My friend doctor is worried about Colorectal Cancer due to red meat

cancer

(Brian) #21

That is interesting!

Although we’ve not been quite as faithful as some, my wife and I have started to supplement with a little iodine since our food intake sources tend to be pretty sporadic. Perhaps it’s a good thing on more levels than I had considered, cancer being one of them.

And though we don’t tend to be big consumers of them, we do find a few resistant starches in our diet from time to time, probably mostly from beans of various kinds. (I’m not counting coffee… LOL!)

Definitely interesting. Thanks for sharing!


#22

If an animal is eating garbage and bioaccumulates carcinogens from their food and/or you eat highly burnt meat… then you’ll most likely develop colon cancer. However animals who exclusively eat fresh vegetation will bioaccumulate antioxidants(carotenes, lutein etc…) in their fat stores and these antioxidants have been shown to cause the apoptosis of cancer cells and prevent atherosclerosis. They prevent disease. Look for meat with yellow fat as an indication of carotene accumulation. ie. grass fed meat.

Search carotene apoptosis cancer
Search carotene atherosclerosis


(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #23

Furthermore, cooking red meat produces a smaller quantity of nitrates (which are supposed to be the cause of cancer) per gram than is contained in most vegetables.


(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #24

Not all of them. Certain of them, in fact, namely the ω-3 fatty acids and the ω-6 fatty acids, are essential to human life, though ω-6 fatty acids cause systemic inflammation when ingested in quantity. Most commercial seed oils contain far more ω-6 fatty acids than we need, which is why we advise avoiding them.

The other issue with oils high in PUFA’s is how the polyunsatruates get oxidized and restructured when heated, and the resulting compounds get into cell walls and cause trouble (the walls of all human cells are made of fatty acids of various types, and a considerable quantity of cholesterol).

Furthermore, since the ω-3 fatty acids and the ω-6 fatty acids compete for the same receptors on cell walls, they need to be ingested in the proper proportion (generally 1:1) in order for us to get the proper amounts of both, whereas the PUFA’s in most commercial seed oils are overwhelmingly ω-6 fatty acids.

The moral of the story: Stick to healthy fats, such as butter/ghee, tallow, lard, and bacon grease, which are mostly monounsaturated fats and saturated fats, with a small percentage of PUFA’s.


#25

Good summarization. I’m going to add that the desaturase enzymes require magnesium, Vitamin A and B6 for the elongation of essential fatty acids. So it’s best to consume PUFA sources which also include magnesium.

I’m someone who needs more PUFA from whole foods than most people. I need sufficient Omega 6’s for increasing my brain size and for producing lots of PGE1(to get an erection and increase penis size).


(Bunny) #26

I imagine those steak & egg only carnivores, besides taking advantage of the carnitine shuttle to reverse a fatty liver get a lot of oxygen from myoglobin if they like their steak extra raw that’s why they burn body fat so well?

Note: meat without its raw juices make it more acidic? (very important note?) Natural salts and glutamine in its natural state?

I wanted repost this because it is so interesting, this is really deep stuff:

Why I drink raw steak juice (grass fed of course; no anti-biotics or hormones):

”…If the buffer removed by critical acid should be ammonia from glutamine we have a situation where the ingestion of raw meat or meat juices would be the only known prompt remedy. The meat itself is acid in reaction, the juices containing the basic salts and most of the glutamine.

This probably explains the fact discovered 60 years ago that dogs fed meats without its juices died much quicker than if fed nothing. They will get acidosis from simple starvation but an aggravated acidosis if fed this kind of meat. In fact they soon stop eating such meat but the harm has been done, they have lost more of their alkaline reserves, and will die sooner than the dogs that received none of the acidic meat.

The general use of meat extracts for convolescent patients arose from these dog experiments but the extracts as commonly furnished have been cooked and super-cooked in autoclaves, so their only value is in more rugged constituents such as potassium salts and creatinine. The real essential principle that could be there is gone, the glutamine?

The University of Wisconsin proved 40 years ago that Hogs required 50 percent more feed if it had been cooked. Since then, no Hog feeder in his senses has been cooking his feed. But we realize that the science of animal feeding is about 40 years in advanced of our practice of human nutrition. …” - Dr. Royal Lee, Conversations in Nutrition - Volume One

References:

  1. What’s That Red Juice In Your Steak? (Hint: It Isn’t Blood)
  1. VO2 Max: The Key to Unlocking Your Aerobic Engine: “… Capillary density is the number of capillaries surrounding muscle sites. If we have more capillaries around our working muscles, we are able to increase the oxygen supply available for transport from in the bloodstream to inside the muscle. Myoglobin is the middle man, and is a protein which is responsible for absorbing the oxygen from the capillaries and transporting it to the mitochondria to create aerobic energy . …” …More

image


(Bob M) #27

I realize this an old topic, but it’s relevant. Have a colleague who has to go to a colonoscopy every 5 years because they found polyps. He told me he doesn’t eat red meat, so he should be okay for his next colonoscopy.

I went to my first and only colonoscopy and had nothing, and the doctor recommended a 10 year checkup. I didn’t want to tell my colleague that I eat basically red meat and have for many years.

The bias against red meat is strong.


(KM) #28

You almost got me down the rabbit hole! Went off seeing if there’s anything new about it and got sucked in by some damn article basically saying ‘who can tell, could be this, could be that, correlation or causation, we obviously can’t do a test on anyone and make them eat red meat for five years (I always want to say why the heck not, if you’re recruiting people willing and eager to do so) … but you should avoid it and base your diet on plants anyway.’ :roll_eyes:


(Bob M) #29

Well, I’ve been keto for 10 years, though I didn’t start eating mainly red meat. I started out eating a lot of fat, including dairy. Ate all high fat stuff. It was a slow transition to eating mainly red meat. Today, my lunch was 8 ounces of beef liver and 4 ounces of pork fat. Then, raw milk, collagen peptides, and whey protein. My lunches and dinners tend to be lots of red meat. I wanted to get some liver in, though I usually have beef of some type.

The best I can say is that keto eating for 10 years, with a lot of red meat particularly going on maybe 5 years or so, doesn’t appear to cause me any polyps or cancer.

To me, it’s unlikely that red meat causes any type of cancer. Meanwhile, I could see high sugar or other foods causing cancer. Which is why someone saying “eat plants” could be correct, if the diet is mainly vegetables or possibly fruit, with little to no sugar.


(KM) #30

Yes, I think it’s the processed stuff more than the natural carbs that are doing us in, but there are so many confounding variables and vested interests and such a plethora of biased information in every direction available at this point, I sometimes wonder if there will ever be a consensus on anything, ever again. :rofl:


(Joey) #31

I suspect that as long as we take our red meat orally there should be minimal risk of colorectal cancer. :thinking:


(Chuck) #32

If that was the case my whole family back as far as I can remember would have gotten cancer and that has been the case. I believe from what I have seen over my life is that highly processed carbs and even over processed so called meat products is the problem. We have always processed our own meats or got it from other local farmers.


(Central Florida Bob ) #33

I can answer this one - although it’s the “standard answer.” If it’s people who are willing and eager to volunteer, the study becomes a self-selected group and no longer a selection of people taken at random and that population may be (will be?) different from people chosen at random. The standard interpretation is that the Randomized Controlled Trials are the Gold Standard of tests.

The idea of whether or not there is such a thing as really being randomized is similar to the idea that probability doesn’t exist. It’s something Ph.D. statisticians talk about like some other Ph.D.s might talk about multiple parallel universes or life on other worlds.


(Robin) #34

If your doctor friend is worried, they should stop eating red meat immediately.


(Edith) #35

I don’t think that argument quite works because people sign up to be participants in randomized control studies.


(Bob M) #36

Well, I’ve always thought that a lot of what we know through RCTs (and especially garbage epidemiology) is due to self-selection bias. The glycemic index, for instance. They created that back when the only way to get blood sugar data was to have someone in a lab. Who were those people? (I assume young college students, likely overwhelmingly male.)

Because I saw a group who tried to recreate that using CGMs, and the results were abysmal. Different people had vastly different results for the same food.

And the Women’s Health Initiative dietary study was done because pretty much all of the previous dietary studies had been done on men.

Gary Taubes had the idea of having medical students/doctors go through these trials. Then, you’d get highly motivated folks that hopefully make about the same (since income is a HUGE factor in these studies).


(KM) #37

I think it was Robert Lustig (?? Maybe it was Ken Berry) who admitted that he was sure his patients were just lazy and undisciplined and ignoring his suggestions, until he started putting on weight and his own advice was useless to him. So maybe having the doctors themselves be the study group would have an added benefit of taking them down a notch!


#38

I’m a bit late to the party here. Doctors do not know everything, and most will admit that. Some doctors, such as those with YouTube channels, think they know everything, especially when it comes to THEIR diet. They stand behind their Ivy League or STEM school, thinking they are godlike. (IMHO) A simple question to ask them is, "How is this diet long-term, say 10–20 years out? Watch their expressions. I have asked a few. Most say, “I only recommend this protocol on a short-term basis.” Same when I asked about fasting. “Two to three times per week.” Yet many will fast every day thinking that starvation is the answer; maybe it is in the short term, but definitely not long term.

When it comes to colorectal cancer, the causes are not known. If you have a family history of colorectal cancer, you have an increased risk.
Cancer screening is by far the single most important strategy you can use. Catching any cancer in its early stages is almost entirely curable. In Stage 4, where the primary cancer has metastasized to another region or organ, the 10-year survival rate is basically zero. Sadly, this has not changed in over 60 years. If you have a family history of cancer, go and get screened as soon as possible.


(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #39

Oh, there’s definitely a consensus that whatever promotes big profits for pharmaceutical companies is a very good thing.


(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #40

I don’t believe so, since overwhelming the mitochondria with too much glucose. from whatever source, damages them, whereas they thrive on fat.