The Verdict: It’s Not the Meat, It’s the Lack of Fish
Robert Latkany, MDFebruary 09, 2009
While the American Dietetic Association , the Dietitians of Canada, and probably some of your friends claim that a well planned vegetarian diet is better for the prevention of cancer than a diet high in red meat, the evidence is somewhat more nuanced. Numerous studies have demonstrated a higher incidence of cancer among persons who eat red meat (Lam et al, Linos et al, Sinha et al) compared to those who do not. A higher overall death rate associated with a high red meat diet was highlighted in a study by Sinha et al, and reported on CNN.
Norat et al found an important additional finding: lower fish consumption was associated with a higher (colorectal) cancer rate.
Do we have evidence to show that red meat the culprit, or is there another confounding factor?
Two additional studies, one by Kimura et al, and one by Engeset et al, found no link between red meat consumption and cancer but did find evidence that increased fish consumption decreased risk of cancer. The nutritional factor in fish that confers protection is likely to be long chain omega 3 fatty acids. Although omega 3 fatty acids are found in plant sources, including walnuts, flax seed oil, and canola oil, long chain omega 3 fatty acids are mostly found in fatty fish. Habitual vegetarian diets are actually deficient in long chain omega 3 fatty acids, compared to omnivore diets, according to Mann et al. Pasture fed beef actually has significant levels of long chain omega 3 fatty acids, whereas grain fed beef does not. So, when you’re at the store, keep the (pasture fed) beef and celery in your shopping cart, as long as you have fish in there too.
Please read our legal disclaimer.
Write a comment
- Required fields are marked with *.
Posts: 2
Reply #2 on : Thu June 04, 2009, 18:46:47
Posts: 2
Reply #1 on : Wed April 29, 2009, 10:30:13
Bookmark with:
What are these?