[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ck/ - Food & Cooking

View post   
File: 91 KB, 732x549, 345345345.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16113068 No.16113068 [Reply] [Original]

Is the red meat = cancer meme or not?
I eat red meat on average about 2 to 3 times a week.
Should I cut down on it?

>> No.16113088

>>16113068
no, but it will make you grow tits because farmers load up their female animals with growth hormones to make them bigger & juicier, and you are what you eat

>> No.16113097

yes, read the literature

>> No.16113100

>>16113068
It does show to increase heart disease or whatever, but a lot of things increase cancer/heart disease risk.

Nutrition science is super wishy washy because it's all paid off by various food industries, so the best choice is everything in moderation.

If you have a family history of heart disease, maybe cut it down/out, otherwise you should be good.

>> No.16113106

>>16113100
>just enjoy the heckin moderation
reddit

>> No.16113107

>>16113068
2 or 3 times is fine. The cancer scare is a chance for those who eat massive portions of red meat every day. Just eat what you want in moderation and fuck the vegan scaremongers.

>> No.16113108

>>16113100
>moderation
no ty

just eat meat, who fucking cares human has eaten meat since the dawn of man

oy vey eat that vegan fake meat instead

>> No.16113114

>>16113088
you are a cock

>> No.16113125

>>16113088
You do realize you're probably more likely to eat a steer than a heifer, right?

>> No.16113127

>>16113114
yes, unironically. eating the penises of animals will give you highest concentration of male hormones which will make you a more virile and alpha male. it's also why women tend to eat chicken breasts more (but also weak inferior males)

>> No.16113152

>>16113068
Don't be this nigger >>16113100.
Just exercise a shit ton and don't eat sugar. The only reason why people are fat and unhealthy in the first place is because of sugar.

>> No.16113173
File: 40 KB, 500x484, 345345345.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16113173

>>16113152
>Just exercise a shit ton and don't eat sugar
...o...ok anon, I will don't worry...

>> No.16113209

>>16113068
When the who did their research on whether red meat was a carcinogen, out of the 29 studies published 15 said red meat was NOT carcinogenic, and 14 said it was. Keep in mind many of these studies involved rats and mice injected with known carcinogens before the trial began. We aren't rodents and we aren't injected with ass cancer so take that as you will.

What people have yet to explain is HOW red meat gives you ass cancer. Like how do the properties of muscle meat of a mammalian ruminant interact with the human colon to cause cancerous legions/growth.

>> No.16113271

>>16113068
These "studies" showing red meat and cancer are purely associational because they are epidemiological surveys with very small effect sizes. When the link was tested in actual clinical trials the biggest ones being the red heat heart disease link and the red meat colorectal cancer link they failed. So no there is no evidence showing red meat causes cancer or cardiovascular disease

>> No.16113292

>>16113068
it's only bad for cows and other herbivores like vegans. their unevolved stomach can't digest anything more nutritious than grass.

>> No.16113298

>>16113209
>What people have yet to explain is HOW red meat gives you ass cancer. Like how do the properties of muscle meat of a mammalian ruminant interact with the human colon to cause cancerous legions/growth.

I've been asking this same question for awhile now and havent found much.

From memory...
There is alot of speculation about nitrates becoming nitrites (I might have that reversed) in the colon, but I'm pretty sure that's related to cured meats.
And I honestly dont remember how solid the research regarding nitrites=carcinogen was and the weekend is too beautiful to bother atm.

>> No.16113308

>>16113152
Sugar doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics.

>> No.16113352

>>16113271
Why do you lie, fattie? It's not like someone's forcing you to eat meat.

>> No.16113359

>>16113352
to not*

>> No.16113362

>>16113308
no but it does contribute disproportionately to increasing serum triglycerides, liver fat, diabetes risk, etc..

>> No.16113367

>>16113271
>When the link was tested in actual clinical trials the biggest ones being the red heat heart disease link and the red meat colorectal cancer link they failed.
[Citation needed]

>>16113108
Have you heard of vegetables, lardass?

>> No.16113369

>>16113352
? lie about what im saying there is not good evidence showing red meat causes cancer but feel free to attempt to disprove me the only studies you will find are useless epidemiology that only show association like i said above

>> No.16113374

>>16113367
im not spoon feeding you ive posted the studies in dozens of these threads you can just google Minnesota Coronary Survey and Sydney Heart Study for the former and Polyp Prevention Trial and Womens Health Initiative for the latter

>> No.16113380

>>16113362
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5436961/
>RESULTS:
>Fifteen prospective cohort studies (251 261 unique participants, 16 416 cases) met the eligibility criteria, comparing the highest intake (median 137, 35.2 and 78 g/d) with the lowest intake (median 65, 9.7 and 25.8 g/d) of total sugars, fructose and sucrose, respectively. Although there was no association of total sugars (RR 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76–1.09) or fructose (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84–1.29) with type 2 diabetes, sucrose was associated with a decreased risk of type 2 diabetes (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80–0.98). Our confidence in the estimates was limited by evidence of serious inconsistency between studies for total sugars and fructose, and serious imprecision in the pooled estimates for all 3 sugar categories.

The fact that you fall for the sugar cahses diabetes meme instantly makes you lose credibility, fattie.

>> No.16113385

>>16113380
>Fifteen prospective cohort studies
literally outline why these studies cant show causation and only correlation posts the shitty epidemiology anyway

>> No.16113387 [DELETED] 

>>16113374
And you misrepresented both of the studies you cherrypicked.

>> No.16113393

>>16113369
The overwhelming body of research doesn't agree with your claim. You're a fringe cultist.

>> No.16113415

>>16113393
yes and it just so happens that ZERO of those are actual randomized clinical trials what a coincidence huh

>> No.16113440

>>16113387
false but whatever helps you sleep at night i guess

>> No.16113442

>>16113385
Let me know when you can post a study backing your claim. Until then, your mom-science-tier phobia of sugar won't work with me. Go do some yoga class, Brenda.

>> No.16113473

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2006/02/09/low-fat-diet-not-a-cure-all-womens-health-initiative/
>Some nutrition experts say that the WHI Dietary Modification Trial doesn’t really lay to rest the low-fat hypothesis because the women in the study only modestly lowered their fat, from 38% to 29%. Had they reached the trial’s target of 20%, benefits from the low-fat approach may have become more apparent, these nutritionists suggest.
>It is possible that the participants in the low-fat group may have actually overstated how much they reduced their fat intake. This has happened in other studies, as shown by comparisons between self-reported changes and biochemical measures of dietary change. Significant reductions in fat intake are usually reflected in a decrease in HDL (good) cholesterol and an increase in triglycerides. Yet in the WHI trial, there were no differences in blood levels of HDL cholesterol or triglycerides between the low-fat and usual diet groups. This casts doubt on the degree of fat reduction achieved in this study.
>Two other limitations of the trial are the study population and duration. The trial included women who were aged 50 to 79 years at the beginning of the trial. By this time in life, it may be too late for changes in diet to reduce risks of cancer and other chronic conditions. In addition, it takes years for the effects of dietary change to be seen, and so it is possible that eight years wasn’t enough time to see the true impact of a low-fat diet.

>> No.16113486

>>16113442
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16234313/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3200248/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19381015/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22205311/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21621801/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32670573/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29408694/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26499447/

Here are real clinical trials instead of the same shitty single epidemiological meta analysis that keeps getting reposted here by some sugar shills if you look thru above you will find both mechanistic and RCTs showing what I've stated

>> No.16113491

>>16113068
Dude, something, sooner or later, is bound to kill you.
Enjoy your red meat, as long as you can.

>> No.16113494

>>16113100
>everything in moderation
this. If everyone abided by this we'd all be healthy. Overindulgence leads to sickness in one way or the other.

>> No.16113517 [DELETED] 

>>16113473
thats some nice post hoc reasoning by the vegan shills

>> No.16113530

heres a review of all the clinical trials on red meat and cancer, heart disease, and mortality

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m19-0622

"evidence suggests that diets restricted in red meat may have little or no effect on major cardiometabolic outcomes and cancer mortality and incidence."

>> No.16113535

>>16113473
if a ~50k person multi hundred million dollar trial over 8 years can't show an effect the honest conclusion is that it is false or does not exist

>> No.16113537

>>16113486
I clicked on one of those (and it's on a paywall which shows you desperately searched for studies you didn't read) the first thing it says is
>Obesity and metabolic syndrome are strongly associated with cancer, and these disorders may share a common mechanism. Recently, fructose has emerged as a driving force to develop obesity and metabolic syndrome. Thus, we assume that fructose may be the mechanism to explain why obesity and metabolic syndrome are linked with cancer.
Literally blaming fructose for obesity. Stopped reading there.

>> No.16113543

>>16113537
literally one of the primary researchers responsible for working out fructose metabolism in ~2010 but go ahead and stick your head in the sand because you don't like the conclusions

>> No.16113562

>>16113486
Clicked on another one just because.
>Results: Reductions in diastolic blood pressure (-5 mmHg; P = 0.002), lactate (-0.3 mmol/L; P < 0.001), triglyceride, and LDL-cholesterol (-46% and -0.3 mmol/L; P < 0.001) were noted. Glucose tolerance and hyperinsulinemia improved (P < 0.001). Weight reduced by 0.9 ± 0.2 kg (P < 0.001) and fat-free mass by 0.6 kg (P = 0.04). Post hoc sensitivity analysis demonstrates that results in the subcohort that did not lose weight (n = 10) were directionally consistent.

Literally 43 kids followed for 9 days lmao
And a weight loss of like 1 kg in 9 days, seems like those kids doubled their BMR overnight lmao

>> No.16113575

>>16113535
Apparently self-report isn't reliable except in your cherrypicked study.

>> No.16113577

>>16113486
Another study is named
>Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans

A study on fatties lol

>> No.16113579

>>16113097
Post the discredited study, vegan faggot.

Oh you won’t, wonder why…

>> No.16113594

>>16113575
yes self reported data is not entirely accurate but in most cases its the best we have if you want to look at studies where people were kept in hospitals and their intake was entirely controlled look at the Minnesota Coronary Survey which concluded that reductions in red meat (saturated fat) had no effect on heart disease mortality that study also got buried for decades and wasn't published because the researchers were likely vegan fags like you

>> No.16113612

>>16113562
wow almost as if carbohydrate consumption effects metabolic rate want me to spoon feed you that study as well retard?

>> No.16113623

>>16113106
>I can't do anything unless it's edgy

>> No.16113624

>>16113612
Lmaoing at you, this obese idiot unironically believes kids can double their metabolic rate in 9 days

>> No.16113626

>>16113624
why not?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6233655/
could post more showing the same thing but you're boring me with the same shit takes i see here every time this red meat and or sugar controversy comes up

>> No.16113630

>>16113626
Hahaha, you're an idiot.

>> No.16113635

>>16113630
literally 0 arguments so i guess i must be correct

>> No.16113647

>>16113594
Saw this reply on a reddit thread (literally a study on mental ill patients, most of which left the hospital):

"The Minnesota Coronary Survey compared high polyunsaturated with high saturated fat diets in patients hospitalized for mental illness. The participants were given the assigned diets only when they were patients in the hospital. Because hospitalization for mental illness became less common and less prolonged after the study started, as a national trend, the patients received the assigned diets intermittently, contrary to the intent of the researchers, and for a much shorter time than planned. The researchers originally enrolled 9570 participants in the trial and intended to study them for at least 3.6 years to be able to adequately test the effect of the diets. However, the trend toward outpatient treatment of mental illness resulted in ≈75% of the participants being discharged from inpatient care during the first year of the study. Only about half the remaining patients stayed in the study for at least 3 years. The average duration was only 384 days. The incidence of CHD events was similar in the 2 groups, 25.7 and 27.2 per 1000 person-years in the control and polyunsaturated fat groups, respectively. A recent reanalysis of this trial restricted to the participants who remained in the trial for at least 1 year also found no significant differences in CHD events or CHD deaths.39 We excluded this trial from the core group because of the short duration, large percentage of withdrawals from the study, and intermittent treatment, which is not relevant to clinical practice. Another concern is the use of lightly hydrogenated corn oil margarine in the polyunsaturated fat diet. This type of margarine contains trans linoleic acid, the type of trans fatty acid most strongly associated with CHD."
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/136/3/e1

>> No.16113650

>>16113635
There's no argument needed for someone who believes BMR can double overnight.

>> No.16113664

>>16113650
still not an argument retard also you should google what insulin is can tell youve never opened an endocrinology textbook in your life

>> No.16113667

>>16113068
everything causes cancer so who gives a fuck.
live fast; die young.
eat ass.
skate fast.
smoek grass.

>> No.16113672

>>16113664
Insulin is something lardasses like you are very prone to become resistant to.

>> No.16113674

>>16113667
red meat doesn't cause cancer and randomized clinical trials have shown that

>> No.16113680

apparently, according to some expert guest jpe rogan had on, (take that as you will) those studies back in the day that said red meat was bad basically used data burger eaters. They didnt study red meat in of itself but took stats from everyone that ate red meat and didnt factor in the rest of their fat fuck diets and concluded that x amount of red meat eaters died of heart attacks prematurely, therefore it was caused by red meat

>> No.16113682

>>16113674
You only referenced one clinical trial which relied on self-report, where the reduction in fat was small, and specifically on women who were 50-79 years old.

