CKC1586
Well-known member
backhoeboogie":9a0lgw3x said:
Yup! I hear you.
Bad News For All Of Us!
- Thread starter MikeC
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
Yup! I hear you.
Sorry guys, the report I saw didn't differentiate between Angus beef and Longhorn or Piedmontese beef. It simply said not to eat much red meat.
Another group of researchers, though, points out that the percentage of cancer cases has gone down over the last few years. Of course, survival rates are up, but if the number of people getting cancer is down and the consumption of red meat seems to have been going up the last few years, I don't see how they came to this conclusion.
Everyone says stopping smoking will decrease cancer rates by over 30%.
Another group of researchers, though, points out that the percentage of cancer cases has gone down over the last few years. Of course, survival rates are up, but if the number of people getting cancer is down and the consumption of red meat seems to have been going up the last few years, I don't see how they came to this conclusion.
Everyone says stopping smoking will decrease cancer rates by over 30%.
ALACOWMAN
Well-known member
but what about the meat that has those white flecks in emFrankie":3uyaabwx said:
ALACOWMAN
Well-known member
seems like i done heeard that aforeTopkick":1yx703kh said:
mnmtranching
Well-known member
Why not just take a Black Angus Steer and put him on a diet a while. He'll get skinny, stringy get nice and lean same as other underfed cattle. ;-)
CKC1586
Well-known member
Here is an article I got in a newsletter today:
New Cancer Report Says Limit Red & Processed Meat; Industry Disagrees
CattleNetwork_Today 10/31/2007 1:43:00 PM
New Cancer Report Says Limit Red & Processed Meat; Industry Disagrees
A new report by the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research suggests limiting intake of red meat and avoiding processed meat as one of ten recommendations to reduce cancer risk.
The report, which updates the group's 1997 findings and reviewed over 7,000 studies, said it found that both red meat (defined as beef, pork, lamb and goat) and processed meat (defined as meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting or chemical preservatives) increased risk of colorectal cancer if eaten in large quantities.
It cautioned people who eat red meat to consume less than 500 grams (18 ounces) of cooked red meat a week and that they consume "very little, if any" processed meat, such as bacon, ham, sausage and lunchmeat.
"The panel emphasizes that this overall recommendation is not for diets containing no red meat or diets containing no foods of animal origin," the report said, noting that meat can be a valuable source of protein, iron, zinc and vitamin B12.
"An integrated approach to the evidence also shows that many foods of animal origin are nourishing and healthy if consumed in modest amounts," it said.
The report pointed to excess body fat as a major cancer risk and noted that, "diets with high levels of animal fats are often relatively high in energy, increasing the risk of weight gain." It linked excess body fat to cancers of the esophagus, pancreas, colon and rectum, endometrium and kidney, along with breast cancer in post-menopausal women.
To view the entire report, click here.
Industry response
The American Meat Institute (AMI) said the study's meat intake recommendations, "reflect WCRF's well-known anti-meat bias and should be met with skepticism because they oversimplify the complex issue of cancer, are not supported by the data and defy common sense."
"Given the complexities and conflicting research findings, it is inconceivable that WCRF could draw definitive conclusions and make such precise recommendations about specific food categories," said AMI Foundation Vice President of Scientific Affairs Randy Huffman, noting the causes of cancer involve factors like genetics, the environment, lifestyle and a host of other issues.
AMI also disputed the report's recommendations on processed meats. "Our own systematic review of the literature by independent epidemiologists has documented that 15 of 16 comparisons regarding processed meat and colorectal cancer were not statistically significant," said Huffman.
Harvard data
Huffman also questioned why WCRF didn't take into account a 2004 Harvard School of Public Health analysis that concluded that red meat and processed meat were not associated with colon cancer.
He said the Harvard study, involving 725,000 men and women, was presented at the 2004 American Association for Cancer Research Conference in abstract form but never has been published in its entirety.
Huffman called the Harvard paper, Meat and fat intake and colorectal cancer risk: A pooled analysis of 14 prospective studies, the largest study ever done on red meat and colon cancer. He said lawmakers are now asking Harvard why the study has not been published, given its completion three years ago and its federal funding.
Source: Janie Gabbett on 10/31/2007 for Meatingplace.com
New Cancer Report Says Limit Red & Processed Meat; Industry Disagrees
CattleNetwork_Today 10/31/2007 1:43:00 PM
New Cancer Report Says Limit Red & Processed Meat; Industry Disagrees
A new report by the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research suggests limiting intake of red meat and avoiding processed meat as one of ten recommendations to reduce cancer risk.
The report, which updates the group's 1997 findings and reviewed over 7,000 studies, said it found that both red meat (defined as beef, pork, lamb and goat) and processed meat (defined as meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting or chemical preservatives) increased risk of colorectal cancer if eaten in large quantities.
It cautioned people who eat red meat to consume less than 500 grams (18 ounces) of cooked red meat a week and that they consume "very little, if any" processed meat, such as bacon, ham, sausage and lunchmeat.
"The panel emphasizes that this overall recommendation is not for diets containing no red meat or diets containing no foods of animal origin," the report said, noting that meat can be a valuable source of protein, iron, zinc and vitamin B12.
"An integrated approach to the evidence also shows that many foods of animal origin are nourishing and healthy if consumed in modest amounts," it said.
The report pointed to excess body fat as a major cancer risk and noted that, "diets with high levels of animal fats are often relatively high in energy, increasing the risk of weight gain." It linked excess body fat to cancers of the esophagus, pancreas, colon and rectum, endometrium and kidney, along with breast cancer in post-menopausal women.
To view the entire report, click here.
Industry response
The American Meat Institute (AMI) said the study's meat intake recommendations, "reflect WCRF's well-known anti-meat bias and should be met with skepticism because they oversimplify the complex issue of cancer, are not supported by the data and defy common sense."
"Given the complexities and conflicting research findings, it is inconceivable that WCRF could draw definitive conclusions and make such precise recommendations about specific food categories," said AMI Foundation Vice President of Scientific Affairs Randy Huffman, noting the causes of cancer involve factors like genetics, the environment, lifestyle and a host of other issues.
AMI also disputed the report's recommendations on processed meats. "Our own systematic review of the literature by independent epidemiologists has documented that 15 of 16 comparisons regarding processed meat and colorectal cancer were not statistically significant," said Huffman.
Harvard data
Huffman also questioned why WCRF didn't take into account a 2004 Harvard School of Public Health analysis that concluded that red meat and processed meat were not associated with colon cancer.
He said the Harvard study, involving 725,000 men and women, was presented at the 2004 American Association for Cancer Research Conference in abstract form but never has been published in its entirety.
Huffman called the Harvard paper, Meat and fat intake and colorectal cancer risk: A pooled analysis of 14 prospective studies, the largest study ever done on red meat and colon cancer. He said lawmakers are now asking Harvard why the study has not been published, given its completion three years ago and its federal funding.
Source: Janie Gabbett on 10/31/2007 for Meatingplace.com
OhioRiver
Well-known member
can people tell the taste between breeds if they are not labeled and cooked the same per se
hillsdown
Well-known member
NO they can not.The only difference they can really tell is grass finished, corn finished and barley finished.
I think it's funny how the same post is on Ranchers and the posts are about beef and refined carbs,and on here it is breeds of beef that are better.BTW fat does not make you fat.
I think it's funny how the same post is on Ranchers and the posts are about beef and refined carbs,and on here it is breeds of beef that are better.BTW fat does not make you fat.
CKC1586
Well-known member
ALACOWMAN":oahqo6lo said:seems like i done heeard that aforeTopkick":oahqo6lo said:
If we could get the word out and get past the black prejudices, I think folks would be surprised at just what the breed can offer. It is possible to have lean, juicy and tender beef. The Piedmontese are low fat low cholesterol and studies show that a portion of Piedmontese is comparable to salmon and chicken breast in fat and calories. MARC did an extensive study on the breed.
ArrowHBrand
Well-known member
I can see how this might effect the beef industry on the short term, but if you were like me, I was raised on meat and potatoes. Nothing I like more than a thick juicy steak fire seared and just done. I think doctors are coming up with some of this nonsense to try to sell pills. Just look at all of the t.v. ads for pills for things I've never even heard of people getting before. My fav is for shaky legs or some such thing. It's where when you go to bed at night you have the uncontrolable urge to move your legs. Oh, brother. If I could eat just red meat for every meal, I would be a carnivore and I would LOVE it! The raising of red meat took a change many years ago to a leaner product so the red meat we are consuming today is better for you than what our grandparents ate and look at how long they have lived.
