Awesome bit related to the show note, “The importance of the ability to “opt out” [32:30]”:
“Everybody’s fallible. There’s nothing magical about having experts go work for the FDA that all of a sudden now they can evaluate pharmaceuticals better than people in the private sector.
“And so the issue was just which system is more likely to produce better results over time. And in most other areas we recognize if there’s a monopoly, and just one group that has little accountability, then you’re going to expect them to do a bad job.
“Whereas if there’s open entry, and there’s different competing groups that can offer, for example, recommendations about whether this particular technique is safe or not, well then that’s going to give consumers more choice.”
Do you have the link to the private watchdog group, “Worst Pills, Best Pills”?
It’s really unfortunate to hear that you’ve been sucked into the primal hype by people like Sisson. The studies that support the paleo diet are sham studies, typically funded by the meat and dairy industry. For example, of the 23 studies listed on Authority Nutrition’s website that imply a low carb diet is superior to a low fat diet for weight loss, 90% of them used a “low fat” diet of 25-30% fat content. The standard American diet (SAD) consists of 35% fat. So all they did was shave 5% off, which is a complete joke. Not a single one of those studies compared a low carb diet to a vegan low fat high carb diet of around 10% fat. Because if they did, they wouldn’t get the pre-determined results they were looking for.
When people are put on a low fat high carb vegan diet, they completely reverse type 2 diabetes, they stop or reverse coronary artery disease, and some studies have even show such a diet to reverse cancer. Vegan diets have also been found to be superior to low carb diets when it comes to weight loss.
The WHO came out the other day saying that processed meat causes cancer. They also said red meat “probably” causes cancer. Really? “Probably?” Cooked meat contains carcinogenic heterocyclic amines. Grilled meat contains carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. All meat contains carcinogenic bacterial endotoxins that remain no matter how the meat is cooked. All meat produces secondary bile acids that alter gut bacteria that end up producing carcinogenic compounds. All meat and dairy raise IGF-1 levels, which is key to virtually all types of cancers. Only vegans have normal IGF-1 levels, so eating a vegetarian diet will not make much of a difference. Only animal based proteins have been shown to significantly raise IGF-1 levels, while plant proteins have no significant effect.
Further, dairy is loaded with the protein casein, which is highly carcinogenic. Meat and dairy are also extremely high in sulfur containing amino acids, which not only promote cancer growth, but also make people’s body odor far worse than it need be. Oh, and the heme iron found in meat has also been linked to cancer.
I could go on listing the carcinogenic qualities of meat and dairy for hours. I haven’t even touched on the use of Zeranol or other potent carcinogenic growth hormones used in the meat industry. There have been hundreds of studies done that show a link between meat consumption and many different kinds of cancer, not just colon cancer. Eating meat really is no different than smoking.
If you want to learn the truth about diet, I suggest you start by watching these lectures by Dr. Michael Greger. Every year he reads through all of the nutrition journals and complies all the latest data into an annual lecture that summarizes all the key findings. You’re a decent man, I’d hate to see you die an early death because you got hoodwinked.
“NO! When the size of an epidemiologic correlation is small (i.e., relative risks on the order of 2.0 and smaller), that means that there is no credible evidence that there is even an effect at all. This is basic epidemiology. Shocking that so-called “experts” don’t understand this.”
Yes. I’ve gone over hundreds of papers. They all say the same thing. Meat causes cancer. At best, you can find a few papers that say meat has no impact on certain kinds of cancers, but I’ve never seen a paper that says people who eat meat have a lower incidence of cancers.
You can find many epidemiological papers, as well as many papers looking at the toxicity of various components of meat, such as the heme iron and heterocyclic amines, that describe in great detail exactly how meat causes cancer.
The WHO report that came out looked at over 800 papers before reaching their conclusion on meat. Those papers included epidemiological studies, as well as direct evidence. At this point, there is the same amount of evidence that meat causes cancer as there is for cigarettes.
I only read the first page btw.
I am not saying you are wrong- I do not know enough about this topics to decide one wy ore the other.
But to say “As screw it. About 327,000 studies were returned from a google scholar search of “meat cancer” ” and pretend that all of them support your claim is pretty dishonest.
Congratulations. You managed to find one correspondence letter written by one guy from 2002 that ultimately says meat doesn’t show either a positive or negative effect for colon cancer.
Meanwhile, you’ve managed to ignore the other 300,000 papers on the subject.
Oh, one other thing. That paper wasn’t at the top of the results list the other day. I’d wager that hordes of desperate meat eaters have latched on to that study as a way to try and refute the WHO statements. That’s why it’s at the top of the list.
Take a look at the lectures I linked in my OP. Greger cites several studies that show up to a 300% increased risk for certain cancers. The WHO report came out with the most conservative estimates possible. A Google Scholar search for “meat cancer” returns over 300,000 studies. Take a look for yourself.
“When the size of an epidemiologic correlation is small (i.e., relative risks on the order of 2.0 and smaller), that means that there is no credible evidence that there is even an effect at all”
Do you realise that Malloy has just dismissed a huge amount of scientific data with one unsupported statement? It is just noise. I would not take anything said there to be true without further checking.
The BBC article puts in perspective “19% of all cancers caused by tobacco compared to 3% of all cancers ascribed to red or processed meat.”
The USDA food guideline committee was successfully sued by the Physicians Committee on Responsible Medicine for failing to disclose conflicting interests.
If you want to see some real conflict of interests, look here. Simply being a vegetarian doesn’t mean a person has a conflict of interest, it simply means they are smart.
