That's incorrect.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...hina_study.png
<object id="__symantecPKIClientMessenger" style="display: none;"></object>

YOU'RE incorrect.

I misspoke, I shouldn't have said "on par." But they did classify it at the same level of cigarettes, Group 1.

But the classification doesn't mean they're as bad as cigarettes.

What you said was incorrect. That's why you admit you shouldn't have said what you did. You shouldn't have said "On par", because it's actually not "On par." The group classification is meaningless with regards to any type of comparison with others in the group. Because it doesn't assess any level of risk at all.

Wade Davis

**** the WHO

This isn't really 'new' news. The case has been built for a long time about processed meats like bacon and hot dogs and sausage. The red meat part is mostly the same, nobody really seems to doubt anymore that red meat is carcinogenic, but the risks associated to it is made worse when grilled or smoked.

For myself, I rarely eat red meat anymore except for some occasion or as an exception. I mostly eat poultry and fish now, which has been hard for me since I really don't like fish at all.

I think the larger problem is that people see food as some kind of recreation. Marketing has a lot to do with it, look what the viral marketing around bacon has done in the last several years. Maybe we should just find better hobbies than eating..?

No I don't ignore science. Not to mention your stating it as a sweeping generality.* I just follow natural science over govt associated science that protects vested interests. Scientists disagree on things especially nutrition.

WHO is govt related. Govt screws things up more than they don't.

* I recall you defended my not putting stuffing inside a turkey to cook for scientific reasons. So yes, you are over generalizing.

Yep!

Red meat is not carcinogenic in and of itself. It is actually good for you and contains B12. Not all metabolic types do well on it as a key part of their diet but many do, particularly Type O blood.

Wehn I have gone on a no red meat kick I wound up with B12 anemia. It was fatiguing me.

I think another problem is that most of the healthy eating information on the web tends toward cranky conspiracy theory nonsense. You have too much of the GMO kookery and anti vaccination kookery and idiots like the food babe out there confusing people. You have to dig to find well curated, sensible information.

If you are interested in reading something level headed and well grounded, a friend of mine in the medical profession recommended http://www.drweil.com to me. I've been reading it for a year or two and it's a good resource from someone who's qualified and without all the tripe you usually find on healthy eating sites

When I said "on par" the intention was that it was the same level, which it is.

Stop being an ass.

As if that material has only ever been on the web. It's been out there long before. The rest is just your uninformed opinion using your usual shilling device of "conspiracy theory" when crony capitalism is known to exist and it's not a BIG secret combined with the commission of a crime. Learn the definition of "conspiracy." It's not different that the idea that ACA benefits the insurance industry by creating a gauranteed larger market for them.

ROFL The medical profession for nutrition? You've got to be kidding me. They're barely trained in it. They're role is to treat pathology more.


Such a radical idea to eat a balance of good proteins, carbs and fats with lots of colored fruits and veggies with a good portion being raw and using good healthy oils. I also do not buy that saturated fat is bad for you. You need some. The theories on cholesterol being related to heart disease is currently being updated too. Only the medical profession is usually behind.