Dietary Intake of Red Meat, Processed Meat, and Poultry and Risk of Colorectal Cancer and All-Cause Mortality in the Context of Dietary Guideline Compliance

Share This Post


Journal: Nutrients

Publication Date: 12/2020

Summary: Meat intake has been linked to increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and mortality. However, diet composition may affect the risks. We aimed to estimate associations between red and processed meat and poultry intake and risk of CRC and all-cause mortality and if they are modified by dietary quality using Cox regression analyses. Baseline dietary data were obtained from three survey rounds of the Danish National Survey on Diet and Physical Activity. Data on CRC and all-cause mortality were extracted from national registers. The cohort was followed from date of survey interview—or for CRC, from age 50 years, whichever came last, until 31 December 2017. Meat intake was analysed categorically and continuously, and stratified by dietary quality for 15–75-year-old Danes at baseline, n 6282 for CRC and n 9848 for mortality analyses. We found no significant association between red and processed meat intake and CRC risk. For poultry, increased CRC risk for high versus low intake (HR 1.62; 95%CI 1.13–2.31) was found, but not when examining risk change per 100 g increased intake. We showed no association between meat intake and all-cause mortality. The association between meat intake and CRC or mortality risk was not modified by dietary quality.

Key Takeaways

There is no association between meat intake and all cause mortality. There is no association between red and processed meat consumption and colon cancer.

Red Meat Does NOT Increase Risk of Colon Cancer

Share This Post

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Get Fun Carnivore Updates and inspirations

4 thoughts on “Dietary Intake of Red Meat, Processed Meat, and Poultry and Risk of Colorectal Cancer and All-Cause Mortality in the Context of Dietary Guideline Compliance”

  1. Honestly, I don’t know if I can stomach another red meat/CRC study. When a study comes out declaring an established, 100% causal link between red meat consumption and CRC, invariable another credible study surfaces shortly afterwards claiming there is 0% correlation.

    I’m sick of it…


    There is also another possibility: that we simply don’t know enough to make any concrete conclusions.

    I’m leaning toward the latter. I used to be a member of this site. I cancelled because I quickly got a feeling that this was more of a religious mentality, than anything else. I quit listening to the Vegans many years ago for the same reasons.

    But enough of the personal back story. There is something VERY bothering about this: the study was published almost 1 year. Yet I just got notification in my email newsletter about this today.

    Why is that?

    Ya see, I remember reading this article last year when I originally came out. Since that time, no fewer than a half dozen studies have been published claiming the exact opposite findings – a direct and causal relationship between red meat and CRC.

    Further, I haven’t gotten any other pro-red meat study alerts in my email newsletter since this time past year, when this particular study was originally published.

    So what is going on here? Are we just recycling old, outdated and incorrect information?

    Information which could potentially be damaging or even dangerous?

    This site is losing credibility with me.

    1. There are no studies I know of that have studied meat-only diets or even keto-carnivore diets. They cant even make adjustments for it because almost everyone eats tons of carbs with their meat. It’s always meat with corn, bread, pasta, potatoes, rice, desserts, shakes, cokes, alcohol, etc. There’s no way to conclude the meat is the culprit. Of course there are those who don’t eat meat at all, but those people are subject to “healthy bias”. They do other things to maintain health. CRC could be a consequence of sugar and fat consumption together. It could be the combo that matters, not the meat alone or carbs alone.

  2. Thanks for posting this Greg I agree, I am also dismayed by Dr Shawn Baker’s highly politicized posts and an attitude that encourages anti vaccine thinking.

    1. Everyone sees what’s going on and has to choose sides even if they don’t want to be political. It’s the world we live in right now. If you love freedom you’re going to silo one way, and if you’re a collectivist, you’re going to silo another way. If you believe what you’re fed by mainstream media, and you think YouTube and Twitter are your friends who always tell the truth, you’re going to silo one way. If you think the media are filled with lying corrupt hacks carrying water for Marxists and globalists, you’re going to silo another way. If you think Pfizer and Merck care about you, well…you may want to reconsider. In any case, we’re all political now. No choice.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

More To Explore

Video Articles


Meat and mental health: A meta-analysis of meat consumption, depression, and anxiety

URL: Journal: Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition Publication Date: 10/2021 Summary: In this meta-analysis, we examined the quantitative relation between meat consumption or avoidance, depression, and anxiety. in June 2020, we searched five online databases for primary studies examining differences in depression and anxiety between meat abstainers and meat consumers that offered a

Do You Want To Achieve your Optimal Health?

Join us for a free 30-date trial. Cancel Anytime.