Whoa, whoa, whoa. So, taking these results at face value, if blood, stomach, ovarian and bladder cancer risk is halved, yet overall vegetarian/fish eaters' risk is only reduced by a piddling 12%, then surely some other cancer risks must be increased? They mentioned colon and cervical were slightly higher among vegetarians. What are the others?

I hvae no particular personal bone to pick with the idea

but I am a researching academic, so I would never accept any study until I have gone over it and picked holes in it, which I haven't got time to do tonight

but from the posts on here it does sound very much like it is the starting point rather than the answer, a kind of signpost saying 'more work needs to be done in this area'

rather than the conclusive answer

'Interesting that people object so strongly to the message of this study and are determined to pick holes in it. Why is that? '

It is a useless study! We have no idea what they are comparing. If it is vegetarians v people who eat meat pies, burgers etc and few vegetables of course they come out healthier! If they are comparing with those who eat a lot of white fish/oily fish, meat, pulses and tons of fruit and veg, I don't think that they would. We would have to know exactly what each sample were eating before we take any message at all from it.

I always check here when I read health articles, just to be sure.

Looking again at the blood type book it suggests you should be vegetarian if you are blood group A, otherwise you are at greater risk of cancer, heart disease (apparently).

Blood group O needs to eat meat apparently (suited to high protein low carb diet).

interestingly for my type (type B) the eat for your blood group book suggests stearing clear of nuts, lentils, tofu, tomatoes, olives and wheat amongst other things.

Dairy is ok and lamb is beneficial. So I'm not sure if a wholly veggie diet or wholly mediterranean diet would be the best for me. That is if there is any truth in the blood group theory.

I would be interested to know how many of those living till a ripe old age in mediterranean areas are blood group B as I think it is a blood group found more in Eastern Europe/Asia.

Wow, it's like some kind of food horoscope!

No cheese sarnies for me then! Unfortunately I hate pineapple but will have no problem avoiding lager!

Thanks again.

fizzpops - Type A's flourish on vegetarian diets the exact opposite to type 'O'. Type A has a low stomache acid content so dairy foods are poorly digested - you should also not have too much wheat.

Vegetables are good and most fruits especially pineapple. If you do eat meat try to stick to poultry and stay away from processed meats like ham because they can cause stomache cancer because of your low stomache acid content.

... ah - white wine! it's a neutral - that means ok in moderation - red wine is good!and lager should be avoided.

Thanks!

I'll have a look

happywomble and rubyruby - I don't suppose the book you refer to says anything about white wine and A+?

<<hopeful>>

happywomble - I have that book too. It's interesting reading.

I am Group 'O' - I positively crave meat.

ok, so we have 4 people on here who are veggie and ill with cancer...

and the 3,000 people in the survey- some of them we ill with cncer... so being a veggie didn't specifically help them.

but it is a study in epideimiollogy- ie illness in a population.

but i feel i'm bashing my head against a brick wall.
I don't need anyne to become a veggie as a result of this- i don't really care what you all do.

But it seems facile to say that i have a study of n=1 which makes more sense to me than n=6,000 odd. I'm sure the sceintists here can regonsie that.

Or does eating meat make you so rapid and cross with the world that you'll think anything just to justify it.

And i don't buy the "quorn is shit" argument to show that eating meat is healthier th\n being veggi.

errr just don't eat quorn and meat, i'm sure that is healthier

sheesh the weather had got to us all i reckon.

Linda McCartney died from cancer and she was a vociferous veggie to the point she created her own processed food range which was criticised for containing too much saturated fat and salt.

Not eating that again then.

It's a mould:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorn

"Quorn is made from the soil mould Fusarium venenatum strain PTA-2684 (previously misidentified as the parasitic mold Fusarium graminearum). The fungus is grown in continually oxygenated water in large, otherwise sterile fermentation tanks. During the growth phase, glucose is added as a food for the fungus, as are various vitamins and minerals (to improve the food value of the resulting product). The resulting mycoprotein is then extracted and heat-treated to remove excess levels of RNA. Previous attempts to produce such fermented protein foodstuffs were thwarted by excessive levels of DNA or RNA; without the heat treatment, purine, found in nucleic acids, is metabolised by humans, producing uric acid, which can lead to gout."

Yum, yum.

I don't think mushrooms take quite that level of processing.

fungus

'Soil fungs' eh? What's that then, and why is it any worse than mushrooms?

My darling MIL is a vegetaqrian and has been for most of her life, she doesn't smoke and never has, she drinks in moderation.

She has cancer of the liver and it has now spread to her lungs. She is dieing. She will not see her DGC grow up and will not even get to meet her DGC to be.

Yeah! being a vegetarian is great.

Does anyone think there is an argument for saying that different diets suit different people.

I once bought a book about eating the best diet for your blood group.

I am blood group "B". It said my body is suited to eating lamb and beef but not chicken. Without reading this book I would have thought chicken would be healthier than red meat for me.

Maybe there are some people whose bodies are best suited to a veggie diet and some people who need meat in their diet?

Just a thought. I am not a particular supporter of this blood group diet but wonder if there is any sense in eating for your blood group?

i suppose in the 3,000 veggies in the study therea are all sorts of types of veggies

as there are all sorts of meat eaters.

i would expect with such a large group they would balance out

the study sdeems to be just based on 2
questons-
doyou eat meat?
do you eat fish and no meat?

there are 3 groups-
those that eat meat (and presumably fisha nd veg)
those that eat fish (and presumabley veg)
and those that don't eat meat or fish.

That's it- no other questions such as how often do you eat meat, how often do you have 5 portions of fruit snad veg etc...

The sheer numebr of people responding it hink thak out akot of the waht ifs somehow.

And it showed that for "blood cancers" the veggie group had nearly half the rate as the meat gruop.

can't remember the other results, but overall the rate of cancer was lower for the veggie and fish only people than the meat people.

err, that's it.

Now we can all argue about whether or not rice is more toxic/les toxic to the enivroment than cows,
whether quorn is worse that chicken etc...
and these will prob be further studies.
But we don't actually have any sceintific results to show this- so the rest is speculation at this point.

the interviewer tried to lead the prof to say that the results of his study showed that people should not eat meat. he hesitated a bit, but said that the results show that we really need to look inot what is about a veggie diet/lifstyle that maybe can help protect against cnacer......

I hope my post didn't sound like it was picking holes in it. The study makes sense to me.

Quorn is evil, it's made from soil fungus - bleurgh.

Spokette and cheesesarnie - thank you for this info.

I would happily eat all these things but my fussy DD would be unlikely to enjoy kidney beans and lentils..might try doing a few veggie recipes for the DCs. But they will still be having chicken casserole and fish pie etc sometimes. Does anyone have a good veggie recipe book for cooking for children?

I have wondered about putting the Dcs down for veggie meals at school as am not sure of the quality of meat used in school dinners (I try to buy organic meat for home use). I notice on the Surrey schools menu Quorn is used once a week as a veggie option. Should we be petitioning our county councils to provide a healthier veggie options?!

just to add to it-protein can also come from beansprouts,tofu,soya milk,wholegrains,seeds,nuts and hummous.

but apparently protein needs are automatically meet by a balanced,varied diet and can even be found in potatoes.(copied from ds2 wall chart that we use to quote to twats the say its unhealthy for a dc to be veggie!)

Happywomble, your question about natural protein sources other than meat. Beans such as chick peas and kidney beans, lentils, quinoa (complete protein source),soya, eggs, dairy.

There are so many tasty recipes one can make with these natural ingredients without having to resort to junk like Quorn.

The other thing to point out is countries where they eat a huge amount of meat but cancer rates are low. Genetics, lifetstyle and environmental factors obviously play a huge part in that.

Therefore to think that a meat-based diet is bad and a plant based diet is good is simplistic, linear, wishful thinking.

Interesting that people object so strongly to the message of this study and are determined to pick holes in it. Why is that?

