Red meat and cancer of the ass

[Chidoro]

http://articles.health.msn.com/id/100099948/?GT1=5943

Eat up!

[Leonaerd]

But meat consumption is "not in the same scale" with other risk factors for cancer, Thun added. Smoking is the most obvious example, but he cited two other factors most people do not always associate with cancer -- obesity and physical inactivity.

"High meat consumption is associated with at most a 50 percent increased risk for cancer of the lower colon," Thun said. "Obesity doubles the risk for all colorectal cancer, as does lack of physical activity."

The article tells us this isn't as pressing an issue as others. Also, the fact that all those tested were above 50 years old also leads me to shrug this off.

I wonder what percent of the tested people were fat, smokers, or lazy.

edit: spell0rz

[Lalanae]

FIBER


most people don't know what that word means it seems

[Pherr the Dorf]

FIBER


most people don't know what that word means it seems

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/89/89ecolonblow.phtml

Ahhh how we miss you Phil

[Rivera Bladestrike]

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/91/91aschmitts.phtml

Scmitts Gay Beer

[Keverian FireCry]

The article tells us this isn't as pressing an issue as others. Also, the fact that all those tested were above 50 years old also leads me to shrug this off.

Ok...but tell me this...will you still be shrugging it off when you are 50 and your ass is rotting from the inside out?

[Aabidano]

For any study like this to be validated, they'd have to do a lifetime study with controls on a lot of people. Which means you'd need to start now, and run it for the next 50+ years.

Calorie deprivation can add years to your life as well. Are a couple of extra years at the end worth missing a lifetime of good meals? I don't think so.

[Kelgar]

Speaking of colorectal cancer, McDonalds' past 2 CEOs have died from it within the last year.

[Canoe]

There is a lot of reasons that this article is pure shit.

I have two major "beefs" with the article (pun intended). First they mix "processed" with "red" meat. Second, they lump all red meat together. Both are completely misleading. There is no doubt that eating prepared meats that are full of Nitrosomines (sp?), nitrates, sodium, sucrose, red dye number two, etc. etc. is not good.

With regard to lumping even all red meats together and skipping the issue of "mystery meat" - this too is unfair. It fails to take into account the level of fat, anti-biotics, growth hormones and other goodies that are not in all red meat. For example - filet mignons (which I usually order if I get a steak out) has the least fat of any steak. Furthermore, most red meat I eat is venison, elk etc. that is far healthier than anything in the stores - both due to the lower fat content and more importantly, the lack of exposure to all the vaccinations, feed additives (like mad cow brains), crappy slaughterhouse conditions, etc etc that store beef has.

Now that I think about it and look at the article again, I have an even bigger issue with it. You have to get way down towards the end before they admit that smoking, obesity and inactivity are bigger risk factors than red meat. What a shock! So - lose the smokes, lose the lbs's, get some exercise and eat whatever you want and you'll be fine - that's what the article should have said, but that would not have been as popular a message as blaming it on the meat, huh? The truth requires more effort and self responsibility - which does not "sell".

Things should be viewed as being exactly as complex as they are, but not one bit more complex. When it comes to diet you won't go far wrong with eating what a cave man could have eaten.

Hope that enlightens some of you. I'm off to eat some bacon and venison chops.