In article <12oe0s27soet7e9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, ghmvdj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
> > Culturally adopted foods are of course common for humans - all sorts
> > of bizarre things that most animals would consider poison make their
> > way into our mouths.
>
> Like aspartame, the sweetener for coca-cola and dr. pepper.
In diet versions anyway, though whether it's poisonous or not
depends on whether you suffer from ketonuria or not.
I was actually thinking of hot peppers and the like - we have the
strange habit of eating things specifically because we like
properties which are intended to keep animals from eating them.
> It is used
> as an ant poison.
Ah...no:
http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/antpoison.asp
>
> Heck, things which actually *are* poison make
> > their way into our bodies quite deliberately - no doubt many other
> > animals wonder what we think we're doing. However, meat does not
> > seem to be one of them.
>
> Well, to Appeal-to-Authority (so watch out),
Appeals to authority are only a problem if the authority isn't an
appropriate source.
> Dr. Fuhrman says that
> smoking, lack of physical activity, and eating animal foods are the main
> culprits in heart disease. Animal proteins raise chlosterol, chicken as
much
> as beef. Plant proteins lower cholesterol and colon cancer risk.
Increased intake of *any* protein is linked to increased cancer
risk. Are you sure you have Fuhrman right? Fiber and flavinoid
intakes have been linked to a decrease in cancer risk, especially
colorectal cancer - naturally plant protein sources tend to have
these while animal sources do not.
On the other hand, this study among Finnish men who ate a very high
fat, high protein diet found that there wasn't any particular
connection between meat in the diet and colorectal cancer:
Pietinen et al (1999) "Diet and risk of colorectal cancer in a
cohort of Finnish men" Cancer Causes and Control 10(5):387-396
>
> On the other hand, I like smoking and physical activity. And
English
> Farmhouse Cheddar.
Good news! Just about anything is no real risk unless you do it or
have it too much.
I'm not sure you can have too much English Farmhouse Cheddar,
though...
>
> I don't know; maybe our ancestors ate some meat; I'm sure yours
did.
> Maybe to eat an animal was like a symbol of conquering ones enemy and
> spiritually appropriating it's strength.
Meat eating started before the chimp/human split so it's unlikely it
began for cultural reasons.
> Perhaps free-ranging meat was
> leaner, with no added hormones or antibiotics,
I'm pretty sure it was.
> and earlier humans were a lot
> stronger and much more physical active - fourth-world peoples still are,
> although not as strong.
There's a strong correlation between populations having a low BMI
and having a lower risk of cancer generally. It's likely that in
the developed world we do eat too much meat, but on top of that is
the issue that we eat too much overall and don't get nearly enough
exercise.
>
> Fuhrman says eat seaweed, not fish, to get iodine, so perhaps
our
> ancestors lived on seacoasts or around lakes?
Why not eat fish and shellfish along with the seaweed? If a high
pro****tion of dietary protein and fat comes from fish and fish oils
colorectal and breast cancer risk decreases:
Caygill, Charlett & Hill (1996) "Fat, fish, fish oil and
cancer" British Journal of Cancer 74(1):159-64.
>
> Use of dairy (not counting natural
> > lactation and breast feeding of course) does seem to be
> > comparatively recent, and some populations have adapted better to it
> > than others.
>
> Nyet. Scandinavians eat lots of dairy, but have the most heart
> attacks and cancers of anyone.
Really?
Not according to the WHO atlas of heart disease and stroke:
http://www.who.int/cardiovascular_diseases/resources/atlas/en/
And you're wrong about cancer too, according to:
Parkin, Pisani & Ferlay (1999) "Global Cancer Statistics" CA - A
Cancer Journal for Clinicians 49(1) 33-64
According to them, new cancer incidence (in terms of cases per
100,000 population) looks more like this:
Top Ten
Male Female
North America 369.9 277.5
Australia/NZ 312.7 254.0
Western Europe 294.8 210.4
Japan 270.9 166.8
N.Europe 270.0 234.5
E.Europe 269.4 172.8
S.Europe 256.0 177.6
S.America 255.1 230.1 (temperate region)
Southern Africa 247.4 187.8
Eastern Asia 235.7 179.9 (excluding Japan & China)
(From table 5, p43)
First, Northern Europe (which would primarily be comprised of
"Scandinavia") *doesn't* have the highest rates of cancer. Of
course an argument could still be made that these regions are ranked
in order of Dairy use, but the rates are broken up this way by the
authors:
Developed countries 299.6 208.9
Developing countries 151.9 122.0
While dairy consumption might be a factor, it seems likely that
there are quite a large number of strongly correlated factors which
could also account for this division (obesity, artificial food
additives, low levels of physical activity, tobacoo use,
genetics, etc)
Anyway, dairy consumption has been linked to a *decrease* in rates
of some types of cancer:
Bostick et al (1993) "Relation of Calcium, Vitamin D, and Dairy Food
Intake to Incidence of Colon Cancer among Older Women" American
Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 137, No. 12: 1302-1317
(this one showed a reduction in colon cancer incidence attributable
to dairy calcium & vitamin D intake. There are more recent studies
which more strongly indicate dairy intake reduces colorectal cancer
risk)
****n et al (2002) "Intake of Dairy Products, Calcium, and Vitamin D
and Risk of Breast Cancer" Journal of the National Cancer Institute,
Vol. 94, No. 17, 1301-1310
"Among premenopausal women, high intake of low-fat dairy foods,
especially skim/low-fat milk, was associated with reduced risk of
breast cancer. "
Meanwhile, dairy is linked to creating an *increase* in others:
Chan & Giovannucci (2001) "Dairy Products, Calcium, and Vitamin D
and Risk of Prostate Cancer" Epidemiologic Reviews 23(1):87-92
(summarizes the evidence for a positive correlation between low-fat
dairy intake and prostate cancer, and discusses a possible
mechanism)
Never believe anyone who tells you eating one particular food
produces a simple cause-effect result WRT your chances of developing
a particular disease. It's always more complicated.
|
