chlorox There’s no paucity of references.. Knobbe’s book on AMD has literally hundreds of them:
Is Coffee healthy ?
@chlorox Well I suggest you read some of the fully-referenced texts by the various scientists I’ve mentioned in this thread, and some of the original papers and reach your own conclusion. As I have done.
I see the benefits of lifestyle interventions on a daily basis with my clients. I can see objectively and from the data that it works..
- Edited
On paucity in the literature, I was referring to what you said “There were FIFTY reports of AMD in the world literature upto 1930. Now its the world’s leading cause of blindness…”
I trust your work is helping many people indeed. I am merely commenting on the dangers of going to the opposite extreme to go all meat in one’sdiet instead.
chlorox On paucity in the literature, I was referring to what you said “There were FIFTY reports of AMD in the world literature upto 1930. Now its the world’s leading cause of blindness…”
I trust your work is helping many people indeed. I am merely commenting on the dangers of going to the opposite extreme to go all meat in one’sdiet instead.
The point about AMD is that its not difficult to diagnose- you simply view the back of the eyeball with an ophthalmoscope and you can see it. The ophthalmoscope was invented in 1851 and perfected within 10years and adopted world wide. If AMD had been present then, it would have been seen and reported. It wasn’t reported because it didn’t exist.
Anyways I said as much as I usefully can now. Back to my ACS Evo!
Slightly back on topic, I find it fascinating how different coffees can have drastically different effects on stomach sensitivities.
My partner has had bouts of IBS and finds that different coffee, roasts, and even preparation methods (pourover vs espresso) can have wildly different results. So a big cup of a black PNG can have one effect, but a Brazilian blend prepared in the same way can have completely different results.
And yes by results I mean urgency for the toilet…
Might be worth considering microbiome analysis if the IBS is debilitating
Thanks, it’s not debilitating so much these days. After extensive investigation via the NHS (not much help…) and things like self-funded tests it seems most closely linked to stress. The exact same foods, meals even, could produce different results on different days so things like elimination tests proved fruitless.
However stress management appears to have significantly improved it to the point it’s quite irregular and relatively minor when it appears.
Coffee however, especially on an empty stomach is still avoided!
- Edited
Grahamsphillips
Edited for relevance.
This was/is in response to your question about an extra 10 years life.
Whilst I am a beef producer in my retirement, our farm is carbon neutral and the stock are basically pets that we eat.(yep.)
We also grow our own veg and fruit and eat more fish and chicken than red meat.
That is a very individual trope.
I have a very good friend in their mid sixties who has an incurable lung disease.
They know the condition well, one of their parents died from the same disease.
They are currently questioning whether they want to proceed with a lung transplant.
Their issue is both their quality of life AND the quality of life of their partner who would/will have to nurse them for years.
Healthy, vital, years not drinking wine, eating meat/seafood etc are not necessarily years that everyone would desire.
- Edited
Amberale This was/is in response to your question about an extra 10 years life.
Whilst I am a beef producer in my retirement, our farm is carbon neutral and the stock are basically pets that we eat.(yep.)
We also grow our own veg and fruit and eat more fish and chicken than red meat.That is a very individual trope.
I have a very good friend in their mid sixties who has an incurable lung disease.
They know the condition well, one of their parents died from the same disease.
They are currently questioning whether they want to proceed with a lung transplant.
Their issue is both their quality of life AND the quality of life of their partner who would/will have to nurse them for years.
Healthy, vital, years not drinking wine, eating meat/seafood etc are not necessarily years that everyone would desire.
There’s considerable debate about how well “The War on Cancer” has worked. Truth is there have been some great successes (breast cancer; leukaemia etc) but solid tumours? VERY little progress. And how much of a benefit is a 3 month life extension if the QUALITY of life is atrocious?
This begs the bigger question of WHY has cancer gone from a vanishingly small cause of death (see eg from Boston above) to the No2 killer after ASCVD..
This by Szofia Clemens is compelling
- Edited
Do you think there’s a causal link between meat consumption (regardless of type) and cancer?
I have no opinion either way nor the slightest level of expertise to have an educated guess, just curious.
Ernie1 Do you think there’s a causal link between meat consumption (regardless of type) and cancer?
Yes but not the one you might have been led to believe. The more red meat we eat, the LESS cancer and LOWER all cause mortality. What’s killing us isn’t Red meat, its (mainly) ultra processed food, poor sleep and physical INactivity. In other words lifestyle. But that’s not what Big Food or Big Pharma want us to believe
Thanks for the reply. That correlates with experiences in the family so good to hear it confirmed by an expert.
Cancer is a product of
- genetics
- age
- environment
- diagnostics
We see more cancer because:
- We’re generally living longer
- our environment is quite different and we are exposed to more things (chemicals, hormones, artificial ingredients, radiation emitters, foreign holidays etc..)
- we have much better diagnostics for cancer, which we didn’t have many years ago (in the olden days people died, often they never knew why)
- Genetics - not sure but the gene pool doesn’t have weaker genomes weeded out as it did in the olden days, this must have a knock on effect over many generations.
- Edited
DavecUK I agree Dave but what is the primary driver? Why has cancer gone from extremely rare to incredibly common in 120y during which town air is cleaner and smoking rates have dropped massively? There’s a fascinating book called RAVENOUS by Sam Apple. It’s about the theory of cancer and the life of Otto Warburg. He of the Warburg effect. He discovered that cancer cells have a different metabolism and originated the idea of cancer as a metabolic disease. More here
Ernie1 in many ways it’s a statement of the bleedin obvious! Two million years of evolution. We are designed to consume animals and specifically red meat. Why would it kill us! Evolution isn’t stupid!!
- Edited
With the deepest respect, i think the basic assumption underneath your premise that cancer in ancient times was vanishingly rare, is flawed. Cancer and heart disease were with the ancients too all the way to the present day and the rates were not appreciably lower - especially for heart disease. We just don’t have enough historical data to support your hypothesis…on the contrary historical writings show that ancient medical texts were well acquainted with tumours and had extensive explicit references to cancerous tumours…if canxers were not common this would not.be the case…https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.29134
Further, the evidence of traditional societies throughout the world show that there is no society famed for producing longevity that subsists predominantly on meat. Instead plant based diet is the predominant source of calories. If we ignore that, it will be at our peril…
- Edited
You said “in many ways it’s a statement of the bleedin obvious! Two million years of evolution. We are designed to consume animals and specifically red meat. Why would it kill us! Evolution isn’t stupid!!”
However human teeth, jaw and digestive tract were designed to be omnivorous, not carnivorous.
https://www.biologyonline.com/articles/humans-omnivores
Furthermore chimpanzees have the nearest teeth to us (though their canines are far more pronounced) and though they do eat meat and can even be cannibalistic on other chimpanzees, meat typically only forms 6 per cent of their diet with insects forming another 4 per cent. Plant based foods form the other 90 per cent! Figs alone account for 50 per cent of their diet…
https://a-z-animals.com/blog/what-do-chimpanzees-eat/
So if chimpanzees that have more carnivorous type teeth than humans only eat meat as 6 per cent of their diet, how can humans be assumed to be designed to eat predominantly meat based diets?
- Edited
Grahamsphillips I agree Dave but what is the primary driver? Why has cancer gone from extremely rare to incredibly common in 120y during which town air is cleaner and smoking rates have dropped massively?
Well the reasons are for pretty much everything I mentioned, but especially diagnostics. How common were PET scanners 40 years ago, or cat scans 60 y ago, X-ray machines 100 years ago. When did they start testing for blood markers, or genetic predisposition.
DavecUK Well the reasons are for pretty much everything I mentioned, but especially diagnostics. How common were PET scanners 40 years ago, or cat scans 60 y ago, X-ray machines 100 years ago. When did they start testing for blood markers, or genetic predisposition.
Except you don’t need a pet scanner to diagnose cancer - the PET simply diagnoses it earlier.. which is crucially important to early treatment but has nothing to do with incidence. Go back 100+ years and incidence was incredibly low. Despite cleaner air and MUCH less smoking in the last 50 years, the incidence of cancer continues to grow, to the point its no2 killer in the UK and no 1 in some developed economies. Root cause? What I call The Trifecta of Evil. A diet laden with sugar, processed carbs and seed oils. Of course those aren’t the sole courses but they probably explain 95%
- Edited
.
- Edited
I feel like this thread has gone too far off topic and is inciting a lot of unverified opinions, my own included.
