PDA

View Full Version : News WHO says processed meat causes cancer


Fire Me Boy!
10-26-2015, 09:39 AM
http://www.aicr.org/press/press-releases/2015/Diet-Cancer-Experts-Welcome-WHO-Report-on-Meat-and-Cancer.html

WASHINGTON, DC — The American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR), the nation’s leading cancer research organization focusing on the role of diet, weight and physical activity on cancer risk and survival, welcomes a new report from the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Today’s report supports AICR’s analysis of the research on red and processed meat’s role in increasing colorectal cancer risk.

The new IARC report places processed meats (hot dogs, bacon, ham, sausage, cold cuts) in Group 1: Carcinogenic to Humans, the same category as cigarettes. Red meat (beef, pork, lamb) is assigned to Group 2A: Probably Carcinogenic to Humans.

AICR strongly supports the International Agency for Research on Cancer's report classifying red and processed meats as carcinogens, and we hope it will spread the message that what we eat plays a role in cancer risk.

More at the link.

ThaVirus
10-26-2015, 09:44 AM
If loving steak is wrong, I don't wanna be right!

Discuss Thrower
10-26-2015, 09:45 AM
What doesn't cause cancer.

rabblerouser
10-26-2015, 09:47 AM
If loving steak is wrong, I don't wanna be right!

How is steak processed?

ptlyon
10-26-2015, 09:48 AM
What doesn't cause cancer.

Antifreeze

Garcia Bronco
10-26-2015, 09:48 AM
Cancer means disease....we will all eventually die of a disease. So don't listen to these faggots. Eat what you love and love what you eat. A happy life is better than a longer miserable one.

ptlyon
10-26-2015, 09:48 AM
How is steak processed?

By a butcher

The Franchise
10-26-2015, 09:48 AM
WHO?

KCUnited
10-26-2015, 09:49 AM
Sounds like it's the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer that's saying it.

BucEyedPea
10-26-2015, 09:53 AM
I've never heard about red meat causing cancer. On the other hand I wouldn't rely on much from WHO either.

Gonzo
10-26-2015, 09:54 AM
Venison and Phesant... FTW

Fire Me Boy!
10-26-2015, 09:54 AM
I've never heard about red meat causing cancer. On the other hand I wouldn't rely on much from WHO either.

But to be fair, you pretty consistently ignore science.

BucEyedPea
10-26-2015, 09:54 AM
Cancer means disease....we will all eventually die of a disease. So don't listen to these pillowbitergots. Eat what you love and love what you eat. A happy life is better than a longer miserable one.

I don't find eating healthy leads to misery. Your taste buds change if you eat healthy. Then junk food or over processed food tastes bland. Besides, I feel better, look better and have more energy.
Food alone doesn't make for a happy life anyway.

Do you think obesity and the epidemic of Diabetes Type 2 makes anyone happy?

Garcia Bronco
10-26-2015, 09:58 AM
I don't find eating healthy leads to misery. Your taste buds change if you eat healthy. Then junk food or over processed food tastes bland. Besides, I feel better, look better and have more energy.
Food alone doesn't make for a happy life anyway.

Do you think obesity and the epidemic of Diabetes Type 2 makes anyone happy?

That's precisely what I am getting at...if that's what you love to do then do it. Be happy, don't let someone else make you feel guilty about how you're living your life.

sedated
10-26-2015, 09:59 AM
dammit, I eat cold cuts almost every day

ThaVirus
10-26-2015, 10:01 AM
How is steak processed?


Read the OP

RealSNR
10-26-2015, 10:03 AM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y6MQUaXFfLY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BigMeatballDave
10-26-2015, 10:04 AM
I suspect the Cunts at PETA are behind this, somehow.

fan4ever
10-26-2015, 10:08 AM
I just hope they put a "health tax" or something on this kind of food so we can use that money to solve the problem.

BucEyedPea
10-26-2015, 10:11 AM
That's precisely what I am getting at...if that's what you love to do then do it. Be happy, don't let someone else make you feel guilty about how you're living your life.

I don't think I was referring to the same thing. I was referring to how well a person can "feel" if they eat poorly—especially later in life when it catches up with them. I mean, I'm sure a heroin addict feels great being high. I doubt they're really experience real happiness though. Likewise, I doubt an obese person is happy too. Well, I am sure there are always exceptions.

It's not like there isn't a kernel of truth in what you're saying though. I just think moderation plays a role in such ideas.

TimeForWasp
10-26-2015, 10:12 AM
Kc BBQ tailgate style Soylent Green old people patties and sweet potato fries. yum yum

Fire Me Boy!
10-26-2015, 10:13 AM
In semi-related news... testers found unlabeled meats, hygiene problems, and other unexpected ingredients in hot dogs. And human DNA in 2 percent of hot dogs sampled (2/3 of which were vegetarian hot dogs).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/10/26/report-human-dna-found-hot-dogs/74617102/
http://www.clearfood.com/food_reports/2015/the_hotdog_report

ct
10-26-2015, 10:17 AM
read the article

risk increases as consumption increases, so yea if you eat all red meat, it's bad for the colon, increasing cancer risk. duh...

where is the study about increased consumption of poultry increasing risk of cancer, gonna be very similar.

balanced diet, it's not rocket surgery folks

now the processed meats are a different bag, there can be a lot of crap in there, can be...

look further into processed foods like canned soups, boxed pasta dishes, etc, same deal folks, that shit is not good for you, duh...

rabblerouser
10-26-2015, 10:18 AM
By a butcher

Exactly.

This isn't news. At all.

Nitrates have always been bad for you, red meat has always caused cancer and processed meats simply wreck havoc from head to toe.

journeyscarab
10-26-2015, 10:20 AM
Sounds like a bunch of baloney. Or bologna.

Fish
10-26-2015, 10:22 AM
In semi-related news... testers found unlabeled meats, hygiene problems, and other unexpected ingredients in hot dogs. And human DNA in 2 percent of hot dogs sampled (2/3 of which were vegetarian hot dogs).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/10/26/report-human-dna-found-hot-dogs/74617102/
http://www.clearfood.com/food_reports/2015/the_hotdog_report

Ten percent of vegetarian products contained meat.

Samples showed chicken, beef, turkey and lamb were found in products that were not supposed to have those ingredients.

Sixty-seven percent of hygienic problems found in the report were from vegetarian products.

Ha ha.... Vegetarians....

Pitt Gorilla
10-26-2015, 10:24 AM
Exactly.

This isn't news. At all.

Nitrates have always been bad for you, red meat has always caused cancer and processed meats simply wreck havoc from head to toe.Exactly. Not a lot of shocking information here.

Fire Me Boy!
10-26-2015, 10:26 AM
Exactly. Not a lot of shocking information here.

I think the "shocking" (if you can call it that) thing here is that they classified it on par with cigarettes. That's a pretty substantial move.

When does the USDA start packing cold cuts with a cancer warning?

rabblerouser
10-26-2015, 10:26 AM
dammit, I eat cold cuts almost every day

Stop
.

rabblerouser
10-26-2015, 10:27 AM
I think the "shocking" (if you can call it that) thing here is that they classified it on par with cigarettes. That's a pretty substantial move.

When does the USDA start packing cold cuts with a cancer warning?

Bwahahahahahahahaha - we'd have to get them to label GMO food as well as crap from China first :\

Fish
10-26-2015, 10:28 AM
I think the "shocking" (if you can call it that) thing here is that they classified it on par with cigarettes. That's a pretty substantial move.

When does the USDA start packing cold cuts with a cancer warning?

That's incorrect.

The classification of processed meat as a carcinogen indicates that such a product is capable of causing cancer, but it does not measure the likelihood, or risk, that one will develop cancer after being exposed to processed meat.

It also does not mean that processed meat consumption carries the same level of risk as smoking or asbestos, which are both in the same category as that of processed meat. Rather, it means that both are regarded as cancer-causing substances.

"The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk," the IARC said in an online FAQ document.

