Nutrient found in beef and dairy improves immune response to cancer in mice
biologicalsciences.uchicago.edu
biologicalsciences.uchicago.edu
“There is a growing body of evidence about the detrimental health effects of consuming too much red meat and dairy, so this study shouldn’t be taken as an excuse to eat more cheeseburgers and pizza; rather, it indicates that nutrient supplements such as TVA could be used to promote T cell activity.”
I’m also curious about this being a trans fat. I’ve heard public health campaigning that trans fats are unhealthy, but this research highlights one as a potential cancer therapy. It is apparently another case of un-nuanced popular ideas about health and nutrition not being the whole truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kGnfXXIKZM
Is it the type of fat, or the process through which it's extracted, that's most important? I don't know if the answer is as clear as we'd like it to be.
Going back to the article: Isn't it possible that the trans fat in question is actually toxic like other trans fats, but in a way that's narrowly beneficial in this circumstance?
Based on what evidence? Here's a good roundup of our best evidence, and it shows that seed oils improve health outcomes: https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-...
Since you like Youtube videos, here's a good talk between Gil Carvalho and Simon Hill that also goes through the evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ri4S7MLu3A
Another summary of the evidence on seed oils by Layne Norton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2fSaFnt0FM
I skimmed your video and it's the same old low-carb narratives with very little evidence cited which should always be a red flag. People who can't point to our best metaanalyses or human health outcome research on something to back their point will generally spin narratives because it's all they have left to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat#Health_risks
> Partially hydrogenated vegetable oils were an increasingly significant part of the human diet for about 100 years, especially after 1950 as processed food rose in popularity.[66] The deleterious effects of trans fat consumption are scientifically accepted.
> The most important health risk identified for trans fat consumption is an elevated risk of coronary artery disease (CAD).[72] A 1994 study estimated that over 30,000 cardiac deaths per year in the U.S. are attributable to the consumption of trans fats.[30] By 2006 upper estimates of 100,000 deaths were suggested.[73] A comprehensive review of studies of trans fats published in 2006 in the New England Journal of Medicine reports a strong and reliable connection between trans fat consumption and CAD, concluding that "On a per-calorie basis, trans fats appear to increase the risk of CAD more than any other macronutrient, conferring a substantially increased risk at low levels of consumption (1 to 3% of total energy intake)".[60]
Whole Foods, for example, banned trans fats 20 years ago, but they sell many products with vegetable and seed oils, and those are generally healthy.
>certain types of vegetable oil and hydrogenated oil shortened the survival of stroke-prone spontaneously hypertensive rats by decreasing platelet number, increasing hemorrhagic tendency and damaging kidney functions, which could not be accounted for by their fatty acid and phytosterol compositions.[0]
The whole article is worth a read. Note this is about vegetable oils in general but the discussion at hand is about lipids from meat vs lipids from other sources.
[0]Medicines and Vegetable Oils as Hidden Causes of Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes https://karger.com/pha/article/98/3-4/134/272344/Medicines-a...
One possible exception to the “trans fat bad” thing for example is that when I last looked into it several years ago, Conjugated Linoleic Acid (“CLA”) which can be either cis or trans were generally regarded as probably beneficial.
Though frankly I’ve no idea how that would be. Regular linoleic acid itself is considered harmful (at least in the historically excessive amounts we are currently exposed to). It suppresses mammalian metabolism (being required by hibernators to induce the start of their winter torpor cycling), is very prone to oxidizing and generating free radicals and lipid peroxides which cause havoc in lipoproteins and blast holes in cardiovascular tissue, and even without all that it’s breakdown products tend to increase inflammation, though this can be paradoxically hidden by linoleic acid’s ability to suppress the immune system. But somehow when you conjugate three of the things together and get CLA, it behaves differently and can seemingly scavenge for free radicals.
Red meat alone does not cause heart disease. It’s based off the fraudulent study regarding saturated fat and heart disease, which the sugar industry paid for.
More likely, is the breads used in SAD (which have very high amounts of sugar vs other countries’ bread) has a much heavier hand in heart disease.
Further, the science about cholesterol and what markers mean what amount of heart disease risk isn’t even a clear science. LSL vs HDL vs triglycerides. It seems we know triglycerides elevated is not good, but it’s not clear on LDL and HDL alone (there’s also the size of the particle that matters in determining cardiovascular risk)
Show me a study of a population who eats steaks, vegetables, avoids processed foods, and is athletic and I’ll show you a healthy heart.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-in....
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/#:~:tex....
Checking out the research paper[1], the competing interests section declares that Chen “has patents pending on TVA and TVA derivatives.”
I don’t think the underlying reasoning is incorrect, but the way it’s presented is interesting.
That basically destroys his credibility on the topic.
Technology commercialization by universities is the way any academic research (potentially, eventually) reaches the public, and it's quite normal for the original researchers to be involved in the commercialization venture, as advisers, or as CEO. They know the topic best.
It's up to peer review and replication studies to confirm any effects. Even if there weren't any credibility issues with a piece of research this would be true.
I would be more skeptical if they made claims about benefit but we're taking no Acton to commercialize or protect it
A churrasco or asado is a full day event. It starts with wood, and they get a fire going, and this last for hours and is a big social event. In other words hanging around wood smoke, now I can picture something that’s not red meat that could cause cancer in this scenario, but that never seems to bother researchers. They got the result they wanted and publish.
Looking into pork for example, it is recommended as an alternative because it seems to have a lower incidence of many cancer types in studies and it's a great meat to smoke.
Teochew people eat a lot of (from my anecdotal experience) and we don't have the same culture of charcoal burning our meat. I wonder whether a similar comparison could work for South East vs other parts of the Chinese diaspora...
When a family member was diagnosed with cancer I was warned heavily about the difference between cooked meat and charred meat. Charring is linked to cancer where cooked meat is a bit more up in the air.
Because they are the experts in their field. They are the most qualified to not only read through all of the literature, but actually properly understand it, debate it, and come to a reasonably correct conclusion.
>why are you resistant to the idea they could be wrong?
I'm not resistant to the idea they could be wrong. It's science, the whole thing is built on showing proving previous hypotheses were either wrong or somehow incomplete. However, when it comes to health, I feel I'd be better served by listening to the consensus of various medical bodies than commenters on the Internet, media outlets, or my own ability to digest the scientific literature. In mathematical terms, I think the expected value of my health outcomes where I listen only to the advice of medical bodies is better than the expected value of my health outcomes where I "do my own research," in spite of the fact that medical bodies may be wrong here or there. I'd get it wrong more often.
I'm not advocating for any kind of diet, though. I'm advocating for trusting the consensus opinion of multiple independent groups of scientists to determine what the data does and does not say about what's healthy.
[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/03/wheres-the-beef-mea...
That is not they key problem as you originally laid out. Your original position is that they key problem is they ARE wrong. Further, I don't know that I've ever read any sort of paper or written guidelines that explicitly says "we might be wrong here." Should those all be ignored for that reason? The papers you yourself cited in a comment above don't explicitly say they may be wrong, yet you have no problem taking them as 100% established fact. This seems like a bit of a double standard and sloppy logic.
>Coupled with the intense lobbying
Do you have evidence for corruption in these institutions?
They're nameless government entities. Depending if you feel knowledge always grows you may change your ideas. Waves of ignorance litter the medical field today, as hysteria was accepted as the only disease women could have: the wandering womb theory. Consensus of ignorance is still ignorance.
There's no real evidence that high red meat is bad. There's no evidence that eating more veggies is bad.
I can't believe I'm about to spend time responding to someone who opens with this, but here we go.
>It's not based on the best credentials, it's a job.
Where are you getting this information? Looking at the CCS guidelines, for example, one sees that the authors are MDs or PhDs at medical schools.
>They're nameless government entities.
Not a single one of the bodies I cited is a government entity. What are you even talking about?
Parts of the field are in worryingly deep denial about the number and magnitude of confounding variables a moderate level of skeptical empiricism suggests could be present in their foundational research. As, again, in the specific case that user is worried you're glossing over: The lipid hypothesis was probably developed from studies with diets also high in processed foods, simple carbohydrates, added sugar, salt, and vegetable oils, and low in organ meats and heavy-metal-free fish. Don't we all agree these things as a staple in a diet will probably negative health outcomes on their own? How can the field be confident enough to publicly assert a model on that? Have they put the rice-fruit-and-legume diet through as rigorous a comparison to the chicken-veg-and-liver diet as they did to the McDonald's special diet? It'd be nice to develop a culture of a straight answer of "Yes, and here's the confirming metaanalysis [1]" on this question in place of this "mind-your-seniors" browbeating. Isn't that what science is supposed to be about?
