News report = red meat and processed meats cause cancer

ahamm002

senecarr wrote: »

ahamm002 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

I think that is the recommendation from health agencies. And hardly seems like that something that would need vindication. It's not like they are saying "eat no saturated fat".

LOL, were you born yesterday? Seriously, I was taught the lipid hypothesis in medical school. And that wasn't that long ago!

It's funny that most recommendations now say to replace saturated fat with unsaturated fat, even though you could get the exact same benefit by replacing carbs with unsaturated fat. Unsaturated fat is healthy. It's good for you no matter what you replace with it. But dietary recommendations just can't get over saturated fat.

Now that all the studies vindicating sat fat as the top source of of heart disease have finally had a major impact on global diets, the WHO had to find some other reason to demonize red meat.

BTW, the majority of the quality studies in the WHO's meta-analysis did not find any correlation between red meat and cancer. 7/15 did find a weak correlation. But that's pretty weak given how many possible confounders there are. And once again, colon CA here could simply mean removing a polyp. The increased risk of death is probably insignificant.

Red meat was listed as a category 2A. Processed meat is category 1. No one is debating the IARC's standards for labeling possible carcinogen are low.
They also did not make the recommendations based purely on meta-analysis of epidemiological data. They also had animal models for various compounds found in red and processed meat.

I'd also ask, will replacing any carb what-so-ever with any unsaturated fat what-so-ever have that health impact? What about replacing fiber (a carb) with monounsaturated (I won't even be underhanded and talk about unsaturated trans fat)?

I'd also like to know, what is the end game of vilifying red meat in a smear campaign? Will getting people to stop eating it make agenda 21 real? Will it let China conquer the US by decoupling oil prices from the USD and causing crude to be sold in Yuan?

I'm not that familiar with the animal model studies the WHO referenced. But most such studies done with animals use extremely high doses of whatever is being tested and don't always reflect reality.

Your question about any carb and any unsaturated fat is too open ended. In general, calorie for calorie, most unsaturated fats are going to be significantly better for your cholesterol levels than most carbs (not including fruits and veggies here). But I'm sure there are plenty of caveats.

In regard to WHO, it's a political organization that is much more concerned about global issues than any one individual's health. Their main concerns are the environment and feeding an ever growing population. Red meat is considered bad for the environment and extremely wasteful.

senecarr

ahamm002 wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

ahamm002 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

I think that is the recommendation from health agencies. And hardly seems like that something that would need vindication. It's not like they are saying "eat no saturated fat".

LOL, were you born yesterday? Seriously, I was taught the lipid hypothesis in medical school. And that wasn't that long ago!

It's funny that most recommendations now say to replace saturated fat with unsaturated fat, even though you could get the exact same benefit by replacing carbs with unsaturated fat. Unsaturated fat is healthy. It's good for you no matter what you replace with it. But dietary recommendations just can't get over saturated fat.

Now that all the studies vindicating sat fat as the top source of of heart disease have finally had a major impact on global diets, the WHO had to find some other reason to demonize red meat.

BTW, the majority of the quality studies in the WHO's meta-analysis did not find any correlation between red meat and cancer. 7/15 did find a weak correlation. But that's pretty weak given how many possible confounders there are. And once again, colon CA here could simply mean removing a polyp. The increased risk of death is probably insignificant.

Red meat was listed as a category 2A. Processed meat is category 1. No one is debating the IARC's standards for labeling possible carcinogen are low.
They also did not make the recommendations based purely on meta-analysis of epidemiological data. They also had animal models for various compounds found in red and processed meat.

I'd also ask, will replacing any carb what-so-ever with any unsaturated fat what-so-ever have that health impact? What about replacing fiber (a carb) with monounsaturated (I won't even be underhanded and talk about unsaturated trans fat)?

I'd also like to know, what is the end game of vilifying red meat in a smear campaign? Will getting people to stop eating it make agenda 21 real? Will it let China conquer the US by decoupling oil prices from the USD and causing crude to be sold in Yuan?

I'm not that familiar with the animal model studies the WHO referenced. But most such studies done with animals use extremely high doses of whatever is being tested and don't always reflect reality.

Your question about any carb and any unsaturated fat is too open ended. In general, calorie for calorie, most unsaturated fats are going to be significantly better for your cholesterol levels than most carbs (not including fruits and veggies here). But I'm sure there are plenty of caveats.

In regard to WHO, it's a political organization that is much more concerned about global issues than any one individual's health. Their main concerns are the environment and feeding an ever growing population. Red meat is considered bad for the environment and extremely wasteful.

If their IARC recommendations were based on feeding a global population in the face of environmental concerns, why would they give glyphosate a 2A carcinogen rating? Its use in American farming does around the carbon equivalent of taking 8 million cars off the road while increasing crop yields.

ahamm002

senecarr wrote: »

ahamm002 wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

ahamm002 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

I think that is the recommendation from health agencies. And hardly seems like that something that would need vindication. It's not like they are saying "eat no saturated fat".

LOL, were you born yesterday? Seriously, I was taught the lipid hypothesis in medical school. And that wasn't that long ago!

It's funny that most recommendations now say to replace saturated fat with unsaturated fat, even though you could get the exact same benefit by replacing carbs with unsaturated fat. Unsaturated fat is healthy. It's good for you no matter what you replace with it. But dietary recommendations just can't get over saturated fat.

Now that all the studies vindicating sat fat as the top source of of heart disease have finally had a major impact on global diets, the WHO had to find some other reason to demonize red meat.

BTW, the majority of the quality studies in the WHO's meta-analysis did not find any correlation between red meat and cancer. 7/15 did find a weak correlation. But that's pretty weak given how many possible confounders there are. And once again, colon CA here could simply mean removing a polyp. The increased risk of death is probably insignificant.

Red meat was listed as a category 2A. Processed meat is category 1. No one is debating the IARC's standards for labeling possible carcinogen are low.
They also did not make the recommendations based purely on meta-analysis of epidemiological data. They also had animal models for various compounds found in red and processed meat.

I'd also ask, will replacing any carb what-so-ever with any unsaturated fat what-so-ever have that health impact? What about replacing fiber (a carb) with monounsaturated (I won't even be underhanded and talk about unsaturated trans fat)?

I'd also like to know, what is the end game of vilifying red meat in a smear campaign? Will getting people to stop eating it make agenda 21 real? Will it let China conquer the US by decoupling oil prices from the USD and causing crude to be sold in Yuan?

I'm not that familiar with the animal model studies the WHO referenced. But most such studies done with animals use extremely high doses of whatever is being tested and don't always reflect reality.

Your question about any carb and any unsaturated fat is too open ended. In general, calorie for calorie, most unsaturated fats are going to be significantly better for your cholesterol levels than most carbs (not including fruits and veggies here). But I'm sure there are plenty of caveats.

In regard to WHO, it's a political organization that is much more concerned about global issues than any one individual's health. Their main concerns are the environment and feeding an ever growing population. Red meat is considered bad for the environment and extremely wasteful.

If their IARC recommendations were based on feeding a global population in the face of environmental concerns, why would they give glyphosate a 2A carcinogen rating? Its use in American farming does around the carbon equivalent of taking 8 million cars off the road while increasing crop yields.

Maybe it's definitely a carcinogen but they downgraded it to level 2A

Unknown

This content has been removed.