Veganism

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

JackRabbitSlims said:
Very interesting stuff. The evidence increases.

It makes some sense. Eating processed meats has been one of the biggest lifestyle changes of the modern day, and there have to be some varying reasons as to why cancer is so prevalent in todays society.

Suggesting to people that it is as dangerous as smoking is probably not the best way to go about it though. I find that hard to believe myself. But that it will increase your chance of getting cancer to some degree....I'm sure that will encourage more people to reduce their meat consumption.

I continue to do so, although I just had a mushroom pie for lunch which had God knows what animal/s in it. Again the lazy excuse of "convenience", as I couldn't be bothered going out for lunch today, hadn't stocked up at the supermarket (my bread rolls from last week had to be thrown out as they now had blue spots!), and the lunch truck didn't seem to have other alternatives. Well they did, but not with hot food. On second thoughts I should have got a sandwich.

But I am finding that alternatives are there, and often aren't bad as far as taste go. From the local sportsbar last night I asked about their pizzas, and one of the four was called "vegetarian", so I got that, and it was nice. I must admit that I feel slightly weird when I ask for something vegetarian, as if I am stating this as my belief and thus questioning the person who I'm declaring this to. This is not what I'm doing, but anyway, maybe that's an interesting feeling. I guess it's like if you go to church, and you don't go out of your way to say that you went, but if someone asks what you did on Sunday or if you can do something Sunday, then you tell them. I don't know; I'm just rambling.

Last weekend I went to a German festival and was about to cave in on something meaty when my mate suggested we look around some more. Low and behold there was a veggie hot dog. Sounds like an oxymoron, but was satisfactory. I also got a veggie burger from the fish and chips shop the other night and that tasted virtually as good as the heart attack risk hamburger with the lot! :D

At home I am eating a lot of baked beans on toast, as well as margarita pizzas.
 
Re: Re:

gregrowlerson said:
It makes some sense. Eating processed meats has been one of the biggest lifestyle changes of the modern day, and there have to be some varying reasons as to why cancer is so prevalent in todays society.
Here's the thing... Professor T. Colin Campbell (in the 'China Study') doesn't suggest that it's meat, but more specifically animal proteins...
Consider then, that over the past 15-20 years we've gone from cancer affecting 1 in 5 to now being 1 in 2 people. Then consider the massive push in the past decade of protein, protein, protein. I'd wager there's a serious link in the consumption of animal based protein and the staggering increase in cancer cases... Campbell's research states that a diet of more than 10% protein will effectively "turn on" cancer cells.

Let's also not forget that he was part of the WHO back in the 60's that came up with the 30% protein figure, which he now states categorically as wrong, and wasn't based on anything really sound when he and the others came up with it. Yet despite that "admission" (if you will), everyone seems hell-bent on sticking to it...
Recent example was a work colleague spouting off about "what my nutritionist said" and even showing me the app linked to them. I questioned it and said, "what's that based on?"
The answer was a simple "From University where she got her degree"... I responded by pointing out that the the folks who established that had now corrected themselves, but was adamantly told that that couldn't be true, and what her nutritionist said was 'fact'...
Ignorance is bliss :rolleyes:
 
Re: Re:

gregrowlerson said:
JackRabbitSlims said:
Very interesting stuff. The evidence increases.

It makes some sense. Eating processed meats has been one of the biggest lifestyle changes of the modern day, and there have to be some varying reasons as to why cancer is so prevalent in todays society.

Suggesting to people that it is as dangerous as smoking is probably not the best way to go about it though. I find that hard to believe myself. But that it will increase your chance of getting cancer to some degree....I'm sure that will encourage more people to reduce their meat consumption.

I continue to do so, although I just had a mushroom pie for lunch which had God knows what animal/s in it. Again the lazy excuse of "convenience", as I couldn't be bothered going out for lunch today, hadn't stocked up at the supermarket (my bread rolls from last week had to be thrown out as they now had blue spots!), and the lunch truck didn't seem to have other alternatives. Well they did, but not with hot food. On second thoughts I should have got a sandwich.

But I am finding that alternatives are there, and often aren't bad as far as taste go. From the local sportsbar last night I asked about their pizzas, and one of the four was called "vegetarian", so I got that, and it was nice. I must admit that I feel slightly weird when I ask for something vegetarian, as if I am stating this as my belief and thus questioning the person who I'm declaring this to. This is not what I'm doing, but anyway, maybe that's an interesting feeling. I guess it's like if you go to church, and you don't go out of your way to say that you went, but if someone asks what you did on Sunday or if you can do something Sunday, then you tell them. I don't know; I'm just rambling.

Last weekend I went to a German festival and was about to cave in on something meaty when my mate suggested we look around some more. Low and behold there was a veggie hot dog. Sounds like an oxymoron, but was satisfactory. I also got a veggie burger from the fish and chips shop the other night and that tasted virtually as good as the heart attack risk hamburger with the lot! :D

At home I am eating a lot of baked beans on toast, as well as margarita pizzas.
Their point was eating processed meats increase your chance of Colon cancer something like 12-15%..smoking increases your chance of a variety of cancers like 1200%...

I think a big part is the chemicals, nitrates and such, used to 'chemically cure' the meats. Like bacon, hotdogs, cured meats.
 
Jan 10, 2010
1,716
0
0
Q&A on meat and cancer

Q: Is bacon as dangerous as smoking?

A: No. The new report from the World Health Organisation has given processed meats such as bacon, ham and sausages, the highest ranking - "carcinogenic to humans".

Its inclusion as a group 1 carcinogen puts it alongside arsenic, alcohol, and asbestos as an agent which causes cancer.

However, the ranking does not compare the relative risks of the substances.
The classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence that a substance causes cancer - not the actual level of risk.

WHO's team ruled that there processed meats do increase the risk of cancer, putting it in the top ranking. By contrast, fresh meat was assessed to be a "probable" risk - one rank down - as the evidence was less definite.

Q: How much does processed meat increase the risk of cancer?

A: The review found that every 50g of processed meat per day increases the risk of bowel cancer by 18 per cent, with increased risks of prostate and pancreatic cancer.

Q: How about fresh meat?

A: Studies in the review found that eating 100g a day of fresh red meat was associated with a 17 per cent increased risk of cancer, but that the evidence to support this was more limited, so that it was ranked as a "probable" cause of cancer.

Q: How do the risks of smoking and processed meat compare?

A: In total, 19 per cent of all cancers are caused by smoking, including almost nine in 10 lung cancers. Meanwhile, just 3 per cent of cancers are caused by processed and red meat - including around one in five cases of bowel cancer.

Q: Why does processed meat increase the risk of cancer?

A: Processed meat has been modified to change the taste or extend its shelf life. The main methods are smoking, curing, or adding salt or preservatives. Research has found that the compound that gives red meat its colour, haem, may damage the lining of the bowel.

Suspected carcinogenic chemicals can also form during processing. These include N-nitroso compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Q: Which products are defined as processed meats?

A: Simply putting beef through a mincer does not mean the resulting mince is "processed" unless it is modified further. Processed meat includes bacon, sausages, hot dogs, salami, corned beef, beef jerky and ham as well as canned meat and meat-based sauces.

The debate about processed meat and cancer

The links between processed meat and cancer have been debated for some time.

Why are they being linked?

One possible reason for the link is that the compound that gives red meat its colour, haem, may damage the lining of the bowel.

In addition, when meat is preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or by adding preservatives, cancer-causing substances (carcinogens) can be formed.
Studies have also found that people who eat a lot of red meat tend to eat fewer plant-based foods that protect against cancer.

What is defined as red meat?

Foods such as hamburgers, minced beef, pork chops and roast lamb are also regarded as red meat. As a rough guide, the WCRF says 500g of cooked red meat is the same as 700g of raw red meat.

What is defined as processed meat?

Processed meat is meat which has been preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or by the addition of preservatives. Examples include ham, bacon, pastrami and salami, as well as hot dogs and some sausages.

This article is another good read - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11535559
 
Re: Re:

gregrowlerson said:
JackRabbitSlims said:
Very interesting stuff. The evidence increases.

It makes some sense. Eating processed meats has been one of the biggest lifestyle changes of the modern day, and there have to be some varying reasons as to why cancer is so prevalent in todays society.

c
There is a huge study in progress now that is linking GMOs to increased cancer rates, increased autism spectrum/Aspurger's rates, etc. I'm interested to see their results.
 
Re:

JackRabbitSlims said:
Q&A on meat and cancer

Q: Is bacon as dangerous as smoking?

A: No. The new report from the World Health Organisation has given processed meats such as bacon, ham and sausages, the highest ranking - "carcinogenic to humans".

Its inclusion as a group 1 carcinogen puts it alongside arsenic, alcohol, and asbestos as an agent which causes cancer.

However, the ranking does not compare the relative risks of the substances.
The classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence that a substance causes cancer - not the actual level of risk.

WHO's team ruled that there processed meats do increase the risk of cancer, putting it in the top ranking. By contrast, fresh meat was assessed to be a "probable" risk - one rank down - as the evidence was less definite.

Q: How much does processed meat increase the risk of cancer?

A: The review found that every 50g of processed meat per day increases the risk of bowel cancer by 18 per cent, with increased risks of prostate and pancreatic cancer.

Q: How about fresh meat?

A: Studies in the review found that eating 100g a day of fresh red meat was associated with a 17 per cent increased risk of cancer, but that the evidence to support this was more limited, so that it was ranked as a "probable" cause of cancer.

Q: How do the risks of smoking and processed meat compare?

A: In total, 19 per cent of all cancers are caused by smoking, including almost nine in 10 lung cancers. Meanwhile, just 3 per cent of cancers are caused by processed and red meat - including around one in five cases of bowel cancer.

Q: Why does processed meat increase the risk of cancer?

A: Processed meat has been modified to change the taste or extend its shelf life. The main methods are smoking, curing, or adding salt or preservatives. Research has found that the compound that gives red meat its colour, haem, may damage the lining of the bowel.

Suspected carcinogenic chemicals can also form during processing. These include N-nitroso compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Q: Which products are defined as processed meats?

A: Simply putting beef through a mincer does not mean the resulting mince is "processed" unless it is modified further. Processed meat includes bacon, sausages, hot dogs, salami, corned beef, beef jerky and ham as well as canned meat and meat-based sauces.

The debate about processed meat and cancer

The links between processed meat and cancer have been debated for some time.

Why are they being linked?

One possible reason for the link is that the compound that gives red meat its colour, haem, may damage the lining of the bowel.

In addition, when meat is preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or by adding preservatives, cancer-causing substances (carcinogens) can be formed.
Studies have also found that people who eat a lot of red meat tend to eat fewer plant-based foods that protect against cancer.

What is defined as red meat?

Foods such as hamburgers, minced beef, pork chops and roast lamb are also regarded as red meat. As a rough guide, the WCRF says 500g of cooked red meat is the same as 700g of raw red meat.

What is defined as processed meat?

Processed meat is meat which has been preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or by the addition of preservatives. Examples include ham, bacon, pastrami and salami, as well as hot dogs and some sausages.

This article is another good read - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11535559
Doesn't everything cause cancer these days?
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
red_flanders said:
Jspear said:
Doesn't everything cause cancer these days?
No, they always did. Just takes time for the science to come out.

Plenty of diets which don't.
Plenty of diets which haven't been proven to yet. :p
There are well-studied diets like the Mediterranean, vegetarian and vegan diets which have been looked at long enough to understand that they not only don't cause cancer, but help prevent it.

People might not like those facts and throw up their hands and say everything causes cancer, but it's not the case.
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
Doesn't everything cause cancer these days?
Yeah.



