Red and processed meat-eating associated with breast cancer in post-menopausal women
Posted on 6 April 2007
Published April 6, 2007 . Filed under: Healthy Eating, Unhealthy Eating!, Women's Health
recent posts
- Having a ‘healthy’ BMI is not necessarily as healthy as we think
Weight Loss - Diabetes costs ‘out of control’, and why this is no surprise given standard dietary advice for diabetics
Diabetes/Metabolic Syndrome Food and Medical Politics Low-Carbohydrate/Carbohydrate Restriction - Nonsense study being used to claim that meat causes weight gain
Food and Medical Politics Healthy Eating Low-Carbohydrate/Carbohydrate Restriction Weight Loss - Low cholesterol levels associated with depression and other mental health issues
Brain and Behaviour Cholesterol and Statins - Multivitamin and mineral supplementation found to help fat loss and speed metabolic rate
Healthy Eating Low-Carbohydrate/Carbohydrate Restriction Nutrients and Supplements Weight Loss Women's Health - More evidence suggests that rapid weight loss leads to better results than slower progress
Healthy Eating Weight Loss - Not just what you eat, but how much believe you’ve eaten, determines how satisfying food is
Healthy Eating Low-Carbohydrate/Carbohydrate Restriction Weight Loss
What nobody seems to point out is that the human race has been eating red meat for a long, long time. The incidence of breast cancer, on the other hand, has been increasing steadily over the last 50 or more years. It may well be coincidental that the increase has been occuring at the same time as the use of the contraceptive pill and HRT.
My wife has steadfastly refused to have a scan and, at nearly 65, may well have adopted a sensible approach when one considers the possible impact of high doses of XRays in breast scans.
Generally, I’m glad I’m a man!
April 6, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
or this study over 20 years which reckoned to find no association.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/164/10/990
I wonder what’s better, a trial with fewer participants, but tightly randomised and controlled,
or more participants in a trial with more variables??
April 6, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
As I understand it, there is a difference in the risk of cancer from eating red meat that is organically reared, and that which is not – with organic meat being safer to eat. This is because the chemicals given to non-organic animals are stored in their fat, which is then eaten and absorbed by us.
I don’t remember the study that showed this, but I would be interested to find out if I understood its findings correctly.
Since our bodies are designed to consume meat I assume that is what is best for us. The ethics of killing and eating animals is another question entirely, of course.
April 12, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Sara
I’m not aware of any research that has looked at this explicity, though the idea you present makes sense to me. Also, the concept is supported by the evidence which shows that, gram for gram, processed meat (which usually contains potentially cancer-inducing preservative chemicals) is more strongly associated with cancer than non-processed meat.
April 12, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Large studies can throw up interesting links but they can also be not sufficiently sensitive to all the variables in the object of the study. An interesting example recently was that of dairy products
April 13, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
THANK YOU FOR THAT. iT GIVES FURTHER FOOD FOR THOUGHT (PUN NOT INTENTIONAL.)
SARA
April 13, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
Is there any evidence I wonder that in countries where there is higher consumption of processed meats such as Germany, France and Italy, with their fantastic hams, pates and sausages of all kinds, of higher incidents of breast cancer?
Tilly
April 17, 2007 @ 8:37 am
What are the difference between “red meat and processed meat”
December 11, 2008 @ 7:53 am