|
So, there are a number of threads going around about recent studies scaring people into changing their health habits, including soda causing cancer. i came across this recent Harvard study saying bacon / red meat can increase your mortality rate. wanted to know the community's reaction to it. doesn't seem terribly surprising to me that red meat is bad for you, but the high percentage was rather interesting (two pieces of bacon increases mortality rate by 20%).
Here is the actual study:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/archinternmed.2011.2287
Background Red meat consumption has been associated with an increased risk of chronic diseases. However, its relationship with mortality remains uncertain.
Methods We prospectively observed 37 698 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2008) and 83 644 women from the Nurses' Health Study (1980-2008) who were free of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer at baseline. Diet was assessed by validated food frequency questionnaires and updated every 4 years.
Results We documented 23 926 deaths (including 5910 CVD and 9464 cancer deaths) during 2.96 million person-years of follow-up. After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. The corresponding HRs (95% CIs) were 1.18 (1.13-1.23) and 1.21 (1.13-1.31) for CVD mortality and 1.10 (1.06-1.14) and 1.16 (1.09-1.23) for cancer mortality. We estimated that substitutions of 1 serving per day of other foods (including fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy, and whole grains) for 1 serving per day of red meat were associated with a 7% to 19% lower mortality risk. We also estimated that 9.3% of deaths in men and 7.6% in women in these cohorts could be prevented at the end of follow-up if all the individuals consumed fewer than 0.5 servings per day (approximately 42 g/d) of red meat.
Conclusions Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality. Substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk.
Here is a recent article discussing the study:
A major new study may put the final nail in the coffin, so to speak, of the "bacon with everything" food craze. Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health examined data from more than 110,000 people and found that eating as little as two pieces of bacon or one hot dog a day upped their mortality rate by 20% over a 20-year period. A small, three-ounce serving of red meat a day (about the size of a deck of cards) increased mortality by 13%.
Consuming processed meat has long been linked to higher rates of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. Dr. An Pan, lead author of the study, told the LA Times that before they crunched the numbers, his team of researchers assumed that only processed meat posed significant health risks. They were surprised by the final results: "Any red meat you eat contributes to the risk," said Pan.
The good news? The team found that swapping poultry or vegetarian protein options for processed or red meat made a big difference in outcomes. Eating a serving of nuts instead of red meat was associated with a 19% lower risk of mortality. Choosing poultry over red meat was linked with a 14% lower risk of dying.
"This study provides clear evidence that regular consumption of red meat, especially processed meat, contributes substantially to premature death," said senior researcher Frank Hu, PhD, in a statement. "On the other hand, choosing more healthful sources of protein in place of red meat can confer significant health benefits by reducing chronic disease morbidity and mortality."
Although Pan says that no amount of processed meat or red meat is good for you, he suggests that, "If you want to eat red meat, eat the unprocessed products, and reduce it to two or three servings a week." He told the Times he eats two to three servings of red meat a week and avoids all processed meat.
http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/eating-processed-meat-red-meat-significantly-raises-risk-162800549.html
from another study from two years ago:
In a new study, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have found that eating processed meat, such as bacon, sausage or processed deli meats, was associated with a 42% higher risk of heart disease and a 19% higher risk of type 2 diabetes. In contrast, the researchers did not find any higher risk of heart disease or diabetes among individuals eating unprocessed red meat, such as from beef, pork, or lamb. This work is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the worldwide evidence for how eating unprocessed red meat and processed meat relates to risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2010-releases/processed-meats-unprocessed-heart-disease-diabetes.html
here is a criticism of the study:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/will-eating-red-meat-kill-you/
untested, but suggested by forum-user:
On March 14 2012 04:16 Poffel wrote:Luckily, you can counter the sideeffects of bacon with chocolate. 
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
Well really...should we be surprised?
|
Bacon industry needs to do more lobbying. This negativity is unacceptable.
|
On March 14 2012 03:56 Son of Gnome wrote:
It is worth the risk...
Yeh, it is. I love bacon!
|
alla them fancy Harvard "scienteests" can go shuv it. i aint givin up my triple bacon baconator with bacon just cuzza some fancy words on a page.
|
I tried very hard to come up with a corny joke about bacon causing death. Maybe someone else will carry on my quest?
|
I heard mad cow disease was related to cows being forced to eat meat. So maybe our society's love of meat has issues beyond simply human consumption?
|
Of all the things to study, the negative effects of bacon would be bottom of my list!
|
"Choosing poultry over red meat was linked with a 14% lower risk of dying."
I think you may want to check your numbers there
|
On March 14 2012 03:55 dAPhREAk wrote:
A small, three-ounce serving of red meat a day (about the size of a deck of cards) increased mortality by 13%.
On March 14 2012 03:55 dAPhREAk wrote:
The good news? The team found that swapping poultry or vegetarian protein options for processed or red meat made a big difference in outcomes. Eating a serving of nuts instead of red meat was associated with a 19% lower risk of mortality.
So as I understand it, eating nuts provides you with a -6% chance of mortality, ergo, immortality? (with increasing life mind you)
Better start eating more nuts.
|
Are you kidding me? How dare you challenge my freedom to get fat and die of heart disease?
I'm voting republican, you snob.
|
On March 14 2012 03:59 OPL3SA2 wrote:
"Choosing poultry over red meat was linked with a 14% lower risk of dying."
I think you may want to check your numbers there
"eating as little as two pieces of bacon or one hot dog a day upped their mortality rate by 20% over a 20-year period."
|
On March 14 2012 03:58 Maxd11 wrote:
I tried very hard to come up with a corny joke about bacon causing death. Maybe someone else will carry on my quest?
Stop trying to derail this thread. It must be brought bacon track.
|
I eat Canadian bacon with breakfast 3-4 times a week. I cook it well and don't eat a whole lot. I think I'm fine.
|
I can't be the only one who is seeing some serious bullshit here. The second half of this post is complete nonsense and the first half is just shaky.
|
United States2233 Posts
On March 14 2012 04:01 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:59 OPL3SA2 wrote:
"Choosing poultry over red meat was linked with a 14% lower risk of dying."
I think you may want to check your numbers there "eating as little as two pieces of bacon or one hot dog a day upped their mortality rate by 20% over a 20-year period."
Glad I only that once a week tops. So I guess I am good then?
|
On March 14 2012 04:00 Denis Lachance wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:55 dAPhREAk wrote:
A small, three-ounce serving of red meat a day (about the size of a deck of cards) increased mortality by 13%.
Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:55 dAPhREAk wrote:
The good news? The team found that swapping poultry or vegetarian protein options for processed or red meat made a big difference in outcomes. Eating a serving of nuts instead of red meat was associated with a 19% lower risk of mortality.
So as I understand it, eating nuts provides you with a -6% chance of mortality, ergo, immortality? (with increasing life mind you) Better start eating more nuts.
Likely it's 19% of that 13%.
|
It's 13 - 19 where i'm comparing a small serving of red meat vs nuts.
Edit:
On March 14 2012 04:02 ABagOfFritos wrote:
Likely it's 19% of that 13%.
You're most likely right about that. I'm just pointing out the importances of clarifying the difference in between percentage points and percentage of actual value.
|
On March 14 2012 04:01 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:59 OPL3SA2 wrote:
"Choosing poultry over red meat was linked with a 14% lower risk of dying."
I think you may want to check your numbers there "eating as little as two pieces of bacon or one hot dog a day upped their mortality rate by 20% over a 20-year period."
I was referring to the fact that everyone dies. Also, I don't know anyone who eats meat every single day of their lives. I'm not even sure if it's possible to eat a hot dog every day for 20 years, because you'd be dead in about 4 years from a bowel infarction or something
|
The last 5-10 years of my life where I may very well be too old and brittle to do any of the things I love anymore, see the people I love get sick and possibly die, live a life of sedentary reminiscing.. Or bacon.
..
Bacon it is.
|
I find the conclusions of the study to far overshoot the possible scope of the findings, and I think this is a perfect example of how a lot of public health experts are pretty much full of shit. More so than anything else, this study shows that eating red meat and living unhealthy lives happen together quite frequently, hence the higher mortality rate. So, given a proficient sense of self control and an understanding of basic nutrition, consuming red meat is absolutely fine.
|
On March 14 2012 04:05 SwizzY wrote:
The last 5-10 years of my life where I may very well be too old and brittle to do any of the things I love anymore, see the people I love get sick and possibly die, live a life of sedentary reminiscing.. Or bacon.
..
Bacon it is.
my brother said he would rather die a decade earlier than ever eat vegetables.
|
Death it is then.
Also what is the mortality rate without the increase from eating bacon? Because if it doesn't say that then this is effectively useless. 20% of 1 is .2, 20% of 100 is 20, it helps to know which one we're dealing with.
|
On March 14 2012 04:00 Denis Lachance wrote:
So as I understand it, eating nuts provides you with a -6% chance of mortality, ergo, immortality? (with increasing life mind you)
Better start eating more nuts.
Understanding logistic regression and Quantitative analysis will get you further 
|
They had to do a study to realize that eating greasy, fat-laden, food increases mortality. What a waste of time. As if anyone though that eating bacon increased life-expectancy. What buffoonery. Maybe they need to do a study to see if eating two servings of cheesecake a day increases mortality rates.
|
On March 14 2012 04:06 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 04:05 SwizzY wrote:
The last 5-10 years of my life where I may very well be too old and brittle to do any of the things I love anymore, see the people I love get sick and possibly die, live a life of sedentary reminiscing.. Or bacon.
..
Bacon it is. my brother said he would rather die a decade earlier than ever eat vegetables.
Wow, what a cool guy!
|
On March 14 2012 03:59 OPL3SA2 wrote:
"Choosing poultry over red meat was linked with a 14% lower risk of dying."
I think you may want to check your numbers there
My own personal studies show that 100% of people who eats poultry die.
But really, now I haven´t made the effort to find the study and read it, but it sounds like an epidemiological study. And saying that such a study is the nail in the coffin is a bit of a stretch. So people who eat hot dogs and bacon more often live more unhealthily, I'm not surprised.
|
|
|
Hmmmmm, baaaaaacon.
Also, this:
On March 14 2012 03:57 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
Bacon industry needs to do more lobbying. This negativity is unacceptable.
|
I wonder how this is looked upon by the Epic Meal Time people...
and it just seems like life in general gives you cancer...or just kills you in the end anyway
|
Im surprised there has been no mention of epic meal time.
Anyway, that won't change my habits of bacon strips and bacon strips and bacon strips and bacon strips...
|
On March 14 2012 03:56 Son of Gnome wrote:
It is worth the risk...
Totally worth it. I would inject liquified bacon into my bloodstream if in any way possible
|
So If i just eat nuts with me bacon then i'll be fine?
|
In another study I read they found out that most vegetables are detrimental to human health because some of the fibers can not be processed and get stuck in the intestines, leading to intestinal cancer and such.
And chickens full of deadly bacteria ofcourse.
All food is dangerous if you exclusively eat that, just make sure you don't only eat red meat and you should be fine.
And removing toxins from your system is mainly a case of exersize, we have our livers for a reason, as long we don't drown them in alcohol or such they should keep our bodies clean from whatever bullshit they found in red meat this time, as the article never made a mention of what process this is all going by.
|
contributes substantially to premature death
It's a little off topic, but whenever I've heard something like this I wonder when a 'mature' death is supposed to be? What does it mean to die specifically of 'natural causes'?
Also, bacon > life
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 14 2012 03:57 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
Bacon industry needs to do more lobbying. This negativity is unacceptable. Bacon as a veggie? 
Better switch to chicken, so I'm less likely to die!
|
On March 14 2012 03:58 Maxd11 wrote:
I tried very hard to come up with a corny joke about bacon causing death. Maybe someone else will carry on my quest?
On March 14 2012 04:01 Apom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:58 Maxd11 wrote:
I tried very hard to come up with a corny joke about bacon causing death. Maybe someone else will carry on my quest? Stop trying to derail this thread. It must be brought bacon track.
... Success.
|
you live by the bacon, you die by the bacon.
|
i guess epic meal time guys are walking corpses by now :/
|
Epic Meal Time gives the finger to this study......
|
Luckily, you can counter the sideeffects of bacon with chocolate.
|
If I can't eat bacon or red meat, I might as kill myself now because there is no point living.
|
Essentially a repeat of what the guy above me said ^^
|
On March 14 2012 04:16 Poffel wrote:Luckily, you can counter the sideeffects of bacon with chocolate.
updated. =D
|
On March 14 2012 04:17 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:
If I can't eat bacon or red meat, I might as kill myself now because there is no point living.
This. I all I eat is bacon and red meat.
|
I like bacon to much to care about the side effects 
|
Red meat isn't unhealthy. It's rich in iron. As long as you cut off the fat it's fine. Like anything else eating it in excess is bad for you. The people who die over indulge in unhealthy food which you can do being vegetarian.
Humans are omnivores which means we can eat both meat and vegetables. Neither is harmful to us till we just go over board.
This news article kinda reminds me of any "X causes cancer" articles. It's also a common known fact anyway that vegetarians do live longer, because they eat healthier, not because they don't eat meat.
tl;dr sensationalist article, if you eat meat but you eat healthy, this isnt a problem
|
I'll take my chances, at least I'd die happy
|
if I cant eat bacon then I dont want to be in this world.
|
Good to know that top universities can be counted on to publish sensationalist bullshit articles that offer minimal facts with maximum warnings.
Is anybody shocked to learn that eating strips of fat, fried in their own grease is unhealthy?
This just screams American to me. Having a balanced, healthy diet and lifestyle seems to be a monumental task in that country; so much so that they have to employ scare tactics to keep people away from food.
Then again I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It is, after all, the almighty United States of America!
Heil!
User was warned for this post
|
I'd rather die a happy, bacon-full man than a person who's never tasted said meat.
Hmph.
|
You can take our lives
But you'll never take
OUR BACOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!!!!!
|
On March 14 2012 04:21 HoMM wrote:
Red meat isn't unhealthy. It's rich in iron. As long as you cut off the fat it's fine. Like anything else eating it in excess is bad for you. The people who die over indulge in unhealthy food which you can do being vegetarian.
Humans are omnivores which means we can eat both meat and vegetables. Neither is harmful to us till we just go over board.
This news article kinda reminds me of any "X causes cancer" articles. It's also a common known fact anyway that vegetarians do live longer, because they eat healthier, not because they don't eat meat.
tl;dr sensationalist article, if you eat meat but you eat healthy, this isnt a problem
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
|
Is this how it feels to be a smoker?
|
Life is not worth living if you can't eat good food. And what if you already have cancer? More red meat and bacon for me I guess. :D
|
Alas! There is no perfect food 
|
On March 14 2012 03:58 Maxd11 wrote:
I tried very hard to come up with a corny joke about bacon causing death. Maybe someone else will carry on my quest?
Eat bacon, your bacon is cooked.
|
On March 14 2012 04:26 yarkO wrote:
Good to know that top universities can be counted on to publish sensationalist bullshit articles that offer minimal facts with maximum warnings.
Is anybody shocked to learn that eating strips of fat, fried in their own grease is unhealthy?
This just screams American to me. Having a balanced, healthy diet and lifestyle seems to be a monumental task in that country; so much so that they have to employ scare tactics to keep people away from food.
Then again I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It is, after all, the almighty United States of America!
Heil!
Whoa whoa whoa.. no need to be so critical. Us Canadian's aren't so different than Americans. There are plenty of Canadian universities that do ridiculous studies to go along with nonsense like this coming from an American one. No need to bash our neighbours to the south, we're just as bad.. I do agree with your point however, a little common sense goes a long way. Nobody should be surprised by this.
|
I'm still going to keep eating bacon, so good.
|
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.
|
Expecting "We're also sad to announce that several members of the EpicMealTime-squad has recently passed away." anytime now 
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!
|
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.
|
United States24676 Posts
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.
|
The most important bit that you should addd to the top of the OP is this:
“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.
|
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!
|
Red meat, always and forever.
|
Well, the age-old saying saying is coming back into effect: everything in moderation.
You drink everyday, you're going to turn into an alcoholic. Why surprised about eating something as bad for you as bacon?
|
I laughed when I saw this. 20% less chance of death. Jesus christ.
I eat red meat twice every single day for bulking. I'm gonna go ahead and look the other way :p
|
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...
|
On March 14 2012 04:27 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 04:21 HoMM wrote:
Red meat isn't unhealthy. It's rich in iron. As long as you cut off the fat it's fine. Like anything else eating it in excess is bad for you. The people who die over indulge in unhealthy food which you can do being vegetarian.
Humans are omnivores which means we can eat both meat and vegetables. Neither is harmful to us till we just go over board.
This news article kinda reminds me of any "X causes cancer" articles. It's also a common known fact anyway that vegetarians do live longer, because they eat healthier, not because they don't eat meat.
tl;dr sensationalist article, if you eat meat but you eat healthy, this isnt a problem 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".
|
"Living without bacon is not truly living." - Plato (probably)
|
I think EMT has to use gay bacon strips more often now.
|
I hear breathing significantly contributes to your chances of eventual death.
|
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).
|
GIVE ME BACON OR GIVE ME DEATH!
|
A serving of nuts instead of red meat...yeah I think I'll take my chances. Just ate 12 slice of bacon.
|
Eat like pig
By eating pig
To die like pig...
Gotcha
|
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
|
wow, people here are in serious denial - food can actually be unhealthy by itself, it's not always just because people eat too much of it
|
So eating something unhealthy every single day is bad for you?
I AM SO SHOCKED!!!
Studies in the obvious make me sad. Well no kidding eating bacon every day for 20 years is bad for you. This is why I eat bacon only every once in a while. Things like bacon and red meat are great in moderation. That being the key word and a word that so few people seem to understand. Everything in excess will kill you, including water. Different foods just have different amounts on what is ok and what is excessive. The sooner people learn to pay attention to what they eat instead of just shoving mass quantities of the crap that tastes good into their mouths, the better.
|
On March 14 2012 03:56 Shiragaku wrote:
Well really...should we be surprised?
Seriously, I'm already well aware of the risk involved with consuming large amounts of heaven bacon. I actually don't eat it that often (more due to being expensive than health reasons) but whenever I add bacon to my meals, I joke about eating death because it sort of is.
|
|
|
On March 14 2012 04:57 Utinni wrote:
Eat like pig
By eating pig
To die like pig...
Gotcha
you must be nuts 
|
On March 14 2012 04:01 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:59 OPL3SA2 wrote:
"Choosing poultry over red meat was linked with a 14% lower risk of dying."
I think you may want to check your numbers there "eating as little as two pieces of bacon or one hot dog a day upped their mortality rate by 20% over a 20-year period."
Who eats bacon or a hot dog every day for 20 years. That sounds a bit off the charts or am I missing something? Seems like the normal "Anything in excess is bad for you". Common sense type stuff.
|
Netherlands13554 Posts
'Red meat is bad'-ideas are based on complete and utter bullshit studies.
Most of these studies don't take into account the factor of health consciousness of people. Red meat is viewed as an unhealthy type of food so people that are health conscious eat less of it. However, they also smoke less, drink less, eat less sugar etc. But hey, red meat must be the evil-doer.
Red meat if from any natural source (grass-fed cows or wild game) is superhealthy and full of good saturated fatty acids. Processed meat is obviously bad, doesn't matter if it comes from a cow, pig or a chicken. And most of the bacon that you find in the supermarket is very processed but if you were to eat unprocessed healthy bacon from healthy pigs, you'd be eating a very healthy type of meat. Hard to find though. For some reason they always add sugar to bacon and other gross stuff.
Media loves these kind of studies though so as long as they scream it into society with big headlines, it must be true.
|
I eat hotdogs and bacon on a regular basis... daaaaaaaaamn
|
The study is garbage because they count things like spaghetti with meatballs, pepperoni pizza, burgers with buns, hotdogs with buns as red meat meals.
Secondly, there was no experiment conducted in this study. They just asked a bunch of people survey questions (what did you eat yesterday, etc etc) and followed them for a bunch of years to see outcomes.
|
Western Bacon Cheeseburger, fries, and a Coke.
Don't bother me, I'm eating.
No seriously, I'm gonna remain in that 80th percentile that doesn't die until ... well I'm old and gray. It's like a cycle ... coffee gonna kill you, red meat gonna kill you, sushi gonna kill you, back to another study on coffee--but now its gonna reduce your risk for X disease, ditto on the red meat, etc etc.
|
lol people still care about this kind of studies...
|
On March 14 2012 05:04 Twisted wrote:
'Red meat is bad'-ideas are based on complete and utter bullshit studies.
Most of these studies don't take into account the factor of health consciousness of people. Red meat is viewed as an unhealthy type of food so people that are health conscious eat less of it. However, they also smoke less, drink less, eat less sugar etc. But hey, red meat must be the evil-doer.
Red meat if from any natural source (grass-fed cows or wild game) is superhealthy and full of good saturated fatty acids. Processed meat is obviously bad, doesn't matter if it comes from a cow, pig or a chicken. And most of the bacon that you find in the supermarket is very processed but if you were to eat unprocessed healthy bacon from healthy pigs, you'd be eating a very healthy type of meat. Hard to find though. For some reason they always add sugar to bacon and other gross stuff.
Media loves these kind of studies though so as long as they scream it into society with big headlines, it must be true.
Everyone here needs to understand that in order to get your PhD or whatever, to pass from uindergraduate status, you need to get published. In order to get published, you have to find something you can bite at, even if its wrong. If it attempts to refute past knowledge, so much the better. Why else would eggs be good, then bad, then good again?
The more you cook something, the more the vitamins and other nutrients break down, too. Cooked vegetables, legumes, nuts, etc. All of it is less healthy when its cooked than raw. But noone is going to do a study saying that people are croaking 19% sooner due to not eating a zero burn diet.
And if one considers these points, and the fact that cancer came into the lime light after AIDs, its quite easy to see that everyone is just jumpnig on the "link this to cancer/death" bandwagon lately.
|
perhaps the people who eat red meat are less health conscious... seems a fair assessment.
|
On March 14 2012 04:57 Utinni wrote:
Eat like pig
By eating pig
To die like pig...
Machine for pigs
|
On March 14 2012 05:17 r_con wrote:
perhaps the people who eat red meat are less health conscious... seems a fair assessment.
Nah, 90% of my diet is fresh vegetables or fruit. I am extremely health conscious and yet I still enjoy red meat and bacon from time to time.
|
Well I certainly feel bad for the guys from EpicMealTime....
|
Dear everyone in the whole wide world,
There is science.
And there is statistics.
Please stop confusing these two things. They are different. That's why you're reading a study, and not a lab report. It doesn't matter if the study came from Fox news or Oxford University, it's still taking two completely independent things and linking them for the sake of selling you their information.
|
On March 14 2012 05:17 r_con wrote:
perhaps the people who eat red meat are less health conscious... seems a fair assessment.
except one of the studies found that its processed red meat that is the issue, not necessarily red meat itself.
"In a new study, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have found that eating processed meat, such as bacon, sausage or processed deli meats, was associated with a 42% higher risk of heart disease and a 19% higher risk of type 2 diabetes. In contrast, the researchers did not find any higher risk of heart disease or diabetes among individuals eating unprocessed red meat, such as from beef, pork, or lamb."
|
I always hated studies like this.
|
Being born has a 100% mortality rate. Best sterilize the population to ensure no one dies in the future.
|
On March 14 2012 05:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 05:17 r_con wrote:
perhaps the people who eat red meat are less health conscious... seems a fair assessment. except one of the studies found that its processed red meat that is the issue, not necessarily red meat itself. "In a new study, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have found that eating processed meat, such as bacon, sausage or processed deli meats, was associated with a 42% higher risk of heart disease and a 19% higher risk of type 2 diabetes. In contrast, the researchers did not find any higher risk of heart disease or diabetes among individuals eating unprocessed red meat, such as from beef, pork, or lamb."
There is no mechanism by which protein/fat can cause Type 2 diabetes because T2 diabetes is characterized by a glucose intolerance. The only way this is possible is when you add in all that extra such as fries, buns, bread, crust, etc etc that goes with the meat meal. Remember, these researchers grouped things like burgers with buns, pepperoni pizza and spaghetti with meatballs as all being "red meat" meals when 50% or more of the calories could be coming from carbohydrates.
That alone makes this study absolute garbage.
|
These kind of selective studies are stupid. Now people will eat other animal products instead of bacon, but really any of them, combined with the high amount of salt found in bacon, are just as bad for you, due to their high amounts of fat and cholesterol, with little other nutrients. They really are the ultimate empty calories when you crunch the numbers on them.
|
Everything good in life is either illegal, immoral, fattening or causes cancer.
If Bacon is Death, I do not wanna live.
|
On March 14 2012 05:14 Spieltor wrote:
The more you cook something, the more the vitamins and other nutrients break down, too. Cooked vegetables, legumes, nuts, etc. All of it is less healthy when its cooked than raw. But noone is going to do a study saying that people are croaking 19% sooner due to not eating a zero burn diet.
Basically true, but many vegetables become healthier if you warm them up then quickly cool them off, with the least amount of water necessary. Not boil or anything, just raise their temperature a bit. It makes many nutrients more accessible to the human body, while still keeping almost all of the volatile ones.
|
On March 14 2012 05:28 Piy wrote:
These kind of selective studies are stupid. Now people will eat other animal products instead of bacon, but really any of them, combined with the high amount of salt found in bacon, are just as bad for you, due to their high amounts of fat and cholesterol, with little other nutrients. They really are the ultimate empty calories when you crunch the numbers on them.
Wrong, wrong wrong. Meat is one of the most nutrient dense foods out there. In fact, there is no nutrient out there you cannot get by eating a meat product. For hundreds of thousands of years, mankind was served nearly fully by eating meat.
Second, before anyone comes in here about life expectancy nonsense. Life expectancy is a measure of population fitness, not an individual's life span. You can have a population where either everyone lives to 70 years or die at birth and the life expectancy of that population would 35.
|
*Sigh*
I would just like to point out that for every study out there, there is another study contradicting it. Just look at:
-The effects of violent video games
-The effects of violent television
-Eggs
-The adverse effects of marijuana
-Global warming
I'm tired as hell right now and can't think of anymore, but you get my point. I stopped buying into these studies when they started to say that video games fried brain cells.
|
Here is the study:
No, "here is the article which talks about the study." The information is believable, but the difference is important. Don't preface any kind of journalism as a presentation of facts, because it will always be an interpretation / uneducated summary, which is often misleading to the general public (especially when the publication uses sensationalism to draw readers).
I think it's pretty weird to have bacon EVERY day tho. I'm a little surprised by the number, but I'd need the actual study to see just where that number comes from.
edit: and cyde above me is basically the perfect example of what I'm talking about. He saw a few sensationalist journalism articles and now doesn't believe anything. He vaguely recalls some connection between video games and violence, and a few contradicting journalism articles, and doesn't realise that the actual studies are much less likely to jump to conclusions. It sells better when you give a direct answer like a journalism article tries to, but much of the time the interesting new studies always suggest self-criticisms and 'more study is needed to reduce unaccounted factors' etc.
Well, what more can be said  Science is skeptical as most people would want it to be, journalism is often spineless. Science is not the same as journalism.
|
We don't eat bacon in Italy.
Everything is bad for you beside vegetables
|
I just glanced at the study and it looks pretty well made. I assumed it was the high-intake risk that was reported or that the amount of people with that low servings of red meat was smaller and that they were all vegan-women or something. Turns out it was a huge sample and that dose-response relationships exist that made it worse for the highest quintiles. And the sample is also over 2 different cohorts. Also they corrected for a lot of possible confounders -.-
But the numbers reported are kind of misleading. "eating as little as two pieces of bacon or one hot dog a day upped their mortality rate by 20% over a 20-year period". I mean the top quintile got 23% more deaths than the lowest quintile for processed meats when looking at the whole sample. Also "all cause mortality" isn't the best measurement and processed meats were the worst. So the risks are lower than they look when described like the quote.
Anyway, despite many factors that could still go into skewing the results I think there is probably a causal relationship. Would be interesting to know what mechanisms could be at play. I like my red meat too much so I will probably just go on eating it. Possibly a bit less.
Edit: I found the study free online
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/archinternmed.2011.2287
|
On March 14 2012 05:39 stichtom wrote:
We don't eat bacon in Italy.
Everything is bad for you beside vegetables
That's cool, cause here in the USA pizza is a vegetable.
... I wonder if that counts for Bacon pizza.
|
On March 14 2012 05:42 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 05:39 stichtom wrote:
We don't eat bacon in Italy.
Everything is bad for you beside vegetables That's cool, cause here in the USA pizza is a vegetable. ... I wonder if that counts for Bacon pizza.
In Denmark, bacon is a mineral, we dig it out of our bacon mines
|
|
|
lol those guys from Epic Meal Time are all fucked rofl.
BTW Bacon is good when you eat just a few, I can't understand why some ppl can eat that every day, it makes you fatttt
|
I never understood peoples love for bacon... I think it's "okay" but I get tired of it so fast lol, what exactly do you bacon-fanatics find so good about it ?
|
On March 14 2012 05:44 ELA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 05:42 Chargelot wrote:On March 14 2012 05:39 stichtom wrote:
We don't eat bacon in Italy.
Everything is bad for you beside vegetables That's cool, cause here in the USA pizza is a vegetable. ... I wonder if that counts for Bacon pizza. In Denmark, bacon is a mineral, we dig it out of our bacon mines
According to this study, a day at the bacon mines must be instant death. I feel sorry for your people.
|
On March 14 2012 05:39 Chef wrote:No, "here is the article which talks about the study." The information is believable, but the difference is important. Don't preface any kind of journalism as a presentation of facts, because it will always be an interpretation / uneducated summary, which is often misleading to the general public (especially when the publication uses sensationalism to draw readers). I think it's pretty weird to have bacon EVERY day tho. I'm a little surprised by the number, but I'd need the actual study to see just where that number comes from. edit: and cyde above me is basically the perfect example of what I'm talking about. He saw a few sensationalist journalism articles and now doesn't believe anything. He vaguely recalls some connection between video games and violence, and a few contradicting journalism articles, and doesn't realise that the actual studies are much less likely to jump to conclusions. It sells better when you give a direct answer like a journalism article tries to, but much of the time the interesting new studies always suggest self-criticisms and 'more study is needed to reduce unaccounted factors' etc. Well, what more can be said Science is skeptical as most people would want it to be, journalism is often spineless. Science is not the same as journalism.
i added in the actual study based on the guy who found a free version. i am not sure why you are so upset about this. it is very clear that the quoted portion comes from an article discussing the study, not the actual study itself. if people cant comprehend that then you should ignore them.
|
Luckily, I am part, or the only one, of the group that don't like bacon. The taste is terrible! But I do enjoy partaking in the consumption of meat
|
On March 14 2012 05:48 PolskaGora wrote:Luckily, I am part, or the only one, of the group that don't like bacon. The taste is terrible! But I do enjoy partaking in the consumption of meat
May god have mercy on your soul
|
On March 14 2012 05:04 Twisted wrote:
'Red meat is bad'-ideas are based on complete and utter bullshit studies.
Most of these studies don't take into account the factor of health consciousness of people. Red meat is viewed as an unhealthy type of food so people that are health conscious eat less of it. However, they also smoke less, drink less, eat less sugar etc. But hey, red meat must be the evil-doer.
Red meat if from any natural source (grass-fed cows or wild game) is superhealthy and full of good saturated fatty acids. Processed meat is obviously bad, doesn't matter if it comes from a cow, pig or a chicken. And most of the bacon that you find in the supermarket is very processed but if you were to eat unprocessed healthy bacon from healthy pigs, you'd be eating a very healthy type of meat. Hard to find though. For some reason they always add sugar to bacon and other gross stuff.
Media loves these kind of studies though so as long as they scream it into society with big headlines, it must be true.
Agreed. I talked to a researcher the other day who had recently done a similar study on the effects of various forms of pork on blood chemistry. Her sample size? 3. 3 people, in a series of diet-controlled visits. Drawing conclusions for the population at large based on that is ridiculous, but what are you going to do? Studies are expensive. If they go for a broader sample size, it is highly likely that they're not controlling many variables, just asking people what they ate. Identifying and correcting for bias in a statistical manner might be possible, but it sounds like a nightmare to me.
I also agree that there's a difference between conventionally farmed in concentrated animal feeding operations and more naturally farmed (grassfed/finished, pasture raised) meats. Hormone levels, both natural (stress) and supplemented (growth hormone, for example) are different, as is the fatty acid balance.
When making decisions about such a complicated subject, I think it is best to find out exactly what you're eating before you do so. Organic apple, not too many questions there. Processed chicken "nuggets"... Not so sure. Personally, given the following 3 choices: vegetarian, conventional omnivore, selective (with respect to meat) omnivore, I've opted for #3. If naturally raised meat weren't available, I'd consider a mainly vegetarian diet, though I doubt I could cut meat out entirely.
disclosure: I actually work with a farmer who raises his animals on grass, so I have easier access to the stuff and a bit of bias in that direction.
|
On March 14 2012 05:46 tuho12345 wrote:
lol those guys from Epic Meal Time are all fucked rofl.
BTW Bacon is good when you eat just a few, I can't understand why some ppl can eat that every day, it makes you fatttt
No it doesn't. Eating too much makes you fat. What you eat has very little to do with it.
|
On March 14 2012 05:33 0mar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 05:28 Piy wrote:
These kind of selective studies are stupid. Now people will eat other animal products instead of bacon, but really any of them, combined with the high amount of salt found in bacon, are just as bad for you, due to their high amounts of fat and cholesterol, with little other nutrients. They really are the ultimate empty calories when you crunch the numbers on them. Wrong, wrong wrong. Meat is one of the most nutrient dense foods out there. In fact, there is no nutrient out there you cannot get by eating a meat product. For hundreds of thousands of years, mankind was served nearly fully by eating meat. Second, before anyone comes in here about life expectancy nonsense. Life expectancy is a measure of population fitness, not an individual's life span. You can have a population where either everyone lives to 70 years or die at birth and the life expectancy of that population would 35.
Only in rare instances like in the far north where vegetables/fruits/nuts/seeds etc were extremely rare and all you had was seals, etc.
Most places people ate a variety of fruits/vegetables/berries/nuts and little meat, except for celebrations/rituals. There are exceptions, some ancient peoples ate lots of meat, but they were only exceptions, but according to the stomachs, teeth, etc that we have found of most ancient peoples, the "Meat" diet your describing is pretty bogus.
Also our teeth and intestines are more similar to that of a herbivore than that of an omnivore.
|
On March 14 2012 05:57 Slithe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 05:46 tuho12345 wrote:
lol those guys from Epic Meal Time are all fucked rofl.
BTW Bacon is good when you eat just a few, I can't understand why some ppl can eat that every day, it makes you fatttt No it doesn't. Eating too much makes you fat. What you eat has very little to do with it.
not according to Harvard. eating processed meats is more likely to kill you than unprocessed meats. obesity will kill you as well, but eating certain foods will kill you faster apparently.
|
glad to see Havard is putting all that brain power to good use, who would ahve thought that bacon was bad for you?
i suppose next there gonna prove that the sky is blue and that grass is green
|
On March 14 2012 05:55 nanoscorp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 05:04 Twisted wrote:
'Red meat is bad'-ideas are based on complete and utter bullshit studies.
Most of these studies don't take into account the factor of health consciousness of people. Red meat is viewed as an unhealthy type of food so people that are health conscious eat less of it. However, they also smoke less, drink less, eat less sugar etc. But hey, red meat must be the evil-doer.
Red meat if from any natural source (grass-fed cows or wild game) is superhealthy and full of good saturated fatty acids. Processed meat is obviously bad, doesn't matter if it comes from a cow, pig or a chicken. And most of the bacon that you find in the supermarket is very processed but if you were to eat unprocessed healthy bacon from healthy pigs, you'd be eating a very healthy type of meat. Hard to find though. For some reason they always add sugar to bacon and other gross stuff.
Media loves these kind of studies though so as long as they scream it into society with big headlines, it must be true. Agreed. I talked to a researcher the other day who had recently done a similar study on the effects of various forms of pork on blood chemistry. Her sample size? 3. 3 people, in a series of diet-controlled visits. Drawing conclusions for the population at large based on that is ridiculous, but what are you going to do? Studies are expensive. If they go for a broader sample size, it is highly likely that they're not controlling many variables, just asking people what they ate. Identifying and correcting for bias in a statistical manner might be possible, but it sounds like a nightmare to me. I also agree that there's a difference between conventionally farmed in concentrated animal feeding operations and more naturally farmed (grassfed/finished, pasture raised) meats. Hormone levels, both natural (stress) and supplemented (growth hormone, for example) are different, as is the fatty acid balance. When making decisions about such a complicated subject, I think it is best to find out exactly what you're eating before you do so. Organic apple, not too many questions there. Processed chicken "nuggets"... Not so sure. Personally, given the following 3 choices: vegetarian, conventional omnivore, selective (with respect to meat) omnivore, I've opted for #3. If naturally raised meat weren't available, I'd consider a mainly vegetarian diet, though I doubt I could cut meat out entirely. disclosure: I actually work with a farmer who raises his animals on grass, so I have easier access to the stuff and a bit of bias in that direction.
They corrected for tobacco, alcohol, diabetes and weight among other things. Also the sample is more than 100 000.
|
United States5162 Posts
I don't know if 6-8 pieces of bacon once every week or so is as bad as 2 pieces a day, but I don't care because I'm going to keep eating it.
|
On March 14 2012 04:05 OPL3SA2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 04:01 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 03:59 OPL3SA2 wrote:
"Choosing poultry over red meat was linked with a 14% lower risk of dying."
I think you may want to check your numbers there "eating as little as two pieces of bacon or one hot dog a day upped their mortality rate by 20% over a 20-year period." I was referring to the fact that everyone dies. Also, I don't know anyone who eats meat every single day of their lives. I'm not even sure if it's possible to eat a hot dog every day for 20 years, because you'd be dead in about 4 years from a bowel infarction or something
Really? i eat meat every single day without question lol. Gotta get swole bra!
And give me bacon, or give me death... which is is guess whats gonna happen
Edit: Lol almost forgot its talking about red meat not poultry. i maybe every other day then
|
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
|
I didn't really need a reason to not eat bacon,steak or these things. My body just rejects them literally.
|
Someone better tell the guys at Epic Meal Time...
|
Meh, I don't wanna live to be 100 anyway. Living to 80 and enjoying delicious meat every day is well worth it.
|
I'm eating 4-6 hotdogs a day because they're cheap as shit here. I guess I'll be saying my goodbyes by next week.
|
On March 14 2012 06:12 Hinanawi wrote:
Meh, I don't wanna live to be 100 anyway. Living to 80 and enjoying delicious meat every day is well worth it.
Best post I have read so far. There is no point living to 100 if you can't enjoy your life. I would much rather live a shorter life enjoying what I love opposed to living to 100 trapped inside a bobble constantly worrying what I put in my body.
|
I would like to see a semi-convincing post attempting to debunk the information in the OP, so that I can jump on it and defend it to the death because it's what I want to hear.
Patiently waiting for it...
|
United States22883 Posts
Of course bacon kills. Just look at the pigs. You don't see pigs running around with strips cut out of their belly. That would be dumb.
|
On March 14 2012 05:57 Slithe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 05:46 tuho12345 wrote:
lol those guys from Epic Meal Time are all fucked rofl.
BTW Bacon is good when you eat just a few, I can't understand why some ppl can eat that every day, it makes you fatttt No it doesn't. Eating too much makes you fat. What you eat has very little to do with it.
I hope you're trolling or you clearly know nothing about nutrition. While it's true that eating too much of anything will increase your weight, what you eat makes a HUGE difference - almost in every part of your being.
Does anyone else think this article/research/study is pointless? It's like NEWSFLASH: unhealthy food is bad for you and healthier foods are better for you!
|
On March 14 2012 06:25 Jibba wrote:
Of course bacon kills. Just look at the pigs. You don't see pigs running around with strips cut out of their belly. That would be dumb.
This is exactly what happens in bacon factories. I implore you to watch Food Inc.
In the documentary it is revealed that they cut off one half of the pig's bacon gland, and then they slice it. The bacon gland then regenerates.
|
I had this funny image in my head of a sentient piece of bacon shouting "I WILL EAT YOUR SOUL".
Anyway, this comes as no surprise to me. In my eyes, bacon is one of the most disgustingly unhealthy substances ever. That's just me, though, and I can see why some like it.
|
Grrrrrrrr... well now i will never eat bacon lol
|
Estimations based upon theories and opinions formed from research done by students on people filling out questionaires over a period of time.
Yep, sounds like fact to me.
Get real.
|
WTF redmeat is bad?? WTF here in aus we get ads to eat MORE redmeat...
|
On March 14 2012 03:57 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
Bacon industry needs to do more lobbying. This negativity is unacceptable.
I don't know why but this mad me laugh so hard.
But bacon is well worth the risk imo.
|
I don't even like bacon, which for a fatass like me is quite strange. When I do eat it the only way ill enjoy it is if its ridiculously undercooked. But on topic this study is retarded. Of course bacon is bad for you. Plus i'm fairly certain that a 3 oz serving of good red meat from a good source really wont impact your health negatively.
|
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
|
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.
|
Good, Bacon isn't even that good. I rather take me some barbecued lamb rib steak, oh yeah!
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qRpKTov_J6g/TTzbx1zatmI/AAAAAAAABeA/OFFkhsY9-Rk/s1600/20110123_24.JPG) OHHHHH YEAHHHH....
|
This is sorta my specialty. I'm not a nutrition major or anything like that but I did major in health administration so I've read a ton of articles on weight related and chronic disease subjects. Basically, if you eat a vegetable heavy diet, you lower your chances of heart disease and obviously foods high in sugar(soda) and salt don't improve nutritional value. The way I see it is, if I have to cut meat to live an extra 5 years, I'd rather just eat meat and forfeit those 5 years since my quality of life won't be that exciting when I'm 78 (I think this is average age of morbidity for males in US).
|
Fortunately, most of the meat that I eat is poultry.
But I eat meat pretty much every day...
|
Bacon is disgusting, in my opinion.
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.
|
I will die for my country and with clogged arteries! It will be a good death. Death by bacon!
|
I wonder if I could get paid to study whether the sky is blue or not.
|
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.
|
But but.. how can you say NO to a big ol bacon wrapped steak smothered with godly gravy!
|
2 pieces of bacon = 20%
10 pieces of bacon = death
|
Its pig fat. Swine belly fat to be more precise.
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.
|
This is correlation not causation.
|
|
|
Not only the fat but also the browning that bacon undergoes (as well as all red meat) contributes to the deterioration of your arteries. Your arteries literally go through the same browning process well-cooked meat does. That's why there are some that advocate removing the caramel-color from Coca-Cola, though soda has that whole salt-sugar thing going on as well.
|
20% more life or bacon.
Bacon.
I love how everything from water to bacon to soda is deadly now.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 14 2012 07:36 PHILtheTANK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On March 14 2012 06:27 kidd wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 05:57 Slithe wrote:On March 14 2012 05:46 tuho12345 wrote:
lol those guys from Epic Meal Time are all fucked rofl.
BTW Bacon is good when you eat just a few, I can't understand why some ppl can eat that every day, it makes you fatttt No it doesn't. Eating too much makes you fat. What you eat has very little to do with it. I hope you're trolling or you clearly know nothing about nutrition. While it's true that eating too much of anything will increase your weight, what you eat makes a HUGE difference - almost in every part of your being. Does anyone else think this article/research/study is pointless? It's like NEWSFLASH: unhealthy food is bad for you and healthier foods are better for you!
I'm curious, what is your level of knowledge on nutrition? Which of the below options describes you best?
1) A nutrionist or some other specialist that gives you deeper insight into this subject.
2) A regular person who's knowledge of nutrition largely stems from their education in K-12.
3) A casual enthusiast of nutrition who has read some studies here and there, and have come to some conclusion about how nutrition works.
Anyway, the only point I'm making is that the primary determining factor of weight gain/loss is calories consumed vs calories burned. Bacon calories are not somehow magically more fat-inducing than other calories. As long as you're maintaining your calories properly, you will not get fat even if you eat bacon. This is why I do not like generic statements like "(X) makes you fat".
You could argue that you're more likely to eat too much bacon, whereas it's very hard to overeat vegetables, but that's a different argument altogether.
|
On March 14 2012 07:38 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
I'm just gonna say whoever says says red meat (or bacon) is bad for you is delusional or has an agenda. I don't feel qualified to explain why this particular study is inacurate, but I'm sure if anyone interested posts on the paleo diet thread he'll get a proper answer.
|
On March 14 2012 07:38 Slithe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 06:27 kidd wrote:On March 14 2012 05:57 Slithe wrote:On March 14 2012 05:46 tuho12345 wrote:
lol those guys from Epic Meal Time are all fucked rofl.
BTW Bacon is good when you eat just a few, I can't understand why some ppl can eat that every day, it makes you fatttt No it doesn't. Eating too much makes you fat. What you eat has very little to do with it. I hope you're trolling or you clearly know nothing about nutrition. While it's true that eating too much of anything will increase your weight, what you eat makes a HUGE difference - almost in every part of your being. Does anyone else think this article/research/study is pointless? It's like NEWSFLASH: unhealthy food is bad for you and healthier foods are better for you! I'm curious, what is your level of knowledge on nutrition? Which of the below options describes you best? 1) A nutrionist or some other specialist that gives you deeper insight into this subject. 2) A regular person who's knowledge of nutrition largely stems from their education in K-12. 3) A casual enthusiast of nutrition who has read some studies here and there, and have come to some conclusion about how nutrition works. Anyway, the only point I'm making is that the primary determining factor of weight gain/loss is calories consumed vs calories burned. Bacon calories are not somehow magically more fat-inducing than other calories. As long as you're maintaining your calories properly, you will not get fat even if you eat bacon. This is why I do not like generic statements like "(X) makes you fat". You could argue that you're more likely to eat too much bacon, whereas it's very hard to overeat vegetables, but that's a different argument altogether.
I don't know, I wonder what 2 people that eat exactly the same amount of calories with no exercise ( or just exactly same amount of calorie burning), but one gets his calories from garbage and the other from healthy foods will look like.
|
Ugh. So sad. I love bacon. And red meat.
However, I typically don't like sausages....and don't even eat bacon that often, so its not too bad. However, not sure if I can or want to cut out red meat completely.
|
On March 14 2012 07:41 GoTuNk! wrote:
I'm just gonna say whoever says says red meat (or bacon) is bad for you is delusional or has an agenda. I don't feel qualified to explain why this particular study is inacurate, but I'm sure if anyone interested posts on the paleo diet thread he'll get a proper answer.
"i think you're wrong, but i have no support for saying you are wrong and no qualifications to say you are wrong."
the paleo diet is not based on processed meat, which is what is the focus of these studies. indeed, processed meat would totally go against the paleo diet, which is supposed to be based on pre-industrialization diet.
edit: well, the main focus is on how bad processed meat is, but it also is negative towards non-processed meat as well.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 14 2012 07:39 PHILtheTANK wrote:Show nested quote +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 business executives for branding purposes?
All the parts came from nature, just like Frankenstein.
|
On March 14 2012 07:42 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 07:38 Slithe wrote:On March 14 2012 06:27 kidd wrote:On March 14 2012 05:57 Slithe wrote:On March 14 2012 05:46 tuho12345 wrote:
lol those guys from Epic Meal Time are all fucked rofl.
BTW Bacon is good when you eat just a few, I can't understand why some ppl can eat that every day, it makes you fatttt No it doesn't. Eating too much makes you fat. What you eat has very little to do with it. I hope you're trolling or you clearly know nothing about nutrition. While it's true that eating too much of anything will increase your weight, what you eat makes a HUGE difference - almost in every part of your being. Does anyone else think this article/research/study is pointless? It's like NEWSFLASH: unhealthy food is bad for you and healthier foods are better for you! I'm curious, what is your level of knowledge on nutrition? Which of the below options describes you best? 1) A nutrionist or some other specialist that gives you deeper insight into this subject. 2) A regular person who's knowledge of nutrition largely stems from their education in K-12. 3) A casual enthusiast of nutrition who has read some studies here and there, and have come to some conclusion about how nutrition works. Anyway, the only point I'm making is that the primary determining factor of weight gain/loss is calories consumed vs calories burned. Bacon calories are not somehow magically more fat-inducing than other calories. As long as you're maintaining your calories properly, you will not get fat even if you eat bacon. This is why I do not like generic statements like "(X) makes you fat". You could argue that you're more likely to eat too much bacon, whereas it's very hard to overeat vegetables, but that's a different argument altogether. I don't know, I wonder what 2 people that eat exactly the same amount of calories with no exercise ( or just exactly same amount of calorie burning), but one gets his calories from garbage and the other from healthy foods will look like.
I'm sure the garbage-eater will have deplorable health, but he still won't be fat.
|
On March 14 2012 07:36 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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.
On March 14 2012 07:50 Slithe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 07:42 solidbebe wrote:On March 14 2012 07:38 Slithe wrote:On March 14 2012 06:27 kidd wrote:On March 14 2012 05:57 Slithe wrote:On March 14 2012 05:46 tuho12345 wrote:
lol those guys from Epic Meal Time are all fucked rofl.
BTW Bacon is good when you eat just a few, I can't understand why some ppl can eat that every day, it makes you fatttt No it doesn't. Eating too much makes you fat. What you eat has very little to do with it. I hope you're trolling or you clearly know nothing about nutrition. While it's true that eating too much of anything will increase your weight, what you eat makes a HUGE difference - almost in every part of your being. Does anyone else think this article/research/study is pointless? It's like NEWSFLASH: unhealthy food is bad for you and healthier foods are better for you! I'm curious, what is your level of knowledge on nutrition? Which of the below options describes you best? 1) A nutrionist or some other specialist that gives you deeper insight into this subject. 2) A regular person who's knowledge of nutrition largely stems from their education in K-12. 3) A casual enthusiast of nutrition who has read some studies here and there, and have come to some conclusion about how nutrition works. Anyway, the only point I'm making is that the primary determining factor of weight gain/loss is calories consumed vs calories burned. Bacon calories are not somehow magically more fat-inducing than other calories. As long as you're maintaining your calories properly, you will not get fat even if you eat bacon. This is why I do not like generic statements like "(X) makes you fat". You could argue that you're more likely to eat too much bacon, whereas it's very hard to overeat vegetables, but that's a different argument altogether. I don't know, I wonder what 2 people that eat exactly the same amount of calories with no exercise ( or just exactly same amount of calorie burning), but one gets his calories from garbage and the other from healthy foods will look like. I'm sure the garbage-eater will have deplorable health, but he still won't be fat.
This all started with the claim that "bacon makes you fat". People feel full based on quantity of food consumed, not calories consumed.
Eating 500g of bacon will make you fatter than if you eat 500g of lettuce.
So the original claim is true, is it not?
|
On March 14 2012 07:38 Slithe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 06:27 kidd wrote:On March 14 2012 05:57 Slithe wrote:On March 14 2012 05:46 tuho12345 wrote:
lol those guys from Epic Meal Time are all fucked rofl.
BTW Bacon is good when you eat just a few, I can't understand why some ppl can eat that every day, it makes you fatttt No it doesn't. Eating too much makes you fat. What you eat has very little to do with it. I hope you're trolling or you clearly know nothing about nutrition. While it's true that eating too much of anything will increase your weight, what you eat makes a HUGE difference - almost in every part of your being. Does anyone else think this article/research/study is pointless? It's like NEWSFLASH: unhealthy food is bad for you and healthier foods are better for you! I'm curious, what is your level of knowledge on nutrition? Which of the below options describes you best? 1) A nutrionist or some other specialist that gives you deeper insight into this subject. 2) A regular person who's knowledge of nutrition largely stems from their education in K-12. 3) A casual enthusiast of nutrition who has read some studies here and there, and have come to some conclusion about how nutrition works. Anyway, the only point I'm making is that the primary determining factor of weight gain/loss is calories consumed vs calories burned. Bacon calories are not somehow magically more fat-inducing than other calories. As long as you're maintaining your calories properly, you will not get fat even if you eat bacon. This is why I do not like generic statements like "(X) makes you fat". You could argue that you're more likely to eat too much bacon, whereas it's very hard to overeat vegetables, but that's a different argument altogether.
foods that are high in glycemic index will cause an insulin spike afterward, triggering your body to store all those calories it consumed as fat. so it totally makes a difference what you eat. If it was just about calories in vs calories out, then assume you are currently staying at the same weight. if what you said were true, that means you are consuming exactly an equal # of calories in as you are expanding. that means something as trivial as eating an additional piece of candy every day would cause you to get morbidly obese in a few years. but that's not really how it works.
can't find the article on it, but read it somewhere on a nutrition thread
|
On March 14 2012 07:49 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On March 14 2012 07:49 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +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.
But bro, if they didn't do this my OJ wouldn have that signature Tropicana taste. I wouldn't want it to taste like that years orange crop.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 14 2012 07:51 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
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.
how do you know it "is completely and utterly false?" have you done your own study, or know of a study that says that? you can critique the Harvard studies all you want (legitimately or not), but saying their study is bad doesn't prove the opposite of the study.
|
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. Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 07:50 Slithe wrote:On March 14 2012 07:42 solidbebe wrote:On March 14 2012 07:38 Slithe wrote:On March 14 2012 06:27 kidd wrote:On March 14 2012 05:57 Slithe wrote:On March 14 2012 05:46 tuho12345 wrote:
lol those guys from Epic Meal Time are all fucked rofl.
BTW Bacon is good when you eat just a few, I can't understand why some ppl can eat that every day, it makes you fatttt No it doesn't. Eating too much makes you fat. What you eat has very little to do with it. I hope you're trolling or you clearly know nothing about nutrition. While it's true that eating too much of anything will increase your weight, what you eat makes a HUGE difference - almost in every part of your being. Does anyone else think this article/research/study is pointless? It's like NEWSFLASH: unhealthy food is bad for you and healthier foods are better for you! I'm curious, what is your level of knowledge on nutrition? Which of the below options describes you best? 1) A nutrionist or some other specialist that gives you deeper insight into this subject. 2) A regular person who's knowledge of nutrition largely stems from their education in K-12. 3) A casual enthusiast of nutrition who has read some studies here and there, and have come to some conclusion about how nutrition works. Anyway, the only point I'm making is that the primary determining factor of weight gain/loss is calories consumed vs calories burned. Bacon calories are not somehow magically more fat-inducing than other calories. As long as you're maintaining your calories properly, you will not get fat even if you eat bacon. This is why I do not like generic statements like "(X) makes you fat". You could argue that you're more likely to eat too much bacon, whereas it's very hard to overeat vegetables, but that's a different argument altogether. I don't know, I wonder what 2 people that eat exactly the same amount of calories with no exercise ( or just exactly same amount of calorie burning), but one gets his calories from garbage and the other from healthy foods will look like. I'm sure the garbage-eater will have deplorable health, but he still won't be fat. This all started with the claim that "bacon makes you fat". People feel full based on quantity of food consumed, not calories consumed. Eating 500g of bacon will make you fatter than if you eat 500g of lettuce. So the original claim is true, is it not?
lol you honestly think eating 500g of bacon will satieate you the same way than 500g of lettuce?
|
I'd rather die than limit my bacon consumption.
Literally.
|
Well I guess I'll be gone soon then eating meat twice a day. Also strong correlation = causality.
|
On March 14 2012 03:58 brain_ wrote:
alla them fancy Harvard "scienteests" can go shuv it. i aint givin up my triple bacon baconator with bacon just cuzza some fancy words on a page.
Amen to that!
|
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.
|
On March 14 2012 08:18 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 07:51 Tektos wrote: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 by the media 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 right, after re-reading my original post (which I didn't do at first before hitting reply - my thoughts in my head versus what I put in my reply were different, I just dumped all my thoughts out at the same time which got everything muddled up. I meant for "the study doesn't use common sense" to be separate from my point about people willing to eat a hotdog not being healthy. My reply definitely did not convey my thoughts properly - sorry for the confusion i'll admit fault here.
On March 14 2012 08:18 ZeaL. wrote: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.
Stop over-exaggerating my point. I don't think the study is worthless and I don't think the dataset is worthless, I just feel 4 year intervals could a little long for a study which ranges over a thirty year span. It isn't statistically perfect nor is it completely worthless I just thought it was a problem worth noting.
On March 14 2012 08:18 ZeaL. wrote: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.
The article specifically mentions hotdogs and bacon - when these are categorized as alike to red meat as a whole it DOES point in the direction of "red meat" being unhealthy. It is like categorizing eating Kentucky Fried Chicken as chicken and hence concluding that chicken results in higher mortality rate.
And your last paragraph sums up my entire point and the only real point I had an opinion on - this article is misrepresented by the media (and even this thread "Bacon = death" what a fucking joke).
|
I feel like there has to be more to this. I mean I have also read that bacon has some good properties that react postively with your brain (thus good breakfast food...) I mean...right?
RIGHT?!?!?!
20% over 20 year period is alot...wtf.
|
I heard life has a100% fatality rate guys. We should be seriously concerned.
|
On March 14 2012 08:35 spacemonkeyy wrote:
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.
After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat.
still a 13% increase in mortality for unprocessed red meat; 20% for processed red meat.
|
On March 14 2012 08:40 heroyi wrote:
I feel like there has to be more to this. I mean I have also read that bacon has some good properties that react postively with your brain (thus good breakfast food...) I mean...right?
RIGHT?!?!?!
20% over 20 year period is alot...wtf.
As others have said 20% is in relative risk terms. Say a healthy diet has a risk factor of 1 of death a 20% increase of eating bacon would be 1.2. It doesn't mean that if you eat bacon for 20 years you lose 20% of your life or your 20% more likely to die. It means your 20% more likely to die consuming A when compared to B
|
United States5210 Posts
Frankly, they don't make the distinction between processed and non-processed meats in these studies.
Additionally, they don't make distinctions of the difference between grain and grass fed red meat which are much different in fatty acid composition.
What a waste of time.
|
On March 14 2012 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:35 spacemonkeyy wrote:
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.
Show nested quote +After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. still a 13% increase in mortality for unprocessed red meat; 20% for unprocessed red meat.
Doesn't account for orgainic vs non-organic or for what else they have in the diet plus the red meat or even how they cook the red meat. If you think of a real overweight person who is sick all the time and eats a crap diet and never moves around would you imagine his flesh is good to eat? Mass farming operations basically bring animals up in a really unnatural and sickly sort of way so that someting that would normally be rich in omega 3's (very very good for you) has barely any and is rich in omega 6 (bad). The problem is on average diet and lifestyle and the food sources are so poor in general that you need to be cautious in identifying what is actually bad about the red meat (i.e not the fact it is red).
|
My granda is 88. He has eaten bacon and eggs every morning for the last 40 years. Riddle me this.
|
On March 14 2012 08:40 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:18 ZeaL. wrote:On March 14 2012 07:51 Tektos wrote: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 by the media 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. Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:18 ZeaL. wrote: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. The article specifically mentions hotdogs and bacon - when these are categorized as alike to red meat as a whole it DOES point in the direction of "red meat" being unhealthy. It is like categorizing eating Kentucky Fried Chicken as chicken and hence concluding that chicken results in higher mortality rate. And your last paragraph sums up my entire point and the only real point I had an opinion on - this article is misrepresented by the media (and even this thread "Bacon = death" what a fucking joke).
Well they did separate processed from unprocessed into two groups:
Questionnaire items about unprocessed red meat consumption included "beef, pork, or lamb as main dish" (pork was queried separately beginning in 1990), "hamburger," and "beef, pork, or lamb as a sandwich or mixed dish." The standard serving size was 85 g (3 oz) for unprocessed red meat. Processed red meat included "bacon" (2 slices, 13 g), "hot dogs" (one, 45 g), and "sausage, salami, bologna, and other processed red meats" (1 piece, 28 g).
It's possible that some people might have selected having consumed unprocessed red meat when in reality they meant to select processed but I would have to read the survey question to really know. The results do show that both processed and unprocessed red meats cause an increase in mortality risk though higher for processed.
And yeah.. these sensationalist headlines don't help the message. They just make people annoyed because they know BACON != death and then disregard anything that comes from the scientific community.
|
On March 14 2012 08:45 spacemonkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:40 heroyi wrote:
I feel like there has to be more to this. I mean I have also read that bacon has some good properties that react postively with your brain (thus good breakfast food...) I mean...right?
RIGHT?!?!?!
20% over 20 year period is alot...wtf. As others have said 20% is in relative risk terms. Say a healthy diet has a risk factor of 1 of death a 20% increase of eating bacon would be 1.2. It doesn't mean that if you eat bacon for 20 years you lose 20% of your life or your 20% more likely to die. It means your 20% more likely to die consuming A when compared to B
for comparison, non-smoker vs smoker (less than 10 cigs a day) is 1.3 (30% increase), non-smoker vs smoker (more than 10 cigs a day) is 1.8 (80% increase).
"Adjusted hazard ratios for all-causes death in smokers compared with never smokers were 1.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.4) for smokers of less than 10 cigarettes per day and 1.8 (95% confidence interval, 1.7-1.9) for smokers of 10 cigarettes per day or more."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10218754
|
On March 14 2012 08:53 fire_brand wrote:
My granda is 88. He has eaten bacon and eggs every morning for the last 40 years. Riddle me this.
good science n=1
not that I agree that bacon or eggs are bad
|
On March 14 2012 08:50 spacemonkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:35 spacemonkeyy wrote:
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.
After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. still a 13% increase in mortality for unprocessed red meat; 20% for unprocessed red meat. Doesn't account for orgainic vs non-organic or for what else they have in the diet plus the red meat or even how they cook the red meat. If you think of a real overweight person who is sick all the time and eats a crap diet and never moves around would you imagine his flesh is good to eat? Mass farming operations basically bring animals up in a really unnatural and sickly sort of way so that someting that would normally be rich in omega 3's (very very good for you) has barely any and is rich in omega 6 (bad). The problem is on average diet and lifestyle and the food sources are so poor in general that you need to be cautious in identifying what is actually bad about the red meat (i.e not the fact it is red).
so, unless they test and account for everything possible, their study is worthless? thats not how research works. they try to limit the factors as much as possible, and consequently limit their findings to only what was tested.
|
On March 14 2012 08:53 fire_brand wrote:
My granda is 88. He has eaten bacon and eggs every morning for the last 40 years. Riddle me this.
Whats a confidence interval?
|
On March 14 2012 08:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:50 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:35 spacemonkeyy wrote:
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.
After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. still a 13% increase in mortality for unprocessed red meat; 20% for unprocessed red meat. Doesn't account for orgainic vs non-organic or for what else they have in the diet plus the red meat or even how they cook the red meat. If you think of a real overweight person who is sick all the time and eats a crap diet and never moves around would you imagine his flesh is good to eat? Mass farming operations basically bring animals up in a really unnatural and sickly sort of way so that someting that would normally be rich in omega 3's (very very good for you) has barely any and is rich in omega 6 (bad). The problem is on average diet and lifestyle and the food sources are so poor in general that you need to be cautious in identifying what is actually bad about the red meat (i.e not the fact it is red). so, unless they test and account for everything possible, their study is worthless? thats not how research works. they try to limit the factors as much as possible, and consequently limit their findings to only what was tested.
It's one but many flaws in the study the major one being its a survey (done at every 4 years? wheres the validity in that?). Have you read the links I posted back on page 9 or 10? The evidence is all there for your perusal.
|
The trouble with Bacon in particular is not just the red meat or the fats but also the nitrates which have been linked to colon cancer, which is the most rapidly increasing cancer in the developing world. in addition to this, there is also the risk of heart disease and e morbidity of obesity.
To all the petiole who say its alright ill eat mybacon I'm not worried about dying a few days earlier consider this: most people survive heart attacks and undergo its complications, forever being breathless needing pacemakers etc. nitrates have been associated with colon cancer which means bowel resection with a stoma bag which is something really unpleasant.
in other words increased mortality also probably means that all these diseases come earlier and you suffer for longer.
in this respect, I think the study should have evaluated morbidity instead of mortality. in terms of statistical power this study is huge. I haven't read the full text but there is potential for recall bias, especially with all the current ads about the negative effects of red meat.
|
'processed meats bad for you' if people seriously need to be told that from an established research reinstitute then people really are getting dumber.
simple measure, the farther away from the natural product you are, the worse it is for you. kthnx
|
On March 14 2012 09:00 spacemonkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:50 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:35 spacemonkeyy wrote:
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.
After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. still a 13% increase in mortality for unprocessed red meat; 20% for unprocessed red meat. Doesn't account for orgainic vs non-organic or for what else they have in the diet plus the red meat or even how they cook the red meat. If you think of a real overweight person who is sick all the time and eats a crap diet and never moves around would you imagine his flesh is good to eat? Mass farming operations basically bring animals up in a really unnatural and sickly sort of way so that someting that would normally be rich in omega 3's (very very good for you) has barely any and is rich in omega 6 (bad). The problem is on average diet and lifestyle and the food sources are so poor in general that you need to be cautious in identifying what is actually bad about the red meat (i.e not the fact it is red). so, unless they test and account for everything possible, their study is worthless? thats not how research works. they try to limit the factors as much as possible, and consequently limit their findings to only what was tested. It's one but many flaws in the study the major one being its a survey (done at every 4 years? wheres the validity in that?). Have you read the links I posted back on page 9 or 10? The evidence is all there for your perusal.
survey is obviously not the best research method, but it doesn't mean their conclusions are illegitimate. they used a huge sample size, which tends to validate even survey methods.
whats the other option? asking for volunteers to sit in cells for 20 years and have dieticians monitor their meat intake everyday? i'm sure people would be lining up for that study.
edit:
lol. i just read this article that you posted (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/red-meat-study/#axzz1p2fDIrR5)., which had this conclusion:
The real take home message from this study is this: Don’t be obese, do exercise, don’t smoke, eat plenty of vegetables and fruit, take supplements, avoid processed meats, avoid overcooked meats, eat from a variety of animal foods.
where the hell do you think we got the information on mortality rates for cigarettes from? surveys.... they didnt force people to smoke and then see what happens. although there were animal studies, for the most part researchers focus on the human surveys.
|
On March 14 2012 04:05 OPL3SA2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 04:01 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 03:59 OPL3SA2 wrote:
"Choosing poultry over red meat was linked with a 14% lower risk of dying."
I think you may want to check your numbers there "eating as little as two pieces of bacon or one hot dog a day upped their mortality rate by 20% over a 20-year period." I was referring to the fact that everyone dies. Also, I don't know anyone who eats meat every single day of their lives. I'm not even sure if it's possible to eat a hot dog every day for 20 years, because you'd be dead in about 4 years from a bowel infarction or something
I eat meat everyday of my life. It's the main staple to my diet. I grew up on a cattle farm and we ate meat everyday from hamburgers to sausage to cow tongue to steak. Then when it was time to slaughter rabbits we had rabbit meat. NONE of my family is fat, has heart disease, mental illness or the etc. My grandpa is 91 and running around the farm still healthy. I think the main thing that people need to focus on is EXERCISE. I ate only fast food while wrestling in college and still got super fit.
+ Show Spoiler +I think this study has a bias approach or has been spoiled but I'm going to read over the actual data and how they got there before I say that for sure.
|
On March 14 2012 03:57 cellblock wrote:Yeh, it is. I love bacon!
But... Anything that taste good cannot be good for you. Die happy with salted food or die from boredom?
|
On March 14 2012 09:00 spacemonkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:50 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:35 spacemonkeyy wrote:
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.
After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. still a 13% increase in mortality for unprocessed red meat; 20% for unprocessed red meat. Doesn't account for orgainic vs non-organic or for what else they have in the diet plus the red meat or even how they cook the red meat. If you think of a real overweight person who is sick all the time and eats a crap diet and never moves around would you imagine his flesh is good to eat? Mass farming operations basically bring animals up in a really unnatural and sickly sort of way so that someting that would normally be rich in omega 3's (very very good for you) has barely any and is rich in omega 6 (bad). The problem is on average diet and lifestyle and the food sources are so poor in general that you need to be cautious in identifying what is actually bad about the red meat (i.e not the fact it is red). so, unless they test and account for everything possible, their study is worthless? thats not how research works. they try to limit the factors as much as possible, and consequently limit their findings to only what was tested. It's one but many flaws in the study the major one being its a survey (done at every 4 years? wheres the validity in that?). Have you read the links I posted back on page 9 or 10? The evidence is all there for your perusal.
Of course 4-year follows up are fine. It's a huge study of a large part of the population. While I would also assume that people aren't very accurate in self-reports of how much meat they eat, it doesn't really matter if they are completely accurate as long as they aren't completely wrong either. It's a clear dose response effect with a huge sample. Also people will be inaccurate in a systematic manner and it would take another variable to explain why prone-to-death-people for some reason lied in a systematic way (which would be needed to invalidate results). You probably aren't doubting the same data when it also will clearly show that for instance drinkers will die to a higher extent and all the other relationships like less sausage <-> more vitamins pretty much always found in studies of this magnitude.
It's just not possible to follow a population over time and ask them something every week(or day, hour, second..) even if that would be better.
If I wanted to debunk it (which you didn't do instead talk about nitrated and processed foods which isn't really the big find here), I would be worried about the cohorts and how they were created. I would also worry about the statistical analysis because while I don't fully understand them, I do know that there are several different variations to go about making these types of analysis of longitudinal data and that results between different statistical methods can differ quite a lot. Not very simple to analyse it due to 2 different cohorts (treated as 1 population..) and the sampling is done at different intervals and who knows if the members of the cohorts even started at the same time. Also attrition apart from death like how many stopped responding and who can be relevant.
With that said I still think the study seems quite solid and that the most likely explanation for their results is that red meat causes an increased chance of dying. This did make me curious to read more about the cohorts though but overall it seems very thought through.
|
ive been eating bacon everyday for 2 years. and im still alive, and healthy! explain that harvard!
|
On March 14 2012 09:03 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 09:00 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:50 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:35 spacemonkeyy wrote:
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.
After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. still a 13% increase in mortality for unprocessed red meat; 20% for unprocessed red meat. Doesn't account for orgainic vs non-organic or for what else they have in the diet plus the red meat or even how they cook the red meat. If you think of a real overweight person who is sick all the time and eats a crap diet and never moves around would you imagine his flesh is good to eat? Mass farming operations basically bring animals up in a really unnatural and sickly sort of way so that someting that would normally be rich in omega 3's (very very good for you) has barely any and is rich in omega 6 (bad). The problem is on average diet and lifestyle and the food sources are so poor in general that you need to be cautious in identifying what is actually bad about the red meat (i.e not the fact it is red). so, unless they test and account for everything possible, their study is worthless? thats not how research works. they try to limit the factors as much as possible, and consequently limit their findings to only what was tested. It's one but many flaws in the study the major one being its a survey (done at every 4 years? wheres the validity in that?). Have you read the links I posted back on page 9 or 10? The evidence is all there for your perusal. survey is obviously not the best research method, but it doesn't mean their conclusions are illegitimate. they used a huge sample size, which tends to validate even survey methods. whats the other option? asking for volunteers to sit in cells for 20 years and have dieticians monitor their meat intake everyday? i'm sure people would be lining up for that study. edit: lol. i just read this article that you posted (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/red-meat-study/#axzz1p2fDIrR5)., which had this conclusion: Show nested quote +The real take home message from this study is this: Don’t be obese, do exercise, don’t smoke, eat plenty of vegetables and fruit, take supplements, avoid processed meats, avoid overcooked meats, eat from a variety of animal foods. where the hell do you think we got the information on mortality rates for cigarettes from? surveys.... they didnt force people to smoke and then see what happens. although there were animal studies, for the most part researchers focus on the human surveys.
Increasing sample size actually in a lot of cases makes the study worse. If the effect is known and major i.e consuming a bottle of methylated spirits kills you all you would need would be a 1 control and a 1 variable to demonstrate the effect (obviously you would want to have a few more people to be sure of your conclusions the general accepted minimum is 50 or so). If the methodology is flawed then it doesn't matter how many people you conduct it on it is going to draw flawed conclusions- testing flawed methodology on more people doesn't undo the flaws. If your sample is too small your confidence intervals are too big to draw conclusions but if your sample is too big your confidence interval may be too small to be realistic with the accuracy of the study (i.e giving a millimeter measurement when all you can measure in is meters). Something that is not statistically significant with a small population may all of a sudden become statistically significant if you get those confidence intervals low enough with a large population. In the end you can end up picking up some extremely small effect sizes and with something as variable as diet your measuring tool (a survey every 4 years) is not accurate enough to draw conclusions of that small of a nature. For example say 1 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product A, and 2 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product B thats a 200% increase in risk. Whilst this is true statistically is it a useful or valid statement if outcome x can occur from 1000's of different confounding variables.
|
I read this and was thinking "Man, that kinda sucks, I love steak." I suppose this isn't really new news, though - we've been hearing stuff along these lines for a long time.
About 10 min after reading the SO comes home and says (and I quote), "You feel like ribs tonight?"
Yes.
My poor innards. My poor, poor innards.
|
....worth it. The amount of bacon I consume will not be changed. Pretty interesting stuff though.
|
On March 14 2012 09:32 spacemonkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 09:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 09:00 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:50 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:35 spacemonkeyy wrote:
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.
After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. still a 13% increase in mortality for unprocessed red meat; 20% for unprocessed red meat. Doesn't account for orgainic vs non-organic or for what else they have in the diet plus the red meat or even how they cook the red meat. If you think of a real overweight person who is sick all the time and eats a crap diet and never moves around would you imagine his flesh is good to eat? Mass farming operations basically bring animals up in a really unnatural and sickly sort of way so that someting that would normally be rich in omega 3's (very very good for you) has barely any and is rich in omega 6 (bad). The problem is on average diet and lifestyle and the food sources are so poor in general that you need to be cautious in identifying what is actually bad about the red meat (i.e not the fact it is red). so, unless they test and account for everything possible, their study is worthless? thats not how research works. they try to limit the factors as much as possible, and consequently limit their findings to only what was tested. It's one but many flaws in the study the major one being its a survey (done at every 4 years? wheres the validity in that?). Have you read the links I posted back on page 9 or 10? The evidence is all there for your perusal. survey is obviously not the best research method, but it doesn't mean their conclusions are illegitimate. they used a huge sample size, which tends to validate even survey methods. whats the other option? asking for volunteers to sit in cells for 20 years and have dieticians monitor their meat intake everyday? i'm sure people would be lining up for that study. edit: lol. i just read this article that you posted (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/red-meat-study/#axzz1p2fDIrR5)., which had this conclusion: The real take home message from this study is this: Don’t be obese, do exercise, don’t smoke, eat plenty of vegetables and fruit, take supplements, avoid processed meats, avoid overcooked meats, eat from a variety of animal foods. where the hell do you think we got the information on mortality rates for cigarettes from? surveys.... they didnt force people to smoke and then see what happens. although there were animal studies, for the most part researchers focus on the human surveys. Increasing sample size actually in a lot of cases makes the study worse. If the effect is known and major i.e consuming a bottle of methylated spirits kills you all you would need would be a 1 control and a 1 variable to demonstrate the effect (obviously you would want to have a few more people to be sure of your conclusions the general accepted minimum is 50 or so). If the methodology is flawed then it doesn't matter how many people you conduct it on it is going to draw flawed conclusions- testing flawed methodology on more people doesn't undo the flaws. If your sample is too small your confidence intervals are too big to draw conclusions but if your sample is too big your confidence interval may be too small to be realistic with the accuracy of the study (i.e giving a millimeter measurement when all you can measure in is meters). Something that is not statistically significant with a small population may all of a sudden become statistically significant if you get those confidence intervals low enough with a large population. In the end you can end up picking up some extremely small effect sizes and with something as variable as diet your measuring tool (a survey every 4 years) is not accurate enough to draw conclusions of that small of a nature. For example say 1 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product A, and 2 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product B thats a 200% increase in risk. Whilst this is true statistically is it a useful or valid statement if outcome x can occur from 1000's of different confounding variables.
please explain to me why it was legitimate for them to use these types of survey methodologies to establish the link between cancer and smoking, but it is not proper here? because your hero is telling you not to smoke, but is poo-pooing the results of red meat studies.
|
i don't buy it.
bacon, red meat, eggs, etc.
that stuff is good for you.
|
On March 14 2012 09:32 spacemonkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 09:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 09:00 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:50 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:35 spacemonkeyy wrote:
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.
After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. still a 13% increase in mortality for unprocessed red meat; 20% for unprocessed red meat. Doesn't account for orgainic vs non-organic or for what else they have in the diet plus the red meat or even how they cook the red meat. If you think of a real overweight person who is sick all the time and eats a crap diet and never moves around would you imagine his flesh is good to eat? Mass farming operations basically bring animals up in a really unnatural and sickly sort of way so that someting that would normally be rich in omega 3's (very very good for you) has barely any and is rich in omega 6 (bad). The problem is on average diet and lifestyle and the food sources are so poor in general that you need to be cautious in identifying what is actually bad about the red meat (i.e not the fact it is red). so, unless they test and account for everything possible, their study is worthless? thats not how research works. they try to limit the factors as much as possible, and consequently limit their findings to only what was tested. It's one but many flaws in the study the major one being its a survey (done at every 4 years? wheres the validity in that?). Have you read the links I posted back on page 9 or 10? The evidence is all there for your perusal. survey is obviously not the best research method, but it doesn't mean their conclusions are illegitimate. they used a huge sample size, which tends to validate even survey methods. whats the other option? asking for volunteers to sit in cells for 20 years and have dieticians monitor their meat intake everyday? i'm sure people would be lining up for that study. edit: lol. i just read this article that you posted (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/red-meat-study/#axzz1p2fDIrR5)., which had this conclusion: The real take home message from this study is this: Don’t be obese, do exercise, don’t smoke, eat plenty of vegetables and fruit, take supplements, avoid processed meats, avoid overcooked meats, eat from a variety of animal foods. where the hell do you think we got the information on mortality rates for cigarettes from? surveys.... they didnt force people to smoke and then see what happens. although there were animal studies, for the most part researchers focus on the human surveys. Increasing sample size actually in a lot of cases makes the study worse. If the effect is known and major i.e consuming a bottle of methylated spirits kills you all you would need would be a 1 control and a 1 variable to demonstrate the effect (obviously you would want to have a few more people to be sure of your conclusions the general accepted minimum is 50 or so). If the methodology is flawed then it doesn't matter how many people you conduct it on it is going to draw flawed conclusions- testing flawed methodology on more people doesn't undo the flaws. If your sample is too small your confidence intervals are too big to draw conclusions but if your sample is too big your confidence interval may be too small to be realistic with the accuracy of the study (i.e giving a millimeter measurement when all you can measure in is meters). Something that is not statistically significant with a small population may all of a sudden become statistically significant if you get those confidence intervals low enough with a large population. In the end you can end up picking up some extremely small effect sizes and with something as variable as diet your measuring tool (a survey every 4 years) is not accurate enough to draw conclusions of that small of a nature. For example say 1 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product A, and 2 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product B thats a 200% increase in risk. Whilst this is true statistically is it a useful or valid statement if outcome x can occur from 1000's of different confounding variables.
You seem to be confused about significant results and effect size. With enough people even insignificant (as in extremely small effect size) relationships can be statistically significant. But in this study the effect isn't extremely small.
|
|
|
If bacon = death, then death = bacon. Therefore, do not fear death.
|
On March 14 2012 09:43 hmmBacon wrote:
For Sure !!!
nice name. i checked to see if you made it for this thread. nope. ;-)
|
If I knew bacon would kill me in 30 minutes, I'd still give serious consideration to eating it.
|
So, it has come to this.
+ Show Spoiler ++1 internet if you know where this is from.
The ultimate choice... I choose death!
To be honest the title should be related to red meat, not bacon in particular. Still, we all die eventually. And honestly, who eats bacon on a daily basis?
|
On March 14 2012 09:54 Kurr wrote:So, it has come to this. + Show Spoiler ++1 internet if you know where this is from. The ultimate choice... I choose death! To be honest the title should be related to red meat, not bacon in particular. Still, we all die eventually. And honestly, who eats bacon on a daily basis?
I do. never been healthier.
|
If bacon = death, then I don't want life
|
On March 14 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 09:32 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 09:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 09:00 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:50 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:35 spacemonkeyy wrote:
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.
After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. still a 13% increase in mortality for unprocessed red meat; 20% for unprocessed red meat. Doesn't account for orgainic vs non-organic or for what else they have in the diet plus the red meat or even how they cook the red meat. If you think of a real overweight person who is sick all the time and eats a crap diet and never moves around would you imagine his flesh is good to eat? Mass farming operations basically bring animals up in a really unnatural and sickly sort of way so that someting that would normally be rich in omega 3's (very very good for you) has barely any and is rich in omega 6 (bad). The problem is on average diet and lifestyle and the food sources are so poor in general that you need to be cautious in identifying what is actually bad about the red meat (i.e not the fact it is red). so, unless they test and account for everything possible, their study is worthless? thats not how research works. they try to limit the factors as much as possible, and consequently limit their findings to only what was tested. It's one but many flaws in the study the major one being its a survey (done at every 4 years? wheres the validity in that?). Have you read the links I posted back on page 9 or 10? The evidence is all there for your perusal. survey is obviously not the best research method, but it doesn't mean their conclusions are illegitimate. they used a huge sample size, which tends to validate even survey methods. whats the other option? asking for volunteers to sit in cells for 20 years and have dieticians monitor their meat intake everyday? i'm sure people would be lining up for that study. edit: lol. i just read this article that you posted (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/red-meat-study/#axzz1p2fDIrR5)., which had this conclusion: The real take home message from this study is this: Don’t be obese, do exercise, don’t smoke, eat plenty of vegetables and fruit, take supplements, avoid processed meats, avoid overcooked meats, eat from a variety of animal foods. where the hell do you think we got the information on mortality rates for cigarettes from? surveys.... they didnt force people to smoke and then see what happens. although there were animal studies, for the most part researchers focus on the human surveys. Increasing sample size actually in a lot of cases makes the study worse. If the effect is known and major i.e consuming a bottle of methylated spirits kills you all you would need would be a 1 control and a 1 variable to demonstrate the effect (obviously you would want to have a few more people to be sure of your conclusions the general accepted minimum is 50 or so). If the methodology is flawed then it doesn't matter how many people you conduct it on it is going to draw flawed conclusions- testing flawed methodology on more people doesn't undo the flaws. If your sample is too small your confidence intervals are too big to draw conclusions but if your sample is too big your confidence interval may be too small to be realistic with the accuracy of the study (i.e giving a millimeter measurement when all you can measure in is meters). Something that is not statistically significant with a small population may all of a sudden become statistically significant if you get those confidence intervals low enough with a large population. In the end you can end up picking up some extremely small effect sizes and with something as variable as diet your measuring tool (a survey every 4 years) is not accurate enough to draw conclusions of that small of a nature. For example say 1 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product A, and 2 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product B thats a 200% increase in risk. Whilst this is true statistically is it a useful or valid statement if outcome x can occur from 1000's of different confounding variables. please explain to me why it was legitimate for them to use these types of survey methodologies to establish the link between cancer and smoking, but it is not proper here? because your hero is telling you not to smoke, but is poo-pooing the results of red meat studies.
Studies on smoking are different than studies done on diets. Either you smoke, or you don't. Some people smoke more than others, but it's only one thing: Smoking. But diets are multifaceted and contain a great deal more variables than smoking. It's not as simple as "either you eat red meat or you don't" because there are different kinds of red meat, and these red meats are often improperly put into a singular category. Hamburgers in the same category as pork? You bet. Grass fed and grain fed beef put in the same category? You bet.
Now if this was just a study of hot dogs, it'd be a lot simpler. Either you eat hot dogs or you don't, let's measure if there is a correlation. And of course, account for other variables that would damage our study (people who do not eat hot dogs will likely be more health conscious, not smoke, exercise, etc). But add in all these other types of food and categorize them as "red meat" and it is difficult to discern whether it's "red meat" or just particular subcategories of "red meat" causing the correlation.
Anyways, in my opinion we should never, ever use observational studies to draw conclusions in any case. I recall there was one study done where it was observed that women who took estrogen had reduced rates of cancer. As it turns out these women were more likely to exercise and were more health conscious. When a clinical study was done, taking estrogen supplements increased cancer rates by 30%! Observational studies can be used to say whatever you want. And, yes, I am saying that using observational studies to link cancer and smoking would not be sufficient evidence of causation. A clinical study would. Which we have done, and the evidence is there.
|
On March 14 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 09:32 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 09:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 09:00 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:50 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:35 spacemonkeyy wrote:
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.
After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. still a 13% increase in mortality for unprocessed red meat; 20% for unprocessed red meat. Doesn't account for orgainic vs non-organic or for what else they have in the diet plus the red meat or even how they cook the red meat. If you think of a real overweight person who is sick all the time and eats a crap diet and never moves around would you imagine his flesh is good to eat? Mass farming operations basically bring animals up in a really unnatural and sickly sort of way so that someting that would normally be rich in omega 3's (very very good for you) has barely any and is rich in omega 6 (bad). The problem is on average diet and lifestyle and the food sources are so poor in general that you need to be cautious in identifying what is actually bad about the red meat (i.e not the fact it is red). so, unless they test and account for everything possible, their study is worthless? thats not how research works. they try to limit the factors as much as possible, and consequently limit their findings to only what was tested. It's one but many flaws in the study the major one being its a survey (done at every 4 years? wheres the validity in that?). Have you read the links I posted back on page 9 or 10? The evidence is all there for your perusal. survey is obviously not the best research method, but it doesn't mean their conclusions are illegitimate. they used a huge sample size, which tends to validate even survey methods. whats the other option? asking for volunteers to sit in cells for 20 years and have dieticians monitor their meat intake everyday? i'm sure people would be lining up for that study. edit: lol. i just read this article that you posted (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/red-meat-study/#axzz1p2fDIrR5)., which had this conclusion: The real take home message from this study is this: Don’t be obese, do exercise, don’t smoke, eat plenty of vegetables and fruit, take supplements, avoid processed meats, avoid overcooked meats, eat from a variety of animal foods. where the hell do you think we got the information on mortality rates for cigarettes from? surveys.... they didnt force people to smoke and then see what happens. although there were animal studies, for the most part researchers focus on the human surveys. Increasing sample size actually in a lot of cases makes the study worse. If the effect is known and major i.e consuming a bottle of methylated spirits kills you all you would need would be a 1 control and a 1 variable to demonstrate the effect (obviously you would want to have a few more people to be sure of your conclusions the general accepted minimum is 50 or so). If the methodology is flawed then it doesn't matter how many people you conduct it on it is going to draw flawed conclusions- testing flawed methodology on more people doesn't undo the flaws. If your sample is too small your confidence intervals are too big to draw conclusions but if your sample is too big your confidence interval may be too small to be realistic with the accuracy of the study (i.e giving a millimeter measurement when all you can measure in is meters). Something that is not statistically significant with a small population may all of a sudden become statistically significant if you get those confidence intervals low enough with a large population. In the end you can end up picking up some extremely small effect sizes and with something as variable as diet your measuring tool (a survey every 4 years) is not accurate enough to draw conclusions of that small of a nature. For example say 1 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product A, and 2 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product B thats a 200% increase in risk. Whilst this is true statistically is it a useful or valid statement if outcome x can occur from 1000's of different confounding variables. please explain to me why it was legitimate for them to use these types of survey methodologies to establish the link between cancer and smoking, but it is not proper here? - red herring because your hero is telling you not to smoke, but is poo-pooing the results of red meat studies - ad hominem .
Asides from the obvious flaws to your arguement (can't beleive anyone would argue smoking doesn't cause cancer they have proven it in more ways than one) here is my counter.
When trying to prove causation these are important considerations
Strength of the association. How large is the effect?
The consistency of the association. Has the same association been observed by others, in different populations, using a different method?
Specificity. Does altering only the cause alter the effect?
Temporal relationship. Does the cause precede the effect?
Biological gradient. Is there a dose response?
Biological plausibility. Does it make sense?
Coherence. Does the evidence fit with what is known regarding the natural history and biology of the outcome?
Experimental evidence. Are there any clinical studies supporting the association?
Reasoning by analogy. Is the observed association supported by similar associations?
Whilst this study certainly ticks some of the boxes (even with what is in my opinion flawed methodology) a few points come to mind.
1. What is the biological mechanism in which red meat causes cancer? (I have suggested numerous charring of meat, poor quality meat, additives - none of which actually are relevant to the colour of the meat)
2. In my opinion asking someone what they ate for the last 4 years is not a very accurate way to assess diet at best is a very blunt observation - used to draw a very sharp conclusion
3. The assumption that all red meats are equal and cooking methods, organic vs non organic, addiditves are all the same.
If you wanted to draw the conclusion along the lines of
"People who report to eat more processed red meat and red meat have an statistical increase increase risk of mortality. This study did not investigate the effect of additives, organic vs. non-organic or the cooking methods of these meats which could signficantly impact the findings given the growing knowledge of the biophysiological effects of these variables. Given that a resounding majority of the study likely consumed non-organic, additive rich food and that red meat is regularly charred (as per what is supplied at food retailers) as a general rule we would exercise caution whilst consuming excessive red meat. Further studies are needed to see if delineation exists with a 3rd sub group (i.e processed vs non processed vs organic, additive free, non charred red meat)."
then I could get on board with that. As far as bacon=death or that red meat as a whole is bad for you I think these are bad messages to be sending people where in my opinion red meat is extremely important part of everyone's diet but in this day an age even concerted efforts to eat well can be marred by hidden dangers (additives, non-organic etc.) There's just so much more going on with diets that are way worse than eating good quality red meat. Really we should be discouraging this fast food style production of meat and encouraging consumption.
So my main issue is not that eating red meat as it is done on average is bad for you my issue is the message it sends. All these people thinking its bad to eat meat- guess what happens when we demonized fats- 6-11 serves of cereals a day. We can't afford to treat these things in such a reductionistic point of view or in black and white terms. Some fats are really bad for you- some fats are extremely good (i.e have as much as you want- as long as you stay within your metabolisms limits). Some red meats are really bad for you- some are extremely good for you. Some carbs are good for you (i.e fruit and veges given the added extra nutrients) some are really bad for you (i.e bread, corn, rice, potatoes, sugars). The human body is designed with some wiggle room you just gotta make sure you try to find the balance (which in most people is way off).
|
people who dont eat bacon have a 100% mortality rate
two pieces of bacon or one hot dog a day increases mortality rate by 20%
i like percentages
|
On March 14 2012 04:07 Grovbolle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 04:00 Denis Lachance wrote:
So as I understand it, eating nuts provides you with a -6% chance of mortality, ergo, immortality? (with increasing life mind you)
Better start eating more nuts. Understanding logistic regression and Quantitative analysis will get you further
Further than Bacon?
|
On March 14 2012 10:27 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 09:32 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 09:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 09:00 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:50 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:35 spacemonkeyy wrote:
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.
After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. still a 13% increase in mortality for unprocessed red meat; 20% for unprocessed red meat. Doesn't account for orgainic vs non-organic or for what else they have in the diet plus the red meat or even how they cook the red meat. If you think of a real overweight person who is sick all the time and eats a crap diet and never moves around would you imagine his flesh is good to eat? Mass farming operations basically bring animals up in a really unnatural and sickly sort of way so that someting that would normally be rich in omega 3's (very very good for you) has barely any and is rich in omega 6 (bad). The problem is on average diet and lifestyle and the food sources are so poor in general that you need to be cautious in identifying what is actually bad about the red meat (i.e not the fact it is red). so, unless they test and account for everything possible, their study is worthless? thats not how research works. they try to limit the factors as much as possible, and consequently limit their findings to only what was tested. It's one but many flaws in the study the major one being its a survey (done at every 4 years? wheres the validity in that?). Have you read the links I posted back on page 9 or 10? The evidence is all there for your perusal. survey is obviously not the best research method, but it doesn't mean their conclusions are illegitimate. they used a huge sample size, which tends to validate even survey methods. whats the other option? asking for volunteers to sit in cells for 20 years and have dieticians monitor their meat intake everyday? i'm sure people would be lining up for that study. edit: lol. i just read this article that you posted (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/red-meat-study/#axzz1p2fDIrR5)., which had this conclusion: The real take home message from this study is this: Don’t be obese, do exercise, don’t smoke, eat plenty of vegetables and fruit, take supplements, avoid processed meats, avoid overcooked meats, eat from a variety of animal foods. where the hell do you think we got the information on mortality rates for cigarettes from? surveys.... they didnt force people to smoke and then see what happens. although there were animal studies, for the most part researchers focus on the human surveys. Increasing sample size actually in a lot of cases makes the study worse. If the effect is known and major i.e consuming a bottle of methylated spirits kills you all you would need would be a 1 control and a 1 variable to demonstrate the effect (obviously you would want to have a few more people to be sure of your conclusions the general accepted minimum is 50 or so). If the methodology is flawed then it doesn't matter how many people you conduct it on it is going to draw flawed conclusions- testing flawed methodology on more people doesn't undo the flaws. If your sample is too small your confidence intervals are too big to draw conclusions but if your sample is too big your confidence interval may be too small to be realistic with the accuracy of the study (i.e giving a millimeter measurement when all you can measure in is meters). Something that is not statistically significant with a small population may all of a sudden become statistically significant if you get those confidence intervals low enough with a large population. In the end you can end up picking up some extremely small effect sizes and with something as variable as diet your measuring tool (a survey every 4 years) is not accurate enough to draw conclusions of that small of a nature. For example say 1 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product A, and 2 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product B thats a 200% increase in risk. Whilst this is true statistically is it a useful or valid statement if outcome x can occur from 1000's of different confounding variables. please explain to me why it was legitimate for them to use these types of survey methodologies to establish the link between cancer and smoking, but it is not proper here? because your hero is telling you not to smoke, but is poo-pooing the results of red meat studies. Studies on smoking are different than studies done on diets. Either you smoke, or you don't. Some people smoke more than others, but it's only one thing: Smoking. But diets are multifaceted and contain a great deal more variables than smoking. It's not as simple as "either you eat red meat or you don't" because there are different kinds of red meat, and these red meats are often improperly put into a singular category. Hamburgers in the same category as pork? You bet. Grass fed and grain fed beef put in the same category? You bet. Now if this was just a study of hot dogs, it'd be a lot simpler. Either you eat hot dogs or you don't, let's measure if there is a correlation. And of course, account for other variables that would damage our study (people who do not eat hot dogs will likely be more health conscious, not smoke, exercise, etc). But add in all these other types of food and categorize them as "red meat" and it is difficult to discern whether it's "red meat" or just particular subcategories of "red meat" causing the correlation. Anyways, in my opinion we should never, ever use observational studies to draw conclusions in any case. I recall there was one study done where it was observed that women who took estrogen had reduced rates of cancer. As it turns out these women were more likely to exercise and were more health conscious. When a clinical study was done, taking estrogen supplements increased cancer rates by 30%! Observational studies can be used to say whatever you want. And, yes, I am saying that using observational studies to link cancer and smoking would not be sufficient evidence of causation. A clinical study would. Which we have done, and the evidence is there.
you are criticizing the questionnaire itself, not the use of questionnaires generally (and i think your criticisms are legitimate). the methodology is always something to consider when understanding these studies.
use of "observational studies" are always important to identify issues, and where possible they should be followed up with more conclusive studies. people shouldn't just dismiss them though. the first study linking smoking with cancer was obviously an "observational study." what is this clinical study for smoking?
|
If I had a dollar for every person in this thread who completely misunderstands statistics and what "increased chance of mortality" means, I'd be very pleased right now.
Edit: Just to clarify, I'm talking about posts that sound like this:
How can you increase mortality by 20%? Everyone is going to die. Does this mean if I don't eat red meat I'm immortal?
|
On March 14 2012 10:43 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 10:27 shinosai wrote:On March 14 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 09:32 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 09:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 09:00 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:50 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:35 spacemonkeyy wrote:
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.
After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. still a 13% increase in mortality for unprocessed red meat; 20% for unprocessed red meat. Doesn't account for orgainic vs non-organic or for what else they have in the diet plus the red meat or even how they cook the red meat. If you think of a real overweight person who is sick all the time and eats a crap diet and never moves around would you imagine his flesh is good to eat? Mass farming operations basically bring animals up in a really unnatural and sickly sort of way so that someting that would normally be rich in omega 3's (very very good for you) has barely any and is rich in omega 6 (bad). The problem is on average diet and lifestyle and the food sources are so poor in general that you need to be cautious in identifying what is actually bad about the red meat (i.e not the fact it is red). so, unless they test and account for everything possible, their study is worthless? thats not how research works. they try to limit the factors as much as possible, and consequently limit their findings to only what was tested. It's one but many flaws in the study the major one being its a survey (done at every 4 years? wheres the validity in that?). Have you read the links I posted back on page 9 or 10? The evidence is all there for your perusal. survey is obviously not the best research method, but it doesn't mean their conclusions are illegitimate. they used a huge sample size, which tends to validate even survey methods. whats the other option? asking for volunteers to sit in cells for 20 years and have dieticians monitor their meat intake everyday? i'm sure people would be lining up for that study. edit: lol. i just read this article that you posted (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/red-meat-study/#axzz1p2fDIrR5)., which had this conclusion: The real take home message from this study is this: Don’t be obese, do exercise, don’t smoke, eat plenty of vegetables and fruit, take supplements, avoid processed meats, avoid overcooked meats, eat from a variety of animal foods. where the hell do you think we got the information on mortality rates for cigarettes from? surveys.... they didnt force people to smoke and then see what happens. although there were animal studies, for the most part researchers focus on the human surveys. Increasing sample size actually in a lot of cases makes the study worse. If the effect is known and major i.e consuming a bottle of methylated spirits kills you all you would need would be a 1 control and a 1 variable to demonstrate the effect (obviously you would want to have a few more people to be sure of your conclusions the general accepted minimum is 50 or so). If the methodology is flawed then it doesn't matter how many people you conduct it on it is going to draw flawed conclusions- testing flawed methodology on more people doesn't undo the flaws. If your sample is too small your confidence intervals are too big to draw conclusions but if your sample is too big your confidence interval may be too small to be realistic with the accuracy of the study (i.e giving a millimeter measurement when all you can measure in is meters). Something that is not statistically significant with a small population may all of a sudden become statistically significant if you get those confidence intervals low enough with a large population. In the end you can end up picking up some extremely small effect sizes and with something as variable as diet your measuring tool (a survey every 4 years) is not accurate enough to draw conclusions of that small of a nature. For example say 1 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product A, and 2 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product B thats a 200% increase in risk. Whilst this is true statistically is it a useful or valid statement if outcome x can occur from 1000's of different confounding variables. please explain to me why it was legitimate for them to use these types of survey methodologies to establish the link between cancer and smoking, but it is not proper here? because your hero is telling you not to smoke, but is poo-pooing the results of red meat studies. Studies on smoking are different than studies done on diets. Either you smoke, or you don't. Some people smoke more than others, but it's only one thing: Smoking. But diets are multifaceted and contain a great deal more variables than smoking. It's not as simple as "either you eat red meat or you don't" because there are different kinds of red meat, and these red meats are often improperly put into a singular category. Hamburgers in the same category as pork? You bet. Grass fed and grain fed beef put in the same category? You bet. Now if this was just a study of hot dogs, it'd be a lot simpler. Either you eat hot dogs or you don't, let's measure if there is a correlation. And of course, account for other variables that would damage our study (people who do not eat hot dogs will likely be more health conscious, not smoke, exercise, etc). But add in all these other types of food and categorize them as "red meat" and it is difficult to discern whether it's "red meat" or just particular subcategories of "red meat" causing the correlation. Anyways, in my opinion we should never, ever use observational studies to draw conclusions in any case. I recall there was one study done where it was observed that women who took estrogen had reduced rates of cancer. As it turns out these women were more likely to exercise and were more health conscious. When a clinical study was done, taking estrogen supplements increased cancer rates by 30%! Observational studies can be used to say whatever you want. And, yes, I am saying that using observational studies to link cancer and smoking would not be sufficient evidence of causation. A clinical study would. Which we have done, and the evidence is there. you are criticizing the questionnaire itself, not the use of questionnaires generally (and i think your criticisms are legitimate). the methodology is always something to consider when understanding these studies. use of "observational studies" are always important to identify issues, and where possible they should be followed up with more conclusive studies. people shouldn't just dismiss them though. the first study linking smoking with cancer was obviously an "observational study." what is this clinical study for smoking?
Well of course all questionaires aren't "BAD" each one had to be evaluated on it's own merits. A lot of areas of research use questionaires (i.e to measure pain and disability) but they have to be validated first before they are used. If the questionaire hasn't been validated or standardised and doesn't seem particualrly accurate its its description then I'm sure you can forgive us for thinking that this type of survery is low quality.
|
Here's a general rule for you to live by. If most people think it tastes really good then it is bad for you. If most people don't like to eat it then it is good for you.
That statement will hold true 99% of the time. This isn't shocking in the least bit. Almost everything people enjoy to eat isn't healthy for you to consume.
|
These types of studies always come out.
"The study further noted that 9% of deaths among the men and 8% of deaths among women could have been prevented if they had decreased their red-meat consumption to a little less than half a serving every day." (from http://tothecenter.com/2012/03/study-red-meat-linked-to-premature-death/)
So I guess moderation is key? Or vegetarianism.
|
On March 14 2012 10:54 rubiegrae792 wrote:These types of studies always come out. "The study further noted that 9% of deaths among the men and 8% of deaths among women could have been prevented if they had decreased their red-meat consumption to a little less than half a serving every day." (from http://tothecenter.com/2012/03/study-red-meat-linked-to-premature-death/) So I guess moderation is key? Or vegetarianism.
the article you linked has the answer from the researcher himself:
An Pan, the lead author of the study, proclaimed that the message is not for people to go vegetarian. The findings are meant to try and reduce the amount of red meat one may consume to less than two to three servings per week.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
If bacon = death then i will die happy.
|
On March 14 2012 10:53 Pro]ChoSen- wrote:
Here's a general rule for you to live by. If most people think it tastes really good then it is bad for you. If most people don't like to eat it then it is good for you.
That statement will hold true 99% of the time. This isn't shocking in the least bit. Almost everything people enjoy to eat isn't healthy for you to consume.
Taste is so subjective though. People get literally addicted to carbs and sugars. Once you ween yourself off them you can find plenty of great tasting food which is good for you. Berries for example personally would much rather eat a punnet of fresh raspberries over any candy and raspberries are oh so nutritious.
|
On March 14 2012 03:57 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
Bacon industry needs to do more lobbying. This negativity is unacceptable.
totally haha. how to give up da bacon!!!?!?
|
|
|
Gosh, the part with the most fat is unhealthy? Who would have thought.
In other news, vegetables are more tasty anyway. If I had to chose between only meat or vegetables&fruit for the rest of my life, that'd be no contest at all. Bacon and such is just your brain going "yay, fat- we won't starve this winter". And since a lot of bacon enthusiasts are probably on the chubby side anyway, that's probably not a legitimate concern nowadays.
|
The issue is not that people are accelerating their deaths. On the contrary. it's the moral hazard problem we're looking at. Fatty-fatty-boom-bo-latties don't exercise self control and endanger themselves with their sub-par lifestyles but then they use billions of dollars in healthcare to prolong their existences. If we simply allowed irresponsible consumers to reap what was sewn, there would be no complaining, and there would be for "no shit, sherlock" studies like this one.
PS: the mortality rate is still far too low for how unhealthy America is.
Also, yeah, any study that doesn't use more objective analysis or regressions or some form of econometrics will only be met with legitimate skepticism.
|
It's the nitrates/nitrites of processed meat/bacon that contributes to it. It's not really any secret that stuff is bad for you. You can't live forever so if you take things in moderation that's about as good as anyone can do nowadays that everything kills you and gives you cancer.
|
What I have learned from this thread:
-Everything kills you.
-My current diet of bacon, beer, and chocolate is not only healthy, but ideal.
|
People from EpicMealTime will be happy hearing this
|
Anytime the Mrs. gets going with her veggies, they're either breaded, fried, soaked in butter, or covered in sour cream or cream cheese. That's the problem with a lot of psuedo-healthy minded people. They eat iceberg lettuce (basically garbage) with a pound of ranch dressing (basically lard) and think they're abstaining from unhealthy foods? Of course, I know why people like the Mrs. do all of this... because veggies are incredibly, incredibly bland and it takes soooo much work to really like them, or you need to love them during your youth. Otherwise, it's an uphill struggle.
My solution? Fruits! Fruits and grains. Fruits are sosososo delicious. And good for you.
|
On March 14 2012 11:29 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Anytime the Mrs. gets going with her veggies, they're either breaded, fried, soaked in butter, or covered in sour cream or cream cheese. That's the problem with a lot of psuedo-healthy minded people. They eat iceberg lettuce (basically garbage) with a pound of ranch dressing (basically lard) and think they're abstaining from unhealthy foods? Of course, I know why people like the Mrs. do all of this... because veggies are incredibly, incredibly bland and it takes soooo much work to really like them, or you need to love them during your youth. Otherwise, it's an uphill struggle.
My solution? Fruits! Fruits and grains. Fruits are sosososo delicious. And good for you.
Well you talk about people thinking they are abstaining from unhealthy foods when really they are not but think that lard is unhealthy. Ranch dressing bought at the store is but the fat component of lard is healthy- at least in a balanced diet. Think carbs as the enemy not animal and nut fats.
|
You guys are missing a huge part of this study.
Pepperoni pizza was classified as a red meat meal. Spaghetti with meatballs is a red meat meal. Burgers with buns is a red meat meal. Steak and potatoes is a red meat meal.
In each of those cases, the majority of calories do not come from the meat in the meal. However, by lumping it all together, the researchers were able to conclude that "red meat" increases mortality when you really can't make that distinction.
|
On March 14 2012 11:44 spacemonkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 11:29 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Anytime the Mrs. gets going with her veggies, they're either breaded, fried, soaked in butter, or covered in sour cream or cream cheese. That's the problem with a lot of psuedo-healthy minded people. They eat iceberg lettuce (basically garbage) with a pound of ranch dressing (basically lard) and think they're abstaining from unhealthy foods? Of course, I know why people like the Mrs. do all of this... because veggies are incredibly, incredibly bland and it takes soooo much work to really like them, or you need to love them during your youth. Otherwise, it's an uphill struggle.
My solution? Fruits! Fruits and grains. Fruits are sosososo delicious. And good for you. Well you talk about people thinking they are abstaining from unhealthy foods when really they are not but think that lard is unhealthy. Ranch dressing bought at the store is but the fat component of lard is healthy- at least in a balanced diet. Think carbs as the enemy not animal and nut fats.
I'm pretty sure 100% pure pig fat is not really that healthy, unless it's all you eat for the day, and in really small amounts.
|
On March 14 2012 11:51 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 11:44 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 11:29 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Anytime the Mrs. gets going with her veggies, they're either breaded, fried, soaked in butter, or covered in sour cream or cream cheese. That's the problem with a lot of psuedo-healthy minded people. They eat iceberg lettuce (basically garbage) with a pound of ranch dressing (basically lard) and think they're abstaining from unhealthy foods? Of course, I know why people like the Mrs. do all of this... because veggies are incredibly, incredibly bland and it takes soooo much work to really like them, or you need to love them during your youth. Otherwise, it's an uphill struggle.
My solution? Fruits! Fruits and grains. Fruits are sosososo delicious. And good for you. Well you talk about people thinking they are abstaining from unhealthy foods when really they are not but think that lard is unhealthy. Ranch dressing bought at the store is but the fat component of lard is healthy- at least in a balanced diet. Think carbs as the enemy not animal and nut fats. I'm pretty sure 100% pure pig fat is not really that healthy, unless it's all you eat for the day, and in really small amounts.
Why because it will clog up your arteries? Thats not how it works (if the pigs are healthy the fat isnt too bad)
|
I know a guy in my Neighborhood who is 97.
He drinks red wine, and eats bacon, 3 times a day, every day.
I wish we could put a ban on of all these topics, they are so damn pointless in a SC2 forum, you see the same shit on the news, it's not news, "Milk is bad for you", "Sugar is bad for you", "Sitting is bad for you", JFC, lets hear some good news, WHAT IS GOOD FOR US? Lets hear more of that, instead of shying away from everything, why don't we have proper education on the better amounts to eat and not eat/do, not do, instead of DONT EAT/DO THIS! ITL KILL YOU!
Seriously though, holy SHIT are these studies and "news" annoying. Nothing is good for you, everything is bad, because in our tests we force fed monkies 17 pounds of raw pork an hour. Obviously that's an exaggeration and not what they did, but I seriously don't give a shit - I have a choice to eat this, if I want to eat it, I'm going to regardless, people know and chose to do what they do, nobody is forced to do anything. Everybody is different, nobody has the same body, we all react differently to this stuff, they can NEVER get precise testing done on shit like this, we aren't lab rats.
This may belong in the letting off steam thread
/endrant
I love bacon.
|
On March 14 2012 11:53 spacemonkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 11:51 Chargelot wrote:On March 14 2012 11:44 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 11:29 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Anytime the Mrs. gets going with her veggies, they're either breaded, fried, soaked in butter, or covered in sour cream or cream cheese. That's the problem with a lot of psuedo-healthy minded people. They eat iceberg lettuce (basically garbage) with a pound of ranch dressing (basically lard) and think they're abstaining from unhealthy foods? Of course, I know why people like the Mrs. do all of this... because veggies are incredibly, incredibly bland and it takes soooo much work to really like them, or you need to love them during your youth. Otherwise, it's an uphill struggle.
My solution? Fruits! Fruits and grains. Fruits are sosososo delicious. And good for you. Well you talk about people thinking they are abstaining from unhealthy foods when really they are not but think that lard is unhealthy. Ranch dressing bought at the store is but the fat component of lard is healthy- at least in a balanced diet. Think carbs as the enemy not animal and nut fats. I'm pretty sure 100% pure pig fat is not really that healthy, unless it's all you eat for the day, and in really small amounts. Why because it will clog up your arteries? Thats not how it works (if the pigs are healthy the fat isnt too bad)
Um. Okay. Eating a bullet wouldn't clog up my arteries either, doesn't make it healthy.
If you don't like that comparison, I challenge you to eat a pound of lard per week for the next year. I'll pay for your funeral.
|
You are bacon up a crazy story here, sir.
I love bacon. I'll eat it while I'm on my death bed.
|
On March 14 2012 11:57 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 11:53 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 11:51 Chargelot wrote:On March 14 2012 11:44 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 11:29 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Anytime the Mrs. gets going with her veggies, they're either breaded, fried, soaked in butter, or covered in sour cream or cream cheese. That's the problem with a lot of psuedo-healthy minded people. They eat iceberg lettuce (basically garbage) with a pound of ranch dressing (basically lard) and think they're abstaining from unhealthy foods? Of course, I know why people like the Mrs. do all of this... because veggies are incredibly, incredibly bland and it takes soooo much work to really like them, or you need to love them during your youth. Otherwise, it's an uphill struggle.
My solution? Fruits! Fruits and grains. Fruits are sosososo delicious. And good for you. Well you talk about people thinking they are abstaining from unhealthy foods when really they are not but think that lard is unhealthy. Ranch dressing bought at the store is but the fat component of lard is healthy- at least in a balanced diet. Think carbs as the enemy not animal and nut fats. I'm pretty sure 100% pure pig fat is not really that healthy, unless it's all you eat for the day, and in really small amounts. Why because it will clog up your arteries? Thats not how it works (if the pigs are healthy the fat isnt too bad) Um. Okay. Eating a bullet wouldn't clog up my arteries either, doesn't make it healthy. If you don't like that comparison, I challenge you to eat a pound of lard per week for the next year. I'll pay for your funeral.
Just saying that if you understood the metabolism of fats and carbs that you will see that a lot of the bad stuff about fat is malligned. Demonized based on the fat hypothesis and that everyones cholesterol should be minimised by avoiding fat. I'm not saying eat the bad fats- they are obviously bad (transfats particualrly). If your running a surplus of carbs you will be doing far more damage IMO.
|
On March 14 2012 03:57 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
Bacon industry needs to do more lobbying. This negativity is unacceptable. Hahahaha, definitely the first time I've heard someone demand MORE lobbying
|
|
|
On March 14 2012 11:00 spacemonkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 10:53 Pro]ChoSen- wrote:
Here's a general rule for you to live by. If most people think it tastes really good then it is bad for you. If most people don't like to eat it then it is good for you.
That statement will hold true 99% of the time. This isn't shocking in the least bit. Almost everything people enjoy to eat isn't healthy for you to consume. Taste is so subjective though. People get literally addicted to carbs and sugars. Once you ween yourself off them you can find plenty of great tasting food which is good for you. Berries for example personally would much rather eat a punnet of fresh raspberries over any candy and raspberries are oh so nutritious.
I don't see any support for the literal clinical support for an actual addiction to carbs and sugars. I think the claim here can be likened to somebody saying they're addicted to American Idol or chocolate. It's said based on how much they like doing something when no addiction is present.
|
who the hell is paying these people to talk so decisively, when so clearly their study is constantly bullshit
|
These posts and studies keep coming up all the time.....
You are going to do eventually. Attempt to cut out things that are bad for you and live life in the best possible way for you. If you happen to pass on at 35 at least you gave it a shot in the end you won't remember anything anyways, but you won't have left a stain behind.
|
100% of people will die at some point.
100%-X will die sad
X will die happy
Bacon lives in the X group.
|
Bacon = death?
No, no that's not right at all.
Bacon or death!
|
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
|
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
Maybe he's talking about set theory.
Also bacon doesn't kill you. Worrying about bacon killing you probably kills just as fast, if not faster than bacon.
If I'm wrong someone find me the LD50 of bacon. You can't because there isn't one.
|
bacon with chocolate. sweet jesus mother of god holy BBQOMFGWTF
why I have never thought of that!
|
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
i dont see how X has 2 different meaning
if 100 people will die happy then X=100
so if 100% means 10 000 then the what he said is
10 000 people will die
10 000 - 100 will die sad
100 will die happy
|
Bacon is easily worth it.
|
ya this isn't really gonna stop anyone from eating bacon...
|
20% is pretty damn high and its everyones favorite breakfast.
|
Sweden5554 Posts
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 like % of meals they cook themselves, ready meals they put in the oven/micro, if they visit a dietist, amount of cigarettes they smoke, 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"?
|
Quite the title, haha
I thought it was common knowledge that bacon wasn't very good for you, I mean, just look at all the grease that comes out when you fry it.
Also, my dad is always warning me away from red meats, so I try and stick to chicken instead in my own cooking. And fish as well if it wasn't so expensive :O
|
As a wise man once said...
"It's always the things we love that end up destroying us."
|
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"?
Those first table shows the aggregate data for each quintile to give you a sense of what the groups look like. When they do the analyses on mortality they take into account caloric intake, lifestyle etc. That's what pops up under the multivariate analysis row for the mortality tables. If you want to know the full list of what they controlled for look at the statistical analysis paragraph.
|
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.
|
well im 5'11 135lbs with like .02% body fat and i love my bacon so f you
|
On March 15 2012 12:36 insearchof wrote:
well im 5'11 135lbs with like .02% body fat and i love my bacon so f you
You're a dead man walking lol
|
Good article, pretty much says everything people were saying earlier in the thread, lol. Observational study = not conclusive evidence of anything.
|
Doesn't matter. Bacon still tastes good!
|
Are there diminishing returns?
|
Onion and horsemeat make Belwas strong.
|
On March 16 2012 06:56 shinosai wrote:Good article, pretty much says everything people were saying earlier in the thread, lol. Observational study = not conclusive evidence of anything.
i added that criticism to the op and people can make up their own minds. i am kind of sick of people who keep saying questionnaires are illegitimate though. i will just leave this here for you:
http://www.nature.com/milestones/milecancer/full/milecancer08.html
the first real study linking lung cancer to smoking was a questionnaire.
|
On March 16 2012 07:13 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 06:56 shinosai wrote:Good article, pretty much says everything people were saying earlier in the thread, lol. Observational study = not conclusive evidence of anything. i added that criticism to the op and people can make up their own minds. i am kind of sick of people who keep saying questionnaires are illegitimate though. i will just leave this here for you: http://www.nature.com/milestones/milecancer/full/milecancer08.htmlthe first real study linking lung cancer to smoking was a questionnaire.
Well, I am kind of sick of people misrepresenting what we're saying. Observational studies aren't illegitimate. There's nothing wrong with observational studies, as long as you understand what sorts of conclusions you can draw from them. They are excellent starting points for developing hypotheses, but they cannot be used as conclusive evidence for, well, anything. You can use them to state correlations and develop theories, but the moment you say "ha, we've proved that doing so and so CAUSES so and so" then you've committed a grave error. With this study, we now know that there is a definite correlation between meat consumption and death. Now we have a question we need to answer: Why?
Sometimes, observational studies mislead us. Here's an example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1870648
Legitimate observational study "proves" estrogen decreases heart disease risk by 44%.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/288/3/321.abstract
Or, actually, it increases heart disease risk by 30%. Oops.
So, yes, the first real study linking lung cancer to smoking was a questionnaire. And it was a good starting point to seeing whether or not they were independently linked.
|
On March 16 2012 07:43 shinosai wrote:
With this study, we now know that there is a definite correlation between meat consumption and death. Now we have a question we need to answer: Why?
i agree with this. so i will just leave it at that. i was going to make a snide comment that you would make a good tobacco lobbyist back in the 50s/60s, but you edited your post a few times.
|
On March 16 2012 08:05 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 07:43 shinosai wrote:
With this study, we now know that there is a definite correlation between meat consumption and death. Now we have a question we need to answer: Why?
i agree with this. so i will just leave it at that. i was going to make a snide comment that you would make a good tobacco lobbyist back in the 50s/60s, but you edited your post a few times.
Fair enough. Yea, I tend to edit a lot.... I never write quite what I want to say the first time around. Sorry about that.
|
On March 16 2012 07:13 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 06:56 shinosai wrote:Good article, pretty much says everything people were saying earlier in the thread, lol. Observational study = not conclusive evidence of anything. i added that criticism to the op and people can make up their own minds. i am kind of sick of people who keep saying questionnaires are illegitimate though. i will just leave this here for you: http://www.nature.com/milestones/milecancer/full/milecancer08.htmlthe first real study linking lung cancer to smoking was a questionnaire.
The scientific method is basically this:
1. Make observations.
2. Infer relationships.
3. Test relationships for mechanisms.
4. Formulate hypothesis to explain observations.
5. Test hypothesis to see if it has predictive value.
Observation studies can only do the first two. All the researchers found was an association between mortality and red meat. Nothing more. There is no cause and effect here. The task is now to test the relationship and see if it's casual or associative. The researchers leapt to a conclusion which has no basis in the evidence. However, the media is utter garbage when it comes to reporting science properly and the average person is too dumb to understand the scientific method.
|
Welp, I've lived a good life.
|
On March 16 2012 10:49 0mar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 07:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 16 2012 06:56 shinosai wrote:Good article, pretty much says everything people were saying earlier in the thread, lol. Observational study = not conclusive evidence of anything. i added that criticism to the op and people can make up their own minds. i am kind of sick of people who keep saying questionnaires are illegitimate though. i will just leave this here for you: http://www.nature.com/milestones/milecancer/full/milecancer08.htmlthe first real study linking lung cancer to smoking was a questionnaire. The scientific method is basically this: 1. Make observations. 2. Infer relationships. 3. Test relationships for mechanisms. 4. Formulate hypothesis to explain observations. 5. Test hypothesis to see if it has predictive value. Observation studies can only do the first two. All the researchers found was an association between mortality and red meat. Nothing more. There is no cause and effect here. The task is now to test the relationship and see if it's casual or associative. The researchers leapt to a conclusion which has no basis in the evidence. However, the media is utter garbage when it comes to reporting science properly and the average person is too dumb to understand the scientific method.
Conclusions Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality. Substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk.
explain to me how they "leapt to a conclusion" with their conclusion. then, explain how that "has no basis in the evidence." all they said was there is an association between red meat and increased risk of mortality.
|
I suspect correlation vs causation here.
Someone please link the Piracy and Global warming study.
On March 16 2012 11:34 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 10:49 0mar wrote:On March 16 2012 07:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 16 2012 06:56 shinosai wrote:Good article, pretty much says everything people were saying earlier in the thread, lol. Observational study = not conclusive evidence of anything. i added that criticism to the op and people can make up their own minds. i am kind of sick of people who keep saying questionnaires are illegitimate though. i will just leave this here for you: http://www.nature.com/milestones/milecancer/full/milecancer08.htmlthe first real study linking lung cancer to smoking was a questionnaire. The scientific method is basically this: 1. Make observations. 2. Infer relationships. 3. Test relationships for mechanisms. 4. Formulate hypothesis to explain observations. 5. Test hypothesis to see if it has predictive value. Observation studies can only do the first two. All the researchers found was an association between mortality and red meat. Nothing more. There is no cause and effect here. The task is now to test the relationship and see if it's casual or associative. The researchers leapt to a conclusion which has no basis in the evidence. However, the media is utter garbage when it comes to reporting science properly and the average person is too dumb to understand the scientific method. Show nested quote +Conclusions Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality. Substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk. explain to me how they "leapt to a conclusion" with their conclusion. then, explain how that "has no basis in the evidence." all they said was there is an association between red meat and increased risk of mortality.
Well, as far as i can see, they did not test their hypothesis. A study, as mentioned before, is not conclusive evidence.
Number of pirates (in the sea) has gone down over the past century.
Temperature has gone up in the past century.
Therefore, the temperature will continue to increase as the number of pirates goes down.
|
On March 16 2012 11:44 Release wrote:I suspect correlation vs causation here. Someone please link the Piracy and Global warming study. Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 11:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 16 2012 10:49 0mar wrote:On March 16 2012 07:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 16 2012 06:56 shinosai wrote:Good article, pretty much says everything people were saying earlier in the thread, lol. Observational study = not conclusive evidence of anything. i added that criticism to the op and people can make up their own minds. i am kind of sick of people who keep saying questionnaires are illegitimate though. i will just leave this here for you: http://www.nature.com/milestones/milecancer/full/milecancer08.htmlthe first real study linking lung cancer to smoking was a questionnaire. The scientific method is basically this: 1. Make observations. 2. Infer relationships. 3. Test relationships for mechanisms. 4. Formulate hypothesis to explain observations. 5. Test hypothesis to see if it has predictive value. Observation studies can only do the first two. All the researchers found was an association between mortality and red meat. Nothing more. There is no cause and effect here. The task is now to test the relationship and see if it's casual or associative. The researchers leapt to a conclusion which has no basis in the evidence. However, the media is utter garbage when it comes to reporting science properly and the average person is too dumb to understand the scientific method. Conclusions Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality. Substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk. explain to me how they "leapt to a conclusion" with their conclusion. then, explain how that "has no basis in the evidence." all they said was there is an association between red meat and increased risk of mortality. Well, as far as i can see, they did not test their hypothesis. A study, as mentioned before, is not conclusive evidence. Number of pirates (in the sea) has gone down over the past century. Temperature has gone up in the past century. Therefore, the temperature will continue to increase as the number of pirates goes down.
they tested to see if there was a correlation. they found a correlation. their conclusion was that there was a correlation.
nobody (including the researchers) has said that correlation = causation.
|
I would still eat bacon today if it would kill me tomorrow. Come at me, statistics!
|
|
|
Some of these studies can be absurd. The once oldest woman in America was interviewed when she claimed the title. She stated that her secret to long life was bacon for breakfast everyday. Does that mean bacon is good for your health? No. Obviously not. Everyone is different. I don't care about these ridiculous studies that literally serve no purpose. When given the chance to have bacon with my breakfast, I'm going to eat it. Period. I don't have some undying love for bacon. The future health risks are worth it to me.
|
On March 15 2012 12:36 insearchof wrote:
well im 5'11 135lbs with like .02% body fat and i love my bacon so f you
One prerequisite for 0.02% body fat is death btw.
|
On March 16 2012 12:29 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 11:44 Release wrote:I suspect correlation vs causation here. Someone please link the Piracy and Global warming study. On March 16 2012 11:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 16 2012 10:49 0mar wrote:On March 16 2012 07:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 16 2012 06:56 shinosai wrote:Good article, pretty much says everything people were saying earlier in the thread, lol. Observational study = not conclusive evidence of anything. i added that criticism to the op and people can make up their own minds. i am kind of sick of people who keep saying questionnaires are illegitimate though. i will just leave this here for you: http://www.nature.com/milestones/milecancer/full/milecancer08.htmlthe first real study linking lung cancer to smoking was a questionnaire. The scientific method is basically this: 1. Make observations. 2. Infer relationships. 3. Test relationships for mechanisms. 4. Formulate hypothesis to explain observations. 5. Test hypothesis to see if it has predictive value. Observation studies can only do the first two. All the researchers found was an association between mortality and red meat. Nothing more. There is no cause and effect here. The task is now to test the relationship and see if it's casual or associative. The researchers leapt to a conclusion which has no basis in the evidence. However, the media is utter garbage when it comes to reporting science properly and the average person is too dumb to understand the scientific method. Conclusions Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality. Substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk. explain to me how they "leapt to a conclusion" with their conclusion. then, explain how that "has no basis in the evidence." all they said was there is an association between red meat and increased risk of mortality. Well, as far as i can see, they did not test their hypothesis. A study, as mentioned before, is not conclusive evidence. Number of pirates (in the sea) has gone down over the past century. Temperature has gone up in the past century. Therefore, the temperature will continue to increase as the number of pirates goes down. they tested to see if there was a correlation. they found a correlation. their conclusion was that there was a correlation. nobody (including the researchers) has said that correlation = causation.
Except they did say that correlation was causation when they stated that red meat was associated with the increased risk, and the correlation was not necessarily proven given that there are a large plethora of ways you can get cancer and CVD's. How many of the people that died of Cancer and CVD's were smokers? How many of them were exposed to x-rays and UV rays? How many of them have genetic predispositions to Cancer and CVD's? They are jumping to conclusions without testing their hypothesis which could very well be correct, however it is irresponsible to jump to conclusions like that then publically broadcast their hypothesis as a truth.
|
On March 16 2012 12:49 Mr Showtime wrote:
Some of these studies can be absurd. The once oldest woman in America was interviewed when she claimed the title. She stated that her secret to long life was bacon for breakfast everyday. Does that mean bacon is good for your health? No. Obviously not. Everyone is different. I don't care about these ridiculous studies that literally serve no purpose. When given the chance to have bacon with my breakfast, I'm going to eat it. Period. I don't have some undying love for bacon. The future health risks are worth it to me.
yes. because one piece of anecdotal evidence is the same as a study with 100,000+ people in it. O.o
|
United States183 Posts
|
These numbers are pretty fucking scary. Good thing I'm not good at statistics.
|
On March 16 2012 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 12:49 Mr Showtime wrote:
Some of these studies can be absurd. The once oldest woman in America was interviewed when she claimed the title. She stated that her secret to long life was bacon for breakfast everyday. Does that mean bacon is good for your health? No. Obviously not. Everyone is different. I don't care about these ridiculous studies that literally serve no purpose. When given the chance to have bacon with my breakfast, I'm going to eat it. Period. I don't have some undying love for bacon. The future health risks are worth it to me. yes. because one piece of anecdotal evidence is the same as a study with 100,000+ people in it. O.o
Its not a study, its an observation, a study wouldn't allow deviance that could negatively affect the outcome such as smoking, exposure to low wavelength radiation, exposure to arsenic and a variety of other things. This for example would be concluding that because out of 150,000 people who drove blue cars for 40 years a higher percentage had cancer that blue cars cause cancer without mentioning that a higher percentage of people in the study who drove blue cars also smoked.
This is an extremely inaccurate misrepresentation of what limited data you have and is a downright irresponsible spreading of misinformation.
|
I personally don't find it consequential in terms of lifestyle, tbh. This won't stop me from from eating bacon, it's simply not worth living life in a glass bottle, afraid of anything that might hurt you.
now if they find some kind of chemical mode of action that causes said harm from bacon (assuming it exists) then it becomes interesting.
|
On March 16 2012 13:11 Hipsv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 16 2012 12:49 Mr Showtime wrote:
Some of these studies can be absurd. The once oldest woman in America was interviewed when she claimed the title. She stated that her secret to long life was bacon for breakfast everyday. Does that mean bacon is good for your health? No. Obviously not. Everyone is different. I don't care about these ridiculous studies that literally serve no purpose. When given the chance to have bacon with my breakfast, I'm going to eat it. Period. I don't have some undying love for bacon. The future health risks are worth it to me. yes. because one piece of anecdotal evidence is the same as a study with 100,000+ people in it. O.o Its not a study, its an observation, a study wouldn't allow deviance that could negatively affect the outcome such as smoking, exposure to low wavelength radiation, exposure to arsenic and a variety of other things. This for example would be concluding that because out of 150,000 people who drove blue cars for 40 years a higher percentage had cancer that blue cars cause cancer without mentioning that a higher percentage of people in the study who drove blue cars also smoked. This is an extremely inaccurate misrepresentation of what limited data you have and is a downright irresponsible spreading of misinformation.
Well, actually, they accounted for all these things with multivariate testing. Although they didn't publish their formula so we can't really say how effective they were at accounting for them. Nevertheless, in a valid study they're not going to account for these variables with equations. They would eliminate them. Or, well, I shouldn't say valid study.... in a clinical trial, they would. You can do whatever you want in a "study".
|
On March 16 2012 13:11 Hipsv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 16 2012 12:49 Mr Showtime wrote:
Some of these studies can be absurd. The once oldest woman in America was interviewed when she claimed the title. She stated that her secret to long life was bacon for breakfast everyday. Does that mean bacon is good for your health? No. Obviously not. Everyone is different. I don't care about these ridiculous studies that literally serve no purpose. When given the chance to have bacon with my breakfast, I'm going to eat it. Period. I don't have some undying love for bacon. The future health risks are worth it to me. yes. because one piece of anecdotal evidence is the same as a study with 100,000+ people in it. O.o Its not a study, its an observation, a study wouldn't allow deviance that could negatively affect the outcome such as smoking, exposure to low wavelength radiation, exposure to arsenic and a variety of other things. This for example would be concluding that because out of 150,000 people who drove blue cars for 40 years a higher percentage had cancer that blue cars cause cancer without mentioning that a higher percentage of people in the study who drove blue cars also smoked. This is an extremely inaccurate misrepresentation of what limited data you have and is a downright irresponsible spreading of misinformation.
I'm not sure I'm understanding you at all, they did control for smoking in this study, and studies often seek the best variables to disprove a desired outcome (unless you work for a spin institute like some far wing BS political tank). The more infallible the study is, the more reputable it becomes as time goes on.
|
On March 16 2012 13:11 Hipsv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 16 2012 12:49 Mr Showtime wrote:
Some of these studies can be absurd. The once oldest woman in America was interviewed when she claimed the title. She stated that her secret to long life was bacon for breakfast everyday. Does that mean bacon is good for your health? No. Obviously not. Everyone is different. I don't care about these ridiculous studies that literally serve no purpose. When given the chance to have bacon with my breakfast, I'm going to eat it. Period. I don't have some undying love for bacon. The future health risks are worth it to me. yes. because one piece of anecdotal evidence is the same as a study with 100,000+ people in it. O.o Its not a study, its an observation, a study wouldn't allow deviance that could negatively affect the outcome such as smoking, exposure to low wavelength radiation, exposure to arsenic and a variety of other things. This for example would be concluding that because out of 150,000 people who drove blue cars for 40 years a higher percentage had cancer that blue cars cause cancer without mentioning that a higher percentage of people in the study who drove blue cars also smoked. This is an extremely inaccurate misrepresentation of what limited data you have and is a downright irresponsible spreading of misinformation.
im not sure you understand what "study" means.
|
On March 16 2012 13:11 Hipsv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 16 2012 12:49 Mr Showtime wrote:
Some of these studies can be absurd. The once oldest woman in America was interviewed when she claimed the title. She stated that her secret to long life was bacon for breakfast everyday. Does that mean bacon is good for your health? No. Obviously not. Everyone is different. I don't care about these ridiculous studies that literally serve no purpose. When given the chance to have bacon with my breakfast, I'm going to eat it. Period. I don't have some undying love for bacon. The future health risks are worth it to me. yes. because one piece of anecdotal evidence is the same as a study with 100,000+ people in it. O.o Its not a study, its an observation, a study wouldn't allow deviance that could negatively affect the outcome such as smoking, exposure to low wavelength radiation, exposure to arsenic and a variety of other things. This for example would be concluding that because out of 150,000 people who drove blue cars for 40 years a higher percentage had cancer that blue cars cause cancer without mentioning that a higher percentage of people in the study who drove blue cars also smoked. This is an extremely inaccurate misrepresentation of what limited data you have and is a downright irresponsible spreading of misinformation.
If you had a significant proportion (like the one in the article) of blue car users getting cancer compared to other color car users, that would be a cause for significant concern.
Thing is that is impossible, so we don't bother investigating something like that.
|
What can I eat if I want to be immortal?
|
On March 16 2012 13:26 dgwow wrote:
What can I eat if I want to be immortal?
Try an apple from the tree of might.
|
On March 16 2012 13:26 dgwow wrote:
What can I eat if I want to be immortal?
acai.
|
I don't eat red meat every day because it would get boring. Variety and reasonable portions seem to be the gold standard for nutrition and I'm all for it. Now to tell all the meat-heads who think eating more beef will make them strong as a bull that spinach is where it's at. Didn't they learn anything from cartoons?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2079/2253281370_f9faa3c40c_z.jpg?zz=1)
![[image loading]](http://checkmypulse.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/shocked_face.jpg?w=300&h=300)
