Eating Bacon Could Be As Bad As Smoking!!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11535344
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11535344
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
JackRabbitSlims said:
Here's the thing... Professor T. Colin Campbell (in the 'China Study') doesn't suggest that it's meat, but more specifically animal proteins...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.
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!
At home I am eating a lot of baked beans on toast, as well as margarita pizzas.
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.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
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
Jspear said:Doesn't everything cause cancer these days?
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.
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.
Jspear said:Doesn't everything cause cancer these days?
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.
As Red says, no.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.
That is a pretty simplified way of putting it, but you are correct in your statements.Archibald said:As Red says, no.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.
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.Archibald said:As Red says, no.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.
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...
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 donejmdirt said:Caner cells divide uncontrollably and spread which is really the problem.Archibald said:As Red says, no.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.
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...
So sayeth Joe Jackson.Jspear said:Doesn't everything cause cancer these days?
...[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.”...
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.
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.
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.”...
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.
King Boonen said: