News report = red meat and processed meats cause cancer
Options
Replies
-
Media hype + Lack of common sense = poor health
0 -
I think the thing I find the most fascinating about these reports of late is the risks that people are willing to take. For example, I've seen a few posts from people (in general, not talking solely about MFP) who are staunch low carb advocates because sugar will kill you just completely dismiss this, whereas they preach the WHO sugar recommendations as gospel.
People tend to pick and choose the science that they like. It seems silly, but there is a case to be made against so many things that it's not hard to understand someone saying, "I don't care, I'm eating it anyway."
Especially since things change, I get how it makes sense. My grandpa gave up eggs even though he loved them. Used to have two a day, every day, and quit when they told him what a healthy diet looked like (at that time.) By the time they got around to saying, "Okay, wait, a few eggs is okay," he had died.
Plus, when you're young, it's impossible to know what is coming. Should you eat this way to prevent this or that way to prevent that? It's not like anyone can see what is going to happen to them when they're sixty years old.
Some people don't even care and eat whatever they want, knowing it will make them die sooner. They're going on the principal that they'd rather do things they enjoy and die sooner than be cautious and live a little longer but live less happily. Old people, especially. And that's cool.
Different strokes.
I don't care what people do; I just personally find the justifications of it interesting. All groups do it, but my example here was relevant to this particular finding. I'm sure the "preachy" vegans will be triumphantly shouting this while ignoring something else.
Also, I don't think Americans realize that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily think that government/political = garbage. It's something else I find interesting about the responses to these kinds of things.
Clearly, everyone is going to continue doing whatever they want to in spite of whatever evidence to the contrary. I just find it all fun.0 -
I think the thing I find the most fascinating about these reports of late is the risks that people are willing to take. For example, I've seen a few posts from people (in general, not talking solely about MFP) who are staunch low carb advocates because sugar will kill you just completely dismiss this, whereas they preach the WHO sugar recommendations as gospel.
I find this odd too. Not saying one needs to worry about eating some red meat (or even processed meats) in moderation -- I don't -- but I try to be generally consistent.0 -
I think the thing I find the most fascinating about these reports of late is the risks that people are willing to take. For example, I've seen a few posts from people (in general, not talking solely about MFP) who are staunch low carb advocates because sugar will kill you just completely dismiss this, whereas they preach the WHO sugar recommendations as gospel.
People tend to pick and choose the science that they like. It seems silly, but there is a case to be made against so many things that it's not hard to understand someone saying, "I don't care, I'm eating it anyway."
Especially since things change, I get how it makes sense. My grandpa gave up eggs even though he loved them. Used to have two a day, every day, and quit when they told him what a healthy diet looked like (at that time.) By the time they got around to saying, "Okay, wait, a few eggs is okay," he had died.
Plus, when you're young, it's impossible to know what is coming. Should you eat this way to prevent this or that way to prevent that? It's not like anyone can see what is going to happen to them when they're sixty years old.
Some people don't even care and eat whatever they want, knowing it will make them die sooner. They're going on the principal that they'd rather do things they enjoy and die sooner than be cautious and live a little longer but live less happily. Old people, especially. And that's cool.
Different strokes.
I don't care what people do; I just personally find the justifications of it interesting. All groups do it, but my example here was relevant to this particular finding. I'm sure the "preachy" vegans will be triumphantly shouting this while ignoring something else.
Also, I don't think Americans realize that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily think that government/political = garbage. It's something else I find interesting about the responses to these kinds of things.
Clearly, everyone is going to continue doing whatever they want to in spite of whatever evidence to the contrary. I just find it all fun.
while the WHO is political, they can't just run away and be silly with the science they "choose" to use and what they don't. So even if personal biases fit into things, decisions of government agencies like the EPA still have to have some backup from science.
SOOO many aspects of climate change are in this boat. One can pick and choose data to fit almost any narrative they want if they research heard enough.0 -
I'm just saying... I still live in fear of the deadly chemical combination of di-hydrogen monoxide, so you do what you want to. I'll go back to being afraid of everything and decreasing my quality of life in order to preserve it.0
-
MommyL2015 wrote: »Being born is the only thing that is known to have a 100% death rate.
I know you were just being silly, but this is far from true. Most people who are born do not die from it. And I'm sure there are other things with a 100% death rate. Being beheaded, for example.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MommyL2015 wrote: »Being born is the only thing that is known to have a 100% death rate.
I know you were just being silly, but this is far from true. Most people who are born do not die from it. And I'm sure there are other things with a 100% death rate. Being beheaded, for example.
I'm pretty sure they meant that everyone who is born will die... or that being born is a 100% indicator that at some point, you will die. Not that the act of being born instantly led to death.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think the thing I find the most fascinating about these reports of late is the risks that people are willing to take. For example, I've seen a few posts from people (in general, not talking solely about MFP) who are staunch low carb advocates because sugar will kill you just completely dismiss this, whereas they preach the WHO sugar recommendations as gospel.
I find this odd too. Not saying one needs to worry about eating some red meat (or even processed meats) in moderation -- I don't -- but I try to be generally consistent.
Yes, exactly. Consistency. If I still ate meat, I'd still do so in moderation, just like I do with sugar.I think the thing I find the most fascinating about these reports of late is the risks that people are willing to take. For example, I've seen a few posts from people (in general, not talking solely about MFP) who are staunch low carb advocates because sugar will kill you just completely dismiss this, whereas they preach the WHO sugar recommendations as gospel.
People tend to pick and choose the science that they like. It seems silly, but there is a case to be made against so many things that it's not hard to understand someone saying, "I don't care, I'm eating it anyway."
Especially since things change, I get how it makes sense. My grandpa gave up eggs even though he loved them. Used to have two a day, every day, and quit when they told him what a healthy diet looked like (at that time.) By the time they got around to saying, "Okay, wait, a few eggs is okay," he had died.
Plus, when you're young, it's impossible to know what is coming. Should you eat this way to prevent this or that way to prevent that? It's not like anyone can see what is going to happen to them when they're sixty years old.
Some people don't even care and eat whatever they want, knowing it will make them die sooner. They're going on the principal that they'd rather do things they enjoy and die sooner than be cautious and live a little longer but live less happily. Old people, especially. And that's cool.
Different strokes.
I don't care what people do; I just personally find the justifications of it interesting. All groups do it, but my example here was relevant to this particular finding. I'm sure the "preachy" vegans will be triumphantly shouting this while ignoring something else.
Also, I don't think Americans realize that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily think that government/political = garbage. It's something else I find interesting about the responses to these kinds of things.
Clearly, everyone is going to continue doing whatever they want to in spite of whatever evidence to the contrary. I just find it all fun.
while the WHO is political, they can't just run away and be silly with the science they "choose" to use and what they don't. So even if personal biases fit into things, decisions of government agencies like the EPA still have to have some backup from science.
SOOO many aspects of climate change are in this boat. One can pick and choose data to fit almost any narrative they want if they research heard enough.
Also, yes, exactly. It definitely reflects a lack of understanding about how the US government works, but Americans do tend to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to government anything; we have a level of distrust that isn't really as prominent in other countries, even when not deserved. Sometimes, it totally is, but that doesn't mean it's all bad.
0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MommyL2015 wrote: »Being born is the only thing that is known to have a 100% death rate.
I know you were just being silly, but this is far from true. Most people who are born do not die from it. And I'm sure there are other things with a 100% death rate. Being beheaded, for example.
I'm pretty sure they meant that everyone who is born will die... or that being born is a 100% indicator that at some point, you will die. Not that the act of being born instantly led to death.
I assumed the same. But that's not what they said.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MommyL2015 wrote: »Being born is the only thing that is known to have a 100% death rate.
I know you were just being silly, but this is far from true. Most people who are born do not die from it. And I'm sure there are other things with a 100% death rate. Being beheaded, for example.
Huh? There are people who are born that don't die?? (Superheroes and cloned soap opera characters notwithstanding)??lemurcat12 wrote: »I think the thing I find the most fascinating about these reports of late is the risks that people are willing to take. For example, I've seen a few posts from people (in general, not talking solely about MFP) who are staunch low carb advocates because sugar will kill you just completely dismiss this, whereas they preach the WHO sugar recommendations as gospel.
I find this odd too. Not saying one needs to worry about eating some red meat (or even processed meats) in moderation -- I don't -- but I try to be generally consistent.
Yes, exactly. Consistency. If I still ate meat, I'd still do so in moderation, just like I do with sugar.I think the thing I find the most fascinating about these reports of late is the risks that people are willing to take. For example, I've seen a few posts from people (in general, not talking solely about MFP) who are staunch low carb advocates because sugar will kill you just completely dismiss this, whereas they preach the WHO sugar recommendations as gospel.
People tend to pick and choose the science that they like. It seems silly, but there is a case to be made against so many things that it's not hard to understand someone saying, "I don't care, I'm eating it anyway."
Especially since things change, I get how it makes sense. My grandpa gave up eggs even though he loved them. Used to have two a day, every day, and quit when they told him what a healthy diet looked like (at that time.) By the time they got around to saying, "Okay, wait, a few eggs is okay," he had died.
Plus, when you're young, it's impossible to know what is coming. Should you eat this way to prevent this or that way to prevent that? It's not like anyone can see what is going to happen to them when they're sixty years old.
Some people don't even care and eat whatever they want, knowing it will make them die sooner. They're going on the principal that they'd rather do things they enjoy and die sooner than be cautious and live a little longer but live less happily. Old people, especially. And that's cool.
Different strokes.
I don't care what people do; I just personally find the justifications of it interesting. All groups do it, but my example here was relevant to this particular finding. I'm sure the "preachy" vegans will be triumphantly shouting this while ignoring something else.
Also, I don't think Americans realize that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily think that government/political = garbage. It's something else I find interesting about the responses to these kinds of things.
Clearly, everyone is going to continue doing whatever they want to in spite of whatever evidence to the contrary. I just find it all fun.
while the WHO is political, they can't just run away and be silly with the science they "choose" to use and what they don't. So even if personal biases fit into things, decisions of government agencies like the EPA still have to have some backup from science.
SOOO many aspects of climate change are in this boat. One can pick and choose data to fit almost any narrative they want if they research heard enough.
Also, yes, exactly. It definitely reflects a lack of understanding about how the US government works, but Americans do tend to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to government anything; we have a level of distrust that isn't really as prominent in other countries, even when not deserved. Sometimes, it totally is, but that doesn't mean it's all bad.
For me it's not the knee-jerk negative reaction to 'government' but 'media headlines'. As pointed out above, what the media trumpets as 'meat causes cancer' really is 'there's a relatively miniscule increase in the incidence of cancer correlated with eating certain amounts of processed meat each day'.0 -
I think the thing I find the most fascinating about these reports of late is the risks that people are willing to take. For example, I've seen a few posts from people (in general, not talking solely about MFP) who are staunch low carb advocates because sugar will kill you just completely dismiss this, whereas they preach the WHO sugar recommendations as gospel.
People tend to pick and choose the science that they like. It seems silly, but there is a case to be made against so many things that it's not hard to understand someone saying, "I don't care, I'm eating it anyway."
Especially since things change, I get how it makes sense. My grandpa gave up eggs even though he loved them. Used to have two a day, every day, and quit when they told him what a healthy diet looked like (at that time.) By the time they got around to saying, "Okay, wait, a few eggs is okay," he had died.
Plus, when you're young, it's impossible to know what is coming. Should you eat this way to prevent this or that way to prevent that? It's not like anyone can see what is going to happen to them when they're sixty years old.
Some people don't even care and eat whatever they want, knowing it will make them die sooner. They're going on the principal that they'd rather do things they enjoy and die sooner than be cautious and live a little longer but live less happily. Old people, especially. And that's cool.
Different strokes.
I don't care what people do; I just personally find the justifications of it interesting. All groups do it, but my example here was relevant to this particular finding. I'm sure the "preachy" vegans will be triumphantly shouting this while ignoring something else.
Also, I don't think Americans realize that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily think that government/political = garbage. It's something else I find interesting about the responses to these kinds of things.
Clearly, everyone is going to continue doing whatever they want to in spite of whatever evidence to the contrary. I just find it all fun.
while the WHO is political, they can't just run away and be silly with the science they "choose" to use and what they don't. So even if personal biases fit into things, decisions of government agencies like the EPA still have to have some backup from science.
SOOO many aspects of climate change are in this boat. One can pick and choose data to fit almost any narrative they want if they research heard enough.
From what I've observed, they absolutely can be. That's how political organizations end up backing policies that don't reflect what would make sense based on science. They reflect the prevailing social attitudes which may run completely counter to the science. (FWIW - I'm not talking specifically climate change, or specifically the WHO, though it applies to that, too)0 -
Reasons I raise my own cattle and chickens. I'm terrified of pigs though - so guess I'll keep eating store bought bacon!0
-
Yup. That's definitely, I think, more of the problem. Science reporting is notoriously bad.
(Also, I apologize for the derail. I'll stop now. I can leave it at I find it all really interesting.
)
ETA: I can't fix the quotes. Sorry, but in response to @juggernaut1974.
0 -
I think that lifestyle should be included in that as well.
I heard it on the radio on my way home to eat lunch...I just shook my head.
0 -
I'm going down eating bacon.0
-
For me it's not the knee-jerk negative reaction to 'government' but 'media headlines'. As pointed out above, what the media trumpets as 'meat causes cancer' really is 'there's a relatively miniscule increase in the incidence of cancer correlated with eating certain amounts of processed meat each day'.
0 -
My family doesn't get cancer. We get diabetes and Alzheimer's disease instead. I know that sounds flippant (is somewhat said in jest) and, obviously, somebody in my family may get cancer some day, but this won't change how I eat. If I had a strong family history of cancer I might have a different opinion.
Given those two are killing your family members, isn't the truest thing to say is that your cancer risk a complete unknown, not unlikely? It could be that at 90 your family would look like a 2 year old Sprague-Dawley rat, just no one has made it to 90?
Lol. You are correct. I really say the diabetes/Alzheimer's thing as a tongue-in-cheek comment. My known family history is split between people who either died young (early-mid 60s, many diabetics) or lived to be in their upper 80s/mid-90s (dementia/Alzheimer's patients in this group.) My family is kind of the opposite of tight-knit so known is the operative word there. The unknown is greater than the known for sure 0 -
For me it's not the knee-jerk negative reaction to 'government' but 'media headlines'. As pointed out above, what the media trumpets as 'meat causes cancer' really is 'there's a relatively miniscule increase in the incidence of cancer correlated with eating certain amounts of processed meat each day'.
LMAO! This is so true it is scary.0 -
My family doesn't get cancer. We get diabetes and Alzheimer's disease instead. I know that sounds flippant (is somewhat said in jest) and, obviously, somebody in my family may get cancer some day, but this won't change how I eat. If I had a strong family history of cancer I might have a different opinion.
Given those two are killing your family members, isn't the truest thing to say is that your cancer risk a complete unknown, not unlikely? It could be that at 90 your family would look like a 2 year old Sprague-Dawley rat, just no one has made it to 90?
Lol. You are correct. I really say the diabetes/Alzheimer's thing as a tongue-in-cheek comment. My known family history is split between people who either died young (early-mid 60s, many diabetics) or lived to be in their upper 80s/mid-90s (dementia/Alzheimer's patients in this group.) My family is kind of the opposite of tight-knit so known is the operative word there. The unknown is greater than the known for sure
Understandable. My mother was adopted, and though she's connected with her birth mother, the only thing I know about her birth father is don't drink and drive. Wasn't exactly useful health advice for someone who's already naturally abstemious despite all the genetics not to be.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions