand of weight lifters and fitness competitors are dropping like flies...

I’m throwing the BS flag....


54 posted on 09/01/2014 6:11:11 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (A Psalm in napalm...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack
They successfully made tobacco evil; not so much for meat though they have been trying hard for years.

It's the Nanny State's attempt to suck all the joy out of living and make people afraid. It's all about controlling the populace.

55 posted on 09/01/2014 6:15:58 AM PDT by Flick Lives ("I can't believe it's not Fascism!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
“Scientists” everywhere have been given their marching orders

As a scientist, I post to forums like this to try to explain the difference between methodologically sound science, and "studies" like this one that start with a conclusion and gather "data" to support it.

Publishing this kind of bilge, blaming one kind of food while failing to point out (even in the peer-reviewed publication) that the study actually compared the effect of eating balanced vs. unbalanced diets and drawing politically correct conclusions makes all scientists look bad.

I very much want scientists to keep looking good--after all, few professions are respected as much as science, and I would like to keep that respect.

56 posted on 09/01/2014 6:17:36 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jacob Kell

Resistant starch might well be beneficial for this problem. http://www.aacr.org/Newsroom/Pages/News-Release-Detail.aspx?ItemID=574#.VARw22SYKYU

Read the article and learn how to add it to your diet. An easy way is to eat Bob’s Red Mill Potato starch. This is a relatively new area of study, but it is definitely worth a look. Google it—lots more information available on the topic of resistant starch.


57 posted on 09/01/2014 6:18:35 AM PDT by Marty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“Exposure to high levels of HCAs and PAHs can cause cancer in animals; however, whether such exposure causes cancer in humans is unclear.”

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cooked-meats


58 posted on 09/01/2014 6:21:03 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (A Psalm in napalm...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Jacob Kell

The cancer spike is probably coming from all the chemicals that have been injected into the meat.


59 posted on 09/01/2014 6:21:20 AM PDT by stars & stripes forever (Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

“hmmm, you could be right but I think it was actually long pork and not technically red meat.”

Agree. I assumed that long pork is red meat. But, all I know about long pork is what I read in Robinson Crusoe about 40 years ago :)


60 posted on 09/01/2014 6:25:11 AM PDT by snoringbear (E.oGovernment is the Pimp,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-116 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson