If red meat is probably carcinogenic, how come this hasn't affected humans evolution?

http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/

Wouldn't this have a large impact on humans evolutionary patterns? Would someone with more knowledge be able to answer this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm just wondering how you concluded it hadn't had an impact? And if it is only processed meat that are the problem, there is your answer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because cancer doesn't usually affect people until after their primary reproductive years are over.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do you mean by evolutionary pattern in this case ? Is it not that to show a pattern you have to have a long period of study ?
Why red meat . There is cooked red meat broiled , fried barbecued, Now in this case you will find different compounds during the treatment of the red meat.
As you char the red meat or other meat you my create polycyclic compound which may be carcinogenic. How that will affect next generation . I am not sure of an available study is available

 

Some of these studies are of questionable worth. You have to integrate many studies in order to show the likelihood of their conclusions.

I imagine the benefits of a high energy (fat), high protein (meat) diet provide such an immediate and obvious advantage that it would outweigh any later health consequences. Especially when cooked, which makes it more easily digested.

Innuit people lived on a primarily meat diet (and mostly uncooked from what I've seen) and didn't have the negative effects we see in European people who eat too much meat. They had almost no heart disease. But they also led an active lifestyle. There are many factors to consider.

 

We eat far more red meat in modern times than we ever did in our evolutionarily formative years.
Red meat is fine in moderate amounts. It is becomeing a problem because we are eating so much of it.

And the fact that it's processed. We eat a lot more processed meat now than we did 50,000 years ago.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

When it is said processed what is meant, what is the so called process

 

"Processed meat is considered to be any meat which has been modified in order to either improve its taste or extend its shelf life. Methods of meat processing include salting, curing, fermentation, and smoking.
...
Meat processing includes all the processes that change fresh meat with the exception of simple mechanical processes such as cutting, grinding or mixing.
...
The preservativesodium nitrite (E250) (mixed into curing-salt) is well known for its role in inhibiting the growth of clostridium botulinum bacteria spores in processed and refrigerated meats. A principal concern about sodium nitrite is the formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines in meats containing sodium nitrite when meat is charred or overcooked. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processed_meat

 

I go back to 1970 Sodium Nitride was removed as a reducing agent . Sodium nitride was used to keep meats red color otherwise the color of the meat gets dark. I am not sure if they are continuing using NaN02
However the Sodium Salt NaN02 dies not breaks down in an alkaline form , it have to be in an acid form , I suppose if it gets into the stomach it becomes acidified.
I suppose you can call it process when you fry or barbecues your meat and put all sort of condiments an sauces then submit it to fire of high temperature and then eat the product . Of course this may not be called process , but coking .

 

The problem with BBQing is the charring. It's incomplete combustion, and contains all sorts of active organic molecules.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Very Interesting. Could you cite the Innuit study, please? How you can be sure these metaanalysis are unbiased?
ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHERS TOO INFLUENCED BY CORPORATIONS?

 

Which ones? Certainly not most of them.

 

Most carcinogens don't incapacitate the subject until middle or old age. Early humans didn't live past 30 often enough to make a statistical difference. They would have reproduced at 13-15, then had any number of injuries and infections to shorten their lives. Cancer hardly registered.