DaKCMan AP
10-26-2015, 10:28 AM
I've never heard about red meat causing cancer.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3f/The_china_study.png
<object id="__symantecPKIClientMessenger" style="display: none;"></object>

rabblerouser
10-26-2015, 10:29 AM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3f/The_china_study.png
<object id="__symantecPKIClientMessenger" style="display: none;"></object>

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z164/telepicker97/Mobile%20Uploads/agreebyrd_zpsy4kw6hqd.gif (http://s193.photobucket.com/user/telepicker97/media/Mobile%20Uploads/agreebyrd_zpsy4kw6hqd.gif.html)

Fire Me Boy!
10-26-2015, 10:32 AM
That's incorrect.

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.

The new IARC report places processed meats (hot dogs, bacon, ham, sausage, cold cuts) in Group 1: Carcinogenic to Humans, the same category as cigarettes.

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

Fish
10-26-2015, 10:43 AM
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.

Archie F. Swin
10-26-2015, 10:48 AM
What doesn't cause cancer.

Wade Davis

Just Passin' By
10-26-2015, 10:50 AM
Fuck the WHO

Eleazar
10-26-2015, 11:00 AM
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..?

BucEyedPea
10-26-2015, 11:03 AM
But to be fair, you pretty consistently ignore science.

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.

BucEyedPea
10-26-2015, 11:03 AM
**** the WHO

Yep!

BucEyedPea
10-26-2015, 11:05 AM
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..?

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.

ptlyon
10-26-2015, 11:06 AM
I think the larger problem is that people see food as some kind of recreation.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=295616

Eleazar
10-26-2015, 11:08 AM
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

Fire Me Boy!
10-26-2015, 11:11 AM
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.

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

Stop being an ass.

BucEyedPea
10-26-2015, 11:11 AM
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.
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.

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

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.

sd4chiefs
10-26-2015, 11:19 AM
I am all ready starting to dread Christmas when all the vegan In-laws show up at the door.

58-4ever
10-26-2015, 11:25 AM
*My goal for 2016 is to only eat meat and fish that I've procured myself... IE, Venison (Deer, Elk), and Fish that I've caught.

*I will also indulge in a J. Gilbert's steak from time to time. :)

Eleazar
10-26-2015, 11:27 AM
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.

Yes, as you've said the classification doesn't say anything about the relative dangers of things in the same category.

The straw man argument (this is actually a straw man, not the CP taunt of 'straw man') is that WHO is saying bacon is as bad as tobacco, which isn't what they are saying. They are saying processed meats do cause cancer, and that red meat probably does, but it's still in category 2 because it needs more study.

BWillie
10-26-2015, 11:28 AM
How is steak processed?

It isn't. They declared hot dogs, cold cuts and other processed meat to definitely be carcinogens. But steak as, probably.

BigRichard
10-26-2015, 11:29 AM
I don't know, who?

Fire Me Boy!
10-26-2015, 11:29 AM
I am all ready starting to dread Christmas when all the vegan In-laws show up at the door.


Tell 'em their veggie hot dogs probably contain human DNA and pork.

Beef Supreme
10-26-2015, 11:36 AM
I give up. WHO?

BigRichard
10-26-2015, 11:42 AM
I give up. WHO?

Q

58-4ever
10-26-2015, 11:48 AM
It isn't. They declared hot dogs, cold cuts and other processed meat to definitely be carcinogens. But steak as, probably.

I also think that they should be careful to differentiate animals on what they eat. For example, Grass-Fed animals tend to look and taste a lot more healthy than corn (and whatever the hell else) is fed to those penned up animals.

Hog's Gone Fishin
10-26-2015, 12:03 PM
So that lady that did the sausage in the Walmart bathroom is hosed !

Bugeater
10-26-2015, 12:17 PM
Well, bye.

RealSNR
10-26-2015, 12:22 PM
What doesn't cause cancer.

That's what I'm asking. Who is saying processed meat causes cancer?

tooge
10-26-2015, 12:22 PM
I think its pretty understood in medical research regarding cancer, that it's generally not that something causes cancer, but rather a certain amount of something causes cancer. You smoke a cig once a month at a buddies house, you aren't getting lung cancer from it. You eat a ham sandwich once a month for lunch, you aren't getting cancer from it.

Reasonable is this: Eat a whole foods, plant based diet, and supplement your protein with sustainable fish and cage free chicken. Once in a while have a lean cut of red meat/pork. Limit processed sugars, processed carbs in general. Try to get 30-45 minutes of excercise 4-5 days a week. Do that and you are good to go. No, eating a ham sandwich isn't going to cause you to get cancer.

Also, to BEP, no, the medical community is not behind on the cholesterol research. It's pretty clear that a high LDL is not good for you, and a low HDL is not good for you. What is new, is that it's the type of LDL (particle size) that really matters, and more importantly, the amount of vessel inflammation for those small particles to lodge in, that makes a difference. Most of the public is just not able to process all of it really, so it's canned as "Cholesterol is bad for you and these foods are high in cholesterol".

58-4ever
10-26-2015, 12:26 PM
I think its pretty understood in medical research regarding cancer, that it's generally not that something causes cancer, but rather a certain amount of something causes cancer. You smoke a cig once a month at a buddies house, you aren't getting lung cancer from it. You eat a ham sandwich once a month for lunch, you aren't getting cancer from it.

Reasonable is this: Eat a whole foods, plant based diet, and supplement your protein with sustainable fish and cage free chicken. Once in a while have a lean cut of red meat/pork. Limit processed sugars, processed carbs in general. Try to get 30-45 minutes of excercise 4-5 days a week. Do that and you are good to go. No, eating a ham sandwich isn't going to cause you to get cancer.

Also, to BEP, no, the medical community is not behind on the cholesterol research. It's pretty clear that a high LDL is not good for you, and a low HDL is not good for you. What is new, is that it's the type of LDL (particle size) that really matters, and more importantly, the amount of vessel inflammation for those small particles to lodge in, that makes a difference. Most of the public is just not able to process all of it really, so it's canned as "Cholesterol is bad for you and these foods are high in cholesterol".

You seem nice.

tooge
10-26-2015, 12:27 PM
You seem nice.

Yeah, well, I am.

Sully
10-26-2015, 12:29 PM
Sticking your head up a butcher's ass will also cause cancer.

Tommy Callahan

ptlyon
10-26-2015, 12:30 PM
Yeah, well, I am.

I'll vouch for him. He's the nicest tooge I know.

Fire Me Boy!
10-26-2015, 12:31 PM
* I recall you defended my not putting stuffing inside a turkey to cook for scientific reasons. So yes, you are over generalizing.

Of course, I'm generalizing. But one time does not make a trend.

Generally, you give science a middle finger under the guise of "government sponsored."

I ain't mad at you, I like you. But you're kind of a kook when it comes to nutrition. You often take whatever seems to make sense to you as gospel and ignore science.

58-4ever
10-26-2015, 12:34 PM
Yeah, well, I am.

Smart too. Seems so simple. Eat a lot of fruits and vegetables, lean meat and fish... Indulge in a BLT or Ribeye every so often (like you would alcohol)...

I love lamp

Fish
10-26-2015, 12:40 PM
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.

You absolutely ignore science, sweetheart. Anytime it doesn't coincide with your wacky anecdotal opinions, you ignore science. There's no such thing as natural science vs govt associated science. That's simply you applying your confirmation bias to the outside world.

WHO is government related? What is that even supposed to mean? The WHO is made up of 61 different countries around the world.

ThaVirus
10-26-2015, 12:40 PM
Of course, I'm generalizing. But one time does not make a trend.



Generally, you give science a middle finger under the guise of "government sponsored."



I ain't mad at you, I like you. But you're kind of a kook when it comes to nutrition. You often take whatever seems to make sense to you as gospel and ignore science.


Kind of a kook?

Pitt Gorilla
10-26-2015, 01:36 PM
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. True that.

Just Passin' By
10-26-2015, 01:43 PM
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.

The conspiracy theory nonsense, as you put it, has credibility with a lot of people for two reasons:


Because the "well curated, sensible information" has been wrong often enough that it matters
Because the conspiracy theories have turned out to have been right, or close to right, often enough that it matters

Baby Lee
10-26-2015, 02:17 PM
1. It's not the meat, but the processing
2. Categorization with cigarettes isn't about similar carcinogen density, but similar level of scientific certainty regarding the carcinogenic nature of processing byproducts.