” Simply being a vegetarian doesn’t mean a person has a conflict of interest, it simply means they are smart.”
And that’s my point.
Simply funding a study because it’s in the meat and dairy industrys’ interests to protect their images, *whether or not* they were hiding the dangers of their products, also doesn’t mean there is a conflict of interest.
The two are not the same. Being a vegitarian because the science says eating meat may give you cancer, heart disease, diabetes, stroke, Alzheimer’s, erectile dysfunction, sciatica, atherosclerosis, cataracts, etc.. etc.. etc.. doesn’t come with any financial motivation to lie.
On the other hand, if I work for the meat industry and I’m doing research that may undermine the meat industry, I’m more likely to lie about the results of any studies I may produce.
See the difference? One has no financial motivation, while the other most certainly does. That’s why all this absurd studies are being published that use disingenuous dietary protocols, like the 23 studies cited on Authority Nutrition’s website that I mentioned earlier.
“The two are not the same. Being a vegitarian because the science says eating meat may give you cancer, heart disease, diabetes, stroke, Alzheimer’s, erectile dysfunction, sciatica, atherosclerosis, cataracts, etc.. etc.. etc.. doesn’t come with any financial motivation to lie.”
I agree with that. But that is not the only reason to be vegitarian.
All the vegitarians and vegans I know don´t eat meat for ideological reasons.
Even if that’s true, there’s still no financial motivation.
Think about this in reverse terms. Wouldn’t a scientist who eats meat be more biased in favor of saying that meat doesn’t cause cancer? Most people love to eat meat.
At this point, there are more scientists who eat meat saying meat causes cancer than there are vegetarian scientists who say meat causes cancer.
If only one scientist on the WHO panel is vegetarian, what must the others be?
Why did you start your comment with “even if that is true”?
I am not saying we should not trust a study because one of the researchers does not eat meat. I am saying that it is certainly possible that a vegan who thinks animals have a soul and eating meat is MURDER might not be unbiased in their research.
I don´t think someone who likes eating meat is quite as religious about it.
“See the difference? One has no financial motivation, while the other most certainly does.”
Having a commie agenda is yet another possible source of a conflict of interest.
The WHO is part of the UN – subsidized by multiple governments, so yeah, huge financial motivation possible there, too – so it would be in their interest to use anti-capitalist-leaning folks for both of these reasons.
(Vegans don’t have to be commies to share a kind of anti-capitalist agenda with them. The Vegan agenda is helpful to the commie agenda.)
It’s funny that you mention commies in conjunction with vegitarians, because ironically the meat industry is the largest beneficiary of government subsidies. Without government subsidizing corn, soy, school lunch programs and healthcare, meat would be exponentially more expensive to consume that it presently is. This is why poor countries don’t consume much meat. They can’t afford it because the government doesn’t subsidize its production.
It’s true that the government shouldn’t be subsidizing anything.
But as the Pilgrims’ experience teaches, the profit motive results in increased production, and therefore lower prices, not the other way around, the way you believe.
Yes, it would be more expensive immediately after subsidies were taken away, but then, rather than putting subsidized corn syrup in our sodas, we would simply import cheap sugar from Mexico.
Regarding health care, it’s actually the subsidies that make health care so expensive that people need insurance to pay for it.
Tom Woods just interviewed a health care guy who has reduced some costs by 95% because he escaped some government regulations.
Regarding meat, in the Great Depression, Roosevelt killed pigs specifically to raise their price so that farms that were less productive than the more capital-intensive ones could stay in business.
So, get rid of the farm subsidies, and entrepreneurial ones will have the monetary incentive to produce enough for far more people.
Add competition, and the result will be lower meat prices.
Crony capitalism is bad, but there’s nothing wrong with the profit motive, per se.
I must have missed the bit where Bob made a big deal over diet in that podcast. I thought the idea of freedom was that you can eat what you want and so can I. Neither of us need have a Michelle Obama lunch shoved in our face.
Speaking for myself, I used to eat a big fish and chips lunch, drink plenty of beer and wine, eat heaps of rice, mashed potatoes, cheesy pasta bake (which is excellent food BTW easy to cook and great to eat) and before 30 I could do all that and remain very thin, after 30 I had to face the fact I wasn’t in such good shape any more.
Now I eat a meat pie for lunch (usually the big $6 meat pie from the French lady, containing identifiable meat, but if I’m feeling cheap the $3 meat pie from the Asian shop containing don’t ask where now and then you have to chew very hard) and it’s pretty much as satisfying, with more red meat and less carbs. I always go for a walj after lunch. I tend to drink spirits now instead of beer (takes a fair bit to get me drunk, and beer is just carbs in a bottle). I also force myself to eat greater meat variety than before like straight fried liver (actually tastes good if you can get fresh liver, but that’s more difficult than it sounds) and I can recommend Chinese shank and tendon soup (acquired taste, glues your lips together) or boiled honeycomb tripe with bacon (only difficult the first time).
What I’ve found is I’m in better shape, with more energy, and I used to dread the idea of doing push ups but now it’s actually pretty easy and no big deal.
To be fair I should point out that when younger I figured that taking vitamins was stupid and my diet was perfectly adequate. Later I changed my mind about that, on the basis that modern technology provides us with cheap diet supplements at the supermarket, and the risk of taking a few extra is small, while the potential benefits are great. I take zinc, vit-C, fish oils, glucosamine, magnesium, potassiun, and a little bit of trace elements selenium, manganese, etc. Very difficult to be sure exactly what is helping, but overall I do feel healthier.
I would not classify myself as “Paleo” because cavemen never had rum nor vitamins, I’m certainly not offended by technology, but some things I do might fit that overall “Paleo” worldview. I do try fasting for a day now and then, or at least 12 hours if a whole day is too difficult. First few times it’s incredibly difficult but it’s a learned skill and I think the body adapts. From a paleo perspective primitive humans would have fasted from necessity and eaten a seasonal diverse diet, then again they also tended to die a lot younger.
Finally, I spent about a year working from home and not mingling with the commuter crowds everyday and that made a massive difference in terms of getting sick with whatever came from the airport this week. Now (sadly) I’m back on the train for the 9-5 grind and I’m catching crap again, which I think has nothing to do with diet either. I can say I’m weighing my options right now in this regard.
All I can say is that you’re putting yourself at great risk with the meat consumption. I went vegan about a year ago and I had a radical improvement in my health. I dropped 30 lbs down to a normal BMI, my energy increased, my total cholesterol dropped below 150, my triglycerides massively dropped, and my manhood works way better than it used to.
I put my mom on a vegan diet and she dropped 30 lbs, her blood sugar dropped to the point where she went off all her diabetes medication, went off all her heart medication, her arthritis went away, and her energy levels improved.
I’m not making this up. These radical improvements are completely normal and expected when people begin eating a vegan diet. Go watch “Forks Over Knives” on Netflix along with those lectures I posted.
In terms of the manhood thing, for me the zinc supplements and trace elements made, shall we say, a substantial improvement (not that I was planning for that, because I’d never noticed there was an issue, consider it more of a side effect).
I’m just putting forward the theory here that your vegan diet merely pushed you onto a more diverse intake which filled in some gaps. That’s not a bad thing by any means, but technology and industry can fill the same gaps at the supermarket on aisle 5, probably with a lot less effort, maybe even at a lower cost.
“In terms of the manhood thing, for me the zinc supplements and trace elements made, shall we say, a substantial improvement ”
reminds of the woman complaining on the morning after the wedding night. “My husband had a dozen oysters, but only ten of the worked.”
“This meme mentions that bacon has the same cancer risks as cigarettes, which is extremely misleading, as we’ll see. …”
“… It should be clear from this list that the grouping isn’t particularly relevant when deciding if something is dangerous or not. A nuclear bomb detonation, cigarettes and contraceptives are all in Group 1, but have vastly different impacts on cancer. The groupings are only viewing the strength of evidence, not the level of danger. …”
“… To Vegan Street’s credit, after some complaints they did put forth another meme (shown to the right) that’s not quite as misleading, but still relies on the ignorance of the viewer about carcinogen categories and absolute risk. It currently only has about 1/10 the likes and shares of the first one. …”
The new meme/ad reads: “The World Health Organization has determined that eating processed meats is in the same category of cancer risk as smoking cigarettes.”
The older, more misleading one read: “The World Health Organization has determined that eating processed meats is as much of a cancer risk as smoking cigarettes.”
I think it’s important that we attack memes rather than address the 800 studies the WHO used to make it’s determination about the carcinogenic qualities of meat.
A single hot dog has the same level of nitrosamines as 5 cigarettes. The article you cite is also misleading. It compares eating two slices of bacon a day to a full blown smoking habit that may consist of over a pack a day. Most people eat far more meat per day than 2 slices of bacon. The WHO found a dose dependent response between meat and cancer.
If you only smoked 5 cigarettes a day or only ate 2 pieces of bacon, your cancer risk is going to be similar. Of course, that’s not how most people smoke or eat. Most people smoke constantly and most people eat meat constantly and in far greater quantities than two slices of bacon.
“The addition of ascorbate (vitamin C) or its close relative, erythorbate, and the reduced amount of nitrite added in hot dogs, mandated in 1978, have been accompanied by a steep drop in the death rate from colon cancer, according to data presented at the 10th AACR International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research, held Oct. 22-25, 2011.
“However, the incidence rate for colon cancer has apparently not changed much since 1978, according to 2011 data from the SEER Cancer Statistics Review from the National Cancer Institute. …”
“… “We found that the level of total apparent N-nitroso compounds in hot dog links prepared in our laboratory fell as increasing levels of sodium erythorbate were included in the hot dog links.” …”
“… If the level of N-nitroso compounds was an important cause of colon cancer, “the drop in N-nitroso compound content caused by the mandated changes in processed meat should have been accompanied by a drop in the incidence of colon cancer,” Mirvish said.”
You said:
“It compares eating two slices of bacon a day to a full blown smoking habit that may consist of over a pack a day. Most people eat far more meat per day than 2 slices of bacon. The WHO found a dose dependent response between meat and cancer.”
Good point. Looks like he missed the forest for the trees on that one.
Keep in mind, though, that he’s granting an unlikely premise so that he can make the point that the alarmists fail on their own terms:
“Before we get into the study, it should be noted that there is debate over the efficacy of many food studies, which is acknowledged by researchers. This study relied on what’s known as food frequency questionnaires to determine people’s diets. Can you accurately recall what you ate last week? How about last month? These questionnaires often require people to recall their diets for the last year, which can understandably lead to all sorts of accuracy issues. (Did I eat red meat 3 times a week or 5?!) …”
“… Researchers try to control for these things, but the data can still be questioned. That being said, these studies are often the best scientists can go on, so in this case we’ll take the WHO data as gospel and proceed.”
That article you’re citing from came from an AACR press release. The release goes on to say that the drop in colon cancer death rates, “may have been due mostly to earlier detection and better treatment of this disease.”
