A diet high in red meat can shorten life expectancy, according to researchers at Harvard Medical School.
The study of more than 120,000 people suggested red meat increased the risk of death from cancer and heart problems.
Substituting red meat with fish, chicken or nuts lowered the risks, the authors said.
The British Heart Foundation said red meat could still be eaten as part of a balanced diet.
The researchers analysed data from 37,698 men between 1986 and 2008 and 83,644 women between 1980 and 2008.
They said adding an extra portion of unprocessed red meat to someone's daily diet would increase the risk of death by 13%, of fatal cardiovascular disease by 18% and of cancer mortality by 10%. The figures for processed meat were higher, 20% for overall mortality, 21% for death from heart problems and 16% for cancer mortality.
The study said: "We found that a higher intake of red meat was associated with a significantly elevated risk of total, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality.
"This association was observed for unprocessed and processed red meat with a relatively greater risk for processed red meat."
The researchers suggested that saturated fat from red meat may be behind the increased heart risk and the sodium used in processed meats may "increase cardiovascular disease risk through its effect on blood pressure".
Victoria Taylor, a dietitian at the British Heart Foundation, said: "Red meat can still be eaten as part of a balanced diet, but go for the leaner cuts and use healthier cooking methods such as grilling.
"If you eat processed meats like bacon, ham, sausages or burgers several times a week, add variation to your diet by substituting these for other protein sources such as fish, poultry, beans or lentils."
Monday, 12 March 2012
Saturday, 4 February 2012
The New Pharmaceutical Company Representatives: The Professor Peons
Can we trust Medical Professionals in the employ of Drug Companies to teach us about Drugs?
I just received something in the mail about one of the many new drugs to treat Diabetes, this one a long acting GLP 1 agonist that the patient can use once a week.
So a professor is presenting and enthusiastically endorses her drug, brushing aside the possibilities of Thyroid Cancer and Pancreatitis as side effect:
“I am really excited that we now have another drug and perhaps a drug that for some patients will make adherence easier. Because this is now just a once-a-week injection.” This is Dr A… P for MEDSCAPE.
As is my custom, now jaded by listening to professor peons of the pharma industry, I looked up whether or not she was in the employ of the manufacturer of the drug, sure enough.
Served as Director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant or trustee for: Amylin Pharmaceuticals
The very same company that manufactures the drug she is enthusiastically endorses.
Is this ethical?
Or is this just the way of life in this postmodern world?
My title for them Professor-Peons is a good designation indeed!
The same day ADA EASD recommendations arrived in a slide form
You can expect a reduction in HgA1c of 0.5- 1.0 with GLP agonists…
To put every thing in context we need interventions that would bring down the A1C levels by 2 or 3 in most patients, that is certainly not going to come from medications, or education but what will become a global way of looking after patients with Diabetes: to pay attention to the person who is suffering, find out all the sources of his suffering, not just at his A1C level or Medication list: Psychological/Philosophical counselling, taking into consideration the cultural context. I can say this after working with American Indians in the USA, various native and non-native populations around the world.
Medications account for only 25 % of the treatment of patient with Type 2 DM
Treatment is too sterile a word; Healing would be a better word. So these professor peons can be entrusted with that 25 % and let others take care of the other 75 % and be given the credit they are due!
WebMD owns MEDSCAPE
Which has come under increasing criticism for being a disguise for pharma advertising:
Allegations have been made that WebMD biases readers towards using drugs sold by their pharmaceutical sponsors in cases in which the drug is unnecessary.[12]
In February 2010, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa investigated WebMD’s financial relationship with drug maker Eli Lilly.
I personally wouldn't read WebMD magazine nor will I direct my patients towards it and in our clinics, those magazines do not make appearances since we serve poor people and of no economic importance to these glossy magazines and drug representatives.
I just received something in the mail about one of the many new drugs to treat Diabetes, this one a long acting GLP 1 agonist that the patient can use once a week.
So a professor is presenting and enthusiastically endorses her drug, brushing aside the possibilities of Thyroid Cancer and Pancreatitis as side effect:
“I am really excited that we now have another drug and perhaps a drug that for some patients will make adherence easier. Because this is now just a once-a-week injection.” This is Dr A… P for MEDSCAPE.
As is my custom, now jaded by listening to professor peons of the pharma industry, I looked up whether or not she was in the employ of the manufacturer of the drug, sure enough.
Served as Director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant or trustee for: Amylin Pharmaceuticals
The very same company that manufactures the drug she is enthusiastically endorses.
Is this ethical?
Or is this just the way of life in this postmodern world?
My title for them Professor-Peons is a good designation indeed!
The same day ADA EASD recommendations arrived in a slide form
You can expect a reduction in HgA1c of 0.5- 1.0 with GLP agonists…
To put every thing in context we need interventions that would bring down the A1C levels by 2 or 3 in most patients, that is certainly not going to come from medications, or education but what will become a global way of looking after patients with Diabetes: to pay attention to the person who is suffering, find out all the sources of his suffering, not just at his A1C level or Medication list: Psychological/Philosophical counselling, taking into consideration the cultural context. I can say this after working with American Indians in the USA, various native and non-native populations around the world.
Medications account for only 25 % of the treatment of patient with Type 2 DM
Treatment is too sterile a word; Healing would be a better word. So these professor peons can be entrusted with that 25 % and let others take care of the other 75 % and be given the credit they are due!
WebMD owns MEDSCAPE
Which has come under increasing criticism for being a disguise for pharma advertising:
Allegations have been made that WebMD biases readers towards using drugs sold by their pharmaceutical sponsors in cases in which the drug is unnecessary.[12]
In February 2010, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa investigated WebMD’s financial relationship with drug maker Eli Lilly.
I personally wouldn't read WebMD magazine nor will I direct my patients towards it and in our clinics, those magazines do not make appearances since we serve poor people and of no economic importance to these glossy magazines and drug representatives.
Thursday, 2 February 2012
HAPPY TO BE AN ENDOCRINOLOGIST
Where to we find enduring love? Answer: Oxytocin. Infidelity? Testosterone. Heartbreak? Low serotonin and endorphins. In fact, our loved ones are actually present in our brains - neurochemically - and when we lose them, it results in chemical trauma for the brain:
Where to we find enduring love? Answer: Oxytocin. Infidelity? Testosterone. Heartbreak? Low serotonin and endorphins. In fact, our loved ones are actually present in our brains - neurochemically - and when we lose them, it results in chemical trauma for the brain:
"An American study of over four thousand men found that husbands with high testosterone levels were 43 percent more likely to get divorced and 38 percent more likely to have extramarital affairs than men with lower levels. They were also 50 percent less likely to get married at all. Men with the least amounts of testosterone were more likely to get married and to stay married, maybe because low testosterone levels make men calmer, less aggressive, less intense, and more cooperative.
"The desire to commit to someone is strongly linked to ... oxytocin. ... Oxytocin is released by the pituitary gland and acts on the ovaries and testes to regulate reproduction. Researchers suspect that this hormone is important for forming close social bonds. The levels of this chemical rise when couples watch romantic movies, hug, or hold hands. Prairie voles [mammals related to the mouse], when injected with oxytocin, pair much faster than normally. Blocking oxytocin prevents them from bonding in a normal way. This is similar in humans, because couples bond to certain characteristics in each other. This is why you are attracted to the same type of man or woman repeatedly. In general, levels of oxytocin are lower in men, except after an orgasm, where they are raised more than 500 percent. This may explain why men feel very sleepy after an orgasm. This is the same hormone released in babies during breast-feeding, which makes them sleepy as well.
"Oxytocin is also related to the feelings of closeness and being 'in love' when you have regular sex for several reasons. First, the skin is sensitized by oxytocin, encouraging affection and touching behavior. Then, oxytocin levels rise during subsequent touching and eventually even with the anticipation of being touched. Oxytocin increases during sexual activity, peaks at orgasm, and stays elevated for a period of time after intercourse. ... In addition, there is an amnesic effect created by oxytocin during sex and orgasm that blocks negative memories people have about each other for a period of time. The same amnesic effect occurs from the release of oxytocin during childbirth, while a mother is nursing to help her forget the labor pain, and during long, stressful nights spent with a newborn so that she can bond to her baby with positive feelings and love.