It's kind of like warning that styrofoam can crush you much like concrete can. Sure, but it's going to take a much larger volume of styrofoam on your chest.

Eleazar
10-26-2015, 03:16 PM
1. It's not the meat, but the processing


I believe they are saying it's the meat and the processing. Processing just amplifies the risk.

It won't be long before red meat itself is agreed upon by most health authorities as a carcinogen, IMO.

Stewie
10-26-2015, 03:32 PM
That liberal rag the KC Star has an article pointing out the conflicts in this "research" that "proves" a certain food causes cancer. It's ridiculous and unfounded. The largest consumers of red meat (surprisingly they don't live in the US) have no higher incidence of cancer than any other group.

In 1990, coffee was the death knell. Now, people can't drink it fast enough.

Pick and choose the parts of this article that support your idea of how you'll die... or live forever.

http://www.kansascity.com/living/health-fitness/article41466489.html

aturnis
10-26-2015, 05:02 PM
I don't find eating healthy leads to misery. Your taste buds change if you eat healthy. Then junk food or over processed food tastes bland. Besides, I feel better, look better and have more energy.
Food alone doesn't make for a happy life anyway.

Do you think obesity and the epidemic of Diabetes Type 2 makes anyone happy?
Your taste buds change huh? Science.

vailpass
10-26-2015, 06:01 PM
I KNOW they didn't say bacon is bad for you on purpose...

Fire Me Boy!
10-26-2015, 06:07 PM
I KNOW they didn't say bacon is bad for you on purpose...


Good. 'cause I made this yesterday.

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/10/26/282b98760ff50f99b570028e16ebb575.jpg

vailpass
10-26-2015, 06:17 PM
Good. 'cause I made this yesterday.

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/10/26/282b98760ff50f99b570028e16ebb575.jpg

Would...

Psyko Tek
10-26-2015, 06:18 PM
So,I should cut out the bacon wrapped cigars?

teedubya
10-26-2015, 06:20 PM
The China Study stated this years ago.

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

BigMeatballDave
10-26-2015, 06:37 PM
The China Study stated this years ago.

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

My dad says this study is BS. He's 75, has eaten meat about everyday of his life, and fit as a horse. :)

Bob Dole
10-26-2015, 06:39 PM
The takeaway is about as good as from most of these studies. Don't eat 6 hotdogs a day for 60 years.

baitism
10-26-2015, 06:53 PM
If eating bacon is wrong, I don't want to be right.

King_Chief_Fan
10-26-2015, 07:02 PM
My dad says this study is BS. He's 75, has eaten meat about everyday of his life, and fit as a horse. :)
I agree 100% with your dad

lewdog
10-26-2015, 07:42 PM
BEP ignores science and everyone over the years tells her how wrong she is, but she continues to spout horrible advice and myths and food and diet.

Pickup a fucking book dated in the 2000's sweetheart. Preferably one with some fucking actual research in it.

King_Chief_Fan
10-26-2015, 08:04 PM
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 have been eating red meat for ever....i have high metabolism and am type o. I get a clean bill of health each year on my annual physical. ..of course i eat my veggies too.

ThaVirus
10-26-2015, 08:07 PM
My dad says this study is BS. He's 75, has eaten meat about everyday of his life, and fit as a horse. :)

My grandmother smoked cigarettes for 50 years and she's still kicking. No joke.

ThaVirus
10-26-2015, 08:08 PM
If eating bacon is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Hey, you stole my line!

Warrior5
10-26-2015, 08:10 PM
Piss on WHO.

vailpass
10-26-2015, 08:11 PM
If eating bacon is wrong, I don't want to be right.

You should package and market them is what you should do.

Hog's Gone Fishin
10-26-2015, 08:21 PM
Good. 'cause I made this yesterday.

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/10/26/282b98760ff50f99b570028e16ebb575.jpg

I'm sure I tickled that belly one time or another.

cdcox
10-26-2015, 08:22 PM
It increases your risk of colon cancer. Get a colonoscopy every 5 years and you should be good to go.

