Just posted an interesting article on red meat & colorectal cancer in the research forum. http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournal ... ;97/12/906
Love & light, Rita
article on red meat
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
article on red meat
Gluten, Dairy, Eggs, Soy & borderline yeast
Hi Rita,
I noticed that post in the links room, and read it. What bothers me about the statistical significance of that research, is that eating low amounts of fish, gave higher cancer risks than eating low amounts of red meat, (1.86%versus 1.28%, in absolute terms), and even the highest catagory of fish intake didn't beat the lowest catagory of red meat consumption, (1.28% for both). The highest catagory of red meat consumption resulted in an absolute ten year risk of only 1.71%, which was lower than the lowest catagory of fish consumption, (1.86%). IOW, it is safer to consume large amounts of red meat, than to consume small amounts of fish, in the long run.
While it might be true that they demonstrated a positive relationship for red meat consumption rates, and an inverse, (negative), relationship for fish consumption rates, this is pretty much irrelevant, in view of the actual numbers pertaining to absolute cancer risks. For all practical purposes, their actual numbers are statistically insignificant, and confusing.
Am I reading these results incorrectly? I don't see enough significance in the numbers to justify an article in the first place. To me, they proved that it's not significantly riskier to eat red meat, than it is to eat fish, (the difference is roughly one-half of one percent, on a ten year basis, for a 50 year old subject). In fact, if you are going to consume small to moderate amounts, it is absolutely statistically safer to eat red meat, than fish, by their criteria.
If it were my job to write the title for that article, I would have writen something like, "Research Proves That Eating Red Meat is No Riskier Than Eating Fish, From a Colorectal Cancer Risk Standpoint". Or maybe, "Research Proves That Eating Fish is Not Significantly Safer Than Eating Red Meat, From a Colorectal Cancer Risk Standpoint".
Apparently, they didn't want to be associated with an article that demonstrated the relative safety of red meat consumption, but after putting so much work into the project, they couldn't afford to fail to write an article on it, so they did some creative title writing in an attempt to divert the reader's attention.
What's your take on all this? These guys remind me of PhD candidates, who hold "snow-job" seminars, because they don't really have anything worthwhile to say, but they feel obligated to say something, because their supervising prof requires that they hold a seminar to impress their peers with the "originality" of their research.
Love,
Tex
I noticed that post in the links room, and read it. What bothers me about the statistical significance of that research, is that eating low amounts of fish, gave higher cancer risks than eating low amounts of red meat, (1.86%versus 1.28%, in absolute terms), and even the highest catagory of fish intake didn't beat the lowest catagory of red meat consumption, (1.28% for both). The highest catagory of red meat consumption resulted in an absolute ten year risk of only 1.71%, which was lower than the lowest catagory of fish consumption, (1.86%). IOW, it is safer to consume large amounts of red meat, than to consume small amounts of fish, in the long run.
While it might be true that they demonstrated a positive relationship for red meat consumption rates, and an inverse, (negative), relationship for fish consumption rates, this is pretty much irrelevant, in view of the actual numbers pertaining to absolute cancer risks. For all practical purposes, their actual numbers are statistically insignificant, and confusing.
Am I reading these results incorrectly? I don't see enough significance in the numbers to justify an article in the first place. To me, they proved that it's not significantly riskier to eat red meat, than it is to eat fish, (the difference is roughly one-half of one percent, on a ten year basis, for a 50 year old subject). In fact, if you are going to consume small to moderate amounts, it is absolutely statistically safer to eat red meat, than fish, by their criteria.
If it were my job to write the title for that article, I would have writen something like, "Research Proves That Eating Red Meat is No Riskier Than Eating Fish, From a Colorectal Cancer Risk Standpoint". Or maybe, "Research Proves That Eating Fish is Not Significantly Safer Than Eating Red Meat, From a Colorectal Cancer Risk Standpoint".
Apparently, they didn't want to be associated with an article that demonstrated the relative safety of red meat consumption, but after putting so much work into the project, they couldn't afford to fail to write an article on it, so they did some creative title writing in an attempt to divert the reader's attention.
What's your take on all this? These guys remind me of PhD candidates, who hold "snow-job" seminars, because they don't really have anything worthwhile to say, but they feel obligated to say something, because their supervising prof requires that they hold a seminar to impress their peers with the "originality" of their research.