You've cited the debunking of a demographer to try to debunk the work of cardiologists. Okay?
>Parts of the field are in worryingly deep denial about the number and magnitude of confounding variables a moderate level of skeptical empiricism suggests could be present in their foundational research. As, again, in the specific case that user is worried you're glossing over: The lipid hypothesis was probably developed from studies with diets also high in processed foods, simple carbohydrates, added sugar, salt, and vegetable oils, and low in organ meats and heavy-metal-free fish. Don't we all agree these things as a staple in a diet will probably negative health outcomes on their own? How can the field be confident enough to publicly assert a model on that? Have they put the rice-fruit-and-legume diet through as rigorous a comparison to the chicken-veg-and-liver diet as they did to the McDonald's special diet?
Once again, I, and probably the vast majority of people on HN, aren't properly educated to have a comprehensive view of the medical literature on the matter and properly digest it all. I'm not going to participate in a debate on the merits of guidelines published and signed by thousands of medical and scientific experts from around the world, to even try and assume I could do so with a couple of hours here and there when they're looking into these issues for 8 hours a day for years on end would be arrogant on my part.
>It'd be nice to develop a culture of a straight answer of "Yes, and here's the confirming metaanalysis [1]" on this question in place of this "mind-your-seniors" browbeating. Isn't that what science is supposed to be about?
If you want to challenge someone who might be able to give you an informed answer, your best bet is to talk to an actual expert on the matter. You can find some people in the articles below.
https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/41/1/111/5556353 https://onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-282X(21)00165-3/fulltext https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073510971...
Ok…point taken
>..and come to a reasonably correct conclusion.
Or more likely…probably will not come to the correct conclusion. Every past “accepted” or “settled” scientific consensus now known to be wrong once had its merits tested from the most qualified to not only read through all of the literature, but actually properly understand it, debate it people?
In the last few years science has received a black eye because the populace was told we should blindly trust experts. We see now that experts are frequently wrong and affected by politics and money. I can weigh their opinion, but blindly trust? Not any more.
So what? You're quickly approaching "Science is a liar sometimes" territory. Has scientific consensus been wrong in the past? Yes. So what?
>We see now that experts are frequently wrong and affected by politics and money.
Define "frequently," because I sure as shit haven't seen them be wrong more often than not, and I REALLY haven't seen them be wrong more often than commentators on the internet.
As a practical matter most of us would probably do better by ignoring the science and instead mimicking the practices of successful masters athletes. While there is a certain amount of survivorship bias, people who are still achieving sub-elite results into their 60's must be doing something right.
There is no evidence that participating in sports wears out joints. Joints evolved to move. The majority of people who need joint surgery lead sedentary lifestyles. Building strong muscles helps to stabilize joints and reduces the risk of injury.
Consumption of free sugars, pulverized grains, manufactured oils and cigarette smoking took off like crazy after 1900. Type 2 Diabetes was totaly unchecked and out of control. By 1960 heart disease is the #1 killer and what do they blame... Saturated fat, beef... eggs? Come on... You don't need a million studies to scratch your head a little at the lipid hypothesis.
Why?
>Before 1900 heart disease was extremely rare. And what were people eating before 1900? A whole lot of beef, bacon, butter, and eggs. Saturated fat consumption per capita was basically unchanged from 1900 to 1950. But heart disease skyrocketed. Look at this data: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name=...
Do you think the scientists and doctors that have examined this issue professionally for 8 or more hours per day over decades haven't seen or considered this data?
I am not going to "just think about this from an armchair standpoint" because, quite frankly, that's stupid. I don't know what the confounding variables in the data you show might be. I don't know the nuances and complexities. I would guess you probably don't either.
Rather, one needs to first do the science to understand the mechanisms, and 2nd do the labwork to understand the individual.. Then apply the mechanisms which will bring that individual to better health, and iterate too because often times the advice can either go too far, or not far enough.
https://amjmed.org/trends-in-coronary-atherosclerosis-a-tale...
The "Blue Zone Diet(s)" is still probably better than the American Big Mac and Sugar Cup diet, but it's unclear if they're actually living longer than people on other potentially wholesome diets.
A lot of the recent research claiming that there's no link has also been paid for by industry groups. You can't just dismiss one and accept the other.
You're probably right, but only because the actual problem has always been the excess calories.
Excess calories leads to energy poisoning, the cause for diabetes, with high blood glucose and high triglycerides being just energy excess that can't be quickly burned or stored.
Foods are not equal though. That saturated fat more easily leads to atherosclerosis, compared to monounsaturated fat, is a fact. So, if you eat a lot in excess, being selective matters.
Also, lay off the conspiracy theories, it's bad for your health.
no conflict = no interest
if the study is fraudulent due to methods then just stick with that, science is supposed to be reproducible so that nobody has to care about who did the hypothesis and conclusion at all
A matched control study with this population and the general population is also underway, with the initial results being presented on Dec 8th at the WCIRDCD Conference.
If LDL is independently causal of atheroscelosis/CHD, it should be seen in this population.
Beef is also corn fed and corn finished which changes its nutritional characteristics.
If you want actual grass fed and grass finished beef, that's very rare and more expensive.
Something can help fight cancer and also be terrible for heart health. The body is a collection of complex systems.
Studies on red wine included people whose only source of fruit was red wine, which similarly skewed the results.
Too much of anything is bad, as is too little.
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/trans-Vaccenic-aci...
Reviewing pubmed it seems to be a product from ecoli.
If this informs your dietary preferences but our best metaanalyses on human health outcomes do not, you need to check your epistemic standards.
I’m trying it based on some research for Neu5gc (that I first saw referenced here on HN) because… well it seemed harmless to try.
This makes me wonder if this fatty acid may also/instead be a/the casual factor.
Human bodies have so many confounding factors tracing these things is very difficult. Very happy to see more research.
3 years later and if I go a few months without exercise the nerve pain starts to come back in my face heh
* Avoid wheat and most grains (rice and corn are fine)
* Avoid milk and young cheese (cheddar is fine but YMMV)
* Avoid FODMAPs like beans, other legumes and nightshades
* Get back to macro nutrients like bacon & eggs for breakfast, meat & rice, etc
* Get back to micro nutrients like spinach for iron and a thyroid supplement for iodine
* Seek holistic approaches like ashwagandha to restore hormone balance
* Build gut health with probiotics and get treated for parasites if necessary
* Look into supplements like glutamine and colostrum which rebuild the gut
* Decrease caffeine and stress which lower the activation threshold for nerves in the gut to purge its contents
* Drink a gallon of water per day, from one large container if necessary, to accommodate ADHD/autism symptoms
* Exercise by alternating weightlifting and walking each day, about 60 minutes ideally
Now I believe that GMOs and processed foods are so damaging not due to stuff like preservatives, but because low cost means a higher percentage of fillers like gluten.
It took 3-5 years but I'm able to eat FODMAPs again, tolerate milk every day and even eat wheat a couple of times per week. I consider myself to be in remission but must be mindful of what I eat.
I'm also hopeful that long COVID studies will reveal some of the disease mechanisms at work in these types of undiagnosable conditions. Gaslighting (not believing patients as they describe symptoms) is still a huge problem in western medicine.
An isomer (different configuration of atoms) can have totally different biochemical effects though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoisomerism
> There is a growing body of evidence about the detrimental health effects of consuming too much red meat and dairy, so this study shouldn’t be taken as an excuse to eat more cheeseburgers and pizza; rather, it indicates that nutrient supplements such as TVA could be used to promote T cell activity.
I know they have a fatal attraction, quite literally. But if you manage to get rid of all that junk, you can pretty much eat what you want from the selection of real foods like whole wheat bread, fruits and vegetables, eggs, meats. Mix and match a reasonable balance between those, and you strike a good balance.
But to start with: sugar is your enemy.
I absolutely have no attraction for processed food or sauce (well, except for olive oil, which can be considered a sauce I guess).
Sugar, well, I do enjoy some home made cakes, but little more.
My father is the same, I'm quite sure he never ate an hamburger in his life. He does love the sweets though.
Anecdotally, he is 73 and has absolutely no health issues, doesn't take any medicine at all.
Also, we do eat a lot of fish and meat here. Every single meal has either one of those as the main food.
First link for biohydrogenation: https://www.megalac.com/resources-advice/fats-advice/71-bioh...
Biohydrogenation is a totally different process from the hydrogenation used to make margarine from seed oils.
Ruminal microbe of biohydrogenation of trans-vaccenic acid to stearic acid in vitro - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3305423/
Immune function analysis displayed significantly lower phagocytosis of monocytes and granulocytes in an older vegetarian population (vs. older nonvegetarians (P < 0.05, P < 0.001). Similar effect of diet was observed as decreased phagocytic activity of granulocytes in younger vegetarians. Regardless of age, respiratory burst of phagocytic cells was also significantly decreased in women vegetarians versus nonvegetarians (P < 0.05, P < 0.001). Older vegetarians revealed significantly suppressed proliferative response of T-lymphocytes to mitogens (P < 0.001).
In conclusion, our data indicate that a vegetarian diet might have a possible impact on human immune response.
It could well be that it is not diary or meat but the amount of glucose/fructose one eats which really affects this. We must go back to molecular level proofs rather than these kind of statistical studies where you cannot control everything (apart from mouse models which most people reject for being a mouse model)
“There are many studies trying to decipher the link between diet and human health, and it’s very difficult to understand the underlying mechanisms because of the wide variety of foods people eat. But if we focus on just the nutrients and metabolites derived from food, we begin to see how they influence physiology and pathology,” said Jing Chen, PhD, the Janet Davison Rowley Distinguished Service Professor of Medicine at UChicago and one of the senior authors of the new study.Your missing puzzle piece is the fact that we do multivariate adjustment models to adjust for cofounders.
You might as well ask "How do we know whether it's the cigarettes or the fact that people who don't smoke also tend to exercise and eat vegetables? I guess we can never know!"
For me, eating as clean as possible is the best approach. Find meat that isn't loaded up with hormones, antibiotics, or mold toxins. Find non-GMO vegetables that aren't loaded with pesticides. Limit carbs and dairy as much as possible. No stimulants, barbiturates, or other drugs.
Genetically modified crops are as safe as any other food. Balancing intake & output (of calories) is the only practical reason to avoid carbs and dairy (obviously it should go without saying but I'll say it anyways: unless you have lactose intolerance or celiac or some other condition). Hormones, antibiotics, and "mold toxins" are not what's bad about industrial-scale livestock farming.
The type of food you put in matters and we don't have a good grasp on all the ways our bodies handle it. What we do know is that we are eating things now that historically we have not and that alone is a good reason to be suspect of it.
What I am saying is that a blanket rejection of anything arbitrarily deemed to be "impure" is not good.
> we are eating things now that historically we have not and that alone is a good reason to be suspect of it
So, in other words, "Reject modernity, embrace tradition"
I think it is a safe default
Btw thanks for the exchange
I could believe modern factory farming, preservation, and mass-preparation techniques make meat much less healthy (than it used to be in our ancestral days), but a general "meat cooking brings carcinogens [to a level that matters, beyond plant cooking does]" sounds pretty unlikely too.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291652...
The only diet studies are observational, and they are unreliable in all kinds of ways. The famous Blue Zones book has about the validity of Rich Dad Poor Dad or The Millionaire Next Door. But the book continues to sell, and at a macro level, its advice is not terrible, but it's also not "the only way."
Surprisingly (to me), there is some evidence that some people are genetically better disposed to eating a vegetarian diet than others.
Could this be a hormesis effect? For example, the body reacts to things like exercise or UV by amping up repair and immune system. Perhaps the body is amping up its immune system in response to consuming meat/milk due to carcinogen or disease risks?
For example, fasting might help fight cancer, so there's obviously more nuance than just "eating fights cancer, next!".
- Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
- Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
- Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
- Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
"Focus on the nutrients, not the food
The study suggests that TVA could be used as a dietary supplement to help various T cell-based cancer treatments, although Chen points out that it is important to determine the optimized amount of the nutrient itself, not the food source. There is a growing body of evidence about the detrimental health effects of consuming too much red meat and dairy, so this study shouldn’t be taken as an excuse to eat more cheeseburgers and pizza; rather, it indicates that nutrient supplements such as TVA could be used to promote T cell activity. Chen thinks there may be other nutrients that can do the same."
> this study shouldn’t be taken as an excuse to eat more venison, cabbage, and mash.
Is it really the best thing to be finding the correct soup of isolated nutrients to take in a multi-pill, as opposed to admitting that perhaps it can be healthy to include some red meat sources in your diet? Cutting out red meat is clearly not some panacea.
the mixed results can be a sign that we don't understand something properly. there's nuance and depth adding noise to the results
it will only get better with more peer-reviewed studies and analysis
The next step up is a randomized controlled trial, but instead of choosing health outcomes they choose measurements of lab tests as their endpoints. Someone’s cholesterol went up or down by some small number. What did we learn? Nothing.
Unfortunately good research is outrageously expensive, so it doesn’t get done.
This crusade against red meat is honestly tiring.
I subscribe to "eat a little bit of everything in moderation. Mostly what's available in nature and what someone in a farm or at home could produce. Be mindful of the total number of calories. Try not to burn or overcook food in general. Exercise a little bit most days. Don't neglect sleep."
(Which to me reads like a lot of common sense advice that my grandparents already knew and followed with no struggle)
Animal-free products from nut milks to meat alternatives are a growing industry, so clearly something is working without having to somehow do the impossible task of changing the government and doing it independent of popular opinion.
In particular, there are a number of political and religious factions opposed especially to red meat.
If it’s new in the last 10,000 years (the beginning of agriculture) we have at least some hope that the worst problems have been dealt with, although we do have lactose and gluten intolerance as counter examples.
If it’s new to the human diet in the last hundred years, maybe it’s fine, and maybe it isn’t. It has to pretty obviously kill you for people to notice.
Animals, fruit, and root vegetables have been in the human diet since before humans left Africa. That’s my rule of thumb.
The entire point of diet advice and nutritional science is trying to find out what "in moderation" means for different foods. The amount of donuts that is moderate and the amount of broccoli that is moderate are not equal.
They're meant to feed further research and bring prestige to the authors, not to help intellectuals hyperoptimize their longevity or whatever.
It's a widespread mistake, especially among intellectuals who take pride in being able to read jargon, but what you're calling "impossible to deal with" is actually just the outcome of trying to use things in a way they're not meant to be used.
If you really want guidance (you actually don't need much), either look to traditions if you're comfortable with that or turn to institutional guidelines if you want something that feels more evidence-based and modern. Neither of those is unassailable either, but at least then you're using things as intended. You'll have less grief and frustration that way.
Which is probably good for you.
"feels" is the right word here, unfortunately. Often, these are heavily out of date, influenced by power struggles inside the institutions and by external incentives, and get watered down by the need for generality and for avoiding liability. So the average person is left with very little to go by, which is why people either flock to study after study, choose "bro science" instead, or just stick to traditions even in places where they're not helpful.
I lost my SO 6 years ago to a weird form of cancer that fed on her estrogen, so doctors tried to put her into menopause to stop its growth. That's hell on earth, like taking away the soul of a woman.
So for years every single cancer headline made me react, but after a while you get jaded because you never see them lead anywhere.
my father is currently dealing with male equivalent of this (prostate cancer) . Yea taking away a harmone is a slow and painful march to death. I don't wish this on anyone.
which is why so many of us just say "moderation and eat a varied diet". Once in a while science settles on something that is true for everyone, but real science is hard.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've grown to understand the following:
My grandma, with whom I share a bunch of DNA, lived to be a healthy 100 and drank milk to the very end; which is why I'm probably going to do the same. The quality of that "datapoint" for me is (almost objectively) much higher than ANY study could ever produce?
If you don't want to eat cute animals that's fine, I think you can be reasonably healthy eating a mostly vegetarian diet with some eggs and small fish. But complete veganism is slow death, I won't go there.
A simple Google search will tell you vegans actually have a longer life expectancy (among other health benefits). Although it's not totally clear why this is. So maybe the vegans who look like cancer patients to you are in fact old healthy vegans ;-)
Just walk into any significant veg(an) restaurant at a busy hour and look around you. You' might even find the opposite of what you are made to believe to be true.
But no matter what, I'm afraid you will convince yourself you don't have the obligation to adjust any corrupted views, but do the opposite because you can't handle the reality. And sadly you're far from alone.
And actually I get it. It's not easy to open your eyes and acknowledge your part in the (largely unnecessary) immense suffering we bring to billions of animals each year, and the destruction that comes with animal agriculture.
But please don't make it harder for the people who are trying to change things a bit, and stop spreading your made up stuff and ancient myths.
For me all this BS is the only actually difficult part of being a vegan.
- "Eat whole food, not too much, (maybe) mostly plants". Do some form of exercise for some time at least 5/7 days.
- Listen to your body and do what makes you feel best (e.g. types of foods, meal timing and # of meals per day, types of exercises and amounts). I really believe that people's bodies work differently enough that even excluding extreme cases, no one diet is best for everyone
- Genetics, some people are just unlucky or lucky
Also for cancer, 99% of things have increase your risk by some amount; including every food, because simply metabolizing causes chemical reactions which (when unlucky) cause cancer. The important things to watch out for are those which carry a very noticeable, substantial increase, like benzene and radiation; studies show that red meat and nitrites correlate with increased risk, but it's ambiguous how significant they are especially with the other correlated factors (like bad eating in general).
I'll never forget - back when Google News was more about an amalgamation of all articles from around the web - there were 2 articles in the "coffee" category: "Coffee consumption linked to cancer" and then "Coffee consumption linked to lower cancer".
The answer is really moderation. Michael Pollan puts it well: "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants".
When you think about it we mostly cure cancer with ionizing radiation, which is ironically notorious for causing it in the first place.
That is a very good way to eat thousands of calories per day in excess of base metabolic need, which for nearly everyone will result in significant weight gain.
What actually happens is that you get satiated a LOT faster because beef is so nutrient dense, so you end up eating fewer calories and most people only eat two meals a day because they just stay satiated for so long. You also never experience the drowsiness that normally comes after eating.
This is a zero carb diet which is high in protein, so you'll find yourself effortlessly putting on muscle and losing belly fat.
When I say "entirely beef", that means "you can't put anything in your mouth that is not literally part of a cow" -- so that means no junk food, no sugar, no alcohol, not calories through drinking anything. It is the ultimate elimination diet because it is nutritionally complete yet ridiculously simple.
People call it "the lion diet" and if you actually try it you'll end up in phenomenal shape and you'll feel like you're running on jet fuel.
I have to ask, where are you getting your fibre, vitamins and minerals from?
Please tell me you're at least taking a multivitamin.
As for vitamins and minerals, beef has 100% of everything you need, especially if you eat all parts of the animal (liver, etc). Fresh beef even contains vitamin C.
This is the diet our ancestors ate for hundreds of thousands of years. We were hunters, not gatherers.
"Michael Pollan (full disclosure, he’s a friend), in his now-famous New York Times Magazine article, espoused seven simple words: Eat food, not too much, mostly plants. Three separate clauses, but I think that each clause is misleading. Eat food doesn’t take into account that some people may do better on a low-fat diet, while others may do better on a high-fat diet. Not too much doesn’t say how you are supposed to moderate that, as it doesn’t take into account food addiction or what generates satiety. And mostly plants doesn’t take into account that Coke, French fries, and Doritos are all plant-based. If you buy your organic, all-natural, GMO-free tortilla chips at Whole Foods, you’re still stuffing your liver and starving your gut—you’re just paying more for the privilege."
The whole point of Pollan's statement is to have simple guidelines that ignore optimizations in favor of directionally good flexibility, which makes me feel like Lustig either misses Pollan's point, or just believes in a completely different philosophy.
By the very definition Pollan gives, none of those are food, they are lab concoctions that have been invented in the last few generations. Like the advice given about McDonalds by all the doctors and nutritionists in Super Size Me, a healthy person should never eat them.
When Pollan says "eat food", he means "real" things that exist naturally. [Note 1]
He also introduces the "grandma test" which is to say you shouldn't eat anything your grandma wouldn't recognize as food. A glass of black fizzy liquid sugar? no. Drink water.
[Note 1] I often think about this like the periodic table. Many of the elements that have been on the table forever (low atomic numbers) can be found just lying around on the ground (Gold, Copper, etc.). They are "real".
Almost all the ones added in the last few decades (nihonium, moscovium, tennessine) (high atomic numbers) never exist naturally and must be concocted in a lab under extremely specific circumstances. Often they only exist for a fraction of a second. They are "fake".
Can you find an Apple, spinach, meat or fish out in nature? Yes - that's "real" food.
Can you find Doritos or coke out in nature? No - that's not food.
Excepting bad luck and pretty-obvious excess, almost everybody will have about 6-7 decades of adulthood and maybe 1-2 decades of slowing down and feeling less capable in the last of those. If you can come to terms with that, and many do, there's not a lot to worry about.
All the obsessing people get up to here is a kind of "premature optimization" that often sends people flailing around between research trends without any of the rigor or continuity that might have yeilded benefit anyway. It's a lot of time, effort, and mental energy stolen from the most vibrant and impactful stage of life in questionable hope of squeezing a teensy bit more out of the least.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36216940/
https://www.healthdata.org/research-analysis/library/health-...
Also, always note how the studies never say "red meat causes cancer", they say "red meat is linked to cancer". Linked being the key word.
They aren't locking people up in a resort and strictly monitoring and controlling what they ingest.
How do we know that it’s not just the fact that people who smoke also don’t exercise? Well, it’s simple: we trivially adjust for exercise. Just like we have prospective cohort research on unprocessed vs processed red meat: we can design studies that measure it.
(This is aimed at your sibling comment) If you’re saying there’s a confounder we don’t know about in play: then what is it and what evidence would you bring to the table to justify its inclusion in our inference model? Note: that evidence would have to be at least as good as the evidence you’re rejecting for not having that magical secret confounder.
That said, even before getting to cancer outcomes, I would replace red meat with another protein source just to avoid saturated fat. And if I was only moved by cancer outcomes and refused to change my high red meat diet, I would ensure I'm eating lots of veg/fruit to insulate myself against the risks which is what you see in the Tomorrow Alberta Project prospective cohort analysis among the highest red meat eaters who also ate the most fruit/veg.
Once it’s published that X is healthy or Y is unhealthy then people change their lifestyle in accordance. You can’t tell if some other thing that people do because they heard it is healthy is the real cause.
There is an extensive body of studies that show a direct link between amines produced from exposing meat to high temperature in animals. You can disagree on the dosage used in the studies but I wouldn't ignore them completely. Here are a few:
Sugimura T, Wakabayashi K, Nakagama H, Nagao M. Heterocyclic amines: Mutagens/carcinogens produced during cooking of meat and fish. Cancer Science 2004; 95(4):290–299.
Ito N, Hasegawa R, Sano M, et al. A new colon and mammary carcinogen in cooked food, 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP). Carcinogenesis 1991; 12(8):1503–1506.
Kato T, Ohgaki H, Hasegawa H, et al. Carcinogenicity in rats of a mutagenic compound, 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline. Carcinogenesis 1988; 9(1):71–73.
Kato T, Migita H, Ohgaki H, et al. Induction of tumors in the Zymbal gland, oral cavity, colon, skin and mammary gland of F344 rats by a mutagenic compound, 2-amino-3,4-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline. Carcinogenesis 1989; 10(3):601–603.
Ohgaki H, Kusama K, Matsukura N, et al. Carcinogenicity in mice of a mutagenic compound, 2-amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline, from broiled sardine, cooked beef and beef extract. Carcinogenesis 1984; 5(7):921–924.
Ohgaki H, Hasegawa H, Suenaga M, et al. Induction of hepatocellular carcinoma and highly metastatic squamous cell carcinomas in the forestomach of mice by feeding 2-amino-3,4-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline. Carcinogenesis 1986; 7(11):1889–1893.
Shirai T, Sano M, Tamano S, et al. The prostate: A target for carcinogenicity of 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP) derived from cooked foods. Cancer Research 1997; 57(2):195–198.