>On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Grant Magnuson wrote:
>> Vegetable based diets which are high in carotenoids are associated with
>> lower incidence of certain types of cancer.

Todd:
>Yes, but the data don't support the hypothesis that people are
>not getting enough carotenoids because they are eating too much
>meat, since even the occasional consumption of meat increases the
>cancer risk substantially.

Except that those who avoid all red-meat are likely health-food
types--enough of whom are actaully eating "five a day for health" to make a
statistical difference. Who knows?

>We can theorize that it is something in the meat itself, or
>something else in the diet that is making people vulnerable to
>something in the meat that otherwise would not bother them.

Or something genetic. Or something in modern meat. Or something in cooked
modern meat. Or the interaction of meat and other non-paleo food items. Or
something as simple as red meat causes colon cancer, though the lack of
colon cancer in huter-gatherers would contradict that--if indeed there
is/was a lack of colon cancer in hunter-gatherers.

>Now it could be that very few people are getting enough
>carotenoids, but the carotenoid-deprived people who eat meat are
>the ones who get colon cancer; the rest have other problems.

Doesn't that show it is related to a lack of carotenoids?

Cheers,
Kirt



Kirt Nieft / Melisa Secola
[log in to unmask]