|
On March 14 2012 13:25 salle wrote:I should probably read all of the replies but this whole study seems quite weird to me... why is the issue of differences in size of calories these people take in not brought up as a quite big variable in the article or explained away, for the Health Professional Follow-up study there's a difference from 1659 to 2396 kcal/d between the group that eats the least amount of red meats to the group that eats the most. the Nurses' Health Study had a similar difference with 1202 to 2030 kcal/d. I would say that THAT is a quite big difference in life style, which could also explain the increased risk of death. but they glance over it saying "In addition, a higher red meat intake was associated with a higher intake of total energy [...]" but that was it. Also no where in the table do they show the level of active life style or health conciousness people might be. Like % of meals they cook themselves, ready meals they put in the oven/micro, if they visit a dietist, amount of cigarettes they smoke, their weight, if they're in a happy relationship, if they have any mental problems like depression or anxiety and if they're on any medications. They might have, but not included it in the table, but isn't that things you'd like to point out specifically to like say "we crossed all t's and dotted all i's for this"?
It did say they adjusted for multivariable effects. I dont know what algorithm they used but they probably adjusted for calorie intake along with things like age, exercise, BMI, etc etc. You can easily use some program to normalize the effects of all other variables and focus on just one. That being said, this is just a meta analysis and should be taken as such.
|
bacon obviously not = death
see epic meal time
bacon = life
|
I would sell my soul for endless bacon.
|
On March 14 2012 12:33 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 12:25 lorkac wrote:
100% of people will die at some point.
100%-X will die sad
X will die happy
Bacon lives in the X group. You do know you're not allowed to have two different meanings for a single variable right? Try Y or Z
he's trying to say 100% minus X will die sad. so X being happy, 100% minus (happy variable numbero f people) will die sad.
|
I don't like the argument that you'd rather eat bacon and die happy but earlier. If you don't eat bacon you can't be happy wtf? In fact I'd argue that cutting out stuff that's bad for you increases your living quality.
Apparently it's impossible to be happy and healthy though.
|
On March 14 2012 20:18 solidbebe wrote:
I don't like the argument that you'd rather eat bacon and die happy but earlier. If you don't eat bacon you can't be happy wtf? In fact I'd argue that cutting out stuff that's bad for you increases your living quality.
Apparently it's impossible to be happy and healthy though.
I know for a fact my life would be emtpy without bacon.
|
On March 14 2012 08:31 MikeT wrote:
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%.
omg I love researching oxidative stress on my own time. From what I gather, it affects the aging process, as cellular aging is the degredation of cells' ability to replicate perfectly. real stress can cause oxidative stress because of the imbalances in your body chronic stress can cause, and certain yoga breathing practices are anecdotally stated to decrease oxidative stress and that if you really want to stay younger you need to stay away from things that produce more reactive oxygen species than your body can get rid of. In which case, If we are eating foods that are high in carcinogenic properities or produce too many ROSes in our body, or affect our stress levels and cause systemic imbalances in our bodies by disrupting our normal redox states in our tissues, then we could make a strong case for proving that businesses are lacing foods with artificial enhancements to produce taste, physiological dependency (McDonalds was found to be using an addictive element in their foods), and other issues while being grossly negligent over the negative impact of the quality of life of people eating it. the companies say "people should be responsible for what they eat and not eat too much, so its their own fault", and while I agree with that logic, if they're using artificial substances, that ingested in any amount over time cause premature aging and death, then the line of those business aught to be "dont eat any of our food if you want to live longer because we put carcinogenic additives in it".
On March 14 2012 20:31 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 20:18 solidbebe wrote:
I don't like the argument that you'd rather eat bacon and die happy but earlier. If you don't eat bacon you can't be happy wtf? In fact I'd argue that cutting out stuff that's bad for you increases your living quality.
Apparently it's impossible to be happy and healthy though. I know for a fact my life would be emtpy without bacon.
pffffffffffffffffffffffff comon... you know why that is solid berbe. people's perception of what is good and bad is as unique as every individual Good and bad are relative values inside people's head, and people have to change their perception in order to live "healthy and happy" if they feel they couldn't live without bacon. Stockholm syndrome is the most obvious example of how people's perceptions change to suit their survival needs. instead of being beaten and kidnapped as a bad thing, they develop sympathy and appreciation for their circumstances.
People have "goods" and "bads" based on perceptions. Percerptions change based on extreme external or internal events.
|
Hmm, I never thought it would be that bad. In my experience Bacon has healthier nutritional values than most minced meat so eating it every now and then shouldn't be that bad. Also eating 2 slices of bacon a day with a hotdog doesn't seem like normal use to me at all. A hotdog isn't too healthy either, you know. I think this research has some deep underlaying problems.
e. I've read researches that said the english breakfast was the best breakfast too.
|
bacon is unhealthy? holy shit, my mind has been destroyed. all this time i was sure it was adding years onto my life....fuck
|
Bacon unhealthy? Shit. I'm glad some of the smartest minds around are working on this and getting funded/paid for it. I would have never guessed by all the fat and grease that comes off when you cook it.
|
But why is it more healthy unprocessed?
|
Doesn't matter maaaaaaaaaaaan. Bacon tastes too good maaaaaaaaaaaaan
|
On March 15 2012 01:04 Perscienter wrote:
But why is it more healthy unprocessed?
There is longstanding speculation that nitrites are dangerous, especially when cooked at high temperatures. I don't know about smoked meat, it might also contain dangerous substances.
|
|
|
|
|
When its my time to go its my time to go. I do not see a reson to worry about it.
|
you should hang out in the tl health and fitness! go paleo! :D
im actually one of those ppl who dont like bacon that much but i buy it because it is easy to cook.
|
On March 14 2012 03:57 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
Bacon industry needs to do more lobbying. This negativity is unacceptable.
Hahahahahahaha
|
Tom Woods had a discussion about this on the Peter Schiff show. You can download it Here:
Basically, the studies are all garbage and there have been lots of studies before that have done proper science and shown that red meat diets are good for health.
I suggest everyone check out Primal Eating. There's a lot of misinformation out there, not the least of which is that fats make you fat and you should eat a lot of grains.
It's all about insulin.
|
Stop trying to ruin meat's reputation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
