Pork tenderloin, a good alternative to chicken?
Replies
-
-
That's ok... I found it hilarious. Which led to me accidentally bumping the thread
.
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?
@EvgeniZyntx
Fair call
This probably wasn't the correct thread or topic to base my assumptions on. And no I didn't look into who funded the studies on Red meat, because in all honesty I don't care.
I think I was projecting my suspicions on those aspartame studies into this thread.. If I read one more post from someone saying they guzzle 10 cans of diet soda a day and on top of that have no problems letting their kids slam em down aswell, my head will explode!
So, I apologise for running off on a tangent, this was not the thread for it.
0 -
That's ok... I found it hilarious. Which led to me accidentally bumping the thread.
lol this thread already bumped itself to insanity without our help anyway
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
*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.
Actually, it doesn't matter. It is not in these charities' best interests to discover a cure, as that would cut off their donation supply (of which most of which is spent on administrative costs, not research or any other actual help to the people who are suffering). Oh, my, if they discovered a cure, all those administrators would be without jobs!0 -
Don't shoot me down for this... But there is a theory that the government does not want to cure cancer, they make millions from the medications people have to be on to keep them alive. Not to mention the astronomical amount of people who die everyday from cancer related illnesses keeps the population to a more manageable level..
I'm not saying this is true or not, it does seem pretty far out. It was just a heated discussion in the office the other week.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Don't shoot me down for this... But there is a theory that the government does not want to cure cancer, they make millions from the medications people have to be on to keep them alive. Not to mention the astronomical amount of people who die everyday from cancer related illnesses keeps the population to a more manageable level..
I'm not saying this is true or not, it does seem pretty far out. It was just a heated discussion in the office the other week.
It sounds sadistic, but it really does seem with all the millions of dollars that people contribute, that surely a cure could have been found for the diseases that are killing us now. When polio affected thousands of people, a cure was nearly immediately found and not by a nonprofit agency collecting donations.0 -
Yeah. I bet there would be no money to be made with a cure for cancer.
And a vaccination against the polio virus is super comparable to curing the myriad types and causes of cancer. I guess, in your world, there's some sinister reason for the lack of a bulletproof cure for the common cold because, hey, polio vaccine.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »Yeah. I bet there would be no money to be made with a cure for cancer.
And a vaccination against the polio virus is super comparable to curing the myriad types and causes of cancer. I guess, in your world, there's some sinister reason for the lack of a bulletproof cure for the common cold because, hey, polio vaccine.
Read the income and expense statements of nonprofits. Horrendous.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
UltimateRBF wrote: »Good g-d I responded to this thread on like the 2nd page and then kept reading.
Now I wish I had never responded in here. I....need to bash my head against the wall now.
I can't even blame a previous response. But I have no idea why I came back here. I feel the same way but it messes up my tinfoil hat when I do and I just got it right.0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Yeah. I bet there would be no money to be made with a cure for cancer.
And a vaccination against the polio virus is super comparable to curing the myriad types and causes of cancer. I guess, in your world, there's some sinister reason for the lack of a bulletproof cure for the common cold because, hey, polio vaccine.
Read the income and expense statements of nonprofits. Horrendous.
So, you complain because a charity isn't giving free glasses, complain because a non-profit organisation with no "big pharma" backing hasn't found a cure yet, complain about the running costs of said non-profit charities who you expect to come up with a cure which won't be exploited by big pharma/gov for mega cash. You also complain that cures haven't been found for the gazillion types of cancer with a gazillion causes because "the govt figured out polio quick enough" - even though polio is a straight forward virus.
Does that about sum up your views?
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Don't shoot me down for this... But there is a theory that the government does not want to cure cancer, they make millions from the medications people have to be on to keep them alive. Not to mention the astronomical amount of people who die everyday from cancer related illnesses keeps the population to a more manageable level..
I'm not saying this is true or not, it does seem pretty far out. It was just a heated discussion in the office the other week.
I have a feeling that the British government, the Canadian government, and pretty much any other government that funds their population's healthcare would probably respectfully disagree with that statement.
As for population control, I'm all for it.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Don't shoot me down for this... But there is a theory that the government does not want to cure cancer, they make millions from the medications people have to be on to keep them alive. Not to mention the astronomical amount of people who die everyday from cancer related illnesses keeps the population to a more manageable level..
I'm not saying this is true or not, it does seem pretty far out. It was just a heated discussion in the office the other week.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Don't shoot me down for this... But there is a theory that the government does not want to cure cancer, they make millions from the medications people have to be on to keep them alive. Not to mention the astronomical amount of people who die everyday from cancer related illnesses keeps the population to a more manageable level..
I'm not saying this is true or not, it does seem pretty far out. It was just a heated discussion in the office the other week.
LOL I told y'all not to shoot me down for it
0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Don't shoot me down for this... But there is a theory that the government does not want to cure cancer, they make millions from the medications people have to be on to keep them alive. Not to mention the astronomical amount of people who die everyday from cancer related illnesses keeps the population to a more manageable level..
I'm not saying this is true or not, it does seem pretty far out. It was just a heated discussion in the office the other week.
It sounds sadistic, but it really does seem with all the millions of dollars that people contribute, that surely a cure could have been found for the diseases that are killing us now. When polio affected thousands of people, a cure was nearly immediately found and not by a nonprofit agency collecting donations.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Don't shoot me down for this... But there is a theory that the government does not want to cure cancer, they make millions from the medications people have to be on to keep them alive. Not to mention the astronomical amount of people who die everyday from cancer related illnesses keeps the population to a more manageable level..
I'm not saying this is true or not, it does seem pretty far out. It was just a heated discussion in the office the other week.
+10 -
MonsoonStorm wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Yeah. I bet there would be no money to be made with a cure for cancer.
And a vaccination against the polio virus is super comparable to curing the myriad types and causes of cancer. I guess, in your world, there's some sinister reason for the lack of a bulletproof cure for the common cold because, hey, polio vaccine.
Read the income and expense statements of nonprofits. Horrendous.
So, you complain because a charity isn't giving free glasses, complain because a non-profit organisation with no "big pharma" backing hasn't found a cure yet, complain about the running costs of said non-profit charities who you expect to come up with a cure which won't be exploited by big pharma/gov for mega cash. You also complain that cures haven't been found for the gazillion types of cancer with a gazillion causes because "the govt figured out polio quick enough" - even though polio is a straight forward virus.
Does that about sum up your views?
I haven't complained about anything; just stated the facts.0 -
MonsoonStorm wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Don't shoot me down for this... But there is a theory that the government does not want to cure cancer, they make millions from the medications people have to be on to keep them alive. Not to mention the astronomical amount of people who die everyday from cancer related illnesses keeps the population to a more manageable level..
I'm not saying this is true or not, it does seem pretty far out. It was just a heated discussion in the office the other week.
I have a feeling that the British government, the Canadian government, and pretty much any other government that funds their population's healthcare would probably respectfully disagree with that statement.
As for population control, I'm all for it.
Oh, good, isn't Planned Parenthood nonprofit?0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »MonsoonStorm wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Yeah. I bet there would be no money to be made with a cure for cancer.
And a vaccination against the polio virus is super comparable to curing the myriad types and causes of cancer. I guess, in your world, there's some sinister reason for the lack of a bulletproof cure for the common cold because, hey, polio vaccine.
Read the income and expense statements of nonprofits. Horrendous.
So, you complain because a charity isn't giving free glasses, complain because a non-profit organisation with no "big pharma" backing hasn't found a cure yet, complain about the running costs of said non-profit charities who you expect to come up with a cure which won't be exploited by big pharma/gov for mega cash. You also complain that cures haven't been found for the gazillion types of cancer with a gazillion causes because "the govt figured out polio quick enough" - even though polio is a straight forward virus.
Does that about sum up your views?
I haven't complained about anything; just stated the facts.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Don't shoot me down for this... But there is a theory that the government does not want to cure cancer, they make millions from the medications people have to be on to keep them alive. Not to mention the astronomical amount of people who die everyday from cancer related illnesses keeps the population to a more manageable level..
I'm not saying this is true or not, it does seem pretty far out. It was just a heated discussion in the office the other week.
They also manufacture AIDS to keep the gays and Africans from rising up and conquering the world dontcha know?-1 -
myfelinepal wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Don't shoot me down for this... But there is a theory that the government does not want to cure cancer, they make millions from the medications people have to be on to keep them alive. Not to mention the astronomical amount of people who die everyday from cancer related illnesses keeps the population to a more manageable level..
I'm not saying this is true or not, it does seem pretty far out. It was just a heated discussion in the office the other week.
They also manufacture AIDS to keep the gays and Africans from rising up and conquering the world dontcha know?
Yowsas that's the first time I've heard that one!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
UltimateRBF wrote: »Ooh look, flags!
Raise your flag (higher and higher!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P5xSntVWQE 0 -
ncboiler89 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »ncboiler89 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »ncboiler89 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »ncboiler89 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »ncboiler89 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »ncboiler89 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »
Red meat as often as possible
haha no. Red meat no more than twice a week
no
I'm not saying I agree with it. It is just the latest "recommendation " from the nutritional powers that be.
Don't they have a min/max amount for red meat in America?
I don't care if they do. You know what I mean? Who do you have in game two of State of Origin?
Indeed
Which team is indeed?
I was agreeing with your first sentence. State of origin... No idea. I don't follow it, it's played across the border.
what is it you're trying to say?
Thought you were Australian.
That I am. I'm in south Australia. They play Rugby in New South Wales/Sydney and Victoria/Melbourne. We don't have any horses in that race.
You would think that a country that small that you would all be on the same page.
Wow, this thread escalated quickly!! Just to lighten things up a bit, I am Australian and State of Origin is starting right now. Queensland versus New South Wales and they are playing at the Melbourne stadium...I am kind of surprised that another fellow Aussie didn't know which states actually competed in State of Origin!! Always been Queensland versus NSW...I live in Queensland and most people I know make a pretty big deal about it, my hubby's workplace allows them to wear their team's jersey's, hats etc on Origin days. I guess it wouldn't really interested the other states though.
Anyhow, back to the original topic at hand...I haven't had pork for ages (bacon is a regular though) but after reading this I might add it into our rotation of foods so we don't have so much chicken. I always overcook it though, sigh.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Don't shoot me down for this... But there is a theory that the government does not want to cure cancer, they make millions from the medications people have to be on to keep them alive. Not to mention the astronomical amount of people who die everyday from cancer related illnesses keeps the population to a more manageable level..
I'm not saying this is true or not, it does seem pretty far out. It was just a heated discussion in the office the other week.
+ million
you can't say "Don't shoot me down for this" then post the most asinine comment ever written
what on earth are you thinking?0 -
0 -
I'd love to know who that guy is by the way ...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions