Red and Processed Meat Bowel Cancer risk up to 20%

[bulkbiker]

Just found something quite interesting.. the Chief executive of UK Biobank where the data for the "bacon is bad" study came from is none other than the Statinator in Chief himself...

Jobs for the boys?

 

[bulkbiker]

This is the one question about processed meats that is asked when you join up to UK Biobank.. detailed and specific and it would seem it is what the bacon gives you cancer headlines is based on...

Edit to add interesting that the study itself can give weights and measures when the question wasn't even asked..

The data is first gathered using a touch screen survey which can be found here

https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/wp-cont...re.pdf?phpMyAdmin=trmKQlYdjjnQIgJ,fAzikMhEnx6

 

[Pinkorchid]

It only matters what people believe,

Exactly all the red meat eaters will not believe it and those who do not eat meat will. It happens whatever the studies and trials say good or bad. Thats what makes us human we only believe what we want to

 

[bulkbiker]

it then gets followed up by this one..

https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/diet_questionnaire.pdf?phpMyAdmin=trmKQlYdjjnQIgJ,fAzikMhEnx6

Edit to add.. interesting they ask about rashers of bacon but all other meats are a "serving" without ever defining what a "serving" is...
This implies that a rasher of extra thin streaky is the same as a rasher of thick cut back ...

 

[Guzzler]

Exactly all the red meat eaters will not believe it and those who do not eat meat will. It happens whatever the studies and trials say good or bad. Thats what makes us human we only believe what we want to

If this were true then there would be no such thing as becoming a convert. People can change their minds but what is important in this case is the quality of the information that one bases one's decision to convert on.

 

[jjraak]

Exactly all the red meat eaters will not believe it and those who do not eat meat will. It happens whatever the studies and trials say good or bad. Thats what makes us human we only believe what we want to

"For those that believe, no proof is required.
For those that don't, no proof would be enough "

And for others, it's all about debating the evidence.

 

[Pinkorchid]

If this were true then there would be no such thing as becoming a convert. People can change their minds but what is important in this case is the quality of the information that one bases one's decision to convert on.

Of course people can change their mind if they feel they can trust the quality of the information that they hear in the media etc.

We all well know one week something is bad for us to eat or drink the next it is ok so how do we know what to trust .I certainly don't have the qualifications in science, medicine or an expert in food to say if it is right or wrong ​

 

[Guzzler]

Of course people can change their mind if they feel they can trust the quality of the information that they hear in the media etc.

We all well know one week something is bad for us to eat or drink the next it is ok so how do we know what to trust .I certainly don't have the qualifications in science, medicine or an expert in food to say if it is right or wrong ​

I do not have the qualifications either but based on what I have learned to the best of my ability means that I no longer have to rely on trust.

 

[Mbaker]

Thanks @bullbiker for root sourcing.

When I couldn't see my daughter from across the room I would have taken on any protocol that would work long term. As a techy I like facts; the original meat causes cancer, was a dream a lady had who was the founder of modern movement setting the current agenda, not factual enough for me.

In order for me to change my stance, I would need the following:

• An explanation why the meat products causing cancer did not used to create the disease in the numbers seen today.
• Why when red meat consumption has gone down cancer rates are up, why.
• Why do societies that eat the most meat now in real time not get the cancer rates we do - Hong Kong for example and non western tribes.
• Why do studies always have an absolute risk of somewhere in the region of 1.x, compared to say 20.x plus for the link of lung cancer and smoking (i.e. no where near good enough results (unless you use slight of hand, relative risk)).
• Why are "results" of increased cancers not shared by say Virta Health, Duke, Intensive Dietary Management, Diabetes.co.uk Low Carb Programme and various other establishments who keep better records than a once in 17 year questionnaire. It is not clever to fool the general public with this poor science.
• Why is it always a certain group in favour of a certain protocol that is either directly involved in the studies, and or financially backing the studies.
• Why do mouse / rat studies always isolate a protein, over feed this a use a pre-cancer supplement to try to prove the point.
• Why can't there be a study of say footballers, who have meat in their diets - check their risks, replace the meat with vegetable proteins, and measure risks again. This could be done off season.

I could ask more questions, but suffice to say I am living the dietary life, these reports say create Type 2 and cancers, etc yet like 100,000's of others see the opposite. I accept that nitrates are not great, but neither are they good in vegetables. I accept that over charing meat is not good, but I have also seen the same for toast. I have seen that antioxidants in some vegetables have devastating effects on some autoimmune diseases - yet it is very quiet from some sectors when this is a real fact provable in humans.

I look forward to the reckoning. Bart Kay is currently in my opinion taking Joel Kahn to the cleaners (shame about the swearing as he has him pinned down on facts).

This for me sums up a lot of this:

 

[pixie1]

I was going to write an essay, decided not. I've has changed beyond recognition from pre historical. It's not the foods per se which causes cancers.
Just think of all the cocktail of chemicals are now in our lives, modern food is so different and more available with just as much cocktail of chemicals either in, on and grown in. I'm sure this has a significant impact. Cancer rates is growing rapidly

Making comparisons in people's diets between different countries is very one dimensional, because it doesn't look at other significant influences, which is just as important, especially on lifestyle, no explanation.