'My diet is extremely healthy and based on natural food. Not synthetic garbage like Quorn which the veggies I know eat in copious amounts as highly process pretend mince, sausage etc. '

I agree entirely with spokette's post, especially the above. I would say that the vegetarians came out healthier because they are giving a lot of thought to what they eat and are less likely to be overweight plus more likely to get 5 portions, as dittany says.
I can't see anything in it to show that DCs should give up meat eating. I think a Mediterranean diet is the best with lots of water to drink, few snacks and plenty of exercise. I think that if you compared that with the average veggie diet you would get different findings. I wouldn't give up meat or fish, but I do a lot of vegetarian meals and my Cranks cookbook is the one that is falling apart from over use. I wouldn't eat synthetic garbage and call it 'healthy'.

MM - I do wonder though if you, and my friend, are somewhat protected due to your choice of diet - in other words, perhaps it will stand you in good stead.

Fwiw the other friend I have has recovered, and I often wonder if she might not have done had she not eaten so healthily.

iyswim...let's hope it works in your favour.

The Cretan diet is supposed to be the one of the world's healthiest diets which is very low in meat.

The WHO says people should get at least five portions of fruit and vegetables a day. I wonder if maybe the reason veggies are healthier is because they find it easier to include those five portions, if not more, in their diet?

the study didn't say that you wouldn't get cancer if you were veggie- just that fewer people got some cancers if they didn't eat meat..

i linked it earlier on.

And i'm sorry you have cancer,MM, is it being treated?

Hmm,

Only read the original post, but -

there are lies, dammned lies and statistics.

A vegetarian cancer sufferer.

MM

There's a growing body of evidence pointing to the benefits of a mainly plant based diet.

Although the majority of cancers are lifestyle/environment related (including smoking and poisoning by asbestos), there are a still a substantial number which are not. It's 1/3 to just under a half, depending on what you read.

I was veggie for ten years, then an occasional fish eater for the next five, then a regular fish eater. I still got cancer as mine is genetic.

Perversely a vegetarian diet does not seem in any case to protect against my cancer, colo-rectal.

It's not straightforward.

i don't think they adjusted any fgures to account for anything
It was a reflective survey vs a sceintific experiment.

I think the large volume of people evened out some of the stats tbh.

About 11& of all of the respondents smoked- so this would be discounted as a primary factor for the things they were looking at.

Tho', for example, maybe smoking and eating chicken is worse then smoking and eating ham... but the survey would never show that as it hadn't asked that question.

I heard one of the profs on the radio and he said it was a start point to look into why a veggie diet/factors assoc with veggie people may cut the risk of cancer significantly...

we are all asking further questions to which there is no answer at the moment, the survey has jsut brought up a whole load of (interesting) questions for debate and further research IMO.

It's an interesting question, though. Don't think I'm a shining example of a healthy veggie diet. <hides biscuits>

Riven, sure, I just thought it was interesting - didn't start the thread or anything.

edam, thanks for the word binary- i just knew there was a word but just couldn't think of it!

and, totally, some veggies eat healthy and some don't-

i'm sure the numbers make account for this-
i'm not sure if eating a healthy diet with meat is "better" than a bad veggie diet in this study- it doesn't have that as a conclusion.

Do people still have meat with every meal?
Maybe they do.

most meat eaters I know (and yes I am talking poncey London types) only eat red meat about once a week.

I don't think you'll get any converts to vegetariansim by appealing to health to be hoenst. Most of us wouldn't change what we do because of health!

Yes but you also get threads by people wailing about having a visitor due who is veggie and what on earth can you feed them. As if the poster rotates between bacon, beef and chicken at every meal and never ever has anything remotely dairy or plant-based!

I suspect Spokette was simply making a point about being 70% vegetarian not really claiming to be one. I know that in other threads some ardent supporters of vegetarianism have posted as though meat eaters never eat veg whereas of course most of what we eat is veg.

One said to me once that I was missing out on all those lovely vegetables as though she pitied me not being allowed to have them

Studies where they ask lots of people if they did this or that and if they got ill are a good first step to point to an area that needs looking into.

They can't be the end though as it's never as simple as that. For one thing you need to look at the actual mechanism as you might be rejecting meat when it's actually HOT food that's the problem (I bet on average meat eaters have fewer cold meals than vegetarians) or food that requires more chewing, takes longer to digest, or any one of dozens of possible factors.

