Bacon = Death? per Harvard - Page 8
Forum Index > General Forum |
PHILtheTANK
United States1834 Posts
| ||
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
On March 14 2012 06:07 Mawi wrote: I have never in my life tasted bacon due to my nationality and ive allways wondered how they tasted but they just look like nothing to me it doesnt even seem like they got "meat" on them i see more meat in a chicken but this thing will never bother me someday i will try it and that day will prob be in the future i hate these studies :3 trying to scare everyone You're making it sound like there is no bacon in sweden lol | ||
BoX
United States214 Posts
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. | ||
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + OHHHHH YEAHHHH.... | ||
Sc2zero7
United States574 Posts
| ||
ClysmiC
United States2192 Posts
But I eat meat pretty much every day... | ||
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
Unfortunately, in my current living situation there is very little choice in the foods I can eat. I am often forced into eating loads of incredibly unhealthy processed garbage. | ||
Boblhead
United States2577 Posts
| ||
a176
Canada6688 Posts
| ||
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
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. Nah bacon isn't ever healthy for ye. You can't really argue that sorry. | ||
Bub
United States3518 Posts
| ||
DW-Unrec
492 Posts
10 pieces of bacon = death | ||
Emnjay808
United States10638 Posts
Ofc its gonna be unhealthy. But is it delicious? Youre damn motherfcking right it is. Is it worth it? Maybe in small portions, youre damn motherfcking right it is. Do I eat it on a regular basis? No, only once in a blue moon. And I treasure it when I do. | ||
MannerMan
371 Posts
| ||
Kuja
United States1759 Posts
| ||
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
| ||
Fealthas
607 Posts
Bacon. I love how everything from water to bacon to soda is deadly now. | ||
Emnjay808
United States10638 Posts
On March 14 2012 07:12 Fealthas wrote: 20% more life or bacon. Bacon. I love how everything from water to bacon to soda is deadly now. Dont forget the "sitting down inceases your chance of death" thread. Im hoping that these sensationalist threads is just a phase. Cause it was funny at first, now its just annoying and littering the general forums. | ||
Tektos
Australia1321 Posts
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. | ||
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
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. | ||
| ||