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/

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.

"Science IS NOT all about interpretation. An interpretation is what you, "think". but science has to be proven with a measured outcome. An interpretation is not a "measured outcome" it is a thought.


We were ONLY talking about red meat and not ALL PROCESSED meats. Just red meat. You are correct in what you said about meat, but that is a topic of itself, bc again the conversation was in discussion of red meat being linked to cancer.

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.

Lol, they did provide evidence. Where's your documentation showing that Columbus actually proved the world 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 nutrition

Lol, they did provide evidence. Where's your documentation showing that Columbus actually proved the world 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 nutrition

Thinking the world is "round" is a hypothesis. Actual proof is evidence to back up the hypothesis or refute it. You have to provide the proof.

What is your 'proof' that so-and-so PROVED the world round. They "thought" it, but they didn't prove it.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/09/21/who-discovered-the-earth-is-ro/

And in the ancient world, the greatest scholars and scientists from Egypt, Greece, and all over the Mediterranean went to work at the Library of Alexandria. One of these scientists was the Ancient Greek Astronomer, Eratosthenes of Cyrene. While living in Alexandria, Eratosthenes received some amazing correspondence from the city of Syene in southern Egypt. In particular, it said that, on the Summer Solstice,

the shadow of someone looking down a deep well would block the reflection of the Sun at noon.

In other words, the Sun would be directly overhead at this time, not a single degree to the South, North, East or West. And if you had a completely vertical object, it would cast absolutely no shadow.
But Eratosthenes knew that this wasn’t the case where he was, in Alexandria. Sure, the Sun came closer to being directly overhead at Noon on the Summer Solstice in Alexandria than at any other time during the year, but vertical objects still cast shadows.

And — like any good scientist — Eratosthenes did the experiment. By measuring the length of the shadow cast by a vertical stick during the solstice noon, he could figure out what angle the Sun made with the vertical direction at Alexandria.

And the answer he got was one-fiftieth of a circle, or 7.2 degrees. But at this time, in Syene, the angle the Sun was making with an identical vertical stick was zero degrees! What could be causing this? In perhaps a stroke of genius, Eratosthenes realized that the Sun’s rays could all be parallel, and that the Earth could be curved!

If he could then figure out the distance from Alexandria to Syene, since he knew the angular difference between the two cities, he could figure out the circumference of the Earth! If only Eratosthenes had a grad student, he could have sent one to make the trip, and measure the distance!

While fraud in research does exist, the quality of nutritional research varies significantly, and the statistical hocus pocus of some meta analysis is down right shameful, research is still the golden standard of evidence-based analysis. Especially in terms of magic claims being sold by the snake oil merchants of health, it is a minimum requirement to demonstrate a study - it is much more difficult to shout "fraud" when the information or studies come from multiple sites and different researchers.

The absence of proof for fantastic claims is in no way suddenly justified by the presence of fraud. It only underlines that those making the claims haven't even bothered to propose a bad paper.

I would argue that in the last five years, the risk of fraudulent behavior has significantly increased and that while very much present it is not that much of a "low risk behavior" any more. As a reader of retractionwatch and other blogs/web sites on the subject, I'm impressed by the amount of self-policing going on.

As to testing conclusions - it's rather silly to suggest that we can actually do that with any value for most of studies discussed on this sites. Yes, personal observation, holistic historical claims can be valuable and should be used as part of the big picture.

Edit: same source.