Also potential misinformation, which I’m not sure has a place on CoffeeTime or indeed anywhere.
I’m happy to provide citations for everything I’ve written here @Ernie1 if that helps.
- Edited
Grahamsphillips The more red meat we eat, the LESS cancer and LOWER all cause mortality.
I’m not doubting that what’s been said isn’t backed by some sort of research, it’s just this bit
that seems in contrast to advice currently available on the Cancer Research website.
- I agree re PROCSSED meat. Processed foods of any sort increase all cause mortality
- There’s ZERO evidence to support their second and third statements. What you likely dont’ know is the extent to which many charities are bank rolled by big food and big pharma. For example Diabetes UK brought to you with a 500,000 grant from Britvic no less
Read this about WEGOVY and you’ll see what I mean:
On the subject of red meat, countries that have high consumption have lower cancer risks and cancer continued to rise when red meat consumption dropped.
- Edited
Not to dispute your point, but out of curiosity,
If CR was bankrolled by big food and big pharma what interest would they have in dissuading meat consumption? Would they not say the opposite or indeed just not say it?
The same thing is on the NHS website:
So big food (ie UPF or Junk Food) is essentially owned by 9 worldwide brands. The huge profits are NOT in Real Food.. they come from the UPF. No way would Big Food want UPF to be recognised as addictive (hence there is no official classification of food addiction in DSM or ICD) or the cause of obesity, cancer and the rest of it. Here’s an article from the BMJ about COKE for example. In fact the BMJ has carried numerous articles like this.. I just picked one at random
https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.k5050
So we can see where the vested interests of the food cos come from
As for Big Pharma: To put it simply, they have no interest in prevention.. they wouldn’t sell any drugs! Of course its much more complicated than that but these are simple truths
Just out of interest I checked on the corporate sponsors of CR UK. Reach your own conclusions!
Interesting.
Is ‘big agriculture’ a thing?
Susan Greenhalgh investigates how, faced with shrinking Western markets, the soft drink giant sought to secure sales and build its image in China
- Edited
What do you think about this meta study for example?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/
It collates together many studies and seems to show that there is a positive correlation between cr cancer risk the more red meat is eaten, not just processed meat. If so then it tends to support the blue zones diet which does include meat but in relatively small quantities.
I’m not a Daily Mail fan but this is nevertheless pretty much spot on
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1325453/Everything-thought-knew-food-WRONG.html
- Edited
Ernie1 The problem is a lot of the statements comes from research (“studies”) and you have to be super careful when reading such statements. This is because such research “studies” can be based on other “studies” and often there is either a paucity of actual experimental data, funding interests on some research and of course the issues about self selected/reported data for studies. e.g.
- cancer research, plant foods companies etc.. funds studies or research
- processed or non processed food industry funds
- how good is the study and the study or research it’s based on
- do you really understand the statistics used
- why does red and processed meat always seem to be lumped together
- what were the questions asked of respondents, did the respondents understand the distinction between red meat and processed meat correctly. e.g. a natural burger and a heavily processed one
- cheap and expensive meat, not all red meat is created equal
- were lifestyle and cultural differences excluded
- was the whole diet examined, or just meat consumption e.g. were lots of high fibre veg being consumed?
There’s loads more issues that need to be considered.
If we’re now referencing the Daily Mail I think I’ve seen all I need to see in this thread.
Ernie1 If we’re now referencing the Daily Mail I think I’ve seen all I need to see in this thread.
Far from referencing the Daily Fail. The point is it’s a simple to understand explanation. I’ve already posted a more complex reference from the BMJ.
- Edited
Arent you dismissing the weight of scientific research by a multitude of dcientists workjng independently all over the world as being impelled by a cabal of agri businesses but following instead a journalist who writes a book to promote her own diet and earns money through it? I found her absolute dismissal of the importance of the fibre in fruits and vegetables and of th ebenefits of fruits to be startling. Meat and butter cannot replace what fruits can give us and fruits come with fibre that control the intake of sugar into the bloodstream…
- Edited
chlorox Those acadenic studies arent perfect but there is nothing else that is able to give a better and less subjectivr source of data on which we can make decisions…
What I was taught in university was to be very careful about epidemiological studies and scientific papers. Lots of real rubbish work out there. You really have to dig into the meat of it and how the statements of fact were really arrived at.