Mary has posted on the issue of red meat and colon cancer with
questions.
First of all, in epidemiological studies they make correlations;
however,
CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.  They can only make guesses
about
x-variable causing y-outcome.  But there are many factors they may
miss or
fail to see as causes or contributors.  We have to look at many
variables.

What else is the typical meat eater eating (i.e., what health
depleting
foods is he eating)?  What is he not eating (i.e,, what health
building
foods is he failing to eat)?  What is he drinking (soda and other
sugared
beverages, tap water, coffee, alchol)?  And in what amounts is he
eating or
drinking the particular substances?

The typical meat eater in a Western country does not just eat meat; he
or
she eats a lot of harmful products (see list under quality) and fails
to eat
a lot of very healthful things (fresh nutrient rich veggies and fruits
and
oily deep ocean fish, for example).

With any food or food-disease correlation, it would be important to
look at
quality, quantity, and context to get a more balanced picture.

QUALITY:  If you are eating hormone and antibiotic-free meat as
opposed to
conventional drugged beef, you will get a more healthful product.
Further,
if you are eating wild game or grass fed meat, that will have a more
favorable fatty acid profile than conventional grain fed beef or even
"organic" grain fattened beef.

One of the main problems, as I see it, of conventional beef,
especially the
fatty cuts and kinds, is that they contain an excess of omega-6 fatty
acids,
which are strongly indicted as risk factors for cancer.  The more
omega 6s
in the diet, the more risk; the fewer omega 6s in the diet, the less
risk.
Grass fed meat contains more omega 3s (good guys), more vitamins, more
antioxidants, etc.

If your meat is not grass-fed (ideally, you will get hormone and
antibiotic-free), I believe that it is better to get the leaner cuts,
to
avoid excess omega-6s.

CONTEXT:  Red meat, or hormone and antibiotic-free red meat, or grass
fed
meat, in the context of a nourishing, junk food free diet, will have a
very
different effect on the body than red meat in the context of a diet
rich in
fluffed, puffed, refined, packaged, processed, denatured foods rich in
empty
starch, sugar, preservatives, additives, artificial colorings,
hydrogenated
and partially hydrogenated fats, margarine, soda, and canned foods.

Also red meat in the context of a diet rich in dark leafy green,
bright
orange, yellow and red vegetables, and fruits, will have a very
different
effect than red meat in the context of a diet devoid of vitamin,
mineral,
antioxidant, fiber, and phytonutrient-rich produce.   Every study I've
seen
to date has shown the extraordinary health benefits of a diet rich in
fresh
vegetables and fruits.  Fruther, every survey I have seen has
indicated that
most Americans (97%) fail to eat even the minimum recommended 5 USDA
servings per day--a serving for most veggies being 1 cup salad greens
or 1/2
cup cooked veggies or 1/2 cup tomato sauce or 1 cup berries or 1 small
fruit
or 1/2 large fruit.

It seems unwise and unnecessary to limit ourselves to an Eskimo diet.
Certain groups ate all or primarily meat diets due to environmental
limitations.  But in areas where vegetation was largely available, it
appears that humnas chose to eat vegetables and fruits.  We have
access to
such a wide array and abundance of fresh produce.  It makes sense to
me,
given all I've read, to include a large amount of fresh, colorful
vegetables
daily.  There is no harm--as I see it---and only benefits.

Given what I've seen of diets listed here, it appears that many people
eat a
very limited variety of vegetables and fruits and, in many cases, a
very
small quantity.  There are many ways to put paleo principles into
effect.
IF you want to be assured the greatest nutrient intake, it makes sense
to
eat abundandly of both vegetables and to include some fruits as well
(vegetables being more important, though fruits are also antioxidant
and
phyotnutrient rich).  I think you would be doing yourself a disservice
to
skimp on or avoid vegetables.

QUANTITY:  It seems to me that given the availability of such a wide
array
of foodstuffs, we don't need to rely only or primarily on red meat.
We can
use many varieties of poultry, fish, and eggs.  Hormone and
antibiotic-free
poultry is widley available; grass fed poultry can be searched out.
It is
not difficult to vary the types we use---chicken, turkey, etc.

Every survey I've seen on fish eaters, around the world, has shown
that fish
eating populations tend to be healthier than non-fish eaters.  Fish
contains
many healthful constituents.  Frozen and fresh deep ocean fish is
widely
available, easy to prepare, and there are many varieties from which to
choose.  Why not vary our proteins?  Why limit our diet to a steady
meat
diet?  Why not vary our protein sources within a day and week? I think
you
would be doing yourself a disservice to focus mostly or soley on red
meat
and/or to avoid fish.

Quantity ties in to the context note above.  If you don't eat a meat
only or
meat-based diet, but include more green leafy, orange, yellow, red and
white
vegetables and some fruits, your diet will be more varied, colorful,
attractive, nutrient rich, health protective, interesting, and the
quantity
of meat will be moderated or reduced.....without sacrificing excellent
nutritional density.  Vegetable consumption is so appallingly low--at
a time
in history when we have such access, throughout the year!  That is a
major
cause of disease, if you ask me.  Removing processed and denatured
foods is
crucial, but failing to add vegetables and fruits is, to me, like the
vegetarian who cuts out meat but keeps eating crapola.....

OTHER FACTORS:  Did you know that the National Cancer Institute and 10
other
organizations have determined (as a result of both epidemiological
studies
and animal studies) that long term drinking of chlorinated tap water
(that's
15 or more years....in their book!!) confers a drammatic increase in
the
risk of colon, bladder, and rectal, and breast cancer?  I'll have to
dig the
figures out of my files!  Chlorine is a poison, and yet many people
drink
chlorinated water, use it for ice, beverages, etc. with nary a second
thought!  There are many other contaminants and disinfection by
products in
tap water which are known or suspected carcinogens, mutagens, and can
cause
a host of problems in humans and animals.

Other studies have suggested that chronic dehydration, which is
common, may
increase ones risk of cancer.  Many people fail to drink much water,
relying
instead on soda and sugared, caffeinated or artifically flavored and
sweetened beverages, milk, etc.  Being well hydrated (with filtered or
purified water, of course) can help improve health and reduce the risk
of
disease.

Sorry this is so long....

In health,

Rachel Matesz