PDA

View Full Version : Looking for an Authoritative Answer on the Charcoal/Cancer Link


tish
01-12-2012, 07:57 PM
I had a discussion with Harvard last night about the evils of smoking food and whether or not there is a link to cancer from cooking this way. He has been afraid that I'm going to slowly kill myself by eating smoked food. I told him that I had read somewhere on the site that the carcinogens develop with fat dripping on the lit coals, or something like that. So, my impression was that if you don't have fat dripping on the coals, you're ok. Can someone tell me if this is correct, and is there an authoritative source that would confirm this? When I asked him what authoritative source he would believe, he said I don't know... the AMA, the CDC, you know, one of the big boys. :roll: Thanks for any help.

MilitantSquatter
01-12-2012, 08:02 PM
here's a previous discussion that may have some info

http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103968&highlight=charcoal+cancer

CarolinaQue
01-12-2012, 08:05 PM
Every thing I found says that eating meat that has been grilled or broiled over charcoal. And the articles state the forming of HCA's from the fat dripping onto the coals. So, I would say that indirect low and slow shouldn't increase your risk more than it already is based on the type of meat you are eating. As in,red meat vs. chicken...that type of thing.

caseydog
01-12-2012, 08:16 PM
There is a link between burning fats and cancer, but it is not a strong link, and the risk varies by person.

As a cancer survivor, I haven't stopped grilling meat.

There are some activities that have a very real and demonstrable effect on you chances of getting cancer, like cigarette smoking. And there environmental factors that seem to increase your chances significantly of getting cancer, such as living in heavily industrial areas -- like where I used to live.

Some things create a bigger risk than others. I don't eat grilled red meats every night. Cancer aside, that would not be a healthy practice.

From what I have read, slow smoked meats are not the same. Smoke flavor eaten is not the same as smoke inhaled. That wonderful char on a steak or burger is where you face a bigger risk.

But, there are way bigger risks, mainly genetic. If I came from a family with a high incidence of cancer, I would probably be more worried about grilled beef. But, if I came from a family with a high incidence of heart disease, I'd change my diet to accommodate that, too.

The type of cancer I had, Seminoma, is not really related to any activity or environment, as far as science knows, at this time. It's very random. It just happens.

Tish, if you have a family history of cancer, then get on Google and do some research. Arm yourself with knowledge. If anything you are doing contributes to the kinds of cancer that run in your family, then make appropriate changes.

Otherwise, maintain a balanced diet, with appropriate amounts of meats, fruits, grains and vegetables.

CD

Boshizzle
01-12-2012, 08:17 PM
The notion that charred food causes cancer has been around for a long time. We are also told that soaking meat in a marinade before grilling it reduces the risks from eating it.

Personally, I have never put much weight in the study. I think about the saccharin cancer warnings from a few years ago too. However, between the time that saccharin was discovered in 1879 to today not a single case of cancer in a human has been traced to saccharin. That fact alone makes me think that saccharin is probably the safest of all artificial sweeteners. What other artificial sweetener has a 122 year track record?

One other thing to keep in mind is, the saccharin "study" results were published in 1977. That just so happened to be when NutraSweet (aspartame) was trying to get the final FDA approval to begin marketing its artificial sweetener.

Was the study more about selling NutraSweet than real Science? You can decide that for yourself, but I am suspicious. Humans have been eating meat cooked over an open fire for thousands of years and yet I know of no cancer cases directly traced to food because it was grilled or barbecued over a wood fire. That's a pretty good track record too, I think.

Now, who would make up things and/or stretch the truth in an attempt to convince people to stop eating animal flesh? What kind of influence do they have on these kinds of "studies?" I don't know but I am suspicious of that in this case too.

The two primary substances at question produced by charring meat are: Heterocyclic Amines (HCA) and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH).

PAH is on the SUSPECTED carcinogen list, not the known carcenogen list.

There are a lot of people out there who will do any study you want if you pay them enough.

Here is the list of known carcinogens from the International Agency for Research on Cancer. I don't see HCA in it.

Acetaldehyde (from consuming alcoholic beverages)
Acid mists, strong inorganic
Aflatoxins
Alcoholic beverages
Aluminum production
4-Aminobiphenyl
Areca nut
Aristolochic acid (and plants containing it)
Arsenic and inorganic arsenic compounds
Asbestos (all forms) and mineral substances (such as talc or vermiculite) that contain asbestos
Auramine production
Azathioprine
Benzene
Benzidine and dyes metabolized to benzidine
Benzo[a]pyrene
Beryllium and beryllium compounds
Betel quid, with or without tobacco
Bis(chloromethyl)ether and chloromethyl methyl ether (technical-grade)
Busulfan
1,3-Butadiene
Cadmium and cadmium compounds
Chlorambucil
Chlornaphazine
Chromium (VI) compounds
Clonorchis sinensis (infection with)
Coal, indoor emissions from household combustion
Coal gasification
Coal-tar distillation
Coal-tar pitch
Coke production
Cyclophosphamide
Cyclosporine
Diethylstilbestrol
Epstein-Barr virus (infection with)
Erionite
Estrogen postmenopausal therapy
Estrogen-progestogen postmenopausal therapy (combined)
Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined) (Note: There is also convincing evidence in humans that these agents confer a protective effect against cancer in the endometrium and ovary)
Ethanol in alcoholic beverages
Ethylene oxide
Etoposide
Etoposide in combination with cisplatin and bleomycin
Fission products, including strontium-90
Formaldehyde
Haematite mining (underground)
Helicobacter pylori (infection with)
Hepatitis B virus (chronic infection with)
Hepatitis C virus (chronic infection with)
Human immunodeficiency virus type 1
Human papilloma virus (HPV) types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59 (infection with) (Note: The HPV types that have been classified as carcinogenic to humans can differ by an order of magnitude in risk for cervical cancer)
Human T-cell lymphotropic virus type I (HTLV-1) (infection with)
Ionizing radiation (all types)
Iron and steel founding (workplace exposure)
Isopropyl alcohol manufacture using strong acids
Kaposi sarcoma herpesvirus (KSHV)/human herpesvirus 8
Leather dust
Magenta production
Melphalan
Methoxsalen (8-methoxypsoralen) plus ultraviolet A radiation
4,4'-Methylenebis(chloroaniline) (MOCA)
Mineral oils, untreated or mildly treated
MOPP and other combined chemotherapy including alkylating agents
2-Naphthylamine
Neutron radiation
Nickel compounds
N'-Nitrosonornicotine (NNN) and 4-(N-Nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK)
Opisthorchis viverrini (liver fluke; infection with)
Painter (workplace exposure as a)
3,4,5,3',4'-Pentachlorobiphenyl (PCB-126)
2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran
Phenacetin (and mixtures containing it)
Phosphorus-32, as phosphate
Plutonium
Radioiodines, including iodine-131
Radionuclides, alpha-particle-emitting, internally deposited (Note: Specific radionuclides for which there is sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity to humans are also listed individually as Group 1 agents)
Radionuclides, beta-particle-emitting, internally deposited (Note: Specific radionuclides for which there is sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity to humans are also listed individually as Group 1 agents)
Radium-224 and its decay products
Radium-226 and its decay products
Radium-228 and its decay products
Radon-222 and its decay products
Rubber manufacturing industry
Salted fish (Chinese-style)
Schistosoma haematobium (flatworm; infection with)
Semustine (methyl-CCNU)
Shale oils
Silica dust, crystalline, in the form of quartz or cristobalite
Solar radiation
Soot (as found in workplace exposure of chimney sweeps)
Sulfur mustard
Tamoxifen (Note: There is also conclusive evidence that tamoxifen reduces the risk of contralateral breast cancer in breast cancer patients)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin
Thiotepa
Thorium-232 and its decay products
Tobacco, smokeless
Tobacco smoke, secondhand
Tobacco smoking
ortho-Toluidine
Treosulfan
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation, including UVA, UVB, and UVC rays
Ultraviolet-emitting tanning devices
Vinyl chloride
Wood dust
X- and Gamma-radiation


Here is the list of Reasonably anticipated but not known to be human carcinogens.

Acetaldehyde
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acrylamide
Acrylonitrile
Adriamycin® (doxorubicin hydrochloride)
2-Aminoanthraquinone
o-Aminoazotoluene
1-Amino-2,4-dibromoanthraquinone
1-Amino-2-methylanthraquinone
2-Amino-3,4-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (MeIQ)
2-Amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (MeIQx)
2-Amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (IQ)
2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP)
Amitrole
o-Anisidine hydrochloride
Azacitidine (5-Azacytidine®, 5-AzaC)
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzofluoranthene
Benzo fluoranthene
Benzo fluoranthene
Benzopyrene
Benzotrichloride
Bromodichloromethane
2, 2-bis-(bromoethyl)-1,3-propanediol (technical grade)
Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA)
Captafol
Carbon tetrachloride
Ceramic fibers (respirable size)
Chloramphenicol
Chlorendic acid
Chlorinated paraffins (C12, 60% chlorine)
1-(2-chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea
Bis(chloroethyl) nitrosourea
Chloroform
3-Chloro-2-methylpropene
4-Chloro-o-phenylenediamine
Chloroprene
p-Chloro-o-toluidine and p-chloro-o-toluidine hydrochloride
Chlorozotocin
C.I. basic red 9 monohydrochloride
Cisplatin
Cobalt sulfate
Cobalt-tungsten carbide: powders and hard metals
p-Cresidine
Cupferron
Dacarbazine
Danthron (1,8-dihydroxyanthraquinone)
2,4-Diaminoanisole sulfate
2,4-Diaminotoluene
Diazoaminobenzene
Dibenz[a,h]acridine
Dibenz[a,j]acridine
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
7H-Dibenzo[c,g]carbazole
Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene
Dibenzo[a,h]pyrene
Dibenzo[a,i]pyrene
Dibenzo[a,l]pyrene
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane (ethylene dibromide)
2,3-Dibromo-1-propanol
Tris (2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine and 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine dihydrochloride
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
1,2-Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride)
Dichloromethane (methylene chloride)
1,3-Dichloropropene (technical grade)
Diepoxybutane
Diesel exhaust particulates
Diethyl sulfate
Diglycidyl resorcinol ether
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
Dimethyl sulfate
Dimethylvinyl chloride
1,6-Dinitropyrene
1,8-Dinitropyrene
1,4-Dioxane
Disperse blue 1
Dyes metabolized to 3,3'-dimethoxybenzidine
Dyes metabolized to 3,3'-dimethylbenzidine
Epichlorohydrin
Ethylene thiourea
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Furan
Glass wool fibers (inhalable)
Glycidol
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclohexane isomers
Hexachloroethane
Hexamethylphosphoramide
Hydrazine and hydrazine sulfate
Hydrazobenzene
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
Iron dextran complex
Isoprene
Kepone® (chlordecone)
Lead and lead compounds
Lindane and other hexachlorocyclohexane isomers
2-Methylaziridine (propylenimine)
5-Methylchrysene
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline)
4-4'-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethyl)benzenamine
4,4'-Methylenedianiline and its dihydrochloride salt
Methyleugenol
Methyl methanesulfonate
N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine
Metronidazole
Michler's ketone [4,4'-(dimethylamino) benzophenone]
Mirex
Naphthalene
Nickel (metallic)
Nitrilotriacetic acid
o-Nitroanisole
Nitrobenzene
6-Nitrochrysene
Nitrofen (2,4-dichlorophenyl-p-nitrophenyl ether)
Nitrogen mustard hydrochloride
Nitromethane
2-Nitropropane
1-Nitropyrene
4-Nitropyrene
N-nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-nitrosodiethanolamine
N-nitrosodiethylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitroso-N-ethylurea
4-(N-nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone
N-nitroso-N-methylurea
N-nitrosomethylvinylamine
N-nitrosomorpholine
N-nitrosonornicotine
N-nitrosopiperidine
N-nitrosopyrrolidine
N-nitrososarcosine
o-Nitrotoluene
Norethisterone
Ochratoxin A
4,4'-Oxydianiline
Oxymetholone
Phenacetin
Phenazopyridine hydrochloride
Phenolphthalein
Phenoxybenzamine hydrochloride
Phenytoin
Polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs)
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Procarbazine hydrochloride
Progesterone
1,3-Propane sultone
beta-Propiolactone
Propylene oxide
Propylthiouracil
Reserpine
Riddelliine
Safrole
Selenium sulfide
Streptozotocin
Styrene
Styrene-7,8-oxide
Sulfallate
Tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene)
Tetrafluoroethylene
Tetranitromethane
Thioacetamide
4,4'-Thiodianaline
Thiourea
Toluene diisocyanate
o-Toluidine and o-toluidine hydrochloride
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
Ultraviolet A radiation
Ultraviolet B radiation
Ultraviolet C radiation
Urethane
Vinyl bromide
4-Vinyl-1-cyclohexene diepoxide
Vinyl fluoride

There are some substances higher on the priority list than grilled meats. In fact, PAH's are not known to cause cancer according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerC...an-carcinogens

And, you have this - An important proviso to be kept in mind is that cancers in laboratory rats and mice are induced by doses (per unit of body weight) several orders of magnitude higher than what are usually ingested in normal meals by humans. (Typically, the amounts of HCAs are over a million times higher, based on calculations from data furnished in Augustsson [1999].) In fact, by itself, the ingested daily amount of heterocyclic amines is very probably too small to explain the development of human cancers, and the same is true for numerous other carcinogens. Thus, the simultaneous presence of heterocyclic amines with other genotoxic [i.e., inducing DNA damage] carcinogens and with tumor-promoting agents or tumor-promoting conditions makes it very difficult to make a numerical calculation for risk estimation.

http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1e.shtml

Anyway, I'm not a doctor, so do your own research and work through it with your doctor.

landarc
01-12-2012, 08:39 PM
I tend to follow CD's advice, I am a cancer survivor and could easily go totally turtle, eating only a very retricted diet. BTW, does Harvard eat range fed chickens only? Does he ever wonder what all the antibiotics and hormones fed commodity market based chickens ingest do to his health?

I eat a wide variety of foods, some charred, some not, not everything is cooked outside. I eat a lot of vegetables, I eat a lot of dark leafy greens, cruciferous veggies, etc...I avoid soy and have reduced dairy a lot. I eat organic or certified with traceable origins for probably 80% of my diet.

I don't smoke, I drink moderately, I workout at least 5 times a week when I am physically able, often times even when I shouldn't. I drive speed limit, wear my seat belt, and don't text or post when driving. I do a lot to mitigate known issues, but, I am not gonna chase cancer causing phantoms, enless I see science telling me it does. I don't choose to fight negatives.

jestridge
01-12-2012, 08:45 PM
I'm sure the cholesterol will kill you first!!!

Saiko
01-12-2012, 08:52 PM
If you want to read a fascinating book about the history of cancer and modern treatments, I highly recommend "The Emperor of all Maladies". It is written by Siddhartha Mukherjee, who is a cancer physician, researcher, assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University and a staff cancer physician at the CU/NYU Presbytarian Hospital.

I've never had cancer, but both sides of my family and my wife's family have been decimated by it. A lot of it is genetics and just "losing the gene mutation lottery". There are obvious environmental effects, but you can't live your life afraid of every study that indicates a relation to cancer.

Amazon.com: The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer (9781439107959): Siddhartha Mukherjee: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51qVm-8ZJgL.@@AMEPARAM@@51qVm-8ZJgL (http://www.amazon.com/Emperor-All-Maladies-Biography-Cancer/dp/1439107955)

tish
01-12-2012, 10:24 PM
Well, I just read the whole thread from April, 2011. I read some passages to Harvard, and asked him about the free range chickens and the antibiotics. He said the chickens he eats are not free range. He had a health crisis several years ago, during which, he had enough antibiotic pumped into his system so that he can now disintegrate the paint on a fire hydrant by peeing on it. lol (I swear to God, that's exactly what he said. :heh:)

He said to tell you all that he raises the white flag. He will eat smoked veggies, chicken, fish, and the occasional piece of beef. He wouldn't say ok to pork, although I have seen him eat pork once at a Christmas party (2010), and BTW... it was pulled pork. So he said never say never, and he would see when the time comes, but I'm sure if I make a pork butt, he'll eat at least one pp sammie. :wink: Gentlemen, I do believe we've accomplished a conversion here. :thumb: Thanks so much!! :grouphug:

NorthwestBBQ
01-12-2012, 10:33 PM
Blasphemy! http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/102.gif

BBQ Bandit
01-12-2012, 10:39 PM
Well, I just read the whole thread from April, 2011. I read some passages to Harvard, and asked him about the free range chickens and the antibiotics. He said the chickens he eats are not free range. He had a health crisis several years ago, during which, he had enough antibiotic pumped into his system so that he can now disintegrate the paint on a fire hydrant by peeing on it. lol (I swear to God, that's exactly what he said. :heh:)

He said to tell you all that he raises the white flag. He will eat smoked veggies, chicken, fish, and the occasional piece of beef. He wouldn't say ok to pork, although I have seen him eat pork once at a Christmas party (2010), and BTW... it was pulled pork. So he said never say never, and he would see when the time comes, but I'm sure if I make a pork butt, he'll eat at least one pp sammie. :wink: Gentlemen, I do believe we've accomplished a conversion here. :thumb: Thanks so much!! :grouphug:

And your son witnessed him tasting brisket, too. :thumb:

landarc
01-12-2012, 10:48 PM
Tish, I have had a supressed immune system due to radiation poisoning since I was 26 years old, I have spent from one week to three months in the hospital at a time, I have recieved everything from penicillin to experimental synthetic antibiotics that I had to sign a waiver that stated that I understood that my kidneys and liver WOULD be damaged. Believe me when I tell you, I know Staph A and a slew of antibiotics well. I have spend weeks on vacuum, with two hoses in my abdomen to clear liquid, I been there and back. Something is gonna kill you, if it is sex or BBQ, well, then sign me up, there are worse ways to go.

Boshizzle
01-12-2012, 10:54 PM
Tish, here something else you need to consider.

The ingredients in Kingsford charcoal and their purpose-

wood char - heat
mineral char - also for heat
mineral carbon - also for heat
limestone - for the light-ash color
starch - to bind the other ingredients
borax - for easy release from molds
sodium nitrate - for quicker ignition
sawdust - for quicker ignition

Now, I have no problem with any of those ingredients except the mineral char and carbon which is coal. The problem with coal is the nasty gases it produces.

There was a lawsuit brought against Clorox Co. (Kingsford is a subsidiary of the Clorox Co.) back in 2008 by the wife of a chef named James Beets who was the master chef for 10 years at a Weber Grill Restaurant where they cooked inside using Kingsford charcoal. He was diagnosed with blood cancer and his doctors traced it back to the benzene gas produced by the Kingsford charcoal used in the restaurant's grills. The lawsuit basically said the company failed to warn consumers that using the benzene-containing briquettes indoors could lead to the development of multiple myeloma.

What I find most interesting is that Kingsford introduced their reformulated charcoal in 2009. Did the lawsuit actually prompt the reformulation? That's a question I would like to have an answer to.

Now, will occasionally using Kingsford outdoors result in inhaling enough benzene to kill a person? I don't know of any cases where that has been proven or even suspected. So, I don't have a problem with using it. Now, if I were using it indoors in a kitchen filled with grills even with ventilation, I might be concerned.

Midnight Smoke
01-12-2012, 11:04 PM
I think cooking meat over Charcoal gives you about as much chance of developing Cancer as using a Cell phone does...

tish
01-12-2012, 11:09 PM
And your son witnessed him tasting brisket, too. :thumb:

That's right, Bob!! I have a witness!!! lol I did see him eat beef on that day, and one other time when I made a pot roast with potatoes, carrots, onions, homestyle egg noodles and gravy. I made it for Michael. But Harvard came and asked me if he could have some. You could have knocked me over with a feather. I fixed him a plate, and he ate every bit of it, and then got himself a piece of bread to soak up all the gravy, and he ate that, too. So he will eat beef every once in a while. :wink:

tish
01-12-2012, 11:11 PM
Blasphemy! http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/102.gif

Ok, Michael... I'll bite. In what way have I managed to blaspheme today??? :eusa_clap

42BBQ
01-13-2012, 07:32 AM
Something is gonna kill you, if it is sex or BBQ, well, then sign me up, there are worse ways to go.

Best quote I've seen since I've been a part of this amazing place. Thanks Landarc, you just made my weekend. :becky::becky::becky:

deepsouth
01-13-2012, 08:10 AM
i'm starting to think that pretty much everybody will get and die of cancer if they live long enough.

everytime i say i'm going to swear off everything unhealthy, i read about a vegan or vegetarian or marathon runner, etc... getting and dying of cancer and then blow off my swearing off.

bigabyte
01-13-2012, 10:24 AM
You know, a hundred years ago in 1912 the average life expectancy for all races/sexes was 53.5. Today it is 77.9. (sourced from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm)

So we have added a quarter of a century to the end of our lives, the part that is most prone to being riddled with various diseases and illnesses.

I'm almost willing to believe that if it wasn't for things like cancer, we would have a much higher life expectancy because we are simply able to keep ourselves alive much longer nowadays.

Maybe the reason it seems like everyone has cancer now as compared to the past is because we are simply pushing what is natural for our lifespans? Sure, most people have the stories of a grandma that lived to a crazy age, but really, that's just one person in a possibly very large family, the others of which did not live as long.

So, a hundred years ago, how many of you would most likely be dead based on the average life expectancy for back then?

Just thinking out loud, not trying to base any arguments on anything here. Surely if we all lead healthier lives, even by trying to avoid cancer within reason, then our life expectancies will keep going up.

But what fun will that life be if it is more years of nothing but living a sheltered life?

tish
01-13-2012, 10:43 AM
You know, Chris, they say that lions can have 30 orgasms a day. But a pig will have one orgasm that lasts 30 minutes. I gotta tell ya, I'm choosing quality over quantity every time. :wink:

You know, a hundred years ago in 1912 the average life expectancy for all races/sexes was 53.5. Today it is 77.9. (sourced from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm)

So we have added a quarter of a century to the end of our lives, the part that is most prone to being riddled with various diseases and illnesses.

I'm almost willing to believe that if it wasn't for things like cancer, we would have a much higher life expectancy because we are simply able to keep ourselves alive much longer nowadays.

Maybe the reason it seems like everyone has cancer now as compared to the past is because we are simply pushing what is natural for our lifespans? Sure, most people have the stories of a grandma that lived to a crazy age, but really, that's just one person in a possibly very large family, the others of which did not live as long.

So, a hundred years ago, how many of you would most likely be dead based on the average life expectancy for back then?

Just thinking out loud, not trying to base any arguments on anything here. Surely if we all lead healthier lives, even by trying to avoid cancer within reason, then our life expectancies will keep going up.

But what fun will that life be if it is more years of nothing but living a sheltered life?

NorthwestBBQ
01-13-2012, 11:01 AM
Ok, Michael... I'll bite. In what way have I managed to blaspheme today??? :eusa_clap

I mean don't worry be happy...:becky:

danparker77
01-13-2012, 12:06 PM
I used to chew a can of Skoal and smoke at least a pack of cigarettes a day. I quite chewing tobacco, then I quite smoking cigarettes.

Gained a bunch of weight. Ended up with Diabetes, High liver enzymes and high triglycerides. Started watching my calorie intake and exercising 30-40 min a day 5 days a week. Lost 75 pounds and all my numbers are back to normal and off all the dang pills I was having to take to manage them.

I don't care what anyone says I WILL NOT give up anything else for "health" sake. I just don't think I have it in me. Okay that might be a big over the top but....... No way am I going to give up my grill and BBQ

tish
01-13-2012, 12:10 PM
So proud of you, Dan, for giving up the tobacco addiction! Good for you! I think you hit on the "right" addiction. Exercise. And if we plan on hanging on to our bbq, I'm thinking the best way to balance that is with lots of fruits, vegetables, and exercise. I'm going to do my best now to take my own advice. :wink:

Grillman
01-13-2012, 05:22 PM
This story was just on the local news here in Denver.

STOCKHOLM, Sweden - New research published in the British Journal of Cancer suggests a link between eating processed meat and pancreatic cancer.
Swedish researchers found that people who ate 1.8 ounces of processed meat per day increased the risk of developing pancreatic cancer by 19 percent compared to those who ate none.
One-point-eight ounces is the equivalent of one sausage or two thin slices of bacon.
The risk level jumped to 38 percent for people who ate 3.5 ounces of processed meat per day and to 57 percent for people who ate about 5.3 ounces.

The study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Foundation and Karolinska Institute.
Researchers analyzed the results of 11 studies involving more than 6,000 people with pancreatic cancer.
The study's author based at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm said researchers suspected the increased risk came from nitrates added to the meat as a preservative.

"We think it could be due to the nitrates found in processed meat," Susanna Larsson, an associate professor, said. "These nitrates could be converted into n-nitroso compounds which are cancerogenic that may increase the risk of pancreatic cancer."
The 19 percent increase in pancreatic cancer risk from eating processed meat is relatively small compared to the risks associated with smoking.
Smokers have a 74 percent increased risk of developing cancer compared to non-smokers.
(Copyright © 2012 NBC Universal, All Rights Reserved)



http://www.9news.com/news/article/242102/188/Processed-meat-linked-to-pancreatic-cancer-risk

caseydog
01-13-2012, 06:05 PM
Well, I just read the whole thread from April, 2011. I read some passages to Harvard, and asked him about the free range chickens and the antibiotics. He said the chickens he eats are not free range. He had a health crisis several years ago, during which, he had enough antibiotic pumped into his system so that he can now disintegrate the paint on a fire hydrant by peeing on it. lol (I swear to God, that's exactly what he said. :heh:)

He said to tell you all that he raises the white flag. He will eat smoked veggies, chicken, fish, and the occasional piece of beef. He wouldn't say ok to pork, although I have seen him eat pork once at a Christmas party (2010), and BTW... it was pulled pork. So he said never say never, and he would see when the time comes, but I'm sure if I make a pork butt, he'll eat at least one pp sammie. :wink: Gentlemen, I do believe we've accomplished a conversion here. :thumb: Thanks so much!! :grouphug:

Tell Harvard that one of your brethren is a cancer survivor, who is 50 years old, 5'11' and weighs 165 pounds, and eats grilled and smoked meats on a regular basis -- as part of a somewhat balanced diet.

The key is variety and moderation.

CD

tish
01-13-2012, 06:32 PM
Thanks, CD. I'll tell him. I think he was just worried because he doesn't want to go through another health crisis. The last one was bad enough. He went 17 years with undiagnosed lyme disease, and had literally years of daily IV antibiotics. It came with babesiosis, and he was just so sick for so long. Plus, his mother died of cancer, so you can't really blame him for being a little gun shy.

BDAABAT
01-13-2012, 06:54 PM
FYI: Grillman: take a look at the actual findings from the study. It was a meta analysis: a re- analysis combining several other studies. There are HUGE methodologic issues with comparisons of several different studies at one time. Yet, the sole finding the researchers reported... an increased risk of developing an unusual type of cancer by only 19%. In epidemiology terms, that's statistical noise that could easily be due to study design or just from chance. That 19% increase is NOT a robust finding. In fact, that's such a low rate of change and is so very unlikely to be due to anything other than methodology that I'm surprised the results got published at all.

From the linked report:

The study's author based at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm said researchers suspected the increased risk came from nitrates added to the meat as a preservative.
"We think it could be due to the nitrates found in processed meat," Susanna Larsson, an associate professor, said. "These nitrates could be converted into n-nitroso compounds which are cancerogenic that may increase the risk of pancreatic cancer."



Read those qualifiers: We THINK it COULD be due to nitrates.


Translation: "We really don't know why we observed the finding that we did. But, in order to get this pile of poo published and to renew our research grant, we had to attribute this probably spurious finding to something, so we came up with a reason that we thought would have the best chance of helping to fund the next phase of our research."

Nitrates have been EXTENSIVELY studied.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&sqi=2&ved=0CG4QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwater.usgs.gov%2Fnawqa%2Fnutrient s%2Fpubs%2Foutside%2Fnitrate.pdf&ei=SNEQT72COuns0gGTlJ28Aw&usg=AFQjCNEb-Tep_K_kyBJQ5o2wT-rUA4liEg

Eat, drink and enjoy life... in moderation.

Bruce

Grillman
01-13-2012, 07:20 PM
FYI: Grillman: take a look at the actual findings from the study.

I didn't write the article, nor did I fund the study for the research. If you
disagree with any of the information in the article...that's OK.

If you wish to contest any information in the article....that's OK....however
you will need to contact the actual research group that presented the
findings from their research.

I posted the article as I thought it might be of interest to the Original
Poster. I neither endorse nor refute the findings from the study; as I am
not qualified to do so. Everyone is free, to use, or ignore the information
from the article, at their own discretion.

Here is another link to the article from the Cancer Research UK.
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/archive/pressrelease/2012-01-12-processed-meat-increase-pancreatic-risk

tish
01-13-2012, 07:34 PM
Thanks for posting, Grillman. I did read the article with interest. Any time I'm trying to do research on a topic, I try to get all the oposing views. I'm not one of those people who only wants to see articles from people who's opinions agree with my own. That would be foolish and an error in judgement on my part. I subscribe to newspapers that lean both far left and right for the same reason. How can I form a true opinion on my own otherwise? Thanks for taking the time to help me see every angle. It's truly appreciated, brother. :wink:

chefdad
01-13-2012, 07:47 PM
I once had a graduate professor, say that burnt toast can cause cancer. You cannot get away from it. For the most part it is completely genetics and the environment that you are continuously in. So, if you are a chronic tobacco smoker, the risk of cancer is higher. If you work with carcinogenic material without proper safety wear, it can cause cancer. If you have a family history of colon, prostatic, lung, etc., you are at risk of cancer. You cannot get away from it.
So, the risk of getting cancer from grilling/smoking meat is as risky as anything else.

Boshizzle
01-13-2012, 08:03 PM
Nitrates are fairly stable nitrogen compounds that can be degraded into nitrites. Nitrites are unstable and can combine readily with other compounds in the digestive tract to form carcinogenic nitrosamines. Please google nitrates and vegetables. You don't need to eat BBQ or cured meats to get a good dose of nitrates.

expatpig
01-14-2012, 09:06 AM
Everything in moderation...especially moderation.

azken
01-14-2012, 09:43 AM
It seems we intake chemicals that may kill us then we intake chemicals that may keep us alive...what a cycle!