Red Meat & Colon Cancer

The thing I don't like is that, like most studies condemning red meat,
they don't distinguish between the different types of red meat. Cured
"lunch meat" is totally different, for example, than good quality roast
beef. I'm sure that there is considerable difference in their
carcinogenicity.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The thing I don't like is that, like most studies condemning red meat,
they don't distinguish between the different types of red meat. Cured
"lunch meat" is totally different, for example, than good quality roast
beef. I'm sure that there is considerable difference in their
carcinogenicity.

And what about the difference between pastured grass fed beef and feed lot
corn fed beef?

René

The Press often doesn't get it science right.
It rarely asks hard questions on the topic
of science or most other topic for that matter.

Quoted message said:

In fact, the story is significantly more nuanced than such headlines
(and many of the associated articles) make it seem.

Science articles are often nuanced even when they shouldn't be.
With meat it is an issue of moderation, context, and cooking
method.

Quoted message said:

The source of the furor was a report published in the Journal of the
American Medical Association (Chao A ,Thun MJ, Connell CJ, McCullough
ML, et al. Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer. JAMA
2004;293(2):172-182). It described the results of a major
epidemiologic study by researchers associated with the American Cancer
Society and Emory University.

<link snipped>

The nasty combination in "red meat" is cholesterol and iron, though the
unsaturated fatty acids don't help. There is also some arachidonic
acid in all the cells, so you can't get that out by cutting the fat
off. Then there's processing, transportation, and cooking techniques.
It's no surprise that frying ground beef is rather unhealthy compared
to boiled chicken breast, for example. Then there's the excess
calories consumed, in addition to few (if any) anitoxidant-rich foods
consumed. It's all about oxidative stress. The scientific literature
is clear, just do a pubmed search for oxysterol or oxidized cholesterol
and you'll see what I mean.

"montygram" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The nasty combination in "red meat" is cholesterol and iron, though the
unsaturated fatty acids don't help. There is also some arachidonic
acid in all the cells, so you can't get that out by cutting the fat
off. Then there's processing, transportation, and cooking techniques.
It's no surprise that frying ground beef is rather unhealthy compared
to boiled chicken breast, for example. Then there's the excess
calories consumed, in addition to few (if any) anitoxidant-rich foods
consumed. It's all about oxidative stress. The scientific literature
is clear, just do a pubmed search for oxysterol or oxidized cholesterol
and you'll see what I mean.

Powdered eggs and dried milk would likely be some
of the foods richest in oxysterols. Many prepared
foods contain these two products. Ground meat is
a questionable food for a number of reasons. It is
multisourced both in terms of cattle and nations.
And as you say it likely does contain a little
extra oxidation. Even quite conservative sources
suggest the amount of beef to be eaten is the
size of a deck of cards. I'll suggest pork and
bacon have their downsides as well.