Also the point made earlier about vegetarians being more likely to be generally health conscious.

That bit about adjusting the figures to allow for other differences has to be viewed with caution too as that will be based on figures arrived at by other studies like this. The experimental error factors multiplying as you use one to adjust another.

my nan and my mil used to do that.ham in a quiche-'its only a little bit' or tuna in something-'but fish is ok isnt it?'.also making gravy with the meat-eurgh!

funny how everyone is dissing the study but vaccine studies are gospel.

But there is vegetarian and vegetarian.

We only have meat 2X a week and have a fairly trash free diet. We eat way more fruit& veg than the vegetarians I know.

My in-laws eat a lot of manufactured crap,highly processed filled with god knows what and not much fruit and veg. In fact the veggie food I cook has been accused of being too veggie in the past. Others I know are the same masses of cheese and pastry products.

I know we eat way more healthily as do many other vegetarians but to say all do is fantasy. They must have made the diet in the study trash free surely in which case I hope they made the meat eaters the same.

yes oops, vegetarianism is definitely binary. Despite my Gran's repeated attempts to hide prawns or very thin ham on my plate as they are 'practically vegetarian'.

lol, spokette, i feel the veggie diet = no meat
but i can see that is a point of debate.

i c see it as either an on/off type thing.
ie i eat meat therefore i'm not a veggie

vs i eat meatand vegn therefore i am partly veggie..

but it's of no consequence to the debate.

protein sources that are non meat,
nuts, lentils, all sorts of beans, chickpeas etc. can all be eaten.
and you don't have to have pretend meat- you can bypass that issue completely.

Yes it can be very random

'By edam on Wed 01-Jul-09 10:27:33
<smug vegetarian emoticon required>

(Except it probably doesn't make up for smoking, alas.) '

here too.

i think the research is interesting.

we are a family of 5.myself and my youngest dc(aged 3) are veggie-and no we dont fill up on quorn etc,we have a healthy balanced diet according to our gp(or ds does,im lazy).dh,dd(aged 9) and ds1(aged 8) are meat eaters-they eat less healthily and are more fussy.id like dd and ds1 to be veggie to but although they know exactly what their meat is and how it goes from animal to plate-they still want to eat it.

I got ill a while back. No-one knows why. Just one of those shitty things that happens and all that.

No, I don't think she would feel responsible nor should she. Just that it makes it more extremely bad luck iyswim, and unfair, and ironic.
You weren't to know.

oh dear.

Don't think anyone should ever feel responsible for getting ill.

You're right...I just imagined her seeing this thread and it making her feel ten times worse, that's all.

Jumente, so sorry about your friends but individual cases don't change the population stats. Study says vegetarians have a lower risk than meat-eaters, not that they are immune.

Happy, most foods contain some protein. Dairy, eggs, nuts, seeds and pulses, wheat, oats and rice are good sources of protein. I don't eat tofu or soya or meat substitutes very often if at all. I don't want to eat meat, why would I try to recreate it artificially when there's plenty of nice food in the world?

Oh great, well someone I am very close to has recently been dx'd and she's been a vegetarian since she was 5. Another close friend has recovered from cancer recently and ate nothing but wholefoods for years and years.

Blows it out the window for me in a personal sense. Though I totally support vegetarianism and am going back to it myself, for other reasons.

I'm interested by your posts spokette. I share your thoughts on quorn and veggie sausages. Please could someone tell me what it is safe to eat?

If one avoids quorn, veggie sausages and all meat, what is left (in terms of iron/protein)? Should one get all one's protein from fish and how safe is fish if it has been swimming in polluted waters?

Obviously I know fruit, and vege are healthy but what else is actually safe to eat?

There is also the fact that water is either bottled (chemicals from bottles) or from the tap (full of cancer drugs etc and chemicals).

So if you are trying to follow a diet to avoid cancer it is quite hard to find anything that is entirely healthy to eat / drink

There is nothing strange about my 75% veggie diet. I don't eat meat for breakfast (have cereal or fruit), rarely have it for lunch (mainly have homemade veggie soup and fruit) and if I have meat with my dinner, it only constitutes about 20-25% of what is on my plate. The rest is either salad or vegetables. Similarly with fish.

My diet is extremely healthy and based on natural food. Not synthetic garbage like Quorn which the veggies I know eat in copious amounts as highly process pretend mince, sausage etc.

I need to read about the study in detail but my reservations concern the lack of control of influencers. Comparing meat and non-meat eaters in an uncontrolled environment where genetics, the environment and personal proclivities are not controlled is extremely difficult.

Yes, meat eaters do eat veg too, that's why it's interesting that this large, reputable study shows a distinct difference between veggies and meat-eaters.

and aren't most meat eaters having a partly veggie diet?
or if you eat meat is it 100% of what oyou eat?

i'm not sure waht a 75% veggie diet is tbh.

I'm sure lots of people only eat meat on occ which i agree means the results are hard to look at.

my fh will eat no meat xpt fish at home, but when he goes out he eats meat...
i'm not sure where he is in the study criteria...

the study says it is intersting and opens up a palce of debate IMO.

But there are some people who aren't willing to debate- just to criticise and try to belittle people who want to debate IMO.

hey ho

And i think the study actually says that the veggies did do a little bit more excercise on the whole too- smoking was pretty much even betwen the groups so this isn't about smoking per se...

No, 'Mediterranean diet' is a term used by researchers to refer to a specific type of diet that is more prevalent in some Mediterranean areas, and is higher in plant foods and fish and lower in meat. Google it if you want to find out more.

I think people in some mediterranean areas (eg. south west france) eat far more meat than is the norm in the UK. I went on a french exchange with an English friend who didn't eat meat and the french could simply not understand the idea of vegetarianism. Not sure if it has changed.

Google 'Mediterranean diet' or put it into pubmed if you really need convincing that diet is linked to disease. A healthier lifestyle is chiefly around diet and exercise, can't understand why anyone is questioning that!

Don't think the study says anything about lung cancer, it's pretty clear the chief causes are smoking, pollution and industrial exposure, not diet.

And there is very good evidence already that diet plays a large part in ill-health, especially a diet rich in plant foods (which doesn't have to be vegetarian). The interesting thing about this is it's a large study which has shown a clear difference between vegetarians and meat-eaters.

Faq its not my title, its the title from the Telegraph's article that I gave the link for.

A family member has lung cancer - perhaps it had to do with him being exposed to asbestos rather than his diet...

Perhaps vegetarians are people who naturally take a deeper interest in lifestyle choices and lead healthier lives - it has NOTHING then to do with diet ...

omnivores, darn it!

(And the percentages are about correct - if 7% of ominvores get cancer and 4% of vegetarians, that means vegetarians have almost half the risk over the time period studied. Or 42% if you want to be more precise.)

Wasn't having a go at anyone in particular, or at all, FAQ, just surprised that so many posters leapt in with 'ooh, it must be a rubbish study' without bothering to check.

i don't know about cancer, but it will cut your food spending by about half, too!

we only have meat 2-3x/week.

edam - who is saying they are meaningless - I am just arguing that the OP's title, plus the article in the telegraph don't actually tell the full story.

Gosh, people really are narked by any evidence suggesting eating meat is bad for you, aren't they?

This was published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, it's from a very large ongoing study, it's supported by Cancer Research UK... what is the problem, exactly?

Or perhaps meat eaters genuinely think the European Perspective Investment into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), which is following half a million people, is rubbish in scientific terms?

Fine, debate the findings, but don't try to pretend they are meaningless just because they don't fit your prejudices.

You seem to having a hmm smiley overload atm oh dear.

I'll ask again given seem to hold little sway with health or environmental arguments for vegetarianism why do eat a 75% vegetarian diet? Im really interested especially as your a scientist I am sure you have given it some thought

that's very true oops - but the figures reported in the article and the title of the OP (and "information") in it - is (imo) misleading

Because of what I eat

I'm intrigued why is your diet 75% veggie spokette?

I'm not good at stats, FAQ, but 3% is actually less than half of 7%

ohhh elenorrigby, and you seemed to be just posting a little snippet that you'd read in the paper-
he must have the journal.. ut due to the fabness of the internet you can acess this one online.

I always get annoyd when you ahve to pay to access articles, but this one is freely available.

so we can all red the original source and discuss --gently at length-- slag each other off

The environmental and vegetarian campaigners always harp on about the methane gases emitted from cows but conveniently forget that rice paddy fields are responsible for over 20% of anthropogenic methane emissions and that is set to rise as demand for rice increases.

It will be a matter of time before the dictators start telling us that if we don't stop eating rice, the planet will be doomed. Somehow I cannot imagine SouthEast Asian countries taking too much notice

At least the Chinese researchers who published the original research are highlighting it which means that sensible research is underway to see how this can be mitigated which is the way things should be done. Not the we are all doomed screeching one gets from self-interested lobbies who will only listen to those who agree with them.

it's the original research, elenorrigby.

Nad it hinkt it is good to debate vs just immediately jump on it and criticise TBH.
it seems dreafully adversarial.

It is this sort of ting that shows up trends and points people to lok into certain things.

It's difficult to find out about science thro the press tbh as it is always the most sensational headline that gets printed.

so - approx 7% of the meat eaters had cancer
approx 4% of vegetarians had cancer
approx 3% of "fish eaters"

Not quite as staggering as 45% is it

lol, spokette, i think being a veggie means that you foolw a veggie diet 100% of the time.

I agree that journalists often just pick a line and then this is gospel!
where's ben goldachre?

As any good study says, there is alot of room for further investigation.
i believe that the lab is also a well respected one.. i've a friend doing research into prostate cancer and diet..

<dons had hat and wanders into the trench, making sure i have a handful of nuts to keep me going whilst the fight ensues >

oops thats interesting I'll have chat with my DP, he's works as a genetic scientist specialising in cancer genetics

yes I want to know the NUMBERS - not the percentages.

Actually - just found them

"We studied 61 566 British men and women, comprising 32 403 meat eaters, 8562 non-meat eaters who did eat fish ('fish eaters') and 20 601 vegetarians. After an average follow-up of 12.2 years, there were 3350 incident cancers of which 2204 were among meat eaters, 317 among fish eaters and 829 among vegetarians."

So - 5% of the total sample group developed cancer.

I've got a link which is interesting.

you can make your asessments after reading the paper....

i suppose the boiggest problem when you do a study like this is that humans are real people, not lab rats so a seriosuly controlled experiemnt is very very difficult to create.

I don't think they looked at genetics-- maybe there is a gene that makes you eat meat and also the same gene predisopses you to cancer??

I think on face value it is very interesting.
It is obviously a descriptive thing, not an actual "we made 1,000 people eat this diet and then we tested this thing2 type study..

it says that cervical cancer was higher in the veggis
and that it seems fish and veggis diets are assco with overall lower cancer rates.

but it didn't note a difference between meat and veggies in colorectal cancer which has been reported precviously.

It seems that it is published in a reputablke peer reviewd journal...

journalof cancer

faq: during the time 3,350 people contracted 20 different cancers and the team compared the rates of meat eaters, fish eaters and vegetarians.

with parents who preach to other parents

I'd like to see the actual numbers of that 61,000 who got cancer.

Percentages can do funny things to stats....

Get real spokette mumsnet is awash with people who preach parents to other parents what's best for their children lol

I am a meat eater but am open to the idea of vegetarianism (for health reasons). However I hate the taste of vegey sausages - they seem so salty which cannot be good healthwise. I think to have a balanced veggie diet (including enough iron) you would have to always cook from scratch (meaing cooking 2 different meals if your DH likes eating meat) and have a good understanding of what foods to eat to replace the good things that are found in meat such as iron.

If I were to decide today that my children were going veggy I would struggle to think of enough recipes to give them a balanced diet. The vegetarian options on the school lunch menu do not look that appealing.

If one gives up meat but still eats fish then that will mean the fish stocks will go down further. How do we know if fish is safe to eat with all the pollution in the seas and rivers.

There is also the environmental campagin about cows giving off too much gas or something and adding to global warming...I think it would be sad if no one ate meat and there were no animals in our fields. We would have to go to childrens farms to see animals.

Its hard to know what to do for the best sometimes.

I actually follow a vegetarian diet 75% of the time.

You seem to have a problem with vegetarianism...lets not hung up on individual words but significant not conclusive might have been better one to use! Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water!

Don't you want to do what's best for your children or is your judgement clouded by your own prejudices?

1. You know nothing about me so don't you dare question that I do not want what is best for my children.

2. I am a scientist by training and I work in research. My opinion is not clouded by prejudices. You on the other hand clearly have your judgement clouded as indicated by the fact that you pounce on any bit of information to support your non-meating stance and post it as conclusive evidence, even though the researchers themselves call for more research!

i agree with spokette re having to be rigourous sceince, but this was written up in a peer reviewed journal, wasn't it?

61,000 is a big source so i would think that maybe some of the other factors aren't so important, unless ALL the meat eaters smoke too for example...

Tho i do admit stats make me fall to sleep the minute somebody says it...

The evidence is at best circumstantial and doesn't take into account environmental factors and genetic predispositions ....

I certainly wouldn't change my diet because of this article -...

OP, did you actually read the article?

From article "We know that eating a lot of red and processed meat increases the risk of stomach cancer. But the links between diet and cancer risk are complex and more research is needed to see how big a part diet plays and which specific dietary factors are most important."

My point exactly. Most people know that if you eat a diet comprising of too much saturated fat (how much saturated fat does a processed vegetarian sausage contain I wonder?), processed food (both meat and non-meat) etc is not good for you. To extrapolate that to say as the OP

"Wow very conclusive study, maybe there should be a campaign to switch children to a meat free diet!"

is as I said earlier, ignorant because the researchers are calling for more research to understand the interdepedencies of diet and health. The study is not conclusive

Don't you want to do what's best for your children or is your judgement clouded by your own prejudices?

OP

Your souce is secondary, not primary.

Also, from that link -

"Fish eaters actually had the lowest rate of cancer – 18 per cent lower than meat eaters – but they were also the smallest sample."

And................

Quite.

If OP wants to convert us to become non-meat eaters, at least use a credible argument than posting a snippet of some dubius research without the emperical detail behind bit.

"All the results were adjusted to take into account smoking, obesity, alcohol intake and lifestyle."
Link

doesn't make sense.

How many of the meat eaters got cancer?

Actually, I would like to see more details about the control measures for this research. Did the 61000 people they follow have the same lifestyle with the exception of whether they ate meat or not?
How much meat did the meat eaters eat?
Was it once a week, twice a week, every day?
Did the meat eaters eat both red and white meat, organic or non-organic.
Did the vegetarians only eat fresh food or synthetic food like quorn?
How much process food did both groups eat?
Did both groups drink alcohol or smoke?
What are the interdependencies of overconsumption of processed food (meat and vegetarian) and excessive alcohol intake?
How much salt and fat did the vegetarians and meat eat when consuming processed vegetarian food?
How fit where the people they followed?
Did they all follow the same exercise routine?
Did the study take into account genetic traits?

To say that this study is conclusive is ignorant.

Yeah, I remember the organic food thread when lots of people popped up to claim it was essential for their family to have meat at every meal, and they could only afford battery chicken...

i'm impressed by the research.

And i doubt you'll get people on here to accept it tbh.

Meat is thought to be essential by alot of people on here.


I have bene eating fish for about 5 yrs on and off, but haven't eatne any meat for 20 yrs so it isn't such a surprise to me- i've bene aware that it is actually a healthier diet for a long time..

<smug vegetarian emoticon required>

(Except it probably doesn't make up for smoking, alas.)

"More than 61,000 people aged between 20 and 89, roughly half of whom were vegetarian, were followed for more than 12 years in the British arm of the research which is supported by Cancer Research UK."
"vegetarians were 12 per cent less likely to contract cancer than their meat eating counterparts"
"For some cancers like leukaemia, stomach and bladder cancers the difference was even more striking with up to 45 per cent fewer non-meat eaters contracting the diseases than carnivores."
Wow very conclusive study, maybe there should be a campaign to switch children to a meat free diet!