Calcium carbonate blocks red meat induced colon carcinogenesis

[Jessie]

It was existent ...same as now. let him read old books from 100 yers ago, all the health problems were the same, heart failure and cancer were main diseases .

Perhaps, but there was subtle shifts. Post-industrialization and processed food era saw an increase in specific types of heart diseases and metabolic issues. Coronary artery disease is more common now than it was. So is "type II" diabetes. Whereas type I was the most common before processed foods.

I don't really understand how any of this vindicates (or indicts) red meat though. People still got heart disease and cancer pre-industrialization. Probably much more than what is actually recorded, simply because "mysterious" deaths could be attributed to diseases they didn't know how to detect.

Not that any of that was on their minds. The most common causes of death before industrialization were infectious disease, not chronic issues. And they typically took people much earlier in life. In an odd and perhaps morbid way, heart disease and cancer is a sign of luxury. People are actually living long enough to get these diseases.

At any case, red meat consumption played very little in any scenario. Disease, health, nutrition, or whatever. I'm not sure where some folks get this idea that red meat was a common food source 100s of years ago, but it wasn't. Like, not at all. Anthropologists and historians debunk this myth readily easily without even thinking about it.

From the 14th to 18th centuries, people heavily relied on agriculture and crops. When these crops failed, famine and disease killed them. Whether it was Europe's wheat fields, America's maize, or Asia's rice, the vast majority of people survived on carbohydrates. Even in times of relative abundance the lower classes of people would consume a few ounces of meat at the most.

The plutocrats and royalty a little more. And they would be the fat ones more likely to die of heart attacks, lol. Not that it was the fault of animal protein, but just the abundance of caloric intake. Which culturally carried a different connotation back then. If you were fat it was a symbol of status. I digress.

Mankind's red meat consumption, at least in the developed world, was exceedingly slim by comparison to stapled crops like wheat, rye, millet, oat, maize, and rice.

 

[Limon9]

. . . Not that any of that was on their minds. The most common causes of death before industrialization were infectious disease, not chronic issues. And they typically took people much earlier in life. In an odd and perhaps morbid way, heart disease and cancer is a sign of luxury. People are actually living long enough to get these diseases.

At any case, red meat consumption played very little in any scenario. Disease, health, nutrition, or whatever. I'm not sure where some folks get this idea that red meat was a common food source 100s of years ago, but it wasn't. Like, not at all. Anthropologists and historians debunk this myth readily easily without even thinking about it . . .

It's interesting: if you read W. F. Koch's articles published in the mid-1920s, he's talking about the terrifying fact of one million cancer sufferers in the United States.

"The statistical studies of Hoffman and Schereschewsky show that mortality from cancer has increased in the last 20 years about 30 percent. The disease is on the increase in spite of the most drastic and sometimes cruel measures of attack that have been applied to control it in the afflicted. Surgery, X-ray, and radium have failed to stem its tide. Many of those who submitted to these measures for early relief have died quicker or have apparently suffered more than they would have done if they had been left alone. The steady increase in the death rate from cancer demonstrates that such measures as are now usually directed against the local manifestation (the growth or ulcer) really have no valid place in the prevention or cure of cancer."

Of course, he saw that cancer was a "hygiene problem", principally related to the polyamines and toxins produced by fermentation of meat products in the intestine (this is why he demanded strict veganism and juice diets for Glyoxylide patients - and it worked):

"There are three circumstances that determine the production of cancer. They are:

First. Unbalanced nutrition, whereby the various tissues of the body become overloaded with incompletely assimilated food products. These in turn serve as material for the support of germ growth, and for the production of poisons. They also blunt the body chemistry, cutting down its efficiency, and hampering the immunity process.

Second. Impaired activity of the digestive organs, productive of constipation, whereby the cancer germs can accumulate, multiply rapidly and produce their poison in large quantity in the large intestine from which both the poison and the germ are absorbed and carried by the blood throughout the body.

Third. An injury to some part of the body, whereby the circulation is impaired and the oxidation processes in the injured tissues diminished. The area of congestion, or stasis, thus produced is a favorable one for the germ to locate and produce the poison which acting upon the injured cells converts them into cancer cells."

 

[Apple]

@Apple That is not common knowledge. What books would point to cancer and heart disease rates from 120 years ago?

Read books by Dr Kellog, Ilya Mechnikov, Broda Barns... there are others.
Cancer and heart disease were major diseases...nothing new.
Same as male baldness (has been common for thousands of years) ... which often correlates with heart diseases
Even 200 years ago...for instance Honoré de Balzac ( also big fan of coffee) died in 1850 (51yo) , congestive heart failure.

 

[joaquin]

Read books by Dr Kellog, Ilya Mechnikov, Broda Barns... there are others.
Cancer and heart disease were major diseases...nothing new.
Same as male baldness (has been common for thousands of years) ... which often correlates with heart diseases
Even 200 years ago...for instance Honoré de Balzac ( also big fan of coffee) died in 1850 (51yo) , congestive heart failure.
Sa

Dr Kellog as in the doctor that invented cereal to eradicate the libido in his patients?

 

[Apple]

Dr Kellog as in the doctor that invented cereal to eradicate the libido in his patients?

Haha... There were reasons for that .
He observed that some teenagers were passive and not motivated during the day ... when he realised the reason , he came to this idea of corn cereals to knock their libido .
Those were different times, sure he didn't imply to do any harm.

Dr. Kellogg, himself, was living proof of the value of his teachings on diet and health.
His left lung destroyed by tuberculosis before he was 20, Kellogg was a dynamo of human energy, a personification of the work ethic, who needed only 4 to 5 hours of sleep a night, went cycling or jogging every morning, dictated 25 to 50 letters a day, adopted and reared 42 children, wrote nearly 50 books, edited a major magazine, performed more than 22,000 operations, gave virtually all of his money to charitable organizations, loved human service, generally accomplished the work of ten active people, and lived in good health to age 91. Most who knew him considered him a many-sided genius.

 

[joaquin]

Vegetarians are 40 percent more likely to develop bowel cancer than those who eat meat.

Keep your 7 day adventism to yourself..

Veganism is a sick religion.

 

[Jessie]

It's interesting: if you read W. F. Koch's articles published in the mid-1920s, he's talking about the terrifying fact of one million cancer sufferers in the United States.

That doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me. For 1920s a net total of one million seems plausible. In contrast to contemporary times, we get an average of 1-2 million new cases of cancer each year. At least according to the American Cancer Society.

 

[Jamsey]

Vegetarians are 40 percent more likely to develop bowel cancer than those who eat meat.

Doesn’t seem to be the case..

New study finds lower risks of cancer for vegetarians, pescatarians and low meat-eaters — Nuffield Department of Population Health

[2 minute read]

www.ndph.ox.ac.uk

“compared with regular meat-eaters, the risk of colorectal cancer was lower in low meat-eaters (11% less), fish-eaters (31% less), and vegetarians (43%)”

Vegetarian diet linked to lower colon cancer risk - Harvard Health

Looking for ways to ward off colorectal cancer? According to a new study, a pescovegetarian diet — that’s a vegetarian diet that includes fish — was linked to a 43% reduction in the risk ...

www.health.harvard.edu

“Those who ate a vegetarian diet had a 22% lower risk of colorectal cancer than those who weren’t vegetarians. Among those who ate a vegetarian diet that included fish, the reduction in risk was even greater — 43%”

Also, the statement that there’s more cancer because we eat less red meat is so devoid of evidence I’m not even sure where to start. When it comes to red meat consumption, it’s unclear what would actually constitute as evidence that you would accept.

So, I guess I wanted to ask if you truly believe that red meat fermenting in your colon is not carcinogenic.

 

[Limon9]

Doesn’t seem to be the case..

This thread has evidently struck a nerve with... everybody. You've found that vegetarians had a reduced risk. But you can dredge up colorectal odds-ratios for vegetarians* and readily find 1.49. Or, you can look at meta-analyses of mortality^, and find a wild variation of risk which converges on... 1. What's interesting to me is that the long-term vegetarians are doing fine everywhere except the colorectum. There are good physiological reasons phosphate-gorging and having meat rotting in the intestine will promote carcinogenesis, but the epidemiology is trash and completely contradictory, and not fit for serious nutritional thinking.

*Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 May;89(5):1620S-1626S. Cancer incidence in vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford). Key TJ et al.
^Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):516S-524S. Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies. Key TJ et al.

 

[Jamsey]

This thread has evidently struck a nerve with... everybody. You've found that vegetarians had a reduced risk. But you can dredge up colorectal odds-ratios for vegetarians* and readily find 1.49. Or, you can look at meta-analyses of mortality^, and find a wild variation of risk which converges on... 1. What's interesting to me is that the long-term vegetarians are doing fine everywhere except the colorectum. There are good physiological reasons phosphate-gorging and having meat rotting in the intestine will promote carcinogenesis, but the epidemiology is trash and completely contradictory, and not fit for serious nutritional thinking.View attachment 48034

*Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 May;89(5):1620S-1626S. Cancer incidence in vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford). Key TJ et al.
^Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):516S-524S. Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies. Key TJ et al.

Yeah, was not particularly my goal but here we are. I think your points are fair and I agree with the idea that epidemiology is the weakest form of evidence, as we could generally go back and forth with contradictory findings. However when studying dietary choices in relation to cancer risk(outside of mechanistic studies in rats or other animals), the only evidence available is epidemiological as it’s not ethical or possible to assign someone to eat meat everyday for 10 or 20 years. So, I think there is some value in analyzing epidemiological data in these types of situations.

I guess my main point in this thread is that the data is fairly clear that a diet high in heme increase colorectal cancer risk.

Heme iron from meat and risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis and a review of the mechanisms involved - PubMed

Red meat and processed meat intake is associated with a risk of colorectal cancer, a major cause of death in affluent countries. Epidemiological and experimental evidence supports the hypothesis that heme iron present in meat promotes colorectal cancer. This meta-analysis of prospective cohort...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The data is also fairly clear that calcium carbonate and/or chlorophyll can reduce or even stop this effect.

 

[Jessie]

The most interesting thing to me is why anyone on this forum would be interested in defending a diet with large amounts of meat? Beyond the typical "rot in colon" or "saturated fat is bad" arguments, there's a variety of reasons why large amounts of red meat isn't optimal. Iron toxicity, phosphate toxicity, too much methionine, etc.

Red meat can be both a scapegoat for bad reasons and still be something you want to limit for good reasons. I feel like a lot of people are still struggling with ridding themselves of low-carb carnivore dogma from their perspectives. Because there's no other reason to be defensive of red meat.

The political "carbon footprint" thing is a whole other can of worms that would, quite honestly, derail this whole thread. But many of these politically driven vegans are more or less, not vegan. As real veganism is a morally charged philosophy devoid of political opportunism. Carbon taxes, beef taxes, etc. are just a ploy incumbents use to garner support from select demographics.

 

[joaquin]

Vegetarian diet 'raises risk of heart disease and cancer'

 

[Limon9]

The most interesting thing to me is why anyone on this forum would be interested in defending a diet with large amounts of meat?

It wouldn't be Ray Peat Forum without a large contingent of people who have not engaged seriously with Ray Peat.

 

[Jessie]

It wouldn't be Ray Peat Forum without a large contingent of people who have not engaged seriously with Ray Peat.

Can't argue there

 

[Lilac]

Time to break out Haidut's Bulgarian bioenergetic burger recipe. I've made it in the past, and it was good.

Haidut's Bulgarian Bioenergtic Burger

So on Last Night's Livestream with Danny Roddy (#59), @haidut shared a recipe for burgers- View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGwTthwL5EI The idea is to add more calcium to get the ratio closer to 3:2 to phosphate (or even higher), and to improve the amino acid composition. He suggested...

raypeatforum.com

 

[Jamsey]

Time to break out Haidut's Bulgarian bioenergetic burger recipe. I've made it in the past, and it was good.

Haidut's Bulgarian Bioenergtic Burger

So on Last Night's Livestream with Danny Roddy (#59), @haidut shared a recipe for burgers- View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGwTthwL5EI The idea is to add more calcium to get the ratio closer to 3:2 to phosphate (or even higher), and to improve the amino acid composition. He suggested...

raypeatforum.com

Lol this was more in line with the responses I was expecting. I fully agree and have enjoyed this recipe in the past.

 

[username]

There’s something called controlling for confounding variables that is well known in the medical field. Besides, this study is in rats, where they control one dietary variable. I quote “We have previously shown that haemin, Hb and red meat promote carcinogen-induced preneoplastic lesions, aberrant crypt foci (ACF), in the colon of rats.” That means that they fed one group of rats red meat and the other standard rat chow, and the meat eating rats developed cancerous legions in their colon at a significantly higher rate. This study is a follow up, where they showed that adding calcium carbonate to the red meat diet stopped the formation of the cancerous lesions.

Firstly, a lot of consensus in medical science is made without actually controlling for confounding variables. Secondly, we haven't found the results you are discussing in human trials, and rats are not humans, so the current evidence for the argument that red meat contributes to colon cancer is not compelling to me.

 

[Limon9]

Oh. Rats aren't people? I had no idea. Pack it up, we're done here.

 

[Xin]

Red meat does not causes cancer. This has been proven over and over again. The cooking process is linked to cancer but there's absolutely no interventional study linking meat to cancer. I would say the opposite actually. Unprocessed red meat is linked to longevity. À diet high in red meat is totally fine if it's non processed and the individual is active. There's concerns about iron overload but this can me mitigated.

The only thing that must be taken into consideration is that it should be balanced with glycine.

 

[username]

Oh. Rats aren't people? I had no idea. Pack it up, we're done here

Check out the same meta analysis in other countries where doctors don't tell the people that red meat is bad for them thereby introducing healthy-user bias. The same epidemiology in many other countries demonstrates much better health outcomes for those who eat more red meat ie lower rates of cancer and heart disease. Observational studies is where science starts and not where you draw causal conclusions. What you have posted should lead us to ask questions and run more studies... which we have done and could not find a causal link.