Love,
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
-
moremuscle
- Rockhopper Penguin
- Posts: 706
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 6:16 am
- Location: South Carolina
Hi Rita,
Thank you for the link. I read it quickly so I may have missed something but it appears that intake of red and processed meat is associated with higher risk of colorectal cancer and intake of fish is associated with lower risk of colorectal cancer.
I have often wondered about the types of fish that are processed such as for example smoked salmon, pickled herring etc. Are those types of fish lumped into the category "fish" in the study or are they talking about fresh fish only? I assume that the risk of colorectal cancer goes up if you consume more processed fish just like it goes up when you consume more processed meat. I wonder if they had red meat and processed meat in the same category? Perhaps red meat in a category by itself would have shown other results?
I am just thinking out loud and wondering if the study was biased.
Love,
Karen
Thank you for the link. I read it quickly so I may have missed something but it appears that intake of red and processed meat is associated with higher risk of colorectal cancer and intake of fish is associated with lower risk of colorectal cancer.
I have often wondered about the types of fish that are processed such as for example smoked salmon, pickled herring etc. Are those types of fish lumped into the category "fish" in the study or are they talking about fresh fish only? I assume that the risk of colorectal cancer goes up if you consume more processed fish just like it goes up when you consume more processed meat. I wonder if they had red meat and processed meat in the same category? Perhaps red meat in a category by itself would have shown other results?
I am just thinking out loud and wondering if the study was biased.
Love,
Karen
I've seen this study ripped to threads by folks much smarter than I, but they've come to similar conclusions as you guys did. That even if there is a difference it wasn't much and wasn't significant either. In fact after that someone posted about 5 or more studys showing just the opposite that this study was trying show. LOL :)
The lead for this article actually was fish as dangerous as red meat....... I thought it was interesting because "we" obviously don't have our act together as to what is good & not good to eat. & that what works for some would kill others. Love & light, Rita
Gluten, Dairy, Eggs, Soy & borderline yeast
-
kate_ce1995
- Rockhopper Penguin
- Posts: 1321
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 5:53 pm
- Location: Vermont
Well, I for one would prefer a nice steak anyday to a fillet of fish. SO I'm glad the results are "insignificant". 
Katy
PS: We also eat quite a bit of pork and chicken....I ate so much chicken growing up that I always said if there was ever found anything to be wrong with chicken I'd be in BIG trouble!
Katy
PS: We also eat quite a bit of pork and chicken....I ate so much chicken growing up that I always said if there was ever found anything to be wrong with chicken I'd be in BIG trouble!
Ya know,
Many years ago when chloresterol was first *discovered* to be so *bad* for you.....I got soooo sick of hearing about it that I decided I was going to eat whatever I wanted and to heck with all the *scare talk*.
I proceeded to do just that and I can't that say I'm sorry. I recently have developed high chloresterol but I don't believe it's my diet because I have been eating healthier for the last year than I had in all the years prior.
Well, just my rebel nature kicking in here, I suppose.
Love, Shirley
Many years ago when chloresterol was first *discovered* to be so *bad* for you.....I got soooo sick of hearing about it that I decided I was going to eat whatever I wanted and to heck with all the *scare talk*.
I proceeded to do just that and I can't that say I'm sorry. I recently have developed high chloresterol but I don't believe it's my diet because I have been eating healthier for the last year than I had in all the years prior.
Well, just my rebel nature kicking in here, I suppose.
Love, Shirley
When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber"
-- Winston Churchill
-- Winston Churchill
Your comments are thought-provoking.
It's true that so many food research studies over the years have seemed to prove opposing views. Very confusing.
I think that may be because none of these studies takes into account individual genetic differences. And we know how important these differences these are.
For example, in my case, I am at MUCH greater risk for disease/disability from eating whole grains (which are always touted as necessary for optimum health) than I am from eating red meat or not enough fish. Until genetic differences can be factored into these studies, I probably won't be leaping onto many bandwagons.
Love,
Polly
It's true that so many food research studies over the years have seemed to prove opposing views. Very confusing.
I think that may be because none of these studies takes into account individual genetic differences. And we know how important these differences these are.For example, in my case, I am at MUCH greater risk for disease/disability from eating whole grains (which are always touted as necessary for optimum health) than I am from eating red meat or not enough fish. Until genetic differences can be factored into these studies, I probably won't be leaping onto many bandwagons.
Love,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.