We know with total certainty that nitrosamines cause cancer in numerous animal studies. Obviously it would be unethical to directly test this in humans. When we look at a review of the available data on nitrosamines, we see a positive association between gastric and esophageal cancer.
“The present results support the hypothesis that NOC intake may be positively associated with CRC risk in humans. Vitamin E, which inhibits nitrosation, could modify the effect of NDMA on CRC risk.”
“In conclusion, the present study showed an important role played by certain hot food items, mainly boiled red meat and mate consumption. Also, raw vegetables and citrus fruits were found to be strongly protective. Finally, tea intake was also strongly and inversely associated with risk of squamous cell oesophageal cancer”
“The present study demonstrates that exposure to nitrate, a precursor of N-nitroso compounds, may increase the risk of gastric cancer among individuals without a history of H. pylori infection.”
“Conclusion The findings suggest that processed and red meats may be involved in the aetiology of pancreatic cancer. As the associations are related to consumption before the age of 60 years, these meats may influence the development of precursor lesions for pancreatic cancer, such as pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanINs). The effects of white meat are uncertain. Processed and red meat intakes should be measured in aetiological studies, and reducing intake could reduce the incidence of pancreatic cancer.”
“Results of this study are consistent with a role of dietary sources of NOC precursors from processed meats in bladder cancer risk, suggesting consumption of meats with high amine and heme content such as salami and liver as a risk factor for bladder cancer. In addition, any effect of consuming these meats may be greater when accompanied by high nitrate intake.”
“Our findings suggest that high consumption of red meat and processed meat may increase risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. Added nitrite and heme iron may partly contribute to these observed associations. ”
And on and on and on.
So keep quoting your junkscience website, because that what it is. Junk science.
“We know with total certainty that nitrosamines cause cancer in numerous animal studies. Obviously it would be unethical to directly test this in humans.”
I think this means that it hasn’t been proven in humans.
But don’t put it beyond the government to try something like that, though. The EPA did secret human experiments:
MSM whitewashes EPA human experiments scandal, totally ignoring the central issues
[www]http://junkscience.com/2015/02/msm-whitewashes-epa-human-experiments-scandal-totally-ignoring-the-central-issues/
“Speaking to Lancet TV, Professor Gale said, “If you give something a name, you imply an entity; you imply that this thing actually exists. In practice, when somebody like myself talks about Type 2 diabetes, I’m saying ‘a form of diabetes for which I can find no other cause’. In other words, it’s a diagnosis of exclusion…There are various conditions, spectrums, and severities of diseases, all wrapped into this one definition.” [1]”
If you eat two slices of bacon for breakfast (50 g) a 1/4 burger for lunch (113 g) and a 8 oz steak for dinner (227 g), that adds up to nearly 400 grams of meat per day. That’s not an uncommon amount in western society. The average meat consumption per capita in the US is 335 grams per day. Of course, women and children eat far less, so the average meat consumption for an adult male is probably around 400 grams per day.
Of course, that’s just meat. That doesn’t count dairy and egg consumption, which have also been show to be carcinogenic. Taken in total, it’s no wonder that cancer rates have skyrocketed over the last century. Meat consumption has doubled since the 1970s, while cancer rates have more than doubled.
MS is trolling (RPM didn’t even discuss the paleo diet in his interview), but egg yolks and poultry products are believed to increase the risk of fatal prostate cancer due to choline content. Nature’s little joke is that choline is a necessary nutrient, but the more you eat, the more dangerous that inevitable prostate cancer becomes. Like everything else, you weigh the good against the bad and make your subjective valuation when choosing your diet.
If you’re an artist eating a vegan diet and riding a motorcycle (or bicycle in an urban area), you still have high time preference re: mortality relative to the guy in the minivan who has good insurance, eats a few eggs a week, and goes to a nice, safe gym to exercise.
Awesome bit related to the show note, “The importance of the ability to “opt out” [32:30]”:
“Everybody’s fallible. There’s nothing magical about having experts go work for the FDA that all of a sudden now they can evaluate pharmaceuticals better than people in the private sector.
“And so the issue was just which system is more likely to produce better results over time. And in most other areas we recognize if there’s a monopoly, and just one group that has little accountability, then you’re going to expect them to do a bad job.
“Whereas if there’s open entry, and there’s different competing groups that can offer, for example, recommendations about whether this particular technique is safe or not, well then that’s going to give consumers more choice.”
Do you have the link to the private watchdog group, “Worst Pills, Best Pills”?
It’s really unfortunate to hear that you’ve been sucked into the primal hype by people like Sisson. The studies that support the paleo diet are sham studies, typically funded by the meat and dairy industry. For example, of the 23 studies listed on Authority Nutrition’s website that imply a low carb diet is superior to a low fat diet for weight loss, 90% of them used a “low fat” diet of 25-30% fat content. The standard American diet (SAD) consists of 35% fat. So all they did was shave 5% off, which is a complete joke. Not a single one of those studies compared a low carb diet to a vegan low fat high carb diet of around 10% fat. Because if they did, they wouldn’t get the pre-determined results they were looking for.
When people are put on a low fat high carb vegan diet, they completely reverse type 2 diabetes, they stop or reverse coronary artery disease, and some studies have even show such a diet to reverse cancer. Vegan diets have also been found to be superior to low carb diets when it comes to weight loss.
