What the health?
Replies
-
I watched it. If I recall (and I'm not splicing together food documentaries) there's some useful information in there about the unethical treatment of animals, how the industry bullies farmers, and just how poorly the chickens are treated.
It jumps the shark when it starts telling people that white meat chicken is as dangerous as smoking (it's not). In fact, those genetically-infused big-breasted chickens are pretty good for you.
Legitimate questions here, but telling outright lies isn't the way to get ask them.
But if they're exaggerating claims about some things (and using "proof" to do so in some cases) what makes you think they're telling the truth about the rest of it?
2 -
TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »@windrunner
No, it does not make you look bad. I'm almost vegetarian myself and I admire those who are. It makes the animal rights activists look bad. People are smart, they know the difference.
This documentary was not about health at all in my opinion, it was just about trying to save the animals and saying anything to get the job done. I have a link up above about just some of the lies, lies, lies. Milk causes osteoporosis is my favorite lie in the movie, topping the one about meat causing cancer.
The milk/osteoporosis contention is more of a cherry picking kind of thing than an outright lie. Here's a study that shows more hip fractures associated with a higher consumption of dairy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8154473/
It's my understanding though that the vast majority of studies support the consumption of dairy to avoid osteoporosis.
https://authoritynutrition.com/is-dairy-good-for-your-bones/
Ditto for the contention that dairy causes breast cancer.0 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Also found this write up on Satija et al's study...
https://www.medpagetoday.com/cardiology/prevention/66674
Certain Plant-Based Diets Linked to Lower CHD Risk
""Our current analysis extends the potentially protective association with healthful plant-based diet index to CHD. Specifically, greater adherence would lead to diets high in dietary fiber, antioxidants, unsaturated fat, and micronutrient content, and low in saturated fat and heme iron content, all of which could aid in weight loss/maintenance, enhance glycemic control and insulin regulation, improve lipid profile, reduce blood pressure, improve vascular health, decrease inflammation, and foster more favorable diet-gut microbiome interactions thereby lowering CHD risk," stated Satija's team.
They noted that medical and health professionals should guide patients to "increase intake of healthy plant foods and reduce intake of animal foods and less healthy plant foods such as SSB for CHD prevention."
Writing in an accompanying editorial, Kim Allan Williams, MD, MACC, chair of the division of cardiology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, commented that the findings add to the growing body of evidence that a plant-based diet reduces heart disease risk. He wrote that while not all plant-based foods are healthy, whole grains, unsaturated fats, and an abundance of fruits and vegetables "deserve more emphasis in dietary recommendations."
Satija and colleagues used a baseline sample of 73,710 women from the Nurses' Health Study, 92,320 women from the Nurses' Health Study 2, and 43,259 men from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. Exclusion criteria included having coronary heart disease at baseline, as well as incidence of cancer, stroke, and coronary artery surgery.
The researchers created food intake surveys to quantify dietary patterns into three graded plant-based diet indices -- overall, healthful, and unhealthful -- and analyzed how gradual reductions in animal protein consumption plus increases in plant food consumption influenced cardiovascular health.
All participants responded to a follow-up questionnaire on lifestyle, health behaviors, and medical history every 2 years for more than two decades.
Satija and colleagues found that people with higher scores on the plant-based diet index and healthful plant-based diet index were older, more active, leaner, and less likely to smoke than those with lower scores. Conversely, high consumers of unhealthful plant-based diet index were younger, less active, and more likely to smoke.
The proportion of people with a history of diabetes decreased with increasing deciles of plant-based diet index and unhealthful plant-based diet index, but increased with higher healthful plant-based diet index intake, they added.
When looking at all three food categories, the researchers found an inverse association for healthy plant foods and positive associations for animal foods and less healthy plant foods, with the results largely unchanged after red meat adjustment:
Overall: pooled HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.84-1.03; P=0.01 for trend
Healthful: 0.76; 95% CI 0.68-0.84; P<0.001
Unhealthful: 1.32; 95% CI 1.19-1.46; P<0.001
Additionally, the findings changed in expected directions with adjustment for sugar-sweetened beverages:
Overall: pooled HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.81-0.99; P=0.003 for trend
Healthful: 0.79; 95% CI 0.71-0.88; P<0.001
Unhealthful: 1.22; 95% CI 1.10-1.36; P=0.005
Similar results were found after modifying the healthful plant-based diet index to score fish intake positively (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.67-0.81; P<0.001).
Satija's team concluded that future research should replicate these findings in other racial/ethnic, occupational, and socioeconomic groups. Additionally, they called for further exploration of biological mechanisms involved in the potentially cardioprotective effects of healthful plant-based diet index in order to create personalized clinical interventions and prevention therapies for CHD.
Williams agreed, but noted that a healthy plant-based diet presents both a challenge and an opportunity for cardiology: "Until recently, cardiologists have not delved deeply into nutrition, treating CVD's downstream effects rather than obliterating its roots, leaving primary and secondary prevention opportunities on the table. It is time that we educate ourselves on dietary patterns, risk, and outcomes, and focus more on 'turning off the faucet' instead of 'mopping up the floor.'"
Limitations included the observational nature of the study, as well as the potential for measurement error in diet assessment."
That's a bit more helpful. Personally, I guess, like many of us, I could improve a few things, but overall, I'm not doing too badly.
Thinking about it, I have to wonder how much of an impact trans fats had on the results of that study. Now that they're gone from most if not all packaged treats, I wonder whether people who follow a so called unhealthful PBD, can still expect an increased risk of CHD or not.
2 -
TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »@windrunner
...my favorite lie in the movie, topping the one about meat causing cancer.
Processed meats do cause up the risk of cancer. That was the one truth in the movie.
6 -
WTH was made to provoke thought and discussion. We are surrounded by misinformation since the day we are born.
No one should ever base his existence on a low budget video.
The question is, why do we choose to attack a half truth presented in documentaries like WTH and pass on others that tell us exactly what we want to hear?
It is not about milk causing hip fractures, it is about common sense.
Torturing animals to steal their milk and flesh in order to sell a cheeseburger for $2.25 is what we do everyday.
It is not the danger of our hip fracturing. It is the trouble sleeping at night that makes us unhealthy.10 -
sugarstrawberries wrote: »TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »@windrunner
...my favorite lie in the movie, topping the one about meat causing cancer.
Processed meats do cause up the risk of cancer. That was the one truth in the movie.
Curious as to why this got wooed. Processed meats have been demonstrated to increase bowel cancer. Not double the risk or anything, under a 20% added risk, but increased. Here's a link discussing it and although they admit the added risk they also say " a steak, bacon sandwich or sausage bap a few times a week probably isn’t much to worry about. And overall the risks are much lower than for other things linked to cancer – such as smoking" so they're not trying to be alarmists, but they also say "There’s now a large body of evidence that bowel cancer is more common among people who eat the most red and processed meat",
and "The most convincing overview of the evidence of a link to bowel cancer comes from a 2011 analysis by researchers at the WCRF, who combined the results of a number of previous studies, to try to get a clear sense of the overall picture.
They were able to group the data according to those who ate the most red and processed meat and those who ate the least. A key finding from the WCRF analysis is that red meat and processed meat aren’t equally harmful: processed meat is more strongly linked to bowel cancer than red meat.
The results showed that those who ate the most processed meat had around a 17 per cent higher risk of developing bowel cancer, compared to those who ate the least."
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/
2 -
goldthistime wrote: »sugarstrawberries wrote: »TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »@windrunner
...my favorite lie in the movie, topping the one about meat causing cancer.
Processed meats do cause up the risk of cancer. That was the one truth in the movie.
Curious as to why this got wooed. Processed meats have been demonstrated to increase bowel cancer. Not double the risk or anything, under a 20% added risk, but increased. Here's a link discussing it and although they admit the added risk they also say " a steak, bacon sandwich or sausage bap a few times a week probably isn’t much to worry about. And overall the risks are much lower than for other things linked to cancer – such as smoking" so they're not trying to be alarmists, but they also say "There’s now a large body of evidence that bowel cancer is more common among people who eat the most red and processed meat",
and "The most convincing overview of the evidence of a link to bowel cancer comes from a 2011 analysis by researchers at the WCRF, who combined the results of a number of previous studies, to try to get a clear sense of the overall picture.
They were able to group the data according to those who ate the most red and processed meat and those who ate the least. A key finding from the WCRF analysis is that red meat and processed meat aren’t equally harmful: processed meat is more strongly linked to bowel cancer than red meat.
The results showed that those who ate the most processed meat had around a 17 per cent higher risk of developing bowel cancer, compared to those who ate the least."
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/
Which means that the risk goes from 6% to 7%8 -
MobOfBricks wrote: »WTH was made to provoke thought and discussion. We are surrounded by misinformation since the day we are born.
No one should ever base his existence on a low budget video.
The question is, why do we choose to attack a half truth presented in documentaries like WTH and pass on others that tell us exactly what we want to hear?
It is not about milk causing hip fractures, it is about common sense.
Torturing animals to steal their milk and flesh in order to sell a cheeseburger for $2.25 is what we do everyday.
It is not the danger of our hip fracturing. It is the trouble sleeping at night that makes us unhealthy.
First off, trying to provoke thought and discussion with bad information is both pointless and defeats the whole purpose. A half truth is also a half lie, and if they lie about some things there is zero reason for anyone with common sense to trust the rest of it without seeking elsewhere.
Torturing animals? Uh huh. Please elaborate, because it makes absolutely no financial sense for a farmer to torture or keep unwell animals and expect to sell the resulting product. Happy cows produce good milk. Happy chickens lay eggs. No farmer worth their salt gets much of anything out of a sick cow or a stressed chicken. Just like no farmer would last long with hundreds of acres of land to grow food on and not monitor the health of the soil, nor would any farmer grow anything on soil that's depleted of nutrients as many people like to claim. Feel free to cite some examples of how the industry as a whole is abusive to animals though, that isn't from a propaganda site. I'll wait.6 -
MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »MobOfBricks wrote: »WTH was made to provoke thought and discussion. We are surrounded by misinformation since the day we are born.
No one should ever base his existence on a low budget video.
The question is, why do we choose to attack a half truth presented in documentaries like WTH and pass on others that tell us exactly what we want to hear?
It is not about milk causing hip fractures, it is about common sense.
Torturing animals to steal their milk and flesh in order to sell a cheeseburger for $2.25 is what we do everyday.
It is not the danger of our hip fracturing. It is the trouble sleeping at night that makes us unhealthy.
First off, trying to provoke thought and discussion with bad information is both pointless and defeats the whole purpose. A half truth is also a half lie, and if they lie about some things there is zero reason for anyone with common sense to trust the rest of it without seeking elsewhere.
Torturing animals? Uh huh. Please elaborate, because it makes absolutely no financial sense for a farmer to torture or keep unwell animals and expect to sell the resulting product. Happy cows produce good milk. Happy chickens lay eggs. No farmer worth their salt gets much of anything out of a sick cow or a stressed chicken. Just like no farmer would last long with hundreds of acres of land to grow food on and not monitor the health of the soil, nor would any farmer grow anything on soil that's depleted of nutrients as many people like to claim. Feel free to cite some examples of how the industry as a whole is abusive to animals though, that isn't from a propaganda site. I'll wait.
Michelle first of all there is bad information everywhere you look.
Nothing you read or hear or you have ever learned is entirely true. It is true only if you believe it.
I agree with you though. It is not right to claim things that they are not entirely true. It is immoral because open minded and easily manipulated people may believe it to be true.
Unfortunately that's the world we live in. The same world that believes that a cow impregnated by force ( I dont want to use the actual word) is happy. The same world that thinks that cows, pigs and chickens in this country are so healthy that 30 million pounds of antibiotics to sustain the meat industry is nothing to worry about.
My family was involved into the meat and dairy industry for three generations. I grew up in it. That peaceful dairy farm with the happy cows that you see on TV, costs close to $50,000 to stage. Yes I am in the entertainment business too.
Do these happy farms where all cows are happy to be slaughtered to become burgers exist? I don't know; may be. I haven't seen one personally. May be you have. What I am sure of, is that the delicious artificially red rib eye steak that people buy at Walmart is not coming from that perfect farm where the all cows and the chickens are cracking jokes all day waiting to be slaughtered.
It will be pointless to embed a link about animal abuse. You have to see it with your own eyes. You don't have to.
I understand your logic though and in no way I am trying to insult yours or anyone's intelligence. Sometimes to provoke a discussion we have to do something bold and unfair. The outcome is what matters to me. And if that documentary was the reason to save one life, it fulfilled its purpose.5 -
MobOfBricks wrote: »WTH was made to provoke thought and discussion. We are surrounded by misinformation since the day we are born.
No one should ever base his existence on a low budget video.
The question is, why do we choose to attack a half truth presented in documentaries like WTH and pass on others that tell us exactly what we want to hear?
It is not about milk causing hip fractures, it is about common sense.
Torturing animals to steal their milk and flesh in order to sell a cheeseburger for $2.25 is what we do everyday.
It is not the danger of our hip fracturing. It is the trouble sleeping at night that makes us unhealthy.
I have no trouble sleeping at night.5 -
stevencloser wrote: »From what I've heard even Vegans found that this "documentary" is stupid propaganda for veganism.
*raises hand* Vegan who watched the documentary checking in. If it wasn't bad enough that the documentary has some of the quackiest doctor's, Kip Andersen's smarmy, antagonistic behavior throughout the entire thing is maddening.4 -
MobOfBricks wrote: »MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »MobOfBricks wrote: »WTH was made to provoke thought and discussion. We are surrounded by misinformation since the day we are born.
No one should ever base his existence on a low budget video.
The question is, why do we choose to attack a half truth presented in documentaries like WTH and pass on others that tell us exactly what we want to hear?
It is not about milk causing hip fractures, it is about common sense.
Torturing animals to steal their milk and flesh in order to sell a cheeseburger for $2.25 is what we do everyday.
It is not the danger of our hip fracturing. It is the trouble sleeping at night that makes us unhealthy.
First off, trying to provoke thought and discussion with bad information is both pointless and defeats the whole purpose. A half truth is also a half lie, and if they lie about some things there is zero reason for anyone with common sense to trust the rest of it without seeking elsewhere.
Torturing animals? Uh huh. Please elaborate, because it makes absolutely no financial sense for a farmer to torture or keep unwell animals and expect to sell the resulting product. Happy cows produce good milk. Happy chickens lay eggs. No farmer worth their salt gets much of anything out of a sick cow or a stressed chicken. Just like no farmer would last long with hundreds of acres of land to grow food on and not monitor the health of the soil, nor would any farmer grow anything on soil that's depleted of nutrients as many people like to claim. Feel free to cite some examples of how the industry as a whole is abusive to animals though, that isn't from a propaganda site. I'll wait.
Michelle first of all there is bad information everywhere you look.
Nothing you read or hear or you have ever learned is entirely true. It is true only if you believe it.
I agree with you though. It is not right to claim things that they are not entirely true. It is immoral because open minded and easily manipulated people may believe it to be true.
Unfortunately that's the world we live in. The same world that believes that a cow impregnated by force ( I dont want to use the actual word) is happy. The same world that thinks that cows, pigs and chickens in this country are so healthy that 30 million pounds of antibiotics to sustain the meat industry is nothing to worry about.
My family was involved into the meat and dairy industry for three generations. I grew up in it. That peaceful dairy farm with the happy cows that you see on TV, costs close to $50,000 to stage. Yes I am in the entertainment business too.
Do these happy farms where all cows are happy to be slaughtered to become burgers exist? I don't know; may be. I haven't seen one personally. May be you have. What I am sure of, is that the delicious artificially red rib eye steak that people buy at Walmart is not coming from that perfect farm where the all cows and the chickens are cracking jokes all day waiting to be slaughtered.
It will be pointless to embed a link about animal abuse. You have to see it with your own eyes. You don't have to.
I understand your logic though and in no way I am trying to insult yours or anyone's intelligence. Sometimes to provoke a discussion we have to do something bold and unfair. The outcome is what matters to me. And if that documentary was the reason to save one life, it fulfilled its purpose.
I'm guessing that explains the dramatics and hyperbole.
I also grew up on a farm. We had neither of the extremes which you are describing.9 -
singingflutelady wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »sugarstrawberries wrote: »TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »@windrunner
...my favorite lie in the movie, topping the one about meat causing cancer.
Processed meats do cause up the risk of cancer. That was the one truth in the movie.
Curious as to why this got wooed. Processed meats have been demonstrated to increase bowel cancer. Not double the risk or anything, under a 20% added risk, but increased. Here's a link discussing it and although they admit the added risk they also say " a steak, bacon sandwich or sausage bap a few times a week probably isn’t much to worry about. And overall the risks are much lower than for other things linked to cancer – such as smoking" so they're not trying to be alarmists, but they also say "There’s now a large body of evidence that bowel cancer is more common among people who eat the most red and processed meat",
and "The most convincing overview of the evidence of a link to bowel cancer comes from a 2011 analysis by researchers at the WCRF, who combined the results of a number of previous studies, to try to get a clear sense of the overall picture.
They were able to group the data according to those who ate the most red and processed meat and those who ate the least. A key finding from the WCRF analysis is that red meat and processed meat aren’t equally harmful: processed meat is more strongly linked to bowel cancer than red meat.
The results showed that those who ate the most processed meat had around a 17 per cent higher risk of developing bowel cancer, compared to those who ate the least."
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/
Which means that the risk goes from 6% to 7%
A 1% increase sounds small but...
My younger brother had colorectal cancer (hasn't reached 5 years cancer free yet but so far so good), as did my brother in law (treated this past spring, almost lost him to complications), and one friend who eventually succumbed to it and one who is now past 5 years cancer free. So that's four people I know personally. Seems like a lot to me.
If I only knew 100 people, that would represent 4%. I'd just as soon not watch another friend (that additional 1%) go through it. Statistically, there should be at least 2 or 3 more though. Not to mention that I know more than 100 people.
On the other hand, I have to wonder how much processed meat those in the category of "most processed meat" in that study were consuming. Additionally, three of the people I mentioned didn't consume extreme amounts of processed meats, but rather, in their own opinion (and mine), under consumed fruits and vegetables. I'd be curious to know how that factors in. The fourth person, btw, the one who succumbed to it, had a healthy diet.
Personally I am not in the habit of buying any form of processed meat, but I will buy and consume bacon and sausages if we have overnight guests who enjoy them, and I will eat and enjoy any form of processed meats that are served to me when I'm out.0 -
MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »MobOfBricks wrote: »WTH was made to provoke thought and discussion. We are surrounded by misinformation since the day we are born.
No one should ever base his existence on a low budget video.
The question is, why do we choose to attack a half truth presented in documentaries like WTH and pass on others that tell us exactly what we want to hear?
It is not about milk causing hip fractures, it is about common sense.
Torturing animals to steal their milk and flesh in order to sell a cheeseburger for $2.25 is what we do everyday.
It is not the danger of our hip fracturing. It is the trouble sleeping at night that makes us unhealthy.
First off, trying to provoke thought and discussion with bad information is both pointless and defeats the whole purpose. A half truth is also a half lie, and if they lie about some things there is zero reason for anyone with common sense to trust the rest of it without seeking elsewhere.
Torturing animals? Uh huh. Please elaborate, because it makes absolutely no financial sense for a farmer to torture or keep unwell animals and expect to sell the resulting product. Happy cows produce good milk. Happy chickens lay eggs. No farmer worth their salt gets much of anything out of a sick cow or a stressed chicken. Just like no farmer would last long with hundreds of acres of land to grow food on and not monitor the health of the soil, nor would any farmer grow anything on soil that's depleted of nutrients as many people like to claim. Feel free to cite some examples of how the industry as a whole is abusive to animals though, that isn't from a propaganda site. I'll wait.
So when we see pictures of animals who are clearly sick and suffering within the farming system, those are just farmers who aren't "worth their salt." This sounds like a "no true farmer" argument, to be honest.
Or is it your contention that when video and photographic evidence of mistreatment comes out, that is faked? What about first-hand accounts by people who work in slaughterhouses or farms? Are those fake also?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »So when we see pictures of animals who are clearly sick and suffering within the farming system, those are just farmers who aren't "worth their salt." This sounds like a "no true farmer" argument, to be honest.
Or is it your contention that when video and photographic evidence of mistreatment comes out, that is faked? What about first-hand accounts by people who work in slaughterhouses or farms? Are those fake also?
Let me ask you this. When you see a video of a dog owner abusing their dog, do we suddenly blanket all dog owners as terrible people abusing their animals? No, of course not. There are *kitten* people in EVERY profession, farming and slaughterhouses included. Does that make the entire industry abusive? Animal activists have yet to prove that. My problem is demonizing the entire thing based on small number of cases, some of which were allegedly faked. A farmer who lets their sick animals suffer absolutely should be reprimanded; other farmers who don't do such nonsense however should not be brought down with them.
7 -
Strives4Progress wrote: »Has anyone watched the Netflix "documentary", What the health? Any opinions on what they are advising?
I've seen quite a few different health/food docs and they all seem to contradict each other and induce scare tactics. It's hard to know what's good or bad for us anymore.
I also just watched "Forks over Knives". Interesting info there.10 -
MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »So when we see pictures of animals who are clearly sick and suffering within the farming system, those are just farmers who aren't "worth their salt." This sounds like a "no true farmer" argument, to be honest.
Or is it your contention that when video and photographic evidence of mistreatment comes out, that is faked? What about first-hand accounts by people who work in slaughterhouses or farms? Are those fake also?
Let me ask you this. When you see a video of a dog owner abusing their dog, do we suddenly blanket all dog owners as terrible people abusing their animals? No, of course not. There are *kitten* people in EVERY profession, farming and slaughterhouses included. Does that make the entire industry abusive? Animal activists have yet to prove that. My problem is demonizing the entire thing based on small number of cases, some of which were allegedly faked. A farmer who lets their sick animals suffer absolutely should be reprimanded; other farmers who don't do such nonsense however should not be brought down with them.
Are there individual farmers within the industry who treat animals with consideration? I am sure there are (at least until they choose to end the animal's life).
You believe it is a small number of cases, some of which are faked (which ones, I'm curious to know). I'm not convinced. And even if I was, I would have no way of knowing if my particular purchase of meat, dairy, or eggs was going to a farmer who was "worth her salt" or one who was following practices (some of which are defended by professionals as the industry standard) that I consider morally unacceptable. I don't consider it demonizing people (they may be great people in other respects), it's a question of what I choose to support and condone. Almost every makes choices like this in their lives -- vegans just include animals in their consideration of the impacts of their choices. I am sure there are things that you don't do -- as a moral decision -- that I probably do because I either don't have a problem with them or I have a blind spot that keeps me from fully appreciating the impact of my choices.
It's not just the suffering of sick animals, it's things like debeaking, removing calves from their mothers, wholesale slaughter of male chicks, gestational crates, transport without water, slaughter of insufficiently stunned animals, and culling piglets by slamming them on the ground.0 -
goldthistime wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »sugarstrawberries wrote: »TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »@windrunner
...my favorite lie in the movie, topping the one about meat causing cancer.
Processed meats do cause up the risk of cancer. That was the one truth in the movie.
Which means that the risk goes from 6% to 7%
A 1% increase sounds small but...
My younger brother had colorectal cancer (hasn't reached 5 years cancer free yet but so far so good), as did my brother in law (treated this past spring, almost lost him to complications), and one friend who eventually succumbed to it and one who is now past 5 years cancer free. So that's four people I know personally. Seems like a lot to me.
If I only knew 100 people, that would represent 4%. I'd just as soon not watch another friend (that additional 1%) go through it. Statistically, there should be at least 2 or 3 more though. Not to mention that I know more than 100 people.
<b>On the other hand, I have to wonder how much processed meat those in the category of "most processed meat" in that study were consuming.</b> Additionally, three of the people I mentioned didn't consume extreme amounts of processed meats, but rather, in their own opinion (and mine), under consumed fruits and vegetables. I'd be curious to know how that factors in. The fourth person, btw, the one who succumbed to it, had a healthy diet.
Personally I am not in the habit of buying any form of processed meat, but I will buy and consume bacon and sausages if we have overnight guests who enjoy them, and I will eat and enjoy any form of processed meats that are served to me when I'm out.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23001745
The study he was referencing here suggested that eating processed meat EVERY DAY increased the likely hood by a percentage. Additional this was a "cohort" study based on a food frequency questionnaire. It's never been studied in a Randomized, Controlled Trial Study (Gold Standard). Questionnaires are notoriously unreliable - are people honest, do they remember what they've eaten over the last 6 months. It's also difficult to parse out the true cause. Is it the processed meat or the soda they drank with it?
I'm not worried about my occasional hot dog or ham sandwich:)5 -
goldthistime wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »sugarstrawberries wrote: »TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »@windrunner
...my favorite lie in the movie, topping the one about meat causing cancer.
Processed meats do cause up the risk of cancer. That was the one truth in the movie.
Curious as to why this got wooed. Processed meats have been demonstrated to increase bowel cancer. Not double the risk or anything, under a 20% added risk, but increased. Here's a link discussing it and although they admit the added risk they also say " a steak, bacon sandwich or sausage bap a few times a week probably isn’t much to worry about. And overall the risks are much lower than for other things linked to cancer – such as smoking" so they're not trying to be alarmists, but they also say "There’s now a large body of evidence that bowel cancer is more common among people who eat the most red and processed meat",
and "The most convincing overview of the evidence of a link to bowel cancer comes from a 2011 analysis by researchers at the WCRF, who combined the results of a number of previous studies, to try to get a clear sense of the overall picture.
They were able to group the data according to those who ate the most red and processed meat and those who ate the least. A key finding from the WCRF analysis is that red meat and processed meat aren’t equally harmful: processed meat is more strongly linked to bowel cancer than red meat.
The results showed that those who ate the most processed meat had around a 17 per cent higher risk of developing bowel cancer, compared to those who ate the least."
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/
Which means that the risk goes from 6% to 7%
A 1% increase sounds small but...
My younger brother had colorectal cancer (hasn't reached 5 years cancer free yet but so far so good), as did my brother in law (treated this past spring, almost lost him to complications), and one friend who eventually succumbed to it and one who is now past 5 years cancer free. So that's four people I know personally. Seems like a lot to me.
If I only knew 100 people, that would represent 4%. I'd just as soon not watch another friend (that additional 1%) go through it. Statistically, there should be at least 2 or 3 more though. Not to mention that I know more than 100 people.
On the other hand, I have to wonder how much processed meat those in the category of "most processed meat" in that study were consuming. Additionally, three of the people I mentioned didn't consume extreme amounts of processed meats, but rather, in their own opinion (and mine), under consumed fruits and vegetables. I'd be curious to know how that factors in. The fourth person, btw, the one who succumbed to it, had a healthy diet.
Personally I am not in the habit of buying any form of processed meat, but I will buy and consume bacon and sausages if we have overnight guests who enjoy them, and I will eat and enjoy any form of processed meats that are served to me when I'm out.
There are also other factors that increase crc risk more than processed meats. Lack of fiber is a biggie but also genetics and having Inflammatory bowel disease4 -
goldthistime wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »sugarstrawberries wrote: »TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »@windrunner
...my favorite lie in the movie, topping the one about meat causing cancer.
Processed meats do cause up the risk of cancer. That was the one truth in the movie.
Curious as to why this got wooed. Processed meats have been demonstrated to increase bowel cancer. Not double the risk or anything, under a 20% added risk, but increased. Here's a link discussing it and although they admit the added risk they also say " a steak, bacon sandwich or sausage bap a few times a week probably isn’t much to worry about. And overall the risks are much lower than for other things linked to cancer – such as smoking" so they're not trying to be alarmists, but they also say "There’s now a large body of evidence that bowel cancer is more common among people who eat the most red and processed meat",
and "The most convincing overview of the evidence of a link to bowel cancer comes from a 2011 analysis by researchers at the WCRF, who combined the results of a number of previous studies, to try to get a clear sense of the overall picture.
They were able to group the data according to those who ate the most red and processed meat and those who ate the least. A key finding from the WCRF analysis is that red meat and processed meat aren’t equally harmful: processed meat is more strongly linked to bowel cancer than red meat.
The results showed that those who ate the most processed meat had around a 17 per cent higher risk of developing bowel cancer, compared to those who ate the least."
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/
Which means that the risk goes from 6% to 7%
A 1% increase sounds small but...
My younger brother had colorectal cancer (hasn't reached 5 years cancer free yet but so far so good), as did my brother in law (treated this past spring, almost lost him to complications), and one friend who eventually succumbed to it and one who is now past 5 years cancer free. So that's four people I know personally. Seems like a lot to me.
If I only knew 100 people, that would represent 4%. I'd just as soon not watch another friend (that additional 1%) go through it. Statistically, there should be at least 2 or 3 more though. Not to mention that I know more than 100 people.
On the other hand, I have to wonder how much processed meat those in the category of "most processed meat" in that study were consuming. Additionally, three of the people I mentioned didn't consume extreme amounts of processed meats, but rather, in their own opinion (and mine), under consumed fruits and vegetables. I'd be curious to know how that factors in. The fourth person, btw, the one who succumbed to it, had a healthy diet.
Personally I am not in the habit of buying any form of processed meat, but I will buy and consume bacon and sausages if we have overnight guests who enjoy them, and I will eat and enjoy any form of processed meats that are served to me when I'm out.
The big meta study that came out earlier this year from the Imperial College London seems to back this up, I'm really starting to think veg/fruit intake plays a bigger role in health. Perhaps it's not so much about what we're removing from our diets but what we're adding.3 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »sugarstrawberries wrote: »TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »@windrunner
...my favorite lie in the movie, topping the one about meat causing cancer.
Processed meats do cause up the risk of cancer. That was the one truth in the movie.
Curious as to why this got wooed. Processed meats have been demonstrated to increase bowel cancer. Not double the risk or anything, under a 20% added risk, but increased. Here's a link discussing it and although they admit the added risk they also say " a steak, bacon sandwich or sausage bap a few times a week probably isn’t much to worry about. And overall the risks are much lower than for other things linked to cancer – such as smoking" so they're not trying to be alarmists, but they also say "There’s now a large body of evidence that bowel cancer is more common among people who eat the most red and processed meat",
and "The most convincing overview of the evidence of a link to bowel cancer comes from a 2011 analysis by researchers at the WCRF, who combined the results of a number of previous studies, to try to get a clear sense of the overall picture.
They were able to group the data according to those who ate the most red and processed meat and those who ate the least. A key finding from the WCRF analysis is that red meat and processed meat aren’t equally harmful: processed meat is more strongly linked to bowel cancer than red meat.
The results showed that those who ate the most processed meat had around a 17 per cent higher risk of developing bowel cancer, compared to those who ate the least."
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/
Which means that the risk goes from 6% to 7%
A 1% increase sounds small but...
My younger brother had colorectal cancer (hasn't reached 5 years cancer free yet but so far so good), as did my brother in law (treated this past spring, almost lost him to complications), and one friend who eventually succumbed to it and one who is now past 5 years cancer free. So that's four people I know personally. Seems like a lot to me.
If I only knew 100 people, that would represent 4%. I'd just as soon not watch another friend (that additional 1%) go through it. Statistically, there should be at least 2 or 3 more though. Not to mention that I know more than 100 people.
On the other hand, I have to wonder how much processed meat those in the category of "most processed meat" in that study were consuming. Additionally, three of the people I mentioned didn't consume extreme amounts of processed meats, but rather, in their own opinion (and mine), under consumed fruits and vegetables. I'd be curious to know how that factors in. The fourth person, btw, the one who succumbed to it, had a healthy diet.
Personally I am not in the habit of buying any form of processed meat, but I will buy and consume bacon and sausages if we have overnight guests who enjoy them, and I will eat and enjoy any form of processed meats that are served to me when I'm out.
The big meta study that came out earlier this year from the Imperial College London seems to back this up, I'm really starting to think veg/fruit intake plays a bigger role in health. Perhaps it's not so much about what we're removing from our diets but what we're adding.
I read an interesting blog post speculating about that recently, but I can't remember where I read it. Anyway, it was making the exact same point you were making -- that adding fruits and vegetables could be more beneficial for the average person's health than eliminating any specific food or type of food.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »sugarstrawberries wrote: »TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »@windrunner
...my favorite lie in the movie, topping the one about meat causing cancer.
Processed meats do cause up the risk of cancer. That was the one truth in the movie.
Curious as to why this got wooed. Processed meats have been demonstrated to increase bowel cancer. Not double the risk or anything, under a 20% added risk, but increased. Here's a link discussing it and although they admit the added risk they also say " a steak, bacon sandwich or sausage bap a few times a week probably isn’t much to worry about. And overall the risks are much lower than for other things linked to cancer – such as smoking" so they're not trying to be alarmists, but they also say "There’s now a large body of evidence that bowel cancer is more common among people who eat the most red and processed meat",
and "The most convincing overview of the evidence of a link to bowel cancer comes from a 2011 analysis by researchers at the WCRF, who combined the results of a number of previous studies, to try to get a clear sense of the overall picture.
They were able to group the data according to those who ate the most red and processed meat and those who ate the least. A key finding from the WCRF analysis is that red meat and processed meat aren’t equally harmful: processed meat is more strongly linked to bowel cancer than red meat.
The results showed that those who ate the most processed meat had around a 17 per cent higher risk of developing bowel cancer, compared to those who ate the least."
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/
Which means that the risk goes from 6% to 7%
A 1% increase sounds small but...
My younger brother had colorectal cancer (hasn't reached 5 years cancer free yet but so far so good), as did my brother in law (treated this past spring, almost lost him to complications), and one friend who eventually succumbed to it and one who is now past 5 years cancer free. So that's four people I know personally. Seems like a lot to me.
If I only knew 100 people, that would represent 4%. I'd just as soon not watch another friend (that additional 1%) go through it. Statistically, there should be at least 2 or 3 more though. Not to mention that I know more than 100 people.
On the other hand, I have to wonder how much processed meat those in the category of "most processed meat" in that study were consuming. Additionally, three of the people I mentioned didn't consume extreme amounts of processed meats, but rather, in their own opinion (and mine), under consumed fruits and vegetables. I'd be curious to know how that factors in. The fourth person, btw, the one who succumbed to it, had a healthy diet.
Personally I am not in the habit of buying any form of processed meat, but I will buy and consume bacon and sausages if we have overnight guests who enjoy them, and I will eat and enjoy any form of processed meats that are served to me when I'm out.
The big meta study that came out earlier this year from the Imperial College London seems to back this up, I'm really starting to think veg/fruit intake plays a bigger role in health. Perhaps it's not so much about what we're removing from our diets but what we're adding.
I read an interesting blog post speculating about that recently, but I can't remember where I read it. Anyway, it was making the exact same point you were making -- that adding fruits and vegetables could be more beneficial for the average person's health than eliminating any specific food or type of food.
I agree.
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »So when we see pictures of animals who are clearly sick and suffering within the farming system, those are just farmers who aren't "worth their salt." This sounds like a "no true farmer" argument, to be honest.
Or is it your contention that when video and photographic evidence of mistreatment comes out, that is faked? What about first-hand accounts by people who work in slaughterhouses or farms? Are those fake also?
Let me ask you this. When you see a video of a dog owner abusing their dog, do we suddenly blanket all dog owners as terrible people abusing their animals? No, of course not. There are *kitten* people in EVERY profession, farming and slaughterhouses included. Does that make the entire industry abusive? Animal activists have yet to prove that. My problem is demonizing the entire thing based on small number of cases, some of which were allegedly faked. A farmer who lets their sick animals suffer absolutely should be reprimanded; other farmers who don't do such nonsense however should not be brought down with them.
Are there individual farmers within the industry who treat animals with consideration? I am sure there are (at least until they choose to end the animal's life).
You believe it is a small number of cases, some of which are faked (which ones, I'm curious to know). I'm not convinced. And even if I was, I would have no way of knowing if my particular purchase of meat, dairy, or eggs was going to a farmer who was "worth her salt" or one who was following practices (some of which are defended by professionals as the industry standard) that I consider morally unacceptable. I don't consider it demonizing people (they may be great people in other respects), it's a question of what I choose to support and condone. Almost every makes choices like this in their lives -- vegans just include animals in their consideration of the impacts of their choices. I am sure there are things that you don't do -- as a moral decision -- that I probably do because I either don't have a problem with them or I have a blind spot that keeps me from fully appreciating the impact of my choices.
It's not just the suffering of sick animals, it's things like debeaking, removing calves from their mothers, wholesale slaughter of male chicks, gestational crates, transport without water, slaughter of insufficiently stunned animals, and culling piglets by slamming them on the ground.
I eat meat, but guiltily. I've been a vegetarian or vegan for periods of my life but find I can't do it without my health being affected. So read this argument that I'm about to put out as an exploration of the topic not an established opinion.
From things I personally have witnessed, it seems to me that farmed animals have a better life than do wild animals. Starvation comes to mind first and foremost. But a couple years ago I watched an orphaned fawn trying to hang with a group of deer, but it got kicked so much that it eventually was injured enough for the coyotes to get it. Injured and sick animals, in my mind, are treated far more humanely on farms than in the wild. As to the slaughter, yes, it's sickening, but possibly not as horrific as the events preceding death for most wild animals.
Do you disagree?0 -
goldthistime wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »So when we see pictures of animals who are clearly sick and suffering within the farming system, those are just farmers who aren't "worth their salt." This sounds like a "no true farmer" argument, to be honest.
Or is it your contention that when video and photographic evidence of mistreatment comes out, that is faked? What about first-hand accounts by people who work in slaughterhouses or farms? Are those fake also?
Let me ask you this. When you see a video of a dog owner abusing their dog, do we suddenly blanket all dog owners as terrible people abusing their animals? No, of course not. There are *kitten* people in EVERY profession, farming and slaughterhouses included. Does that make the entire industry abusive? Animal activists have yet to prove that. My problem is demonizing the entire thing based on small number of cases, some of which were allegedly faked. A farmer who lets their sick animals suffer absolutely should be reprimanded; other farmers who don't do such nonsense however should not be brought down with them.
Are there individual farmers within the industry who treat animals with consideration? I am sure there are (at least until they choose to end the animal's life).
You believe it is a small number of cases, some of which are faked (which ones, I'm curious to know). I'm not convinced. And even if I was, I would have no way of knowing if my particular purchase of meat, dairy, or eggs was going to a farmer who was "worth her salt" or one who was following practices (some of which are defended by professionals as the industry standard) that I consider morally unacceptable. I don't consider it demonizing people (they may be great people in other respects), it's a question of what I choose to support and condone. Almost every makes choices like this in their lives -- vegans just include animals in their consideration of the impacts of their choices. I am sure there are things that you don't do -- as a moral decision -- that I probably do because I either don't have a problem with them or I have a blind spot that keeps me from fully appreciating the impact of my choices.
It's not just the suffering of sick animals, it's things like debeaking, removing calves from their mothers, wholesale slaughter of male chicks, gestational crates, transport without water, slaughter of insufficiently stunned animals, and culling piglets by slamming them on the ground.
I eat meat, but guiltily. I've been a vegetarian or vegan for periods of my life but find I can't do it without my health being affected. So read this argument that I'm about to put out as an exploration of the topic not an established opinion.
From things I personally have witnessed, it seems to me that farmed animals have a better life than do wild animals. Starvation comes to mind first and foremost. But a couple years ago I watched an orphaned fawn trying to hang with a group of deer, but it got kicked so much that it eventually was injured enough for the coyotes to get it. Injured and sick animals, in my mind, are treated far more humanely on farms than in the wild. As to the slaughter, yes, it's sickening, but possibly not as horrific as the events preceding death for most wild animals.
Do you disagree?
Some animals in the wild certainly do have a hard time of it, although I wouldn't know exactly how to quantify the suffering against what animals experience in domestication.
The sticking point for me with the suffering that takes place in domestication is that it is unnecessary for me to participate in (I don't know your health situation so I wouldn't say it isn't necessary for you). I can opt out and still maintain my health and happiness. That makes it unnecessary, at least as far as I am concerned, so it's not something I feel morally comfortable participating in.
Is it more or less horrific than standard farming practices, animal abuse within agriculture, and slaughter? I have no idea. Fortunately for us, something doesn't have to be the *worst* for us to say we're not comfortable participating in it. It's enough for us to determine it isn't acceptable for us.1 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »sugarstrawberries wrote: »TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »@windrunner
...my favorite lie in the movie, topping the one about meat causing cancer.
Processed meats do cause up the risk of cancer. That was the one truth in the movie.
Curious as to why this got wooed. Processed meats have been demonstrated to increase bowel cancer. Not double the risk or anything, under a 20% added risk, but increased. Here's a link discussing it and although they admit the added risk they also say " a steak, bacon sandwich or sausage bap a few times a week probably isn’t much to worry about. And overall the risks are much lower than for other things linked to cancer – such as smoking" so they're not trying to be alarmists, but they also say "There’s now a large body of evidence that bowel cancer is more common among people who eat the most red and processed meat",
and "The most convincing overview of the evidence of a link to bowel cancer comes from a 2011 analysis by researchers at the WCRF, who combined the results of a number of previous studies, to try to get a clear sense of the overall picture.
They were able to group the data according to those who ate the most red and processed meat and those who ate the least. A key finding from the WCRF analysis is that red meat and processed meat aren’t equally harmful: processed meat is more strongly linked to bowel cancer than red meat.
The results showed that those who ate the most processed meat had around a 17 per cent higher risk of developing bowel cancer, compared to those who ate the least."
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/
Which means that the risk goes from 6% to 7%
A 1% increase sounds small but...
My younger brother had colorectal cancer (hasn't reached 5 years cancer free yet but so far so good), as did my brother in law (treated this past spring, almost lost him to complications), and one friend who eventually succumbed to it and one who is now past 5 years cancer free. So that's four people I know personally. Seems like a lot to me.
If I only knew 100 people, that would represent 4%. I'd just as soon not watch another friend (that additional 1%) go through it. Statistically, there should be at least 2 or 3 more though. Not to mention that I know more than 100 people.
On the other hand, I have to wonder how much processed meat those in the category of "most processed meat" in that study were consuming. Additionally, three of the people I mentioned didn't consume extreme amounts of processed meats, but rather, in their own opinion (and mine), under consumed fruits and vegetables. I'd be curious to know how that factors in. The fourth person, btw, the one who succumbed to it, had a healthy diet.
Personally I am not in the habit of buying any form of processed meat, but I will buy and consume bacon and sausages if we have overnight guests who enjoy them, and I will eat and enjoy any form of processed meats that are served to me when I'm out.
The big meta study that came out earlier this year from the Imperial College London seems to back this up, I'm really starting to think veg/fruit intake plays a bigger role in health. Perhaps it's not so much about what we're removing from our diets but what we're adding.
I'm inclined to that view too (I've always thought good nutrition was about what you included more than what you cut out), but I also think it's likely about balance and perhaps other healthy activities. I didn't think that study was as significant as you seem to have (even though I've been basically eating 10 or so servings of veg a day for some time), because I thought about the reasons I do focus on eating lots of vegetables, and what it correlates to.
When I eat lots of vegetables, I tend to cook more for myself and be focusing on creating balanced healthy meals.
When I eat lots of vegetables I am less likely to overeat other foods (no room for them) or to be eating a lot of the kinds of meals that are low vegetables (i.e., many convenience meals).
Most significantly, when I eat lots of vegetables, I am more likely to also be focused on health and other healthy behaviors (like exercise).
I'd bet on average people who eat lots of vegetables are going to be less likely to score high on drink lots of sugary sugar or consume lots of processed meats (not none) or fast food or added sugar or whatever.
I'd also bet on average they are going to be more likely to focus on other healthful behaviors, like exercise.
I also would bet good money that they are more likely to be better off financially, better educated, and to be married (especially if men), all factors that correlate with positive health outcomes.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Are there individual farmers within the industry who treat animals with consideration? I am sure there are (at least until they choose to end the animal's life).
You believe it is a small number of cases, some of which are faked (which ones, I'm curious to know). I'm not convinced. And even if I was, I would have no way of knowing if my particular purchase of meat, dairy, or eggs was going to a farmer who was "worth her salt" or one who was following practices (some of which are defended by professionals as the industry standard) that I consider morally unacceptable. I don't consider it demonizing people (they may be great people in other respects), it's a question of what I choose to support and condone. Almost every makes choices like this in their lives -- vegans just include animals in their consideration of the impacts of their choices. I am sure there are things that you don't do -- as a moral decision -- that I probably do because I either don't have a problem with them or I have a blind spot that keeps me from fully appreciating the impact of my choices.
It's not just the suffering of sick animals, it's things like debeaking, removing calves from their mothers, wholesale slaughter of male chicks, gestational crates, transport without water, slaughter of insufficiently stunned animals, and culling piglets by slamming them on the ground.
I believe it is a small number of cases because animal activists have yet to prove it's an industry standard. Some have been alleged to have been faked, I would need to dig up which ones which I'd be happy to do. One farmer I follow had shared it and explained why it was likely faked, if my memory is serving me right.
I've heard of de-beaking, but I would have to examine both sides of that to make a judgment for myself. Who's doing it, why they're doing it, etc. I know chickens have a habit of doing all sorts of nasty things to each other when in large groups, ranging from smothering each other to pecking others to death, if this is a reason for de-beaking why not just do what other farmers do and use cages? Many large scale farms use them with success, they have plenty of room and perches and if they were stressed out, they sure as hell wouldn't be laying eggs. Gestational crates I get, no they're not pleasant but they sure are better than the mother trampling her babies to death. Some breeds don't make very good mothers, the heritage breeds seem to be better moms and will often have their piglets either outside or in a roomy stall. The other things you mentioned again I'd have to look into because so far the only sources that seem to support them are peta and similar "activists", and I simply don't trust them.0 -
MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Are there individual farmers within the industry who treat animals with consideration? I am sure there are (at least until they choose to end the animal's life).
You believe it is a small number of cases, some of which are faked (which ones, I'm curious to know). I'm not convinced. And even if I was, I would have no way of knowing if my particular purchase of meat, dairy, or eggs was going to a farmer who was "worth her salt" or one who was following practices (some of which are defended by professionals as the industry standard) that I consider morally unacceptable. I don't consider it demonizing people (they may be great people in other respects), it's a question of what I choose to support and condone. Almost every makes choices like this in their lives -- vegans just include animals in their consideration of the impacts of their choices. I am sure there are things that you don't do -- as a moral decision -- that I probably do because I either don't have a problem with them or I have a blind spot that keeps me from fully appreciating the impact of my choices.
It's not just the suffering of sick animals, it's things like debeaking, removing calves from their mothers, wholesale slaughter of male chicks, gestational crates, transport without water, slaughter of insufficiently stunned animals, and culling piglets by slamming them on the ground.
I believe it is a small number of cases because animal activists have yet to prove it's an industry standard. Some have been alleged to have been faked, I would need to dig up which ones which I'd be happy to do. One farmer I follow had shared it and explained why it was likely faked, if my memory is serving me right.
I've heard of de-beaking, but I would have to examine both sides of that to make a judgment for myself. Who's doing it, why they're doing it, etc. I know chickens have a habit of doing all sorts of nasty things to each other when in large groups, ranging from smothering each other to pecking others to death, if this is a reason for de-beaking why not just do what other farmers do and use cages? Many large scale farms use them with success, they have plenty of room and perches and if they were stressed out, they sure as hell wouldn't be laying eggs. Gestational crates I get, no they're not pleasant but they sure are better than the mother trampling her babies to death. Some breeds don't make very good mothers, the heritage breeds seem to be better moms and will often have their piglets either outside or in a roomy stall. The other things you mentioned again I'd have to look into because so far the only sources that seem to support them are peta and similar "activists", and I simply don't trust them.
I'd be interested in knowing what you think after you learn more about those practices.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »sugarstrawberries wrote: »TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »@windrunner
...my favorite lie in the movie, topping the one about meat causing cancer.
Processed meats do cause up the risk of cancer. That was the one truth in the movie.
Curious as to why this got wooed. Processed meats have been demonstrated to increase bowel cancer. Not double the risk or anything, under a 20% added risk, but increased. Here's a link discussing it and although they admit the added risk they also say " a steak, bacon sandwich or sausage bap a few times a week probably isn’t much to worry about. And overall the risks are much lower than for other things linked to cancer – such as smoking" so they're not trying to be alarmists, but they also say "There’s now a large body of evidence that bowel cancer is more common among people who eat the most red and processed meat",
and "The most convincing overview of the evidence of a link to bowel cancer comes from a 2011 analysis by researchers at the WCRF, who combined the results of a number of previous studies, to try to get a clear sense of the overall picture.
They were able to group the data according to those who ate the most red and processed meat and those who ate the least. A key finding from the WCRF analysis is that red meat and processed meat aren’t equally harmful: processed meat is more strongly linked to bowel cancer than red meat.
The results showed that those who ate the most processed meat had around a 17 per cent higher risk of developing bowel cancer, compared to those who ate the least."
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/
Which means that the risk goes from 6% to 7%
A 1% increase sounds small but...
My younger brother had colorectal cancer (hasn't reached 5 years cancer free yet but so far so good), as did my brother in law (treated this past spring, almost lost him to complications), and one friend who eventually succumbed to it and one who is now past 5 years cancer free. So that's four people I know personally. Seems like a lot to me.
If I only knew 100 people, that would represent 4%. I'd just as soon not watch another friend (that additional 1%) go through it. Statistically, there should be at least 2 or 3 more though. Not to mention that I know more than 100 people.
On the other hand, I have to wonder how much processed meat those in the category of "most processed meat" in that study were consuming. Additionally, three of the people I mentioned didn't consume extreme amounts of processed meats, but rather, in their own opinion (and mine), under consumed fruits and vegetables. I'd be curious to know how that factors in. The fourth person, btw, the one who succumbed to it, had a healthy diet.
Personally I am not in the habit of buying any form of processed meat, but I will buy and consume bacon and sausages if we have overnight guests who enjoy them, and I will eat and enjoy any form of processed meats that are served to me when I'm out.
The big meta study that came out earlier this year from the Imperial College London seems to back this up, I'm really starting to think veg/fruit intake plays a bigger role in health. Perhaps it's not so much about what we're removing from our diets but what we're adding.
I'm inclined to that view too (I've always thought good nutrition was about what you included more than what you cut out), but I also think it's likely about balance and perhaps other healthy activities. I didn't think that study was as significant as you seem to have (even though I've been basically eating 10 or so servings of veg a day for some time), because I thought about the reasons I do focus on eating lots of vegetables, and what it correlates to.
When I eat lots of vegetables, I tend to cook more for myself and be focusing on creating balanced healthy meals.
When I eat lots of vegetables I am less likely to overeat other foods (no room for them) or to be eating a lot of the kinds of meals that are low vegetables (i.e., many convenience meals).
Most significantly, when I eat lots of vegetables, I am more likely to also be focused on health and other healthy behaviors (like exercise).
I'd bet on average people who eat lots of vegetables are going to be less likely to score high on drink lots of sugary sugar or consume lots of processed meats (not none) or fast food or added sugar or whatever.
I'd also bet on average they are going to be more likely to focus on other healthful behaviors, like exercise.
I also would bet good money that they are more likely to be better off financially, better educated, and to be married (especially if men), all factors that correlate with positive health outcomes.
When the study first came out I eating no fruit at all, and very little vegetables, so I think it kind of hit me upside the head lol. It really struck a nerve with me, and it's made me reevaluate what I've been doing. Eventually I'll catch up to you
1 -
I am a huge proponent of limiting animal protein and eating minimally processed foods and I thought this documentary was a laughable excuse for information. It is so skewed. My husband tends to buy into the health documentaries fairly quickly and I always have to pull him back up to take a breath of fresh air before he throws away everything in our cupboard. I wonder if this documentary was so bad that it will cause all health documentaries to take a break because no one will trust them anymore.2
-
Propaganda, woo peddling and tin foil hat stuff.leejohnson1 wrote: »Hi there
*snip* needs to convey the message and the secret to preventing and even reversing chronic diseases, and he investigates why the nation's leading health organizations don't want people to know about it.
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions