Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine

Oxford Study Finds Low-Meat, Meat-Free Diets Associated With Lower Cancer Risk (theguardian.com) 165

Posted by BeauHD from the eat-your-greens dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Vegetarians have a 14% lower chance of developing cancer than carnivores, according to a large study that links meat-eating to a heightened risk of the disease. A team of researchers from Oxford University analyzed data on more than 470,000 Britons and found that pescatarians had a 10% reduced risk. Compared with people who eat meat regularly -- defined as more than five times a week -- those who consumed small amounts had a 2% lower risk of developing cancer, the study found. "In this large British cohort, being a low meat-eater, fish-eater or vegetarian was associated with a lower risk of all cancer sites when compared to regular meat-eaters," the analysis found.

However, the authors, led by Cody Watling from Oxford's population health cancer epidemiology unit, made clear that their findings did not conclusively prove regular meat-eating increased the risk of cancer. Smoking and body fat could also help explain the differences found, they said. Their study of participants in the UK Biobank study also found that:

- Low meat-eaters -- who consume meat five or fewer times a week -- had a 9% lower risk of developing bowel cancer than regular meat-eaters.
- Vegetarian women were 18% less likely than those who ate meat regularly to develop postmenopausal breast cancer, though that may be due to their lower body mass index.
- Vegetarian men have a 31% lower risk of prostate cancer while among male pescatarians it is 20% lower. The researchers published their findings in the journal BMC Medicine.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oxford Study Finds Low-Meat, Meat-Free Diets Associated With Lower Cancer Risk More

Oxford Study Finds Low-Meat, Meat-Free Diets Associated With Lower Cancer Risk

Comments Filter:

  • No meat, no alcohol, no sugars, no carbs... I don't think I'd cut all of those out for 4 extra years.

    • You forgot: No sex, no fun, ..., no think.

      • Re:I'll take my chances. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ZiggyZiggyZig ( 5490070 ) on Friday February 25, 2022 @04:22AM (#62301853)

        Sex actually lowers the rate of prostate and testicular cancer, as well as uterine cancer.

        And fun... Well, fun reduces stress level, and stress is a known cancer enabler.

        So, I think we should all have sex and fun (I know it's going to be hard here on /. but well... It's for health reasons)!

        • Is this true of all kinds of sex? Does masturbation count? If so, I think the slashdot crowd might be the picture of health! :)

    • pretty much this, i'll take my chances with eating meat.

      it's 2022, moral hazard is the new hotness.

    • Studies also show that if you cut all food out of your diet it reduces your cancer risk to basically zero.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by srussia ( 884021 )
      Ya, it's just 4 years, but it feels like an eternity!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jd ( 1658 )

      Red meat is the only meat you need to avoid, and even there a small amount may be good for you. It's when you have mostly red meat that it's a problem. The longest-lived people eat stir-fried pork or baked fish, both of which are meats (although since 71% of the gain is apparently to be had by switching to fish, the people who wrote the report were apparently thinking all meat was red meat).

      Alcohol in the region of 5 units per week will actually boost your life expectancy above that of a teetotaler. (Source

      • In terms of health interventions, this is pretty poor. You would gain much more sticking with the high-meat diet and learning how to do the barbell lifts.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jd ( 1658 )

          I assume you mean the article's suggested intervention, as there can't be many who would claim 40 years extra life would be poor.

  • Relevant xkcd? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Thursday February 24, 2022 @11:45PM (#62301485) Homepage

    https://xkcd.com/882/ [xkcd.com] ... because from the way TFA talks about the results, it looks like the authors might not have even declared p-values for what they found. Also missing from TFA: peer review, "published in", hyperlinks to the actual study. Is Teh Grauniad trying to make this look like a hoax study,

    • Did you miss the big bold link to the study, that says "The researchers published their findings in the journal BMC Medicine".

      Seriously, I get it you like bacon. That's cool, keep eating bacon. You don't have to try to fool yourself and try to pretend you think it's good for you. Just east it knowing it's bad for you. It'll be okay.

      If it's too much dissonance for you to be eating it while knowing it's bad for you, you could just eat a little LESS of it. Maybe have a burger without the bacon - just the big b

    • The study is available [biomedcentral.com]. Also in the summary.

    • Re:Relevant xkcd? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Friday February 25, 2022 @12:53AM (#62301599)

      The study is peer-reviewed and published. The link is at the bottom of TFS.

      There is nothing new or surprising about the results. Similar studies have been done in the past.

      The real question is whether C=C: Are veggies healthier, or are healthy people more likely to be veggies?

      Like past research, this paper doesn't answer that question.

      Disclaimer: I am a veggie.

      • The real question is whether C=C: Are veggies healthier, or are healthy people more likely to be veggies?

        Yep. What else aren't those people eating? How big are their portion sizes?

        What type of "meat" are the other group eating? Decent cuts of beef or burgers, sausages and nuggets with extra cheez?

        There's obviously going to be a health difference between a fast-food guzzling lard-ass and somebody who takes responsibility for their diet.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          The real question is whether C=C: Are veggies healthier, or are healthy people more likely to be veggies?

          Yep. What else aren't those people eating? How big are their portion sizes?

          What type of "meat" are the other group eating? Decent cuts of beef or burgers, sausages and nuggets with extra cheez?

          There's obviously going to be a health difference between a fast-food guzzling lard-ass and somebody who takes responsibility for their diet.

          The question might not be so much what type of meat you are eating but how it is prepared. It is well documented that high-heat (grill, frying pan) cooking of meat creates carcogenics. If it looks even lightly burnt there are carcogenics there, even on your prime cut of beef.

      • Many vegetarians/vegans are young females who have serious eating disorders. Of course not *all* vegetarians/vegans meet that requirement. But one must be very careful because the reduction in instances of one ailment might be offset with increases in others such as osteoporosis.

    • Re:Relevant xkcd? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TechyImmigrant ( 175943 ) on Friday February 25, 2022 @12:53AM (#62301605) Homepage Journal

      What you will see in very many 'pro vegetarian' studies is that they are strictly epidemiological. Take the WHO Lancet study that said we should all stop eating meat? They ignored every randomized controlled trials (which all contradicted their position) and only used epidemiological studies because they are conveniently confounded to make meat look unhealthy. This looks to fall in the same bucket and it's more or less the same people.

      That the majority the WHO panel that published the EAT lancet study were vegans and the result was predictable.

      • How the heck do you do a randomized controlled trial for veganism? Talk about confounding variables. There's no way in heck most people would participate in such a study. Those who do volunteer are probably people looking for extra motivation to go Vegan. So if they get put in the meat-eating group they might be so upset that the extra stress reduces their lifespan. The only way I can think of doing this is that you server burgers that are either vegan or beef but the vegan version is such a good impos

    • One study is just one study. Correlation isn't causation. 'Link' isn't a meaningful term. Yes, we get it. However, there's a large body of high-quality research out there that consistently shows strong relationships & sometimes causality (in animals for ethical reasons) that meat-oriented diets, i.e. those that have large quantities of meat & very little plant matter, cause a long list of diseases & generally make us feel like shit. Mostly meat + carbs has got to be on of the least healthy diets

  • It is amusing, literally last night on TV they were talking about about a study across 180 countries showing Vegetarians having a lower life expectancy. Was from the university of Adelaide I believe.

  • So people who can chose their diet live longer? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Somervillain ( 4719341 ) on Friday February 25, 2022 @12:01AM (#62301517)
    Being able to be on a stupid self-righteous diet is a sign of socio-economic status. I wager you'd see similar results if you compared accountants vs people who worked in construction or cab drivers. Poor people with tough lives often don't put much thought into diet limitations.

    Also, why wasn't "Smoking and body fat could also help explain the differences found, they said." in the title? That seems like an important omission.

    I will be the first to admit that the average American eats way too much meat and would be better off eating smaller portions. However, I know many vegetarians and vegans because I live in a very deep-blue city in a blue state and also know a lot of vegetarians because I know a lot of Indians.

    I have to say, the people whose bodies I wish I had are not the vegetarians and DEFINITELY not the vegans. Vegans are some of the grossest, unhealthiest people I've seen...no muscle tone, just fat pouring out everywhere and seems pretty lethargic. They're lower weight, I guess, but I know many 30yo vegans with bodies that look like they're in their 60s. The healthiest, fittest people I know don't have any self-righteous diets. They just eat good food and smaller portions than I do.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by znrt ( 2424692 )

      so you call veganism/vegetarianism "stupid self-righteous diet" right away and then go on merrily expecting anyone to take all that stupid display of ignorance stuffed with imaginary clichés you pulled out of your ass seriously ... is that meat eater logic?

      • know anyone with a tough life? are they vegan? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Somervillain ( 4719341 ) on Friday February 25, 2022 @02:18AM (#62301727)

        so you call veganism/vegetarianism "stupid self-righteous diet" right away and then go on merrily expecting anyone to take all that stupid display of ignorance stuffed with imaginary clichés you pulled out of your ass seriously ... is that meat eater logic?

        By this study, I'm in the low meat-eating section, personally. I happen to love veggies. However, to the point, I just have empathy for people of lower socio-economic-status. Know anyone poor? I know a bunch. They don't have time for stupid diets. Vegan, Paleo, gluten-free (when you don't actually have Celiac's disease)...those are hobbies for people middle class and above. Poor people and busy people just don't have time to indulge in such silliness.

        By the same logic, I imagine you'd find those with the most expensive iPhones have a lower chance of cancer than those with cheapo or much older phones. If you have the disposable income and time to buy the latest gadgets, you probably have a lower stress life than someone who doesn't. You probably can afford to visit the doctor earlier and eat nicer food.

        As the TFA mentioned. These differences are not likely to be the magic of eliminating meat, but just picking a cohort that has a nice enough life to indulge in self-righteous conversation-piece diets or be extra mindful of what they eat...and is less likely to smoke or be fat.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by znrt ( 2424692 )

          there is overwhelming evidence that higher living standards correlate with higher life expectancy, mr obvious.

          how you go from there to establish that veganism/vegetarianism are "self-righteous stupidity" is anybody's guess. you equate them with "paleo diet" (which is indeed a long debunked fad, very much like "keto diet" which is meat intensive and actually dangerous) and seem to ignore that vegan and vegetarian lifestyles are as old as humanity in several parts of the world, across all social strata, and h

    • I doubt that's the main cause of the difference. More likely it's BMI it says right in the summary that they didn't normalize it for BMI and that weight probably accounts for excess breast cancers. It's easier to get fat on an unrestricted diet, but that doesn't mean you're going to get cancer if you're a thin meat eater.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by khchung ( 462899 )

      Being able to be on a stupid self-righteous diet is a sign of socio-economic status.

      Totally agree with you on this, it takes quite a bit of time and effort to maintain any kind of diet rather than just pick up what is cheap or easily available.

      I will be the first to admit that the average American eats way too much meat and would be better off eating smaller portions.

      The simpler explanation is Americans eat way too much (of everything), in fact so much that changing to a diet with smaller portions of anything would already be an improvement.

    • I mean for starters which are they? Lower weight or gross unhealthy fat people?

      Also there are vegan body builders and while they can't compete with the meat eaters because that's just not how muscle works I'm pretty sure they can lift more than you can.

      Studies like this control for things like socioeconomics, smoking and drinking. Not all wealthy people or even all comfortably middle class people or even all barely middle class people are vegan. Eating meat isn't a sign of being on the lower end of

      • I mean for starters which are they? Lower weight or gross unhealthy fat people?

        A healthy fit 30yo will have more muscle mass than their 70yo peer, on average. Therefore a 70yo can have a flabbier body and lower scale weight.

        Every vegan I've met is doughey and gross with their shirt off and often surprisingly young for how bad they look. Sure, I am sure somewhere out there, there is an amazing person who has had a vegan diet for 20 years whose body is something to be admired. I've never met one.

        I've met many extremely fit people at my gym, work, daily life....none are vegan.

        • You can be lower weight and grossly fat at the same time. This happens frequently. You see people that have 'healthy' BMIs but so little muscle that their body fat is 20-25%. They usually get there by prioritizing trying to lose fat even though their primary problem is that they are under-muscled.

      • Studies like this control for things like socioeconomics, smoking and drinking.

        They SHOULD, but this study admits they didn't. I think being a smoker...both the direct effect of smoking as well as the correlations, like less concern for health, lower socio-economic status, general defiance of health best practices probably has a greater impact than meat consumption.

        People who take care of themselves get less cancer, on average. However, I don't think this confirms that meat reduction is a strong correlation if you're not even accounting for smoking.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jlar ( 584848 )

        Studies like this control for things like socioeconomics, smoking and drinking. Not all wealthy people or even all comfortably middle class people or even all barely middle class people are vegan. Eating meat isn't a sign of being on the lower end of the socioeconomic platform.

        The conclusions in the actual article states:

        It is not clear if the other associations are causal or a result of differences in detection between diet groups or unmeasured and residual confounding.

        So no, they have not been able to control for all the issues that you mention. In their discussion of this they do for example mention that:

        Although relevant potential confounders were added to the multivariable models to adjust for these differences, imperfect measurements and/or changes in these confounders over time may result in incomplete adjustment for these variables. For example, the evidence of heterogeneity by smoking status when looking at all cancer as an outcome suggested that residual confounding by smoking may be present.

        I am not saying that high consumption of meat is not unhealthy. I am just saying that this study does not prove it.

  • I hate these click-bait articles. Once again, the article says there's an "association" between groups who do X compared to groups who do Y. No causation is proven.

    Eat meat, be healthy. Works for the native Americans.

  • ...real life experience suggests that low meat people are pasty, dull, and uninteresting.

    Carnivores Unite!

  • Correlation does not prove causality, obviously. People have self-segregated into vegetarian and non-vegetarian groups. They were not randomized. So that is one problem. The other is that they did not look at all-cause mortality. It may be the case that eating meat improves cardiovascular fitness, for example. So even if causality could be established, you would still need to look at all-cause mortality to make sure the reduction in cancer rate does not come at the expense of an increase in some other caus

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MoHaG ( 1002926 )

      Another factor is that more health-conscious people might be more likely to be vegetarian (but also practice other things that lower their risk of cancer)

  • If the average vegetarian is more careful about what they buy to eat, and how they prepare it, than the average meat eater, then this might not be as conclusive as hoped.

    Karen V shops for vegetables, fruits and grains.

    Karen M shops for Big Macs and fries.

    Yeah, Karen V is who I'd bet on.

    But if Karen C shopped for grass fed meat, didn't cook the hell out of it, and ate her veggies and fruit as well, I might bet on her.

    • Then there are those of us not called Karen, who seek out healthy (grass fed, well raised) meat from ruminants because of the now substantial scientific knowledge about the nature and activity of the related fats in the human body.

      A 'careful vegetarian' is picking and choosing their criteria to justify their choice just as much as anyone else on any other diet.

      Between wheat agglutin messing up the stomach lining, linoleic acid messing up your mitchondria, lectins causing autoimmune diseases, oxalates and a

      • OK, but I think you're missing my point, which goes to how you can't just casually compare vegetarian diets with those that include meat and draw meaningful conclusions. And the use of "Karen" as a name wasn't pejorative, but rather "taking it back". Since it was used for all groups I'd hoped that would come across.

        I've been mostly vegetarian, not vegan, as I ate grains and legumes, avoiding soy, and I've been on diets, for years, that were mostly meat and eggs. I'm now low carb but sticking to poultry, fis

  • I am curious whether this study turns out to be true or not.
    Reminds of a study some time ago when a very politically progressive scientist published a paper that non-vegetarians are evil, generally speaking.
    Later this turned out to be complete bullshit. Let us find out if this claim is similar in nature

    • Wouldn't it be funny if they find out the preservatives put into the meat are actually what causes cancer? (fyi, they already found some do.)

  • "As The Guardian writer, what do you call those who eat both plant and meat based diet?"

    "They're obviously called carnivores".

    They had me there for a moment thinking they actually compared to actual meat based diet eating people, as there have started to be some studies on those lately, finding some really surprising results like it seeming that if you're on purely meat based diet and potential health benefits, or the lack of need of certain inputs like vitamin C. But noped, it's the same boring old "how do

  • She says she loses her fussiness if chocolate is available, lol.
    But when she and Paul Kantner recorded the sunfighter album she included her Ode to Meat, which was inspired by her having a neighbor who complained about Slick's outdoor barbecuing of some meals.
    The lyrics are funny and amazing, and the song is called Silver Spoon.
    https://www.songlyrics.com/gra... [songlyrics.com]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • Apparently, they did not control for other factors, like smoking. As a meat eater I say "HA HA", as a person of science I say "REALLY"??! Come on. You guys had ONE job.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ubi_NL ( 313657 )

      They did, its in the publication

      Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression models for all analyses were further adjusted for height (eight sex-specific categories increasing by 5âcm, and unknown/missing (0.51%)), physical activity (low: 0â"9.99, medium: 10â"49.99, high: ⥠50 metabolic equivalent of task-hours /week, and unknown/missing (4.04%)), Townsend deprivation index (quintiles from most deprived to least deprived, and unknown/missing (0.13%)), education (completion of national exam at age 16, completion of national exam at age 17â"18, college or university degree, or other/unknown/missing (18.7%)), employment status (employed, retired, not in paid employment, or unknown (1.15%)), smoking status (never, former, light smoker: â 15 cigarettes/day, medium smoker: 16â"29 cigarettes/day, heavy smoker: â¥â30 cigarettes/day, or missing/unknown (0.65%)), alcohol consumption (none drinkers,

  • If the study conclusions were true, then Paraguay, Argentina, and Uruguay would be rife with cancers, which is clearly not the case. All three countries are producers, consumers and exporters of beef.

    Here (Paraguay) we're more at risk of developing cancers due to engine pollution and viruses such as HPV.

  • This is probably true for city folks who get their food from supermarkets, where both meat and vegetables are poisonous, but vegetables perhaps less. But I think supermarket city vegetarians still have higher cancer risks than village carnivores who eat meat from animals with healthy diet and lifestyle (grazing, no antibiotics etc.).

  • Known carcinogens (Score:3)

    by Misagon ( 1135 ) on Friday February 25, 2022 @06:52AM (#62302073)

    The study is not that surprising. There are some known carcinogens associated with eating meat - although not present in all meat.

    Almost all processed meat (sausages, boiled ham, etc.) contains Sodium Nitrite to protect against the bacteria that causes botulism. Sodium Nitrite is a known carcinogen but botulism has historically been considered a greater health risk. With modern clean slaughterhouses, that trade-off might be up to debate.

    Polycyclic hydrocarbons often found on the surface of grilled meat is also a known carcinogen. It tends to form when fat drips into the fire and turn into smoke particles that settle onto the meat above. The risk can be reduced significantly, though, by marinating the meat beforehand in fruit juices or wine.

    The general correlation between meat consumption and cancer in a population has been known for decades. I was myself recommended by my doctors to to reduce my meat consumption after I got cancer years ago.

    What is special about the UK is that they have a relatively large population of vegetarians and vegans compared to the US and the rest of Europe, thus providing a large control group for a quantitative study such as this.
    Unlike what may be conditions in your country, vegetarianism and veganism in the UK is widespread in all social strata and not so much associated with elitism. Most restaurants have vegetarian options that don't taste as if they are leaving something out. It is also not necessarily more expensive than other food.

  • This was discovered ago. It was even confirmed with rat experiments and using data from Chinese municipalities that have tracked cause of death for ages. They had found that over a certain % meat protein in the diet, your risk of cancer increases dramatically. Turns out, normal diet is well below this limit, but modern over-indulgence goes past it by quite some margin, thus these "diets" have a benefit by simply getting below the limit again. It's time to study the why people, stop repeating the same resear
  • evolved to support a relatively high proportion of meat when compared with other apes is all the evidence I need to suggest that a meat based diet is somewhat "natural". Humans have been hunter gatherers for around 2 million years so we are are primarily evolved to support this lifestyle. So, as the name suggests, hunting animals and gathering fruits/vegetables etc. The Hazda still live the hunter gatherer lifestyle and they're not plagued by western diseases despite eating meat.

  • I wonder if the higher cancer rates are caused by just eating meat or eating meat that has been grilled which creates carcinogens.

    https://www.cancer.gov/about-c... [cancer.gov]

  • Frankly... (Score:2)

    by jd ( 1658 )

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]

    This study was much more interesting and involved far more people.

    It shows that eating meat is fine - if it's within certain bounds and is predominantly fish or white meat, and not fried.
    It shows that eating carbs is fine - if it's within certain bounds and isn't excessively processed
    It shows that eating sugar is fine - ditto, with a preference on most sugar intake being fruit
    It shows that drinking alcohol is fine - if it's within certain bounds and is of certain types (red

  • Red meat vs other meat - no analysis
    Processed meat vs unprocessed - no analysis
    Vegetarian vs Vegan - no Analysis

    So the main well known factors for all of these (Red Meat, Highly processed foods) were not analysed

    Yet another Vegetarian pushing study that actually found we eat too much red meat, too much processed food ... which we already knew

    Now analyse highly processed vegan food and see how unhealthy that is ?
     

  • Relative risk numbers are always larger than absolute risk numbers, and are more useful as the help the reader more accurately judge the risk/benefit of an intervention.

    All the risks described in the paper are, as far as I can tell, relative risks. How much does the risk change relative to having done something differently. A 30% increase in risk may be huge, but it may also be small, depending on the baseline prevalence of the thing you are risking. The UK (source of the data in the paper) has roughly 52 [cancerresearchuk.org]

  • Eating meat associated with life expectancy (Score:3)

    by kbahey ( 102895 ) on Friday February 25, 2022 @12:48PM (#62303219) Homepage

    Well ...

    Here is a study [sci-news.com] that says consuming meat is positively linked to life expectancy ...

    "The researchers found that the consumption of energy from carbohydrate crops (grains and tubers) does not lead to greater life expectancy, and that total meat consumption correlates to greater life expectancy, independent of the competing effects of total calories intake, economic affluence, urban advantages, and obesity."

Slashdot Top Deals

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -- Albert Einstein

Close