PDA

View Full Version : Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Pancreatic Cancer.


Darryl Shaw
01-13-2012, 01:21 PM
Red and processed meat consumption and risk of pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Abstract.

Background: Whether red and processed meat consumption is a risk factor for pancreatic cancer remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to summarise the evidence from prospective studies of red and processed meat consumption and pancreatic cancer risk.

Methods: Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed and EMBASE databases through November 2011. Study-specific results were pooled using a random-effects model.

Results: Eleven prospective studies, with 6643 pancreatic cancer cases, were included in the meta-analysis. An increase in red meat consumption of 120 g per day was associated with an overall relative risk (RR) of 1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI)=0.931.39; Pheterogeneity<0.001). Red meat consumption was positively associated with pancreatic cancer risk in men (RR=1.29; 95% CI=1.081.53; Pheterogeneity=0.28; five studies), but not in women (RR=0.93; 95% CI=0.741.16; Pheterogeneity=0.21; six studies). The RR of pancreatic cancer for a 50 g per day increase in processed meat consumption was 1.19 (95% CI=1.041.36; Pheterogeneity=0.46).

Conclusion: Findings from this meta-analysis indicate that processed meat consumption is positively associated with pancreatic cancer risk. Red meat consumption was associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in men. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

http://ki.se/content/1/c6/13/59/09/Larsson%20SC%20Publication.pdf

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/bjc2011585a.html

See also:

Processed Meat Consumption and Stomach Cancer Risk: A Meta-Analysis. (http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/15/1078.full)

Red and Processed Meat and Colorectal Cancer Incidence: Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies. (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020456)

A Prospective Study of Red and Processed Meat Intake in Relation to Cancer Risk. (http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040325)

Red and Processed Meat: Finding the Balance for Cancer Prevention. (www.wcrf-uk.org/PDFs/processed_meat.pdf)

Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective. (eprints.ucl.ac.uk/4841/1/4841.pdf)

Red Meat Consumption and Mortality: Results From 2 Prospective Cohort Studies. (http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/INTEMED/23009/ioi110027_555_563.pdf)

sarena kopciel
01-17-2012, 04:48 PM
I assume this refers to "processed" meat, not higher quality grass fed meat.

Darryl Shaw
01-18-2012, 01:05 PM
I assume this refers to "processed" meat, not higher quality grass fed meat.

Processed meat is defined as meat or meat products which have been prepared by smoking, curing, salting and/or contain added preservatives. So that would include everything from the finest traditionally cured ham and bacon to canned meat and mystery meat burgers and hotdogs.

sarena kopciel
01-18-2012, 05:22 PM
Good thing I eat none of that stuff!:D

James Evans
01-25-2012, 04:47 AM
Processed meat is defined as meat or meat products which have been prepared by smoking, curing, salting and/or contain added preservatives. So that would include everything from the finest traditionally cured ham and bacon to canned meat and mystery meat burgers and hotdogs.

That's something that leaves me curious about this study (and other similar examples). Are foods preserved in traditional ways as harmful as those hammered through modern food factories?

And to Sarena's point, is a cut of grass fed beef the same as a cheap supermarket steak?

I found the headlines around this alarmist because I find training the sights on meat and pretending that all the other shit that gets consumed is ok clearly doesn't solve anything, even if it does support JW's vegan lifestyle.

On the other hand I find the bacon-bacon-bacon culture of the alternative fitness world excessive.

Darryl Shaw
01-25-2012, 01:58 PM
That's something that leaves me curious about this study (and other similar examples). Are foods preserved in traditional ways as harmful as those hammered through modern food factories?

A number of tradionally preserved foods ranging from bacon and ham to kimchi and soybean paste (http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v11/i21/3175.htm) have been associated with an increased risk of cancer so it isn't safe to assume they are any better than modern factory processed foods.

And to Sarena's point, is a cut of grass fed beef the same as a cheap supermarket steak?

In their raw unprocessed state and assuming they both had a similar fat content the grass fed beef would be the healthier option however once processsed they would both increase your risk of cancer.

I found the headlines around this alarmist because I find training the sights on meat and pretending that all the other shit that gets consumed is ok clearly doesn't solve anything, even if it does support JW's vegan lifestyle.

I agree the headlines were a bit alarmist but nobody is saying that the other poor dietary choices people make are unimportant.

On the other hand I find the bacon-bacon-bacon culture of the alternative fitness world excessive.

I think it's more of an American thing than something that's unique to the alternative fitness world. I mean I don't think many Brits do the whole fried breakfast thing anymore but it still seems to be common practice in many parts of the US.