The WHO came out the other day saying that processed meat causes cancer. They also said red meat “probably” causes cancer. Really? “Probably?” Cooked meat contains carcinogenic heterocyclic amines. Grilled meat contains carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. All meat contains carcinogenic bacterial endotoxins that remain no matter how the meat is cooked. All meat produces secondary bile acids that alter gut bacteria that end up producing carcinogenic compounds. All meat and dairy raise IGF-1 levels, which is key to virtually all types of cancers. Only vegans have normal IGF-1 levels, so eating a vegetarian diet will not make much of a difference. Only animal based proteins have been shown to significantly raise IGF-1 levels, while plant proteins have no significant effect.
Further, dairy is loaded with the protein casein, which is highly carcinogenic. Meat and dairy are also extremely high in sulfur containing amino acids, which not only promote cancer growth, but also make people’s body odor far worse than it need be. Oh, and the heme iron found in meat has also been linked to cancer.
I could go on listing the carcinogenic qualities of meat and dairy for hours. I haven’t even touched on the use of Zeranol or other potent carcinogenic growth hormones used in the meat industry. There have been hundreds of studies done that show a link between meat consumption and many different kinds of cancer, not just colon cancer. Eating meat really is no different than smoking.
If you want to learn the truth about diet, I suggest you start by watching these lectures by Dr. Michael Greger. Every year he reads through all of the nutrition journals and complies all the latest data into an annual lecture that summarizes all the key findings. You’re a decent man, I’d hate to see you die an early death because you got hoodwinked.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgkc99yZePcAjf15eSDSYhuTd_dY4MmZh
Death by cancer, or death by shooting myself? Hmmm.
Just kidding.
Got my rice-cakes ready for the health-nut fight that’s about to ensue.
Heads up, health-nuts:
No… processed meat is not linked with bowel cancer
http://junkscience.com/2015/10/no-processed-meat-is-not-linked-with-bowel-cancer/
“NO! When the size of an epidemiologic correlation is small (i.e., relative risks on the order of 2.0 and smaller), that means that there is no credible evidence that there is even an effect at all. This is basic epidemiology. Shocking that so-called “experts” don’t understand this.”
LOL
Here’s some research for you to refute:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/9/2390.short
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/12/906.short
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199012133232404
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/10/5/439.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910490408/pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.10126/pdf
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01830725
http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040325
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/em.20030/abstract
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/5/345.short
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/6/2406.short
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/6/2406.short
As screw it. About 327,000 studies were returned from a google scholar search of “meat cancer”
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=meat+cancer&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
See for yourself.
did you go through all of them and check if they show the result you say they do??
IF there were studies that show the opposite of your claim I am pretty sure you would find them by searching for “meat cancer” as well.
Yes. I’ve gone over hundreds of papers. They all say the same thing. Meat causes cancer. At best, you can find a few papers that say meat has no impact on certain kinds of cancers, but I’ve never seen a paper that says people who eat meat have a lower incidence of cancers.
You can find many epidemiological papers, as well as many papers looking at the toxicity of various components of meat, such as the heme iron and heterocyclic amines, that describe in great detail exactly how meat causes cancer.
The WHO report that came out looked at over 800 papers before reaching their conclusion on meat. Those papers included epidemiological studies, as well as direct evidence. At this point, there is the same amount of evidence that meat causes cancer as there is for cigarettes.
I have searched for “cancer meat” on google scholar and THE FIRST PAPER that came up was this:
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/11965521
I only read the first page btw.
I am not saying you are wrong- I do not know enough about this topics to decide one wy ore the other.
But to say “As screw it. About 327,000 studies were returned from a google scholar search of “meat cancer” ” and pretend that all of them support your claim is pretty dishonest.
Congratulations. You managed to find one correspondence letter written by one guy from 2002 that ultimately says meat doesn’t show either a positive or negative effect for colon cancer.
Meanwhile, you’ve managed to ignore the other 300,000 papers on the subject.
Oh, one other thing. That paper wasn’t at the top of the results list the other day. I’d wager that hordes of desperate meat eaters have latched on to that study as a way to try and refute the WHO statements. That’s why it’s at the top of the list.
“But to say “As screw it. …”
Heh. Damned Speech-to-Text.
😀
Take a look at the lectures I linked in my OP. Greger cites several studies that show up to a 300% increased risk for certain cancers. The WHO report came out with the most conservative estimates possible. A Google Scholar search for “meat cancer” returns over 300,000 studies. Take a look for yourself.
“When the size of an epidemiologic correlation is small (i.e., relative risks on the order of 2.0 and smaller), that means that there is no credible evidence that there is even an effect at all”
Do you realise that Malloy has just dismissed a huge amount of scientific data with one unsupported statement? It is just noise. I would not take anything said there to be true without further checking.
The BBC article puts in perspective “19% of all cancers caused by tobacco compared to 3% of all cancers ascribed to red or processed meat.”
“The studies that support the paleo diet are sham studies, typically funded by the meat and dairy industry.”
Check it:
Long-time anti-meat vegetarian activist-researcher on WHO meat-cancer panel
http://junkscience.com/2015/10/long-time-anti-meat-vegetarian-activist-researcher-on-who-meat-cancer-panel/
“I’ve been writing about National Cancer Institute’s meat-hating vegetarian Rashmi Sinha since 2000. …”
“… She’s been attacking meat since at least 1994.”
The USDA food guideline committee was successfully sued by the Physicians Committee on Responsible Medicine for failing to disclose conflicting interests.
If you want to see some real conflict of interests, look here. Simply being a vegetarian doesn’t mean a person has a conflict of interest, it simply means they are smart.
https://www.pcrm.org/sites/default/files/images/gm/springsummer2011/GoodMedicineSpring-Summer2011.pdf
” Simply being a vegetarian doesn’t mean a person has a conflict of interest, it simply means they are smart.”
And that’s my point.
