Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, Apr-18-19, 01:36
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,727
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default Goodbye to bacon: is it really time to give up meat?

Quote:
From The Telegraph
London, UK
18 April, 2019

Goodbye to bacon: is it really time to give up meat?

The timing could hardly have been worse. Yesterday, just as every cook in the land was kicking off preparations for their Easter family feast, we were presented with another frankly terrifying report about red meat and cancer.

Oxford University research on half a million people found that eating red meat just once a day increased the risk of bowel cancer by a fifth. Even those who kept to the Government’s current recommended limit of 70g a day – equivalent to a rather paltry third of an 8oz steak or two rashers of bacon – still had a 20 per cent higher chance of developing colon cancer than those who ate about 20g a day.

For those of us making weekend plans for a naughty fry up, traditional roast lamb, or Easter Saturday barbecue (sue me – I married a Brazilian), it was enough to make you choke on your hot cross bun.

The link between meat and cancer is not a new one – in 2015, the World Health Organisation triggered a global panic nicknamed #bacongeddon when it classified processed meats as a group 1 carcinogen, alongside arsenic, alcohol and asbestos. Though much of the evidence so far has been based on association rather than a proven cause, scientists believe the link is down to a compound in red meat called haem, which reacts with cells in the gut causing DNA damage.

In processed meat such as bacon, ham and sausages, the preservatives used to extend shelf life and enhance taste have been shown to be cancer-causing and, here, the evidence is stronger. And of course, it’s not just bowel cancer: a 2017 study in the British Medical Journal linked meat consumption with a raised risk of dying from a range of diseases such as cancer, heart disease, stroke and diabetes.

Like many, the bombardment of health and environmental warnings about meat have prompted me to cut down and eat more vegetarian dinners, but I’d struggle to give up steaks completely. That’s not just because of meat's taste, but its unparalleled ability to fill me up. Yet the amount that’s considered safe to eat appears to be shrinking all the time.

So is it still possible to enjoy the pleasures of a carnivorous diet without dooming oneself to an early grave? Meat-eating is a great British tradition, a food that symbolises celebration, community and conviviality perhaps more than any other. But will we one day look back on the traditional Sunday roast in the same way we do the idea of smoking on planes?

It’s worth remembering, in this age of the vegan sausage roll, that red meat – that’s beef, lamb, pork, veal, venison and goat – is a highly nutritious food. Along with protein and vitamin D, it’s a particularly good source of iron and vitamin B12, important for energy and a healthy nervous system. Studies show that a worrying number of British girls and young women are deficient in iron and B12. “That’s due in part to the movement towards vegetarianism and veganism, and red meat becoming unpopular,” says Helen Bond, dietitian and spokesperson for the British Dietetic Association.

Bond says there’s no need to go completely vegetarian if you don’t want to, but we should all be aiming to make two-thirds of our diet plant-based, and stick to the recommended 70g meat a day. (Studies such as the National Diet and Nutrition Survey suggest the average woman in the UK abides by this recommended limit, but men continue to exceed it, with those aged 64 the worst offenders, and showing no signs of cutting down).

“It’s not the devil’s food, and I certainly eat it,” says Bond. “It’s important to look at the bigger picture: what else is going on in the person’s diet? If you’re having meat every now and then, along with lots of fibre and fruit and veg and wholegrains, then that will be a lot better for you than a wholly plant-based diet with lots of cheese and processed foods.”

Lauren Wiggins, director of services at charity Bowel Cancer UK, agrees: “Studies like this week’s don’t suggest we need to stop eating meat altogether. It’s moderation, really: we recommend no more than 500g of cooked red meat per week.

“Meat is just one factor influencing the risk of bowel cancer, along with alcohol and smoking, for example.”

If you want to keep eating meat, the advice is to choose high quality, lean cuts to reduce the amount of saturated fat, and cook from scratch as much as possible, making your own burgers and meatballs, for example. “The problem with supermarket mince is you can’t see what’s gone into it,” says Bond. “I ask my butcher to mince a beef steak for me instead.”

Other ways to minimise the health risks of meat include avoiding cooking at high temperatures – such as barbecuing – as some studies show this increases the rate of cancer-causing compounds. Bond says roasting meat at a low temperature is “fine, and if you can use a rack to reduce the fat content, even better”.

Others, though, are more sceptical about the recent demonisation of meat. Food writer Joanna Blythman, author of Swallow This: Serving Up the Food Industry’s Darkest Secrets, has long believed the true culprit behind many modern health problems is processed food.

“We’ve been eating meat for millennia with no problem,” she says. “My feeling is the dangers of depriving yourself of red meat are actually much higher than of eating it.

“It’s a highly, highly nutritious food – it’s hyper-satisfying, which means it’s actually hard to overeat it. Liver, for example, is, along with mackerel, eggs and oily fish, among the most nutritional foods you can find. If you think a bowl of cereal or avocado on toast could ever match something like that, dream on.”

Blythman, says studies linking meat with adverse health outcomes are often based on crude questionnaires which don’t take into account the type or source of the meat being consumed. “As I understand it, when it comes to good hard science and randomised trials, there is no evidence against red meat – the only possible evidence is against processed red meat because of all the additives. So there’s this generic idea that all meat is bad, without looking at the differences between meat from animals on a local farm that has been reared wholly on grass and the very industrialised stuff.”

Rather than cutting out whole food groups, her mantra is simply to eat food as close to its natural form as possible, and to eat local and seasonal.

So whatever your plans for the Easter weekend, there’s no need to deprive yourself of a serving of a well-sourced, well-cooked leg of lamb. Just don’t forget the vegan Easter egg.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-an...time-give-meat/
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, Apr-18-19, 01:39
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,727
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Even moderate intake of red meat raises cancer risk, study finds

https://www.theguardian.com/society...isk-study-finds
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Thu, Apr-18-19, 02:49
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,674
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Though much of the evidence so far has been based on association rather than a proven cause


Uh huh. And statins are still legal. I’ve made my choice.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Thu, Apr-18-19, 05:07
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,041
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

The battle lines have been established with the amount of health-care fiction we're seeing lately. I know many who will take this information literally and adopt these beliefs, but I guess that's the purpose of this anti-meat propaganda.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Thu, Apr-18-19, 06:05
tess9132 tess9132 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 873
 
Plan: general lc
Stats: 214/146/130 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 81%
Default

Thanks for this article. I'd comment thoughtfully, but it's time to go pick up my ham and prime rib for Easter dinner!
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, Apr-18-19, 06:38
DaisyDawn's Avatar
DaisyDawn DaisyDawn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 363
 
Plan: Higher P/Moderate F + C
Stats: 152/146.6/130 Female 66
BF:
Progress: 25%
Default

I read that yesterday. My thoughts, for what it's worth-I've been successfully maintaining a large weight loss for over 6 years now. I've had numerous health screenings/blood work-ups in that time. I've also experimented quite a bit with different ways of eating in that time. For me it hasn't' mattered what I was eating/what I wasn't eating-my weight has been the key factor in all my health markers/tests. Higher weight=bad health markers. Lower weight=good health markers.

At this point I've spent hundreds of hours reading through food nutrition/science literature. I have a folder on my computer filled with articles, links etc etc. I try and keep any open mind and read from all sides of the issues. For me personally, at this point in my journey I do think there's possible long term benefits to having a plant focused diet, but I haven't ready/seen anything that has convinced me it has to be an all or nothing type of deal. I still eat bacon-just in small amounts. If I'm eating 4 cups of veggies at lunch time, I'm not too worried about the 2 slices of crumbled bacon that's also in my salad

I know there's others who are doing lower carb that eat a lot more meat than I do, but as long as their blood work panels/health markers are good and how they eat compliments their weight management and fitness goals, then I don't see any benefit to changing things based on this study.

Last edited by DaisyDawn : Thu, Apr-18-19 at 06:48.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Thu, Apr-18-19, 09:18
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is online now
Posts: 8,764
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/167/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 116%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

I eat red meat 3 times a day. Quite often large amounts. According to that study, I should have died of cancer many years ago. Or it could be that I don't eat it with many carbohydrate-containing side dishes or buns.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Thu, Apr-18-19, 10:41
CityGirl8 CityGirl8 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 856
 
Plan: Protein Power, IF
Stats: 238/204/145 Female 5'8"
BF:53.75%/46.6%/25%
Progress: 37%
Location: PNW
Default

Quote:
Studies show that a worrying number of British girls and young women are deficient in iron and B12. “That’s due in part to the movement towards vegetarianism and veganism, and red meat becoming unpopular,” says Helen Bond, dietitian and spokesperson for the British Dietetic Association.

Bond says there’s no need to go completely vegetarian if you don’t want to, but we should all be aiming to make two-thirds of our diet plant-based, and stick to the recommended 70g meat a day. (Studies such as the National Diet and Nutrition Survey suggest the average woman in the UK abides by this recommended limit,
This makes zero sense. Girls and young women are deficient in nutrients, studies indicate they are already sticking to recommendations. So they're not getting the nutrients they need from the recommended amounts. This is because of the rise of vegetarianism and vegansim, but they should stick to a plant based diet and only eat 70g of meat (that's about 2 ounces).

At least they tried to give the other "side" to the story this time, which they rarely do.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Thu, Apr-18-19, 10:53
bevangel's Avatar
bevangel bevangel is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,312
 
Plan: modified adkins (sort of)
Stats: 265/176/167 Female 68.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 91%
Location: Austin, TX
Default

I have three brothers, one of whom was diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer eight years ago at the age of 54. Of course that led to a round of colon cancer screenings for the rest of us. So far, my other two brothers and I appear to have healthy colons. One must assume that the four of us have at least somewhat similar genetic backgrounds and therefore somewhat similar genetic risks for colon cancer. And we definitely grew up eating the same foods. I never smoked but all three of my brothers did so they share that "risk factor" as well. None of us have ever been heavy alcohol users. And of the four of us, the brother who developed colon cancer was always led the most physically active lifestyle. The rest of us tended to be more sedentary...so he should have been at a lower risk for colon cancer based on that risk factor.

Interestingly, of the four of us, ONLY the brother who got colon cancer has EVER experimented with vegetarianism. He and his wife spent about 10 years (from his early 40's to his early 50's) as strict vegetarians. He went back to eating meat (chicken and fish only) when he was diagnosed as anemic...which may have been due to the growing (but still undiagnosed) colon cancer or may have been due to his iron deficient diet. In any case, even then he continued to avoid red meat and wouldn't touch bacon or sausage or processed lunch meats.

Now, everything I've read suggests that it takes YEARS for a polyp in one's colon to become cancerous and grow to stage IV. In other words, it is likely that, during the period that his colon cancer was establishing itself and developing, he WAS vegetarian!

If you believe all the hype, his high-fiber vegetarian diet should have been helping to protect him! Maybe it did. Maybe if he hadn't spent those years as a vegetarian he would have been diagnosed with Stage IV colon cancer years earlier. Who knows?

Meanwhile, my other two brothers and I have always loved our meat and refused to even consider giving it up, or frankly, even to consider cutting "down" on the amount we eat. So far, no evidence of colon cancer in any of us tho.

Fortunately my brother appears to be one of the lucky ten percent or so who manage to beat stage IV colon cancer. After surgery and radiation and chemo, he is now at the six year mark showing "no evidence of disease." After his colon resection surgery, his doctor advised that he go on a low residue diet... i.e., cut out all the high fiber foods! He has gone back to enjoying steaks, bacon, and hamburgers. Instead he tries to avoid sugar as much as possible having become convinced that, if any particular food is the enemy, it's probably sugar!

Of course, all my family "evidence" is purely anecdotal... but then, is there really much difference between anecdotal evidence and epidemiology studies? If you think about it, all an epidemiology study is is just a pooling of lot of people's anecdotal evidence!

Ultimately, All any of us can do is make the best choices we can based on the evidence available to us...(and that includes deciding which pieces of evidence we TRUST). And then, we live with the consequences.

Me? I'm gonna continue eating meat. I like the taste and I like how it makes me feel in the short-term (i.e., day to day...more energy and more joie de vie!) AND in the "intermediate" term (month to month and year to year... lower weight, more muscle!) Yes, eating meat MAY give me cancer in the long term (decades) but accurately ascribing a cause-and-effect relationship to something that takes decades to develop seems pretty problematic to me. I'll take my chances.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Thu, Apr-18-19, 11:05
DaisyDawn's Avatar
DaisyDawn DaisyDawn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 363
 
Plan: Higher P/Moderate F + C
Stats: 152/146.6/130 Female 66
BF:
Progress: 25%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CityGirl8
This makes zero sense. Girls and young women are deficient in nutrients, studies indicate they are already sticking to recommendations. So they're not getting the nutrients they need from the recommended amounts. This is because of the rise of vegetarianism and vegansim, but they should stick to a plant based diet and only eat 70g of meat (that's about 2 ounces).

At least they tried to give the other "side" to the story this time, which they rarely do.


To be fair you can get B12 and iron from non-red meat sources. And, just eating the recommended 70g of red meat/ground beef, would give me 73% of RDA of B12 and 10% iron, (I chose ground beef because it's what I ate late night lol). Or, if I switched the beef out for salmon it would give me even more B12, though less iron etc. There's all sorts of red/non-red meat/non-meat combos one could do, in order to get adequate B12 and iron.

It sounds like those who are deficient weren't paying attention to their nutritional needs, regardless of what plan they were following.

Last edited by DaisyDawn : Thu, Apr-18-19 at 11:15.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Thu, Apr-18-19, 11:24
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,041
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bevangel
Fortunately my brother appears to be one of the lucky ten percent or so who manage to beat stage IV colon cancer. After surgery and radiation and chemo, he is now at the six year mark showing "no evidence of disease." After his colon resection surgery, his doctor advised that he go on a low residue diet... i.e., cut out all the high fiber foods! He has gone back to enjoying steaks, bacon, and hamburgers. Instead he tries to avoid sugar as much as possible having become convinced that, if any particular food is the enemy, it's probably sugar!

Of course, all my family "evidence" is purely anecdotal... but then, is there really much difference between anecdotal evidence and epidemiology studies? If you think about it, all an epidemiology study is is just a pooling of lot of people's anecdotal evidence!

Ultimately, All any of us can do is make the best choices we can based on the evidence available to us...(and that includes deciding which pieces of evidence we TRUST). And then, we live with the consequences.

Glad to hear your brother is doing well. Your post is measured and thoughtful. The comment about anecdotal evidence and taking responsibilities to make informed, evidence-based choices is insightful and right on the mark.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Thu, Apr-18-19, 11:47
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,428
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

British response to Oxford study:
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Thu, Apr-18-19, 12:04
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,596
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/185/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 90%
Location: Texas
Default

Currently trying mostly carnivore diet. I think they left a zero off their 70 gram per day serving. Plant-based because that's what my meal ate.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:21.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.