How does red meat cause cancer?

[PainInTheAss]

Obesity runs in my family so I have always had to eat carefully because I gain weight so easily. So, purely in the interest of low fat eating, I stopped eating red meat, pork, processed meat (I've always hated processed meats like hot dogs and salami, so this was nothing new), and fried foods when I was around 30. I also avoided carbs, excercized daily and used supplements in my late thirties and early forties. I'm just scratching my head. I followed a blog when I was first diagnosed by an early thirties vegan who also couldn't see any connection with her diet and her cancer. I've eaten so many salads in my lifetime, sometimes I'm just sick of lettuce.

Needless to say, I was pretty mad that I ended up with rectal cancer when all my red meat, fried butter loving friends and relatives are cancer free. Granted, my blood pressure and cholesterol are normal and I bet I don't have a trace if arteriosclerosis, but still! I lost a lot of weight during treatment so I was in the enviable position of having to gain weight ON PURPOSE! And, boy am I good at that! I ate more steak in two years than I have in 20. I was not worried at all in any risk of cancer. If red meat caused cancer, everybody in America would have it.

I am now back at my pre-symptom weight and now back to avoiding red meat, pork, processed meat and fried foods simply because I don't want to gain any more weight.

[RickWhosoever]

As a member of PETA (people eating tasty animals), I won't be giving up red meat any time soon. How often have we heard eating this or that is bad for you only to a different study come out a few years later disproving the first study? I think that moderation is the key, but your mileage may vary.

[plastikos]

I love my red meat and processed meat as much as the next guy. My opinion is that in everything moderation is key. That being said since my recent recurrence I have made a conscious but not so easy decision to give up red/processed meat entirely (I didnt after my first surgery and chemo).

Why did I decide to give it up? Truthfully I can live without it. For those of you who cant then by all means enjoy your steak or bacon. Giving up red meat will also make my wife happy and help her sleep better at night. She has been pleading with me to do so. Considering the hell she's been through since I was diagnosed I want to give that to her. It all boils down to personal decisions. But the way I see it, at least in my case, is its "game time" so I decided to put my "game face" on. Its "do or die", "sink or swim"... whatever. Giving up red/processed meat is a small price to pay if it'll give me even a small theoretical advantage of beating this cancer and seeing my kids grow up. My 2 cents.

[RickWhosoever]

"Happy wife, happy life"

[weisssoccermom]

I didn't read the links so forgive me if I am stating something that is incorrect in the very new studies. If memory serves me correctly, all the recent studies (not including any 'new' ones) have studied excessive red meat consumption...consumption of more than 18 - 20 ounces a week on a WEEKLY basis. Now, I love my hamburgers and steak and am NOT about to give them up but seriously people 20 ounces of red meat a week is not just a small amount of meat. I eat a 4 ounce Kansas City Steak Filet....nice sized portion, IMO. To be in what the studies classify as an 'at risk' population, I would have to be eating at least 5 of these steaks a week. Seriously, who eats FIVE nights worth of hamburger/steak/tips/roast each and every week? Heck, red meat nowadays is so dang expensive....who can afford it? It is really annoying that the titles of these studies/articles only sensationalize one aspect of the study without quantifying everything. Yes, EXCESSIVE read meat consumption may be linked to colon cancer....heck, being around smoke and/or smoking is a 'risk factor' for lung cancer...doesn't mean that you will get it if you smoke. Excessive drinking is a risk factor for liver cancer and/or pancreatic cancer. Eating anything in excess is probably a risk factor for a plethora of different diseases.

The flaws in these studies simply show a common denominator for people who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer. What they don't show and, quite frankly can't show, are all the people who DO eat excessive amounts of red meat and have no higher risk for colorectal cancer than the average person. Life is too short to be thinking about all these so called risk factors. Heck, if you want a steak....by all means, have a steak. If you want a 'forbidden' hot dog...screw it...have the dang hot dog and ENJOY!

I'll be totally honest. I still enjoy my weekly steak and will continue to do so, regardless of any silly study. If the cost of the stuff would come down, I would have at least TWO (OMG!!!) steaks a week and really wouldn't give a darn what any study supposedly says. Just my opinion.

[Jachut]

I suspect there's also a strong association between red and processed mean consumption and other unhealthy dietary/lifestyle practises that influences the thinking that red mean causes cancer.