Simply funding a study because it’s in the meat and dairy industrys’ interests to protect their images, *whether or not* they were hiding the dangers of their products, also doesn’t mean there is a conflict of interest.
It means you’re just trying to make a profit.
The two are not the same. Being a vegitarian because the science says eating meat may give you cancer, heart disease, diabetes, stroke, Alzheimer’s, erectile dysfunction, sciatica, atherosclerosis, cataracts, etc.. etc.. etc.. doesn’t come with any financial motivation to lie.
On the other hand, if I work for the meat industry and I’m doing research that may undermine the meat industry, I’m more likely to lie about the results of any studies I may produce.
See the difference? One has no financial motivation, while the other most certainly does. That’s why all this absurd studies are being published that use disingenuous dietary protocols, like the 23 studies cited on Authority Nutrition’s website that I mentioned earlier.
“The two are not the same. Being a vegitarian because the science says eating meat may give you cancer, heart disease, diabetes, stroke, Alzheimer’s, erectile dysfunction, sciatica, atherosclerosis, cataracts, etc.. etc.. etc.. doesn’t come with any financial motivation to lie.”
I agree with that. But that is not the only reason to be vegitarian.
All the vegitarians and vegans I know don´t eat meat for ideological reasons.
Even if that’s true, there’s still no financial motivation.
Think about this in reverse terms. Wouldn’t a scientist who eats meat be more biased in favor of saying that meat doesn’t cause cancer? Most people love to eat meat.
At this point, there are more scientists who eat meat saying meat causes cancer than there are vegetarian scientists who say meat causes cancer.
If only one scientist on the WHO panel is vegetarian, what must the others be?
Why did you start your comment with “even if that is true”?
I am not saying we should not trust a study because one of the researchers does not eat meat. I am saying that it is certainly possible that a vegan who thinks animals have a soul and eating meat is MURDER might not be unbiased in their research.
I don´t think someone who likes eating meat is quite as religious about it.
“See the difference? One has no financial motivation, while the other most certainly does.”
Having a commie agenda is yet another possible source of a conflict of interest.
The WHO is part of the UN – subsidized by multiple governments, so yeah, huge financial motivation possible there, too – so it would be in their interest to use anti-capitalist-leaning folks for both of these reasons.
(Vegans don’t have to be commies to share a kind of anti-capitalist agenda with them. The Vegan agenda is helpful to the commie agenda.)
Doesn’t prove anything, though.
It’s funny that you mention commies in conjunction with vegitarians, because ironically the meat industry is the largest beneficiary of government subsidies. Without government subsidizing corn, soy, school lunch programs and healthcare, meat would be exponentially more expensive to consume that it presently is. This is why poor countries don’t consume much meat. They can’t afford it because the government doesn’t subsidize its production.
It’s true that the government shouldn’t be subsidizing anything.
But as the Pilgrims’ experience teaches, the profit motive results in increased production, and therefore lower prices, not the other way around, the way you believe.
Yes, it would be more expensive immediately after subsidies were taken away, but then, rather than putting subsidized corn syrup in our sodas, we would simply import cheap sugar from Mexico.
Regarding health care, it’s actually the subsidies that make health care so expensive that people need insurance to pay for it.
Tom Woods just interviewed a health care guy who has reduced some costs by 95% because he escaped some government regulations.
Regarding meat, in the Great Depression, Roosevelt killed pigs specifically to raise their price so that farms that were less productive than the more capital-intensive ones could stay in business.
So, get rid of the farm subsidies, and entrepreneurial ones will have the monetary incentive to produce enough for far more people.
Add competition, and the result will be lower meat prices.
Crony capitalism is bad, but there’s nothing wrong with the profit motive, per se.
I must have missed the bit where Bob made a big deal over diet in that podcast. I thought the idea of freedom was that you can eat what you want and so can I. Neither of us need have a Michelle Obama lunch shoved in our face.
Speaking for myself, I used to eat a big fish and chips lunch, drink plenty of beer and wine, eat heaps of rice, mashed potatoes, cheesy pasta bake (which is excellent food BTW easy to cook and great to eat) and before 30 I could do all that and remain very thin, after 30 I had to face the fact I wasn’t in such good shape any more.
Now I eat a meat pie for lunch (usually the big $6 meat pie from the French lady, containing identifiable meat, but if I’m feeling cheap the $3 meat pie from the Asian shop containing don’t ask where now and then you have to chew very hard) and it’s pretty much as satisfying, with more red meat and less carbs. I always go for a walj after lunch. I tend to drink spirits now instead of beer (takes a fair bit to get me drunk, and beer is just carbs in a bottle). I also force myself to eat greater meat variety than before like straight fried liver (actually tastes good if you can get fresh liver, but that’s more difficult than it sounds) and I can recommend Chinese shank and tendon soup (acquired taste, glues your lips together) or boiled honeycomb tripe with bacon (only difficult the first time).
What I’ve found is I’m in better shape, with more energy, and I used to dread the idea of doing push ups but now it’s actually pretty easy and no big deal.
To be fair I should point out that when younger I figured that taking vitamins was stupid and my diet was perfectly adequate. Later I changed my mind about that, on the basis that modern technology provides us with cheap diet supplements at the supermarket, and the risk of taking a few extra is small, while the potential benefits are great. I take zinc, vit-C, fish oils, glucosamine, magnesium, potassiun, and a little bit of trace elements selenium, manganese, etc. Very difficult to be sure exactly what is helping, but overall I do feel healthier.
I would not classify myself as “Paleo” because cavemen never had rum nor vitamins, I’m certainly not offended by technology, but some things I do might fit that overall “Paleo” worldview. I do try fasting for a day now and then, or at least 12 hours if a whole day is too difficult. First few times it’s incredibly difficult but it’s a learned skill and I think the body adapts. From a paleo perspective primitive humans would have fasted from necessity and eaten a seasonal diverse diet, then again they also tended to die a lot younger.
Finally, I spent about a year working from home and not mingling with the commuter crowds everyday and that made a massive difference in terms of getting sick with whatever came from the airport this week. Now (sadly) I’m back on the train for the 9-5 grind and I’m catching crap again, which I think has nothing to do with diet either. I can say I’m weighing my options right now in this regard.
All I can say is that you’re putting yourself at great risk with the meat consumption. I went vegan about a year ago and I had a radical improvement in my health. I dropped 30 lbs down to a normal BMI, my energy increased, my total cholesterol dropped below 150, my triglycerides massively dropped, and my manhood works way better than it used to.
I put my mom on a vegan diet and she dropped 30 lbs, her blood sugar dropped to the point where she went off all her diabetes medication, went off all her heart medication, her arthritis went away, and her energy levels improved.
I’m not making this up. These radical improvements are completely normal and expected when people begin eating a vegan diet. Go watch “Forks Over Knives” on Netflix along with those lectures I posted.
In terms of the manhood thing, for me the zinc supplements and trace elements made, shall we say, a substantial improvement (not that I was planning for that, because I’d never noticed there was an issue, consider it more of a side effect).
I’m just putting forward the theory here that your vegan diet merely pushed you onto a more diverse intake which filled in some gaps. That’s not a bad thing by any means, but technology and industry can fill the same gaps at the supermarket on aisle 5, probably with a lot less effort, maybe even at a lower cost.
If you value your health, you should watch the videos I mentioned.
“In terms of the manhood thing, for me the zinc supplements and trace elements made, shall we say, a substantial improvement ”
reminds of the woman complaining on the morning after the wedding night. “My husband had a dozen oysters, but only ten of the worked.”
YAWN. Another vegan on his high-horse. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
If watching my own mother cure herself of diabetes is me getting on my “high-horse”, I guess I’m guilty as charged.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
“Eating meat really is no different than smoking.”
Oh, snap! This one from a new blog that Tom Woods promoted the other day:
Is Bacon as Harmful as Cigarettes?
http://memepoliceman.com/is-bacon-as-harmful-as-cigarettes/
“This meme mentions that bacon has the same cancer risks as cigarettes, which is extremely misleading, as we’ll see. …”
“… It should be clear from this list that the grouping isn’t particularly relevant when deciding if something is dangerous or not. A nuclear bomb detonation, cigarettes and contraceptives are all in Group 1, but have vastly different impacts on cancer. The groupings are only viewing the strength of evidence, not the level of danger. …”
“… To Vegan Street’s credit, after some complaints they did put forth another meme (shown to the right) that’s not quite as misleading, but still relies on the ignorance of the viewer about carcinogen categories and absolute risk. It currently only has about 1/10 the likes and shares of the first one. …”
The new meme/ad reads: “The World Health Organization has determined that eating processed meats is in the same category of cancer risk as smoking cigarettes.”
The older, more misleading one read: “The World Health Organization has determined that eating processed meats is as much of a cancer risk as smoking cigarettes.”
I think it’s important that we attack memes rather than address the 800 studies the WHO used to make it’s determination about the carcinogenic qualities of meat.
A single hot dog has the same level of nitrosamines as 5 cigarettes. The article you cite is also misleading. It compares eating two slices of bacon a day to a full blown smoking habit that may consist of over a pack a day. Most people eat far more meat per day than 2 slices of bacon. The WHO found a dose dependent response between meat and cancer.
If you only smoked 5 cigarettes a day or only ate 2 pieces of bacon, your cancer risk is going to be similar. Of course, that’s not how most people smoke or eat. Most people smoke constantly and most people eat meat constantly and in far greater quantities than two slices of bacon.
“I think it’s important that we attack memes rather than address the 800 studies …”
Which is how meme-attacking is done.
“A single hot dog has the same level of nitrosamines as 5 cigarettes.”
Did hot dogs cause colon cancer?
http://junkscience.com/2011/10/did-hot-dogs-cause-colon-cancer/
October of 20011
“The addition of ascorbate (vitamin C) or its close relative, erythorbate, and the reduced amount of nitrite added in hot dogs, mandated in 1978, have been accompanied by a steep drop in the death rate from colon cancer, according to data presented at the 10th AACR International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research, held Oct. 22-25, 2011.
“However, the incidence rate for colon cancer has apparently not changed much since 1978, according to 2011 data from the SEER Cancer Statistics Review from the National Cancer Institute. …”
“… “We found that the level of total apparent N-nitroso compounds in hot dog links prepared in our laboratory fell as increasing levels of sodium erythorbate were included in the hot dog links.” …”
“… If the level of N-nitroso compounds was an important cause of colon cancer, “the drop in N-nitroso compound content caused by the mandated changes in processed meat should have been accompanied by a drop in the incidence of colon cancer,” Mirvish said.”
You said:
“It compares eating two slices of bacon a day to a full blown smoking habit that may consist of over a pack a day. Most people eat far more meat per day than 2 slices of bacon. The WHO found a dose dependent response between meat and cancer.”
Good point. Looks like he missed the forest for the trees on that one.
