Pork tenderloin, a good alternative to chicken?
Replies
-
atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
Assuming that most studies are corporate-biased makes a (false) statement about researchers which is insulting.
And what you state is neither supported by this research or most epidemiological research.
Studies that question the consumption of processed meat are biased in what way?0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
Assuming that most studies are corporate-biased makes a (false) statement about researchers which is insulting.
And what you state is neither supported by this research or most epidemiological research.
Studies that question the consumption of processed meat are biased in what way?
influence of Big Chicken
0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »47Jacqueline wrote: »In Okinawa, there is a community where more people live to be over 100 than anywhere else in the world. Their diet consists of primarily plant based food, but they do include pork in their diet in small amounts. One would think, in Japan, that they would be eating fish, but that is not the case.
bluezones.com
Lots of woo on that site.
What is woo?
Style over substance and pseudo science explanations.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo0 -
Can you distinguish between that position and ad hominem? Shouldn't you be critiquing the study itself?christinev297 wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
I agree. It's important to look who the source behind the source of these studies are...
when there's $$$$ involved one may be able to skew the "results" one way or the other..
which is why i take the "studies" that aspartame et al are sooper dooper safe with a grain of salt
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
I agree. It's important to look who the source behind the source of these studies are...
when there's $$$$ involved one may be able to skew the "results" one way or the other..
which is why i take the "studies" that aspartame et al are sooper dooper safe with a grain of salt
Sigh. Please explain to me what corporate interest is being served by the studies posted in this thread that look into the consumption of processed meat in a critical light?0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »47Jacqueline wrote: »In Okinawa, there is a community where more people live to be over 100 than anywhere else in the world. Their diet consists of primarily plant based food, but they do include pork in their diet in small amounts. One would think, in Japan, that they would be eating fish, but that is not the case.
bluezones.com
Lots of woo on that site.
What is woo?
basically fad type statements where science has been twisted to suit an agenda, or all out rumours with no scientific basis at all.
Just checked that site you linked out and... yup. Agenda? check
Looks like they are out to make considerable cash from their "plan". I was going to do their "how long will you live" calculator just for a laugh and to maybe illustrate a point, but there is no way I am handing over my email address to a place like that.
Want to see some less woo-based research done on those okinawans?
http://www.okicent.org/
they are looking at all factors, not just cherry-picking what would suit a business model.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
Assuming that most studies are corporate-biased makes a (false) statement about researchers which is insulting.
And what you state is neither supported by this research or most epidemiological research.
Studies that question the consumption of processed meat are biased in what way?
Possibly by the corporations that sell unprocessed meat?0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
Assuming that most studies are corporate-biased makes a (false) statement about researchers which is insulting.
And what you state is neither supported by this research or most epidemiological research.
Studies that question the consumption of processed meat are biased in what way?
Very good! There are thousands of studies on the same subject, all with different results. So - tell me - who pays for these "studies"?0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
Assuming that most studies are corporate-biased makes a (false) statement about researchers which is insulting.
And what you state is neither supported by this research or most epidemiological research.
Studies that question the consumption of processed meat are biased in what way?
Possibly by the corporations that sell unprocessed meat?
Ad hominem continued. lol. Since the study doesn't show unprocessed meat is good for you. In fact, the abstract states negative, non significant results.
Really, you are just pulling smoke out off somewhere. That research has NO corp interest funding.
But continue with the unbelievable innuendo.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
Assuming that most studies are corporate-biased makes a (false) statement about researchers which is insulting.
And what you state is neither supported by this research or most epidemiological research.
Studies that question the consumption of processed meat are biased in what way?
Possibly by the corporations that sell unprocessed meat?
Ad hominem continued. lol. Since the study doesn't show unprocessed meat is good for you. In fact, the abstract states negative, non significant results.
Really, you are just pulling smoke out off somewhere. That research has NO corp interest funding.
But continue with the unbelievable innuendo.
How I wish I could live in your world!0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
Assuming that most studies are corporate-biased makes a (false) statement about researchers which is insulting.
And what you state is neither supported by this research or most epidemiological research.
Studies that question the consumption of processed meat are biased in what way?
Possibly by the corporations that sell unprocessed meat?
Ad hominem continued. lol. Since the study doesn't show unprocessed meat is good for you. In fact, the abstract states negative, non significant results.
Really, you are just pulling smoke out off somewhere. That research has NO corp interest funding.
But continue with the unbelievable innuendo.
And you didn't answer my question - who or what is paying for these "studies"?0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
Assuming that most studies are corporate-biased makes a (false) statement about researchers which is insulting.
And what you state is neither supported by this research or most epidemiological research.
Studies that question the consumption of processed meat are biased in what way?
Very good! There are thousands of studies on the same subject, all with different results. So - tell me - who pays for these "studies"?
No, there aren't thousands. There are possibly a hundred or so (and maybe 30 relevant) and most point out to issues with processed meat. Really pointy tin foil hat stuff. Please point out 1 of these major epidemiological studies with major corporate interests.
Who pays? Go read the funding info. It's public for each study.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
I agree. It's important to look who the source behind the source of these studies are...
when there's $$$$ involved one may be able to skew the "results" one way or the other..
which is why i take the "studies" that aspartame et al are sooper dooper safe with a grain of salt
Sigh. Please explain to me what corporate interest is being served by the studies posted in this thread that look into the consumption of processed meat in a critical light?
Can't answer that. Trying to find the who's and why's would be like chasing a bunny down the rabbit hole.
In the end nobody does nuthin' for nuthin' these days. They'll publish what they want us to know and hold back what they do not.
0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
Assuming that most studies are corporate-biased makes a (false) statement about researchers which is insulting.
And what you state is neither supported by this research or most epidemiological research.
Studies that question the consumption of processed meat are biased in what way?
Possibly by the corporations that sell unprocessed meat?
Ad hominem continued. lol. Since the study doesn't show unprocessed meat is good for you. In fact, the abstract states negative, non significant results.
Really, you are just pulling smoke out off somewhere. That research has NO corp interest funding.
But continue with the unbelievable innuendo.
And you didn't answer my question - who or what is paying for these "studies"?
Some studies are funded by universities, some are funded by charities with a genuine interest in solving a puzzle (cancer research etc), heck I believe some lottery funds will give a percentage of money to worthwhile research. Some are simply funded by philanthropists. Not all research is corporation based.0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
Assuming that most studies are corporate-biased makes a (false) statement about researchers which is insulting.
And what you state is neither supported by this research or most epidemiological research.
Studies that question the consumption of processed meat are biased in what way?
Possibly by the corporations that sell unprocessed meat?
Ad hominem continued. lol. Since the study doesn't show unprocessed meat is good for you. In fact, the abstract states negative, non significant results.
Really, you are just pulling smoke out off somewhere. That research has NO corp interest funding.
But continue with the unbelievable innuendo.
And you didn't answer my question - who or what is paying for these "studies"?
You asked that in a different post. The answer is, "it depends" and "it's right there in the study. Go read it."0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
Assuming that most studies are corporate-biased makes a (false) statement about researchers which is insulting.
And what you state is neither supported by this research or most epidemiological research.
Studies that question the consumption of processed meat are biased in what way?
Possibly by the corporations that sell unprocessed meat?
Ad hominem continued. lol. Since the study doesn't show unprocessed meat is good for you. In fact, the abstract states negative, non significant results.
Really, you are just pulling smoke out off somewhere. That research has NO corp interest funding.
But continue with the unbelievable innuendo.
How I wish I could live in your world!
Well, we don't get to wear tin foil. You might not like it.
I'm not saying all research is without an agenda (some obviously is), I am saying that to state that ANY of the research posted in this thread so far has a corporate agenda is ludicrous.0 -
So you assert that it is important to look at the sources behind the studies, then you assert that you can't answer who is behind the studies. That's an interesting take.christinev297 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
I agree. It's important to look who the source behind the source of these studies are...
when there's $$$$ involved one may be able to skew the "results" one way or the other..
which is why i take the "studies" that aspartame et al are sooper dooper safe with a grain of salt
Sigh. Please explain to me what corporate interest is being served by the studies posted in this thread that look into the consumption of processed meat in a critical light?
Can't answer that. Trying to find the who's and why's would be like chasing a bunny down the rabbit hole.
In the end nobody does nuthin' for nuthin' these days. They'll publish what they want us to know and hold back what they do not.
0 -
MonsoonStorm wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »47Jacqueline wrote: »In Okinawa, there is a community where more people live to be over 100 than anywhere else in the world. Their diet consists of primarily plant based food, but they do include pork in their diet in small amounts. One would think, in Japan, that they would be eating fish, but that is not the case.
bluezones.com
Lots of woo on that site.
What is woo?
basically fad type statements where science has been twisted to suit an agenda, or all out rumours with no scientific basis at all.
Just checked that site you linked out and... yup. Agenda? check
Looks like they are out to make considerable cash from their "plan". I was going to do their "how long will you live" calculator just for a laugh and to maybe illustrate a point, but there is no way I am handing over my email address to a place like that.
Want to see some less woo-based research done on those okinawans?
http://www.okicent.org/
they are looking at all factors, not just cherry-picking what would suit a business model.
Interesting site - points out that weight/cals might be an important factor.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
I agree. It's important to look who the source behind the source of these studies are...
when there's $$$$ involved one may be able to skew the "results" one way or the other..
which is why i take the "studies" that aspartame et al are sooper dooper safe with a grain of salt
Sigh. Please explain to me what corporate interest is being served by the studies posted in this thread that look into the consumption of processed meat in a critical light?
Can't answer that. Trying to find the who's and why's would be like chasing a bunny down the rabbit hole.
In the end nobody does nuthin' for nuthin' these days. They'll publish what they want us to know and hold back what they do not.
More tin hat.
Really?
It's right there in the publication.
Real question, how do expect people to take your posts with any seriousness when you post vague accusations like that? "I don't know but it's gotta be cause people are suspect?" That's what you've got?
The research funding:The work described in this article was carried out with the financial support of Europe Against Cancer Program of the European Commission (SANCO); Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Danish Cancer Society; Health Research Fund (FIS) of the Spanish Ministry of Health, Spanish Regional Governments of Andalucia, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra; ISCIII RCESP exp. C03/09, Spain; Cancer Research UK; Medical Research Council, United Kingdom; Stroke Association, United Kingdom; British Heart Foundation; Department of Health, United Kingdom; Food Standards Agency, United Kingdom; Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom; the Hellenic Health Foundation and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation; Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC); Italian National Research Council, Fondazione-Istituto Banco Napoli, Italy; Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Swedish Cancer Society; Swedish Scientific Council; Regional Government of Skåne, Sweden; Nordforsk the Norwegian Cancer Society; French League against Cancer (LNCC); National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), France; Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale (MGEN), France; 3M Co, France; Gustave Roussy Institute (IGR), France; and General Councils of France.
The sponsors had no input in the design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of the study, and did not influence manuscript preparation.
So which of those corporations has a food interest in the findings they published (consumption of processed meats presents some risks?)0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
I agree. It's important to look who the source behind the source of these studies are...
when there's $$$$ involved one may be able to skew the "results" one way or the other..
which is why i take the "studies" that aspartame et al are sooper dooper safe with a grain of salt
Sigh. Please explain to me what corporate interest is being served by the studies posted in this thread that look into the consumption of processed meat in a critical light?
Can't answer that. Trying to find the who's and why's would be like chasing a bunny down the rabbit hole.
In the end nobody does nuthin' for nuthin' these days. They'll publish what they want us to know and hold back what they do not.
More tin hat.
Really?
It's right there in the publication.
Real question, how do expect people to take your posts with any seriousness when you post vague accusations like that? "I don't know but it's gotta be cause people are suspect?" That's what you've got?
The research funding:The work described in this article was carried out with the financial support of Europe Against Cancer Program of the European Commission (SANCO); Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Danish Cancer Society; Health Research Fund (FIS) of the Spanish Ministry of Health, Spanish Regional Governments of Andalucia, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra; ISCIII RCESP exp. C03/09, Spain; Cancer Research UK; Medical Research Council, United Kingdom; Stroke Association, United Kingdom; British Heart Foundation; Department of Health, United Kingdom; Food Standards Agency, United Kingdom; Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom; the Hellenic Health Foundation and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation; Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC); Italian National Research Council, Fondazione-Istituto Banco Napoli, Italy; Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Swedish Cancer Society; Swedish Scientific Council; Regional Government of Skåne, Sweden; Nordforsk the Norwegian Cancer Society; French League against Cancer (LNCC); National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), France; Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale (MGEN), France; 3M Co, France; Gustave Roussy Institute (IGR), France; and General Councils of France.
The sponsors had no input in the design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of the study, and did not influence manuscript preparation.
So which of those corporations has a food interest in the findings they published (consumption of processed meats presents some risks?)
Obviously 3M. Their command adhesive is used to create sausage/salami skins.
0 -
MonsoonStorm wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
I agree. It's important to look who the source behind the source of these studies are...
when there's $$$$ involved one may be able to skew the "results" one way or the other..
which is why i take the "studies" that aspartame et al are sooper dooper safe with a grain of salt
Sigh. Please explain to me what corporate interest is being served by the studies posted in this thread that look into the consumption of processed meat in a critical light?
Can't answer that. Trying to find the who's and why's would be like chasing a bunny down the rabbit hole.
In the end nobody does nuthin' for nuthin' these days. They'll publish what they want us to know and hold back what they do not.
More tin hat.
Really?
It's right there in the publication.
Real question, how do expect people to take your posts with any seriousness when you post vague accusations like that? "I don't know but it's gotta be cause people are suspect?" That's what you've got?
The research funding:The work described in this article was carried out with the financial support of Europe Against Cancer Program of the European Commission (SANCO); Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Danish Cancer Society; Health Research Fund (FIS) of the Spanish Ministry of Health, Spanish Regional Governments of Andalucia, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra; ISCIII RCESP exp. C03/09, Spain; Cancer Research UK; Medical Research Council, United Kingdom; Stroke Association, United Kingdom; British Heart Foundation; Department of Health, United Kingdom; Food Standards Agency, United Kingdom; Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom; the Hellenic Health Foundation and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation; Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC); Italian National Research Council, Fondazione-Istituto Banco Napoli, Italy; Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Swedish Cancer Society; Swedish Scientific Council; Regional Government of Skåne, Sweden; Nordforsk the Norwegian Cancer Society; French League against Cancer (LNCC); National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), France; Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale (MGEN), France; 3M Co, France; Gustave Roussy Institute (IGR), France; and General Councils of France.
The sponsors had no input in the design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of the study, and did not influence manuscript preparation.
So which of those corporations has a food interest in the findings they published (consumption of processed meats presents some risks?)
Obviously 3M. Their command adhesive is used to create sausage/salami skins.
In France. Mais oui.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
I agree. It's important to look who the source behind the source of these studies are...
when there's $$$$ involved one may be able to skew the "results" one way or the other..
which is why i take the "studies" that aspartame et al are sooper dooper safe with a grain of salt
Sigh. Please explain to me what corporate interest is being served by the studies posted in this thread that look into the consumption of processed meat in a critical light?
Can't answer that. Trying to find the who's and why's would be like chasing a bunny down the rabbit hole.
In the end nobody does nuthin' for nuthin' these days. They'll publish what they want us to know and hold back what they do not.
More tin hat.
Really?
It's right there in the publication.
Real question, how do expect people to take your posts with any seriousness when you post vague accusations like that? "I don't know but it's gotta be cause people are suspect?" That's what you've got?
The research funding:The work described in this article was carried out with the financial support of Europe Against Cancer Program of the European Commission (SANCO); Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Danish Cancer Society; Health Research Fund (FIS) of the Spanish Ministry of Health, Spanish Regional Governments of Andalucia, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra; ISCIII RCESP exp. C03/09, Spain; Cancer Research UK; Medical Research Council, United Kingdom; Stroke Association, United Kingdom; British Heart Foundation; Department of Health, United Kingdom; Food Standards Agency, United Kingdom; Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom; the Hellenic Health Foundation and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation; Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC); Italian National Research Council, Fondazione-Istituto Banco Napoli, Italy; Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Swedish Cancer Society; Swedish Scientific Council; Regional Government of Skåne, Sweden; Nordforsk the Norwegian Cancer Society; French League against Cancer (LNCC); National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), France; Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale (MGEN), France; 3M Co, France; Gustave Roussy Institute (IGR), France; and General Councils of France.
The sponsors had no input in the design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of the study, and did not influence manuscript preparation.
So which of those corporations has a food interest in the findings they published (consumption of processed meats presents some risks?)
None of them. But they are tax-free nonprofit organizations, and this is what peoples' donations are paying for. How sad. I have a friend with MS who needed a new pair of glasses. I called the MS nonprofit and they said they don't fund things like that -they fund research for a cure. Go figure.0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
I agree. It's important to look who the source behind the source of these studies are...
when there's $$$$ involved one may be able to skew the "results" one way or the other..
which is why i take the "studies" that aspartame et al are sooper dooper safe with a grain of salt
Sigh. Please explain to me what corporate interest is being served by the studies posted in this thread that look into the consumption of processed meat in a critical light?
Can't answer that. Trying to find the who's and why's would be like chasing a bunny down the rabbit hole.
In the end nobody does nuthin' for nuthin' these days. They'll publish what they want us to know and hold back what they do not.
More tin hat.
Really?
It's right there in the publication.
Real question, how do expect people to take your posts with any seriousness when you post vague accusations like that? "I don't know but it's gotta be cause people are suspect?" That's what you've got?
The research funding:The work described in this article was carried out with the financial support of Europe Against Cancer Program of the European Commission (SANCO); Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Danish Cancer Society; Health Research Fund (FIS) of the Spanish Ministry of Health, Spanish Regional Governments of Andalucia, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra; ISCIII RCESP exp. C03/09, Spain; Cancer Research UK; Medical Research Council, United Kingdom; Stroke Association, United Kingdom; British Heart Foundation; Department of Health, United Kingdom; Food Standards Agency, United Kingdom; Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom; the Hellenic Health Foundation and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation; Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC); Italian National Research Council, Fondazione-Istituto Banco Napoli, Italy; Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Swedish Cancer Society; Swedish Scientific Council; Regional Government of Skåne, Sweden; Nordforsk the Norwegian Cancer Society; French League against Cancer (LNCC); National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), France; Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale (MGEN), France; 3M Co, France; Gustave Roussy Institute (IGR), France; and General Councils of France.
The sponsors had no input in the design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of the study, and did not influence manuscript preparation.
So which of those corporations has a food interest in the findings they published (consumption of processed meats presents some risks?)
None of them. But they are tax-free nonprofit organizations, and this is what peoples' donations are paying for. How sad. I have a friend with MS who needed a new pair of glasses. I called the MS nonprofit and they said they don't fund things like that -they fund research for a cure. Go figure.
So what you posted was just innuendo and questioning the character of researchers.
Imagine that people's donations to research on the causes of cancer is .... Gasp... Going to look into the causes of cancer.
How terrible, indeed!
If your friend needs glasses - that's what health payers (public or private) are for.
There are also organizations that help find glasses for those that can't afford them. Where is your friend based?
ETA: in North Carolina, contact:
http://www.new-eyes.org0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
I agree. It's important to look who the source behind the source of these studies are...
when there's $$$$ involved one may be able to skew the "results" one way or the other..
which is why i take the "studies" that aspartame et al are sooper dooper safe with a grain of salt
Sigh. Please explain to me what corporate interest is being served by the studies posted in this thread that look into the consumption of processed meat in a critical light?
Can't answer that. Trying to find the who's and why's would be like chasing a bunny down the rabbit hole.
In the end nobody does nuthin' for nuthin' these days. They'll publish what they want us to know and hold back what they do not.
More tin hat.
Really?
It's right there in the publication.
Real question, how do expect people to take your posts with any seriousness when you post vague accusations like that? "I don't know but it's gotta be cause people are suspect?" That's what you've got?
The research funding:The work described in this article was carried out with the financial support of Europe Against Cancer Program of the European Commission (SANCO); Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Danish Cancer Society; Health Research Fund (FIS) of the Spanish Ministry of Health, Spanish Regional Governments of Andalucia, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra; ISCIII RCESP exp. C03/09, Spain; Cancer Research UK; Medical Research Council, United Kingdom; Stroke Association, United Kingdom; British Heart Foundation; Department of Health, United Kingdom; Food Standards Agency, United Kingdom; Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom; the Hellenic Health Foundation and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation; Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC); Italian National Research Council, Fondazione-Istituto Banco Napoli, Italy; Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Swedish Cancer Society; Swedish Scientific Council; Regional Government of Skåne, Sweden; Nordforsk the Norwegian Cancer Society; French League against Cancer (LNCC); National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), France; Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale (MGEN), France; 3M Co, France; Gustave Roussy Institute (IGR), France; and General Councils of France.
The sponsors had no input in the design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of the study, and did not influence manuscript preparation.
So which of those corporations has a food interest in the findings they published (consumption of processed meats presents some risks?)
None of them. But they are tax-free nonprofit organizations, and this is what peoples' donations are paying for. How sad. I have a friend with MS who needed a new pair of glasses. I called the MS nonprofit and they said they don't fund things like that -they fund research for a cure. Go figure.
there are different branches of medical charities that cater towards different things. Some cater more to research, some cater to giving home support, some cater to practicalities and providing quality of life improvements.
All you need to do is shop around to find the most appropriate charity. Perhaps a vision impairment charity would have been more appropriate
*edit* a quick look on wiki for MS shows a total of 15 US charities in the US and 6 in the UK, so when you say "the MS nonprofit" in all likelihood you reached the one that didn't meet your needs. You can't hold that against them.0 -
MonsoonStorm wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.
The study? No, not really.
One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.
Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.
No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.
That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.
The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.
Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.
I agree. It's important to look who the source behind the source of these studies are...
when there's $$$$ involved one may be able to skew the "results" one way or the other..
which is why i take the "studies" that aspartame et al are sooper dooper safe with a grain of salt
Sigh. Please explain to me what corporate interest is being served by the studies posted in this thread that look into the consumption of processed meat in a critical light?
Can't answer that. Trying to find the who's and why's would be like chasing a bunny down the rabbit hole.
In the end nobody does nuthin' for nuthin' these days. They'll publish what they want us to know and hold back what they do not.
More tin hat.
Really?
It's right there in the publication.
Real question, how do expect people to take your posts with any seriousness when you post vague accusations like that? "I don't know but it's gotta be cause people are suspect?" That's what you've got?
The research funding:The work described in this article was carried out with the financial support of Europe Against Cancer Program of the European Commission (SANCO); Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Danish Cancer Society; Health Research Fund (FIS) of the Spanish Ministry of Health, Spanish Regional Governments of Andalucia, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra; ISCIII RCESP exp. C03/09, Spain; Cancer Research UK; Medical Research Council, United Kingdom; Stroke Association, United Kingdom; British Heart Foundation; Department of Health, United Kingdom; Food Standards Agency, United Kingdom; Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom; the Hellenic Health Foundation and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation; Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC); Italian National Research Council, Fondazione-Istituto Banco Napoli, Italy; Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Swedish Cancer Society; Swedish Scientific Council; Regional Government of Skåne, Sweden; Nordforsk the Norwegian Cancer Society; French League against Cancer (LNCC); National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), France; Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale (MGEN), France; 3M Co, France; Gustave Roussy Institute (IGR), France; and General Councils of France.
The sponsors had no input in the design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of the study, and did not influence manuscript preparation.
So which of those corporations has a food interest in the findings they published (consumption of processed meats presents some risks?)
None of them. But they are tax-free nonprofit organizations, and this is what peoples' donations are paying for. How sad. I have a friend with MS who needed a new pair of glasses. I called the MS nonprofit and they said they don't fund things like that -they fund research for a cure. Go figure.
there are different branches of medical charities that cater towards different things. Some cater more to research, some cater to giving home support, some cater to practicalities and providing quality of life improvements.
All you need to do is shop around to find the most appropriate charity. Perhaps a vision impairment charity would have been more appropriate
http://www.new-eyes.org
http://www.new-eyes.org/marvel-optics0 -
lol where the hell has this thread gone
EAT MOR CHIKIN
0 -
-
MonsoonStorm wrote: »47Jacqueline wrote: »In Okinawa, there is a community where more people live to be over 100 than anywhere else in the world. Their diet consists of primarily plant based food, but they do include pork in their diet in small amounts. One would think, in Japan, that they would be eating fish, but that is not the case.
That community is also based on an island. Genetic diversity (or lack thereof) would also need to be taken in to account, along with the many other things that exist in standard western diets that aren't prevalent in their diet.
Meat isn't the only thing that is reduced in their diet. They also consume fewer calories in general and are more active and live fairly stress-free lives in comparison (i.e. they maintain a fairly healthy lifestyle).
Less sugar, less grains, less meat, less dairy, less stress - pick your villain.
When I lived in Okinawa and biked to work in the AM, I used to see groups of Okinawans doing exercises outside. I can't recall ever seeing an overweight Okinawan.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions