PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Sender:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Hilary McClure <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:49:43 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (38 lines)
Johnny Battle wrote:
>
> I've come across mentions of this Yale study in several places. Just
> when you guys start to get me convinced animal fat is safe and
> wonderful...
>
> http://www.medindia.net/news/view_news_detail.asp?x=1484&t=gn
>
> Excerpt:
> "Individuals who enjoy diets rich in meat, cheese and whole milk may be
> at increased risk of developing cancer of the esophagus and the
> stomach.The rates of two types of cancer--gastric cardia and
> adenocarcinoma of the esophagus--have risen rapidly over the past 30
> years. To investigate potential links between these and two other types
> of stomach and esophageal cancers and dietary factors, Dr. Susan T.
> Mayne from Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues
> interviewed more than 1,000 patients and nearly 700 healthy people in
> three states.
>
> "Total fat intake and intake of saturated fat each doubled the risk of
> esophageal adenocarcinoma..."

Another excerpt:
"Intake of fiber, beta-carotene, folate, vitamin C and vitamin B6 were
associated with a lower risk of all four cancer types studied. Use of a
vitamin C supplement at least once a week for 6 or more months also
showed a significant association with a lower risk of these cancers."

So eat some vegetables and fruits with your meat and fat and don't worry
about it. Also, I never find it very useful when something just says a
risk is "doubled", rather than giving the actual numbers. If the risk
went from one-in-two-million to one-in-one-million I could live with
that sort of doubling if there were counter-balancing considerations.
But if it was one in a thousand to one in five hundred that would be and
entirely different matter.

Hilary

ATOM RSS1 RSS2