>> No.16113689

>>16113680
the "studies" that constantly get posted here that people say show the red meat CAUSES cancer and or CVD are never randomized clinical trials they are ALWAYS epidemiology which can ONLY SHOW ASSOCIATION especially at such small effect sizes

>> No.16113693

>>16113689
>>16113682

>> No.16113699

>>16113682
they reduced red meat consumption by about 20 percent and saw ZERO effect in ~50k women over 8 years if you can't find an effect at that study size one does not exist or you fucked up somewhere else also relevant once again the Minnesota Coronary Experiment or Sydney Diet Heart Study which are large randomized clinical trials showing the same thing
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707

>> No.16113703

>>16113699
See
>>16113647
>>16113473

You cherrypicked two studies with limitations.

>> No.16113708

>>16113703
these are the largest, most expensive, most well controlled trials that exist I challenge you to post something better
hint: you can't

>> No.16113711

>>16113699
And it says they lowered their fat intake from 38% to 29%, assuming it was accurate. You're making stuff up.
Your Minnesota study is a meme.

>> No.16113715

>>16113711
you can call these multi hundred million dollar studies "memes" because they have some limitations but until you post a clinical trial showing the opposite you have no leg to stand on

>> No.16113723

>>16113708
>controlled trials
One "controlled trial" on mentally ill patients, most of which left the hospital and a controlled trial that relied on self-reporting and was based on women who were 50 to 79 years old when the study started.

>> No.16113724

>>16113127
are you seriously comparing human breast to a chicken breast? you are beyond retarded

>> No.16113727

>>16113711
if you read past the abstract and look at the tables you retard you'll see change in meat consumption but just read the abstract and cherry pick some irrelevant criticisms when you don't have any better data

>> No.16113733

>>16113727
Go ahead and post the part where they said they reduced their meat intake in such amount, fattie.

>> No.16113734

>>16113068
There's been correlation found between daily consumption of red meat, especially smoked or otherwise preserved, and an increased risk of colon cancer. It's no more of a death sentence than most other things, and you're probably better off enjoying yourself while not overdoing it than stressing about living forever.

>> No.16113735

>>16113723
to add on you can also look at the Sydney Diet Heart Study another huge expensive randomized trial showing the same thing. are we starting to see a trend here? that makes 4 of the largest most expensive diet studies ever ran

>> No.16113742

>>16113734
only CORRELATION when causation was tested in RCTs on both colorectal cancer and CVD the hypothesis FAILED MULTIPLE TIMES

>> No.16113746

>>16113735
Again, your obsession with the WHI study is cherrypicking
>>Two other limitations of the trial are the study population and duration. The trial included women who were aged 50 to 79 years at the beginning of the trial. By this time in life, it may be too late for changes in diet to reduce risks of cancer and other chronic conditions. In addition, it takes years for the effects of dietary change to be seen, and so it is possible that eight years wasn’t enough time to see the true impact of a low-fat diet.

>> No.16113751

>>16113734
ok grandma

>> No.16113757

>>16113746
20 percent reduction in red meat over 8 years in nearly 50k women showed ZERO benefit

whatever throw away the nearly billion dollar study because youre a faggot look at the Sydney Diet Heart Study
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707
"In 2013, Ramsden resurrected another long-lost randomized study, the 1960s-era Sydney Diet Heart Study. Reanalyzing its unpublished data—also stored on old nine-track computer tapes—he found that volunteers who replaced much of the saturated fat in their diet with polyunsaturated fats high in linoleic acid had a higher risk of death from coronary heart disease."
less saturated fat, more CVD mortality once again all the large clinical trials point in the same direction and you have ZERO supporting your side of the argument

>> No.16113834

to reiterate ALL the randomized clinical trials on red meat and or saturated fat show NO effect no heart disease and colorectal cancer and overall mortality the only "data" against this are epidemiological surveys which ONLY SHOW ASSOCIATION in all but the most extreme cases

>> No.16113863

>>16113068
ummmm no.
meat heals.
https://meatrx.com/
Also look into Dr. Shawn Baker. Been on a strict carnivore diet for like 4 years now?

>> No.16114795
File: 198 KB, 958x656, ketolards.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16114795

>>16113579
>understanding nutritional science and not subscribing to /r/keto makes you a vegan

>> No.16114850

>>16114795
Nobody likes frank tufago