How so, the article did not look to use red meat, as far as I could see.
It has been demonstrated, see Diet and colorectal cancer IN UK Biobank: A prospective study of April 17, 2919 that eating 76 grams of red meat versus 21 grams of red meat has the risk of getting colon cancer (which the bank has taken a mortality rate of 50% ) increases by 20%, so instead of 5%, a 6% lifetime chance of getting colon cancer.
I agree with other replies.The research did not specifically concern the effects of red meat on health, but of unhealthy foods in general.
The research was about ‘ processed meat ‘.This means ‘ processed meat ‘, such as sausage, minced beef or hamburger. This is often red in colour (often this colour is achieved by use can dyes) but this meat is still further processed after slaughter.
Perhaps you can better withdraw this question.
I have also wondered several times another on this subject.Is eating it so terribly unhealthy. The gauchos of Argentina who eat mainly only meat must then have a relatively high number of cases of colon cancer and other terrible illnesses.
Well, that’s how science works.One investigates something, comes with a theory and that theory can be again or reworked or adapted later.
Also think about how fat food would take care of overweight, allowing people to look for low-fat products and obesity suddenly becomes an epidemic…
Meanwhile, it is becoming increasingly clear that fat is energy-rich, but it is rather carbohydrates and sugars that contribute to obesity.But meanwhile, the idea of “fat is bad” in everyone’s mind…
So also with meat consumption, where in the past also “colored” investigations have been done by vegetarians and vegans.Professor Diederik Stapel had fantasized a study that showed that meat eaters were big hufters. Completely sucked out of the thumb but it comes from a professor, huh?
And so it goes with the research on red meat.One conducts research, collects statistics and conducts experiments within certain target groups and there come conclusions that form a new theory. This theory seems to be correct with the results and then a connection is made, dissertations and other writings are produced and science is again a theory richer.
In research, red meat appears to have a correlation with colon cancer.But then there is no certainty yet because correlation between two things can also be a coincidence. Take for example the link between the number of people who drowns in a pool against the number of films Nicolas Cage appears in:
That man would never measure in a movie allowed to play if we want to prevent people from drowning!
🙂 And so you could find even more links on Discover a correlation between data that you can doubt about…
The problem is that in order to show that red meat actually causes colon cancer we need to look for causes of cancer.Which cancer-causing substances are in red meat that is not in other products? And how do you know for sure that a certain substance causes cancer? And how much of that substance do you need to get cancer? And more importantly, why are people there sensitive to it while lions and other predators only eat red meat and have no problem?
These investigations are extremely complex and often start with a theory, after which further research needs to be done to make the theory more powerful or overthrow.
Science is fun, but theories are not always correct…
Earlier, the butchers mixed and powdered all sorts of red powder and vitamin C and on meat, the people wanted it so because it looked like it came from a pass sex animal.Butchers were also more likely to be more sleepy.
… Studies have shown that there are health risks to the frequent consumption of red meat, including various cancers (such as gastric, bladder, colon and prostate cancer), Cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, arthritis and obesity.
In March 2012 An American study appeared, in which it was concluded that the daily eating of red meat can shorten life expectancy.
Because many more studies show that it is unhealthy. With the largest study ‘ the China study ‘.
Because media jumps on it.
How often do you see for a while that a bapaalde diet is very healthy, and then 6 months later it is that it can cause a disease. Maybe it increases your chance of that disease but 0.01% but it is still news and the media are very picky about what information they transmit. In other words, some news that they think newspapers are selling.