Red meat's risk of cancer jumped 36-fold in two years in GBD study

(Bob M) #4

You can’t really gauge anything from this. If you’re speaking of Dr. Sarah Hallberg, she died of lung cancer, and was not carnivore. She never smoked.

My wife’s friend died from lung cancer, never smoked. She died in her early 20s.

Protein does cause insulin to increase. But what’s better, eating 2MAD with some protein or eating high carb 5-6 times per day? I can guarantee the AUC (area under the curve) for insulin is way higher for the latter than the former.

And “glyphosate infested grains”…aren’t those also being fed to…humans? At a way higher concentration than you’ll get in meat?

(Scott) #5

I know someone that ate crap food all her life and never exercised once. She is 106 years old and sharp as a tack without a wrinkle. She was on the local news getting her covid shot and casually commented no big deal, I had the Spanish American flu too.

(Bob M) #6

4 out of 7 of my dad’s mom’s family lived well into their 90s or over 100. Aunt Millie made it to 99, but not 100. Sharp, too.

But all of that has nothing to do with red meat and the supposed risk of cancer made up by a group given hundreds of millions of dollars to provide input on this and other subjects concerning foof.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #7

Since all proteins, whether from plant or from animal sources, are broken down into their constituent amino acids in the digestive tract before they are absorbed into the blood stream, I find it highly unlikely that a cancer would be able to tell whether the lysine or tryptophan molecules it takes in originally came from a plant protein or a meat protein. Or would even care.

The oncologist and cancer researcher Dr. Thomas Seyfried maintains that all cancers are caused by metabolic damage from a high-glucose (carbohydrate) diet. It’s certainly a plausible hypothesis, given that glycolysis gives off reactive oxygen species (free radicals), whereas fatty-acid metabolism does not.

Many cancers require glucose to thrive (the Warburg Effect), so a low-carb, high-fat diet helps starve such cancers of energy. But there are some cancers that prefer ketone bodies, so it is important to know what type of cancer we are dealing with. Nevertheless, I understand that a ketogenic diet can be a useful adjuvant therapy for treating most, if not all, cancers, in the hands of an oncologist who knows what he or she is doing.

(Ashley) #8

Colon cancer is on the rise, I personally know many people in my friend circle with colon cancer or remission of colon cancer (I’m early 30’s). Do I think it’s meat related? Heck no. I think it is related to terrible diet among other health factors.

(Central Florida Bob ) #9

I felt much better about that a year ago than now. In the last few months we lost two giants in the field, Sarah Hallberg and Adele Hite, whom we can be pretty sure were very well educated about keto, more than most practitioners would be. I say a year ago because we lost someone on the forums whom I don’t recall ever speaking with but was rooting for. Pretty sure she called herself Keto Cancer Mom. She seemed pretty sharp and knowledgeable, too.

As for Roundup, there are lots more things worthy of your attention. No carefully controlled study has ever concluded that glyphosate causes cancer, nor has any country declared it a carcinogen. As of the last time I spent a few hours searching that topic, about 18 months ago.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #10

The problem is that a ketogenic diet heals so many of our conditions that it is sometimes difficult to accept that it isn’t a panacaea. I’ve watched a very interesting lecture by Dr. Dawn Lemanne, an oncologist in the Pacific Northwest of the United States (on the Low Carb Down Under channel on YouTube), describing how a ketogenic diet can help with cancer cachexia and with the nausea that accompanies chemotherapy and radiation. She cautions, however, that while keto is a useful adjuvant therapy in conjunction with other cancer treatments, it is by no means a front-line or exclusive treatment.

(Central Florida Bob ) #11

Likewise, I think I heard Peter Attia talking about keto as an adjuvant while driving to get an airplane for a biz trip - and I’ve been retired since the end of '15 so over six years ago.

Someone, and I can’t recall who, said it’s possible that the only reason chemotherapy works is that people get so sick they automatically fast more and go into periods of ketosis due to the metabolic upset.

Cancer is a tough opponent. I think I’ve told my wife’s story but in '97 she had a hell year of breast cancer. She was in a support group of 12 women, all told they had the same chance of five year survival - around 75%. My wife and one other were the only two to survive five years, and the other woman passed away several years ago. Two out of 12 surviving sure isn’t 75%. A key part of that treatment was a stem cell (bone marrow) transplant - which later turned out to be based on research that was faked - both my wife and this other woman went through that and the other woman developed a leukemia that was attributed to the stem cell transplant.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #12

Now that has to be purely horrible. It’s bad enough when a scientist honestly misinterprets ambiguous data, but to deliberately fake data when lives are at stake is simply evil. There’s no other word for it.

#13

like that is the first time to fake reports? :face_with_monocle:

(Central Florida Bob ) #14

Sorry, it turned busy here and I didn’t get a chance to go find a reference. It took less time than I thought:

My impression at the time was that the guy engaged in the typical practice of throwing out data that “just didn’t seem right” and he wasn’t aware how wrong that was. That’s way too charitable. The article from 2000 (three year’s after my wife’s bone marrow transplant) plainly states he knew he was wrong.

On Feb. 3, the University of Witwaterwrand posted a news release on its Web site announcing the investigation of Dr. Bezwoda. It quoted a letter Dr. Bezwoda sent to colleagues on Jan. 30 admitting that he had ‘‘committed a serious breach of scientific honesty and integrity’’ and had misrepresented his results. Dr. Bezwoda has resigned from his university positions. A university spokeswoman, Martha Molete, said bluntly that Dr. Bezwoda had lied.

#15

I remember that fork over knives documentary a decade ago and they shoved that casein protein in lab rats turned on and off cancer growth based on the percentage of protein in their diet after they developed cancer from aflatoxin exposure. Animal protein intake at 20% promoted cancer growth while there was no growth at 5%.
Dietary protein, growth factors, and cancer | The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Here is a way how spoilt meat can sometimes cause cancer: Aflatoxin production in meats. I. Stored meats - PubMed (nih.gov)

Other than isolated plant protein powders that have been shown to promote cancer growth via increasing IGF-1. Whole food plant proteins have anti-cancer compounds. Carotenoids, polyphenols, etc.

I believe our individual choices of choosing quality food is way more important than what some oncologist is going to say because someone can continue eating poor quality meat and still die of cancer as we’ve seen.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #16

Yes, so do I. If you believe that documentary, then I have nothing more to say.

#18

My understanding is that meat promotes the growth of cancerous cells because of the high amount of protein(building blocks) that help cancer cells replicate.

I keep reading in the chat groups of my carb management app that cancer can’t live on ketones so ketones in the blood would protect us at least somewhat. And red meat can help us get more ketones in our blood.

#19

Read @PaulL comment above. Is there a scientific research paper showing that red meat increases ketones?

#20

Her diet doesn’t seem ketogenic since her daily protein intake was double than her baseline requirement. We know excess protein is converted to glucose and excess protein spikes IGF-1. Both feed cancer.

I don’t know how the majority of you eat lots of meat protein and still maintain ketosis. I believe Stephanie keto person on YouTube. How she tried a supposedly keto carnivore diet and reverted back to a keto omnivore diet because the carnivore diet was not ketogenic for her. She also had electrolyte issues.

#21

Huh - I guess I interpreted Paul’s comment to mean he didn’t agree with that documentary.

I honestly don’t know about a study specifically for red meat, I just read that about cancer and ketosis a lot. I personally don’t believe red meat itself directly places actual ketones into our body, but I know what would happen to our bodies eating nothing more than an animal based diet and how it triggers the body to make those ketones through the burning of fat, unlike eating all the carbs marketed to us.

I myself am not solely a carnivore, probably never will be because I love my veggies and berries too much and a variety of flavors in my diet, but I do feel that animal based products are healthier than plant based. But I also know the ketogenic diet has ratios set for a reason, and if you exceed your protein by too much it will burn that before it burns fat. It has to stay balanced within the keto ratios with fat being the highest.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #22

The key to staying in ketosis is the insulin/glucagon ratio. In a low-carb setting, the insulin response to dietary amino acids (protein) is matched by a compensatory glucagon response, keeping the insulin/glucagon ratio low, and keeping the body in ketosis. The notion that eating extra protein is like eating a candy bar has been shown to be wildly exaggerated; glucagon and insulin are not the only ways by which the body regulates serum glucose.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #23

You got that right. While it is possible to eat a vegan ketogenic diet, it takes careful planning and requires certain supplements that are simply unavailable in plant-sourced foods. So I respectfully decline to eat that way.

Furthermore, veganism started as part of a religion and is therefore part of a belief system that is not based on rational analysis or on actual data. There is nothing wrong with that, as an individual choice, but the moral and ethical and environmental reasons advanced for going vegan do not hold up well when examined critically, at least in my estimation. I also believe that one should not force one’s personal choices on others, however much we may feel those others would benefit. So for myself, I eat meat, since that is the healthiest food I know of, and it is the food we appear to have evolved to eat. Others will of course judge differently, and I salute them.

(Ethan) #24

I think it’s much more complicated than “conspiracy is real.” There are several types of players:

Conspirators: These players are pushing an agenda at all costs and trying to influence “science” and policy in any way possible, including neferiously

Convenient conspirators: These players play along with anything that goes in the direction they want. They don’t fight bad science that supports their desired outcome, but they don’t actively create it either.

Misled professionals: These are the doctors, scientists, nutritionists, etc., who learned from the bad studies and fake science pushed by the conspirators. They believe in their industry and what they were taught. They will reteach it to the next generation of misled professionals until it becomes dogma and nobody can even question it. They don’t do it on purpose, but they believe religiously in their practice—so much so that they cannot admit when they were wrong. The general population listens to the misled professionals for advice as if they were first-hand creators or discoverers of science. However, they are really getting their information second and third hand.

General population: This is most people. They listen to and take advice from the misled professionals. They believe the dogma as holy truth, unquestionable except by nut jobs. They can’t ever figure out why they won’t get healthy.

Inquisitive thinkers: This is the bulk of the keto community. They discovered from personal experience that what they were taught was wrong. They mostly come from the general population, but also can move from the misled professionals or even convenient conspirators. They question everything they thought was true, but hold to real science still. Sometimes they can be scammed or tricked because of their shattered faith in mainstream science though.

Supplement scammers: This group tries to take advantage of new inquisitive thinkers. They speak as if they are inquisitive thinkers, but are actually just seeking a profit. They market supplements and programs that are unnecessary or even actually harmful and frame it as opposite to the conspirator agenda.

Reverse conspirators: These players have an agenda also, but it’s to gain power and influence through the inquisitive thinkers. They know that inquisitive thinkers learned that they were lied to by conspirators. They capitalize on this distrust and tell people that everything the mainstream ever did was wrong. This is a fallacy, though, since doing one thing wrong doesn’t make all things done wrong.