Red meat supposedly increases your risk of cancer.
Original Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?searchPhrase=cancer+red+meat
There is no way I could exercise without the aid of music, particularly for drumming up intensity & drive.
With all due respect, your point about red meat is very niave.
And the reason you cant exercise without music is because youve trained yourself to be that way. What do you do when there is not music available like when you compete?
The need for outside stimulation for motivation and drive is not a good sign
It depends on the meat. I eat grass fed free range buffalo meat; that’s it. If you eat fast food meat that is full of preservatives and traces of ammonia, then yea, you’re going to get sick over time.
As far as the music I know for a fact that John Smith does not like his athletes to listen to music while working out or warming up either.
I train without music often. I can take it or leave it. Sometimes I find it annoying and distracting in gym lifting, other times it gives me a kick in the pants. I study nutrition at Wayne State University and although I am sure you can find studies that relate red meat to cancer, you will likely find as many that refute that notion. Until someone shows a direct cause and effect and it is replicated many times, it is mostly anecdotal. Pub med is an excellent resource as I am sure you could ask Lyle McDonald. He is a very smart man. It’s kind of interesting to talk to professors who are world renowned and do tons of lab work and they laugh at 90% of what the mainstream media prints and puts on TV. We all have our belief systems, and I deny nobody theirs.
Seriously, you cited the Daily Mail for this?
because the claim is horseshit. The issue is either fatty and/or charred red meat. OR a lack of adequate vegetable intake. Not red meat per se. I don’t expect someone using a bullshit UK newpaper as ‘evidence’ to understand this distinction.
An athlete who doesn’t eat red meat is an athlete hindering their own progress.
I can understand that.
No.
There not the ones conducting the research. There just printing the findings.
It’s not my point.
All the same, I will take what the scientists are saying.
You mean like Carl Lewis (“only the G.O.A.T IMO”)?.
Plausible Sub 9?. 
It’s not the Daily Mail’s research.
There just a newspaper, it’s not a cancer research center, lol.
Hormones in U.S. Beef Linked to Increased Cancer Risk.
Original Link: http://healthfreedoms.org/2010/05/26/hormones-in-u-s-beef-linked-to-increased-cancer-risk/
They actually use the same sort of hormones for cows (milk), in fish farms, other animals (pigs, sheep, chickens, turkey) etc & some farmers who say they don’t use such methods, have been proven to be frauds.
Cancer research are still trying to workout what is making cancer rates soar through the roof. It’s all man-made & it’s going to get far worse.
The main reason the researchers haven’t woken up just yet is because they would be out of a job.
Beef produced in the United States is heavily contaminated with natural or synthetic sex hormones, which are associated with an increased risk of reproductive and childhood cancers, warns Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition.
“Increased levels of sex hormones are linked to the escalating incidence of reproductive cancers in the United States since 1975 – 60% for prostate, 59% for testis, and 10% for breast,” Dr. Epstein says. When beef cattle enter feedlots, pellets of these hormones are implanted under the ear skin, a process that is repeated at the midpoint of their 100-day pre-slaughter fattening period, Dr. Epstein explains. These hormones increase carcass weight, adding over $80 in extra profit per animal.
Also, Dr. Epstein says, “Not surprisingly, but contrary to longstanding claims by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), residues of these hormones in meat are up to 20-fold higher than normal.”
“Still higher residues result from the not uncommon illegal practice of implantation directly into muscle. Furthermore, contrary to misleading assurances, meat is still not monitored for hormone residues,” Dr. Epstein emphasizes.
Nevertheless, he points out, the FDA and USDA maintain that hormone residues in meat are within “normal levels,” while waiving any requirements for residue testing.
Following a single ear implant in steers of Synovex-S, a combination of estrogen and progesterone, residues of these hormones in meat were found to be up to 20-fold higher than normal.
The amount of estradiol in two hamburgers eaten in one day by an 8-year-old boy could increase his total hormone levels by as much as 10%, particularly as young children have very low natural hormone levels.
Not surprisingly, Dr. Epstein says, the incidence of childhood cancer has increased by 38% since 1975.
These concerns are not new. As evidenced in a series of General Accountability Office investigations and Congressional hearings, FDA residue-tolerance programs and USDA inspections are in near total disarray, aggravated by brazen denials and cover-ups.