Many people that live very healthy lifestyles eat red meat of course. But many people that eat a LOT of red meat live pretty unhealthy lifestyles and I'd say people that eat a lot of processed meat do the same. The only people I know who are openly gluttonous over a steak will go back for seconds, along with a couple of beers and a cigarette or ten as well. Its just not something the people who try to be healthy really do.

While of course, I eat red meat sparingly and never eat processed meats (because I hate even the thought of manufactured meat "products", ick) and I got rectal cancer!

All things in moderation.

[ticktock10]

I got sent an email by Cancer Research UK on this topic and it's one of the most sensible things I've read.

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org ... d-to-know/

The article includes some really good quotes and diagrams. My favourite is below:

>As Professor Phillips explains, “IARC does ‘hazard identification’, not ‘risk assessment’.
>
>“That sounds quite technical, but what it means is that IARC isn’t in the business of telling us how potent something is in causing cancer – only whether it does so or not”, he says.
>
>To take an analogy, think of banana skins. They definitely can cause accidents, explains Phillips, but in practice this doesn’t happen very often (unless you work in a banana factory). And >the sort of harm you can come to from slipping on a banana skin isn’t generally as severe as, say, being in a car accident.

>But under a hazard identification system like IARC’s, ‘banana skins’ and ‘cars’ would come under the same category – they both definitely do cause accidents.

[Annemiek]

Thanks ticktock, I think this sort of comes closest to what I was looking for, the internal mechanisms inside the colon what is causing the cells to mutate. They just don't know yet. But if this below is true it seems that it is chemicals in the meat itself.
I am curious if this would mean once you have mutated cells, will they return faster?
Still, this risk of getting colon cancer is really small, 17% x really small is still really small.. so a steak once a week should be fine in my humble non science based opinion.

Bugs me though, all the media hype around it, cancer still seems to one of the remaining taboo's of out time, hence all the humbug around it.

Annemiek



How does red and processed meat cause cancer?

Researchers are still trying to pin down exactly how red and processed meat cause cells to become cancerous, but the main culprits seem to be certain chemicals found in the meat itself.

In red meat, the problems seem to start when a chemical called haem – part of the red pigment in the blood, haemoglobin – is broken down in our gut to form a family of chemicals called N-nitroso compounds. These have been found to damage the cells that line the bowel, so other cells in the bowel lining have to replicate more in order to heal. And it’s this ‘extra’ replication that can increase the chance of errors developing in the cells’ DNA – the first step on the road to cancer.

On top of this, processed red meats contain chemicals that generate N-nitroso compounds in the gut, such as nitrite preservatives.

Cooking meat at high temperatures, such as grilling or barbequing, can also create chemicals in the meat that may increase the risk of cancer. These chemicals are generally produced in higher levels in red and processed meat compared to other meats.

But there are other theories too – some research has suggested that the iron in red meat could play a role, while others suggest the bacteria in the gut might play a supporting role too.

So despite what you may hear, it isn’t about the quality of the meat, or whether it’s from the local butcher or your supermarket. The evidence so far suggests that it’s probably the processing of the meat, or chemicals naturally present within it, that increases cancer risk.

[Nik Colon]

Sorry, didn't read all the posts, but like many other things, it's a small % that it can lead to cancer. So, imo, just live and enjoy life, anyone can get cancer, it's your personal body and how it works. There are people who don't smoke that get lung cancer, others who do eat right and get colon cancer. Etc. Like most say, everything in moderation is best. No need to not enjoy life because no one knows for sure. And look at the health nuts who get cancer, I'm sure they are the most pissed! So I say, live your life and enjoy it while you are here cuz we never know. If not cancer it could be a car accident, etc. Life is short (if you look at it in terms of time past and future, never ending) so enjoy the little time you have.

To add, I have very little family history of cancer. No lung cancer and roughly 90% smoked (no colon cancer either). My dad still does at 72 almost died a few times, the last a ruptured aortic anurism which he should have, smoked since around 10, so about 60 yrs, never any lung issues. My mom started right after I was born around 30, quit once, started again, non smoker now for many years, has bronchial asthma and other issues, actually better when she smoked. None of my family have ever been health nuts. The closest is my sis, never smoked, drinks occasionally and has had more health issues than most of my family. So, how does that add up? All the people in my family who did all the wrong things had less issues and most lived longer than those who were healthier.

My theory (yeah, it may sound stupid to some) is that like developing an immunity, so those not immune to the bad things turned out to get the problems.

Look at people today (including my daughter). When I was a kid, there were rarely allergies, etc, now it's common. Did you hear much about asthma or food allergies? No. That's my point. I think if we would introduce our kids and others to toxins at a young age they may not develop allergies, etc. Remember when parents would bring their kids on purpose around another with chicken pox to get it over with at a young age, now it's vaccines and such. I think by shielding people from these things we are hurting them in the long run as they don't development an immunity. Jmo

(Fyi, of course I still don't smoke around my daughter tho, just making a point)

[Ontario Guy]

Look at the health nuts who get cancer, I'm sure they are the most pissed!

On one of my many visits to the Cancer Centre in London, I witnessed a rant by a young woman who had breast cancer. She was, as you said, seriously pissed. To summarize her distress, she had done everything right: diet, exercise, a good attitude, you name it, - she had even run in the Race for the Cure - and here she was with lumps in her chest. By the time a staff member took her aside for a quiet talk, we all knew of her problems.

On one level, her complaint was justified. She had done everything popular culture had told her to do, and now her whole life had collapsed. What set her off - and who could blame her - was her boyfriend had left her that morning.

I have posted elsewhere that my cigarette smoking, beer drinking, steak eating, mainly sedentary older brother seems to sail through life with comparatively few health problems, whereas I have been fairly careful what I eat, stopped smoking 25 years ago, drink moderately, exercise daily, and I got rectal cancer. Perhaps oddly, I still think I'm better off but the evidence is against me: I'm the one with permanent neurological damage from chemo. I'm also the one who poops in a bag!

Best,

OG

[Nik Colon]

Look at the health nuts who get cancer, I'm sure they are the most pissed!

On one of my many visits to the Cancer Centre in London, I witnessed a rant by a young woman who had breast cancer. She was, as you said, seriously pissed. To summarize her distress, she had done everything right: diet, exercise, a good attitude, you name it, - she had even run in the Race for the Cure - and here she was with lumps in her chest. By the time a staff member took her aside for a quiet talk, we all knew of her problems.

On one level, her complaint was justified. She had done everything popular culture had told her to do, and now her whole life had collapsed. What set her off - and who could blame her - was her boyfriend had left her that morning.

I have posted elsewhere that my cigarette smoking, beer drinking, steak eating, mainly sedentary older brother seems to sail through life with comparatively few health problems, whereas I have been fairly careful what I eat, stopped smoking 25 years ago, drink moderately, exercise daily, and I got rectal cancer. Perhaps oddly, I still think I'm better off but the evidence is against me: I'm the one with permanent neurological damage from chemo. I'm also the one who poops in a bag!

Best,

OG

Cancer is truly unfair. That is NOT saying anyone should get it, just saying, it doesn't care who you are or what you have done. Cancer, in many ways, is like all "people" SHOULD be, indescriminate.

That woman has every right to be upset, but I guess it just showed her his true colors.

[radnyc]

In my opinion there are many reasons to limit red mead intake and consume mainly a vegetable based diet. The one thing that the WHO study and others doesn't point out is how the animals that we consume are fed and treated overall before they end up on a plate. Prior to 50 years ago most cows, pigs and chickens were fed natural, unprocessed, not chemically laced foods, or were grass-fed. Thera was also not so much spraying crops with powerful, deadly poisons. The stuff that we have been eating, for the last 50 years is no where near as clean and healthy. The fact is, and studies have shown it, that a MEDITERRANEAN diet, with little if any red meat is the healthiest to consume. Just look it up. The other reason, just as important in MY opinion is that how environmentally destructive that steak is. "Making one pound of beef for the table creates 17 times more water pollution and 20 times more habitat alteration than making its caloric equivalent in pasta."
(http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/stud ... 1203134490)

The other reason that I have against meat consumption is the HORRIFIC way these innocent animals are treated, this video of mistreatment at a Hormel processing plant in Texas is disgusting. It needs to be seen. If we are going to eat meat, then it's extremely important that we treat these wonderful sentient animals with the utmost COMPASSION. Here's the story with video, WARNING IT'S VERY GRAPHIC.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/qua ... bf3dee98f7

I apologize if anyone is offended, I know in the past some got were upset with the anti red meat opinions. I feel strongly about this.

[Nik Colon]

I'm soooo against animal crucify and have seen some horrific things. It's so sad and cruel!