View Full Version : Smoked meat - bad for you?
02-20-2003, 07:43 PM
I remember reading in "The Liver Cleansing Diet" something about smoked meat (like smoked salmon, especially) containing some substance that was bad for you. Does Paleo have an answer for this?
02-20-2003, 11:54 PM
If it contains nitrates/nitrites it can form carcinogenic substances when it interacts with our proteins. Not good. Some of the "natural" stuff is much better...very salty but so long as it is an occasional thing...no sweat. Ask Brad if you want the long winded answer to nitrosamines!
02-21-2003, 10:01 AM
Right on the money Robert.
N-nitroso compounds (NOCs) are divided into two classes, nitrosamines and nitrosamides. Both are carcinogenic in lab animals, although nitrosamines have a longer life in the body, and are likely the culprit. These NOCs can be formed from dietary nitrites (cured meats) or they can come directly from food (certain malted barley products, foods cooked over open flames). Luckily, it's thought that the formation of NOCs from dietary nitrite can be inhibited by competitive neutralization of nitrite with things like vitamin c, vitamin e, sulfamate, BHT, BHA, gallic acid, and certain amino acids and proteins (Casarett & Doull's, Toxicology 6th edition).
So... I'm not a doctor or otherwise affilited with nutrition professions, but when I eat char- grilled meat, beef jerky, or smoked meats, I wash them down with some good ole C and E(fresh veggies, nuts, and fruits have plenty).
02-21-2003, 10:27 AM
A toxicoligist on the board!!!! Woooho! let me know if I become a pest Brad...my minor was in Tox and I am fascinated by it...Im going to be pestering you constantly now!
sean hernandez mccumiskey
03-03-2003, 04:19 AM
Brad let me pester you. Do you have any thoughts on vitamin b-17? and its sugnifigance in this very subject: anti-carcinogen.
Congratulations! on those awsome muscleups.
Brad and Rob
you both inspire me physically and intelectually,
keep it up. i have not done one yet but im comming.
03-03-2003, 08:39 AM
Sean Hernander McCumiskey,
Wow! You picked a controversial one to discuss. Vitamin b-17 (laetrile) has been around for several decades now, and the controversy along with it. Alternative medicine groups love it. On the other hand the FDA (government) and pretty much the rest of the scientific community (although I certainly do not speak for all) are not so impressed. A quick search on the internet will reveal several websites professing it's cancer preventing/curing abilities. However, a quick search on Medline, will reveal several studies that indicate it's bad news. I recommend doing your own Medline search, and I'll attach a link to help you get started. I bet you've already read plenty of supporting articles, so I'll also attach an abstract with a different tone.
Cancer is a sensitive and complex topic.
Scenario 1: If one has cancer, one would be inclined to take more risks for treatment. If a controversial treatment is available, and you're most likely doing to die anyway, then why not try it! I know that sounds like a terrible thing to say, but if I had cancer and had already tried conventional therapies to no avail, I'd try just about anything I could find... investigational new drugs in clinical trials, supplements, new surgeries.. whatever.
Scenario 2: One does not have cancer, but has significant risk factors such as genetics (everyone in your family dies from cancer at age 50), smoking, drinking in excess, occupational exposure, etc. This person may be inclined spend money on supplements that appear to have little health risks, but may or may not be effective in cancer prevention (grape seed extract, green tea, anti-oxidants, etc.) Incidentally.. don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of green tea and anti-ox from fruits/veggies and such!
Scenario 2: One does not have cancer. Also, this person does not smoke, drink in excess, and their family tree is completely free of cancer cases with their great grandparents still alive and healthy at 90. Spending money on supplements might just be a waste for this person.
These are extremes of course.. I'm just tying to make a few points. Ultimately, it's up to you of course!
Article follows, with link at the very bottom.
"Laetrile" is used interchangeably with "amygdalin" to designate natural substances, derived primarily from apricots and almonds, that can release cyanide, which is lethal to living organisms. In the 1920s, Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Sr., formulated a theory that amygdalin could kill cancer cells. His theory was inconsistent with biochemical facts and has since been modified at least twice by his son, Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. Extensive work has been done by cancer scientists to test the claim that Laetrile fights cancer. Many animal experiments in the 1970s showed a complete lack of tumor killing by Laetrile. Reviews of the medical records of patients whose cancers were claimed to be reduced or cured after Laetrile treatment found insufficient medical evidence to judge Laetrile's efficacy. Finally, in a clinical trial in cancer patients reported in 1982, Laetrile neither caused shrinkage of tumors, nor increased survival time, nor alleviated cancer symptoms, nor enhanced well-being. Several reports in the medical literature document instances in which Laetrile has caused serious, life-threatening toxicity when taken in large doses in the manner prescribed by Laetrile advocates. In light of the lack of efficacy of Laetrile and its demonstrated ability to cause harm, Laetrile should not be used to treat cancer.
CA Cancer J Clin 1991 May-Jun;41(3):187-92
sean hernandez mccumiskey
03-04-2003, 12:11 AM
Thank you so much for the speedy reply.
Do you think that the seeds of the fruits of nature have evoulved to be harmful to animals? And If so how does the fruit benifit from this?
I thought that maybe it was to stop animals from eating the seeds that would, if not been eaten, become more "apple trees", thus helping the burgeoning of the plants.
But for this to function properly their would have to be short term, unpleasant effects steaming from the eating of these seeds. The animals would recognize this discomfurt and most times stop eating these things. Their body would be saying "do not eat this it is poisinous" as the body does do. which I think is a self protection mechanism.
what we are seeing is the exact antithesis. There are no signs of poising to the animal, rather long term unrecognisable (to the eater) effects.
I am refering to self evedent signs.
I have no real training (school/instatution) in science or any other feild, so if I am mistaken in any thing I have proposed please correct me.
These are only "my" logical thoughts of this subject.
Thanks again,Sean Hernandez McCumiskey
03-04-2003, 01:53 PM
Actually many seeded fruits want to be eaten with the seeds in tact. This allows the animal to become a courier for the seed. These seeds don't digest and instead pass through the digestive tract to be "dropped" later.
On the cancer subject and experimental treatments, a good friend of mine has been in a 10 year battle with cancer. He's been through numerous experimental treatments, the latest one that was a last ditch effort has effectively cured him. He was to the point of basically "this is it" finished up his CD that was to be a testimate of his life, now he's still alive, healthy and doing better than I've ever know. So go for the experimental stuff once established methods don't work.
03-29-2003, 09:08 PM
Roger, what was his last experimental treament? Induced fever (from e-coli serum)?
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.