Low Carb + High Fat = Less Cancer

[root]

The article below explains title and it also mentions alcohol won't worsen prostate cancer sysmtoms. I would think that this research could extend to other cancers besides prostate cancer. Cheers!
http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/122/114772.htm?pagenumber=2

[Gaelen]

Root, it's kind of tough to extrapolate results where cancers are concerned. It's been extablished that sugar consumption helps fast-growing tumors grow, and that lowered insulin levels can put the brakes on tumor growth, but as for the alcohol consumption thing? Well, that would depend. If your cancer involves the liver or kidneys or, for that matter, any part of the gastrointestinal/digestive system, having a drink might not be your best option. ;) Alcohol consumption is also contraindicated depending on the type of chemo you're on--alcohol interacts with different drugs and can suppress their cancer-fighting activity while enhancing their mind-altering side-effects. Again, depending on what those are, might not be the way to go.

However, while this article seems to support controlling carbs and consuming fats for cancer patients, it continues to hang with other studies which conclude that limiting/eliminating red meat is the way to go for cancer patients and people seeking to prevent cancer. Compared to the daily menus of most low-carbers, my overall meat consumption is pretty low, and processed meats play little or no part in my menus unless they are nitrite-free. I eat mainly vegetable and dairy source proteins, have fish at least 6x per week, include some eggs, chicken and turkey, have a bit of pork maybe two-three times a month. I try to limit red meat to maybe once a month, if that often. My menu is still controlled carb, but steaks, burgers, etc. don't make it to my protein choices very often, if at all. I've even gone completely meatless with fish when I could manage it (appetite can be an issue.) YMMV.

[root]

The alcohol consumption in the article was specific to prostate cancer, but appreciate your view that alcohol may be helpful to the growth of other types of cancers.
Did you notice this quote in the article, Gaelen?
"This country shifted from animal fats and went to vegetable fats because we thought this would be better for the heart," Colli said, at a news conference. "That never panned out. And now it seems it might be worse for prostate cancer."

[root]

This study said the fat source was mostly lard.
http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?id=38908-low-carb-diet
We as humans, consider our fat sources with regards to personal taste, beliefs and probably more often than not, circumstance. The unfortunate don't consider it and have no idea what insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes.
Certainly, most would avoid lard, but the results of the study is clear that the mice survived better on a lower carb/higher fat diet and had a reduced growth of cancer.

[Paleowoman]

I don't believe the scare headlines regarding the purported "ASSOCIATION" between red meat and cancer. If you read the actual studies and not rely just on BAD MEDICAL REPORTING, you will see that either the results are misinterpretted or that the studies were pretty bogus ie not distinguishing between processed meats (nitrates, chemicals, molds, etc) and non-processed. Furthermore, such studies never distinguish between organic, range fed meat and the feed-lot hormone laden crap most people eat in the US. Finally, NONE of the studies look at what else might be causing the ASSOCIATION (NOT CAUSATION) -- ie the trans fats in the greasy fries or the gobs of refined flour in the buns or the sugary desserts most people eat with their purportedly "dangerous" red meat. Pass the grass-fed red meat please... WITH the fat on it....:nod:

FOXNews.com - No Beef Behind Red-Meat Cancer Scare - Blog | Blogs | Popular Blogs | Video Blogs (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144326,00.html)

[Gaelen]

Actually, some of the research results are neither 'misinterpreted' nor victims of 'bad medical reporting' and several current studies have looked at causation AND association. It's also not really realistic to discount the association based on consumption of a diet of organically raised free-range red meat providing animals, since that diet is consumed by a VERY small percentage of the people who actually eat red meat. It might be a higher percentage among this particular group reading here, but it would be interesting to poll the group and find out who's spending the extra bucks for organic free range beef, or getting it shipped in, rather than getting their beef from the local Costco or Walmart supercenter. ;)

Here's the abstract from one of the most recent, done in the UK and released in Feb. 06:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/3/1859

"Cancer Research 66, 1859-1865, February 1, 2006]
© 2006 American Association for Cancer Research

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Epidemiology and Prevention

Red Meat Enhances the Colonic Formation of the DNA Adduct O6-Carboxymethyl Guanine: Implications for Colorectal Cancer Risk
Michelle H. Lewin1, Nina Bailey1, Tanya Bandaletova1, Richard Bowman1, Amanda J. Cross1, Jim Pollock2, David E.G. Shuker3 and Sheila A. Bingham1
1 Diet and Cancer Group, Dunn Human Nutrition Unit, Wellcome Trust/Medical Research Council Building, Cambridge, United Kingdom; 2 Pollock and Pool Ltd., Reading, Berkshire, United Kingdom; and 3 Department of Chemistry, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom

Requests for reprints: Sheila A. Bingham, Dunn Human Nutrition Unit, Wellcome Trust/Medical Research Council Building, Cambridge, United Kingdom CB2 2XY. Phone: 44-1223-252760; Fax: 44-1223-252765; E-mail: sab@mrc-dunn.cam.ac.uk.


Red meat is associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer and increases the endogenous formation of N-nitrosocompounds (NOC). To investigate the genotoxic effects of NOC arising from red meat consumption, human volunteers were fed high (420 g) red meat, vegetarian, and high red meat, high-fiber diets for 15 days in a randomized crossover design while living in a volunteer suite, where food was carefully controlled and all specimens were collected. In 21 volunteers, there was a consistent and significant (P < 0.0001) increase in endogenous formation of NOC with the red meat diet compared with the vegetarian diet as measured by apparent total NOC (ATNC) in feces. In colonic exfoliated cells, the percentage staining positive for the NOC-specific DNA adduct, O6-carboxymethyl guanine (O6CMG) was significantly (P < 0.001) higher on the high red meat diet. In 13 volunteers, levels were intermediate on the high-fiber, high red meat diet. Fecal ATNC were positively correlated with the percentage of cells staining positive for O6CMG (r2 = 0.56, P = 0.011). The presence of O6CMG was also shown in intact small intestine from rats treated with the N-nitrosopeptide N-acetyl-N'-prolyl-N'-nitrosoglycine and in HT-29 cells treated with diazoacetate. This study has shown that fecal NOC arising from red meat include direct acting diazopeptides or N-nitrosopeptides able to form alkylating DNA adducts in the colon. As these O6CMG adducts are not repaired, and if other related adducts are formed and not repaired, this may explain the association of red meat with colorectal cancer. (Cancer Res 2006; 66(3): 1859-65) "

Unfortunately, I need to be on my work computer to open the full study report; I'll try to get that and attach it later.

[Paleowoman]

I'm not trying to convince anyone to eat red meat -- diet is a personal choice. I was just pointing out that "studies" often are reported badly or the people running the studies have personal agendas they are pushing ie they have already decided that meat is bad and therefore just need to "prove" it. Also, the study abstract does not say total amount of subjects (21 + 13 seems so small a number as to be completely insignificant); it doesn't say what the diets consisted of ie processed bologna or grass-fed, organic red meat; it doesn't speak of the personal habits of the volunteers ie smoking or if they were overweight (being fat is also "associated" with colon cancer risk). Shun red meat if you want to -- but it defies all logic and reason to believe that a food which we evolved to eat as hunters and which generations have previously eaten with abandon is responsible for colon cancer -- a MODERN disease. IF red meat is responsible, then it has to do with how we are raising the meat ie FEED LOT HORMONE/ANTI-BIOTIC LADENED garbage. If association is so powerful, consider this: 100% of the people who get colon cancer use toilet paper. Does that mean using toilet paper is a major risk factor??? Of course not. That's a comment someone posted on another forum about the current trend of fixating on associations or elevating association to causation. Bottom line, stick with chicken and fish if that's what floats your boat. I'm off to prepare some lamb heart...

