World Health Organization: Bacon, Sausages And Ham Are Now Serious Cancer Risks

«1

Comments

  • RekaReka ✭✭✭
    Doesn't say anything about how they arrived to this conclusion.

    It doesn't get easier... It's you who gets better.

     

    Is your social worker in that horse?

     

    Success has a price, not a secret.

  • http://www.wired.com/2015/10/who-does-bacon-cause-cancer-sort-of-but-not-really/


     


    Here’s the deal: The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer weighs the strength of the scientific evidence that some food, drink, pesticide, smokable plant, whatever is a carcinogen. What it does not do is consider how much that substance actually increases your risk for actually getting cancer—even if it differs by magnitudes of 100.


    ...


    smoking increases your relative risk of lung cancer by 2,500 percent; eating two slices of bacon a day increases your relative risk for colorectal cancer by 18 percent. Given the frequency of colorectal cancer, that means your risk of getting colorectal cancer over your life goes from about 5 percent to 6 percent and, well, YBMMV. (Your bacon mileage may vary.) “If this is the level of risk you’re running your life on, then you don’t really have much to worry about,” says Alfred Neugut, an oncologist and cancer epidemiologist at Columbia.


  • SkeletorSkeletor The Conqueror Worm ✭✭✭
    edited October 2015

    When articles like these pop up, demonizing red meat in particular, I can't help but laugh. "Oh, the meat of ruminant animals? The stuff that human beings evolved to eat and have been consuming since time immemorial? Yeah, that shit is totes a poison. Mother nature is dumb as hell."


     


    Processed meats can be problematic for any number of reasons, and unless you have access to really high quality stuff, I don't think anyone here is going to advocate daily consumption of bacon. Ham, bacon, sausage and other processed meats are too often really junky, full of nasty additives and low-quality meat. People are very quick to conflate "red meat" and "processed meat" without ever qualifying what those terms really mean.


     


    Try harder, popular science.


     


    In other news, vegetarians the world over, including my dad, will now have an extra reason to act super smug about their dietary choices, owing to this new "research".


    "I know how to despise mere cool intelligence. What I want is intelligence matched by pure, physical existence, like a statue." --Yukio Mishima

     

    Let's be friends on MyFitnessPal!

  • The profit margins are much better for soy products than red meat. All I see here is a sensationalist article that puts more money in the pockets of a few already millionaires.


  • DManDMan Master of Arts ✭✭✭

    May you be well, may you be happy, may you be healthy, may you be loved.

    How much to eat:
    advanced | How to train: bulletproof training | HRV: HRV FOR TRAINING HRV BASICS What Affects HRV | Brain  & Memory dual n back training advanced training

     

     



  • I don't think anyone here is going to advocate daily consumption of bacon.




    I don't know about that.  If you have access to good uncured pastured bacon, its a better choice than most for 10-15g or so of protein in the morning as long as you're not burning it.  It's not the cheapest option, but that's another matter.  




  • This is a very interesting article, Dman.  She says:


     


    "But, the truth is that there really are a lot of studies out there linking meat consumption (especially red meat) to cancer—in human populations, in animal models, and even in some controlled trials focusing on pre-cancerous changes in the human body. Hardly a month goes by without seeing at least one of these studies pop up in the headlines and make the rounds on social media. These studies seem to buoy critics of the Paleo diet and low-carb diets alike, while providing fuel for harassment from family members who just don’t get how we eat (or why).......Within the Paleo community, there is a strong tendency to dismiss these scientific studies as being irrelevant or poorly conducted. The most standard response is “But the study didn’t use grass-fed and organic meat!” and then we go on our merry way with the assumption that the results don’t apply to us (and we tell our family members so!). Then, there’s always the more general anti-science sentiments, dismissing the relevance of a study based on perceived design flaws or legitimate study limitations.,,,,,.Researchers have uncovered several mechanisms linking cancer with components of meat that have nothing to do with an animal’s diet or antibiotic exposure, including heme iron, specific proteins, other specific molecules, and heat-induced mutagens. These are things that exist in meat whether it’s conventional or grass-fed or wild game. That means that organic grass-fed meat, while it promotes health in other ways (better fats, more micronutrients), still has the capacity to increase cancer risk". 


    She goes on to discuss ways to mitigate the risks.  

  • i will go ahead and eat every day 6 grass fed eggs and whenever fill the urge will not hesitate for a slice of grass fed beef ,and drink grass fed yogurt ,add some fruit or veg ,plan to stick to this diet up to my 120 and on 




  • These are things that exist in meat whether it’s conventional or grass-fed or wild game. That means that organic grass-fed meat, while it promotes health in other ways (better fats, more micronutrients), still has the capacity to increase cancer risk". 




    This is true about everything you can possibly consume including water.  It's good to understand, w.r.t. meat but to obsess about it or focus just on meat in isolation is dumb.  Most people are going to consume around 150-200g of protein a day, if not more.  Trade-offs will need to be made.

  • SkeletorSkeletor The Conqueror Worm ✭✭✭

    "I know how to despise mere cool intelligence. What I want is intelligence matched by pure, physical existence, like a statue." --Yukio Mishima

     

    Let's be friends on MyFitnessPal!

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭



    "Citing a short summary paper of a much larger study, earlier this week the World Health Organization (WHO) named processed meat a definite human carcinogen and red meat a probable human carcinogen. That’s frightening at first glance. I mean, the WHO? Great band, weren’t quite the same after Keith Moon died, but for my money they’ve always delivered quality health information. When they issue a report about dietary carcinogens, I listen up."


    He has a point, the WHO is a great band with a solid track record!


     


     




    Red meat causes 127x less cancer than smoking and 100% less autism than vaccines.




    So eating red meat actually gives you negative autism??!


     


     




    The profit margins are much better for soy products than red meat. All I see here is a sensationalist article that puts more money in the pockets of a few already millionaires.




    Citations needed! How do you know this article is putting money in the pockets of anyone aside from the website owners who profit from traffic?

  • dazdaz today is a good day ✭✭✭
    edited October 2015


    So eating red meat actually gives you negative autism??!




     


    my maths is not the greatest, but i would have thought that 100% less of any number will always result in zero (never a negative or a positive).....


    fake it till you make it

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    my maths is not the greatest, but i would have thought that 100% less of any number will always result in zero (never a negative or a positive).....




    Then what's 100% less than zero? Forget your fancy math, eat some meat!

  • dazdaz today is a good day ✭✭✭


    Then what's 100% less than zero? Forget your fancy math, eat some meat!




     


    0

    fake it till you make it

Sign In or Register to comment.