Bugeater
10-26-2015, 08:26 PM
BEP ignores science and everyone over the years tells her how wrong she is, but she continues to spout horrible advice and myths and food and diet.

Pickup a fucking book dated in the 2000's sweetheart. Preferably one with some fucking actual research in it.
That's great advice for everyone. I think I'll start with this one:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lc-1qARGvsg/TBptc1eg2YI/AAAAAAAAAIs/Hk617_MUhgk/s1600/Big+Book.jpg

ThaVirus
10-26-2015, 08:29 PM
I'm sure I tickled that belly one time or another.

LMAO You are so fucking weird

Sorter
10-26-2015, 08:40 PM
I'm sure I tickled that belly one time or another.

LMAO

gonefishin53
10-26-2015, 09:26 PM
Gonna have to ban all those red meat serving fast food joint ads. Big media corporations won't like it but tobacco established the precedent for pushing category 1 cancer risks in the media.

Lonewolf Ed
10-26-2015, 09:37 PM
I read just to the point where it was stated that the same number of bowel cancers were found in Britain among meat eaters as vegetarians, so it is obvious that while some things in processed meats *may* cause cancer, they will not in everyone. I know a hell of a lot more about cancer than I ever wanted to since I have the stuff, and my docs are baffled as to what caused mine. Everyone is different. One guy might never get poison ivy while the guy next to him gets it from dust blowing off a plant and onto his skin. One guy might be suffering from the flu like a dog and the other guy just feels a little run down. There are so many factors into how our bodies react and what we can fight off and what we cannot.

Should we avoid all the foods and beer and candies since they may cause cancer? Well, if your idea of living is to try and hide away from everything that can get you, good luck with that. I eat a healthy diet and I enjoy that, but I still treat myself every now and then to a pizza. I just had two double cheeseburgers at DQ today. Was that a good lunch? Nutritionally speaking, no. Was I scared that I was going to make my cancer stronger by eating burgers? No. If I shortened my life by a few weeks, so be it, but dammit, I wanted some cheeseburgers today!

HonestChieffan
10-26-2015, 10:21 PM
PC says no to red meat. Bullshit it is. But its progressive!!

Simply Red
10-26-2015, 10:36 PM
burp*

Squalor2
10-26-2015, 10:48 PM
PC says no to red meat. Bullshit it is. But its progressive!!


i wouldn’t buy any product from you. i believe you will feed your animals anything to make a profit. this is what makes you the copy/pasta your are-you sell your hormone chemical bullshit. you are the shitty man.

BucEyedPea
10-26-2015, 10:57 PM
The China Study stated this years ago.

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

The China Study is also considered to have flaws in it too. Not just by mainstream registered dietitians but also many in the natural food or natural health fields. I know a bunch of folks that went completely vegan after that book. Not every metabolic type does well on a vegan diet, or even a vegetarian one. Some suffer a loss of health after a diet of that kind. Furthermore you can't look at foods in isolation since health is holistic. There are too many other variables in those villages they studied. Rural Chinese are less likely to die from the diseases of affluence too. On the other hand some of the principles in the book are sound. Like: " eating more whole and unprocessed foods and plant-based foods like fruits, vegetables and beans will improve the health of most Americans."

http://www.healthyeating.org/Blog/Article/519/Dietitians-Review-the-China-Study.aspx

It's perhaps not red meat per se that's bad, but what's in it or any preservatives. So the author of the China study may have valid points in that area as well, since some in the natural health field say we're not designed to eat cattle raised on grain, fed hormones and antibiotics to maximize their growers' profits. For those who oppose those methods there is grass fed beef, organically raised chickens and wild game to eat. Reasonable quantities of animal flesh is fine but lots of fruits and vegetables ( that are not overcooked) is beneficial to good health.

threebag
10-27-2015, 04:38 AM
I'm fucked

mdchiefsfan
10-27-2015, 06:52 AM
Thawing a ribeye for tonight in honor of this thread. :toast:

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!!!

BigRichard
10-27-2015, 06:59 AM
Don't know if anything like this has been posted but basically this states the WHO technically is correct but they should probably clarify a little bit better.

http://digg.com/2015/bacon-cancer-explainer