You Should Study Nutrition - The Other Perspective

Google isn't science. Please link one PubMed article search with processed food AND cancer in the key words. How many results?

I thought everyone would know enough to "pick and choose" the articles carefully that is why I asked YOU to Google and find the ones YOU want to believe. That said, GOOGLE as I said and use the PubMED articles if that is what you so choose. Again, there are several to chose from. Here is just one. I have to get to the gym, but I can produce about ten more PUBMED articles if you would like me to do the work for you.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2012-01-13-processed-meat-linked-to-pancreas-cancer/

Did you read the article I just posted? It addresses all those studies.

Funny thing is - the linked PubMed review does not actually say that processed foods increases the risk of pancreas cancer.

"The causes of pancreatic cancer are not firmly established, but factors considered to increase the risk including age, smoking, certain medical conditions such as diabetes, family history of cancer, excess weight and obesity, and – as this study has investigated – potential dietary factors. The reason why any individual develops cancer is always hard to say. For pancreatic cancer, it may be due to a combination of these factors, or none at all. Despite being a well-conducted review, this study cannot tell you that by cutting out red or processed meat, you will definitely reduce your risk of pancreatic cancer. Further prospective studies investigating the association are needed."

there's likely no nutritional study ever conducted that conclusively states "such and such definitely increases risk of XYZ disease"

all nutritional studies end with "may be a factor in" or "may contribute to"

and many, many studies end with "further study is needed"

that doesn't make this study one to ignore.

This was linked as a study 'showing' the assertion - I was just showing that it did not support the assertion - simple as that...but it would not be you if you didn't argue would it?

please, you were cherry-picking and you know it:

Seven studies had examined the link between consumption of processed meat and pancreatic cancer and found that, overall, a increase in processed meat consumption of 50g a day was associated with a 19% increased risk of cancer (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.36; no significant heterogeneity between the study results)

The researchers concluded that processed meat consumption is linked to pancreatic cancer risk, while red meat consumption was associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in men only. They say that further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

this is silly.

there are studies to prove whatever you want and people who will argue anyway. when people on the "clean" side post a study, people on the other side post a blog by a doctor to refute it and call that good.

when people on the IIFYM side post a study, and someone on the "clean" side posts a blog by a doctor to refute it - we're said to believe in "magic"

double standard? meh. who knows.

anyway, here's another processed meat study: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/63

Umm...

i don't think you quite understood my post. the double standard is the way the studies are received, not in the fact that they're posted in the first place. i know, it's complicated.

this is silly.

there are studies to prove whatever you want and people who will argue anyway. when people on the "clean" side post a study, people on the other side post a blog by a doctor to refute it and call that good.

when people on the IIFYM side post a study, and someone on the "clean" side posts a blog by a doctor to refute it - we're said to believe in "magic"

double standard? meh. who knows.

anyway, here's another processed meat study: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/63

...even professionals are leading you in the wrong direction. Learning about proper nutrition will save you a lot of wasted time and you'll get to your goals faster.

When I take on clients I make them do ridiculous amounts of research. Its not enough for me to just summarize things to them. People always end up trying to tweak things when they don't understand the mechanics of proper nutrition. It never works out as well as it could have. I always tell them that if they spent two less hours training a week and used those two hours to read they would inevitably reach their goals faster in the long run. I believe that when I say it.

There are people, trainers, professionals, who will want to tell you that by focusing on what kinds of foods you eat, you are displaying "orthorexic" tendencies. Orthorexic is defined by Alan Aragon as “an unhealthy obsession with eating healthy food.”

Don't listen. Obviously food shouldn't consume your every waking thought, and you should enjoy your life and your friends, but a care and a concern for the things you put in your mouth can serve you incredibly well on your journey. Do you want to have a stronger, healthier body? Do you want to avoid disease? Do you want to recover faster, require less sleep, function at a more optimal level? Do you want to be bounding up stairs at 60, 70 years old? Do you want to be doing yoga when you're 80 like I do?

Then here are some great resources to help get you started!

http://www.westonaprice.org/

http://chriskresser.com/

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/

http://wrightnewsletter.com/about/

http://www.ted.com/talks/william_li.html

http://www.eattodefeatcancer.org/

http://www.drweil.com/

http://drkevinlau.blogspot.com/

If you read all that you'd know more than ~99% of people everywhere. You can learn it in a month easily. Spend all your time learning. But if you want to ask questions, that's not a bad thing either.

Google isn't science. Please link one PubMed article search with processed food AND cancer in the key words. How many results?

I thought everyone would know enough to "pick and choose" the articles carefully that is why I asked YOU to Google and find the ones YOU want to believe. That said, GOOGLE as I said and use the PubMED articles if that is what you so choose. Again, there are several to chose from. Here is just one. I have to get to the gym, but I can produce about ten more PUBMED articles if you would like me to do the work for you.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2012-01-13-processed-meat-linked-to-pancreas-cancer/

Did you read the article I just posted? It addresses all those studies.

hate to say it but the study she posted is actually a good one...

not 100% conclusive, as no study is (especially in nutrition), but it's still a very good study.

What Reddy? You "hate to say it?" I thought you liked me Reddy! I like you!

Anyway, I read the other article and here is what it is basically saying, "There’s evidence that eating lots of fruit and vegetables compared to meat can have protective effects against colorectal cancer and others, although the links are not strong, and processed meats like bacon have been linked to various cancers, although, again, the elevated risk is not huge. When you boil it all down, it’s probably far less important what individual foods one eats than that one eats a varied diet that is relatively low in red meat and high in vegetables and fruits and that one is not obese."


That saying, EVERYTHING can be possibly linked to cause cancer however, choose carefully. I think the beginning of the article stated something like, it's like everyone going out and having sex. Having sex is linked to disease and death, but some partners are more at risk for giving you the disease than others. Therefore, choose wisely. ..maybe avoid those who are prostitutes. Such as you should choose your foods wisely. . .they are ALL linked to possibly cancer, but why risk it with the riskier choices.

The China Study shows that casein exacerbates cancer.... However, all the mice fed a high protein diet survived vs. less than half of the low protein diet. My only point is that data can be evaluated to see what you want from any perspective. Ok... Milk causes cancer but keeps you alive longer than those who don't drink it. Its a conundrum... or not. There are benefits and drawbacks to many food choices (physiologically and psychologically). Studies don't prove jack *kitten*.



Ignore the red... focus on the last sentence.

Google isn't science. Please link one PubMed article search with processed food AND cancer in the key words. How many results?

I thought everyone would know enough to "pick and choose" the articles carefully that is why I asked YOU to Google and find the ones YOU want to believe. That said, GOOGLE as I said and use the PubMED articles if that is what you so choose. Again, there are several to chose from. Here is just one. I have to get to the gym, but I can produce about ten more PUBMED articles if you would like me to do the work for you.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2012-01-13-processed-meat-linked-to-pancreas-cancer/

Did you read the article I just posted? It addresses all those studies.

hate to say it but the study she posted is actually a good one...

not 100% conclusive, as no study is (especially in nutrition), but it's still a very good study.

What Reddy? You "hate to say it?" I thought you liked me Reddy! I like you!

Anyway, I read the other article and here is what it is basically saying, "There’s evidence that eating lots of fruit and vegetables compared to meat can have protective effects against colorectal cancer and others, although the links are not strong, and processed meats like bacon have been linked to various cancers, although, again, the elevated risk is not huge. When you boil it all down, it’s probably far less important what individual foods one eats than that one eats a varied diet that is relatively low in red meat and high in vegetables and fruits and that one is not obese."


That saying, EVERYTHING can be possibly linked to cause cancer however, choose carefully. I think the beginning of the article stated something like, it's like everyone going out and having sex. Having sex is linked to disease and death, but some partners are more at risk for giving you the disease than others. Therefore, choose wisely. ..maybe avoid those who are prostitutes. Such as you should choose your foods wisely. . .they are ALL linked to possibly cancer, but why risk it with the riskier choices.

The China Study shows that casein exacerbates cancer.... However, all the mice fed a high protein diet survived vs. less than half of the low protein diet. My only point is that data can be evaluated to see what you want from any perspective. Ok... Milk causes cancer but keeps you alive longer than those who don't drink it. Its a conundrum... or not. There are benefits and drawbacks to many food choices (physiologically and psychologically). Studies don't prove jack *kitten*.



Ignore the red... focus on the last sentence.

I beg to differ. The study was on red meat. Not high or low protein. There is a difference. There are healthier choices of protein. Again, it was the "red meat" being the factor.

The part I copied and pasted basically said, "every food is said to be linked to cancer, but some foods are a higher risk that others (red meat) is a higher risk. Organic fruits and veggies, the lower end. In other words, choose your poison carefully.

I didn't at all mean that the controls, variables, or results between your study and the China study were similar. I meant that interpretations of results are simply interpretations.

In the China Study, the researchers interpreted the results to mean that casein protein exacerbated cancer. They completely ignored that although 50% of the subjects consuming high casein protein had metastasized cancer... ALL OF THEM LIVED. In comparison to only 12/30 of the LP subjects.

In short, researchers tend to be short sited. Many are trying to prove something rather than test it.

Google isn't science. Please link one PubMed article search with processed food AND cancer in the key words. How many results?

I thought everyone would know enough to "pick and choose" the articles carefully that is why I asked YOU to Google and find the ones YOU want to believe. That said, GOOGLE as I said and use the PubMED articles if that is what you so choose. Again, there are several to chose from. Here is just one. I have to get to the gym, but I can produce about ten more PUBMED articles if you would like me to do the work for you.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2012-01-13-processed-meat-linked-to-pancreas-cancer/

Did you read the article I just posted? It addresses all those studies.

hate to say it but the study she posted is actually a good one...

not 100% conclusive, as no study is (especially in nutrition), but it's still a very good study.

What Reddy? You "hate to say it?" I thought you liked me Reddy! I like you!

Anyway, I read the other article and here is what it is basically saying, "There’s evidence that eating lots of fruit and vegetables compared to meat can have protective effects against colorectal cancer and others, although the links are not strong, and processed meats like bacon have been linked to various cancers, although, again, the elevated risk is not huge. When you boil it all down, it’s probably far less important what individual foods one eats than that one eats a varied diet that is relatively low in red meat and high in vegetables and fruits and that one is not obese."


That saying, EVERYTHING can be possibly linked to cause cancer however, choose carefully. I think the beginning of the article stated something like, it's like everyone going out and having sex. Having sex is linked to disease and death, but some partners are more at risk for giving you the disease than others. Therefore, choose wisely. ..maybe avoid those who are prostitutes. Such as you should choose your foods wisely. . .they are ALL linked to possibly cancer, but why risk it with the riskier choices.

The China Study shows that casein exacerbates cancer.... However, all the mice fed a high protein diet survived vs. less than half of the low protein diet. My only point is that data can be evaluated to see what you want from any perspective. Ok... Milk causes cancer but keeps you alive longer than those who don't drink it. Its a conundrum... or not. There are benefits and drawbacks to many food choices (physiologically and psychologically). Studies don't prove jack *kitten*.



Ignore the red... focus on the last sentence.

I beg to differ. The study was on red meat. Not high or low protein. There is a difference. There are healthier choices of protein. Again, it was the "red meat" being the factor.

The part I copied and pasted basically said, "every food is said to be linked to cancer, but some foods are a higher risk that others (red meat) is a higher risk. Organic fruits and veggies, the lower end. In other words, choose your poison carefully.

I didn't at all mean that the controls, variables, or results between your study and the China study were similar. I meant that interpretations of results are simply interpretations.

In the China Study, the researchers interpreted the results to mean that casein protein exacerbated cancer. They completely ignored that although 50% of the subjects consuming high casein protein had metastasized cancer... ALL OF THEM LIVED. In comparison to only 12/30 of the LP subjects.

In short, researchers tend to be short sited. Many are trying to prove something rather than test it.

Adding.... to relate your study to my point. Red meat may have a higher incidence of cancer but i doubt the study evaluated the benefits of red meat and compared the overall risk. Cancer is only one health risk among many. Anemia is a health risk prevented by consuming red meat. (Not saying that without you will be anemic but it is a benefit.)

That is all I was saying and is pretty much the general tone of this entire thread; that anyone can dig up a study proving their point but the information is pretty darn useless most the time.

Google isn't science. Please link one PubMed article search with processed food AND cancer in the key words. How many results?

I thought everyone would know enough to "pick and choose" the articles carefully that is why I asked YOU to Google and find the ones YOU want to believe. That said, GOOGLE as I said and use the PubMED articles if that is what you so choose. Again, there are several to chose from. Here is just one. I have to get to the gym, but I can produce about ten more PUBMED articles if you would like me to do the work for you.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2012-01-13-processed-meat-linked-to-pancreas-cancer/

While obesity and cancer are very much linked to each other, processed foods correlate with both, however if processed foods were the actual cause for cancer, then world wide it should also be the case (which it isn't).

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I believe that processed foods IS the actual cause for many cancer cases.

And many people believe in different religions, cures, superstitions, etc. Doesn't mean it's correct.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I am not going by "what I was told". Documentation works for me. You show me where 'SCIENCE' proved the earth was round, because I can certainly show you where Columbus was the first to prove the theory.

Ancient Greek mathematicians had already proven that the Earth was round, not flat. Pythagoras in the sixth century B.C.E. was one of the originators of the idea. Aristotle in the fourth century B.C.E. provided the physical evidence, such as the shadow of the Earth on the moon and the curvature of the Earth known by all sailors approaching land. And by the third century B.C.E., Eratosthenes determined the Earth's shape and circumference using basic geometry. In the second century C.E., Claudius Ptolemy wrote the "Almagest," the mathematical and astronomical treatise on planetary shapes and motions, describing the spherical Earth. This text was well known throughout educated Europe in Columbus' time.

http://www.livescience.com/16468-christopher-columbus-myths-flat-earth-discovered-americas.html

Okay, now yours.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Again, it was "thought" by the more educated to be "round" but never proven via science until Columbus sailed and didn't fall off the flat earth. No where did the people above PROVE it.

ie: The prove is someone actually sailing.
Where is the PROVE from the above? Pictures? Sailed? Walked? Sorry, but they didn't PROVE. Didn't you ever do a science center in school? You first come up with your theory (hence what the Greeks did above) HOWEVER, you THEN have to provide evidence to support your theory. Columbus provided evidence, the others just had "theories". This means that Columbus was the FIRST to PROVE the earth was round.