"Det første vi gjorde, da rapporten udkom for få dage siden, var at gennemgå den med vores forskere og finde ud af, om, amerikanerne har ret i det, de siger, og vurdere, hvor meget værdi vi kan tillægge budskabet. Og konklusionen er klar: Der er absolut ingen tvivl om, at sammenhængen mellem kødforbrug og udviklingen af tarmkræft er ganske betydelig," siger Morten Strunge Meyer, projekt hos Kræftens bekæmpelse.
Vuzman wanna dig up the original research article on this? Business magazines write it short and concise but I'm guessing some valuable detail is missing.
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Warning: Any action taken in life, may seriously damage your health!
How did the human race survive all these millenia, when everything we do is so damaging to us? Can anyone find the exact level of danger from eating red meat vs. not eating red meat?
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
jogvanth wrote:
How did the human race survive all these millenia, when everything we do is so damaging to us? Can anyone find the exact level of danger from eating red meat vs. not eating red meat?
I guess we survived because we didn't have more then the 300 grams of red meat per week back then - which roughly equals one Sunday steak.
With the industrialized society came a flood of consumer goods, among which was the endless meat.
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Well, a careful estimate puts me at app. 1200+ grams of red meat pr. week.
I'm just wondering how soon, according to these reports, I'm going to be ordering a coffin.
Has anyone noticed how every non-vegan foodgroup is bad for us, while many of the vegan foodgroups are said to be full of pesticides or genetically modified, so as to cause cancer?
My point is, given enough time and will, you can prove anything to be dangerous. We've survived as a race for millenia, under much worse conditions and with appalling hygienic standards. Yes, we live longer today, and our infant-mortality rate is the lowest ever, but with all of the things being "bad" now, that were not bad 20 or 30 years ago, will we live that much shorter now, or is it just that we will live even longer, if we don't touch the "bad" things? My guess is the latter. Are 5 or 10 or 15 more 'adult-diaper-years' really worth the efforts? Look at our grandfathers and grandmothers. On a general level, did they live shorter, worse and become more sickly because they ate red meat than we are advised to?
I'd say no, but the scientific group may prove me wrong with quoting a lot of science if they want to.
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
jogvanth wrote:
Look at our grandfathers and grandmothers. On a general level, did they live shorter, worse and become more sickly because they ate red meat than we are advised to?
They did live shorter and worse and became more sickly, but that's mostly because of worse hygiene and no antibiotics.
Furthermore if you go further back in time you will see that they didn't eat as much red meat as we do, simply because there wasn't this abundance of it.
Now it's not true about every non-vegan food group. Fish and marine products are proved again and again to be very healthy for you. There is a strong correlation between countries that have a high intake of maritime protein and countries where the life expectancy is high, such as Japan, Spain and Iceland.
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
There have time and time again been scientific reports, that have stated that we must not eat much fish (quite similar to the above 'red-meat' article), because it will become bad for us, due to pollution and such.
I've come to the point, that if the 'scientific community' can not give just cause, in the use of significant numbers and statistics, WHY and to what extent, some foods are bad for us, then, in my view, they are just being alarmist and should therefore be ignored.
There are obviously some things that truly are bad for us, but to scare people, because there is a 1:1.000.000th% increase in the risk of some bad thing, if we eat or do whatever 'harmful' thing, is not really realistic.
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
I love the fact that every time anyone post's something negative about christianity or non-vegitarian food EVEN when it's just a question that is posted , there is realy only one thing that will surely happen....... Jogvanth will be on it like flyes on shit....
Life ain't always what it seems
So grab it by the balls, and do your best before it leaves
If the world consisted only of Yay-sayers, then it would be a boring place, indeed!
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
I should make it clear right from the start that this is not 'just another report'.
The report was made by the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research. They took just about every available study made on diet, physical activity and cancer, about half a million studies, and narrowed them down to 22,000, and then the 7,000 with the best quality. Several hundred scientists have been involved in the process, spanning five years.
This report is the largest study of its kind and its conclusions are as definitive as the available evidence allows.
As such, I believe this report should be given considerable heed, and I will present an overview of the findings of the report.
-----------------------------
The report concludes with a set of ten recommendations; I'll summarize these here as I consider them the most important product of this report.
BODY FATNESS
- Be as lean as possible within the normal range of body weight
- Avoid weight gain and increases in waist circumference throughout adulthood
'Normal range' is to be interpreted as a BMI between 18.5 and 25, with the usual caution that it may be misleading, e.g. in muscular people such as manual workers and some athletes, and older people, children, or people less than 5 feet tall (152 cm).
Guidance
This overall recommendation can best be achieved by being
physically active throughout life, and by choosing diets
based on foods that have low energy density and avoiding
sugary drinks.
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
- Be physically active as part of everyday life
- Be moderately physically active, equivalent to brisk walking, for at least 30 minutes every day
As fitness improves, aim for 60 minutes or more of moderate, or for 30 minutes or more of vigorous, physical activity every day This can be incorporated in occupational, transport, household, or leisure activities. Physical activity of longer duration or greater intensity is more beneficial
- Limit sedentary habits such as watching television
Guidance
Most people can readily build regular moderate, and some
vigorous, physical activity into their everyday lives.
FOODS AND DRINKS THAT PROMOTE WEIGHT GAIN
- Limit consumption of energy-dense foods
- Avoid sugary drinks
- Consume 'fast foods' sparingly, if at all
Energy-dense foods are here defined as those with an energy content of more than about 225–275 kcal per 100 g. Relatively
unprocessed energy-dense foods, such as nuts and seeds, have not been shown to contribute to weight gain when consumed as part of typical diets, and these and many vegetable oils are valuable sources of nutrients
'Sugary drinks' principally refers to drinks with added sugars. Fruit juices should also be limited
Guidance
Foods and diets that are low in energy density, and avoidance
of sugary drinks, are the best choices, in particular for people
who lead generally sedentary lives.
PLANT FOODS
- Eat mostly foods of plant origin
- Eat at least five portions/servings (at least 400 g) of a variety of non-starchy vegetables and of fruits every day
- Eat relatively unprocessed cereals (grains) and/or pulses (legumes) with every meal
- Limit refined starchy foods
- People who consume starchy roots or tubers (e.g. potatoes) as staples also to ensure intake of sufficient non-starchy vegetables, fruits, and pulses (legumes)
Guidance
Maintaining plant-based diets is easily done by planning
meals and dishes around plant foods rather than meat and
other foods of animal origin.
ANIMAL FOODS
- Limit intake of red meat and avoid processed meat
- People who eat red meat to consume less than 300 g a week, very little if any to be processed
'Red meat' refers to beef, pork, lamb, and goat from domesticated animals including that contained in processed foods
'Processed meat' refers to meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or addition of chemical preservatives, including that contained in processed foods
- Poultry and fish are healthier than red meat, but still pose a cancer risk
- The evidence indicates that eggs do not pose a cancer risk
- The evidence on dairy products is too hard to interpret, and the panel chose not make any recommendation on this
Guidance
There are many ways to enjoy meat and other animal foods
as part of plant-based diets.
ALCOHOLIC DRINKS
- Limit alcoholic drinks
- If alcoholic drinks are consumed, limit consumption to no more than two drinks a day for men and one drink a day for women (1 drink = 1 genstand)
This recommendation takes into account that there is a likely protective effect for coronary heart disease
PRESERVATION, PROCESSING, PREPARATION
- Limit consumption of salt
- Avoid mouldy cereals (grains) or pulses (legumes)
Limit consumption of processed foods with added salt to ensure an intake of less than 6 g (2.4 g sodium [natrium]) a day
- Basically, avoid salt, and eat food as fresh as possible.
Guidance
At all stages in the food chain, from production to purchase
and storage ready for food preparation, prefer methods of
food preservation, processing, and preparation that keep
perishable foods relatively fresh, and that do not involve the
use of salt.
DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS
- Aim to meet nutritional needs through diet alone
- Dietary supplements are not recommended for cancer prevention
This may not always be feasible. In some situations of illness or dietary inadequacy, supplements may be valuable
Guidance
Choose nutrient-rich foods and drinks instead of dietary supplements.
These are the general recommendations; there are two additional recommendations for special groups:
- Mothers should breastfeed, and babies should be breastfed.
- Cancer survivors should aim to follow the above eight recommendations, unless otherwise advised by an appropriately trained professional
-----------------------------
I include also a matrix of the expert panel's most confident judgments on the strength of the evidence causally relating food, nutrition, and physical activity to the risk of cancer. The report includes several more detailed matrices; this, however, is a synthesis of all these matrices, showing only judgments of 'convincing' and 'probable', on which the recommendations are based.
The strength of the evidence is shown by the height of the blocks in this matrix — see the key.
Comment:
The report recommends a maximum intake of red meat of 300 g per week. The Danish average intake is around three times as much.
The report recommends a minimum intake of vegetables and fruits of 400 g per day. The Danish recommendations are a minimum intake of 600 g per day. The Danish average intake is around 250 g, for children it is about half of that.
In conclusion:
The recommendations do not consider social and environmental factors. This is the subject of a further report to be published in late 2008.
These recommendations are concerned with food and nutrition, physical activity, and body fatness.
Other factors that modify the risk of cancer include smoking, infectious agents, radiation, industrial chemicals, and medication.
Can you find the numeral increase in risk by not adhering to their recomendation?
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
Thanks for the thorough post vuzman. I knew it had to be more then your average report when danish business journals begin to write against eating red meat...
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
I didn't see a number for the increased risk during my cursory reading of the report, and that's really not an easy question to answer. But I'll try to do it anyway
It's worth noting that following these recommendations will not only give you better odds towards cancer, it will also give you better odds towards cardiovascular diseases and related diseases mainly attributable to obesity and/or the consumption of saturated fats (i.e. mainly animal food). I say 'and/or' because while it helps, it is not necessary to be obese to get these diseases. It will also give you better odds towards type 2 diabetes, and while not necessarily fatal, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's, asthma, male impotence, and a host of other conditions and diseases. Additionally, a major cause of death is from 'iatrogenic' causes; i.e. getting ill from receiving treatment for something else. So I think it is safe to say that it's a good idea to follow these recommendations.
But let's look at the risk in numbers. By the way, risk of what? I'll guess you meant risk of actually dying.
Cardiovascular diseases, et al, are almost exclusively attributable to lifestyle; i.e. food, nutrition, physical activity and smoking. These account for ~50% of all deaths.
Cancer accounts for <30% of all deaths; of these about a third from socio-environmental reasons, the rest from lifestyle (smoking and as mentioned in my previous post).
Smoking also causes respiratory diseases (<10%), though not all 10%.
There is no doubt, however, that the lifestyle is the main cause of death in the Western world, and that we're around a 70% mortality.
Would you go all-in pre-flop with an over-card against a pocket pair with a long tournament ahead?
But that's 'just' the risk of dying. We all gotta go sometime, right? Sure, dying from these causes means dying earlier than you would otherwise, but hey, when you're 60 there's nothing left of life, and who wants to wear a diaper anyway?
Maybe we should consider other risks as well.
Following the recommendations will make you less sick, and you'll feel better. You'll get more energy. You won't feel like crap everytime you go up a flight of stairs. And, of course, being sick increases your chance of being sick.
The risk of spending X years in a diaper, going senile, and similar fun acticities, is obviously greatly increased with being unhealthy. Living unhealthily won't increase your chances of avoiding diaper years because you die early, it will increase the risk of dying early, and increase the risk of spending years in diapers anyway.
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
The numerical increase in cancer/other disease risk, that I seek from this report, is in how many instances, out of the overall 'meat-eating' populace, actually develop one of these abovementioned diseases.
If you look at many other reports, of effects of certain materials or food, then they list the 'danger-zone' as 1:1000 or 1:100.000 or even 1:1.000.000 people. (As in 1 out of 1000 developed the symptoms or disease). The deffinition of 'severe' differentiates quite a lot from one faculty to another. What I'm searching for in this report (and I don't want to register with them, in order to be allowed to read it!) is how many people, out of how many people, actually developed these diseases, what was the size of their 'test-group', how large is this group compared to national or international standards, is this a local test group or international and how to they define the 'danger group'.
Is there a scientific report, that actually compares meat vs. vegetables (and not funded by a 'green' organization) with regards towards energy content and general health?
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
jogvanth wrote:
what was the size of their 'test-group', how large is this group compared to national or international standards, is this a local test group or international and how to they define the 'danger group'.
You've got it all wrong, this wasn't a study, it was a meta-study. Read the beginning of my first post.
jogvanth wrote:
The numerical increase in cancer/other disease risk, that I seek from this report, is in how many instances, out of the overall 'meat-eating' populace, actually develop one of these abovementioned diseases.
The risk of dying from a cancer that these recommendations are intended to curb is 1:5. The risk if developing is even greater.
The risk of dying from one of the above mentioned diseases that these recommendations are likely to curb is something like 1:1,4. We're talking very fucking likely here.
If you ask me what the decrease in risk is if you follow the recommendations, well, hard to say, but it should be a huge decrease. It would be 100% per se, but genes, prior lifestyle, and the fact that these recommendations may not be enough, or otherwise imperfect, make it not very likely that the decrease is quite 100%.
jogvanth wrote:
Is there a scientific report, that actually compares meat vs. vegetables (and not funded by a 'green' organization) with regards towards energy content and general health?
Are 'green' organizations particularly untrustworthy? Would you rather trust someone with financial interest bias?
But I digress. I'm not sure what you ask here. With regards to energy content, this is generally much higher in meats; mostly due to high fat content. As the report stated (see my first post), eating foods with high energy content is generally bad for your health. This is generally because these foods will be high in fat, and this is again due to the fact that 1 g of fat contains 9 kcalories, while 1 g of proteins or carbohydrates contain 4 kcalories. This means that, gram for gram, fatty food will contain more calories, energy, than food low in fat.
Incidentally, this is also part of the reason why any label with "Only X% fat" should be completely ignored. That X% will be weight%, meaning that the true energy content from fat is, at best, grossly misrepresented. In fact, a food containing 100% energy from fat could quite easily be labeled "only 25% fat", and this indeed is the case with several brands of butter and similar items. The remaining 75% of weight is water, which is completely transparent when it comes to energy and nutrition.
But I digress again. Since this is general knowledge, however, I wonder if this is what you asked about?
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
So, out of the 500.000 reports on this, a mere 1,4% are deemed accurate enough to allow conclusions to be as definitive as the available evidence allows, and therefore the scientists have deducted that because I ate 400 grams of red meat and only 100 of veggies yesterday, I have a 1,4:1 chance of dying from it. Alrighty then.
(pops out to order a coffin)
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