"Higher oxytocin levels are also associated with an increased feeling of trust. In a landmark study by Michael Kosfeld and colleagues from Switzerland published in the journal Nature, intranasal oxytocin was found to increase trust. Men who inhale a nasal spray spiked with oxytocin give more money to partners in a risky investment game than do men who sniff a spray containing a placebo. This substance fosters the trust needed for friendship, love, families, economic transactions, and political networks. According to the study's authors, 'Oxytocin specifically affects an individual's willingness to accept social risks arising through interpersonal interactions.' ...
"What happens in the brain when you lose someone you love? Why do we hurt, long, even obsess about the other person? When we love someone, they come to live in the emotional or limbic centers of our brains. He or she actually occupies nerve-cell pathways and physically lives in the neurons and synapses of the brain. When we lose someone, either through death, divorce, moves, or breakups, our brain starts to get confused and disoriented. Since the person lives in the neuronal connections, we expect to see her, hear her, feel her, and touch her. When we cannot hold her or talk to her as we usually do, the brain centers where she lives becomes inflamed looking for her. Overactivity in the limbic brain has been associated with depression and low serotonin levels, which is why we have trouble sleeping, feel obsessed, lose our appetites, want to isolate ourselves, and lose the joy we have about life. A deficit in endorphins, which modulate pain and pleasure pathways in the brain, also occurs, which may be responsible for the physical pain we feel during a breakup."
Author: Daniel G. Amen, M.D.
Title: The Brain in Love
Publisher: Three Rivers Press
Date: Copyright 2007 by Daniel G. Amen, M.D.
Pages: 64-68
The Brain in Love: 12 Lessons to Enhance Your Love Life
by Daniel G. Amen M.D. by Three Rivers Press
Where to we find enduring love? Answer: Oxytocin. Infidelity? Testosterone. Heartbreak? Low serotonin and endorphins. In fact, our loved ones are actually present in our brains - neurochemically - and when we lose them, it results in chemical trauma for the brain:
"An American study of over four thousand men found that husbands with high testosterone levels were 43 percent more likely to get divorced and 38 percent more likely to have extramarital affairs than men with lower levels. They were also 50 percent less likely to get married at all. Men with the least amounts of testosterone were more likely to get married and to stay married, maybe because low testosterone levels make men calmer, less aggressive, less intense, and more cooperative.
"The desire to commit to someone is strongly linked to ... oxytocin. ... Oxytocin is released by the pituitary gland and acts on the ovaries and testes to regulate reproduction. Researchers suspect that this hormone is important for forming close social bonds. The levels of this chemical rise when couples watch romantic movies, hug, or hold hands. Prairie voles [mammals related to the mouse], when injected with oxytocin, pair much faster than normally. Blocking oxytocin prevents them from bonding in a normal way. This is similar in humans, because couples bond to certain characteristics in each other. This is why you are attracted to the same type of man or woman repeatedly. In general, levels of oxytocin are lower in men, except after an orgasm, where they are raised more than 500 percent. This may explain why men feel very sleepy after an orgasm. This is the same hormone released in babies during breast-feeding, which makes them sleepy as well.
"Oxytocin is also related to the feelings of closeness and being 'in love' when you have regular sex for several reasons. First, the skin is sensitized by oxytocin, encouraging affection and touching behavior. Then, oxytocin levels rise during subsequent touching and eventually even with the anticipation of being touched. Oxytocin increases during sexual activity, peaks at orgasm, and stays elevated for a period of time after intercourse. ... In addition, there is an amnesic effect created by oxytocin during sex and orgasm that blocks negative memories people have about each other for a period of time. The same amnesic effect occurs from the release of oxytocin during childbirth, while a mother is nursing to help her forget the labor pain, and during long, stressful nights spent with a newborn so that she can bond to her baby with positive feelings and love.
"Higher oxytocin levels are also associated with an increased feeling of trust. In a landmark study by Michael Kosfeld and colleagues from Switzerland published in the journal Nature, intranasal oxytocin was found to increase trust. Men who inhale a nasal spray spiked with oxytocin give more money to partners in a risky investment game than do men who sniff a spray containing a placebo. This substance fosters the trust needed for friendship, love, families, economic transactions, and political networks. According to the study's authors, 'Oxytocin specifically affects an individual's willingness to accept social risks arising through interpersonal interactions.' ...
"What happens in the brain when you lose someone you love? Why do we hurt, long, even obsess about the other person? When we love someone, they come to live in the emotional or limbic centers of our brains. He or she actually occupies nerve-cell pathways and physically lives in the neurons and synapses of the brain. When we lose someone, either through death, divorce, moves, or breakups, our brain starts to get confused and disoriented. Since the person lives in the neuronal connections, we expect to see her, hear her, feel her, and touch her. When we cannot hold her or talk to her as we usually do, the brain centers where she lives becomes inflamed looking for her. Overactivity in the limbic brain has been associated with depression and low serotonin levels, which is why we have trouble sleeping, feel obsessed, lose our appetites, want to isolate ourselves, and lose the joy we have about life. A deficit in endorphins, which modulate pain and pleasure pathways in the brain, also occurs, which may be responsible for the physical pain we feel during a breakup."
Author: Daniel G. Amen, M.D.
Title: The Brain in Love
Publisher: Three Rivers Press
Date: Copyright 2007 by Daniel G. Amen, M.D.
Pages: 64-68
The Brain in Love: 12 Lessons to Enhance Your Love Life
by Daniel G. Amen M.D. by Three Rivers Press
Wednesday, 1 February 2012
at last something about Poverty and Diabetes
Food Insecurity and Glycemic Control Among Low-Income Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Hilary K. Seligman, MD, MAS1,2⇓, Elizabeth A. Jacobs, MD, MPP3, Andrea López, BS1,2, Jeanne Tschann, PHD4 and Alicia Fernandez, MD1
+ Author Affiliations
1Division of General Internal Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
2Center for Vulnerable Populations, San Francisco General Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
3Division of General Medicine and Health Innovation Program, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
4Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
Corresponding author: Hilary K. Seligman, hseligman@medsfgh.ucsf.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine whether food insecurity—the inability to reliably afford safe and nutritious food—is associated with poor glycemic control and whether this association is mediated by difficulty following a healthy diet, diabetes self-efficacy, or emotional distress related to diabetes.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We used multivariable regression models to examine the association between food insecurity and poor glycemic control using a cross-sectional survey and chart review of 711 patients with diabetes in safety net health clinics. We then examined whether difficulty following a diabetic diet, self-efficacy, or emotional distress related to diabetes mediated the relationship between food insecurity and glycemic control.
RESULTS The food insecurity prevalence in our sample was 46%. Food-insecure participants were significantly more likely than food-secure participants to have poor glycemic control, as defined by hemoglobin A1c ≥8.5% (42 vs. 33%; adjusted odds ratio 1.48 [95% CI 1.07–2.04]). Food-insecure participants were more likely to report difficulty affording a diabetic diet (64 vs. 49%, P < 0.001). They also reported lower diabetes-specific self-efficacy (P < 0.001) and higher emotional distress related to diabetes (P < 0.001). Difficulty following a healthy diet and emotional distress partially mediated the association between food insecurity and glycemic control.
CONCLUSIONS Food insecurity is an independent risk factor for poor glycemic control in the safety net setting. This risk may be partially attributable to increased difficulty following a diabetes-appropriate diet and increased emotional distress regarding capacity for successful diabetes self-management. Screening patients with diabetes for food insecurity may be appropriate, particularly in the safety net setting.
Footnotes
This article contains Supplementary Data online at http://care.diabetesjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.2337/dc11-1627/-/DC1.
Hilary K. Seligman, MD, MAS1,2⇓, Elizabeth A. Jacobs, MD, MPP3, Andrea López, BS1,2, Jeanne Tschann, PHD4 and Alicia Fernandez, MD1
+ Author Affiliations
1Division of General Internal Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
2Center for Vulnerable Populations, San Francisco General Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
3Division of General Medicine and Health Innovation Program, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
4Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
Corresponding author: Hilary K. Seligman, hseligman@medsfgh.ucsf.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine whether food insecurity—the inability to reliably afford safe and nutritious food—is associated with poor glycemic control and whether this association is mediated by difficulty following a healthy diet, diabetes self-efficacy, or emotional distress related to diabetes.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We used multivariable regression models to examine the association between food insecurity and poor glycemic control using a cross-sectional survey and chart review of 711 patients with diabetes in safety net health clinics. We then examined whether difficulty following a diabetic diet, self-efficacy, or emotional distress related to diabetes mediated the relationship between food insecurity and glycemic control.
RESULTS The food insecurity prevalence in our sample was 46%. Food-insecure participants were significantly more likely than food-secure participants to have poor glycemic control, as defined by hemoglobin A1c ≥8.5% (42 vs. 33%; adjusted odds ratio 1.48 [95% CI 1.07–2.04]). Food-insecure participants were more likely to report difficulty affording a diabetic diet (64 vs. 49%, P < 0.001). They also reported lower diabetes-specific self-efficacy (P < 0.001) and higher emotional distress related to diabetes (P < 0.001). Difficulty following a healthy diet and emotional distress partially mediated the association between food insecurity and glycemic control.
CONCLUSIONS Food insecurity is an independent risk factor for poor glycemic control in the safety net setting. This risk may be partially attributable to increased difficulty following a diabetes-appropriate diet and increased emotional distress regarding capacity for successful diabetes self-management. Screening patients with diabetes for food insecurity may be appropriate, particularly in the safety net setting.
Footnotes
This article contains Supplementary Data online at http://care.diabetesjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.2337/dc11-1627/-/DC1.
Saturday, 14 January 2012
Can Bacon increase the risk of Pancreatic cancer?
Processed meat 'linked to pancreatic cancer'
By James Gallagher
Health reporter, BBC News
Can bacon increase the risk of cancer?
A link between eating processed meat, such as bacon or sausages, and pancreatic cancer has been suggested by researchers in Sweden.
They said eating an extra 50g of processed meat, approximately one sausage, every day would increase a person's risk by 19%.
But the chance of developing the rare cancer remains low.
The World Cancer Research Fund suggested the link may be down to obesity.
Eating red and processed meat has already been linked to bowel cancer. As a result the UK government recommended in 2011 that people eat no more than 70g a day.
Prof Susanna Larsson, who conducted the study at the Karolinska Institute, told the BBC that links to other cancers were "quite controversial".
She added: "It is known that eating meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer, it's not so much known about other cancers."
The study, published in the British Journal of Cancer, analysed data from 11 trials and 6,643 patients with pancreatic cancer.
Hazel Nunn from Cancer Research UK: ''The increased risk was found only in processed meat''
Increased risk
It found that eating processed meat increased the risk of pancreatic cancer. The risk increased by 19% for every 50g someone added to their daily diet. Having an extra 100g would increase the risk by 38%.
Prof Larsson said: "Pancreatic cancer has poor survival rates. So as well as diagnosing it early, it's important to understand what can increase the risk of this disease."
She recommended that people eat less red meat.
Cancer Research UK said the risk of developing pancreatic cancer in a lifetime was "comparatively small" - one in 77 for men and one in 79 for women.
Sara Hiom, the charity's information director, said: "The jury is still out as to whether meat is a definite risk factor for pancreatic cancer and more large studies are needed to confirm this, but this new analysis suggests processed meat may be playing a role."
However, she pointed out that smoking was a much greater risk factor.
The World Cancer Research Fund has advised people to completely avoid processed meat.
Dr Rachel Thompson, the fund's deputy head of science, said: "We will be re-examining the factors behind pancreatic cancer later this year as part of our Continuous Update Project, which should tell us more about the relationship between cancer of the pancreas and processed meat.
"There is strong evidence that being overweight or obese increases the risk of pancreatic cancer and this study may be an early indication of another factor behind the disease.
"Regardless of this latest research, we have already established a strong link between eating red and processed meat and your chances of developing bowel cancer, which is why WCRF recommends limiting intake of red meat to 500g cooked weight a week and avoid processed meat altogether."
By James Gallagher
Health reporter, BBC News
Can bacon increase the risk of cancer?
A link between eating processed meat, such as bacon or sausages, and pancreatic cancer has been suggested by researchers in Sweden.
They said eating an extra 50g of processed meat, approximately one sausage, every day would increase a person's risk by 19%.
But the chance of developing the rare cancer remains low.
The World Cancer Research Fund suggested the link may be down to obesity.
Eating red and processed meat has already been linked to bowel cancer. As a result the UK government recommended in 2011 that people eat no more than 70g a day.
Prof Susanna Larsson, who conducted the study at the Karolinska Institute, told the BBC that links to other cancers were "quite controversial".
She added: "It is known that eating meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer, it's not so much known about other cancers."
The study, published in the British Journal of Cancer, analysed data from 11 trials and 6,643 patients with pancreatic cancer.
Hazel Nunn from Cancer Research UK: ''The increased risk was found only in processed meat''
Increased risk
It found that eating processed meat increased the risk of pancreatic cancer. The risk increased by 19% for every 50g someone added to their daily diet. Having an extra 100g would increase the risk by 38%.
Prof Larsson said: "Pancreatic cancer has poor survival rates. So as well as diagnosing it early, it's important to understand what can increase the risk of this disease."
She recommended that people eat less red meat.
Cancer Research UK said the risk of developing pancreatic cancer in a lifetime was "comparatively small" - one in 77 for men and one in 79 for women.
Sara Hiom, the charity's information director, said: "The jury is still out as to whether meat is a definite risk factor for pancreatic cancer and more large studies are needed to confirm this, but this new analysis suggests processed meat may be playing a role."
However, she pointed out that smoking was a much greater risk factor.
The World Cancer Research Fund has advised people to completely avoid processed meat.
Dr Rachel Thompson, the fund's deputy head of science, said: "We will be re-examining the factors behind pancreatic cancer later this year as part of our Continuous Update Project, which should tell us more about the relationship between cancer of the pancreas and processed meat.
"There is strong evidence that being overweight or obese increases the risk of pancreatic cancer and this study may be an early indication of another factor behind the disease.
"Regardless of this latest research, we have already established a strong link between eating red and processed meat and your chances of developing bowel cancer, which is why WCRF recommends limiting intake of red meat to 500g cooked weight a week and avoid processed meat altogether."
Can Bacon increase the risk of Pancreatic
Processed meat 'linked to pancreatic cancer'
By James Gallagher
Health reporter, BBC News
Can bacon increase the risk of cancer?
A link between eating processed meat, such as bacon or sausages, and pancreatic cancer has been suggested by researchers in Sweden.
They said eating an extra 50g of processed meat, approximately one sausage, every day would increase a person's risk by 19%.
But the chance of developing the rare cancer remains low.
The World Cancer Research Fund suggested the link may be down to obesity.
Eating red and processed meat has already been linked to bowel cancer. As a result the UK government recommended in 2011 that people eat no more than 70g a day.
Prof Susanna Larsson, who conducted the study at the Karolinska Institute, told the BBC that links to other cancers were "quite controversial".
She added: "It is known that eating meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer, it's not so much known about other cancers."
The study, published in the British Journal of Cancer, analysed data from 11 trials and 6,643 patients with pancreatic cancer.
Hazel Nunn from Cancer Research UK: ''The increased risk was found only in processed meat''
Increased risk
It found that eating processed meat increased the risk of pancreatic cancer. The risk increased by 19% for every 50g someone added to their daily diet. Having an extra 100g would increase the risk by 38%.
Prof Larsson said: "Pancreatic cancer has poor survival rates. So as well as diagnosing it early, it's important to understand what can increase the risk of this disease."
She recommended that people eat less red meat.
Cancer Research UK said the risk of developing pancreatic cancer in a lifetime was "comparatively small" - one in 77 for men and one in 79 for women.
Sara Hiom, the charity's information director, said: "The jury is still out as to whether meat is a definite risk factor for pancreatic cancer and more large studies are needed to confirm this, but this new analysis suggests processed meat may be playing a role."
However, she pointed out that smoking was a much greater risk factor.
The World Cancer Research Fund has advised people to completely avoid processed meat.
Dr Rachel Thompson, the fund's deputy head of science, said: "We will be re-examining the factors behind pancreatic cancer later this year as part of our Continuous Update Project, which should tell us more about the relationship between cancer of the pancreas and processed meat.
"There is strong evidence that being overweight or obese increases the risk of pancreatic cancer and this study may be an early indication of another factor behind the disease.
"Regardless of this latest research, we have already established a strong link between eating red and processed meat and your chances of developing bowel cancer, which is why WCRF recommends limiting intake of red meat to 500g cooked weight a week and avoid processed meat altogether."
By James Gallagher
Health reporter, BBC News
Can bacon increase the risk of cancer?
A link between eating processed meat, such as bacon or sausages, and pancreatic cancer has been suggested by researchers in Sweden.
They said eating an extra 50g of processed meat, approximately one sausage, every day would increase a person's risk by 19%.
But the chance of developing the rare cancer remains low.
The World Cancer Research Fund suggested the link may be down to obesity.
Eating red and processed meat has already been linked to bowel cancer. As a result the UK government recommended in 2011 that people eat no more than 70g a day.
Prof Susanna Larsson, who conducted the study at the Karolinska Institute, told the BBC that links to other cancers were "quite controversial".
She added: "It is known that eating meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer, it's not so much known about other cancers."
The study, published in the British Journal of Cancer, analysed data from 11 trials and 6,643 patients with pancreatic cancer.
Hazel Nunn from Cancer Research UK: ''The increased risk was found only in processed meat''
Increased risk
It found that eating processed meat increased the risk of pancreatic cancer. The risk increased by 19% for every 50g someone added to their daily diet. Having an extra 100g would increase the risk by 38%.
Prof Larsson said: "Pancreatic cancer has poor survival rates. So as well as diagnosing it early, it's important to understand what can increase the risk of this disease."
She recommended that people eat less red meat.
Cancer Research UK said the risk of developing pancreatic cancer in a lifetime was "comparatively small" - one in 77 for men and one in 79 for women.
Sara Hiom, the charity's information director, said: "The jury is still out as to whether meat is a definite risk factor for pancreatic cancer and more large studies are needed to confirm this, but this new analysis suggests processed meat may be playing a role."
However, she pointed out that smoking was a much greater risk factor.
The World Cancer Research Fund has advised people to completely avoid processed meat.
Dr Rachel Thompson, the fund's deputy head of science, said: "We will be re-examining the factors behind pancreatic cancer later this year as part of our Continuous Update Project, which should tell us more about the relationship between cancer of the pancreas and processed meat.
"There is strong evidence that being overweight or obese increases the risk of pancreatic cancer and this study may be an early indication of another factor behind the disease.
"Regardless of this latest research, we have already established a strong link between eating red and processed meat and your chances of developing bowel cancer, which is why WCRF recommends limiting intake of red meat to 500g cooked weight a week and avoid processed meat altogether."
Tuesday, 3 January 2012
Pepsi Says Mountain Dew Can Dissolve Mouse Carcasses
Pepsi Co., facing a lawsuit from a man who claims to have found a mouse in his Mountain Dew can, has an especially creative, if disgusting, defense: their soda would have dissolved a dead mouse before the man could have found it. An Illinois man sued Pepsi in 2009 after he claims he "spat out the soda to reveal a dead mouse," the Madison County Record reports. He claims he sent the mouse to Pepsi, which then "destroyed" the remains after he allowed them to test it, according to his complaint. Most shudder-worthy, however, is that Pepsi's lawyers also found experts to testify, based on the state of the remains sent to them that, "the mouse would have dissolved in the soda had it been in the can from the time of its bottling until the day the plaintiff drank it," according to the Record. (It would have become a "jelly-like substance," according to Pepsi, adds LegalNewsline.) This seems like a winning-the-battle-while-surrendering-the-war kind of strategy that hinges on winning the argument that "our product is essentially a can of battery acid." The lawyers still appear to be lawyering behind the scenes but we cannot wait for this to come to trial (though we think a trial is about as likely as the chances of us "Doing the Dew" again).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
