Nutrition & Diet Red meat triggers cancer -scientists find

[Trinity]

Fascinating article that suggests humans do not have the same immune response to deal with red meat that carnivores naturally do...

"Now they have discovered that pork, beef and lamb contains a sugar which is naturally produced by other carnivores but not humans.

It means that when humans eat red meat, the body triggers an immune response to the foreign sugar, producing antibodies which spark inflammation, and eventually cancer.


In other carnivores the immune system does not kick in, because the sugar – called Neu5Gc – is already in the body." ​

Red meat triggers toxic immune reaction which causes cancer, scientists find - Telegraph

 

[Second Summer]

I'm very glad to see a study that looks at the causation, i.e. looking at the particular way which cancer is actually brought on by consumption of red meat, and not just research that looks at the correlation between between meat consumption and instances of cancer.

 

[Blobbenstein]

"Of course, moderate amounts of red meat can be a source of good nutrition for young people. We hope that our work will eventually lead the way to practical solutions for this catch-22."

halp! I'm stuck in a catch22...!

 

[Trinity]

I'm very glad to see a study that looks at the causation, i.e. looking at the particular way which cancer is actually brought on by consumption of red meat, and not just research that looks at the correlation between between meat consumption and instances of cancer.

me too

 

[Second Summer]

Of course, they sacrificed mice to do this research ... Less happy about that.

 

[Blobbenstein]

People will probably just eat more chicken.

 

[Trinity]

Of course, they sacrificed mice to do this research ... Less happy about that.

I know this is a massive conflict! I just can't get my head around it. I write articles about health and so much of research to prove the health benefits of plan foods is from animal research. It's a crazy world!

 

[Trinity]

People will probably just eat more chicken.

Unfortunately. I imagine some people do turn to vegetarian foods though - but yes you are probably right.

 

[flyingsnail]

What is interesting about Neu5Cc is that other apes produce it....the lack of it in humans seems to be protective against some pathogens and the mutation occurred when human ancestors would have been consuming little to no meat so this wouldn't have been an issue at that time.

 

[Tom L.]

Interesting. I've always been skeptical that eating meat would cause cancer, unless maybe it was cooked at high heat to produce carcinogens. For cardiovascular disease, the fat content of animal foods can definitely be a factor, if my experience is any indication.

 

[flyingsnail]

Interesting. I've always been skeptical that eating meat would cause cancer, unless maybe it was cooked at high heat to produce carcinogens. For cardiovascular disease, the fat content of animal foods can definitely be a factor, if my experience is any indication.

I don't think its that surprising that meat, in the form of mammal flesh, would prove to be problematic for humans because it is a fairly recent addition to our diet. With all the hoopla around the paleo diet its easy to forget that most of our genes evolved in the context of a plant and/or insect based diet.

 

[meat climate]

thank you; this is important to counter the paleo diet fad; there are other articles on chicken and other animal products and cancer as well

 

[Second Summer]

[WHO's] report said 50g of processed meat a day - less than two slices of bacon - increased the chance of developing colorectal cancer by 18%.

Meanwhile, it said red meats were "probably carcinogenic" but there was limited evidence.

The WHO did stress that meat also had health benefits.

More: Processed meats do cause cancer - WHO - BBC News (26. October 2015)

 

[Blobbenstein]

someone on another forum said that the chance of getting colorectal cancer was 6%, so that would mean that eating bacon raised it to 7%..........not much of an incentive to cut it out.

 

[Second Summer]

someone on another forum said that the chance of getting colorectal cancer was 6%, so that would mean that eating bacon raised it to 7%..........not much of an incentive to cut it out.

Not sure how they arrived at those numbers. Not from the WHO report, it sounds like?

 

[Blobbenstein]

Not sure how they arrived at those numbers. Not from the WHO report, it sounds like?

well I don't know what the chance of getting bowel cancer is.....the WHO should say the chance rises from x to y roughly; that would give a better idea of what an 18% rise would be.

 

[Blobbenstein]

this page says:

Every one of us is at risk for colorectal cancer. Almost 140,000 Americans will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer

http://www.webmd.com/colorectal-cancer/ss/slideshow-colorectal-cancer-overview

Risk Factors for Colorectal Cancer

which puts the chance of getting bowel cancer about 3%..?

so an 18% rise would be less than 1%.

 

[Pirate]

Of course, they sacrificed mice to do this research ... Less happy about that.

So ironically this study is likely ******** because we are, surprisingly, not mice. As much as I want to back a study that proves meat causes cancer I can't if it was bought on by animal testing.

I was going to rant about statistical manipulation but I will resist

 

[Second Summer]

this page says:


Risk Factors for Colorectal Cancer

which puts the chance of getting bowel cancer about 3%..?

so an 18% rise would be less than 1%.

(140,000/ US population) x average US life span = approx. 3% ?

 

[Blobbenstein]

I was assuming they all lived to 85, or 90....