Keep in mind, though, that he’s granting an unlikely premise so that he can make the point that the alarmists fail on their own terms:
“Before we get into the study, it should be noted that there is debate over the efficacy of many food studies, which is acknowledged by researchers. This study relied on what’s known as food frequency questionnaires to determine people’s diets. Can you accurately recall what you ate last week? How about last month? These questionnaires often require people to recall their diets for the last year, which can understandably lead to all sorts of accuracy issues. (Did I eat red meat 3 times a week or 5?!) …”
“… Researchers try to control for these things, but the data can still be questioned. That being said, these studies are often the best scientists can go on, so in this case we’ll take the WHO data as gospel and proceed.”
That article you’re citing from came from an AACR press release. The release goes on to say that the drop in colon cancer death rates, “may have been due mostly to earlier detection and better treatment of this disease.”
We know with total certainty that nitrosamines cause cancer in numerous animal studies. Obviously it would be unethical to directly test this in humans. When we look at a review of the available data on nitrosamines, we see a positive association between gastric and esophageal cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4087738/
There have been several recent case control studies that demonstrate the carcinogenic qualities of nitrosamines:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9197939&fileId=S0007114513003462
“The present results support the hypothesis that NOC intake may be positively associated with CRC risk in humans. Vitamin E, which inhibits nitrosation, could modify the effect of NDMA on CRC risk.”
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eduardo_De_Stefani/publication/261880651_Diet_Patterns_and_Risk_of_Squamous_Cell_Oesophageal_Carcinoma_A_Case-control_Study_in_Uruguay/links/540da0040cf2df04e755609d.pdf
“In conclusion, the present study showed an important role played by certain hot food items, mainly boiled red meat and mate consumption. Also, raw vegetables and citrus fruits were found to be strongly protective. Finally, tea intake was also strongly and inversely associated with risk of squamous cell oesophageal cancer”
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117326
“The present study demonstrates that exposure to nitrate, a precursor of N-nitroso compounds, may increase the risk of gastric cancer among individuals without a history of H. pylori infection.”
http://gut.bmj.com/content/64/Suppl_1/A302.1.abstract
“Conclusion The findings suggest that processed and red meats may be involved in the aetiology of pancreatic cancer. As the associations are related to consumption before the age of 60 years, these meats may influence the development of precursor lesions for pancreatic cancer, such as pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanINs). The effects of white meat are uncertain. Processed and red meat intakes should be measured in aetiological studies, and reducing intake could reduce the incidence of pancreatic cancer.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.28331/full
“Results of this study are consistent with a role of dietary sources of NOC precursors from processed meats in bladder cancer risk, suggesting consumption of meats with high amine and heme content such as salami and liver as a risk factor for bladder cancer. In addition, any effect of consuming these meats may be greater when accompanied by high nitrate intake.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.29901/abstract
“Our findings suggest that high consumption of red meat and processed meat may increase risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. Added nitrite and heme iron may partly contribute to these observed associations. ”
And on and on and on.
So keep quoting your junkscience website, because that what it is. Junk science.
“We know with total certainty that nitrosamines cause cancer in numerous animal studies. Obviously it would be unethical to directly test this in humans.”
I think this means that it hasn’t been proven in humans.
But don’t put it beyond the government to try something like that, though. The EPA did secret human experiments:
MSM whitewashes EPA human experiments scandal, totally ignoring the central issues
[www]http://junkscience.com/2015/02/msm-whitewashes-epa-human-experiments-scandal-totally-ignoring-the-central-issues/
Also, correlation doesn’t necessarily equal causation.
“So keep quoting your junkscience website, because that what it is. Junk science.”
OK. You might find this one interesting (Off topic):
Does Type 2 diabetes really exist?
http://junkscience.com/2013/05/does-type-2-diabetes-really-exist/
“Speaking to Lancet TV, Professor Gale said, “If you give something a name, you imply an entity; you imply that this thing actually exists. In practice, when somebody like myself talks about Type 2 diabetes, I’m saying ‘a form of diabetes for which I can find no other cause’. In other words, it’s a diagnosis of exclusion…There are various conditions, spectrums, and severities of diseases, all wrapped into this one definition.” [1]”
If you eat two slices of bacon for breakfast (50 g) a 1/4 burger for lunch (113 g) and a 8 oz steak for dinner (227 g), that adds up to nearly 400 grams of meat per day. That’s not an uncommon amount in western society. The average meat consumption per capita in the US is 335 grams per day. Of course, women and children eat far less, so the average meat consumption for an adult male is probably around 400 grams per day.
Of course, that’s just meat. That doesn’t count dairy and egg consumption, which have also been show to be carcinogenic. Taken in total, it’s no wonder that cancer rates have skyrocketed over the last century. Meat consumption has doubled since the 1970s, while cancer rates have more than doubled.
Eggs are dangerous, *again*! Sheesh.
MS is trolling (RPM didn’t even discuss the paleo diet in his interview), but egg yolks and poultry products are believed to increase the risk of fatal prostate cancer due to choline content. Nature’s little joke is that choline is a necessary nutrient, but the more you eat, the more dangerous that inevitable prostate cancer becomes. Like everything else, you weigh the good against the bad and make your subjective valuation when choosing your diet.
If you’re an artist eating a vegan diet and riding a motorcycle (or bicycle in an urban area), you still have high time preference re: mortality relative to the guy in the minivan who has good insurance, eats a few eggs a week, and goes to a nice, safe gym to exercise.
Because trying to inform people of risks associated with animal product consumption is trolling.
Ornish was able to reverse prostate cancer with a vegan diet.
http://ornishspectrum.com/wp-content/uploads/Intensive_Lifestyle_Changes_and_Prostate_Cancer.pdf