A January 1986 report, “Human Food Safety and the Regulation of Animal Drugs,” unanimously approved by the House Committee on Government Operations, concluded that “the FDA has consistently disregarded its responsibility – has repeatedly put what is perceives are interests of veterinarians and the livestock industry ahead of its legal obligation to protect consumers, thus jeopardizing the health and safety of consumers of meat, milk and poultry.”
On January 1, 1989, the European Community placed a ban on meat imports from animals treated with growth inducing hormones. This had a direct impact on the U.S. beef industry, which uses hormones in more than half of the cattle sent to market each year.
Twenty-years later, on May 6, 2009, the European Union and the United States settled their long- running dispute over hormone-treated beef. Under terms of the four-year deal the EU will be permitted to maintain its ban on hormone-fed beef. In return, the EU has agreed to increase the amount of hormone-free beef that can be imported from the U.S. without duty.
It is well recognized that American women have about a five-fold greater risk of breast cancer than women in countries that do not permit the sale of hormonal beef.
However, as recently confirmed by studies of cancer rates in Los Angeles County, the most highly populated, ethnically diverse county in the U.S., the low risk in Japanese women in Japan increases sharply in Japanese immigrants to the United States after one to two generations.
This, and a wide range of other studies in migrant populations, is evidence that avoidable causes of breast cancer include adoption of Western dietary habits, particularly the consumption of hormone- laced beef.
This is part of a large body of scientific work showing a clear link between processed meat and cancer:
Nutr Cancer. 2008;60(3):313-24.
Meat and fish consumption and cancer in Canada.
Hu J, La Vecchia C, DesMeules M, Negri E, Mery L; Canadian Cancer Registries Epidemiology Research Group.
Collaborators (8)
Evidence and Risk Assessment Division, Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Jinfu_hu@phac-aspc.gc.ca
Abstract
In this study, we examined the association between meat and fish intake and the risk of various cancers. Mailed questionnaires were completed by 19,732 incident, histologically confirmed cases of cancer of the stomach, colon, rectum, pancreas, lung, breast, ovary, prostate, testis, kidney, bladder, brain, non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas (NHL), and leukemia and 5,039 population controls between 1994 and 1997 in 8 Canadian provinces. Measurement included information on socioeconomic status, lifestyle habits, and diet. A 69-item food frequency questionnaire provided data on eating habits 2 yr before data collection. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were derived through unconditional logistic regression. Total meat and processed meat were directly related to the risk of stomach, colon, rectum, pancreas, lung, breast (mainly postmenopausal), prostate, testis, kidney, bladder, and leukemia. Red meat was significantly associated with colon, lung (mainly in men), and bladder cancer. No relation was observed for cancer of the ovary, brain, and NHL. No consistent excess risk emerged for fish and poultry, which were inversely related to the risk of a number of cancer sites. These findings add further evidence that meat, specifically red and processed meat, plays an unfavorable role in the risk of several cancers. Fish and poultry appear to be favorable diet indicators.
There is a large number of citations with similar conclusions, and also regarding salt. There is also a strong link between grilled beef and colon cancer.
I suspect that Charlie’s point about beef intake once a week was concerning iron uptake. However, if you are studying nutrition and you don’t understand the link between beef/meat intake and a number of different cancers, there seems to be something wrong with what you are being taught. I can understand a single class not getting into the links between diet and cancer and heart disease, but someone studying for a degree in nutrition should know this.
Also, when you talk to “world renown professors” who do tons of lab work, you have to ask who is funding their research. As more more evidence has come out with the specific links between beef and cancer, and also about the supposed advantages of dietary fruits and vegetables NOT having ANY effect on cancer (and multiple large cohort studies show this which have been published in JAMA and elsewhere), I have noticed a number of instances of “political” science. Nevertheless, the party line previously promoted by nutritionists and the beef industry has been shown to be wrong by the medical profession.
And, yes, John Smith does prohibit music (and ipods, cell phones) during workouts. Your attention is supposed to be on the training, not on tuning out.
is there any food you can buy from a grocery store that doesn’t show some possible signs of carcinogen?
seriously
Nothing wrong with eating good quality red meat. I grew up on a farm and we ate nothing but red meat, 7 days a week. Never did me any harm and I believe all that protein growing up may have contributed to my ridiculously mesomorphic somatotype (not bragging, just being honest).
IKH, I am not so naive to think that there might not be a link between eating certain foods and cancer. What I was saying is that until someone proves definitively that it does, it’s anecdotal at best. Scienetific process needs to be preserved therefore until a single study shows a direct relation between red meat consumption and cancer, it cannot be said. It can be implied, but it will not be taken seriously throughout the medical and research community. Just as saturated fat was villified and now some research is coming around to say perhaps the threat is over rated. Cholesterol is villified yet you have Inuit who consume mass quantities and have no heart disease. I hate cancer as much as anyone having lost my father and other family members to it, but I need to see proof that it causes cancer, not a few research reports that imply it might. It’s much like the studies done on high fructose corn syrup. They show all these relations to obesity, yet 90% of the research isn’t done using a standard 50/50 blend of glucose to fructose, but rather a 80%+ fructose mix which isn’t the same at all. I am not arguing with you, but what results in cancer is far more individual and complex for one form of protein to be the root cause. Now, I avoid any meats with added nitrites and nitrates. Basically anything cured I try to avoid. Yes cancer is on the rise, yet the envoronment is completely full of chemicals. I think perhaps the culprit lies there and not in red meat. As far as many of the growth hormones in meat, I fail to see the issue as GH is a peptide and you know what happens when you digest peptide, amino acids. There is a reason we have no oral GH. Plus animal GH is specific to the animal. I just think we shouldn’t throw the baby out in the bath water. If you don’t like red meat, don’t eat it. As far as study funding goes, it certainly is problematic to not show bias based on funding sources, but ideally, that wouldn’t be an issue. Let the science rule, put bias and emotion on the sidelines where it belongs.
Oh and I may do research on some cancer for a year before applying to Physicans Assistant program. One professor works on colorectal cancer, another on lung. These people are highly regarded worldwide. Feel free to google Cabelof, Khosla, Lucente from Wayne State. They have 1000’s of articles and related links. Certainly some brilliant people who I would be honored to help do some lab work on their research.
Yes, I agree with your post because you are talking about processed meat.
Yes, I agree 100%. People are attacking meat not even realizing that there are so many other forms of potential cancer causing situations they are putting themselves in.
Of the top if my head:
• Multiple X rays over the years
• Multiple passes though Airport “security” scanners.
• Contact with gasoline (smell your hand after you pump gas)/motor oil.
• Dangerous chemicals you work with (ie. Working with jet fuel).
• Smoking/Drinking
• You may live in a area where chemicals were dumped into the water system such as the people who live in Irvine California. The military dumped jet cleaning solution right in the aquifers. Cancer rate is much higher now in that area. Same with people who live around camp Lejeune in the East coast.
• People who live around airports or busy ship ports such as long beach, Ca.
• Living in contested areas where the smog can be seen in the skyline such as downtown Los Angeles.
• People who work in old buildings where the ventilation system and the structure of the building is contaminated with asbestos (i.e world Trade Center).
• Anybody working in the military who work with depleted uranium.
• Live around high voltage power lines?
Also, the Earth (via the Jet stream/ocean currents) is slowly accumulating contamination since I say the start of the industrial revolution. From there, to bombs, then nuke testing, to Chernobyl, to now pharmaceutical/medical waste being dumped in the ocean there is really no one fully safe place to go anymore.
AH! Thank GOD I have no kids, this place is no longer fit to raise a family. Earth is now a toxic battlefield where men ruthlessly kill each other.
Lets not be be overly dramatic. Things are never as good as the seem and things are never as bad as they seem. Men have been ruthlessly killing one another since the beginning of time and they will never stop.
Whether beef is bad or not, I try to follow Michael Pollan’s quick and dirty rules on meat eating. I try to buy it from someone I know, thus never in the grocery store, and usually grass fed.
That way it’s expensive (so I don’t eat it very often), and lean.
Does anyone here ever experiment with tempeh? Because it’s fermented soy, it’s supposed to have a more complete profile of protein than other types of soy. There are some good recipes out there too.
Below is a really terrific grass fed burger recipe (as long as you’re OK with mushrooms)!
http://www.americangrassfedbeef.com/recipe-mushroom-onion-burger.asp
T
Dr. Mehmet Oz, standing physician for Bill Clinton’s quadruple bypass surgery, and head of Presbyterian Cardiac Division in New York, said on Oprah that in fact it does take FOUR DAYS for meat to digest.
How true?. If so, wouldn’t it rot in ones gut?.