Too much protein?
Replies
-
You don't understand how science and research works. Go look for modern studies. Just finding a random scientific paper you did not read and posting a link to it is not convincing anyone, nor is it even an argument.Meat is out of question. I'd rather not play russian roulette with my food, too many risks of getting cancer, high cholesterol, and heart disease.
Don't worry about cholesterol from food http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/nutrition-panel-calls-for-less-sugar-and-eases-cholesterol-and-fat-restrictions/
So you're saying dietary cholesterol doesn't raise or lower cholesterol levels..? Wow.
Quote: "Research is beginning to show that your genetic makeup – not diet – is the driving force behind cholesterol levels, says cardiologist Steven Nissen, MD.
The body creates cholesterol in amounts much larger than what you can eat, Dr. Nissen says. So avoiding foods that are high in cholesterol won’t affect your blood cholesterol levels very much." http://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/02/why-you-should-no-longer-worry-about-cholesterol-in-food/
"CONCLUSIONS: In typical diets replacing 60% of saturated fats by other fats and avoiding 60% of dietary cholesterol would reduce blood total cholesterol..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/
that is from 1997.
It doesn't matter. It was a study that was conducted and the conclusions came out to say that dietary cholesterol affects blood cholesterol. Humans have not evolved in the past 20 years so the study remains the same as if it were conducted today.
0 -
Meat is out of question. I'd rather not play russian roulette with my food, too many risks of getting cancer, high cholesterol, and heart disease.
Don't worry about cholesterol from food http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/nutrition-panel-calls-for-less-sugar-and-eases-cholesterol-and-fat-restrictions/
So you're saying dietary cholesterol doesn't raise or lower cholesterol levels..? Wow.
Quote: "Research is beginning to show that your genetic makeup – not diet – is the driving force behind cholesterol levels, says cardiologist Steven Nissen, MD.
The body creates cholesterol in amounts much larger than what you can eat, Dr. Nissen says. So avoiding foods that are high in cholesterol won’t affect your blood cholesterol levels very much." http://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/02/why-you-should-no-longer-worry-about-cholesterol-in-food/
"CONCLUSIONS: In typical diets replacing 60% of saturated fats by other fats and avoiding 60% of dietary cholesterol would reduce blood total cholesterol..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/
that is from 1997.
It doesn't matter. It was a study that was conducted and the conclusions came out to say that dietary cholesterol affects blood cholesterol. Humans have not evolved in the past 20 years so the study remains the same as if it were conducted today.
Humans haven't evolved but a lot of conclusions reached 20 years ago have since been debunked with further research.0 -
You don't understand how science and research works. Go look for modern studies. Just finding a random scientific paper you did not read and posting a link to it is not convincing anyone, nor is it even an argument.Meat is out of question. I'd rather not play russian roulette with my food, too many risks of getting cancer, high cholesterol, and heart disease.
Don't worry about cholesterol from food http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/nutrition-panel-calls-for-less-sugar-and-eases-cholesterol-and-fat-restrictions/
So you're saying dietary cholesterol doesn't raise or lower cholesterol levels..? Wow.
Quote: "Research is beginning to show that your genetic makeup – not diet – is the driving force behind cholesterol levels, says cardiologist Steven Nissen, MD.
The body creates cholesterol in amounts much larger than what you can eat, Dr. Nissen says. So avoiding foods that are high in cholesterol won’t affect your blood cholesterol levels very much." http://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/02/why-you-should-no-longer-worry-about-cholesterol-in-food/
"CONCLUSIONS: In typical diets replacing 60% of saturated fats by other fats and avoiding 60% of dietary cholesterol would reduce blood total cholesterol..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/
that is from 1997.
It doesn't matter. It was a study that was conducted and the conclusions came out to say that dietary cholesterol affects blood cholesterol. Humans have not evolved in the past 20 years so the study remains the same as if it were conducted today.
Layne is a goof.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEkCK28Wwcw 0 -
OK, so what. I never watched or read anything by him.0 -
Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.0
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!0 -
You don't understand how science and research works. Go look for modern studies. Just finding a random scientific paper you did not read and posting a link to it is not convincing anyone, nor is it even an argument.Meat is out of question. I'd rather not play russian roulette with my food, too many risks of getting cancer, high cholesterol, and heart disease.
Don't worry about cholesterol from food http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/nutrition-panel-calls-for-less-sugar-and-eases-cholesterol-and-fat-restrictions/
So you're saying dietary cholesterol doesn't raise or lower cholesterol levels..? Wow.
Quote: "Research is beginning to show that your genetic makeup – not diet – is the driving force behind cholesterol levels, says cardiologist Steven Nissen, MD.
The body creates cholesterol in amounts much larger than what you can eat, Dr. Nissen says. So avoiding foods that are high in cholesterol won’t affect your blood cholesterol levels very much." http://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/02/why-you-should-no-longer-worry-about-cholesterol-in-food/
"CONCLUSIONS: In typical diets replacing 60% of saturated fats by other fats and avoiding 60% of dietary cholesterol would reduce blood total cholesterol..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/
that is from 1997.
It doesn't matter. It was a study that was conducted and the conclusions came out to say that dietary cholesterol affects blood cholesterol. Humans have not evolved in the past 20 years so the study remains the same as if it were conducted today.
Layne is a goof.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEkCK28Wwcw
A poorly done response video by a foul mouthed twerp with apparent difficulties with reading comprehension hardly demonstrates anything.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
You don't understand how science and research works. Go look for modern studies. Just finding a random scientific paper you did not read and posting a link to it is not convincing anyone, nor is it even an argument.Meat is out of question. I'd rather not play russian roulette with my food, too many risks of getting cancer, high cholesterol, and heart disease.
Don't worry about cholesterol from food http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/nutrition-panel-calls-for-less-sugar-and-eases-cholesterol-and-fat-restrictions/
So you're saying dietary cholesterol doesn't raise or lower cholesterol levels..? Wow.
Quote: "Research is beginning to show that your genetic makeup – not diet – is the driving force behind cholesterol levels, says cardiologist Steven Nissen, MD.
The body creates cholesterol in amounts much larger than what you can eat, Dr. Nissen says. So avoiding foods that are high in cholesterol won’t affect your blood cholesterol levels very much." http://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/02/why-you-should-no-longer-worry-about-cholesterol-in-food/
"CONCLUSIONS: In typical diets replacing 60% of saturated fats by other fats and avoiding 60% of dietary cholesterol would reduce blood total cholesterol..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/
that is from 1997.
It doesn't matter. It was a study that was conducted and the conclusions came out to say that dietary cholesterol affects blood cholesterol. Humans have not evolved in the past 20 years so the study remains the same as if it were conducted today.
Layne is a goof.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEkCK28Wwcw
A poorly done response video by a foul mouthed twerp with apparent difficulties with reading comprehension hardly demonstrates anything.
It's a video proving that Layne Norton is a load of nothing. Yeah, he has a PhD, but he also receives funds from the dairy, meat, and egg industry to make claims that meat isn't bad for you.0 -
Omp I suggest you come back here in 20 years time, when you've realised you really don't know it all... We never stop learning, having an open mind will help you, having a closed mind has obviously only hindered you...0
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »
You don't understand how science and research works. Go look for modern studies. Just finding a random scientific paper you did not read and posting a link to it is not convincing anyone, nor is it even an argument.Meat is out of question. I'd rather not play russian roulette with my food, too many risks of getting cancer, high cholesterol, and heart disease.
Don't worry about cholesterol from food http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/nutrition-panel-calls-for-less-sugar-and-eases-cholesterol-and-fat-restrictions/
So you're saying dietary cholesterol doesn't raise or lower cholesterol levels..? Wow.
Quote: "Research is beginning to show that your genetic makeup – not diet – is the driving force behind cholesterol levels, says cardiologist Steven Nissen, MD.
The body creates cholesterol in amounts much larger than what you can eat, Dr. Nissen says. So avoiding foods that are high in cholesterol won’t affect your blood cholesterol levels very much." http://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/02/why-you-should-no-longer-worry-about-cholesterol-in-food/
"CONCLUSIONS: In typical diets replacing 60% of saturated fats by other fats and avoiding 60% of dietary cholesterol would reduce blood total cholesterol..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/
that is from 1997.
It doesn't matter. It was a study that was conducted and the conclusions came out to say that dietary cholesterol affects blood cholesterol. Humans have not evolved in the past 20 years so the study remains the same as if it were conducted today.
Layne is a goof.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEkCK28Wwcw
A poorly done response video by a foul mouthed twerp with apparent difficulties with reading comprehension hardly demonstrates anything.
It's a video proving that Layne Norton is a load of nothing. Yeah, he has a PhD, but he also receives funds from the dairy, meat, and egg industry to make claims that meat isn't bad for you.
I like how you make things up.
0 -
You know that the WHO has placed meat in the same Cancer causing category as tobacco right?0
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Omp I suggest you come back here in 20 years time, when you've realised you really don't know it all... We never stop learning, having an open mind will help you, having a closed mind has obviously only hindered you...
The WHO says processed/red meat causes cancer. In 20 years I think meat consumption will be lower. When the scientists back in the day said that a new study says that smoking causes cancer, do you think people really wanted to believe that it does then? Same thing applies.0 -
-
0
-
Christine_72 wrote: »Omp I suggest you come back here in 20 years time, when you've realised you really don't know it all... We never stop learning, having an open mind will help you, having a closed mind has obviously only hindered you...
The WHO says processed/red meat causes cancer. In 20 years I think meat consumption will be lower. When the scientists back in the day said that a new study says that smoking causes cancer, do you think people really wanted to believe that it does then? Same thing applies.
9. Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Tobacco smoking and asbestos are also both classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Does it mean that consumption of processed meat is as carcinogenic as tobacco smoking and asbestos?
No, processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans), but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Omp I suggest you come back here in 20 years time, when you've realised you really don't know it all... We never stop learning, having an open mind will help you, having a closed mind has obviously only hindered you...
The WHO says processed/red meat causes cancer. In 20 years I think meat consumption will be lower. When the scientists back in the day said that a new study says that smoking causes cancer, do you think people really wanted to believe that it does then? Same thing applies.
9. Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Tobacco smoking and asbestos are also both classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Does it mean that consumption of processed meat is as carcinogenic as tobacco smoking and asbestos?
No, processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans), but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
It's still a carcinogenic. Why play Russian roulette with your food?0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Omp I suggest you come back here in 20 years time, when you've realised you really don't know it all... We never stop learning, having an open mind will help you, having a closed mind has obviously only hindered you...
The WHO says processed/red meat causes cancer. In 20 years I think meat consumption will be lower. When the scientists back in the day said that a new study says that smoking causes cancer, do you think people really wanted to believe that it does then? Same thing applies.
The WHO said eating processed/red meat every day increases your risk of colorectal cancer 16%. So since a person's typical risk for colorectal cancer is 6%, eating processed or red meat every day makes your risk of colorectal cancer 7%.
Smoking every day increases your risk of lung cancer 2000%. So it increases your risk from 2% to 40%.
Poor OP just wanted to know if she was eating too much protein, and the simple answer was no.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Omp I suggest you come back here in 20 years time, when you've realised you really don't know it all... We never stop learning, having an open mind will help you, having a closed mind has obviously only hindered you...
The WHO says processed/red meat causes cancer. In 20 years I think meat consumption will be lower. When the scientists back in the day said that a new study says that smoking causes cancer, do you think people really wanted to believe that it does then? Same thing applies.
9. Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Tobacco smoking and asbestos are also both classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Does it mean that consumption of processed meat is as carcinogenic as tobacco smoking and asbestos?
No, processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans), but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
It's still a carcinogenic. Why play Russian roulette with your food?
The correct terminology is 'it is still a carcinogen' if you are going to be an obtuse muppet then at least do it properly.
And why play Russian roulette with my food? Because it's fun, it's tasty and every so often someone irrelevant gets removed from the genepool.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Omp I suggest you come back here in 20 years time, when you've realised you really don't know it all... We never stop learning, having an open mind will help you, having a closed mind has obviously only hindered you...
The WHO says processed/red meat causes cancer. In 20 years I think meat consumption will be lower. When the scientists back in the day said that a new study says that smoking causes cancer, do you think people really wanted to believe that it does then? Same thing applies.
9. Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Tobacco smoking and asbestos are also both classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Does it mean that consumption of processed meat is as carcinogenic as tobacco smoking and asbestos?
No, processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans), but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
It's still a carcinogenic. Why play Russian roulette with your food?
EPIC-Oxford: Cancer Mortality (2015)
In the 2015 paper from EPIC-Oxford (19), there was no difference in all cancer mortality between vegetarians (including vegans) and regular meat-eaters (0.93, 0.82-1.05). Vegetarians had lower rates of death from pancreatic (0.48, 0.28-0.82) and lymphatic (0.50, 0.32-0.79), but not colorectal, lung, breast, or ovary cancers.
After excluding participants who changed diet categories during the study, vegetarians had a lower risk of all cancer (0.82, 0.72-0.94), and similar findings as above for the other cancers.
Vegans suffered from 67 deaths from cancer, with a rate not significantly different from regular meat-eaters (1.14, 0.88-1.47). www.veganhealth.org/articles/cancer
And that is from a vegan site.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
IIRC, someone did the math and the increased risk of cancer from consuming larger quantities of processed meats was about 1%.
@OMP33 have you taken a course on evaluating the validity and rigor of studies? There are many studies which are highly touted and then later proven to be false for a multitude of reasons including conflicts of interest or bias clouding the outcome, but it can also occur related to newer methods of testing being developed, increased requirements for testing, changing a study parameters can also influence outcome (self-report versus a more tightly control method of data collection). You may find that a study from the late 90s is less relevant than you think once taken into context against newer studies.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Omp I suggest you come back here in 20 years time, when you've realised you really don't know it all... We never stop learning, having an open mind will help you, having a closed mind has obviously only hindered you...
The WHO says processed/red meat causes cancer. In 20 years I think meat consumption will be lower. When the scientists back in the day said that a new study says that smoking causes cancer, do you think people really wanted to believe that it does then? Same thing applies.
9. Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Tobacco smoking and asbestos are also both classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Does it mean that consumption of processed meat is as carcinogenic as tobacco smoking and asbestos?
No, processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans), but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
It's still a carcinogenic. Why play Russian roulette with your food?
EPIC-Oxford: Cancer Mortality (2015)
In the 2015 paper from EPIC-Oxford (19), there was no difference in all cancer mortality between vegetarians (including vegans) and regular meat-eaters (0.93, 0.82-1.05). Vegetarians had lower rates of death from pancreatic (0.48, 0.28-0.82) and lymphatic (0.50, 0.32-0.79), but not colorectal, lung, breast, or ovary cancers.
After excluding participants who changed diet categories during the study, vegetarians had a lower risk of all cancer (0.82, 0.72-0.94), and similar findings as above for the other cancers.
Vegans suffered from 67 deaths from cancer, with a rate not significantly different from regular meat-eaters (1.14, 0.88-1.47). www.veganhealth.org/articles/cancer
And that is from a vegan site.
I'm not arguing that vegans still die from cancer because there are genetic factors involved, but "After excluding participants who changed diet categories during the study, vegetarians had a lower risk of all cancer (0.82, 0.72-0.94), and similar findings as above for the other cancers" is what I wanted to see.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Omp I suggest you come back here in 20 years time, when you've realised you really don't know it all... We never stop learning, having an open mind will help you, having a closed mind has obviously only hindered you...
The WHO says processed/red meat causes cancer. In 20 years I think meat consumption will be lower. When the scientists back in the day said that a new study says that smoking causes cancer, do you think people really wanted to believe that it does then? Same thing applies.
9. Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Tobacco smoking and asbestos are also both classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Does it mean that consumption of processed meat is as carcinogenic as tobacco smoking and asbestos?
No, processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans), but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
It's still a carcinogenic. Why play Russian roulette with your food?
If you're worried about colorectal cancer, then why are you a vegatarian? According to a study that YOU posted
RESULTS:
The standardized incidence ratio for all malignant neoplasms for all participants was 72% (95% CI: 69%, 75%). The standardized incidence ratios for colorectal cancer were 84% (95% CI: 73%, 95%) among nonvegetarians and 102% (95% CI: 80%, 129%) among vegetarians. In a comparison of vegetarians with meat eaters and after adjustment for age, sex, and smoking, the incidence rate ratio for all malignant neoplasms was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.80, 1.00). The incidence rate ratio for colorectal cancer in vegetarians compared with meat eaters was 1.39 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.91)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/192790820 -
Processed meat is in the same category as tobacco because the cause and effect relationship is equally established, but the effect size isn't nearly as high. The average person's base chance of getting colorectal cancer at some point during their life is about 6%. Eating 50 grams of bacon every day would increase that chance to 7%.0
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up blog articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
(edited for clarity)0 -
JoshLikesBeer wrote: »Processed meat is in the same category as tobacco because the cause and effect relationship is equally established, but the effect size isn't nearly as high. The average person's base chance of getting colorectal cancer at some point during their life is about 6%. Eating 50 grams of bacon every day would increase that chance to 7%.
I'll take 100 grams of bacon instead and live with the elevation to 7.000001%.
Because bacon. 0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
Humans have not evolved in the last 20 years so the research still holds validity. Second, haven't you realized that most studies are conducted by people who eat meat? That's propaganda for you right there.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions