EPTBacon = Death? per Harvard - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
DeathCompany
United States53 Posts
| ||
|
dibban
Sweden1279 Posts
 On March 14 2012 04:35 DeathCompany wrote: Lol with all these percentages being thrown around, I feel like life has turned into a giant MMO. Bacon = 19% Higher mortality rate... Water = 100% mortality rate. I think you are on to something. "There is no natural death, only death from prolonged water drinking"? You Sir, are a genius! | ||
|
Aterons_toss
Romania1275 Posts
On March 14 2012 03:56 Son of Gnome wrote: It is worth the risk... Last time i checked we were omnivores not herbivores, if someone wants to tell me that 99% of meat is bad for me fine. That study is purely bs, yes people that eat a lot of bacon might have a higher mortality rate due to eating other kind of unhealthy food... etc And just a fun fact for the people that consider the fact that "Harvard" is attached to the research as a proof of it not being bs... Bush junior graduated there, just saying. | ||
micronesia
United States24569 Posts
| ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
“When we looked at average nutrients in unprocessed red and processed meats eaten in the United States, we found that they contained similar average amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol. In contrast, processed meats contained, on average, 4 times more sodium and 50% more nitrate preservatives,” said Micha. “This suggests that differences in salt and preservatives, rather than fats, might explain the higher risk of heart disease and diabetes seen with processed meats, but not with unprocessed red meats.” Dietary sodium (salt) is known to increase blood pressure, a strong risk factor for heart disease. In animal experiments, nitrate preservatives can promote atherosclerosis and reduce glucose tolerance, effects which could increase risk of heart disease and diabetes. IE buy raw meat and cooking it yourself is better than buying industrially processed meatstuffs that require preservatives for shipping etc. Also high sodium intake might be bad too but people already knew these things but now you can cite a study instead of the nebulous body of common knowledge. | ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
On March 14 2012 04:37 Aterons_toss wrote: Last time i checked we were omnivores not herbivores, if someone wants to tell me that 99% of meat is bad for me fine. That study is purely bs, yes people that eat a lot of bacon might have a higher mortality rate due to eating other kind of unhealthy food... etc And just a fun fact for the people that consider the fact that "Harvard" is attached to the research as a proof of it not being bs... Bush junior graduated there, just saying. honestly if the choice is between starvation and "increased mortality rate" then darwinism will choose the latter. Just because we can eat meat to survive doesn't mean that it's good for us in any way. It's so sad though because pork is by far my favorite meat... it's so good! | ||
|
IrOnKaL
United States340 Posts
| ||
|
DuckS
United States845 Posts
You drink everyday, you're going to turn into an alcoholic. Why surprised about eating something as bad for you as bacon? | ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
I eat red meat twice every single day for bulking. I'm gonna go ahead and look the other way :p | ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
this article really doesn't say anything.. 'eat unhealthy things more than 3x a week and you'll probably be unhealthy'. I can't wait for the next major study... | ||
|
Appendix
Sweden979 Posts
On March 14 2012 04:27 TheFrankOne wrote: This is not a news article, it is a press release about a meta-analysis done by the Harvard medical school, people who are brushing it off should read the actual link, this is not Fox News or some tabloid, its a press release from Harvard Where do you read it is a meta-analysis? And it doesn´t matter who has made the study, it isn´t final in any way and there are many things to question. The statistical data is from the participants own estimations every 2 years. How accurate and trueful would your own estimates be for your last 2 years of consumption? Also the study merely shows correlation, nothing else. I´m not saying it's not a valid study, but the results are not the be all end all which the report states. You should try to understand what the people you are criticizing are saying before you blindly assume "it says Harvard, therefore we must not criticize it". | ||
|
Rob28
Canada705 Posts
| ||
|
D4V3Z02
Germany693 Posts
| ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
| ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On March 14 2012 04:46 crms wrote: don't exceed 2-3 servings of red meat a week.. who does this? this article really doesn't say anything.. 'eat unhealthy things more than 3x a week and you'll probably be unhealthy'. I can't wait for the next major study... If you'd know the result of a study before it's been done there wouldn't be any need to do any studies. Unfortunatelly that's usually not the case. Just don't pay attention to the ones that don't produce significant results, it's not hard (even though the media does a good job at trying to refute that point). | ||
|
Focuspants
Canada780 Posts
| ||
|
KimJongChill
United States6429 Posts
| ||
|
Utinni
Canada1196 Posts
By eating pig To die like pig... Gotcha | ||
|
ELA
Denmark4608 Posts
On March 14 2012 04:39 micronesia wrote: The obvious answer is to treat bacon (and red meat) like a bit more of a delicacy than a staple but many people will refuse to accept that. Of course, if you want to eat irresponsibly that is your choice and you shouldn't be judged for it so long as you don't preach it. I find that offensive! Eat bacon, damn you - Otherwise my country is in the shit | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
| ||
| ||
