• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Ham

  • Thread starter Thread starter serenity648
  • Start Date Start Date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SunnyExpat said:
I know adults that smoked all their lives, and they don't have cancer.
I know kids that smoke, and they don't have cancer either.

If you're good with possibly, and need it to be a 100% certainty that someone can prove it'll apply to you, that's your roll of the dice.
Click to expand...

Gosh, you dont do grey, do you? its all black or white.

I dont need 100% certainty. Nothing in life is 100% certain, except that we die one day. But it has helped to now be able to make an informed choice. And spurred me to find a nitrite-free alternative for when I am in funds.
 
serenity648 said:
Gosh, you dont do grey, do you? its all black or white.

I dont need 100% certainty. Nothing in life is 100% certain, except that we die one day. But it has helped to now be able to make an informed choice. And spurred me to find a nitrite-free alternative for when I am in funds.
Click to expand...

It is fairly black and white.

Don't eat ham - it's 100% certain you won't get cancer from eating ham.
Eat ham - it's possible ham will cause you cancer.

So, how badly do you need ham?
That's down to your choice, and the information is there to make an informed decision on your odds.
 
SunnyExpat said:
I know adults that smoked all their lives, and they don't have cancer.
I know kids that smoke, and they don't have cancer either.

If you're good with possibly, and need it to be a 100% certainty that someone can prove it'll apply to you, that's your roll of the dice.
Click to expand...
Mankind islucky in that in general we can choose to be a carnivore, omnivore, or vegan. Whichever you or I choose, we both have the same 100% chance of dying. Funny that.
 
Oldvatr said:
Mankind islucky in that in general we can choose to be a carnivore, omnivore, or vegan. Whichever you or I choose, we both have the same 100% chance of dying. Funny that.
Click to expand...

I prefer to have more influence in the areas of how and when, when I can exercise my rights to choose.
 
From my point of view, I have to slightly manipulate the question.

Is ham bad for me - it may well be, depending on ......... etc. etc. etc.
Is ham good for me - no, it is not.

QED
 
SunnyExpat said:
The answer was 'yes', but we're working it round to a 'no'
Click to expand...
I think we are actually moving into 6th form science class, and that is off topic. This argument can go on until the cows come home, or in this case pigs. How about we accept it as possibly and the further it is from the original animal the worse it is for you, moving through probably towards definitely? Interesting article: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/nov/03/foodanddrink
 
Tell you what, if you don't want the ham send it round to mine, I'll eat it for you then you won't be in danger from anything......nom....nom....nom........
 
Struma said:
From my point of view, I have to slightly manipulate the question.

Is ham bad for me - it may well be, depending on ......... etc. etc. etc.
Is ham good for me - no, it is not.

QED
Click to expand...

We're moving into philosophy now, but that's it exactly.

I think my view point is slightly different to other posters.
Maybe I'm younger, maybe I'm fitter, maybe I just haven't done everything I wanted to do yet.
I viewed diabetes as my wake up call.
I didn't respect food, I ate anything, and I ate too much of it.
I got fat, and never expected any consequences, in spite of all the warnings.

I got type 2 because I was overweight, so I lost the excess weight, and my type 2 went into remission.

So I tend to eat with more regard now.
I respect the point of view of posters who say 'something has to kill you', and 'you can't live forever'.
Fair enough, but as I said, I'm not like that, it's not my viewpoint.

It took a lot of effort to lose the weight, but I'll be damned if diabetes was going to have a chance of killing me, and I'll be damned if I'm simply going to swop it for something else to have a chance to kill me.

I've got a lot of things I still want to do, I see this as my second chance, and I don't intend to give anything the opportunity to stand in the way if I don't have to.
 
There seems to be some misunderstanding of risk assessment and probabilities.

To pick a quote from page 1:

"The report states that once an individual reaches the 510 grams (18 oz) weekly limit for red meat, every 48 grams (1.7 oz) of processed meat consumed a day increases cancer risk by 21%."

Now if you think that it means that you add 21% to the existing percentage risk then that implies that if you eat 250 gms of processed meat when over the red meat limit you are certain (in fact over 105%) to get cancer.

In reality there is a percentage increase in a small risk. These scare reports never seem to say that, for example, "your risk is 1 in 500 and could increase to 1.21 in 500" because that is an accurate way of explaining the change in risk but is not headline grabbing.

There is also comparative risk.
An absolute risk figure means nothing if it is not put into context by comparing with other risks.

For example, eating cheese wrapped in ham instead of cheese wrapped in bread may increase your cancer risk slightly, but decrease your risk due to high blood glucose and increased weight. If the benefits outweigh the risks then you have a risk assessment that supports eating ham (in the circumstances that you assessed).

"Don't eat ham, it gives you cancer" is a simplistic, misleading and unsupported statement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
serenity648 said:
I am trying to LCHF and I love ham. It makes a good wrappers for food instead of bread, and is great in salads or dipped in mayo. However, my brother says ham (I buy mine from Lidl) is bad for me as its processed, and will give me cancer.

Is he right?
Click to expand...
It is probably that the packaging that puts you more at risk than the ham.
http://naturalsociety.com/175-dangerous-chemicals-food-packaging-materials/
Unless you are eating large quantities of ham every day then I personally would not worry too much about it @serenity648
Before all the wrapping that we see today around food it was a simple task to buy ham and other foods.
The grocer wrapped it in greaseproof paper after he had sliced it and it was then wrapped in plain white paper. The same wrapping for other processed foods like bacon and sausages.
 
catherinecherub said:
It is probably that the packaging that puts you more at risk than the ham.
http://naturalsociety.com/175-dangerous-chemicals-food-packaging-materials/
Unless you are eating large quantities of ham every day then I personally would not worry too much about it @serenity648
Before all the wrapping that we see today around food it was a simple task to buy ham and other foods.
The grocer wrapped it in greaseproof paper after he had sliced it and it was then wrapped in plain white paper. The same wrapping for other processed foods like bacon and sausages.
Click to expand...

thanks, I hadnt considered how it is packed.
 
LittleGreyCat said:
There seems to be some misunderstanding of risk assessment and probabilities.

To pick a quote from page 1:

"The report states that once an individual reaches the 510 grams (18 oz) weekly limit for red meat, every 48 grams (1.7 oz) of processed meat consumed a day increases cancer risk by 21%."

Now if you think that it means that you add 21% to the existing percentage risk then that implies that if you eat 250 gms of processed meat when over the red meat limit you are certain (in fact over 105%) to get cancer.

In reality there is a percentage increase in a small risk. These scare reports never seem to say that, for example, "your risk is 1 in 500 and could increase to 1.21 in 500" because that is an accurate way of explaining the change in risk but is not headline grabbing.

There is also comparative risk.
An absolute risk figure means nothing if it is not put into context by comparing with other risks.

For example, eating cheese wrapped in ham instead of cheese wrapped in bread may increase your cancer risk slightly, but decrease your risk due of high blood glucose and increased weight. If the benefits outweigh the risks then you have a risk assessment that supports eating ham (in the circumstances that you assessed).

"Don't eat ham, it gives you cancer" is a simplistic, misleading and unsupported statement.
Click to expand...

Eat cheese.
 
SunnyExpat said:
Eat cheese.
Click to expand...
Serious risk of Listeria. in Belgium they had a major problem with cheese. It's not cancer I agree, but it's not nice either, and it kills young children. I presume you are old enough not to worry on that score.

Don't touch some blue cheeses since thay have strange bacteria, and can give copper poisoning. as happened in France recently. Again, its not cancer, but it happened so risk went up to 100%. I seem to remember that the Laughing Cow had to be withdrawn for a while due to a health scare too.

Is cheese a safe alternative to Ham?
 
Oldvatr said:
Serious risk of Listeria. in Belgium they had a major problem with cheese. It's not cancer I agree, but it's not nice either, and it kills young children. I presume you are old enough not to worry on that score.

Don't touch some blue cheeses since thay have strange bacteria, and can give copper poisoning. as happened in France recently. Again, its not cancer, but it happened so risk went up to 100%. I seem to remember that the Laughing Cow had to be withdrawn for a while due to a health scare too.

Is cheese a safe alternative to Ham?
Click to expand...

Reductio ad absurdum, not impressed really.
 
I think it is time to close this thread.
The OP who asked the question has had plenty of answers, some provocative and some useful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top