Pages

Showing posts with label EPIC study. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPIC study. Show all posts

Sunday, 10 March 2013

Bacon battered? Today’s headlines explained

reposted from: Cancer Research UK
crabsallover highlightskey pointscomments / links.



Posted on  by 


Sausages
Another study has linked processed meat to ill health
As if the horsemeat scandal wasn’t bad enough, this morning’s headlines brought further news of the dangers of eating too much processed meat: an increased risk of an early grave.
The news come from a huge Europe-wide study –called EPIC – that Cancer Research UK helps fund, and this is no flash in the pan – the findings are robust and important.
But many people are well aware of the downsides of a high-meat diet, and one could be forgiven for a certain amount of headline fatigue on this topic – after all it seems to come up at least once a year.
So what exactly does this study add to what we already know – and, importantly, should we care?

What’s the difference between ‘processed’ meat and ‘red’ meat?

The distinction is slightly artificial, as it’s basically a tool to allow researchers to classify elements of people’s diets into things like red meat, processed meat, poultry, fish, etc, and then carry out statistical analysis comparing these different groups (see below).
But there is a difference – as explained in this excellent interview from the BBC Today programme this morning. In essence, ‘processed’ meat is meat that has been either cured (like ham, salami etc), or salted or otherwise preserved (e.g. frozen supermarket mince – including burgers – sausages, and bacon).
But it doesn’t include fresh meat or mince – so if you make your own burgers from steak (lucky you), that’s counted as ‘red’, not processed meat.

What did we already know?

We’ve blogged before about meat and cancer, and this lengthy post from a few years back, on a similar large US study, is worth reading.
The long and short of it is a) that certain cancers – particularly bowel cancer – are more common among people who eat the most red or processed meat, b) that these people are also at higher risk of dying from these cancers and c) this is probably because of certain chemicals found in red meat (naturally occurring haem) and processed meat (‘nitroso’ preservatives).

Where do the new findings come from?

EPIC is an enormous study, and has been tracking the diets, lifestyles, medical records and death certificates of around half a million Europeans, from ten different countries, for well over a decade and a half.
This has allowed researchers to periodically pull all the data together and analyse them for patterns, using the sorts of statistical mathematics that make your brain hurt. We’re not going to go into them here, but take our word for it – they’re very complex and rigorous, and the researchers have gone as far as it’s feasible to go to account for other behaviours like smoking, weight, exercise and so on.
Even then, it has to be said, it’s impossible to do this 100 per cent – these factors may still have had a weak influence on the latest findings.
They also performed a statistical ‘stress tests’ on their results, called a ‘significance’ test, which allowed them to work out whether the results are valid. It’s a slightly unfortunate use of the word ‘significance’, as most people take it to mean ‘important’ – whereas here it just means ‘reliable’.
When stories like this hit the headlines, some tend to trot out the well-worn cliché, ‘there are lies, damned lies… and statistics’, and we wish they’d stop – this is a ‘real’ finding, from a large, well-run study… and it matters.

What did they find?

Sausages
More than 160g of processed meat
Fortunately, this research is published in an ‘open access’ journal, so you can go and read its findings here, free of charge, if you so wish. However, if you don’t speak science, here are the key findings:
  • Over an average of nearly 13 years, 26,344 study participants died.
  • Of these, about 5,500 died of cardiovascular diseases, nearly 10,000 of cancer, about 1,000 of respiratory diseases, 700-odd of digestive tract diseases, and about 9,000 of ‘other causes’.
  • People who ate more than 160g of processed meat per day (NB, that’s a lot of daily meat) were 18 per cent more likely to die than those who ate between 10 and 20g a day.
  • The link between red meat and premature death wasn’t statistically significant after the researchers had corrected for possible biases.
  • There was no link between eating more poultry and an early death.
  • Those who ate the most processed meat also ate the fewest fruit and vegetables and were more likely to smoke, while men who ate a lot of meat also tended to drink heavily – this is significant, in both senses of the word (see below).
  • If everyone on the study had eaten 20g of meat or less daily – about a sausage day – then the researchers reckon that overall death rate would have dropped by 3 per cent. We reckon that works out as about 800 deaths (out of a total of just over 26,000) over the study period (using the famous ‘back of an envelope’ method).

What does it all mean?

