|
On March 14 2012 07:53 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 07:51 Chargelot wrote:On March 14 2012 07:49 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 07:39 PHILtheTANK wrote:On March 14 2012 07:38 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 07:36 PHILtheTANK wrote:On March 14 2012 06:56 BoX wrote:
Everyone knows that Bacon contains a ridiculously high amount of fats.
A strip of bacon, once a week, is not bad for you. In fact, it's potentially HEALTHY for you, if you are otherwise not getting that kind of fatty nutrition in your diet.
If you're a dumbass and you're shoveling a ton of fat into your gullet on a daily basis, yes, you're in trouble.
It would be nice if these essays were perfectly clear on nutrition, instead of throwing out shit like this without the whole story. BRB, ORANGE JUICE IS BAD FOR YOU BECAUSE TOO MUCH VITAMIN C WILL GIVE YOU KIDNEY STONES. Orange juice actually is ridiculously bad for you lol. The way Tropicana and Minute Maid make OJ isn't much more appealing than the way bacon is made either. :| Real OJ is fine though, since it still has fiber. Agreed. Especially with all this recent crap that has come out about OJ and those "flavor packets" I can't see it being any less appealing. What??? You don't like artificially created "natural" compounds which, when added to flavorless deaerated juice that had been sitting in a vat for a year, creates millions of gallons of an exact tasting replica of a chemical compound chosen by executives? All the parts came from nature, just like Frankenstein. Chosen by executives is where your point went way the fuck down hill. Why?
Because it went from a good argument to a random, not quite informed argument. It's not as if they google searched "chemicals that can do this!" and they picked them based on how pretty the package was. How the chemical was selected is literally a worthless chunk of information anyways, what the chemical is and what it does, and how it does this are the important parts. It doesn't matter if it was picked by the world's leading chemist, or a monkey. If it's bad it's bad, if it's good it's good.
|
Utter bullshit. Its probably been said before but the researchers aren't taking into account that their example of red meat is a hot dog, which is pumped full of nitrates. There is bad meat and good meat. Bad meat is cured with nitrates and nitrates and cooked with hydrogenated oils. To anyone thinking that red meat is unhealthy should do some more homework. Animal fat is the most readily usable form of energy and the nutritional benefits are profound.
|
On March 14 2012 08:07 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 07:53 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 07:51 Chargelot wrote:On March 14 2012 07:49 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 07:39 PHILtheTANK wrote:On March 14 2012 07:38 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 07:36 PHILtheTANK wrote:On March 14 2012 06:56 BoX wrote:
Everyone knows that Bacon contains a ridiculously high amount of fats.
A strip of bacon, once a week, is not bad for you. In fact, it's potentially HEALTHY for you, if you are otherwise not getting that kind of fatty nutrition in your diet.
If you're a dumbass and you're shoveling a ton of fat into your gullet on a daily basis, yes, you're in trouble.
It would be nice if these essays were perfectly clear on nutrition, instead of throwing out shit like this without the whole story. BRB, ORANGE JUICE IS BAD FOR YOU BECAUSE TOO MUCH VITAMIN C WILL GIVE YOU KIDNEY STONES. Orange juice actually is ridiculously bad for you lol. The way Tropicana and Minute Maid make OJ isn't much more appealing than the way bacon is made either. :| Real OJ is fine though, since it still has fiber. Agreed. Especially with all this recent crap that has come out about OJ and those "flavor packets" I can't see it being any less appealing. What??? You don't like artificially created "natural" compounds which, when added to flavorless deaerated juice that had been sitting in a vat for a year, creates millions of gallons of an exact tasting replica of a chemical compound chosen by executives? All the parts came from nature, just like Frankenstein. Chosen by executives is where your point went way the fuck down hill. Why? Because it went from a good argument to a random, not quite informed argument. It's not as if they google searched "chemicals that can do this!" and they picked them based on how pretty the package was. How the chemical was selected is literally a worthless chunk of information, what the chemical is and what it does, and how it does this are the important parts. It doesn't matter if it was picked by the world's leading chemist, or a monkey. If it's bad it's bad, if it's good it's good.
Yes but if I was going to consume a substance unknown to myself that was picked by either a chemist or a monkey I would prefer the chemist be the one choosing for me.
Admittedly, the executives likely make the choices based on advice from health experts, financial analysts, legal experts etc. which is why you end up with things that are horribly bad for you in orange juice - because the health experts aren't the only people giving advice to the executives.
|
|
|
On March 14 2012 08:11 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:07 Chargelot wrote:On March 14 2012 07:53 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 07:51 Chargelot wrote:On March 14 2012 07:49 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 07:39 PHILtheTANK wrote:On March 14 2012 07:38 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 07:36 PHILtheTANK wrote:On March 14 2012 06:56 BoX wrote:
Everyone knows that Bacon contains a ridiculously high amount of fats.
A strip of bacon, once a week, is not bad for you. In fact, it's potentially HEALTHY for you, if you are otherwise not getting that kind of fatty nutrition in your diet.
If you're a dumbass and you're shoveling a ton of fat into your gullet on a daily basis, yes, you're in trouble.
It would be nice if these essays were perfectly clear on nutrition, instead of throwing out shit like this without the whole story. BRB, ORANGE JUICE IS BAD FOR YOU BECAUSE TOO MUCH VITAMIN C WILL GIVE YOU KIDNEY STONES. Orange juice actually is ridiculously bad for you lol. The way Tropicana and Minute Maid make OJ isn't much more appealing than the way bacon is made either. :| Real OJ is fine though, since it still has fiber. Agreed. Especially with all this recent crap that has come out about OJ and those "flavor packets" I can't see it being any less appealing. What??? You don't like artificially created "natural" compounds which, when added to flavorless deaerated juice that had been sitting in a vat for a year, creates millions of gallons of an exact tasting replica of a chemical compound chosen by executives? All the parts came from nature, just like Frankenstein. Chosen by executives is where your point went way the fuck down hill. Why? Because it went from a good argument to a random, not quite informed argument. It's not as if they google searched "chemicals that can do this!" and they picked them based on how pretty the package was. How the chemical was selected is literally a worthless chunk of information, what the chemical is and what it does, and how it does this are the important parts. It doesn't matter if it was picked by the world's leading chemist, or a monkey. If it's bad it's bad, if it's good it's good. Yes but if I was going to consume a substance unknown to myself that was picked by either a chemist or a monkey I would choose the chemist. Admittedly, the executives likely make the choices based on advice from health experts, financial analysts, legal experts etc. which is why you end up with things that are horribly bad for you in orange juice - because the health experts aren't the only people giving advice to the executives.
Hydrogen Cyanide picked by a chemist is just as bad of a smoothie ingredient as Hydrogen Cyanide picked by a monkey.
|
On March 14 2012 08:12 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:11 Tektos wrote:On March 14 2012 08:07 Chargelot wrote:On March 14 2012 07:53 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 07:51 Chargelot wrote:On March 14 2012 07:49 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 07:39 PHILtheTANK wrote:On March 14 2012 07:38 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 07:36 PHILtheTANK wrote:On March 14 2012 06:56 BoX wrote:
Everyone knows that Bacon contains a ridiculously high amount of fats.
A strip of bacon, once a week, is not bad for you. In fact, it's potentially HEALTHY for you, if you are otherwise not getting that kind of fatty nutrition in your diet.
If you're a dumbass and you're shoveling a ton of fat into your gullet on a daily basis, yes, you're in trouble.
It would be nice if these essays were perfectly clear on nutrition, instead of throwing out shit like this without the whole story. BRB, ORANGE JUICE IS BAD FOR YOU BECAUSE TOO MUCH VITAMIN C WILL GIVE YOU KIDNEY STONES. Orange juice actually is ridiculously bad for you lol. The way Tropicana and Minute Maid make OJ isn't much more appealing than the way bacon is made either. :| Real OJ is fine though, since it still has fiber. Agreed. Especially with all this recent crap that has come out about OJ and those "flavor packets" I can't see it being any less appealing. What??? You don't like artificially created "natural" compounds which, when added to flavorless deaerated juice that had been sitting in a vat for a year, creates millions of gallons of an exact tasting replica of a chemical compound chosen by executives? All the parts came from nature, just like Frankenstein. Chosen by executives is where your point went way the fuck down hill. Why? Because it went from a good argument to a random, not quite informed argument. It's not as if they google searched "chemicals that can do this!" and they picked them based on how pretty the package was. How the chemical was selected is literally a worthless chunk of information, what the chemical is and what it does, and how it does this are the important parts. It doesn't matter if it was picked by the world's leading chemist, or a monkey. If it's bad it's bad, if it's good it's good. Yes but if I was going to consume a substance unknown to myself that was picked by either a chemist or a monkey I would choose the chemist. Admittedly, the executives likely make the choices based on advice from health experts, financial analysts, legal experts etc. which is why you end up with things that are horribly bad for you in orange juice - because the health experts aren't the only people giving advice to the executives. Hydrogen Cyanide picked by a chemist is just as bad of a smoothie ingredient as Hydrogen Cyanide picked by a monkey.
No shit sherlock, that isn't the point though.
Executives care about money, they take advice from health experts to determine "what is the cheapest shit we can put in our orange juice so that it still tastes like orange juice but doesn't kill people". The health expert more than likely would prefer to pick something healthier - knowing how bad it is for you - but the executive makes the final choice and they are driven primarily by money.
|
On March 14 2012 08:13 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:12 Chargelot wrote:On March 14 2012 08:11 Tektos wrote:On March 14 2012 08:07 Chargelot wrote:On March 14 2012 07:53 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 07:51 Chargelot wrote:On March 14 2012 07:49 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 07:39 PHILtheTANK wrote:On March 14 2012 07:38 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 07:36 PHILtheTANK wrote:
[quote]
Orange juice actually is ridiculously bad for you lol. The way Tropicana and Minute Maid make OJ isn't much more appealing than the way bacon is made either. :| Real OJ is fine though, since it still has fiber. Agreed. Especially with all this recent crap that has come out about OJ and those "flavor packets" I can't see it being any less appealing. What??? You don't like artificially created "natural" compounds which, when added to flavorless deaerated juice that had been sitting in a vat for a year, creates millions of gallons of an exact tasting replica of a chemical compound chosen by executives? All the parts came from nature, just like Frankenstein. Chosen by executives is where your point went way the fuck down hill. Why? Because it went from a good argument to a random, not quite informed argument. It's not as if they google searched "chemicals that can do this!" and they picked them based on how pretty the package was. How the chemical was selected is literally a worthless chunk of information, what the chemical is and what it does, and how it does this are the important parts. It doesn't matter if it was picked by the world's leading chemist, or a monkey. If it's bad it's bad, if it's good it's good. Yes but if I was going to consume a substance unknown to myself that was picked by either a chemist or a monkey I would choose the chemist. Admittedly, the executives likely make the choices based on advice from health experts, financial analysts, legal experts etc. which is why you end up with things that are horribly bad for you in orange juice - because the health experts aren't the only people giving advice to the executives. Hydrogen Cyanide picked by a chemist is just as bad of a smoothie ingredient as Hydrogen Cyanide picked by a monkey. No shit sherlock, that isn't the point though. Executives care about money, they take advice from health experts to determine "what is the cheapest shit we can put in our orange juice so that it still tastes like orange juice but doesn't kill people".
So we've come to the same conclusion!
Who picks the hazard doesn't matter, only the hazard matters. Thanks for agreeing with my original point. You're so agreeable. I wish everyone was like you. :D
|
On March 14 2012 07:51 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 07:36 ZeaL. wrote:On March 14 2012 07:17 Tektos wrote:
Eating bacon or disgusting processed hotdogs EVERY DAY is bad for you? Gosh who knew!!
The study doesn't use common sense. If someone eats hot dogs on a frequent basis they're probably not the most active and healthy people in other aspects of their life. Labelling the study as "red meat is bad for you" is very misleading.
Having the occasional steak is not bad for you. You think that you're smarter than the researchers who did this study? They adjusted for BMI, age, physical activity, smoking, drinking amount, hormone use, menopausal status, and a ton more stuff when they did their calculations for hazard ratios and dose response relationships. You can argue over whether or not their statistical analysis was done correctly but you should probably know what you're talking about before you say anything. Read: We used time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression models to assess the association of red meat consumption with cause-specific and total mortality risks during follow-up. We conducted analyses separately for each cohort. In multivariate analysis, we simultaneously controlled for intakes of total energy, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables (all in quintiles) and for other potential nondietary confounding variables with updated information at each 2- or 4-year questionnaire cycle. These variables included age; body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) (<23.0, 23.0-24.9, 25.0-29.9, 30.0-34.9, or 35.0); race (white or nonwhite); smoking status (never, past, or current [1-14, 15-24, or 25 cigarettes per day]); alcohol intake (0, 0.1-4.9, 5.0-14.9, or 15.0 g/d in women; 0, 0.1-4.9, 5.0-29.9, or 30.0 g/d in men); physical activity level (<3.0, 3.0-8.9, 9.0-17.9, 18.0-26.9, or 27.0 hours of metabolic equivalent tasks per week); multivitamin use (yes or no); aspirin use (yes or no); family history of diabetes mellitus, myocardial infarction, or cancer; and baseline history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia. In women, we also adjusted for postmenopausal status and menopausal hormone use. Its a self-assessment questionnaire updated every 4 years. Do you not see ANY issue with that at all? And if it wasn't known to you already, why is the correlation of eating bacon daily and increased mortality rate a surprise to you? I'm not at all claiming to be smarter than the people who did this study, and yes I'm aware that they took those factors into account. Thanks for your smug post though. However, all they have proven is a correlation between eating unhealthy food and mortality rate. This type of study gets misconstrued into "RED MEAT WILL KILL YOU" which is completely and utterly false - that was my point.
No, you said:
The study doesn't use common sense. If someone eats hot dogs on a frequent basis they're probably not the most active and healthy people in other aspects of their life. Labelling the study as "red meat is bad for you" is very misleading.
which quite plainly shows you didn't read the article. Assuming they did statistical analysis correctly what they show is that two people of identical weight and exercise amount etc but differ in red meat consumption will have the person with higher red meat consumption have a marginally higher risk of mortality. Ex: a fat person who eats chicken and tuna is probably not as healthy as a skinny person who eats chicken and tuna but is at less risk of mortality than someone identical who just eats more red meat.
You're going to throw out the results of the study based on its dataset? You do realize that the datasets this study draws are some of the biggest resources out there for studying epidemiology and health and that there are a. Or are you one of those people who thinks that studies that use questionnaires are all bunk? Hell lets just discredit like 30% of research on humans.
However, all they have proven is a correlation between eating unhealthy food and mortality rate.
This isn't true either unless all food containing red meat is "unhealthy" to you. The study shows a monotonically increasing mortality risk with consumption of both processed and unprocessed red meat so even eating twice a week vs once a week leads to an increase in mortality.
You can argue that the media does a shitty job of representing the facts which I agree with. It does annoy me when they say "RED MEAT WILL KILL YOU" when in reality its more like eating bacon everyday vs once a month changes your mortality risk over 28 years from 1.13% to 1.45% or something.
|
On March 14 2012 08:16 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:13 Tektos wrote:On March 14 2012 08:12 Chargelot wrote:On March 14 2012 08:11 Tektos wrote:On March 14 2012 08:07 Chargelot wrote:On March 14 2012 07:53 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 07:51 Chargelot wrote:On March 14 2012 07:49 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 07:39 PHILtheTANK wrote:On March 14 2012 07:38 Jibba wrote:
[quote]
The way Tropicana and Minute Maid make OJ isn't much more appealing than the way bacon is made either. :| Real OJ is fine though, since it still has fiber. Agreed. Especially with all this recent crap that has come out about OJ and those "flavor packets" I can't see it being any less appealing. What??? You don't like artificially created "natural" compounds which, when added to flavorless deaerated juice that had been sitting in a vat for a year, creates millions of gallons of an exact tasting replica of a chemical compound chosen by executives? All the parts came from nature, just like Frankenstein. Chosen by executives is where your point went way the fuck down hill. Why? Because it went from a good argument to a random, not quite informed argument. It's not as if they google searched "chemicals that can do this!" and they picked them based on how pretty the package was. How the chemical was selected is literally a worthless chunk of information, what the chemical is and what it does, and how it does this are the important parts. It doesn't matter if it was picked by the world's leading chemist, or a monkey. If it's bad it's bad, if it's good it's good. Yes but if I was going to consume a substance unknown to myself that was picked by either a chemist or a monkey I would choose the chemist. Admittedly, the executives likely make the choices based on advice from health experts, financial analysts, legal experts etc. which is why you end up with things that are horribly bad for you in orange juice - because the health experts aren't the only people giving advice to the executives. Hydrogen Cyanide picked by a chemist is just as bad of a smoothie ingredient as Hydrogen Cyanide picked by a monkey. No shit sherlock, that isn't the point though. Executives care about money, they take advice from health experts to determine "what is the cheapest shit we can put in our orange juice so that it still tastes like orange juice but doesn't kill people". So we've come to the same conclusion! Who picks the hazard doesn't matter, only the hazard matters. Thanks for agreeing with my original point. You're so agreeable. I wish everyone was like you. :D
You dismissed his entire point because he pointed out that it was chosen by executives.
It is irrelevant information that the chemicals are chosen by executives, but it doesn't invalidate his point.
However, yes, I agree that a spade is a spade and hydrogen cyanide is hydrogen cyanide (which wasn't your original point, btw).
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 14 2012 08:07 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 07:53 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 07:51 Chargelot wrote:On March 14 2012 07:49 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 07:39 PHILtheTANK wrote:On March 14 2012 07:38 Jibba wrote:On March 14 2012 07:36 PHILtheTANK wrote:On March 14 2012 06:56 BoX wrote:
Everyone knows that Bacon contains a ridiculously high amount of fats.
A strip of bacon, once a week, is not bad for you. In fact, it's potentially HEALTHY for you, if you are otherwise not getting that kind of fatty nutrition in your diet.
If you're a dumbass and you're shoveling a ton of fat into your gullet on a daily basis, yes, you're in trouble.
It would be nice if these essays were perfectly clear on nutrition, instead of throwing out shit like this without the whole story. BRB, ORANGE JUICE IS BAD FOR YOU BECAUSE TOO MUCH VITAMIN C WILL GIVE YOU KIDNEY STONES. Orange juice actually is ridiculously bad for you lol. The way Tropicana and Minute Maid make OJ isn't much more appealing than the way bacon is made either. :| Real OJ is fine though, since it still has fiber. Agreed. Especially with all this recent crap that has come out about OJ and those "flavor packets" I can't see it being any less appealing. What??? You don't like artificially created "natural" compounds which, when added to flavorless deaerated juice that had been sitting in a vat for a year, creates millions of gallons of an exact tasting replica of a chemical compound chosen by executives? All the parts came from nature, just like Frankenstein. Chosen by executives is where your point went way the fuck down hill. Why? Because it went from a good argument to a random, not quite informed argument. It's not as if they google searched "chemicals that can do this!" and they picked them based on how pretty the package was. How the chemical was selected is literally a worthless chunk of information anyways, what the chemical is and what it does, and how it does this are the important parts. It doesn't matter if it was picked by the world's leading chemist, or a monkey. If it's bad it's bad, if it's good it's good. It was more about how arbitrary the taste selection is because they pick a taste for specific branding purposes (I edited that in afterwards.) So Minute Maid was chosen to taste candy-like because that's their brand in this case, and in some cases they pick a taste that's similar to a competitor's selection. It wasn't an anti-executives rant, just how someone chooses what it should taste like.
|
i wonder if muslims have a low mortality rate
|
i choose bacon.
+ Show Spoiler +also i recently discovered that sprinkling brown sugar on bacon while frying it is really good
|
On March 14 2012 08:18 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 07:51 Tektos wrote:On March 14 2012 07:36 ZeaL. wrote:On March 14 2012 07:17 Tektos wrote:
Eating bacon or disgusting processed hotdogs EVERY DAY is bad for you? Gosh who knew!!
The study doesn't use common sense. If someone eats hot dogs on a frequent basis they're probably not the most active and healthy people in other aspects of their life. Labelling the study as "red meat is bad for you" is very misleading.
Having the occasional steak is not bad for you. You think that you're smarter than the researchers who did this study? They adjusted for BMI, age, physical activity, smoking, drinking amount, hormone use, menopausal status, and a ton more stuff when they did their calculations for hazard ratios and dose response relationships. You can argue over whether or not their statistical analysis was done correctly but you should probably know what you're talking about before you say anything. Read: We used time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression models to assess the association of red meat consumption with cause-specific and total mortality risks during follow-up. We conducted analyses separately for each cohort. In multivariate analysis, we simultaneously controlled for intakes of total energy, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables (all in quintiles) and for other potential nondietary confounding variables with updated information at each 2- or 4-year questionnaire cycle. These variables included age; body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) (<23.0, 23.0-24.9, 25.0-29.9, 30.0-34.9, or 35.0); race (white or nonwhite); smoking status (never, past, or current [1-14, 15-24, or 25 cigarettes per day]); alcohol intake (0, 0.1-4.9, 5.0-14.9, or 15.0 g/d in women; 0, 0.1-4.9, 5.0-29.9, or 30.0 g/d in men); physical activity level (<3.0, 3.0-8.9, 9.0-17.9, 18.0-26.9, or 27.0 hours of metabolic equivalent tasks per week); multivitamin use (yes or no); aspirin use (yes or no); family history of diabetes mellitus, myocardial infarction, or cancer; and baseline history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia. In women, we also adjusted for postmenopausal status and menopausal hormone use. Its a self-assessment questionnaire updated every 4 years. Do you not see ANY issue with that at all? And if it wasn't known to you already, why is the correlation of eating bacon daily and increased mortality rate a surprise to you? I'm not at all claiming to be smarter than the people who did this study, and yes I'm aware that they took those factors into account. Thanks for your smug post though. However, all they have proven is a correlation between eating unhealthy food and mortality rate. This type of study gets misconstrued into "RED MEAT WILL KILL YOU" which is completely and utterly false - that was my point. No, you said: Show nested quote +The study doesn't use common sense. If someone eats hot dogs on a frequent basis they're probably not the most active and healthy people in other aspects of their life. Labelling the study as "red meat is bad for you" is very misleading. which quite plainly shows you didn't read the article. Assuming they did statistical analysis correctly what they show is that two people of identical weight and exercise amount etc but differ in red meat consumption will have the person with higher red meat consumption have a marginally higher risk of mortality. Ex: a fat person who eats chicken and tuna is probably not as healthy as a skinny person who eats chicken and tuna but is at less risk of mortality than someone identical who just eats more red meat. You're going to throw out the results of the study based on its dataset? You do realize that the datasets this study draws are some of the biggest resources out there for studying epidemiology and health and that there are a. Or are you one of those people who thinks that studies that use questionnaires are all bunk? Hell lets just discredit like 30% of research on humans. Show nested quote +However, all they have proven is a correlation between eating unhealthy food and mortality rate. This isn't true either unless all food containing red meat is "unhealthy" to you. The study shows a monotonically increasing mortality risk with consumption of both processed and unprocessed red meat so even eating twice a week vs once a week leads to an increase in mortality. You can argue that the media does a shitty job of representing the facts which I agree with. It does annoy me when they say "RED MEAT WILL KILL YOU" when in reality its more like eating bacon everyday vs once a month changes your mortality risk over 28 years from 1.13% to 1.45% or something.
people keep referring to the article as saying red meat will kill you, but thats not what its even titled or says. its title is "Eating Processed Meat and Red Meat Significantly Raises Risk of Death (Study)."
|
I've done some research on this for 4th year BSc Nutrition courses. I wouldn't consider myself an expert on the subject, but this particular topic does interest me. The problem with these studies is there are a lot of potential confounding variables.
Two variables in particular come to mind: First has to do with the use of salt and nitrates as food preservatives, both of which are plentiful in bacon and in hot dogs. Nitrates in particular can interact with other organic molecules in food and produce the very carcinogenic nitrosamines. They may also contribute towards oxidative stress (another suspected cause of several chronic disease states where free radicals overwhelm antioxidant capabilities of the body), but that's just conjecture on my part.
The other has to do with the cooking of the food. Several studies I reviewed in the course of my study discussed how barbecuing in particular and overcooking of meat causes chemical reactions in the fats and proteins which produce nasty chemicals called PAHs and HCAs. One study in particular found that in non-barbecued red meat cooked rare to medium, there was actually no increase in disease risk. But again, this is just one study. Barbecuing is particularly bad, because molten fats fall to charcoal briquettes, undergo reactions and then float back up and adhere to the meat, coating it in carcinogenic chemicals.
My opinion on the matter: don't overcook your meat, and eat unprocessed meat. Probably longer cooking on lower temperatures would be better.
Edit: Again, it is important as well to consider things in terms of absolute risk. Saying risk of death is 20% higher has a lot higher shock value than saying over the next 30 years you increase your risk of dying from 1% to 1.2%.
|
On March 14 2012 08:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:18 ZeaL. wrote:On March 14 2012 07:51 Tektos wrote:On March 14 2012 07:36 ZeaL. wrote:On March 14 2012 07:17 Tektos wrote:
Eating bacon or disgusting processed hotdogs EVERY DAY is bad for you? Gosh who knew!!
The study doesn't use common sense. If someone eats hot dogs on a frequent basis they're probably not the most active and healthy people in other aspects of their life. Labelling the study as "red meat is bad for you" is very misleading.
Having the occasional steak is not bad for you. You think that you're smarter than the researchers who did this study? They adjusted for BMI, age, physical activity, smoking, drinking amount, hormone use, menopausal status, and a ton more stuff when they did their calculations for hazard ratios and dose response relationships. You can argue over whether or not their statistical analysis was done correctly but you should probably know what you're talking about before you say anything. Read: We used time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression models to assess the association of red meat consumption with cause-specific and total mortality risks during follow-up. We conducted analyses separately for each cohort. In multivariate analysis, we simultaneously controlled for intakes of total energy, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables (all in quintiles) and for other potential nondietary confounding variables with updated information at each 2- or 4-year questionnaire cycle. These variables included age; body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) (<23.0, 23.0-24.9, 25.0-29.9, 30.0-34.9, or 35.0); race (white or nonwhite); smoking status (never, past, or current [1-14, 15-24, or 25 cigarettes per day]); alcohol intake (0, 0.1-4.9, 5.0-14.9, or 15.0 g/d in women; 0, 0.1-4.9, 5.0-29.9, or 30.0 g/d in men); physical activity level (<3.0, 3.0-8.9, 9.0-17.9, 18.0-26.9, or 27.0 hours of metabolic equivalent tasks per week); multivitamin use (yes or no); aspirin use (yes or no); family history of diabetes mellitus, myocardial infarction, or cancer; and baseline history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia. In women, we also adjusted for postmenopausal status and menopausal hormone use. Its a self-assessment questionnaire updated every 4 years. Do you not see ANY issue with that at all? And if it wasn't known to you already, why is the correlation of eating bacon daily and increased mortality rate a surprise to you? I'm not at all claiming to be smarter than the people who did this study, and yes I'm aware that they took those factors into account. Thanks for your smug post though. However, all they have proven is a correlation between eating unhealthy food and mortality rate. This type of study gets misconstrued into "RED MEAT WILL KILL YOU" which is completely and utterly false - that was my point. No, you said: The study doesn't use common sense. If someone eats hot dogs on a frequent basis they're probably not the most active and healthy people in other aspects of their life. Labelling the study as "red meat is bad for you" is very misleading. which quite plainly shows you didn't read the article. Assuming they did statistical analysis correctly what they show is that two people of identical weight and exercise amount etc but differ in red meat consumption will have the person with higher red meat consumption have a marginally higher risk of mortality. Ex: a fat person who eats chicken and tuna is probably not as healthy as a skinny person who eats chicken and tuna but is at less risk of mortality than someone identical who just eats more red meat. You're going to throw out the results of the study based on its dataset? You do realize that the datasets this study draws are some of the biggest resources out there for studying epidemiology and health and that there are a. Or are you one of those people who thinks that studies that use questionnaires are all bunk? Hell lets just discredit like 30% of research on humans. However, all they have proven is a correlation between eating unhealthy food and mortality rate. This isn't true either unless all food containing red meat is "unhealthy" to you. The study shows a monotonically increasing mortality risk with consumption of both processed and unprocessed red meat so even eating twice a week vs once a week leads to an increase in mortality. You can argue that the media does a shitty job of representing the facts which I agree with. It does annoy me when they say "RED MEAT WILL KILL YOU" when in reality its more like eating bacon everyday vs once a month changes your mortality risk over 28 years from 1.13% to 1.45% or something. people keep referring to the article as saying red meat will kill you, but thats not what its even titled or says. its title is "Eating Processed Meat and Red Meat Significantly Raises Risk of Death (Study)."
Even then I feel like its slightly misleading because significant in the scientific sense (P<.05) isn't the same as significant in the layman sense. Yes there is a significant difference but it might not be a massive increase in mortality. When they spout statistics like "Eating a serving of nuts instead of red meat was associated with a 19% lower risk of mortality." its also misleading because they don't offer a baseline mortality rate or temporal scale. Its like saying that if you go swimming in the ocean vs swimming in freshwater you are 1000 times more likely to die from an animal attack which sounds super scary when in reality the risk of dying from animal attack in freshwater is 1.6e-11 vs 1.6e-8.
Edit: But you're right, in this case you can't blame the media. It's people on TL's fault for making a strawman so that they can shit on it and feel good about themselves.
|
Attention every researcher who wastes time on this when there are countless serious illnesses that still have no cure.
We arnt interested in hearing why every little thing that gives us any pleasure is going to kill us.
LEAVE
US
ALONE.
|
On March 14 2012 08:33 Blacktion wrote:
Attention every researcher who wastes time on this when there are countless serious illnesses that still have no cure.
We arnt interested in hearing why every little thing that gives us any pleasure is going to kill us.
LEAVE
US
ALONE.
Yes. I blame the damn scientists for making smoking suddenly unhealthy.
|
Few people wanting a detailed rebuttal- too be honest I can't be bothered fully de-bunking it but will give it a shot.
This has been covered fairly extensively by Mark Sisson (behind Primal Diet) if you are remotely interested in this I would encourage you to visit his site- www.marksdailyapple.com
more specifically he has written specifically about this issue
-http://www.marksdailyapple.com/red-meat-study/#axzz1p2fDIrR5
-http://www.marksdailyapple.com/meat/#axzz1p2fOGgyo
-http://www.marksdailyapple.com/sodium-nitrite-meat/#axzz1p2fOGgyo
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/does-eating-red-meat-increase-type-2-diabetes-risk/#axzz1p2fOGgyo
Whilst I am not personally going to reference the individual studies that refute these claims he does so check it out.
As a few people have eluded to though the problem with this study is it is based off a survey. Survey's are pretty much used exclusively by people pushing an agenda/advertisers- easy to prove anything- not very reliable or valid. If the effect is what they say it is you don't need a huge sample size to pick it up. The thing about diet is it is not necessarily that A food is bad for you but A food is bad in conjunction with B,C and D and at x amounts. Trying to find singular causes when there are probably several thousand relevant variables is very difficult.
As far as fat goes- it is largely maligned. There is good and bad fat. Good fat should be a staple of your diet providing a large proportion of your daily energy needs (animal fats, nuts, ghee, coconut oil etc.). The fat is not the issue at all with bacon the issue is that the meat comes from generally sick animals and sick animals will store toxins in the fat. Along with all the obvious processing issues + additives. If you eat bacon from a healthy animal and cook it right you could eat as much of it as you wanted provided you balanced the rest of your dietary needs. The other issue is that burning any meat or any food (bacon tends to be charred) greatly increases the amount of carcinogens (cancer causing)- you can balance this out though by eating high antioxidant food with charred food though as has been shown.
Really this study shows what everyone deep down knows- Eat Real Food. Don't eat that processed garbage, it will literally kill you slowly. Of course processed any meat/food is bad and this study shows that the unprocessed red meat was fine. So really the issues is with the processing- although the big food companies don't want to hear that so somehow that gets lost in this all.
The big killer is running a diet largely consisting of carbohydrates, processed sugars and trans fats. If you can avoid/limit those things you will be doing yourself a favor long term. Unfortunately when you have a high carb in take it can make your body store all the fats that you eat and undo what would be otherwise healthy eating. If your running low carbs and burning fat as your main energy source and you eat good fats then your fine.
|
Wow! I guess Blizz caught onto this and said they're creating a new ability for the carriers in HOTS. You research it at the fleet bacon and it allows them to cover an area with a bacony mist, causing any bio unit within to imagine its eating bacon, causing it not to attack or do anything except enjoy their "bacon." At the same time the unit loses 20% health per second. Theyre calling the ability baconjure.
|
Bacon and Red Meats are well worth death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