The right way to do it would be to study what kinds of cancer are caused by each thing, and the relative additive effect of different carcinogens. I could eat 5 things that "cause" cancer, but if they each lead to a 1% increase in different cancers, that is less risk than if they all led to a .5% increase in a specific cancer.

Not to mention the cumulative/additive effects of different carcinogens is harder to study, and more reflective of reality.
 
Re: Re:

More Strides than Rides said:
The right way to do it would be to study what kinds of cancer are caused by each thing, and the relative additive effect of different carcinogens. I could eat 5 things that "cause" cancer, but if they each lead to a 1% increase in different cancers, that is less risk than if they all led to a .5% increase in a specific cancer.

Not to mention the cumulative/additive effects of different carcinogens is harder to study, and more reflective of reality.
The right way to do it is look for diets which provide the best outcomes for the most people. Better health while alive, and maybe longer life. Less disease and down time, less cost for treatment, better athletic performance, whatever your priorities are.

This is all fairly well understood. But it's hard 'cause there are so many good and tasty foods. So people throw up their hands and eat whatever is fed to them in the markets instead of doing the harder work to create a diet that's better for their goals.

If you don't have goals, you're not going to meet them and you're going to act according to the wishes and needs of the day, in diet as in all things.
 
Agreed. My post was more of a "... right way to do it (carcinogens research)...", where you're talking about "right way to to it (life, marketing, wellness).

I wish I could say the solution was to just worry about yourself, but the economics of the problem make it a communal issue. Not to mention the prescient issue of caring for the well being of your fellow person
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
red_flanders said:
Jspear said:
Doesn't everything cause cancer these days?
No, they always did. Just takes time for the science to come out.

Plenty of diets which don't.
Plenty of diets which haven't been proven to yet. :p
As Red says, no.

If it helps, the best example I've seen on how cancer work is this;

We all have cancerous cells in our body, but they just need the right balance of "ingredients" to be activated...

Like grass seeds, if you throw a batch on the ground nothing happens, but if they get the right amount of sun, water, shade, nutrients, etc... they'll grow. Some better than others.
If they get sun, but no water, they won't grow. Lots of water, but no sun, then again, won't grow...

Obviously that's a very simplified example, but you can get the drift from there...
 
Re: Re:

Archibald said:
Jspear said:
red_flanders said:
Jspear said:
Doesn't everything cause cancer these days?
No, they always did. Just takes time for the science to come out.

Plenty of diets which don't.
Plenty of diets which haven't been proven to yet. :p
As Red says, no.

If it helps, the best example I've seen on how cancer work is this;

We all have cancerous cells in our body, but they just need the right balance of "ingredients" to be activated...

Like grass seeds, if you throw a batch on the ground nothing happens, but if they get the right amount of sun, water, shade, nutrients, etc... they'll grow. Some better than others.
If they get sun, but no water, they won't grow. Lots of water, but no sun, then again, won't grow...

Obviously that's a very simplified example, but you can get the drift from there...
That is a pretty simplified way of putting it, but you are correct in your statements.
 
Re: Re:

Archibald said:
Jspear said:
red_flanders said:
Jspear said:
Doesn't everything cause cancer these days?
No, they always did. Just takes time for the science to come out.

Plenty of diets which don't.
Plenty of diets which haven't been proven to yet. :p
As Red says, no.

If it helps, the best example I've seen on how cancer work is this;

We all have cancerous cells in our body, but they just need the right balance of "ingredients" to be activated...

Like grass seeds, if you throw a batch on the ground nothing happens, but if they get the right amount of sun, water, shade, nutrients, etc... they'll grow. Some better than others.
If they get sun, but no water, they won't grow. Lots of water, but no sun, then again, won't grow...

Obviously that's a very simplified example, but you can get the drift from there...
Caner cells divide uncontrollably and spread which is really the problem.
 
Re: Re:

jmdirt said:
Archibald said:
Jspear said:
red_flanders said:
Jspear said:
Doesn't everything cause cancer these days?
No, they always did. Just takes time for the science to come out.

Plenty of diets which don't.
Plenty of diets which haven't been proven to yet. :p
As Red says, no.

If it helps, the best example I've seen on how cancer work is this;

We all have cancerous cells in our body, but they just need the right balance of "ingredients" to be activated...

Like grass seeds, if you throw a batch on the ground nothing happens, but if they get the right amount of sun, water, shade, nutrients, etc... they'll grow. Some better than others.
If they get sun, but no water, they won't grow. Lots of water, but no sun, then again, won't grow...

Obviously that's a very simplified example, but you can get the drift from there...
Caner cells divide uncontrollably and spread which is really the problem.
there's the rub, though... those cells can be "switched off" if you deprive them of one of those "activators" [for want of a better word]. This has been done
 
Re: Re:

Like grass seeds, if you throw a batch on the ground nothing happens, but if they get the right amount of sun, water, shade, nutrients, etc... they'll grow. Some better than others.
If they get sun, but no water, they won't grow. Lots of water, but no sun, then again, won't grow...

Obviously that's a very simplified example, but you can get the drift from there...[/quote]
Caner cells divide uncontrollably and spread which is really the problem.[/quote]
there's the rub, though... those cells can be "switched off" if you deprive them of one of those "activators" [for want of a better word]. This has been done[/quote]


I was replying to he comparison to grass as much as anything, but yes, certain cells can be 'deactivated', but that research is in its infancy.
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
Doesn't everything cause cancer these days?
So sayeth Joe Jackson.


And on a cheerier note, ...

Vegetarian and “Healthy” Diets Could Be More Harmful to the Environment
Carnegie Mellon Study Finds Eating Lettuce Is More Than Three Times Worse in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Than Eating Bacon
By Shilo Rea

...[A]ccording to new research from Carnegie Mellon University, following the USDA recommendations to consume more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood is more harmful to the environment because those foods have relatively high resource uses and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per calorie. Published in Environment Systems and Decisions, the study measured the changes in energy use, blue water footprint and GHG emissions associated with U.S. food consumption patterns.

“Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon,” said Paul Fischbeck, professor of social and decisions sciences and engineering and public policy. “Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken.”...

Not to mention that a livestock grazing pasture by its nature is a healthy, commodious and self-sustaining ecosystem, while croplands are a veritable wasteland treated specifically to the exclusion of every living creature apart the intended crop and some few helpful species. And croplands must be re-planted periodically, which requires further investment of human labour and additional tilling of the earth, which leads to the loss of still more topsoil and promotes erosion. Livestock grazing in pastures, OTOH, stabilises existing and creates additional topsoil.
 
As my 11-year-old daughter recently pointed out to me, meats cause much more water use than vegetables. Here's an article looking at the water footprint of various foods.

http://www.gracelinks.org/1361/the-water-footprint-of-food

Let’s take a look at a typical lunch. A loaf of bread requires about 240 gallons of water, and a pound of cheese takes about 382 gallons. So a simple cheese sandwich takes about 56 gallons of water. Throw in a small bag of potato chips at 12 gallons and you just ate about 68 gallons of water. Add some turkey and it jumps to 160 gallons! Thirsty? Rinse your sandwich down with an ice cold soda and you can add an extra 46 gallons of water onto your tab.

The sheer amount of water used to make the food we eat every day can be mind-boggling.

Let’s take a closer look at meat. Pound for pound, it has a much higher water footprint than vegetables, grains or beans. For instance, a single pound of beef takes, on average, 1,800 gallons of water. That huge water footprint is primarily due to the tremendous amount of water needed to grow the grass, forage and feed that a beef steer eats over its lifetime, plus water for drinking, cleaning and processing.
 
Re:

red_flanders said:
As my 11-year-old daughter recently pointed out to me, meats cause much more water use than vegetables. Here's an article looking at the water footprint of various foods.

http://www.gracelinks.org/1361/the-water-footprint-of-food

Let’s take a look at a typical lunch. A loaf of bread requires about 240 gallons of water, and a pound of cheese takes about 382 gallons. So a simple cheese sandwich takes about 56 gallons of water. Throw in a small bag of potato chips at 12 gallons and you just ate about 68 gallons of water. Add some turkey and it jumps to 160 gallons! Thirsty? Rinse your sandwich down with an ice cold soda and you can add an extra 46 gallons of water onto your tab.

