New cancer research shows vegetarians at less risk than meat eaters

[Cantando]

An interesting article from:

Vegetarians less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters | News | Nursing Times

Oxford University researchers studied more than 61,000 meat eaters and vegetarians over 12 years, looking at 20 different types of cancer.

They found that vegetarians are 12% less likely than meat eaters to develop all types of cancer, and 45% less likely to develop cancers of the blood, such as leukaemia, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The risk of being diagnosed with cancer of the stomach and bladder was also significantly lower in vegetarians than in meat eaters. However, the risk for cancer of the cervix was significantly higher in vegetarians than in meat eaters, the researchers found.

Although dietary factors have been suspected of influencing the risk of cervical cancer, the principal cause is the human papillomavirus and the differences in risk between the two groups could be due to factors such as attendance for cervical screening, the researchers said.

Sara Hiom, director of health information at Cancer Research UK, said: ‘These results add to the evidence that what we eat affects our chances of developing cancer.

‘We know that eating a lot of red and processed meat increases the risk of stomach cancer. But the links between diet and cancer risk are complex and more research is needed to see how big a part diet plays, and which specific dietary factors are most important,’ she added.

The study results are published on in the British Journal of Cancer.

[WhiteCrow]

You do know that research like this doesn't say ****?

Correlation is not the same as causation.

What type of meat did the meat group eat? Did they eat veggies too? Probably not. If the meat eating folks would eat more veggies, would eating meat still impose a cancer risk?

Most meat eaters are unhealthy not because of the meat, but because of absence of anything else.

I think that the right kinds of meat, combined with the right vegetables, is healthier than either group.

[scorpio1980]

Exactly what white crow said. Most meat eaters also eat fast food,and lack veggies in diet. If you go vegetarian chances are that you also look at a lot of other aspects of your diet. I still believe an omnivoire diet to be best. Just look at traditional meat eaters which have been extensivly studied, and we find the same types of results as this study does in that eating a diet of 50% meat didn't really cause any types of health problems. I'm on the boat that meat is healthy it just needs to be balanced.

[scorpio1980]

Also after looking at that study in more detail it seems to point to the fact heavy fish eaters had the lowest cancer rates of all. This leads me to one thing, the fact most meat eaters eat the commercially raised crap, and the few veggies they do eat are mostly non organic. Most heavy fish eaters that I know tend to eat organic veggies,and wild caught fish. I eat all organic, and my beef is grass fed. I believe my omnivoire diet to be very healthy. This study is not indepth enough to really prove anything, except that veggies are healthy, which we all know.

[Mattyyy]

Hmm, that's a pretty large scale, interesting study.

I think it'll be extremely interesting to see what kinds of research they do in the future and what results they get. Especially when they start to figure out what meats, fruits and veggies, chemicals, etc. give you a higher (or lower?) risk of developing certain cancers, and why.

[Beuford]

Honestly, it does not surprise me vegetarians came out less likely. I don't think this research is any major break through and I am not going to review the research myself, but I agree that many vegetarians are healthier because they don't eat as much fast food. I also agree that animal products are unhealthy if they are more than a small percentage of your diet. So, a 5-10% organic meat eater would get cancer as often as a vegetarian, where a 30-50% meat eater would get cancer more often considering there wouldn't be enough room left in the diet for sufficient health food. Humans can only take so much.

Anyway, going vegetarian correctly makes sure you have plenty of vegetables and fruits. It wouldn't surprise me if new results found those who eat meat in moderation and only a few times a week only get cancer slightly more often than vegans.

Good discussion I think.

[funchy]

Funny how different people can read the same news story and pick what they want to see in it. I saw it a few days ago, and my reactions was "don't we already know this?" I guess I'm feeling a bit surprised some people are in denial of what seems to be a pretty well accepted fact.

Originally Posted by WhiteCrow

You do know that research like this doesn't say ****? Correlation is not the same as causation.

But we do understand some of the causation.

We know for example that a low fiber diet leaves food sitting around in between ridges in the colon. When it's a meat product, it forms acids as it (for lack of a better word) rots, up against the wall of the colon. That irritates and damages the colon wall. Those who eat lots of meat and skip past veggies are therefore at a higher risk for colon problems/cancer.

We know a high fat diet, especially saturated fats, helps in the build up of arterial plaque. This is the plaque that narrows arteries, raises blood pressure, or encourages a clot to form. Obviously high blood pressure or a broken-off bit of blood clot are bad news for the heart. And in America heart attack and stroke are top killers of adults.

It's still being researched, but some doctors are concerned the American high-meat SAD diet is also linked to dietary (type 2) diabetes -- it's not just a "simple sugar" disease. And right now it's estimated 1 in 5 kids born today will develop type 2 diabetes. This is still new research, but it's an interesting idea.

I think that the right kinds of meat, combined with the right vegetables, is healthier than either group.

Why do you assume their meat eating group must've been eating improperly? They sampled the general population, not locking anyone in a lab to eat controlled food, so their meat-eaters should represent the average meat-eating person out there.

[ginkgo]

Sorry but 61,000 is not that many people. The story that made the TV news was the research study showing that meat causes cancer that was done with 50 billion people. No! That is a joke. I heard Obama or Hillary Clinton make a mistake like that with people on unemployment.

The world has less than 7 billion people. The above study was done with 500,000 people. Did I say that it made the TV news? There is a dairy group and a meat group to promote these foods. The latter sued Oprah Winfrey and lost. Is there a fruit or vegetable group to promote them?

Over 4,000 studies have shown that fruits and vegetables prevent cancer. None say that with meat. Not one. Below is the study done with 500 trillion people: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22199057/?GT1=10645 Here is a better one one the Washington Post: Daily Red Meat Raises Chances Of Dying Early - washingtonpost.com

It appears the these groups have made MSNBC take down this article. They propably threatened to stop advertising with them. So you can do a search for this study that made the TV news. The actual study covered more than what the title says. John Hopkins cure for cancer is sold in supermarkets. It is broccoli sprouts that they bred (and patented) to be extra high in sulforophane. I guess the Aussies (Australians) can report it: Cancer a risk for lovers of red meat | The Australian

[The David]

Originally Posted by funchy

Why do you assume their meat eating group must've been eating improperly? They sampled the general population

That's exactly why.

The general population does eat improperly. While there are plenty of unhealthy vegetarians out there, if a person is vegetarian that means they have thought about their diet more than the average person (unless they are vegetarian by default, like seventh-day adventists). By comparing average vegetarians to average omnivores, they are comparing people who are probably critical eaters with people who probably aren't. This study is about sociology, not health.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by WhiteCrow

You do know that research like this doesn't say ****?

Correlation is not the same as causation.

That's basically what Dr. Briffa said on his blog:

Don’t be fooled by the study which found lower cancer rates in vegetarians | Dr Briffa's Blog

I do not dismiss this evidence out of hand, but I think it is important to bear in mind that this study was epidemiological in nature, and can only then tell us about associations between diet and cancer. But just because two things are associated does not mean one is causing the other. The usual assumption with studies of this nature is that there’s something bad about meat that ups cancer risk. But it may be vegetables are cancer protective and vegetarians eat more of these. Or maybe it’s neither of these things. Or maybe, it’s nothing more than an association and eating meat/fewer vegetables does not cause cancer at all. We just don’t know.

One major problem with epidemiological studies is what are known as ‘confounding’ factors. So let’s say we find from a study less physically active people turn out to have a higher risk of lung cancer. We have found an association between two things that might cause people to conclude that a sedentary lifestyle causes lung cancer. But, imagine that sedentary people are more likely to smoke. Smoking is a potential confounding factor here, and may be the real reason for why sedentary individuals are at heightened risk of lung cancer. In epidemiological studies often an attempt is made to ‘control for’ potential confounding factors. It’s an imprecise science, for sure, but generally better than nothing.

Controlling for potential confounding factors is particularly important when comparing meat-eaters and vegetarians because, generally speaking, they are likely to be more health-conscious than meat-eaters. Meat-eating has an unhealthy reputation, right? And vegetarianism generally as a ‘healthy’ image too. So someone inclined to do what they can to protect or improve their health may be drawn towards eschewing meat. But these individuals may also be drawn to other habits too like smoking less and exercising more.

[...]

I read here that Professor Tim Key, the lead author of the study being reported on today “said it was impossible to draw strong conclusions from this one single study”. He is quoted as saying, “At the moment these findings are not strong enough to ask for particularly large changes in the diets of people following an average balanced diet.” Even the study’s lead author seems to have poured cold water on its findings. Perhaps Professor Key is aware of the evidence which shows vegetarianism does not offer distinct health advantages? He should be, seeing as he’s the lead author of the studies mentioned above [2,4] that show that vegetarians have mortality rates the same as non-vegetarians.

2. Key TJA, et al. Dietary habits and mortality in 11000 vegetarians and health conscious people: results of a 17 year follow up. Br Med J 1996;313:775–9


4. Key TJ, et al. Mortality in British vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford). Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89(5):1613S-1619S

[ginkgo]

PDR® stands for Physician's Desk Reference. It is a huge book that doctors use to look up any medication. The PDR® Family Guide to Nutrition and Health™ (© 1995 by Medical Economics Company [It is 800 pages]) says

"According to Dr. John Potter, director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle [he is an M.D., PhD and professor at U of WA], the best evidence today indicates that vegetables and fruits are the nutritional stars in prevention of most major types of cancer." He teaches epidemiology which is the study of causes, distribution and control of diseases in population. So he better know how to interpret studies.