WASHINGTON, Dec 20 (Reuters) - People who eat a meat-laden diet have more than triple the average risk of esophageal cancer and double the risk of stomach cancer, US researchers reported Thursday.

The report adds to several studies that link eating meat, especially "red" meat such as beef, with certain cancers. Colon cancer has been the cancer type most strongly linked with a high-meat diet.

The study of people living in Nebraska found that those who ate the most meat had 3.6 times the risk of esophageal cancer and double the risk of stomach cancer when compared with people eating what the researchers considered a healthy diet.

People who ate a lot of dairy products, who tended also to eat a lot of meat, had double the risk of both cancers, the researchers report in the January issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Mary Ward, Honglei Chen and colleagues at the National Cancer Institute, Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts and elsewhere surveyed 124 people with stomach cancer, 124 people with esophageal cancer and 449 people who did not have cancer.

They asked detailed questions about their eating habits, then characterized their diets as being "healthy," "high meat," "high milk," high in salty snacks, heavy on desserts and heavy on white bread.

The so-called healthy diet had the highest amounts of fruits, vegetables and whole grains and generally matched the government recommendations that people eat at least five servings of fruit and vegetables a day; up to 10 servings of grains, breads and pasta and just two to three small servings of meat.

The healthy eating group--21% of those surveyed--also generally ate the fewest calories.

"In contrast with this healthy dietary pattern, the high-meat dietary pattern included much higher intakes of meats and much lower intakes of fruits, bread and cereals," the researchers report.

They said 33% of stomach cancer patients and 35% of esophageal cancer patients ate either the high-meat or high-milk diets.

http://www.reutershealth.com/archiv...220elin020.html

This smells suspiciously like an article we posted back in October. http://forum.lowcarber.org/t23634.html ... We debunked that "suggestion" too ... since it was based on survey and interview data NOT on lab-based objective findings AND a lot of other dietary factors were left out, such as persons eating high meat could also be eating a lot of sugar, cornbread, white flour and Rice Krispies. Plus I did a lot of research into stomach and esophageal cancers .. it's all posted in that other thread I gave the link to.

I'll try to track down the source of the original "study" this particular article is based on. It appears to have been conducted in a different city & state than the October report, but they sound so similar ... it makes me wonder who is funding these interviews?? It almost looks "fixed" like they're looking to get specific results ... surveys are often conducted this way, with the questions worded in such a way to get the desired answers.



Doreen

It probably all the chemicals and hormones in the meat that's actually causing it anyway.

Speaking of hormones, my ex was vending at both highschools and jr highs last year and he noticed the the jr high girls were average B-C cup as opposed to high school girls A-B cup.
I think it's chicken and milk personally, all those female hormones they pump into the animals. Who knows for real. Anyone?

"what the researchers considered a healthy diet", I think that pretty much says it all right there. I have to wonder if this attitude had biased their opinions on the research they did.




Pray tell were all these people in the same region? Or did they just interview people all over the place looking for "groups" they wanted and then came back with their results? Sounds very one sided if you ask me. Exactly 124 people with stomach cancer, and exactly 124 people with esophageal cancer...and 449 without either? Why not stop at 124 without either?

*shrugs* Sounds like the grain people were behind this research

Don't know about the bra sizes Meeker, but the other study "suggested" it was the saturated FAT in the meat, and not meat itself. It's worth noting the timing of the release of this article ... The "study" back in October ... was originally posted to AOL the day before it appeared on Reuter's Health e-line ... and the AOL report also said it was MEAT, whereas the Reuter's report stated it was FAT.

I think it's false, biased and misleading either way.

Doreen

New study with red wine came out today also. Which tries to explain the "french paradox"... it supported information we know ALREADY. It's just as dumb that article about how pets can get sick from people (its been known for 200+ years). Makes me wonder if these articles were timed. There have been many epidimological works of much greater sample sizes which show meat and fat consumption actually reducing cancer risk... the opposite of what these nitwits published. The government spent billions trying to prove what these nitwits think they've proved through epidimological work... and the government failed to prove it even when they used pure experimentation. Did they isolate the variable they were testing? Epidimological data is considered soft data... and the government even used hard data and was unable to show fat or meat causing any increase in heart disease. Its rather funny when you compare hard data with soft data lol. There data is very soft. Looking at epidimological data from the nurses study (100,000+), There is no relationship... just the reduction of all forms of cancer... . The last study was brought up in my friends medical ethics class. I wonder if this one will also show up too. I wish university's would just use IQ scores as a requirment for enterence. Too many stupid people out there with every degree you can imagine. Oh, also a IQ requirment to teach. Thats the heart of the problem. I graduated earing 65,000. My professor earns 45k. My high school teachers tended to be a LOT smarter then my college professors, and I went to a ivy league school. People are just paid what their worth. No reason for a 70 or 80 IQ to get a Ph.D It destroy's education... and I think its destroying science.

Exactly. Here's my research on Stomach and Esophageal cancer, which I posted in response to the "Meat & Fat causes cancer" article back in October**sigh** I should've known just from the title of the article that I'd need a BIG shovel for the load

I'm trying to track down more about this "study" ... First, I checked Tuft's University in Boston ... there is no National Cancer Institute ... there is a Cancer Care Center, as there would be at any major hospital, but not a cancer research institute. It's lookin' shadier and shadier to me.

Doreen

The actual study in PDF format:

Dietary patterns and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and distal stomach - AJCN Jan 2002

I have a little problem with "next of kin." Can you tell me the diet of your sister or brother? And they mix-matching the data. Making changes to it, when they should just be running solver looking for any consistencies.. They may me compensating for their miniture sample size.

That's quite different from the Reuter's article, which implies that ALL meat is linked to BOTH types of cancers. In fact, in the body of the study itself, the "healty diet" included poultry and fish. The "high-meat" diet included a large intake of processed and cured meats, hotdogs, etc.

I've already posted my research on esophageal cancer just above here. This study did not show a link between high meat consumption and esophageal cancer, only confirmed previous reports that a high-fiber diet with lots of vegetables and fruits is beneficial.

I did a search of adenocarcinoma of the distal stomach (the end that connects to the intestine) in Nebraska. Although the rate for stomach cancer in the US as a whole has been declining for decades, this particular population seems to be at greater risk. There are numerous factors being investigated .. diet is only one. This is a mostly rural, farm-based population ... with increased exposure to pesticides, and high-nitrates in the drinking water (from organic waste and fertilizers) .. which is strongly associated with cancers of the digestive tract. Likely the livestock which are the source of the meat, are also consuming the high-nitrate water.

I found a previous study, also co-authoured by Mary H. Ward (of THIS study) ... from 1996, which suggests a link between charred and well-done meats and pan-drippings (gravy) with increased risk of stomach cancer. You can read it here. Mary H. Ward is an epidemiologist, who has co-authored many interview-based research projects looking for links between meat consumption and stomach cancer. Hmmm, hope everyone's memory was crystal-clear. The editorial comments on this study can be read here. Potential errors and inaccuracies are discussed, much better than I could state.

This study lumps fresh meats in with processed meats which are high in salt and nitrates, both of which have been previously linked to cancers of the digestive tract. There was a note made about the "healthy diet" which wasn't really stressed, but I thought interesting.I think the results of this study could be useful for those known to be in the high-risk group for stomach cancer, so that they could make preventive dietary changes .. eating more whole vegetables and fruits, more fish, poultry and nuts. Eating more fish, especially fatty fish ... and less salty processed meat with nitrates ... is a good idea for everybody.

But to make a blanket statement implying that eating all meats leads to increased risk of these cancers in all people is inaccurate and misleading.

my 2¢

Doreen

Here's the problem. We know they ate a lot of meat. How do we know they also didn't eat a lot of french fries? Hamburger buns? Cookies? We don't. All we know is that they ate meat.

Epidemiological studies are like that. They look for an answer first and then try to prove it. They choose the groups to produce the results they want, and then publish.