[Gaelen]

Paleowoman, an abstract always leaves questions in my mind, too. Sorry I didn't get back sooner with the full study report. Perhaps having the actual information from the "Materials and Methods" section of the full report will clarify the researchers' practices. Boldface emphasis is mine:

"Human experimental protocol: Studies with volunteers were carried out in a metabolic suite, where all food was provided and carefully controlled, and where all specimens could be collected and processed immediately. A randomly assigned crossover design was used to avoid time effects. Each dietary period lasted 15 to 21 days, and stools for exfoliated cells were collected after volunteers had consumed each diet for 10 days. Two similar dietary protocols were followed. In the first, exfoliated cells were recovered from 8 of 12 men fed a vegetarian diet versus a 420 g red meat/day diet (6). In the second protocol, exfoliated cells were recovered from six females and seven males while they were fed a vegetarian diet (30 g fiber as nonstarch polysaccharides) versus a 420 g red meat (13 g fiber) per day and a 420 g red meat high-fiber (30 g fiber) diet per day. The subjects acted as their own control, and the diets were isoenergetic and kept constant in fat (30% total energy) by exchanging protein for carbohydrate. Basal diets contained 10 MJ/d, and individual energy requirements to maintain constant body weight were achieved using 1 MJ increments of bread, butter, and marmalade. A 3-day rotating menu was used, but the items were similar throughout to minimize day to day variation. Breakfast was composed of 40 g cereal (corn flakes, high-meat diet; Weetabix, vegetarian, and high fiber), 120 g bread (white, high-meat diet, whole-meal vegetarian, and high fiber), 20 g butter, 40 g marmalade, and a daily allowance of 300 g semiskimmed milk. The red meat was prepared to minimize HCA content, and for the evening meal, the meat was cooked in sauces given in the form of 320 g (cooked weight) minced beef pie, sweet and sour pork, and cottage pie. In a previous study with a similar menu, HCA content of the low-meat diets was 18.9 ± 4.62 µg/d, which was not significantly different from 22.1 ± 2.25 µg in the high-meat diets (7). Vegetable and pasta bake, egg and chips, and vegetable and lentil bake were given for the vegetarian evening meals. Canned fruit (100 g) and ice cream were given for dessert. Roast beef (100 g) was given as a sandwich (120 g white bread with 25 g pickle, 20 g butter, 50 g cucumber, 60 g tomato) at lunch time together with 150 g apple. Whole-meal bread and egg or cheese (40 g) were substituted for the beef on the vegetarian diet. Purified water was fed throughout, and the diets contained <13 µg preformed NOC per day (8)."

There are actually several additional studies clarifying and demonstrating the same problematic effects of direct acting diazopeptides or N-nitrosopeptides able to form alkylating DNA adducts in the colon after the consumption of red meat. Studies have also isolated and distinguished between diets that included a lot of processed meat, diets that didn't, and diets that included chicken/fish but no red meat--sorry, didn't get to looking those up today, but I'll check on the weekend when (hopefully) I've got more time. Cancer researchers are clearly reporting that high consumption of processed meats is a greater issue than eating basic butchered red meat...which is still a greater risk factor than eating chicken, fish, and other foods that DON'T produce/form alkylating DNA adducts in the colon. In people who don't eat red meat, the incidence of colon cancer is the LOWEST. Causative? Well, I'd certainly keep studying it. And yes, they need bigger n-samples, but the larger the sample of active eating habits, the tougher it is to actively control the actual diet.

And even vegetarians get CRC, even with reduced risk. I presented at Stage IV CRC with liver mets after less than 8 weeks of symptoms (chiefly dramatic weight loss)...with a 20-year history of being pesco-vegetarian (I ate fish.) It ain't a perfect science and there are always out-liers in any study. Statisticians love that...it helps define and isolate more predicatable responses.

There is a difference between man 'evolving to eat' a particular food, and man evolving while eating a kind of food. Meat is one of the foods we ate while evolving, not a food we 'evolved to eat.' ;) The meat we ate at the start of our still-ongoing evolutionary process was not the same meat you get at today's average supermarket, so comparing the food available when we started out to what we typically eat today as if both were equally healthy sources is a rose-colored-glasses assumption. But examining consumption of red meat relative to cancer without taking into account where most of the people in the study now GET their red meat wouldn't be good science either. ;)

There are also some serious oversimplifications in assuming that colon cancer or any cancer is a 'modern' disease. Just because a disease existed before science/medicine gave it a name doesn't meant it didn't exist until it was 'named,' or that it didn't kill or disable people.

As for the issue of associations vs. actual causative agents, associations often point researchers in the direction of isolating true causative agents. Do they distract sometimes? Sure. You've got to make sure that you're not overlooking the fact that people who don't use TP might also get colon cancer, before you label TP sufficiently associative to investigate whether it's causative. If the initial assumption in the association is dead wrong, the research won't get to a definitive answer.

Science is a harsh mistress. ;)

[mcsblues]

There is a difference between man 'evolving to eat' a particular food, and man evolving while eating a kind of food. Meat is one of the foods we ate while evolving, not a food we 'evolved to eat.' ;)

An interesting thought/distinction, but since we have always been evolving (and despite our interference in natural selection, we still are) I'd say we have always evolved to take advantage of or minimise the damage from new foods or opportunities AND we have evolved as a result of doing so. In the case of meat, some evolution would have been required to permit digestion and as a result of then having access to the greater nutrient density meat offers, a larger brain evolved (because it could then be supported) and tool use and skills developed partly as a result of greater brain capacity and also as a result of more 'free' thinking and development time associated from the declining time consuming necessity to gather large quantities of less nutritious food.

Not an either/or proposition IMHO.

[Paleowoman]

Interesting postings! But I remain convinced that properly raised non-processed red meat has nothing whatsoever to do with colon cancer just as Gaelen appears convinced that it does. That's fine -- more red meat for me.:D

[root]

Talking about beliefs, it's my belief, with regards to the study on the effects of lowering carbs and increasing diatary fat, that a lower growth rate of prostate cancer cells resulted in a lower carb intake for the same reason that other improvements in health occure when lowering carbs as mentioned in Power Protien. Take away the cause of inflamation that flows in the blood, increase health at the cellular level and blood level and the benefits will follow.
Many studies focus on one nutrient to promote beliefs, i.e. protein, fat, cholesterol. A study that doesn't include dietary CHO, blood work, body fat and activity of the individuals doesn't tell me very much. Except to prove what the study set out to prove. Afterall, those that don't, don't get published, do they?
Still, your references are interesting and provide views that need to be considered...even if one knows what is best for their own health, which can't be dismissed either.
Cheers!

[Kathy]

Interesting postings! But I remain convinced that properly raised non-processed red meat has nothing whatsoever to do with colon cancer just as Gaelen appears convinced that it does. That's fine -- more red meat for me.:D

I'm inclined to agree with you. I would love to see a study involving the cancer rates of people who only eat grass-fed/hormone-free/free-range meats. Of course, I realize that I'm dreaming! I bet that all the crap that is fed to cattle and chickens, in addition to the added hromones, has a lot to do with cancer rates. That being said, I eat red meat once a week, and less in the summer because it's too heavy. I have been eating a ton of fish over the past few weeks, just because it's plentiful here on the seacoast during the summer months, and cheaper. I had scallops last night that were to die for! :)

[root]

Last night I experienced leg cramps. I value diet as a way to become healthier, not aditives to prevent occurances of pain.
I've decided to try this woe...
http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2004nl/040600puatkins.htm

[laughingW]

lowfat vegan? Don't forget to watch Gregor's videos explaining how vegetarians came out worse in several health measures. I think he does a good job acknowledging, from an insider's viewpoint, the mistakes people can make when they do that. (essential fats, essential vitamins, inflammation issues)

[LisaS]

well, IMO, full-on McDougal is about as far philosophically from PP as one can get -

[root]

I agree with you. The question remains if a high fat diet is healthier. It certainly will decrease your blood pressure because it decreases the blood fluid. With that it will decrease all the other blood components. That's why you should take potassium. What other nutrients are forced down the toilet because of this way of turning on diuretics.
.

[laughingW]

I agree with you. The question remains if a high fat diet is healthier. It certainly will decrease your blood pressure because it decreases the blood fluid. With that it will decrease all the other blood components. That's why you should take potassium. What other nutrients are forced down the toilet because of this way of turning on diuretics.
.
Low carb doesn't have to be "excessively high" fat. my diet isn't. It has appropriate amounts of good fat. Counting by grams of fat, that is, not the goofy "percent fat" that goes up when carbs go down.

And, because I choose potassium-rich veggies as my carb sources, no pill potassium is needed either.

[Paleowoman]

Question for Gaelen: I hope this isn't off-topic but a question came to mind as I reread this thread over the weekend. Gaelen, you mention in a posting that you were a pesco vegetarian for 20 years. Just curious if you also ate dairy products and/or eggs as a pesco vegetarian and also curious why you decided to add poultry and very limited red meat to your menus?

[Gaelen]

It's not off-topic, Paleowoman...it's probably as close to a natural meandering as this thread will get. ;)

Yes, I've always eaten dairy and eggs, along with fish. I love fish, have since I was a kid. I gradually added small amounts of poultry and smaller amounts of red meat back into my diet when I found tastes in those foods that appealed to me. I really like blue cheese and mushroom burgers, for instance, whether they're lentil-walnut, salmon, turkey or ground round. ;)

The 'pesco' vegetarian label isn't mine; it's one of the categorizations off a veggie site, and it's the closest description of my typical menus. In the 70s, a vegetarian who ate fish wasn't any special label. The only 'labels' were vegan, macrobiotic, ovo-lacto (where I fit in). When some vegetarians got more militant (the "how can you eat fish? fish is meat, too!" arguments...), then I started referring to my diet as 'meatless', using the example that Catholics have always considered eating fish as abstinence from meat, and kosher dietary rules consider fish acceptable in a dairy meal, while meat from birds and land animals is not. Then someone came up with the pesco-vegetarian designation, and that's probably the most socially acceptable description. ;)

Anyway, I became a vegetarian (of whatever variation ;) ) for financial, not ethical, reasons. I was a broke student, one of the three people in our house of 12 who actually had a paying job, and one of my roomies wouldn't kick in her share of our meager food budget unless we kept kosher. But if I kept a kosher kitchen to get Shira's $3 every week, I couldn't buy very much meat from the kosher market--in 1975, kosher market chickens went for $3/lb and hamburger was around $6/lb., nearly half our food budget for two meals. I got really good at meatless and cheap things like 7-bean soup, eggplant parmesan, spanakopita, meatless feijoada (black beans and rice) and tuna lasagne. ;)

I'd always eaten meat growing up, and I never had trouble eating or cooking it. But when I had to buy the groceries and didn't have a freezer or the ability to pay the bulk price you were charged for butchering one of your own pigs or cows (we 'grew our own' meat), then I couldn't afford it anymore. I got out of practice cooking it, and out of the habit of eating it. I still liked bacon, and homemade Italian sausage, and poultry, lamb gyros or kebabs. I'd eat other kinds of meat if someone else bought and cooked it...but I wasn't really very good at cooking it anymore, because I didn't cook it very often. It's still not one of my specialities--I can excel at lots of things that are small chunks of meat (like a pot pie) and do really well, but I'm not very good at cooking hunk 'o cow (or pig). None of my friends could afford much meat, either, so even when I started making a little more money, I didn't add meat back into my meals. I bought records and books, went to more movies and got cable. ;)

So my current diet, like my past ones, is built mainly on tastes I like...it's just that I like so many more vegetarian meals and fish meals that I tend to make them more often. I haven't eaten much red meat since the mid-70s anyway, so reducing it even further after my CRC diagnosis wasn't any effort at all. Once I started seriously reviewing the the research into CRC, the evidence that there was a link between CRC and red meat consumption (mainly processed red meat, but all types can affect the inflammation levels in people who are susceptible) kept cropping up, and it's in my case too compelling to ignore. It may not help to limit my consumption--after all, it didn't seem to make any difference in preventing the initial diagnosis--but it's one thing I can do pretty easily that *might* hold off recurrence for a bit longer. So since I can get my protein minimum and more without eating much red meat, it seems like it's worth the experiment. Others' mileage may vary. ;)