Vegetarians Get Fewer Cancers, UK Study Shows
The study, which was led by Professor Tim Key from the University of Oxford, was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition as Cancer incidence in vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition.
The researchers grouped participants into meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans. They found that, overall, rates of cancer were lower than in the general population (due to participants being more than averagely healthy), but that vegetarians and fish-eaters had a significantly lower likelihood of developing cancer than the meat-eaters.
The BBC news reported that the study surprised researchers because vegetarians appeared to have a higher risk of one cancer that's normally associated with eating red meat: colorectal cancer. Professor Key explained that the findings didn't support the idea that colorectal cancer was linked to meat consumption, and he suggested that "we need to think more carefully about how meat fits into it."
One nutritionist, Dr Joanne Lunn, suggested that the results might be due to the meat-eaters sticking to healthy dietary guidelines:
When you look at the detail of their diets, the meat-eaters, to which the vegetarians in this group were compared, are eating only moderate amounts of meat each day - well within the recommendations. Both groups are also just about meeting the recommendation to eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day.
Clearly more research is needed into the causes of colorectal cancer - but this study does seem to confirm that a generally healthy diet (especially eating five fruit and veg portions per day) can reduce the risk of cancer: as mentioned above, the rate of cancer overall in the study was lower than in the population as a whole.
13 Comments
Add Your Comment
ADVERTISING
New
- FROM DIET BLOG
- On-Off Fasting: Does It Work?
- 400 Calorie Fix
- 5 Factor World Diet
- Quick Giveaway: Powerhouse Weight Loss Game
- FORUM
- Low Carb Atkins Diet- Tips to Cut the Carbs.
- How Can I Gain a Healthy Weight and Keep it?
- How Do I Eat Healthy at University?
- Starving Myself and Exercising, But Not Losing an Ounce?
Categories
| Body Image Celebrities Diet Pills Diets Exercise |
Fast Food Funny Stuff Success Stories Teens and Kids Tips and Tools |
RSS Feed
Follow @DietBlog on Twitter
And, as usual they don't bother to control for grass or corn fed meat.
I defy anyone anywhere to cite a single solitary study that compares eating grass fed beef to eating veggies only.
ReplyBarry, I agree with you, it's high time they started doing studies that separate feedlot fed animals to those that are free range.
In my latest book (due out in September) I discuss this issue because I really don't think it gets the attention it deserves and it should because the little research I have seen on it seems to indicate (at least to me) that the two resulting products might well be called 'beef' or 'chickn' as if they were the same products when in reality the nutiritonal make-up of them is vastly different.
ReplyI'd also like to ask: What about indigenous populations like Inuit that eat almost nothing but fat and protein and virtually no vegetables whatsoever? They do not have problems with cancer or heart disease. These studies are stupid and short sighted.
ReplyI think virtually every study also notes that the Inuit eat primarily fish or other marine animals, not just "fat and protein." Although I don't know the exact statistics on Inuit cancer rates, the study notes that fish eaters also had lower cancer rates than the red meat eaters. So according to your citation, you merely agreed with the study.
ReplyIt makes sense to me that vegetarians would have a lower rate of cancer. Think about it--plants have to generate their own oxygen within themselves and they have the compounds (antioxidants) inside them to protect them from the reactions. We eat the plants; we get that benefit too.
As far as the colorectal cancer data goes, did they look at vegetarians that eat no dairy? Because I know a lot of vegetarians that eat a lot of cheese and refined grains and they're constipated as all get-out. Haven't there been numerous other studies done that show that a diet high in dietary fiber/fruits/vegetables causes a decrease in colon cancer?
ReplyYes, but vegetarians are also more prone to nutritional deficiencies. I have a few vegan friends who take supplements to make up for it. If they could only be smart and make smart choices when it comes to meat and poultry they would save alot of money.
Money that can be used for a fun night out! =P
-FlawlessFitnessBlog
ReplyI love that these are all very serious responses to the study and you throw out, "Money that can be used for a fun night out! =P" It made me laugh out loud and realize that sometimes we should just lighten up a little! Thanks for that!
Replynp, that's how i roll! ;)
ReplyIf I couldn't make fitness fun, it wouldn't be my life.
Mostpeople are vegetarian or vegan because they don't want to eat meat, not because they're trying to save money. I doubt your friends think they aren't making smart choices when it comes to meat - they're making the smartest choice they can!
Replymaybe colorectal cancer rates for vegetarians were higher due to their high consumption of fibre which is, as i heard, was bad...
ReplyWhere did you hear fiber was bad for you?!?!?!?
ReplyI do not believe this study. I've read other studies that show vegetarians having higher rates of almost all cancers than non-vegetarians. Also studies that show vegetarians have a shorter life span than non-vegetarians world-wide. All the studies are subject to many mistakes in the control factors. While meat eaters world wide might live longer, meat eaters in any given micro region could be ingesting high amounts of deleterious chemicals associated with meat production and that could influence a study. A vegetarian population in a prosperous nation could represent, as I think they do, people who tend toward anorexia and eating disorders as well as those who develop intelligent alternative diets. For example, many women and some men who fear fat emphasize vegetables and fruits to the exclusion of meats and other proteins just because they perceive a sense of fullness from proteins that they cannot separate from a feeling of gaining fat. In other cases 'vegetarianism' probably represents some level of poverty eating and that population should not contribute to a statistic on true vegetarianism. None of these situations represent being a 'vegetarian' in any scientific sense, any more than meat represents simply 'meat' in this society, but rather a conduit for any amount of foreign chemicals and hormones.
There are other considerations about diet long ignored that could contribute to statistics. According to Ray Peat, a physiologist from the U of Oregon, too much fiber is not good for humans either - and that could explain the high rates of colon/rectal cancer of vegetarians in this study. Dr Peat also believes saturated fats such as coconut oil speed up metabolism while soy and corn oils slow it down - he sites a study from the 30's where coconut oil was discarded as a cattle fattener due to the fact that instead it made cattle 'lean, active and hungry,' i.e. it raised their metabolism. Soy and Corn on the other hand made the cattle fat and slow, and therefore was the chosen cattle feed from then on. These days almost no one I meet has the vaguest notion of good nutrition, though many people have the common sense to eat from all the food groups, and eat organic if they can possibly afford it.
There are a great many questions here, and the need for more studies. This study has produced a dubious conclusion and for now I would question it thoroughly. Thanks.
ReplyThey should do more meaningful studies like:
Meat eaters vs vegetarians, considering both do equal exercise
Meat eaters vs vegans, considering both do equal exercise
Meat eaters who exercise vs vegetarians who don't exercise
You get the drift...
Reply