On 6/17/2013 12:41 PM, isw wrote:
> In article >, casa bona > wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/2013 3:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 01:07:01 -0700, isw > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bottom line: without putting some numbers on the risk, the article is
>>>> totally useless, except to scare people into doing things they may not
>>>> need to do.
>>>>
>>>> So, does anybody know (with numbers):
>>>>
>>>> How much does the risk of cancer increase due to eating grilled meat?
>>>>
>>>> What is the relative risk between grilled meat once a day, once a week,
>>>> once a month, ..?
>>>>
>>>> Isaac
>>>
>>> Impossible to give accurate numbers. Cooking on the grill is not the
>>> problem, it is the burning fat and stuff that comes back from the
>>> fire. That varies from grill to grill to griller to griller to
>>> different meats.
>>>
>>> One of the tips I saw was to use foil over the grill to avoid the
>>> carcinogens. They are essentially taking the grill and making it into
>>> a frying pan. WTF? Why not just use a fry pan?
>>
>> Oh good catch there.
>>
>>> It may be smart to avoid heavily charred meats every day, but I think
>>> that properly grilled food a couple of times a week in summer is
>>> minimal risk. I did read that in countries where people eat most all
>>> their meals cooked over a wood fire have higher incidents of stomach
>>> cancer.
>>
>> The data on this remains a mixture of non-discrete points:
>>
>> http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f...k/cooked-meats
>>
>> Nevertheless, numerous epidemiologic studies have used detailed
>> questionnaires to examine participants¹ meat consumption and meat
>> cooking methods to estimate HCA and PAH exposures. Researchers found
>> that high consumption of well-done, fried, or barbecued meats was
>> associated with increased risks of colorectal (14), pancreatic (15, 16),
>> and prostate (17, 18) cancer.
>
> OK, but again: by *how much* is the risk increased? Without that info,
> the results are useless (except for the scare factor).

I do not know, and neither do they, so I am agreeing with you.

> Another trick I've seen in this kind of silly study is to add a ratio,
> like "The risk is DOUBLED!!!", which sounds more precise, and also
> really scary.

No underlying number = no need to pay any attention.

> But if the original risk was one in a hundred million, then a doubling
> is still only one in fifty million, which is way too low to worry about.

Absolutely.

> I cannot recall the last time I saw a "news" article on any sort of
> medical risk study where there was enough information to actually allow
> an informed decision.
>
> Isaac

I've been seeing a lot of that myself lately, plenty of scare, a paucity
of data.

In fact I'm not at all sure the red meat/carnitine/cancer risk was very
well delineated either.