You Should Study Nutrition - The Other Perspective
Options
Replies
-
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
The blog was about a study, and it's science based medicine which is a pretty well-respected source. But I understand if you don't trust it, I don't trust marks daily apple and the like either. :flowerforyou:
i'll admit of the original sources i listed, mark's daily apple has the least credibility. all the others are run by actual MDs
and it's not that I don't trust science based medicine, i just don't take it as gospel and look at less conventional sources as well0 -
In to read later. (I've been told that this thread is worth reading.)0
-
...There are many ways to reach an answer. 1+3=4 so does 2+2 or even 1+1+1....
Huh?????
Sorry, couldn't resist.
0 -
...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.
Finally! A voice of reason in the sea of insanity. You've listed some of my very favorite wellness resources. Weston A. Price, Chris Kresser...hard to argue with their findings. If weight loss is your only goal, then calories in vs. calories out may work for you. If whole body wellness is your goal, then we're talking a whole different ball game. What you put in (and on!) your body matters! Thanks for posting something of value in the midst of all the drivel.
0 -
...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.
Finally! A voice of reason in the sea of insanity. You've listed some of my very favorite wellness resources. Weston A. Price, Chris Kresser...hard to argue with their findings. If weight loss is your only goal, then calories in vs. calories out may work for you. If whole body wellness is your goal, then we're talking a whole different ball game. What you put in (and on!) your body matters! Thanks for posting something of value in the midst of all the drivel.
I also agree!0 -
I think there are two reasons people have a dislike for marksdailyapple
1) some people are not sold on the idea we weren't meant to eat grains, and;
2) some people think it's all about meat, fat, meat, fat ...
In response to 1:
I think there is something to his idea here, at least when it comes to modern wheat. Wheat today is NOT the wheat we ate 50 or 100 years ago. It's SCARY. Read "Wheat Belly" by Dr. William Davis, MD (cardiologist) who researched wheat quite extensively.
I don't however, think all grains should be painted with that brush. Even as a diabetic (which is an impairment of carbohydrate metabolism, and all grains are primarily carbohydrate) I can tolerate (from a blood-glucose perspective) moderate amounts of steel-cut oats, barley, and some other grains. I cannot, however, tolerate wheat in any form. It sends my blood glucose to the moon.
As for point #2:
Mark's 'primal blueprint' (and paleo diets in general) are not specifically "low-carb", although many of their adherents choose that macronutrient profile. Most of the people I know that eat Paleo or Primal do it in an incredibly healthy way, and many eat WAY more veggies than the two vegans I know.
Also, technically there is NO dietary need for carbohydrate. That is a physiological/biochemical truth that simply cannot be denied by anyone with a functioning brain who can read and research for themselves. That being said, many 'low-carbers' won't get their proper nutrients without eating some carbohydrate... because they don't eat the things they should. Just like many "high-carbers" don't get proper nutrition for the same reason.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
...There are many ways to reach an answer. 1+3=4 so does 2+2 or even 1+1+1....
Huh?????
Sorry, couldn't resist.
I like 4*(sin^2(x) + cos^2(x))0 -
I was reading and following until I saw "Weston A Price" and then my eyes blurred out of focus and I lost my ability to read any farther.
Sorry, I'm allergic to junk science.
It's not because I'm vegan, either. Seriously. Don't even talk to me about the China Study.0 -
...There are many ways to reach an answer. 1+3=4 so does 2+2 or even 1+1+1....
Huh?????
Sorry, couldn't resist.
I like 4*(sin^2(x) + cos^2(x))
Dang, all I was able to say was 4 + 0, and 0 + 4, and 3 + 1.0 -
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.
I am pretty sure you can't "interpret" science. It has to be based on factual evidence which can be proven.
You make a valid point in saying, "what are the risks vs the benefits". One will outweigh the other, but you're correct that no one looked at both sides of the stone. However, my thought is that you can't deny science. A fact is a fact. However, it does depend on so many other variables such as "how the meat is cooked, is it under cooked or over cooked, the cut of the meat, where the meat came from, how was the meat prepared, how was the animal treated when alive, what was it fed". And again, it leads to your point that we can chose to ignore certain variables to prove our point to be one way or the other. I agree with you.
Anyway, regardless of this study, I have no intentions of giving up red meat. I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE it. Someone once said, you can eat the right things and live a longer and healthier life (maybe), so is that more important to you or is it worth risking it on stuff you enjoy for the QUALITY of your years, even if eating red meat would shorten your life (maybe). It's worth it to me. I am going to go one way or another, I want to freaking enjoy it while I am here. I am aware of the risks and I say, "bring on a juice steak".0 -
I am pretty sure you can't "interpret" science. It has to be based on factual evidence which can be proven.
You make a valid point in saying, "what are the risks vs the benefits". One will outweigh the other, but you're correct that no one looked at both sides of the stone. However, my thought is that you can't deny science. A fact is a fact. However, it does depend on so many other variables such as "how the meat is cooked, is it under cooked or over cooked, the cut of the meat, where the meat came from, how was the meat prepared, how was the animal treated when alive, what was it fed". And again, it leads to your point that we can chose to ignore certain variables to prove our point to be one way or the other. I agree with you.
Anyway, regardless of this study, I have no intentions of giving up red meat. I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE it. Someone once said, you can eat the right things and live a longer and healthier life (maybe), so is that more important to you or is it worth risking it on stuff you enjoy for the QUALITY of your years, even if eating red meat would shorten your life (maybe). It's worth it to me. I am going to go one way or another, I want to freaking enjoy it while I am here. I am aware of the risks and I say, "bring on a juice steak".
You're right "interpret" is the wrong word... I meant portray.0 -
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/
As you saw, that link raises the possibility of a small increase in the relative risk of cancer from processed meats - not processed food and not all types of processed meat. Yes, possibly daily consumption of large amounts of cured meat creates a greater risk. But you are conflating one study to conclude that this means all processed foods create a risk.
And this is my issue with a lot if these blogs and web sites - generalized conflated conclusions from limited information and behavior that is aberrant - for example, people that attempt to treat advance stages of cancer through funky new diets.
Is it useful and healthy to eat a variety of food with large amount of fresh food, especially vegetables? Yes. Is processed food all evil? Well, draw your own conclusions, I'm not selling anything.
Edit: science is all about interpretation - it is what a scientist does.0 -
And many people believe in different religions, cures, superstitions, etc. Doesn't mean it's correct.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.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
And many people believe in different religions, cures, superstitions, etc. Doesn't mean it's correct.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.
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
Of course it doesn't mean it is correct. It doesn't mean it isn't correct either. I simply stated my "belief". It's the same as saying, "I believe all Catholics go to heaven."0 -
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.
Obvious newbie here, but I've read most of the thread and It's been interesting. My 2 cents..
The 'study' posted above is actually not a study, it's a commentary on a meta-analysis. Meta-analyses are often inherently flawed because they group analyze a whole bunch of different studies with similar features to determine a general trend. A risk ratio (RR 1.19) is very low, particularly in light of the confidence interval (95% CI 1.04 to 1.36). Basically it means that the researchers can be confident that the true risk lies anywhere between no increased risk up to a about a third increased risk. To conclude that there is a link between processed meat and pancreatic cancer is a real stretch.
The second study posted shows a similar very weak association. This one http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/63
It's interesting because with 448,568 participants, it should have a lot of statistical power. Yet, the relative risk is only low. they looked at mortality only and they didn't adjust for reduced fruit and vege consumption although they report it in people who ate a high meat diet.
I wouldn't call either study as showing a link between cancer and meat/processed meat consumption.0 -
Lol, they did provide evidence. Where's your documentation showing that Columbus actually proved the world was round?
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.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.
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.
I get the idea that you like to appeal to authority, Washington Irving in this case. Thanks for playing though.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions