What's in the Beef?
Simplify. That's good advice for de-cluttering your house or your schedule. But for understanding medical research, not so much.
This week's coverage of the new Nurses' Health Study data on breast cancer risk is a perfect example. No doubt you saw the headlines; most said something like "Red Meat Boosts Breast Cancer Risk." But simplifying a five-page research study into a 6-word headline doesn't do anyone any favors.
The headline isn't wrong -the study did find a connection between red meat consumption and breast cancer. But the real story you need to know about didn't make the headline - if it was covered at all, it was probably somewhere in the 25th paragraph, after the jump.
Here's a review: This research came out of the Nurses Health Study, a landmark, long-term study of nearly 100,000 female nurses from around the country. From 1991 to 2003, researchers at Harvard Medical School tracked the eating habits of some 90,000 of these nurses, who were all between the ages of 26 and 46.
During that time, 1,021 women in the study developed breast cancer. Almost exactly half of the breast cancer cases (512) were defined as hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, a specific sub-class whose growth is stimulated by higher levels of estrogen and progesterone in the body.
When they analyzed the women's dietary records, they found that women who reported eating one and a half servings of red meat a day were twice as likely to be in the hormone receptor-positive group as women who ate less than three servings a week.
That's an interesting finding, and one that needs to be shared. But I'd argue that the real story here is the hormone connection. Remember, the correlation was only seen with the type of breast cancer that feeds on free-circulating estrogen and progesterone. And for the last several decades, the majority of our beef supply (not to mention our dairy products and other meats) have been swimming in added hormones.
Cattle farmers routinely inject their stock with growth hormones, so they'll be ready for slaughter more quickly and yield more tender meat. While the public has only become more aware of this in recent years, the practice has been going on for many years. And while the government and most cattle farmers continue to assure us it is safe, we're starting to notice some disturbing trends.
Beef may be a particular danger because it generally has more fat than other hormone-treated foods - and hormones are absorbed and stored in fat. But any amount of hormones from any source is too much, in my opinion. The risk isn't just for breast cancer - prostate, ovarian, uterine and cervical cancer are also fueled by hormones.
The medical mainstream has been tip-toeing around this issue for years. Despite mounting evidence that the use of growth hormones in our food supply is contributing to cancer, early puberty in children, and pollution of our waterways (and resultant mutations in marine life), they've done little to stop it. The FDA is no better; it routinely denied any connection between growth hormones and health problems. (And now they're poised to approve cloning for food sources too, as I told you about in a recent HouseCall.) It is interesting to note that these practices are generally forbidden in Western European countries, among others, who regard our practices in this area with dismay, if not outright disgust.
It's a shame that all red meat has been tainted by the practices of some farmers, mostly large factory farmers. After all, beef (especially pasture-fed organic beef) can be a good source of protein, zinc, iron, omega-3 fatty acids, and particularly vitamins B6 and B12. These last two are especially important, as they are needed to help the body eliminate homocysteine; a build up of homocysteine in the blood is a sure-fire sign of heart disease risk. And by the way, lean red meat consumed a few times a week has never been shown to have an adverse effect on cholesterol levels.
Maybe this study will start a new conversation about growth hormones. But the coverage I've seen so far doesn't give me a lot of hope. As long as they continue to sweep the real issues under the rug, I'll go on buying red meat (and other foods) that I know aren't laced with hormones. You can find them if you look - while organic standards don't specifically prohibit growth hormones, most small organic farms don't use them. You may have to do some homework, and it may cost a little more, but consider it an investment in your health. Hugs heal the heart Here's another reason to give your sweetie a hug today: he or she just might save your life.
A study at the University of Arizona showed that heart failure patients with high-quality marriages were more likely to be alive eight years later. The same group had previously shown that patients who were able to discuss the illness productively with their spouses and related to their partners positively had better survival rates after four years.
Other studies have shown that this holds true for other health issues as well. And the relationship doesn't necessarily need to be a marriage to be beneficial - any close relationship that involves regular contact, communication and support is a boon.
That's a good lesson for all of us: true good health isn't just physical - it's also emotional, spiritual, and social.
