• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Red and Processed Meat Bowel Cancer risk up to 20%

One in 15 men and 1 in 18 women born after 1960 in the UK will be diagnosed with bowel cancer in their lifetime.

Since my birth pre-dates this cut-off, I'm obviously perfectly safe, and shall continue eating red (and some processed) meat to my heart's (and bowels) content. However I've always believed in eating a varied diet (aka hedging my nutritional bets...)

Long experience has shown me that high qualifications in a given field does not always equate with basic common sense, so I'm not going to be swayed by any scientific pontifications on what researchers think we should or should not consume - they've got it badly wrong before. And I'd suspect that any issues with red meat may well come from what the farmed animals are currently fed rather than from their actual meat as such.

Robbity
 
Well according to various risk factors purported for different diseases, cancers etc I'm a walking time bomb. I'm a woman who has PCOS, never given birth or breast fed, I drank to excess in the past, I eat meat, fat, dairy, had/still have an eating disorder, have some cancers in my family, massive stress on a daily basis, serious sleep deprivation oh and the biggie - I smoke a few cigarettes every day. I will take my chances on an extra slice of bacon every now and then

I am a less than 20g carb not Keto omnivore who probably eats far less meat and **** than I ever did I suspect that those (including me) on LCHF diet who eat to satiation eat well within any recommended guidelines anyway.
 
Everyday you find out more about the information we rely on and mostly believe. I am currently 25 minutes into and hour and 27 minute podcast, but have to link it now as it has some insight into how data is manipulated and the vested interests. I think my default position will be "it is printed, so it is a lie or exaggerated." When a British Newspaper can push an agenda, due to getting paid within that scope (and not making this clear) I have a problem with this.

I am slightly deflated as I used to respect the Guardian, but I now know why they publish stuff with gusto such as what is in this topic, Valter Longo of the Fasting Mimicking Diet fame, leaves me with another empty feeling, as this podcast also reveals what he did with data - the relevance is that his research has been widely accepted which effectively is a reduction in protein (especially meat based). Anyway if you have time, have a listen as this podcast answers some of the related areas to this topic (I wonder what the further hour of listening will reveal, can anything be trusted):

 
Always accepting that Shawn Baker has his own VERY carnivorous slant, and is extremely outspoken and critical (to the point that it can look like a slanging match).

Personally, I can't be bothered with any of them, any more.
The moment they get personal, make sweeping statements and retaliate by 'I know best' style podcasts, I just switch off.
 
Brunneria said:
Always accepting that Shawn Baker has his own VERY carnivorous slant, and is extremely outspoken and critical (to the point that it can look like a slanging match).

Personally, I can't be bothered with any of them, any more.
The moment they get personal, make sweeping statements and retaliate by 'I know best' style podcasts, I just switch off.
Click to expand...

When people constantly get their chezzies out to prove to you how healthy they *are* I switch off too.
 
Brunneria said:
Always accepting that Shawn Baker has his own VERY carnivorous slant, and is extremely outspoken and critical (to the point that it can look like a slanging match).

Personally, I can't be bothered with any of them, any more.
The moment they get personal, make sweeping statements and retaliate by 'I know best' style podcasts, I just switch off.
Click to expand...
Except this (or the first half an hour I have watched) was less about Shawn and far more about Dr Layman who seems pretty well informed.. just sayin'
 
bulkbiker said:
Except this (or the first half an hour I have watched) was less about Shawn and far more about Dr Layman who seems pretty well informed.. just sayin'
Click to expand...

Valid point.
But I note that particular podcast is number 96.
He certainly hasn't been that restrained and professional in the other podcasts I have sampled.
 
Brunneria said:
Valid point.
But I note that particular podcast is number 96.
He certainly hasn't been that restrained and professional in the other podcasts I have sampled.
Click to expand...
Agree 100% but don't throw out the baby etc.. this one so far is surprisingly good.. Prof Layman looks like a very well informed dude and a bit of a protein expert.. only 40 mins in so far..
 
Brunneria said:
Always accepting that Shawn Baker has his own VERY carnivorous slant, and is extremely outspoken and critical (to the point that it can look like a slanging match).

Personally, I can't be bothered with any of them, any more.
The moment they get personal, make sweeping statements and retaliate by 'I know best' style podcasts, I just switch off.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean. This part is the "game" is click bait on their personal sites. Bart Kay has behaved similarly, which put me off...but then he admitted his goading was to increase numbers, now he provides a wealth of knowledge with his following established.

On Shawn's and Zach Bitter's HPO podcast, they have been devoid of this approach, and have had serious guests (including one of the top Vegans Dr Johl Khan (very respectful exchange)), where they take an approach which is open to the alternative. I have watched all of the HPO podcasts and would be confident enough to say the level of expertise / education is second none, with guests like Dr David Unwin, Belinda Fettke, Gary Taubes, Dave Feldman, Nina Teicholz, Ben Bikman, Tim Noakes. Sorry to go on, but I think someone new to this space could get provocative knowledge on climate change etc from heavyweights who are at least as good as the so called experts who currently occupy the high ground, so for those give this source a chance.
 
bulkbiker said:
Agree 100% but don't throw out the baby etc.. this one so far is surprisingly good.. Prof Layman looks like a very well informed dude and a bit of a protein expert.. only 40 mins in so far..
Click to expand...
I sound like I have links to this podcast and the others in the series - this is how they are all conducted i.e. expert opinion in a question answer style.
 
Mbaker said:
I sound like I have links to this podcast and the others in the series - this is how they are all conducted i.e. expert opinion in a question answer style.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting.. I usually find podcasts too long and rambling whereas this was very informative even if I don't agree with all Prof Laymans stuff.. Now I just need to go and listen to the other 95!
 
Saw the original article on BBC News and immediately came to the forum to get it debunked. Do love this place. Will be adding an extra rasher to my dinner tonight.
 
remember that animals are not fed a completely natural diet anymore, so that may affect the meat and how our bodies react to it. We are not just eating millenia old foods, our modern foods, even plain old meat, is not the same as pre-1960's, due to the feeding changes of the animals, and fertilizers etc used to grow the food supplements they eat.
 
It must have been a slow news day here in Australia as this bacon thing about being a killer with one slice a day was all over the tv news.

I do not stand much chance then after eating three kilos a fortnight, which equates to 214.285714 grams a day.

My last bowel cancer test a couple of years ago where you use a stick to get a sample of excreta, and send it back in a sealed container by mail came back negative.
 
lucylocket61 said:
remember that animals are not fed a completely natural diet anymore, so that may affect the meat and how our bodies react to it. We are not just eating millenia old foods, our modern foods, even plain old meat, is not the same as pre-1960's, due to the feeding changes of the animals, and fertilizers etc used to grow the food supplements they eat.
Click to expand...
Good point, in fact excellent
Another member and I discussed this earlier in a PM. Grain fed is a shortcut, which is used to fatten. I think fed lots, battery farms are a disgrace. Me and mine are lucky and blessed to have grass fed and finished for most of our beef, but will have the compromises elsewhere.

I have looked at the meat heals, zeroing on carb and reddit sites and those 10 years plus seem to be alright on grain fed (not for me, whilst I am earning).
 
Jim Lahey said:
It just winds me up. Humans switch from ancient foods to modern foods and start dropping dead from chronic degenerative ailments and diseases. The solution? Eat less ancient foods. Give me strength. The saddest part is that the truth doesn’t even matter. It only matters what people believe, and the majority will believe this preposterous poppycock.

:mad::mad::mad:
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the majority believe most poppycock but in life it only really matters what we believe and live our lives by. The rest will perish in due course like every other civilisation has when corrupted by vested interests.
 
It's interesting topic indeed, logically speaking when the nation was meat and two veg, there would a much higher incidence of cancer and other conditions. There was less intensive farming, food was not mass produced, fewer processed and chemicals in foods. They may say there safe, however combined together you wonder what sort of chemical reactions they give.
It doesn't take much research on the digestive system, through the evolution of humans to modern humans and various animals. Starting from the teeth through the digestive system. Well we certainly not gorillas, we havnt the same digestive system at all, we couldn't even eat the same foods, they do eat insects and so on. Humans cannot ferment foods, we don't have that digestive system. Definitely not ruminant as we only have one stomach, plus we cannot regurgitate our foods nor have the teeth to chew.
Primates are not all equal, as we know that some do eat, meat. In which we did and do
At that time, there was no such thing as agricultural obviously.
I found a really good sitem unfortunately can't find it again for a link..
 
Back
Top