News report = red meat and processed meats cause cancer

Options
Francl27
Francl27 Posts: 26,372 Member
edited October 2015 in Food and Nutrition
Surprised it hasn't been posted yet...

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/processed-meat-causes-cancer-red-meat-probably-does-group-says-n451396

Thoughts? As everything causes cancer nowadays anyway, I have no desire to change my (very moderate) consumption of red meat and processed stuff...
«1345

Replies

  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,626 Member
    Options
    Did they say anything new? Those things have been linked to cancer (especially of the colon type) for ages.
  • Emily3907
    Emily3907 Posts: 1,461 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    I am willing to risk it for bacon. I don't eat it often, my main meat is usually chicken breasts.
  • _John_
    _John_ Posts: 8,642 Member
    Options
    The whole "cause cancer" needs to be put in perspective.

    It's an increase in incidence (like 5% background increased to 6%), but still an increase.

  • Emily3907
    Emily3907 Posts: 1,461 Member
    Options
    catscats222 wrote: »
    nitrates and nitrites , black char on meats,
    posted a bit earlier
    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10274309/who-says-my-bacon-is-not-good-for-me#latest

    But the little crispy bits are so yummy. :/
  • MommyL2015
    MommyL2015 Posts: 1,411 Member
    Options
    Being born is the only thing that is known to have a 100% death rate, so with that in mind, I'll just keep on going. I like me a nice tender Ribeye, medium. With charred edges.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    _John_ wrote: »
    The whole "cause cancer" needs to be put in perspective.

    It's an increase in incidence (like 5% background increased to 6%), but still an increase.

    Do you think all the people that pointed out glyphosate is rated a 2A carcinogen so you need to go organic will now go vegetarian since meat is in the same category?
  • juggernaut1974
    juggernaut1974 Posts: 6,212 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    #worthit

    That's pretty much my feeling towards reports like these.

    Per the report:
    50g of processed meat per day raises colorectal cancer risk 18%
    100g of red meat per day raises cancer risk 17%

    Per http://www.cancer.org/cancer/colonandrectumcancer/detailedguide/colorectal-cancer-key-statistics, the overall risk for colorectal cancer is roughly 5%. So eating the above products, may raise it to approximately 6%. That's a reasonable risk-reward ratio to me, especially considering the multitude of other risk factors, many of which seem to be much more strongly correlated with a higher overall risk factor (genetics, primarily)
  • juggernaut1974
    juggernaut1974 Posts: 6,212 Member
    Options
    _John_ wrote: »
    The whole "cause cancer" needs to be put in perspective.

    It's an increase in incidence (like 5% background increased to 6%), but still an increase.

    Yep...beat me to it
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    My family doesn't get cancer. We get diabetes and Alzheimer's disease instead. I know that sounds flippant (is somewhat said in jest) and, obviously, somebody in my family may get cancer some day, but this won't change how I eat. If I had a strong family history of cancer I might have a different opinion.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    Consider the radiation blast we get from the sun daily....
  • _John_
    _John_ Posts: 8,642 Member
    Options
    I'm not downplaying that eating red meat (and cured meats) doesn't increase a cancer rate, but there are other VERY common life choices that affect cancer rates equally, and red meat can POSITIVELY effect many other aspects of health, so I would argue against it being "always harmful" if anybody were to argue that.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    jemhh wrote: »
    My family doesn't get cancer. We get diabetes and Alzheimer's disease instead. I know that sounds flippant (is somewhat said in jest) and, obviously, somebody in my family may get cancer some day, but this won't change how I eat. If I had a strong family history of cancer I might have a different opinion.

    Given those two are killing your family members, isn't the truest thing to say is that your cancer risk a complete unknown, not unlikely? It could be that at 90 your family would look like a 2 year old Sprague-Dawley rat, just no one has made it to 90?
  • snikkins
    snikkins Posts: 1,282 Member
    Options
    I think the thing I find the most fascinating about these reports of late is the risks that people are willing to take. For example, I've seen a few posts from people (in general, not talking solely about MFP) who are staunch low carb advocates because sugar will kill you just completely dismiss this, whereas they preach the WHO sugar recommendations as gospel.
  • PeiDub
    PeiDub Posts: 77 Member
    Options
    MommyL2015 wrote: »
    Being born is the only thing that is known to have a 100% death rate, so with that in mind, I'll just keep on going. I like me a nice tender Ribeye, medium. With charred edges.

    Yep. It's not a matter of IF you get cancer, but when. Some of us will just manage to die before it hits us.

    Basically, everything is a carcinogen.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    Just keep your intake low enough that you won't get any cancers before 2050 and you'll be all set. Unless you're over 80 in 2050, then you're hosed, I guess.

    http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/01January/Pages/Under-80-cancer-deaths-eliminated-by-2050-claim.aspx
  • echmainfit619
    echmainfit619 Posts: 333 Member
    Options
    Once again folks, this garbage is 100% political.
  • ElJefeChief
    ElJefeChief Posts: 651 Member
    Options
    I celebrated the news by baking these with my girlfriend the other day: http://allrecipes.com/recipe/161019/dark-chocolate-bacon-cupcakes/
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,626 Member
    Options
    snikkins wrote: »
    I think the thing I find the most fascinating about these reports of late is the risks that people are willing to take. For example, I've seen a few posts from people (in general, not talking solely about MFP) who are staunch low carb advocates because sugar will kill you just completely dismiss this, whereas they preach the WHO sugar recommendations as gospel.

    People tend to pick and choose the science that they like. It seems silly, but there is a case to be made against so many things that it's not hard to understand someone saying, "I don't care, I'm eating it anyway."

    Especially since things change, I get how it makes sense. My grandpa gave up eggs even though he loved them. Used to have two a day, every day, and quit when they told him what a healthy diet looked like (at that time.) By the time they got around to saying, "Okay, wait, a few eggs is okay," he had died.

    Plus, when you're young, it's impossible to know what is coming. Should you eat this way to prevent this or that way to prevent that? It's not like anyone can see what is going to happen to them when they're sixty years old.

    Some people don't even care and eat whatever they want, knowing it will make them die sooner. They're going on the principal that they'd rather do things they enjoy and die sooner than be cautious and live a little longer but live less happily. Old people, especially. And that's cool.

    Different strokes.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    @senecarr ; just did the maths. Hosed!

Categories