Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Food and Nutrition
Food, Nutrition and Recipes
Bacon and eggs anyone?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="bulkbiker" data-source="post: 1712927" data-attributes="member: 219467"><p>As I have said many times before until people are locked up and fed precise things there are no "good" or "reliable" nutritional studies or statistics. It is all open to interpretation and misinterpretation. The IARC study was a combination of data from about 800 other studies which I have no specific knowledge of but I can assure you that hardly any (and probably none) were carried out under precise enough conditions to give anything like enough evidence for their claims because those studies haven't been done in the last 40 years. The study was done by the IARC which is an independent branch of the WHO and so far as I know all the statements claimed to be from the WHO are in fact from the IARC. I recall reading an excellent rebuttal of the IARC study which I have been searching for but cannot unfortunately find. </p><p>This one from Reuters is the closest I can get but not the one I was looking for</p><p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-who-iarc/" target="_blank">https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-who-iarc/</a></p><p></p><p>I'm glad you have however proved my point that the definition of "processed" meat is all encompassing and could be seen to contain a multitude of nasties as well as slightly tampered with fresh meat. In fact looking at that definition a steak with salt and pepper on has become "processed meat" in a similar way to a McDonalds chicken nugget or a tin of spam.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bulkbiker, post: 1712927, member: 219467"] As I have said many times before until people are locked up and fed precise things there are no "good" or "reliable" nutritional studies or statistics. It is all open to interpretation and misinterpretation. The IARC study was a combination of data from about 800 other studies which I have no specific knowledge of but I can assure you that hardly any (and probably none) were carried out under precise enough conditions to give anything like enough evidence for their claims because those studies haven't been done in the last 40 years. The study was done by the IARC which is an independent branch of the WHO and so far as I know all the statements claimed to be from the WHO are in fact from the IARC. I recall reading an excellent rebuttal of the IARC study which I have been searching for but cannot unfortunately find. This one from Reuters is the closest I can get but not the one I was looking for [URL]https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-who-iarc/[/URL] I'm glad you have however proved my point that the definition of "processed" meat is all encompassing and could be seen to contain a multitude of nasties as well as slightly tampered with fresh meat. In fact looking at that definition a steak with salt and pepper on has become "processed meat" in a similar way to a McDonalds chicken nugget or a tin of spam. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Food and Nutrition
Food, Nutrition and Recipes
Bacon and eggs anyone?
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…