this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2026
249 points (97.3% liked)

World News

54464 readers
3206 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
249
Vegetarians have ‘substantially lower risk’ of five types of cancer, a major study found (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by Adanac@sh.itjust.works to c/world@lemmy.world
57 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 points 16 hours ago

These studies aren't very useful without considering the base rate. From Google, the lifetime risk for men for pancreatic cancer is about 1.8% (1.7% for women). the article said vegetarians had 21% less chance, which means it's a 1.4% chance.

To me this smells like a study with a lot of data massaging to get something publishable.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

I haven't gone full vegetarian but I eat vegetarian meals a lot

[–] inari@piefed.zip 56 points 6 days ago (12 children)

At this point we're beating a dead horseradish. Pretty much every study says the less meat, the healthier

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 33 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Vegans had a 40% higher risk of bowel cancer when compared with meat eaters.

Regarding vegetarians and cancer yes, but most studies show that a moderate intake of meat is beneficial to your OVERALL health. And this study does NOT show that less meat the better.
Also a lot of studies including this one, show that some nutrients are hard to obtain as a vegan, so you need supplements to stay healthy. Especially if you are Vegan.

I don't think you read the article, but just had a knee jerk reaction to the headline.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 15 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Interesting how they call out vitamin B and calcium. Ovo/lactose vegetarians have just as much dairy as meat eaters and probably eat even more calcium-rich foods like kale and other greens. Most dairy substitutes are calcium fortified as well.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Yes the calcium part is outright weird? Regarding B vitamin I think it's some specific B vitamins like B12, definitely not all of them.
I think there may have been some journalistic misunderstanding, because it is mentioned in context with Vegans, while the article also seems to lump the 2 together at times. Which is a problem IMO, because there's a huge difference between Vegetarian that drink milk and eat fish and eggs, and a Vegan that eat zero animal products.

[–] Soulcreator@programming.dev 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I agree with everything you said, except for one point. Vegetarians by definition do not eat fish, pescatarian is likely the word you are looking for as they eat everything you listed with the inclusion of fish.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Ah ok I thought fish was included, because I've known some who call themselves vegetarians who eat fish.

[–] Soulcreator@programming.dev 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It's a common misunderstanding, not exactly sure where it stems from. When I was a vegetarian many years ago it wouldn't be uncommon for people to offer me fish.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Maybe it comes from the distinction between meat and fish that stems from fasting in Catholicism.

[–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Not at forms of calcium are the same.

[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Do we know what moderate means?

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Here it means less than 150g per day. But there is no minimum recommendation AFAIK, probably because most people eat too much.
So optimal amount is a bit murky. It probably also varies depending of what types of meat you eat. It is generally understood that chicken is better for your health than red meat.

[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

150gr is moderate ?! Daaaaamn. TIL our family is moderate as fuck then. More than 150 is just not feeling okay. We are pushing to 200 when it’s steak day. I’m curious what’s the average now.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption

I live in Denmark, and we were highest on meat consumption in 2002, but in 2020 the amount of meat consumed per person was cut by more than half!
So the highest number was in 2002 with 146 kg per year per person, or 397 gr per day, more than double the recommendation on average!
Supermarkets here are making smaller packages, and beef is now taxed to reduce consumption of that in particular. Also because it is considered more environmentally harmful than other types of meat.

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago

Which studies? A quick search doesn't seem to confirm that at all. From checking some of those studies, there seems to be a weak/low certainty correlation of lower meat consumption with lower cancer risks, a correlation (with geographical differences) of meat consumption with being overweight, but also other factors like smoking and low physical activity which really call into question whether other studies took that into account, and also a correlation between higher meat consumption and lower risk for depression (which I would also call into question given meat consumption's correlation with high socioeconomic status).

All I can get from those metastudies is a big nothing burger of "maybe"'s in either direction.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 19 points 6 days ago (2 children)

A point missing from the headline:

While being vegetarian appeared to be protective overall, the scientists also found that those who follow a vegetarian diet had nearly double the risk of the most common type of cancer of the oesophagus, known as squamous cell carcinoma, compared with meat eaters. This may be due to vegetarians being deficient in key nutrients such as B vitamins, the team suggested.

So you can just choose what kind of cancer you want by altering your diet.

I feel like we're just gonna end up back where we always do, with moderation being the best policy. Don't eat too much of any one thing but eat some of everything.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

The best is to eat meat sometimes and vegetarian meals sometimes (with cheese, mushrooms, tofu, or something else besides meat for protein)

[–] Applejuicy@feddit.nl 16 points 6 days ago

I mean it says overall protective, so no, not just equal choice. Also seems quite easy to fix if it is only due to lack of B vitamins.

load more comments
view more: next ›