The sheer amount of water used to make the food we eat every day can be mind-boggling.

Let’s take a closer look at meat. Pound for pound, it has a much higher water footprint than vegetables, grains or beans. For instance, a single pound of beef takes, on average, 1,800 gallons of water. That huge water footprint is primarily due to the tremendous amount of water needed to grow the grass, forage and feed that a beef steer eats over its lifetime, plus water for drinking, cleaning and processing.
This is based a massively ridiculous assumption that all the water that goes into pastureland goes into beef production though. The study posted by StyrbjornSterki shows that actually vegetables, fruits, eggs, nuts and seeds all have a larger blue water footprint.
 
Re:

StyrbjornSterki said:
And on a cheerier note, ...

Vegetarian and “Healthy” Diets Could Be More Harmful to the Environment
Carnegie Mellon Study Finds Eating Lettuce Is More Than Three Times Worse in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Than Eating Bacon
By Shilo Rea

...[A]ccording to new research from Carnegie Mellon University, following the USDA recommendations to consume more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood is more harmful to the environment because those foods have relatively high resource uses and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per calorie. Published in Environment Systems and Decisions, the study measured the changes in energy use, blue water footprint and GHG emissions associated with U.S. food consumption patterns.

“Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon,” said Paul Fischbeck, professor of social and decisions sciences and engineering and public policy. “Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken.”...
The problem with studies like this is that they don’t really consider all the factors and consequences in the chain, though they think they do. If people eat less fruits and vegetables, that adversely affects their health. That means more health care, which means more energy and water use, and more GHG emissions. Even if turned out that the increase in these factors as a result of adverse health consequences was not as great as the increase resulting from the USDA recommended diet, one could argue that better health is worth a certain cost in energy and resource use. In fact, if we closed down all hospitals, we would greatly reduce energy and resource use, but obviously no one is in favor of that.

The comparison with bacon is particularly unfair, because pork is relatively low in energy and resource use because pigs are raised in severely constrained quarters. I do agree, though, that pigs could be fed much more with waste that has no other use, rather than with plant foods consumable by humans.

Not to mention that a livestock grazing pasture by its nature is a healthy, commodious and self-sustaining ecosystem, while croplands are a veritable wasteland treated specifically to the exclusion of every living creature apart the intended crop and some few helpful species. And croplands must be re-planted periodically, which requires further investment of human labour and additional tilling of the earth, which leads to the loss of still more topsoil and promotes erosion. Livestock grazing in pastures, OTOH, stabilises existing and creates additional topsoil.
In a world where people are constantly complaining there aren’t enough jobs, arguing that a disadvantage of plant cultivation is that it’s more labor intensive than animal husbandry is a little strange. Loss of topsoil and erosion is more of an indictment of large-scale agribusiness than of plant cultivation per se. I agree with you about livestock grazing, but a great deal of livestock, at least in the U.S., are grown in feedlots.

King Boonen said:
The situation in Australia is not necessarily representative of what exists elsewhere, e.g., I’m not aware that mouse plagues are common in other areas, but:

1) As the link by SS notes, a significant decrease in energy/resource use could be achieved if people simply lowered their caloric input. Most people overeat, and the figures in the linked article on Australia don’t challenge this.

2) The article contrasts the slow, painful death of poisoned mice (and again, I don’t know that mouse plagues are a general problem with plant cultivation in other parts of the world) with the instant death of cattle. But in many feedlots, the animals are severely confined, resulting in suffering most of their lives, and while death at the slaughter house may be quicker than by poisoning, it isn’t instantaneous nor without suffering.

3) As what I said above, arguments in this article are really more an indictment of large-scale agribusiness than plant cultivation per se.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY