PDA

View Full Version : Being a vegetarian can cut your risk of cancer by a half, claim scientists


Bowwowmeow
07-28-2009, 06:29 PM
Being a vegetarian can cut your risk of cancer by a half, claim scientists

Being a vegetarian protects you from cancer, claim scientists in a wide-ranging study which found cutting out meat can reduce the risk of some types of the disease by half.

By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
Published: 7:00AM BST 01 Jul 2009


Researchers who studied tens of thousands of Britons over more than a decade found that vegetarians were 12 per cent less likely to contract cancer than their meat eating counterparts.

With a third of the population developing cancer in their lifetime, changing diets could result in more than two million people avoiding the disease altogether, said the researchers.
For some cancers like leukaemia, stomach and bladder cancers the difference was even more striking with up to 45 per cent fewer non-meat eaters contracting the diseases than carnivores.

Dr Naomi Allen, an epidemiologist at Oxford University and co-author of the study, said: "This is strong evidence that vegetarians have lower rates of cancer than meat eaters."

Although it is widely recommended people eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day to reduce their risk of cancer and other diseases, there is very little evidence looking specifically at a vegetarian diet.

The study, published in the British Journal of Cancer, is one of the findings from the European Perspective Investment into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) which is following half a million people.

More than 61,000 people aged between 20 and 89, roughly half of whom were vegetarian, were followed for more than 12 years in the British arm of the research which is supported by Cancer Research UK.

During the time 3,350 people contracted 20 different cancers and the team compared the rates of meat eaters, fish eaters and vegetarians. All the results were adjusted to take into account smoking, obesity, alcohol intake and lifestyle.

While common cancers such as prostate and breast cancer showed little difference, the overall cancer rates were different as were those for blood, stomach and bladder cancers.

Fish eaters actually had the lowest rate of cancer – 18 per cent lower than meat eaters – but they were also the smallest sample.

Sara Hiom, Cancer Research UK's director of health information, said: "These interesting results add to the evidence that what we eat affects our chances of developing cancer.

"We know that eating a lot of red and processed meat increases the risk of stomach cancer. But the links between diet and cancer risk are complex and more research is needed to see how big a part diet plays and which specific dietary factors are most important.

"The relatively low number of vegetarians who developed cancer in this study supports Cancer Research UK's advice that people should eat a healthy, balanced diet high in fibre, fruit and vegetables and low in saturated fat, salt and red and processed meat."

Su Taylor, of The Vegetarian Society, said: "That is why we need more research along these lines to find out exactly what is going on. We are not saying vegetarianism is the panacea for all ill health but it certainly helps protect against a number of diseases."

Gliondrach
07-29-2009, 02:25 AM
And not eating eggs and dairy products will cut the risk even more.

gibby
03-10-2010, 01:56 PM
it really depends if your a healthy veggie. I do know veggies who almost live on cadburys choc or chips & they are just asking for poor health.

US studies have showed that a plant based diet can give an extra 15 years of life, a healthy veggie diet can give 7 to 8 years extra

also, certain cultures (about 16) who do not eat meat, live on a plant based diet, do not take medicinal drugs are living to 120 years + as once reported in the bible (I know its not reliable)

I really think from the evidence I have seen that raw food with live enzymes is the best thing for good health & often cuts most cancers by 80% +

G

Gliondrach
03-10-2010, 03:42 PM
The fanatic meat eaters, like the weston-spite and the pal eo diet people, will say that it's only the grain-fed farm animal meat that is so unhealthy.

Even if that were true - and I don't believe it is - there's not enough land to feed everyone who wants it with grass-fed victims.

Bowwowmeow
03-10-2010, 08:12 PM
I've just started reading The China Study, and it appears that it is simply animal protein that supports cancer growth. Not fat or cholesterol or carcinogenic by-products from charring, just the protein itself. It's really fascinating. Plant protein has the opposite effect.

It's not a claim that animal protein causes cancer. It shows that after a cell has been altered by something carcinogenic, animal proteins support the growth and reproduction of these cells, and plant proteins do not. We all get bombarded by carcinogens on a daily basis, as does all life, and like all life, we have biological mechanisms that will prevent these carcinogens from harming us, as long as we don't interfere with them. Looks like the consumption of animal protein is the best way to interfere with our bodies' natural healing and protective powers.

Gliondrach
03-11-2010, 10:45 AM
I read something that criticised the China Study but it was by some meat fanatic. The meat industry is powerful and meat is the diet of choice of most people in industrialised countries. And the diet of aspiration in many poorer countries, because it is seen as a sign of success and affluence. It would be a catastrophe to the economy if meat was overnight shown to be dangerous. If people had no reason to continue eating it, all the other uses of slaughterhouse products would be questioned. They are in so many things that it would be difficult and costly to use alternatives. Once the alternatives were used it would be easier but the process of changing things would be costly.

Governments and official bodies drip feed information that, perhaps, it's a good idea to cut down on meat consumption. They won't come out and say that it is harmful. It's possible that some officials don't believe it's harmful because studies can be designed to show how healthy it is. It took years before official warnings were put on cigarette packets, and the evidence that tobacco is harmful was withheld or contradicted for decades. Even now, tobacco companies are targetting people in poorer countries, where legislation is not so strict. Meat is probably in the same position that tobacco was forty or fifty years ago - there is evidence that it is harmful but the facts can be watered down and studies can be commissioned to show that it is not harmful. Just like tobacco. Human data showed that tobacco could be harmful but studies in non-humans 'showed' that it wasn't. No doubt, the tobacco company researchers chose just the right animals and just the right experiments that would give them the results they wanted.