Doctors, Dietitians Stand Behind Fat/Cancer Link

**TitianWasp** · November 1, 2007, 08:10 AM

Re: Doctors, Dietitians Stand Behind Fat/Cancer Link

I think that the amount of vegetables that we eat on this WOE tends to counteract the red meat issue. Not to mention, that being at a healthy weight and exercising trumps most other factors and Akins tends to get us there.

**sadie147** · November 1, 2007, 08:14 AM

Re: Doctors, Dietitians Stand Behind Fat/Cancer Link

I believe everything in moderation...on any woe. I personally don't eat red meat more than 3x per week, only because i find my digestive system can tend to act up..seems to be hard for me to digest on a regular basis. I go by how my body feels....

**ttdriver** · November 1, 2007, 08:17 AM

Re: Doctors, Dietitians Stand Behind Fat/Cancer Link

The brainwashing continues....

When will doctors and dieticians WAKE UP and see the link between SUGAR (and STARCHES) and cancer?

The PET scan used to detect cancer cells works with GLUCOSE ... in short, the glucose feeds the cancer cells and therefore the cells are easily found...you can google it for details ..

HERE'S WHAT I GOOGLED ON HOW THE TEST WORKS:

How does the procedure work?

Before the examination begins, a radioactive substance is produced in a machine called a cyclotron and attached, or tagged, to a natural body compound, most commonly glucose, but sometimes water or ammonia. Once this substance is administered to the patient, the radioactivity localizes in the appropriate areas of the body and is detected by the PET scanner.

Different colors or degrees of brightness on a PET image represent different levels of tissue or organ function. For example, because healthy tissue uses glucose for energy, it accumulates some of the tagged glucose, which will show up on the PET images. However, cancerous tissue, which uses more glucose than normal tissue, will accumulate more of the substance and appear brighter than normal tissue on the PET images.

The point is, SUGAR is the ultimate enemy to health, whether to weight gain, diabetes, aging, OR cancer.

Red meat and fat have been victimized FAR TOO LONG and its time to speak the TRUTH! SUGAR/CORN SYRUP/HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP/SUCROSE/DEXTROSE ETC., ITS ALL POISON!

Betty

**kate58** · November 1, 2007, 08:26 AM

Re: Doctors, Dietitians Stand Behind Fat/Cancer Link

My thoughts on this is that looking at constituet part of a diet without looking at the context in which it is eaten is not meaningful. For example, as you say, there is a connection made between red meat and cancer. But it is far from a linear connection - ie they are not saying that everyone (or even most people) who eats a lot of red meat will get cancer, nor are they saying that everyone who doesn't won't. So, in isolation, without more information about the overall diet, it is utterly meaningless.

What would be very interesting (and useful) to know is whether if you were to look at people who ate quite a lot of red meat AND a lot of carbs had a different risk-level to those who eat quite a lot of red meat BUT with low levels of carbs.

But that information will not be easy to extract, if it is even possible to extract it, from the stats. Why? Because there is such a focus on fat on on meat in so much research, and precious little on carbs. Huge amounts of the research that has been carried out on the dangers of fat in the diet has either COMPLETLY ignored the relative amount of carbs those being monitored ate, or failed to factor it in as being significant.

This new survey which has been making the news in the past few days is a meta survey, which looked at huge amounts of research data over a long period of time. Which sounds great, and is useful. But it also has significant limitations. You can only deal with what research exists, and what data exists. The results are only as good as the initial data. Basically there is a "s*** in, s*** out" principle, which applies to all data on which statistical analysis is carried out.

I am not for a moment suggesting that the results of the survey are not in large measure true. I think the link between overweight and cancer is pretty clear (and I've had cancer, and have read about this in some detail).

A massive amount of research that does exist is so focused on fat in the diet, without placing anything like a similar focus on the amount of carbs in a diet, that it is somewhere between difficult and impossible to get any meaning from it.

**Hudson** · November 1, 2007, 11:28 AM

Re: Doctors, Dietitians Stand Behind Fat/Cancer Link

I have been concerned about this as well. But I think there is a bias against red meat. If people are dying and they do all the following: eat sugar, live very stressful lives, eat no green vegetables, and eat red meat, the default reason they are dying is the red meat.

I have not seen one of these studies yet that dosen't group red meat and processed meat together. If there is a problem I think it is with the processed meat. I have by the way all but eliminated processed meat. But if you grouped cigarette smokers and green vegetable eaters together, green vegetables might look bad.

Also there is a self fufilling prophecy aspect of this to me. People that don't take care of themselves in general eat red meat because they don't listen to the "health experts". People that are concerned about their health almost by definition do not eat red meat. So that if healthy people are afraid to eat red meat and the unhealthy do eat red meat it may have everything to do with their overall approach to healthiness. Healthy people don't eat red meat - but if they did they might be even more healthy.

And then I ask: what is different about red meat? More saturated fat I guess. And I am convinced saturated fat is good for you.

But yea, keep an eye on this - it is possible Atkins was wrong on something.

**ghelen** · November 1, 2007, 01:13 PM

Re: Doctors, Dietitians Stand Behind Fat/Cancer Link

coffee's bad for you- coffee's good for you. vitamin D helps with some cancers, vitamin D doesn't do a dang thing. Vitamin E is good for your heart, Vitamin E is bad for your heart. You see where I'm going with this? That's how I feel about all these stuidies.

**not2late** · November 1, 2007, 03:20 PM

Re: Doctors, Dietitians Stand Behind Fat/Cancer Link

Red meat isn't necessarily a part of Atkins. There are enough animal protein choices on Atkins that if red meat isn't your thing, you don't have to eat it.

**Brook** · November 1, 2007, 06:58 PM

Re: Doctors, Dietitians Stand Behind Fat/Cancer Link

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to kate58 again.

**ttdriver** · November 2, 2007, 05:42 AM

Re: Doctors, Dietitians Stand Behind Fat/Cancer Link

But yea, keep an eye on this - it is possible Atkins was wrong on something.

Perhaps, but as far as I am concerned, he saved my life! Not only that, its tough to find fault with a man who believed in his WOE so much that he lived it for over 30 years....played tennis daily at 72 years of age...walked 2 miles a day to work 365 days a year in New York, no less!

Betty

**woodym** · November 2, 2007, 09:26 AM

Re: Doctors, Dietitians Stand Behind Fat/Cancer Link

It's become hard to trust "scientific" studies any more --- so many of them begin with an agenda and conclusion, then seek data to support them. Here's a snippet from an interesting article I found: a study that found no meat-cancer link, so nobody bothered to release it.

And now it turns out that another study, the largest ever to examine the link between colon and rectal cancer and red meat consumption with 725,258 subjects, found no association between higher red meat consumption (including processed meat) and a higher colorectal cancer risk.

The study, “Meat and fat intake and colorectal cancer risk: A pooled analysis of 14 prospective studies,” by Eunyoung Cho, and Stephanie A. Smith-Warner for the Pooling Project of Prospect Studies of Diet and Cancer Investigators, was abstracted in 2004. But it has never been published.

Link to Full Article

----------

**Chicklady** · November 2, 2007, 01:13 PM

Re: Doctors, Dietitians Stand Behind Fat/Cancer Link

Well, let me stir the pot

I believe the problem with red meat is not that "meat" in and of itself is an issue. I think the problem with our meat is what we feed the critters that become our food. Cows weren't intended to eat corn and soy, and there are sufficient studies that show the composition of beef that eat grains is dramatically different from beef that eats what God/Nature/Evolution intendeed : GRASS. Same applies with other critters. "you are what you eat" applies to critters too!

Rant over

**kate58** · November 2, 2007, 02:15 PM

Re: Doctors, Dietitians Stand Behind Fat/Cancer Link

Buckle your seatbelts people...... this is a long one!!

Ok, so over the past couple of days I have read the entire report that this originated from (it's available free online here). Not exactly fun bed-time reading, but I am used to reading scientific literature and am happy that I now have a good understanding of what it contained. I would seriously question whether many (any?) of those happily reporting on the report in mainstram media have read it all from cover to cover.

Here are my thoughts, for what they are worth, after ploughing through it. I have also added the notes I made on the two most relevant sections below - for those who may be interested in reading them.

For me, especially on the red meat and fat issues, the report fails to provide answers to more questions than it answers in this respect, and here is why:

1. Red meat intake is taken in isolation to the rest of the diet in most studies. There are no studies to speak of on other forms of meat/fish, or indeed any other sources of protein - so changing to them instead may or may not make a difference - who knows?

2. Processed and natural meats are lumped in together in too many studies and without an agreed definition on what exactly ‘processed meat’ is. Some studies count minced meat, ham, bacon and sausages as processed meats; others do not.

3. Grilled (broiled) meat and BBQed meat, especially when charred, is identified as a particular risk, but most studies don't separate this out from meat prepared in other ways.

4. No account is made for production criteria - is meat produced without growth promoters or antibiotics in the diet different? Is red meat from grass fed animals reared outdoors different from that of cereal fed animals reared indoors? We don't know anything about this at all.

5. Eating lots of non-starchy veg is strongly protective against the very same cancers that meat is said to cause, yet the studies on red meat take no account of whether it was eaten as part of a diet with lots of veg or as part of a diet with little or no veg.

This is in spite of the fact that the study acknowledges that diets that are highest in red meat tend to be lowest in veg. So where is the balance? Nobody knows, because the research simply isn't there.

Could the concurrent influence of low veg intake be the reason why red meat seems such a risk? Or at least part of the reason?

6. What is the influence of high sugar/high carbohydrate diets, and especially of such diets where these also contain high levels of fat and/or meat? No answers because there is not enough research in this area.

7. Obesity is clearly identified as a cancer risk. Personally I don't doubt this. But yet no distinction was made in the case of the studies on red meat consumption (or indeed consumption of foods of any kind) about whether or not the subjects of the studies are overweight or not. I think this matters enormously.

What did I take away from all this reading?

Basically that the influence of diet on the development of cancer is a largely unexplored and vastly under researched area in any meaningful sense.

And that being overweight is without question a significant contributing factor. It seems to me that pretty much any balanced diet that includes nutrients from a wide range of foods sources and keeps your weight as low as possible is going to be good for you, which is no more than common sense really. Losing weight and keeping it off is the very best thing you can do for your health.

Which, since I pretty much knew that already, means I just wasted hours and hours ploughing through this stuff for nothing!!

My Notes on the Report
Only for the really interested - these go on and on and on......

Obesity & Health

On the general issue of obesity and health, and preventing/treating obesity, the report is pretty balanced. It show clearly the link between obesity and poor health, which is inargueable, but does not overtly favour any particular approach - that is, it is not peddling the usual low-fat dogma.

It states clearly the benefits of eating non-starchy veg and fruit and of cutting out sugary foods and junk foods as a means of controlling obesity. For example this is emphasised:

"evidence that drinks containing added sugars, including sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup, are a cause of weight gain, overweight, and obesity is substantial and consistent."

2 things in that section that I'd personally take issue with.

One is that the section on dietary fat and it's link to obesity is based on research which seems to consider fat in isolation from other nutrients - there is no information on how much carbohydrate/sugar was simultaneuosly ingested. In particular one study which looked a children seems to have failed to taken this into account - and I think it highly likely that these children were also eating a lot of sugar.

The other is the continued definition of high blood cholesterol as an 'illness', which of course, in and of itself it isn't. The link between cholesterol levels and clinical heart disease is growing increasingly tenuous, and especially so in the case of women. But that's a story for another day.

Food and Cancer Risk/Protection

The report looks at a lot of food categories and the evidence that exists for their providing either increased or reduced risk of cancer. In the summary there is adherence to the usual WHO/AHA fat line - fat=bad=obesity, complex carbs=good=less obesity.

Mostly here the news is good and convincing for anyone on an Atkins WOE. I'll go through the food groups they looked at one by one.

1. Fibre from starchy vegatable and cereal sources

These are of undetermined value in protecting agains cancer. On the upside, it is does not seem to cause it either. It seems to have some protective value agains colon cancer (but no other cancer). Alfatoxins, which can develop in grain or peanuts, are conviningly linked to liver cancer, but this is a problem of damp warm conditions and poor storage and more of an issue in underdeveloped countries.

Remarkably, they point out that in most studies NO distinction is made between refined and unrefined cereals and their products - which I find utterly amazing.

2. Vegetables, fruits, pulses (legumes) nuts, seeds, herbs, spices

Yes, these are all lumped in together!! But in fact the report has nothing much to say about legumes, nuts, seeds, herbs and spices as not enough quality research exists.

Anyway, non starchy vegetables come out great - protective against a wide range of cancers including in particular cancers of the mouth, pharynx, oesphoagus and stomach, and possibley also against lung, colorectal ovarian and uterine cancers, and are the cause of none. Basically the message is that green leafy veg, non-starchy tubers, garlic and onions are all good - and generally speaking the more the better.

Fruit has a similar profile. In the case of both non-starchy veg and fruit the more the better seems to be a good rule.

There is limited evidence that too much chili can be associated with stomach cancer (I think we are talking massive amounts here though!!)

3. Meat, poultry, fish, and eggs

This is the one that caused all the controversy - and it is also a fairly scant section compared to some others.

There IS without question a lot of research here making the link between red meat and colo-rectal cancer.

Less red meat is the message - but swapping it for fish or chicken may not be the answer as there is no research at all to suggest they are better. In fact there are no conclusions at all drawn about poultry or eggs, because the research just isn't there. On fish, again there is very poor research, and only one dish is singled out as bad - Cantonese-style salted fish (which I am giving up right now!!!).

4. Milk and dairy products

These tend to be all lumped in together (Milk, cheese, yogurt etc), with no separation of lactose from other ingredients. Which to me is a failing. However these foods are considered quite benign, with neither a negative or positive effect.

The exception is that there is fairly convincing evidence that excessive calcium can increase the risk of prostate cancer, which is one to be aware of for the men.

5. Fats & Oils

No evidence links consumption of fats or oils to either strongly contributing to or strongly protecting from cancer.

There is some suggestive evidence linking high fat intake to breast cancer and high animal fat intake to colorectal cancer. However again these are taken in isolation from the rest of the diet. However the influence of trans-fats or hydrogenated fats on cancer have not been researched much and it was not at all clear to me that these had been adequately separated from the results in the other studies.

6. Sugar & Salt

Yes, apparantly these fit under one heading!! The only definite finding is that excessive salt and salt preserved products are implicated in stomach cancer.

However I found the info about sugar here the MOST interesting in the report, even though it is utterly confusing and really not very useful. Why? Because there is so little reseach and it is so poor.

But what evidence there is suggests a tentative link to colorectal cancer from the very few studies that do look at this. However the studies that exist looked variously at sugars added at the table, of sugary foods and/or drinks, of sucrose, or of added sugars generally but they did NOT look at the full range of sugar/carb containing foods.

There appears (from my reading anyway) to be NO studies at all included, none, looking at the link between persistantly high carb diets (and thus problems related to blood sugar as distinct from dietary sugar) and the link to cancer.

Why not? Why the **** not?

7. Non-alcoholic drinks

No evidence that coffee causes or protects against cancer. Overly hot drinks may contribute to oesphageal cancer. Water is good unless there is arsenic in it (surprise!!)

8. Alcoholic Drinks

Alcohol consumtion - and not just excessive alcohol either - is linked to mouth, pharynx, liver, breast and.... tada, our old enemy colorectal cancer. So how much did the red-meat eaters drink? Do we know? The answer is we don't.

No distiction is made for different forms of alcoholic drink - alcohol is alcohol apparantly.

**Chicklady** · November 2, 2007, 02:30 PM

Re: Doctors, Dietitians Stand Behind Fat/Cancer Link

Wow Kate! Lot's of good points and questions! Correct me if I misread, but didn't the decades long Framingham study disprove the association of fat consumption and breast cancer?

Scientific studies make me paranoid

I well remember in the early 80's switching from butter to margarine 'cause it was supposed to be better for us....OOOPS!

**kate58** · November 2, 2007, 02:44 PM

Re: Doctors, Dietitians Stand Behind Fat/Cancer Link

I believe that the Framington study did so, but then I am not a great fan of that study. There are many flaws in the conclusions they have made, and a lot of instances where they have created unnesessary scares - particularly in relation to the whole fat/cholesterol issue. Basically they have so much data now that is is overwhelming, and a researcher looking at it can draw nearly any conclusion they like.

The link between fat and breast cancer in this current report is only rated as suggestive, not probable, so it is tenuous at best. I accpet that fatness is a risk, not fat - the two are all to often looked upon as being much the same.

The defining feature of all this research seems to be that for every study that says one thing there is another that says the opposite. The idea of this report was good - to look at the vast amount of research out there and weigh up the balance of probability based on the various differing results.

That it didn't, in my opinion, succeed isn't really the fault of the report. There is simply too little research and too much of it is designed to confirm an already fixed point of view.

The more I read this research - and I am fascinated by it because until recently I believed the standard low-fat/high carb line and I feel like a fool for not going into it in more details sooner - the more I realise that most people are researching to try to 'prove' something they already 'know'. And if results don't do so they describe them as 'disappointing' - not as a suggestions that maybe they are wrong.

I have a salutory lesson that keeps reminding me of the danger of accepting conventional wisdom and teaching in science.

In my past I did a college course in animal nutrition, during which my classmates and I (and classes which came before and after us) simply accepted that feeding meat and bone meal to cattle was a 'good thing'. Not one of us, not a single one, wondered whether feeding parts of cattle back to themselves, to ruminant vegetarian animals, might have inherent dangers. BSE made it clear that we should have been asking that question, but it never even occured to us. We just accepted what we took to be established fact. I'm not proud of that and it made me into a sceptic.

Announcement

Doctors, Dietitians Stand Behind Fat/Cancer Link

Doctors, Dietitians Stand Behind Fat/Cancer Link

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment