WHO says my bacon is not good for me :-(
Replies
-
Was kind of a bit of his point. Simply judging a person is not healthy by the singular fact that they eat processed meat is excessive simplification.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GirlNGlasses wrote: »I personally believe processed and smoked foods arent healthy. But colonoscopy well show you quite literally if there is anything to be concerned about there. Plus you get to show people the pictures to prove that your head really isnt up there. Win win!
so if your get adequate nutrition and hit macros and eat processed foods you are are not healthy???
What a silly question. Health has to do with more than what you eat. If you eat processed meat you have an increased risk of disease. If you have disease, you are not healthy. So it seems reasonable to say that processed meats are not healthy, as they do not promote health.
And blanket saying processed meat is not healthy because of an increased risk of one disease is an oversimplification. Last I looked, there is a whole slew of diseases processed meat can help prevent.
Who was judging a person's health? The opinion was that processed meat was not healthy, and that seems a reasonable opinion. Much more reasonable than trying to spin that as saying everyone that eats processed meat is not healthy.
But I am curious about the slew of diseases processed meat prevents. Can you elaborate?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Was kind of a bit of his point. Simply judging a person is not healthy by the singular fact that they eat processed meat is excessive simplification.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GirlNGlasses wrote: »I personally believe processed and smoked foods arent healthy. But colonoscopy well show you quite literally if there is anything to be concerned about there. Plus you get to show people the pictures to prove that your head really isnt up there. Win win!
so if your get adequate nutrition and hit macros and eat processed foods you are are not healthy???
What a silly question. Health has to do with more than what you eat. If you eat processed meat you have an increased risk of disease. If you have disease, you are not healthy. So it seems reasonable to say that processed meats are not healthy, as they do not promote health.
And blanket saying processed meat is not healthy because of an increased risk of one disease is an oversimplification. Last I looked, there is a whole slew of diseases processed meat can help prevent.
Who was judging a person's health? The opinion was that processed meat was not healthy, and that seems a reasonable opinion. Much more reasonable than trying to spin that as saying everyone that eats processed meat is not healthy.
But I am curious about the slew of diseases processed meat prevents. Can you elaborate?
1. Starvation
2. Hyponatremia
3. Kwashiorkor
4. hypocobalaminemia0 -
Was kind of a bit of his point. Simply judging a person is not healthy by the singular fact that they eat processed meat is excessive simplification.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GirlNGlasses wrote: »I personally believe processed and smoked foods arent healthy. But colonoscopy well show you quite literally if there is anything to be concerned about there. Plus you get to show people the pictures to prove that your head really isnt up there. Win win!
so if your get adequate nutrition and hit macros and eat processed foods you are are not healthy???
What a silly question. Health has to do with more than what you eat. If you eat processed meat you have an increased risk of disease. If you have disease, you are not healthy. So it seems reasonable to say that processed meats are not healthy, as they do not promote health.
And blanket saying processed meat is not healthy because of an increased risk of one disease is an oversimplification. Last I looked, there is a whole slew of diseases processed meat can help prevent.
There are illnesses prevented by bacon and vienna sausages? Now you got my attention for sure
Please explain. 0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Was kind of a bit of his point. Simply judging a person is not healthy by the singular fact that they eat processed meat is excessive simplification.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GirlNGlasses wrote: »I personally believe processed and smoked foods arent healthy. But colonoscopy well show you quite literally if there is anything to be concerned about there. Plus you get to show people the pictures to prove that your head really isnt up there. Win win!
so if your get adequate nutrition and hit macros and eat processed foods you are are not healthy???
What a silly question. Health has to do with more than what you eat. If you eat processed meat you have an increased risk of disease. If you have disease, you are not healthy. So it seems reasonable to say that processed meats are not healthy, as they do not promote health.
And blanket saying processed meat is not healthy because of an increased risk of one disease is an oversimplification. Last I looked, there is a whole slew of diseases processed meat can help prevent.
Who was judging a person's health? The opinion was that processed meat was not healthy, and that seems a reasonable opinion. Much more reasonable than trying to spin that as saying everyone that eats processed meat is not healthy.
But I am curious about the slew of diseases processed meat prevents. Can you elaborate?
1. Starvation
2. Hyponatremia
3. Kwashiorkor
4. hypocobalaminemia
Can you point to any studies linking processed meat to this prevention? Or are we just being silly again?
(is starvation a disease or a cause of disease?)0 -
I read that your chances of getting colorectal cancer, for an average person, is about 5%. http://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/colorectal-cancer/risk-factors-and-prevention If it is true that bacon raises your risk by 18%, that would take you up to about 6%.
We make bacon and eggs every morning in my home. I'll risk that for bacon.
Five percent does seem low, but...
"Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States when men and women are considered separately, and the second leading cause when both sexes are combined. It is expected to cause about 49,700 deaths during 2015."
http://m.cancer.org/cancer/colonandrectumcancer/detailedguide/colorectal-cancer-key-statistics
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Was kind of a bit of his point. Simply judging a person is not healthy by the singular fact that they eat processed meat is excessive simplification.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GirlNGlasses wrote: »I personally believe processed and smoked foods arent healthy. But colonoscopy well show you quite literally if there is anything to be concerned about there. Plus you get to show people the pictures to prove that your head really isnt up there. Win win!
so if your get adequate nutrition and hit macros and eat processed foods you are are not healthy???
What a silly question. Health has to do with more than what you eat. If you eat processed meat you have an increased risk of disease. If you have disease, you are not healthy. So it seems reasonable to say that processed meats are not healthy, as they do not promote health.
And blanket saying processed meat is not healthy because of an increased risk of one disease is an oversimplification. Last I looked, there is a whole slew of diseases processed meat can help prevent.
Who was judging a person's health? The opinion was that processed meat was not healthy, and that seems a reasonable opinion. Much more reasonable than trying to spin that as saying everyone that eats processed meat is not healthy.
But I am curious about the slew of diseases processed meat prevents. Can you elaborate?
1. Starvation
2. Hyponatremia
3. Kwashiorkor
4. hypocobalaminemia
Can you point to any studies linking processed meat to this prevention? Or are we just being silly again?
A study that food with calories prevent starvation? That food containing salt prevents salt deficiency? That a food contain protein prevents protein deficiency? That a food containing vitamin B12 prevents B12 deficiency?
It isn't about sillyness. It is about viewing foods as good or bad irrespective of diet.0 -
GirlNGlasses wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Was kind of a bit of his point. Simply judging a person is not healthy by the singular fact that they eat processed meat is excessive simplification.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GirlNGlasses wrote: »I personally believe processed and smoked foods arent healthy. But colonoscopy well show you quite literally if there is anything to be concerned about there. Plus you get to show people the pictures to prove that your head really isnt up there. Win win!
so if your get adequate nutrition and hit macros and eat processed foods you are are not healthy???
What a silly question. Health has to do with more than what you eat. If you eat processed meat you have an increased risk of disease. If you have disease, you are not healthy. So it seems reasonable to say that processed meats are not healthy, as they do not promote health.
And blanket saying processed meat is not healthy because of an increased risk of one disease is an oversimplification. Last I looked, there is a whole slew of diseases processed meat can help prevent.
Who was judging a person's health? The opinion was that processed meat was not healthy, and that seems a reasonable opinion. Much more reasonable than trying to spin that as saying everyone that eats processed meat is not healthy.
But I am curious about the slew of diseases processed meat prevents. Can you elaborate?
1. Starvation
2. Hyponatremia
3. Kwashiorkor
4. hypocobalaminemia
1. Starvation-Eating non processed foods does this too
2. Hyponatremia- Adding salt to nonprocessed foods does this too
3. Kwashiorkor this is a lack of protein. Non processed proteins do this too
4. hypocobalaminemia- B12 is in fish, shellfish, beef. All of which are nonprocessed too.
Failed to say it was the only way to prevent these diseases. Were you contending processed meat is the only way to get colo-rectal cancer?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Was kind of a bit of his point. Simply judging a person is not healthy by the singular fact that they eat processed meat is excessive simplification.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GirlNGlasses wrote: »I personally believe processed and smoked foods arent healthy. But colonoscopy well show you quite literally if there is anything to be concerned about there. Plus you get to show people the pictures to prove that your head really isnt up there. Win win!
so if your get adequate nutrition and hit macros and eat processed foods you are are not healthy???
What a silly question. Health has to do with more than what you eat. If you eat processed meat you have an increased risk of disease. If you have disease, you are not healthy. So it seems reasonable to say that processed meats are not healthy, as they do not promote health.
And blanket saying processed meat is not healthy because of an increased risk of one disease is an oversimplification. Last I looked, there is a whole slew of diseases processed meat can help prevent.
Who was judging a person's health? The opinion was that processed meat was not healthy, and that seems a reasonable opinion. Much more reasonable than trying to spin that as saying everyone that eats processed meat is not healthy.
But I am curious about the slew of diseases processed meat prevents. Can you elaborate?
1. Starvation
2. Hyponatremia
3. Kwashiorkor
4. hypocobalaminemia
Can you point to any studies linking processed meat to this prevention? Or are we just being silly again?
A study that food with calories prevent starvation? That food containing salt prevents salt deficiency? That a food contain protein prevents protein deficiency? That a food containing vitamin B12 prevents B12 deficiency?
It isn't about sillyness. It is about viewing foods as good or bad irrespective of diet.
Yes to all questions. Saying food that is known to increase risk of cancer is not unhealthy because it can prevent starvation is silliness in my book.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Was kind of a bit of his point. Simply judging a person is not healthy by the singular fact that they eat processed meat is excessive simplification.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GirlNGlasses wrote: »I personally believe processed and smoked foods arent healthy. But colonoscopy well show you quite literally if there is anything to be concerned about there. Plus you get to show people the pictures to prove that your head really isnt up there. Win win!
so if your get adequate nutrition and hit macros and eat processed foods you are are not healthy???
What a silly question. Health has to do with more than what you eat. If you eat processed meat you have an increased risk of disease. If you have disease, you are not healthy. So it seems reasonable to say that processed meats are not healthy, as they do not promote health.
And blanket saying processed meat is not healthy because of an increased risk of one disease is an oversimplification. Last I looked, there is a whole slew of diseases processed meat can help prevent.
Who was judging a person's health? The opinion was that processed meat was not healthy, and that seems a reasonable opinion. Much more reasonable than trying to spin that as saying everyone that eats processed meat is not healthy.
But I am curious about the slew of diseases processed meat prevents. Can you elaborate?
1. Starvation
2. Hyponatremia
3. Kwashiorkor
4. hypocobalaminemia
Can you point to any studies linking processed meat to this prevention? Or are we just being silly again?
A study that food with calories prevent starvation? That food containing salt prevents salt deficiency? That a food contain protein prevents protein deficiency? That a food containing vitamin B12 prevents B12 deficiency?
It isn't about sillyness. It is about viewing foods as good or bad irrespective of diet.
Yes to all questions. Saying food that is known to increase risk of cancer is not unhealthy because it can prevent starvation is silliness in my book.
ethanol, corn, peanuts (I'd find more cancer causing foods, but I'm lazy) all "cause" cancer as well...
Even red wine "causes" cancer.
How many of you are avoiding these foods because of their equally strong link to cancer?
Also, coffee is in the same cancer classification as lead, which is known the state of California to cause cancer.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Was kind of a bit of his point. Simply judging a person is not healthy by the singular fact that they eat processed meat is excessive simplification.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GirlNGlasses wrote: »I personally believe processed and smoked foods arent healthy. But colonoscopy well show you quite literally if there is anything to be concerned about there. Plus you get to show people the pictures to prove that your head really isnt up there. Win win!
so if your get adequate nutrition and hit macros and eat processed foods you are are not healthy???
What a silly question. Health has to do with more than what you eat. If you eat processed meat you have an increased risk of disease. If you have disease, you are not healthy. So it seems reasonable to say that processed meats are not healthy, as they do not promote health.
And blanket saying processed meat is not healthy because of an increased risk of one disease is an oversimplification. Last I looked, there is a whole slew of diseases processed meat can help prevent.
Who was judging a person's health? The opinion was that processed meat was not healthy, and that seems a reasonable opinion. Much more reasonable than trying to spin that as saying everyone that eats processed meat is not healthy.
But I am curious about the slew of diseases processed meat prevents. Can you elaborate?
1. Starvation
2. Hyponatremia
3. Kwashiorkor
4. hypocobalaminemia
Can you point to any studies linking processed meat to this prevention? Or are we just being silly again?
A study that food with calories prevent starvation? That food containing salt prevents salt deficiency? That a food contain protein prevents protein deficiency? That a food containing vitamin B12 prevents B12 deficiency?
It isn't about sillyness. It is about viewing foods as good or bad irrespective of diet.
Yes to all questions. Saying food that is known to increase risk of cancer is not unhealthy because it can prevent starvation is silliness in my book.
ethanol, corn, peanuts (I'd find more cancer causing foods, but I'm lazy) all "cause" cancer as well...
Even red wine "causes" cancer.
How many of you are avoiding these foods because of their equally strong link to cancer?
I've never heard that peanuts or corn cause cancer. What types of cancer? Is it "equally strong"?
I do limit alcohol because of it's association with disease.
Edit: alcohol, and red wine specifically, also have an association with good heart health. Other than the silliness of preventing starvation and such, I've never heard of any association between improved health and processed meats0 -
aflatoxin B1 contamination for both corn and peanuts (counts as much as nitrogen added to cured meats if you ask me).
Contamination is usually low (almost always within established safety limits), but ubiquitous in those foods.
There's little political pressure to quantify their increase in excess cancers, so little to no press, though there's no doubt AFB1 is one of the most toxic and cancer causing compounds humans are regularly exposed to.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Was kind of a bit of his point. Simply judging a person is not healthy by the singular fact that they eat processed meat is excessive simplification.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GirlNGlasses wrote: »I personally believe processed and smoked foods arent healthy. But colonoscopy well show you quite literally if there is anything to be concerned about there. Plus you get to show people the pictures to prove that your head really isnt up there. Win win!
so if your get adequate nutrition and hit macros and eat processed foods you are are not healthy???
What a silly question. Health has to do with more than what you eat. If you eat processed meat you have an increased risk of disease. If you have disease, you are not healthy. So it seems reasonable to say that processed meats are not healthy, as they do not promote health.
And blanket saying processed meat is not healthy because of an increased risk of one disease is an oversimplification. Last I looked, there is a whole slew of diseases processed meat can help prevent.
Who was judging a person's health? The opinion was that processed meat was not healthy, and that seems a reasonable opinion. Much more reasonable than trying to spin that as saying everyone that eats processed meat is not healthy.
But I am curious about the slew of diseases processed meat prevents. Can you elaborate?
1. Starvation
2. Hyponatremia
3. Kwashiorkor
4. hypocobalaminemia
Can you point to any studies linking processed meat to this prevention? Or are we just being silly again?
A study that food with calories prevent starvation? That food containing salt prevents salt deficiency? That a food contain protein prevents protein deficiency? That a food containing vitamin B12 prevents B12 deficiency?
It isn't about sillyness. It is about viewing foods as good or bad irrespective of diet.
Yes to all questions. Saying food that is known to increase risk of cancer is not unhealthy because it can prevent starvation is silliness in my book.
ethanol, corn, peanuts (I'd find more cancer causing foods, but I'm lazy) all "cause" cancer as well...
Even red wine "causes" cancer.
How many of you are avoiding these foods because of their equally strong link to cancer?
Also, coffee is in the same cancer classification as lead, which is known the state of California to cause cancer.
Alcoholics are at increased risk for cancer and this has been a known fact for a long time. Alcohol is something that can be beneficial in moderation, very dangerous in large quantities and there are medical guidelines about what moderation means.
Can you provide links about the association between peanuts and cancer? I have never seen this and it sounds very interesting.
Actually tried to google the peanuts and cancer link, and all I can find is that peanuts protect against certain cancers.0 -
aflatoxin B1 contamination for both corn and peanuts (counts as much as nitrogen added to cured meats if you ask me).
Contamination is usually low (almost always within established safety limits), but ubiquitous in those foods.
"if you ask me". No offense, but I think I'll research that further. I would expect this to be more widely reported if experts in the field agreed. But I will check for research on it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Was kind of a bit of his point. Simply judging a person is not healthy by the singular fact that they eat processed meat is excessive simplification.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GirlNGlasses wrote: »I personally believe processed and smoked foods arent healthy. But colonoscopy well show you quite literally if there is anything to be concerned about there. Plus you get to show people the pictures to prove that your head really isnt up there. Win win!
so if your get adequate nutrition and hit macros and eat processed foods you are are not healthy???
What a silly question. Health has to do with more than what you eat. If you eat processed meat you have an increased risk of disease. If you have disease, you are not healthy. So it seems reasonable to say that processed meats are not healthy, as they do not promote health.
And blanket saying processed meat is not healthy because of an increased risk of one disease is an oversimplification. Last I looked, there is a whole slew of diseases processed meat can help prevent.
Who was judging a person's health? The opinion was that processed meat was not healthy, and that seems a reasonable opinion. Much more reasonable than trying to spin that as saying everyone that eats processed meat is not healthy.
But I am curious about the slew of diseases processed meat prevents. Can you elaborate?
1. Starvation
2. Hyponatremia
3. Kwashiorkor
4. hypocobalaminemia
Can you point to any studies linking processed meat to this prevention? Or are we just being silly again?
A study that food with calories prevent starvation? That food containing salt prevents salt deficiency? That a food contain protein prevents protein deficiency? That a food containing vitamin B12 prevents B12 deficiency?
It isn't about sillyness. It is about viewing foods as good or bad irrespective of diet.
Yes to all questions. Saying food that is known to increase risk of cancer is not unhealthy because it can prevent starvation is silliness in my book.
ethanol, corn, peanuts (I'd find more cancer causing foods, but I'm lazy) all "cause" cancer as well...
Even red wine "causes" cancer.
How many of you are avoiding these foods because of their equally strong link to cancer?
Also, coffee is in the same cancer classification as lead, which is known the state of California to cause cancer.
Alcoholics are at increased risk for cancer and this has been a known fact for a long time. Alcohol is something that can be beneficial in moderation, very dangerous in large quantities and there are medical guidelines about what moderation means.
Can you provide links about the association between peanuts and cancer? I have never seen this and it sounds very interesting.
Actually tried to google the peanuts and cancer link, and all I can find is that peanuts protect against certain cancers.
You don't have to be alcoholic to have any increased risk of cancer from alcohol. Women who drink are at increased risk for breast cancer, though I have read that folate can counteract that risk.0 -
aflatoxin B1 contamination for both corn and peanuts (counts as much as nitrogen added to cured meats if you ask me).
Contamination is usually low (almost always within established safety limits), but ubiquitous in those foods.
There's little political pressure to quantify their increase in excess cancers, so little to no press, though there's no doubt AFB1 is one of the most toxic and cancer causing compounds humans are regularly exposed to.
Aflatoxins are not part of processing peanuts or grains for consumption, they are a result of contamination. And in most countries there are supposed to be regulations and contaminated products discarded.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Was kind of a bit of his point. Simply judging a person is not healthy by the singular fact that they eat processed meat is excessive simplification.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GirlNGlasses wrote: »I personally believe processed and smoked foods arent healthy. But colonoscopy well show you quite literally if there is anything to be concerned about there. Plus you get to show people the pictures to prove that your head really isnt up there. Win win!
so if your get adequate nutrition and hit macros and eat processed foods you are are not healthy???
What a silly question. Health has to do with more than what you eat. If you eat processed meat you have an increased risk of disease. If you have disease, you are not healthy. So it seems reasonable to say that processed meats are not healthy, as they do not promote health.
And blanket saying processed meat is not healthy because of an increased risk of one disease is an oversimplification. Last I looked, there is a whole slew of diseases processed meat can help prevent.
Who was judging a person's health? The opinion was that processed meat was not healthy, and that seems a reasonable opinion. Much more reasonable than trying to spin that as saying everyone that eats processed meat is not healthy.
But I am curious about the slew of diseases processed meat prevents. Can you elaborate?
1. Starvation
2. Hyponatremia
3. Kwashiorkor
4. hypocobalaminemia
Can you point to any studies linking processed meat to this prevention? Or are we just being silly again?
A study that food with calories prevent starvation? That food containing salt prevents salt deficiency? That a food contain protein prevents protein deficiency? That a food containing vitamin B12 prevents B12 deficiency?
It isn't about sillyness. It is about viewing foods as good or bad irrespective of diet.
Yes to all questions. Saying food that is known to increase risk of cancer is not unhealthy because it can prevent starvation is silliness in my book.
ethanol, corn, peanuts (I'd find more cancer causing foods, but I'm lazy) all "cause" cancer as well...
Even red wine "causes" cancer.
How many of you are avoiding these foods because of their equally strong link to cancer?
Also, coffee is in the same cancer classification as lead, which is known the state of California to cause cancer.
Alcoholics are at increased risk for cancer and this has been a known fact for a long time. Alcohol is something that can be beneficial in moderation, very dangerous in large quantities and there are medical guidelines about what moderation means.
Can you provide links about the association between peanuts and cancer? I have never seen this and it sounds very interesting.
Actually tried to google the peanuts and cancer link, and all I can find is that peanuts protect against certain cancers.
I'm really being a smart *kitten*. It's just an example of something harmful absolutely being there (AFB1) but the dose being low enough (in most developing nations) to not be a concern.
Much like most all of the "risk" of the processed meats goes away as people consume closer to the recommended fruits and veggies.
Most of the excess cancers and acute toxicity of AFB1 will be from developing countries, though isolated incidents have occurred in the US (dog foods).
The picture is so blurred talking about food though. As something "harmful" is always being "beneficial" at the same time. I think you can "what if" better choices in food all the way up to kale....0 -
aflatoxin B1 contamination for both corn and peanuts (counts as much as nitrogen added to cured meats if you ask me).
Contamination is usually low (almost always within established safety limits), but ubiquitous in those foods.
There's little political pressure to quantify their increase in excess cancers, so little to no press, though there's no doubt AFB1 is one of the most toxic and cancer causing compounds humans are regularly exposed to.
Aflatoxins are not part of processing peanuts or grains for consumption, they are a result of contamination. And in most countries there are supposed to be regulations and contaminated products discarded.
Other things in the same cancer causing category as meat:
Being a painter
Being an Iron worker
or a wood worker
or a shoemaker
eating salted fish (chinese style)
drinking alcohol
getting X-rays done or going out into the sun (UV rays)
oral and hormonal contraceptives0 -
stevencloser wrote: »aflatoxin B1 contamination for both corn and peanuts (counts as much as nitrogen added to cured meats if you ask me).
Contamination is usually low (almost always within established safety limits), but ubiquitous in those foods.
There's little political pressure to quantify their increase in excess cancers, so little to no press, though there's no doubt AFB1 is one of the most toxic and cancer causing compounds humans are regularly exposed to.
Aflatoxins are not part of processing peanuts or grains for consumption, they are a result of contamination. And in most countries there are supposed to be regulations and contaminated products discarded.
Other things in the same cancer causing category as meat:
Being a painter
Being an Iron worker
or a wood worker
or a shoemaker
eating salted fish (chinese style)
drinking alcohol
getting X-rays done or going out into the sun (UV rays)
oral and hormonal contraceptives
What do you mean by "in the same cancer causing category"?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aflatoxin B1 contamination for both corn and peanuts (counts as much as nitrogen added to cured meats if you ask me).
Contamination is usually low (almost always within established safety limits), but ubiquitous in those foods.
There's little political pressure to quantify their increase in excess cancers, so little to no press, though there's no doubt AFB1 is one of the most toxic and cancer causing compounds humans are regularly exposed to.
Aflatoxins are not part of processing peanuts or grains for consumption, they are a result of contamination. And in most countries there are supposed to be regulations and contaminated products discarded.
Other things in the same cancer causing category as meat:
Being a painter
Being an Iron worker
or a wood worker
or a shoemaker
eating salted fish (chinese style)
drinking alcohol
getting X-rays done or going out into the sun (UV rays)
oral and hormonal contraceptives
What do you mean by "in the same cancer causing category"?
IARC classification probably.
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aflatoxin B1 contamination for both corn and peanuts (counts as much as nitrogen added to cured meats if you ask me).
Contamination is usually low (almost always within established safety limits), but ubiquitous in those foods.
There's little political pressure to quantify their increase in excess cancers, so little to no press, though there's no doubt AFB1 is one of the most toxic and cancer causing compounds humans are regularly exposed to.
Aflatoxins are not part of processing peanuts or grains for consumption, they are a result of contamination. And in most countries there are supposed to be regulations and contaminated products discarded.
Other things in the same cancer causing category as meat:
Being a painter
Being an Iron worker
or a wood worker
or a shoemaker
eating salted fish (chinese style)
drinking alcohol
getting X-rays done or going out into the sun (UV rays)
oral and hormonal contraceptives
What do you mean by "in the same cancer causing category"?
There's multiple categories of carcinogens, ranging from "yep, that's a definite cancer risk" to "probably not". Those things are all in the same group as the processed meat, the highest, next to *kitten* like plutonium.0 -
you have to put these kinds of things into perspective. in general, there is about a 5% chance of the average person getting colorectal cancer...if your odds increase by 18%, that means you jump from 5% to 6% (.18*.05=.09 + .05 = ~ .06).
beyond that, you would have to consider doseage (just as you would with sugar and typical "junk" foods). are you eating slabs of bacon and then ham for lunch and sausage for dinner? i mean, that might be an issue there.
beyond that you have to consider overall lifestyles. the article i red yesterday said as much...observational studies indicate that many people who eat a lot of processed foods in general tend to have other risk factors as they overall tend to not live the healthiest of lifestyles.
a proper perspective is very important when looking at these kinds of things...unfortunately, most people simply have a knee jerk reaction which is why so many people tend to go to extremes with their diets and exercise...and frankly, just about everything else in their lives. we live in a world of extremes right now where moderation of any sort just doesn't seem to exist. nothing much is truly black and white...there's a lot of grey and nuance that people tend to ignore.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »aflatoxin B1 contamination for both corn and peanuts (counts as much as nitrogen added to cured meats if you ask me).
Contamination is usually low (almost always within established safety limits), but ubiquitous in those foods.
There's little political pressure to quantify their increase in excess cancers, so little to no press, though there's no doubt AFB1 is one of the most toxic and cancer causing compounds humans are regularly exposed to.
Aflatoxins are not part of processing peanuts or grains for consumption, they are a result of contamination. And in most countries there are supposed to be regulations and contaminated products discarded.
Other things in the same cancer causing category as meat:
Being a painter
Being an Iron worker
or a wood worker
or a shoemaker
eating salted fish (chinese style)
drinking alcohol
getting X-rays done or going out into the sun (UV rays)
oral and hormonal contraceptives
Some professions are indeed increasing a person's overall risk of cancer. Which is also reason why there are often safety measures (protective garments, ventilation, short shifts, early retirement etc).
Foods and drinks other than meat have been also associated with increased risk of cancer depending on amounts consumed, which is why there are also recommendations about how much and how often is safe to consume these things.
X-rays are known to cause cancer, which why they are to be avoided when not necessary (I have never heard of anyone having X-rays for fun).
Unlimited exposure to sun is known to cause cancer for several decades now.
Hormonal contraceptives, and other hormonal treatments are known also to increase risk of cancer, which is why there are regulations, labs tests etc.
So what do you mean? Having processed meats in the same category as UV rays and X-rays is not really a comforting thought for people who enjoy their bacon!
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »aflatoxin B1 contamination for both corn and peanuts (counts as much as nitrogen added to cured meats if you ask me).
Contamination is usually low (almost always within established safety limits), but ubiquitous in those foods.
There's little political pressure to quantify their increase in excess cancers, so little to no press, though there's no doubt AFB1 is one of the most toxic and cancer causing compounds humans are regularly exposed to.
Aflatoxins are not part of processing peanuts or grains for consumption, they are a result of contamination. And in most countries there are supposed to be regulations and contaminated products discarded.
Other things in the same cancer causing category as meat:
Being a painter
Being an Iron worker
or a wood worker
or a shoemaker
eating salted fish (chinese style)
drinking alcohol
getting X-rays done or going out into the sun (UV rays)
oral and hormonal contraceptives
Some professions are indeed increasing a person's overall risk of cancer. Which is also reason why there are often safety measures (protective garments, ventilation, short shifts, early retirement etc).
Foods and drinks other than meat have been also associated with increased risk of cancer depending on amounts consumed, which is why there are also recommendations about how much and how often is safe to consume these things.
X-rays are known to cause cancer, which why they are to be avoided when not necessary (I have never heard of anyone having X-rays for fun).
Unlimited exposure to sun is known to cause cancer for several decades now.
Hormonal contraceptives, and other hormonal treatments are known also to increase risk of cancer, which is why there are regulations, labs tests etc.
So what do you mean? Having processed meats in the same category as UV rays and X-rays is not really a comforting thought for people who enjoy their bacon!
I mean you don't stop going out in the sun to avoid rising your cancer risk, going out into the sun is even encouraged for health. It's the dose that matters as always.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aflatoxin B1 contamination for both corn and peanuts (counts as much as nitrogen added to cured meats if you ask me).
Contamination is usually low (almost always within established safety limits), but ubiquitous in those foods.
There's little political pressure to quantify their increase in excess cancers, so little to no press, though there's no doubt AFB1 is one of the most toxic and cancer causing compounds humans are regularly exposed to.
Aflatoxins are not part of processing peanuts or grains for consumption, they are a result of contamination. And in most countries there are supposed to be regulations and contaminated products discarded.
Other things in the same cancer causing category as meat:
Being a painter
Being an Iron worker
or a wood worker
or a shoemaker
eating salted fish (chinese style)
drinking alcohol
getting X-rays done or going out into the sun (UV rays)
oral and hormonal contraceptives
Some professions are indeed increasing a person's overall risk of cancer. Which is also reason why there are often safety measures (protective garments, ventilation, short shifts, early retirement etc).
Foods and drinks other than meat have been also associated with increased risk of cancer depending on amounts consumed, which is why there are also recommendations about how much and how often is safe to consume these things.
X-rays are known to cause cancer, which why they are to be avoided when not necessary (I have never heard of anyone having X-rays for fun).
Unlimited exposure to sun is known to cause cancer for several decades now.
Hormonal contraceptives, and other hormonal treatments are known also to increase risk of cancer, which is why there are regulations, labs tests etc.
So what do you mean? Having processed meats in the same category as UV rays and X-rays is not really a comforting thought for people who enjoy their bacon!
I mean you don't stop going out in the sun to avoid rising your cancer risk, going out into the sun is even encouraged for health. It's the dose that matters as always.
No debate there. Which is why the report also states numbers. Something like 50 grams of processed meat daily increasing risk of bowel cancer by 18%. I am guessing that this means that e.g. 2 slices of processed meat once per month would put one at a much lower risk.
"For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal (bowel) cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed," Dr Kurt Straif from the WHO said.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aflatoxin B1 contamination for both corn and peanuts (counts as much as nitrogen added to cured meats if you ask me).
Contamination is usually low (almost always within established safety limits), but ubiquitous in those foods.
There's little political pressure to quantify their increase in excess cancers, so little to no press, though there's no doubt AFB1 is one of the most toxic and cancer causing compounds humans are regularly exposed to.
Aflatoxins are not part of processing peanuts or grains for consumption, they are a result of contamination. And in most countries there are supposed to be regulations and contaminated products discarded.
Other things in the same cancer causing category as meat:
Being a painter
Being an Iron worker
or a wood worker
or a shoemaker
eating salted fish (chinese style)
drinking alcohol
getting X-rays done or going out into the sun (UV rays)
oral and hormonal contraceptives
What do you mean by "in the same cancer causing category"?
IARC classification probably.
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/
Thanks!0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »you have to put these kinds of things into perspective. in general, there is about a 5% chance of the average person getting colorectal cancer...if your odds increase by 18%, that means you jump from 5% to 6% (.18*.05=.09 + .05 = ~ .06).
beyond that, you would have to consider doseage (just as you would with sugar and typical "junk" foods). are you eating slabs of bacon and then ham for lunch and sausage for dinner? i mean, that might be an issue there.
beyond that you have to consider overall lifestyles. the article i red yesterday said as much...observational studies indicate that many people who eat a lot of processed foods in general tend to have other risk factors as they overall tend to not live the healthiest of lifestyles.
a proper perspective is very important when looking at these kinds of things...unfortunately, most people simply have a knee jerk reaction which is why so many people tend to go to extremes with their diets and exercise...and frankly, just about everything else in their lives. we live in a world of extremes right now where moderation of any sort just doesn't seem to exist. nothing much is truly black and white...there's a lot of grey and nuance that people tend to ignore.
+10 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aflatoxin B1 contamination for both corn and peanuts (counts as much as nitrogen added to cured meats if you ask me).
Contamination is usually low (almost always within established safety limits), but ubiquitous in those foods.
There's little political pressure to quantify their increase in excess cancers, so little to no press, though there's no doubt AFB1 is one of the most toxic and cancer causing compounds humans are regularly exposed to.
Aflatoxins are not part of processing peanuts or grains for consumption, they are a result of contamination. And in most countries there are supposed to be regulations and contaminated products discarded.
Other things in the same cancer causing category as meat:
Being a painter
Being an Iron worker
or a wood worker
or a shoemaker
eating salted fish (chinese style)
drinking alcohol
getting X-rays done or going out into the sun (UV rays)
oral and hormonal contraceptives
Some professions are indeed increasing a person's overall risk of cancer. Which is also reason why there are often safety measures (protective garments, ventilation, short shifts, early retirement etc).
Foods and drinks other than meat have been also associated with increased risk of cancer depending on amounts consumed, which is why there are also recommendations about how much and how often is safe to consume these things.
X-rays are known to cause cancer, which why they are to be avoided when not necessary (I have never heard of anyone having X-rays for fun).
Unlimited exposure to sun is known to cause cancer for several decades now.
Hormonal contraceptives, and other hormonal treatments are known also to increase risk of cancer, which is why there are regulations, labs tests etc.
So what do you mean? Having processed meats in the same category as UV rays and X-rays is not really a comforting thought for people who enjoy their bacon!
I mean you don't stop going out in the sun to avoid rising your cancer risk, going out into the sun is even encouraged for health. It's the dose that matters as always.
No debate there. Which is why the report also states numbers. Something like 50 grams of processed meat daily increasing risk of bowel cancer by 18%. I am guessing that this means that e.g. 2 slices of processed meat once per month would put one at a much lower risk.
"For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal (bowel) cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed," Dr Kurt Straif from the WHO said.
Do you know if there was any correlation done with those who had colorectal cancer and fiber intake? I would suspect that if you eat a diet high in vitamins, minerals and fiber, that would significantly reduce that increase of processed meats.
I would also like to know how many of those who got cancer were obese and had family history of cancer.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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