If you also include this link Helminth infections and intestinal inflammation to a full text paper on the subject it may help them understand you are not winding them up.

I did my own amateur epidemilogical research. Consider that Finland, Denmark, and Belgium, countries that consume 1000+ calories or more of animal products daily than Japan or Chile have an average lifespan only 6 years lower. Canada, Iceland, Sweden and France have a lifespan average less than 4 years lower. I wouldn't say Japan and Chile are in abject poverty either...

Eating Lots of Red Meat Linked to Colon Cancer

Colon cancer is the third most common cause of cancer cases and deaths in both men and women in the US, striking more than 145,000 people and killing more than 56,000 each year.

People who eat a lot of red meat or processed meats may be raising their risk for colon cancer. Although this link has been shown before, a new study by American Cancer Society researchers helps explain the relationship.

Eating large amounts of red or processed meat over a long period of time can indeed raise colorectal cancer risk. But the risks from such a diet are smaller than those from obesity and lack of exercise, both for colon cancer and for overall health.

The people who ate the most red meat in both time periods were 30%-40% more likely to develop cancer in the lower part of the colon, compared to people who ate the least. People who ate the most processed meats were 50% more likely to develop colon cancer and 20% more likely to develop rectal cancer compared to those who ate the least.

So how much meat are we talking about?

For red meat (beef, lamb, pork), the researchers defined "high" consumption as 3 or more ounces per day for men -- or about the amount of meat in a large fast-food hamburger. For women the "high" amount was 2 or more ounces per day. For processed meat (bacon, sausage, hot dogs, ham, cold cuts) "high" consumption was 1 ounce eaten 5 or 6 days per week for men, and 2 or 3 days per week for women. A slice of bologna weighs about 1 ounce; 2 slices of cooked bacon weigh a little more than half an ounce.

Eating poultry and fish did not raise the risk of colon cancer. In fact, people who ate more poultry and fish than red meat were less likely to develop the disease.

Source: ACS News Center

Not trying to beat this low carb red meat and colon cancer thing to death but perhaps the 56,000 deaths a year makes it something we all should all be thinking about. My uncle developed it and took his own life to end the suffering. Not a good thing for family and friends.

Perhaps some small modifications to our diets would be a good thing?

Bo

My Dad died from colon cancer, and he ate nothing but carbs/sugar/flour. He would occasionally eat an orange or linguine with clam sauce, and lots of alcohol. He had learned long time ago to trim the fat off of meat and to eat lean meats.

Karen,

I have no doubt that anyone can develop colon cancer even if they eat no meat at all!

However, it’s still true that people who ate the most red meat were 30%-40% more likely to develop cancer in the lower part of the colon, compared to people who ate the least.

Bo

Indeed but if the meat eaters has not been eating corn fed meat but grass raised and grass finished meat would the same percentage have had colon cancer?

Also what percentage of the meat eaters had vitamin D3 status below the level our bodies naturally attain and maintain if we live near naked outdoors most days?
We know those diagnosed and treated when vitamin D status is higher (summer Autumn) have better outcomes than those diagnosed treated winter and spring.

It may not be simply the fact that is was red meat that initiated the cancer but the pro inflammatory nature of corn fed meat and the fact it doesn't contain sufficient natural anti inflammatory agent omega 3 or the fact that the bodies digesting the pro inflammatory meat did not have sufficient reserves of the natural anti inflammatory agent Vitamin D3 to deal with the inflammation cause by the corn finished meat.

It's very cheap and easy to ensure your body has sufficient reserves of D3 as once you get your 25(OH)D above 125nmol/l, 50ng your body will store surplus D3 so you always have a reservoir available.

Ensuring you also have plenty of omega 3 and magnesium (both anti inflammatory agents) in reserve will also provide a certain level of insurance.

Maybe the answer isn't to scare people away from eating red meat (though certainly a reduction in portion size would probably be sensible.) but to encourage measures that will reduce their overall risk of getting many cancers and other chronic conditions?.

Neither one of these statements has any meaning beyond their value as endless arguing points for reasons that have been hashed and rehashed. We're back to the old "Children raised in white houses in Richland, WA have more cavities than children raised in all other colors of houses. So, if you want your kids to have good checkups paint your house any color but white."

Then guys, you also have the complications of my own religion when compared to seventh day adventists. Look it up Bob.

Mormons have less colon cancer, and we eat meat, when compared to seventh day adventists. In fact we have less incidence of most cancers than Seventh Day adventists.

Something else is going Bob. I understand that stats like that impress you, but the problem is what other facts DON'T you know about?

Are Seventh Day Adventists concentrated mostly in one area, like LDS are in Utah?

I have also heard, and I cannot find a quotation for this, that Seventh Day Adventists, although vegetarian, are highly prone to digestive and gastric complaints. This from a former member, whose friends popped Tums and Xantac and gas-x like candy. It was almost a matter of humor among them.

I do not have a citation for this.

I don't think so. As you know, we are genetically programmed to thrive on natural foods and grass fed meats.

BTW, thanks for the great links you've provided. I've learned a lot.

Bo

I'm not so sure that poverty and infectious disease can be considered as independent from vegetarianism. What if the rate of infection and death from infectious disease is increased by weakened immune systems caused by the vegetarian diet? What if the poverty is partially due to widespread vegetarianism causing chronic debilitating health problems, reducing productivity and consuming resources to care for the diseased and disabled?

No, they're fairly well distributed all over the USA/world - but I do not know if the SDA health studies were done in only one geographic area or among SDA's throughout the world.

LDS are all over the world. In fact there are more OUTSIDE of the US than there are in the US.

I do not see much need for speculation about the causes of poverty in India, when we already have so many available explanations, such as...



Link to the entire article here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India

The world's poorest countries are listed here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ving_in_poverty

Is vegetarianism widespread in all of these places, because poverty and high levels of infectious diseases are, link here...

http://www.globalhealth.org/view_top.php3?id=228



Clean drinking water might just have a bit more to do with it.

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2005/Cl...oun tries.aspx