Firstly, this research emphatically doesn’t mean that meat is ‘bad for you’. What it means is ‘too much processed meat, regularly, over too long a time period’ is bad for you. This is an important distinction, and one that often gets lost in the media hullabaloo over ‘Salami Suicide’ and the like.
And meat is good for you, in moderation. As the researchers write:
A diet rich in meat has several potential nutritional benefits… Meat is rich in protein, iron, zinc and B-vitamins, as well as vitamin A. The bioavailability of iron and folate from meat is higher than from plant products such as grains and leafy green vegetables.
The downside is that it’s also often high in cholesterol and saturated fats, as well as the cancer-linked nasties we discussed above. It’s all about balance.
Secondly, as the authors note,
Meat consumption has increased since World War II. While this increase has long been confined to the Western world, that is, North America, North and Western Europe, and Australia/New Zealand, meat consumption is now also on the rise in other countries, such as China, due to their economic development.
This research is more evidence that growing rates of meat consumption across the world are a contributing to increased levels of disease and premature death, and that this should be taken seriously. We saw only yesterday how the world’s cancer leaders want action to tackle the growing global cancer burden, and earlier in the week how the UK’s health outcomes are sliding down international league tables.

And another thing

But there’s another story here too.
As we noted above, the study showed high levels of processed meat consumption tended to go hand in hand with a diet low in fruit and veg, and with high levels of alcohol consumption and smoking. These are generally behaviours that are found more often in lower income groups, and point to an underlying problem – growing income and health inequality (a point excellently summarised by Ally Fogg in the Guardian earlier this week).
So we think access to good quality, affordable food; information about healthy diets (including properly labelled food); and restrictions on how ‘risky’ foods like processed meat are marketed (particularly to children), are all necessary in these straitened times if we’re to prevent the health gap between top and bottom, mapped out so eloquently by Sir Michael Marmot in 2010, from widening further.
And finally, if you’re someone who enjoys a really ‘meaty’ diet (you know who you are), but your diet contains lots of salami, chorizo, ham and other cured meats, you’d do well to occasionally, maybe, think about swapping these for chicken, fish or (thinking environmentally here) vegetables like beans or lentils. We don’t want to wag fingers, nor apportion blame.
We just want people to be aware of what the evidence says.
And basically, it says ‘everything in moderation’ (except smoking).
But you knew that already.
Henry Scowcroft

Reference

  • Rohrmann S., Overvad K., Bueno-de-Mesquita H.B., Jakobsen M.U., Egeberg R., Tjonneland A., Nailler L., Boutron-Ruault M.C., Clavel-Chapelon F. & Krogh V. & (2013). Meat consumption and mortality – results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition, BMC Medicine, 11 (1) 63. DOI: 

More articles like this:


Thursday, 7 March 2013

Limiting processed meat consumption 'could prevent three per cent of premature deaths'

source: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/03March/Pages/Diet-high-in-processed-meat-threatens-health.aspx

I conclude I should eat ave. 50g/day red meat and 20g/day processed meat; 70g/day total meat (Dept. Health guideline)

Diet high in processed meat 'threatens health'



Processed meats include bacon, sausages and salami
The big health news of the week is the claim that eating a diet high in processed meat can increase the risk of premature death due to cancer and heart disease. 
The current media scare stems from a large Europe-wide study looking at diet and mortality, involving just under half a million people who were followed for an average of 12.7 years.
One of the main findings was that people in the study who ate the most processed meat (160g or more per day) had a 44% increased risk of dying during follow-up compared to those who ate the least (10g or less).
The link to red meat was less conclusive.
The researchers estimated that if we all ate less than 20g of processed meat (which is around a single small piece of bacon) a day, then 3.3% of all deaths could be avoided – which is where the media reports came from that processed meat is responsible for 1 in 30 deaths.
However, an important limitation (rightly highlighted by the authors) is the possibility that other health and lifestyle factors could be contributing towards premature death risks.
Nevertheless, the study does highlight the importance of eating a healthy balanced diet, containing a high amount of fruit and vegetables.

Processed meat

Processed meat refers to meat that has been preserved by smoking, curing, salting or adding preservatives. This includes sausages, bacon, ham, salami and pâtés.

Processed meat is usually high in fat and cholesterol, which can increase heart disease risk. A diet high in processed meat (regularly eating more than 90g a day) has also been linked to an increased risk of bowel cancer.

This study found that people who ate more than 160g a day had the highest risk of premature death – this is equivalent to eating a full English breakfast every morning.

The Department of Health recommends that you do not eat more than 70g of red or processed meat a day.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from the Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Zurich, Switzerland, and a large number of other institutions across Europe.
Financial support was provided by a range of European organisations including, government, charity and academic institutions.
The study was published in thepeer-reviewed journal BMC Medicine, which is available on an open access basis.
The media stories are generally representative of the findings of this research, with most including the common sense advice that eating an occasional bacon sarnie won’t kill you – just don’t do it every day.
The claims that processed meat is responsible for 1 in 30 deaths are based on the researchers’ estimate that 3.3% of the deaths in this study could have been prevented if all those who took part in the study ate less than 20g of processed meat a day.

What kind of research was this?

Many past observational studies have suggested that high levels of red meat and processed meat consumption could be linked to a range of diseases, including cardiovascular diseases and various cancers, such as bowel cancer.
However, it can be difficult in such studies to exclude the possibility that the effect is not directly due to red and processed meats as such, but is due to the influence of other health and lifestyle factors. For example, people who eat a small amount of red and processed meat may also be eating higher amounts of fruit and vegetables, exercising more, be less likely to be overweight, smoke, or drink excess amounts of alcohol.
In the same vein, people who eat lots of processed meat may have other unhealthy habits such as drinking lots of alcohol and being heavy smokers.
This was a large cohort study using data collected as part of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study.
EPIC is an ongoing cohort study including more than 500,000 participants from 10 European countries.
The researchers took data from the EPIC study to look at the association between red meat, processed meat, and poultry meat consumption, and the risk of overall mortality and cause-specific mortality.

What did the research involve?

Men (aged 40 to 70) and women (aged 35 to 70) were recruited to EPIC between 1992 and 2000 (depending on the European study centre). After excluding those with self-reported cancer or heart disease, or those who did not report on smoking status at the time of enrolment, there were 448,568 people in the study.
Dietary assessment was performed slightly differently depending on the country:
  • seven countries gave self-administered dietary questionnaires (including data on 300-350 food items)
  • three countries administered a similar questionnaire by direct interview
  • two of the countries (UK and Sweden) also combined the questionnaires with a seven-day food diary
For the purposes of analysis, they grouped food products as follows:
  • red meat (beef, pork, mutton/lamb, horse, goat)
  • processed meat (including ham, bacon, sausages, or a small amount of minced meat as part of a ready-to-eat product – processed meat is mainly taken to be red meat, but it could be white as well)
  • white meat (poultry, including chicken, hen, turkey, duck, goose, unclassified poultry, and rabbit) 
Various other sociodemographic, health and lifestyle questions were also assessed at recruitment, including age, education, height and weight, medical history, alcohol consumption, and smoking history (current, past or never, including questions on frequency and type of tobacco smoked).
Follow-up of outcomes was to 2005-09, depending on the country, with an average follow-up of 12.7 years. Information on deaths and cause of death was obtained through record linkage with cancer registries, Boards of Health, and death indices in seven countries, and through active follow-up of participants (for example, mail, telephone, and medical records) in three countries.
Information on vital status could be obtained for 98% of the cohort, which is impressive given the size of the study.
Hazard ratios were calculated to examine the association between different types and quantities of meat and processed meat consumption and risk of death.
They adjusted analyses for the following cofounders:
  • age
  • study centre
  • weight and height
  • smoking history
  • alcohol intake
  • overall energy intake
  • physical activity levels
  • educational level

What were the basic results?

Compared to men and women who ate lower amounts of red and processed meat, those who ate the highest amounts tended to also eat fewer fruit and vegetables, be more likely to smoke, and less likely to have a university degree. Men who ate the highest amounts of red meat also drank more alcohol than those who ate lower amounts. This result was not seen in women.
During the average 12.7 year follow-up, there were 26,344 deaths (6% of the cohort), of these, 37% were due to cancer, 21% due to cardiovascular disease, 4% due to respiratory disease, 3% to digestive tract diseases, and the remainder due to various other causes.
Overall, there was a link between increasing processed meat consumption and risk of all-cause mortality. In the model adjusted for all confounders:
  • people who ate the highest amount of processed meat (160g per day) had 44% increased risk of death compared to those who ate 10-20g per day (hazard ratio (HR) 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.66)
  • people who ate 80-160g a day had 21% increased risk (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.28) and those who ate 40-80g a day had 9% increased risk (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.14) compared to those who ate 10-20g per day
  • compared to those who ate 10-20g per day, there was no difference in risk with eating 0-10g or eating 10-40g
  • overall, eating an additional 50g of processed meat a day gave 18% increased mortality risk (HR 1.18. 95% CI 1.11 to 1.25)
  • eating an additional 50g of processed meat a day also gave a 30% increased risk of dying from any cardiovascular disease (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.45), and an 11% increased risk of dying from any cancer (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.21)
The link with red meat was not as strong as for processed meat:
  • eating the highest intake of red meat (160g per day) was associated with 14% increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to eating 10-20g per day (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.28)
  • people who ate 20-160g of red meat a day were at no higher risk than those who ate 10-20g per day
  • people who ate the lowest amount (0-10g a day) also had increased mortality risk compared to those who ate 10-20g per day.
  • unlike with processed meat, the researchers found no overall significant increase in mortality risk for eating an additional 50g of red meat a day


There was no link between death risk and poultry consumption.
The researchers estimated that 3.3% of all deaths could be avoided if all people ate less than 20g per day of processed meat.

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers conclude that their analysis supports a ‘moderate association’ between increased processed meat consumption and increased mortality, in particular due to cardiovascular diseases, but also cancer.

Conclusion

This is a useful study examining whether there is an increased risk of dying from any cause, and from specific causes, with increased consumption of red meat and processed meat. The link to red meat was less conclusive, but there appeared to be a consistent link between increasing processed meat consumption and mortality risk.
The study has many strengths, including that it followed a large number of adults from across 10 European countries for an average 12.7 years, with almost complete follow-up.
The study used reliable methods to assess mortality outcomes. Food frequency questionnaires will unavoidably include some inaccuracy (for example, inaccurate recall or estimation of intake).
However, the researchers did attempt to validate the information through a series of 24-hour recalls.
The researchers have adjusted their analyses for age, study centre, weight and height, smoking and alcohol intake, overall energy intake, physical activity levels and educational level.
However, as the authors rightly conclude, the main limitation of the study is that it cannot completely exclude the possibility of residual confounding – that is, that the effects of these demographic, health and lifestyle factors, or others unmeasured, have not been fully accounted for.
These limitations apart, the study provides reasonably good evidence to support the importance of eating a healthy balanced diet, containing a high amount of fruit and vegetables. At the same time, it is important to moderate your consumption of foods high in salt, fat and sugar, which includes many processed foods.
The occasional bacon sandwich or full English breakfast probably won’t do significant damage to your health. But these should be occasional treats and not a staple of your diet. 
Analysis by Bazian. Edited by NHS Choices. Follow Behind the Headlines on Twitter.



reposted from: Cancer Research UK
crabsallover highlightskey pointscomments / links.


Cancer News
Limiting processed meat consumption 'could prevent three per cent of premature deaths'
Thursday 7 March 2013

If everyone ate less than 20g of processed meat a day, there would be a three per cent drop in premature deaths from cancer and heart disease, according to new European research.

High consumption of red and processed meat has previously been linked to an increased risk of several types of cancer, particularly bowel cancer, as well as cardiovascular diseases.

The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study - part-funded by Cancer Research UK - is following the diets, medical records and death certificates of half a million men and women from 10 European countries.

Its latest analysis, published in the journal BMC Medicine, looked at patterns of consumption of meat among participants, and how this related to their cause of death.

Over an average of nearly 13 years, 26,344 study participants died. Of these, 5,556 died of cardiovascular diseases, 9,861 of cancer, 1,068 of respiratory diseases, 715 of digestive tract diseases, and 9,144 of other causes.

Analysis showed that a person's risk of premature death from cancer or heart disease increased with the amount of processed meat they ate, even once other lifestyle variables were factored in.

No link was seen between red meat or poultry.

Those who ate the most processed meat also ate the fewest fruit and vegetables and were more likely to smoke, while men who ate a lot of meat also tended to drink heavily, the study found.

Yinka Ebo, senior health information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: "There's a clear link between eating too much processed meat and bowel cancer, but this study suggests that cutting down on these meats could also reduce the risk of dying prematurely.

"There's no need to abandon meat altogether, but if you eat a lot of processed meat it's worth cutting down by eating smaller and fewer portions, or eating fish, poultry or beans instead," she added.

Copyright Press Association 2013

Rohrmann S, et al. Meat consumption and mortality - results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (2013) BMC Medicine



Nonparametric regression curve for the relation of processed meat intake at recruitment with all-cause mortality, European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), 1992-2009. Solid line, effect estimate; dotted lines, 95 percent confidence interval.
Rohrmann et al. BMC Medicine 2013 11:63   doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-63

Saturday, 2 February 2013

Does a veggie diet lead to a healthier heart?

reposted from:http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/01January/Pages/Does-a-veggie-diet-lead-to-a-healthier-heart.aspx
crabsallover highlightskey pointscomments / links.


A “vegetarian diet reduces heart disease risk by up to a third”, Channel 4 News reports. The news, which has been reliably covered by much of the media, is based on an impressive and wide-ranging UK study on nutrition.
Researchers recruited nearly 45,000 people in England and Scotland. They followed up with them for an average of 11 years, using hospital records and death certificates to determine how many of them developed coronary heart disease during that time (e.g. suffering anginacoronary heart disease or having a heart attack).
Compared to people who ate meat and fish at the start of the study, the vegetarians were less likely to be diagnosed with, or die from, coronary heart disease over the following years.
This association held even when the researchers adjusted for factors that are known to be linked to heart disease, including weight, sex, age and smoking status.
This study suggests that there are significant heart benefits to a vegetarian diet, which, the researchers argue, are probably due to the fact that eating a vegetarian diet involves eating less cholesterol than a typical meat eater. Also a vegetarian diet may lead to healthier blood pressure.
Although there may be other health and lifestyle factors not studied that could also be associated with both being vegetarian and having a lower risk of heart disease, overall this was a large, long-term study that suggests there are heart health benefits to a vegetarian diet.
But it is uncertain whether everyone would enjoy the same reduction in risk in the unlikely event that everyone in the UK turned ‘veggie’ overnight.

Healthier vegetarian eating

A British Heart Foundation spokesperson, quoted in the Daily Mirror, reminds us that switching to a vegetarian diet will not automatically make you healthier. Living on a diet of chips and cheese will probably have a harmful impact on your arteries just as a diet featuring a lot of bacon sandwiches and burgers would do.
healthy vegetarian diet consists of eating a wide variety of grains, pulses, nuts, seeds, fruit and vegetables, dairy products and eggs.
If you want to go vegan, non-dairy sources of protein include beans and pulses, and non-dairy sources of calcium include soya, tofu and brown and white bread. Read more about healthy vegan diets.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from the University of Oxford and was funded by Cancer Research UK and the UK Medical Research Council.
The study was published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
The media covered this research appropriately, with the Mirror rolling out the best pun of the day with its “Heart beet” headline.

What kind of research was this?

This was a prospective cohort study that examined the association of a vegetarian diet with the risk of developing coronary heart disease (e.g. angina or heart attack), which in this study the authors called by the alternative medical term of ischaemic heart disease (IHD). This is a general term to describe a number of conditions where the supply of blood the muscles of the heart becomes restricted.
The researchers say that while previous studies have looked at the link between vegetarianism and risk of dying from IHD, few prospective studies have looked at differences in both fatal and non-fatal IHD between vegetarians and meat eaters.
Ischaemic heart disease usually arises due to a thickening of the artery walls due to a build-up of fatty products, such as cholesterol, which restrict the flow of blood through the coronary arteries that supply the heart.
There are several factors that are known to increase one’s risk of IHD, some of which cannot be changed and these include age, sex and a family history of IHD. Other 'modifiable' risk factors for ischaemic heart disease are related to lifestyle, and thus are more easily altered, including smoking, high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

What did the research involve?

The study recruited individuals over the age of 20 years between 1993 and 1997. As the researchers were interested in the association between nutrition and health, they specifically recruited vegetarians and vegans, as well as the UK general population.
The participants completed a food-frequency questionnaire that asked them about what they ate over the previous year. Based on their responses, the researchers classified them as either non-vegetarian if they reported eating any meat or fish, or vegetarians if they reported eating no meat or fish (for the purpose of the study, no distinction was made between vegetarians and vegans).
This information was collected again five years into the study’s follow-up period.
At this time, data was also collected on the participants’ height and weight, smoking status, alcohol consumption, level of education, physical activity levels and socioeconomic status. Participants were also invited to have their blood pressure and cholesterol levels measured.
The researchers then examined hospital records, national audit records and death certificates to determine if the participants were treated for (non-fatal) or died of (fatal) IHD during the follow-up period. They used this information, along with the data on IHD risk factors collected at the beginning of the study, to compare the risk of developing or dying from IHD between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.

What were the basic results?

Overall, 44,561 participants were included in the study, 34% of whom were vegetarians at the beginning of the research, and 76% of whom were women. Over an average of 11.6 years follow-up, there were 1,235 cases of IHD (1,066 of these were hospital admissions, and 169 were deaths). 
Overall, vegetarians tended to be younger than non-vegetarians, and were less likely to report receiving long-term medical treatment. Five years into the follow-up period approximately 85% of the vegetarian group reported that they were still vegetarians.
The researchers found that vegetarians had a 32% lower risk of developing IHD during the follow-up period compared to non-vegetarians (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58 to 0.81).
In absolute terms, the probability of being hospitalised for, or dying of, IHD between the ages of 50 and 70 was 4.6% among vegetarians and 6.8% among non-vegetarians.
This reduced risk was seen among both continuous vegetarians and among those who were no longer vegetarians at five years’ follow-up.
When the researchers adjusted for BMI, the effect on IHD was lessened slightly to a 28% reduction among vegetarians compared to non-vegetarians (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.85). The relationship also remained significant after adjusting for other risk factors associated with IHD such as smoking, alcohol, physical activity (or lack of it) and markers of socioeconomic status.

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers concluded that vegetarians had a 32% lower risk of IHD than non-vegetarians, and that this is likely due to “reduced levels of well-established risk factors for IHD, such as non-HDL cholesterol concentrations and systolic blood pressure”.

Conclusion

This large and impressive prospective cohort study suggests that a vegetarian diet may benefit your heart, reducing the risk of IHD.
However, there are important limitations to the study that should be considered before assuming the results apply broadly to the whole of the UK.
First, this study specifically and actively recruited vegetarians and vegans. In addition to GP practice-based recruitment, the researchers “aimed to recruit health-conscious people living throughout the UK”. People who take the effort to get involved in research involving diet and health tend to be more health conscious than the population at large (this is what is known as selection bias). As such, it is a non-representative sample, and the absolute figures of IHD cases among the 50-70 year olds in this study (6.8% in non-vegetarians and 4.6% in vegetarians) may not reflect the absolute risk in the general population.
Additionally, while all participants were invited to have their blood cholesterol levels measured at the beginning of the study, less than half did so.
The researchers suggest that much of the difference in IHD risk between the groups is associated with non-HDL (‘bad’) cholesterol levels and blood pressure. But due to the lack of available blood cholesterol data for all participants, further research using a more complete data set would be needed to confirm this interpretation.
Despite these limitations, this was a well-conducted, large long-term study that suggests there are heart healthy benefits to a vegetarian diet.

Links to the headlines

Vegetarians 'cut heart risk by 32%'. BBC News, January 30 2013
Vegetarians a third less likely to develop heart disease. The Daily Telegraph, January 30 2013

Links to the science

Crowe FL, Appleby PN, Travis RC, Key TJ. Risk of hospitalization or death from ischemic heart disease among British vegetarians and nonvegetarians: results from the EPIC-Oxford cohort study. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Published online January 30 2013

Tuesday, 18 January 2011

Diet and cancer- the EPIC study

reposted from: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/dietandhealthyeating/theepicstudy/
crabsallover highlightskey pointscomments / links.


Experts think that about a quarter of all cancer deaths are caused by unhealthy diets and obesity.
Our diet influences our risk of many cancers, including cancers of the bowelstomachmouthfoodpipe and breast.
You can reduce your cancer risk by eating a healthy, balanced diet that is: