WHO says my bacon is not good for me :-(
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »I love the argument "If you can't pronounce it, don't eat it". Half the people I see posting on here would die of starvation.
Not to mention that literally every food has the chemical DiHydrogen Monoxide in it. Watch out! Scary chemicals will kill you!
That's awesome. People forget that literally everything we eat is chemicals. In fact everything is chemicals. You're chemicals. I'm chemicals. We're all just a bunch of chemistry that figured out how to talk.
When talking about food labels this is fairly irrelevant. Chemicals naturally found in food will not be on the ingredient label. If blueberries are an ingredient, the label will say "blueberries" not list out every chemical that blueberries contained. So, if there are chemicals listed on a food label they are chemicals that were added by man. It is these added chemicals that many people want to avoid or limit.
But why would people seeking to avoid a chemical because it shows up in the label, suddenly be okay with the chemical appearing in a different food without a label because it occurs there naturally?
Why is the same molecule okay naturally, but wrong if people intentionally put it there? Does nature have some kind of molecular feng shui that it does that man can't?0 -
CurlyCockney wrote: »I don't think of foods in terms of healthy or unhealthy usually. As long as I'm hitting my personal goals it's all good, and if I'm hitting those goals it's healthy for me. I guess this one just hit me a bit more because I've literally only just figured out how to fit it into my day (smaller portions, poached instead of fried egg, microwaved bacon). But you're right, the only thing that's changed is knowledge. I just wanted someone to say "it's ok, eat the bacon" I guess LOL!
What? You have to think of foods in terms of healthy or not because if you don't then you are just walking around with blinders on. Just because something fits into your macros doesn't mean that it's okay to eat, especially every day. You are just kidding yourself by thinking this way.
Please list some foods that are not ok to eat. And also please explain how they are not healthy assuming one is meeting micro and macronutrients needs.
Califlower and brussel sprout... because no matter how you make them, they are horrible.
I dislike the "good and bad" food mentality as much as anybody, and I love me some plain steamed brussel sprouts
I've lost faith in you entirely. Steamed vegetables are an invention of the devil. Roasted brussel sprouts are amazing. Add bacon, mmm. Sometimes it's a risk I'm willing to take.
Bacon and roasted Brussels sprouts is absolutely one of my favorite foods. NOM.
I usually don't add bacon now, but my realization that I love brussels sprouts was almost certainly due to trying them years ago in a delicious dish at Thanksgiving involving bacon.
So for those who argue that there's no health reason for bacon, that's my answer -- it can help someone start on a love affair with brussels sprouts. I do not believe chicken breast would have worked as well.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »I love the argument "If you can't pronounce it, don't eat it". Half the people I see posting on here would die of starvation.
Not to mention that literally every food has the chemical DiHydrogen Monoxide in it. Watch out! Scary chemicals will kill you!
That's awesome. People forget that literally everything we eat is chemicals. In fact everything is chemicals. You're chemicals. I'm chemicals. We're all just a bunch of chemistry that figured out how to talk.
When talking about food labels this is fairly irrelevant. Chemicals naturally found in food will not be on the ingredient label. If blueberries are an ingredient, the label will say "blueberries" not list out every chemical that blueberries contained. So, if there are chemicals listed on a food label they are chemicals that were added by man. It is these added chemicals that many people want to avoid or limit.
But why would people seeking to avoid a chemical because it shows up in the label, suddenly be okay with the chemical appearing in a different food without a label because it occurs there naturally?
Why is the same molecule okay naturally, but wrong if people intentionally put it there? Does nature have some kind of molecular feng shui that it does that man can't?
I think many believe that it does. Or it's probably more correct to say that they believe it's more likely to.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »You can be an absolute health nut and only ever eat organic, grass-fed grass and bathe in hand sanitizer every night and still get cancer. Or you can be a guy who smokes 4 packs a day and only eats steak and grease and never get cancer.
While this is true, many people like to know how to play the odds in their favor.
I agree and can understand that, but it's silly to think you can just avoid getting cancer by cutting out one or two substances.0 -
http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/FoodAdditivesIngredients/ucm094211.htm#how
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3153292/
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/277714512_EFFECTS_OF_FOOD_ADDITIVES_AND_PRESERVATIVES_ON_MAN-A_REVIEW
I found these interesting about the tolerable levels of food toxicity in natural and synthetic occurrences0 -
OneHundredToLose wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »You can be an absolute health nut and only ever eat organic, grass-fed grass and bathe in hand sanitizer every night and still get cancer. Or you can be a guy who smokes 4 packs a day and only eats steak and grease and never get cancer.
While this is true, many people like to know how to play the odds in their favor.
I agree and can understand that, but it's silly to think you can just avoid getting cancer by cutting out one or two substances.
Of course, and while I'm sure there are a few who believe that, I doubt it's the majority. I don't really see how paying heed to information like this is so different from losing weight for health. Being thin is no guarantee of health, it just lowers risk of disease.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »My mom is a colon cancer survivor.
The great thing about colon cancer is it is easily detectable and pretty treatable (as long as you are ok living with no colon for the rest of your life ). I am a vegetarian so I have no hat in the bacon ring, but my general opinion from what I know about colon, which sadly is a lot, is that if you are making unhealthy colon choices, you better be prepared to poop your brains out for 24 hours and then have them rotoroot you the minute you turn 50, and then regularly after that.
What you eat has nothing to do with getting a colonoscopy at age 50. That's the medical recommendation for everyone.
Right, but if you are at an elevated risk you might want to make sure you actually do it. Half of people do not get one at 50 (NYT says only 55% of people up to age 65 get one!) because they aren't exactly fun.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »My mom is a colon cancer survivor.
The great thing about colon cancer is it is easily detectable and pretty treatable (as long as you are ok living with no colon for the rest of your life ). I am a vegetarian so I have no hat in the bacon ring, but my general opinion from what I know about colon, which sadly is a lot, is that if you are making unhealthy colon choices, you better be prepared to poop your brains out for 24 hours and then have them rotoroot you the minute you turn 50, and then regularly after that.
What you eat has nothing to do with getting a colonoscopy at age 50. That's the medical recommendation for everyone.
Right, but if you are at an elevated risk you might want to make sure you actually do it. Half of people do not get one at 50 (NYT says only 55% of people up to age 65 get one!) because they aren't exactly fun.
The hype is worse than the test or the prep. Who doesn't like a good cleanse?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »I love the argument "If you can't pronounce it, don't eat it". Half the people I see posting on here would die of starvation.
Not to mention that literally every food has the chemical DiHydrogen Monoxide in it. Watch out! Scary chemicals will kill you!
That's awesome. People forget that literally everything we eat is chemicals. In fact everything is chemicals. You're chemicals. I'm chemicals. We're all just a bunch of chemistry that figured out how to talk.
When talking about food labels this is fairly irrelevant. Chemicals naturally found in food will not be on the ingredient label. If blueberries are an ingredient, the label will say "blueberries" not list out every chemical that blueberries contained. So, if there are chemicals listed on a food label they are chemicals that were added by man. It is these added chemicals that many people want to avoid or limit.
But why would people seeking to avoid a chemical because it shows up in the label, suddenly be okay with the chemical appearing in a different food without a label because it occurs there naturally?
Why is the same molecule okay naturally, but wrong if people intentionally put it there? Does nature have some kind of molecular feng shui that it does that man can't?
I think many believe that it does. Or it's probably more correct to say that they believe it's more likely to.
People believe a lot of stupid things.0 -
CurlyCockney wrote: »I don't think of foods in terms of healthy or unhealthy usually. As long as I'm hitting my personal goals it's all good, and if I'm hitting those goals it's healthy for me. I guess this one just hit me a bit more because I've literally only just figured out how to fit it into my day (smaller portions, poached instead of fried egg, microwaved bacon). But you're right, the only thing that's changed is knowledge. I just wanted someone to say "it's ok, eat the bacon" I guess LOL!
What? You have to think of foods in terms of healthy or not because if you don't then you are just walking around with blinders on. Just because something fits into your macros doesn't mean that it's okay to eat, especially every day. You are just kidding yourself by thinking this way.
Please list some foods that are not ok to eat. And also please explain how they are not healthy assuming one is meeting micro and macronutrients needs.
Califlower and brussel sprout... because no matter how you make them, they are horrible.
I dislike the "good and bad" food mentality as much as anybody, and I love me some plain steamed brussel sprouts
I've lost faith in you entirely. Steamed vegetables are an invention of the devil. Roasted brussel sprouts are amazing. Add bacon, mmm. Sometimes it's a risk I'm willing to take.
add brown sugar and balsamic vinegar along with that bacon and now we're talking.0 -
I remember a year or 2 ago there was a big thing in the news about how rice has cancer causing arsenic. Everything needs to be eaten in moderation. Bacon was never considered a healthy food so I don't think eating it on a daily basis is a good idea, but 1-2 times a week and skipping a few weeks here and there in my opinion would be fine.0
-
LastingChanges wrote: »I remember a year or 2 ago there was a big thing in the news about how rice has cancer causing arsenic. Everything needs to be eaten in moderation. Bacon was never considered a healthy food so I don't think eating it on a daily basis is a good idea, but 1-2 times a week and skipping a few weeks here and there in my opinion would be fine.
Rice does have arsenic in it. Not dangerous levels but due to poor farming practices the levels have been rising over the years. It's higher in brown rice.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »I remember a year or 2 ago there was a big thing in the news about how rice has cancer causing arsenic. Everything needs to be eaten in moderation. Bacon was never considered a healthy food so I don't think eating it on a daily basis is a good idea, but 1-2 times a week and skipping a few weeks here and there in my opinion would be fine.
Rice does have arsenic in it. Not dangerous levels but due to poor farming practices the levels have been rising over the years. It's higher in brown rice.
I am not doubting that information. Just saying moderation is key with some foods.0 -
I've lost faith in you entirely. Steamed vegetables are an invention of the devil. Roasted brussel sprouts are amazing. Add bacon, mmm. Sometimes it's a risk I'm willing to take.
I can't help it that I like my vegetables "clean" and can appreciate the flavors without adding the chemicalz...
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »I remember a year or 2 ago there was a big thing in the news about how rice has cancer causing arsenic. Everything needs to be eaten in moderation. Bacon was never considered a healthy food so I don't think eating it on a daily basis is a good idea, but 1-2 times a week and skipping a few weeks here and there in my opinion would be fine.
Rice does have arsenic in it. Not dangerous levels but due to poor farming practices the levels have been rising over the years. It's higher in brown rice.
10 ppb Arsenic (or more) in drinking water is very likely to lead to more than 1/1,000,000 excess cancers, which is the "unacceptable" level for most other contaminants.
It is VERY expensive to remediate certain drinking water supplies to supply below this, but the moral is As is worse than we give it credit for being.
Virtually the only negative of As at this level is excess cancers over background though.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »I remember a year or 2 ago there was a big thing in the news about how rice has cancer causing arsenic. Everything needs to be eaten in moderation. Bacon was never considered a healthy food so I don't think eating it on a daily basis is a good idea, but 1-2 times a week and skipping a few weeks here and there in my opinion would be fine.
Rice does have arsenic in it. Not dangerous levels but due to poor farming practices the levels have been rising over the years. It's higher in brown rice.
10 ppb Arsenic (or more) in drinking water is very likely to lead to more than 1/1,000,000 excess cancers, which is the "unacceptable" level for most other contaminants.
It is VERY expensive to remediate certain drinking water supplies to supply below this, but the moral is As is worse than we give it credit for being.
Virtually the only negative of As at this level is excess cancers over background though.
I believe statistical increases in diabetes are associated with lifetime water supplies below the 50 ppb As level but above 10 ppb. Let me see if I can google that.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/regulations_pro-factsheet.cfm
First reputable source with actual numbers, though not exactly a scientific study of diabetes exactly.
Also, the EPA uses ColdFusion for their webpage management. I am dissapoint.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »I remember a year or 2 ago there was a big thing in the news about how rice has cancer causing arsenic. Everything needs to be eaten in moderation. Bacon was never considered a healthy food so I don't think eating it on a daily basis is a good idea, but 1-2 times a week and skipping a few weeks here and there in my opinion would be fine.
Rice does have arsenic in it. Not dangerous levels but due to poor farming practices the levels have been rising over the years. It's higher in brown rice.
10 ppb Arsenic (or more) in drinking water is very likely to lead to more than 1/1,000,000 excess cancers, which is the "unacceptable" level for most other contaminants.
It is VERY expensive to remediate certain drinking water supplies to supply below this, but the moral is As is worse than we give it credit for being.
Virtually the only negative of As at this level is excess cancers over background though.
I believe statistical increases in diabetes are associated with lifetime water supplies below the 50 ppb As level but above 10 ppb. Let me see if I can google that.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/regulations_pro-factsheet.cfm
First reputable source with actual numbers, though not exactly a scientific study of diabetes exactly.
Also, the EPA uses ColdFusion for their webpage management. I am dissapoint.
still, if it weren't for excess cancers (closer to 1/1000 at 50 ppb) As would still be allowed to be 50 ppb in public water.
As is real conundrum. Adding it to some animal foods helps them grow, and certain forms in small amounts have been found to help with insulin sensitivity.
And then there are some organoarsenic compounds which are close to innocuous in certain seafoods.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »I remember a year or 2 ago there was a big thing in the news about how rice has cancer causing arsenic. Everything needs to be eaten in moderation. Bacon was never considered a healthy food so I don't think eating it on a daily basis is a good idea, but 1-2 times a week and skipping a few weeks here and there in my opinion would be fine.
Rice does have arsenic in it. Not dangerous levels but due to poor farming practices the levels have been rising over the years. It's higher in brown rice.
10 ppb Arsenic (or more) in drinking water is very likely to lead to more than 1/1,000,000 excess cancers, which is the "unacceptable" level for most other contaminants.
It is VERY expensive to remediate certain drinking water supplies to supply below this, but the moral is As is worse than we give it credit for being.
Virtually the only negative of As at this level is excess cancers over background though.
I believe statistical increases in diabetes are associated with lifetime water supplies below the 50 ppb As level but above 10 ppb. Let me see if I can google that.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/regulations_pro-factsheet.cfm
First reputable source with actual numbers, though not exactly a scientific study of diabetes exactly.
Also, the EPA uses ColdFusion for their webpage management. I am dissapoint.
still, if it weren't for excess cancers (closer to 1/1000 at 50 ppb) As would still be allowed to be 50 ppb in public water.
As is real conundrum. Adding it to some animal foods helps them grow, and certain forms in small amounts have been found to help with insulin sensitivity.
And then there are some organoarsenic compounds which are close to innocuous in certain seafoods.
Well now you're just spouting that dose making the poison nonsense. Poison can't be beneficial!0 -
If its CANADIAN bacon then it is good for you.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »LastingChanges wrote: »I remember a year or 2 ago there was a big thing in the news about how rice has cancer causing arsenic. Everything needs to be eaten in moderation. Bacon was never considered a healthy food so I don't think eating it on a daily basis is a good idea, but 1-2 times a week and skipping a few weeks here and there in my opinion would be fine.
Rice does have arsenic in it. Not dangerous levels but due to poor farming practices the levels have been rising over the years. It's higher in brown rice.
10 ppb Arsenic (or more) in drinking water is very likely to lead to more than 1/1,000,000 excess cancers, which is the "unacceptable" level for most other contaminants.
It is VERY expensive to remediate certain drinking water supplies to supply below this, but the moral is As is worse than we give it credit for being.
Virtually the only negative of As at this level is excess cancers over background though.
I believe statistical increases in diabetes are associated with lifetime water supplies below the 50 ppb As level but above 10 ppb. Let me see if I can google that.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/regulations_pro-factsheet.cfm
First reputable source with actual numbers, though not exactly a scientific study of diabetes exactly.
Also, the EPA uses ColdFusion for their webpage management. I am dissapoint.
still, if it weren't for excess cancers (closer to 1/1000 at 50 ppb) As would still be allowed to be 50 ppb in public water.
As is real conundrum. Adding it to some animal foods helps them grow, and certain forms in small amounts have been found to help with insulin sensitivity.
And then there are some organoarsenic compounds which are close to innocuous in certain seafoods.
Well now you're just spouting that dose making the poison nonsense. Poison can't be beneficial!
people get injected with the most toxic substance known to man (botox, which is natural) all the time...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions