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

packed hams / meats

coby said:
.........
I do find that red meat fills me more than white meats, but not sure why.
Click to expand...

I suspect that red meats are more satiating because of their higher fat content.
I too find fat in meat or fish to make it more satiating while fat with carbs isn't. But strangely I can eat lots of fat with protein (in the form of cheese) even after a filling meal. I guess this is a case of what Dr Giles Yeo calls 'chocolate cake' belly. in that I find room for it when I couldn't find room for what I was eating before it.
 
ianf0ster said:
Personally I don't object to them being cheeky like that. But it made me think id nitrites in processed meat are so bad for us why is celery not given a cancer warning?
Click to expand...

Interesting article from the guardian about why nitrates and nitrites in red meat can be problematic.
Yes, bacon really is killing us | Meat | The Guardian
When nitrates interact with certain components in red meat (haem iron, amines and amides), they form N-nitroso compounds, which cause cancer.
 
coby said:
I just found this about them x

We are a family business specialising in locally sourced meat all direct from our own abattoir. Roycroft Farm, Bramshall, UK
Click to expand...
thats brilliant. I am glad there are still some around. I am in Mid Wales, and there isnt that sort of service where I am.
 
EllieM said:
When nitrates interact with certain components in red meat (haem iron,
Click to expand...
its interesting that we need haem iron. Its essential for us. So perhaps the interaction is the issue. Either way, I will continue to eat sliced processed ham and/or bacon a couple of times a week. Its better for me than some alternative which cause my blood sugars levels to rise. Life is all about compromise isnt it.
 
Our domestic water supply is chock full of nitrites and nitriles, the very chemical compounds being added to bacon, so stopping eating bacon will not protect you.
https://www.h2odistributors.com/pages/contaminants/contaminant-nitrite.asp
Note that for centuries, meat has been preserved by rubbing it with salt and sodium nitrate (saltpeter), which used to be organically sourced (ie mined) rather than artificially made by our alchemists in the food industry. We did not suffer any major epidemics of cancer in days gone by when eating meat was not discouraged except by the Robber Barons and the tithe courts, My grandparents used to cure their own meat from the butcher to lay it up for the winter in storage before refrigerators were available. They survived into old age.
 
However, people didnt tend to live long enough for the affects to show. We cant conclude that the cancers would not have happened if life expectancy had been longer for much of the population. Even taking child mortality out of the equation, in my lifetime I can remember a time when living to 70 was once seen as very old
 
I always boil bacon for a minute or so, then sieve it out and cook it dry. I think that many of the soluble chemicals are removed or reduced by this method, which many of my family inherited from my grandmother, who was brought up by her grandmother so it might be something left over from times gone by.
 
One point to note is that some hams and canned meats have a surprising amount of starch added, so you still need to check. Even some of the cold cut turkey and ham meat you get at the delicatessen counter has a lot of additives.
Do note that it is still the unnecessary addition of sugar and carbs that is the problem though: the only reason I turn my nose up at some 'unhealthy meats' is that even they have been stuffed with potato starch, dextrose and who knows what.
 
Read it thoroughly, nothing new or improved stats from the IARC nonsense, from a paper that gets paid by anti-meat. People are rejecting fake versions, leading to a push to force legislative changes. An extract from their article:



No mention of the 50 - 60% of food being plant based with the processed meat, arguably the real problem.

My diet should be higher in meat to mimic the longest living persons in the world and those who have the least non-communicable diseases. Just , that like the China study, intense focus on 1 element and desperately try to find a link, whilst ignoring their favourite plants that have direct links to proven gut issues such as Crohn's, which then increases cancer risk by an estimated 20 x. We could talk celiac and what irritates that, whilst a miniscule amount of humans have technical issues consuming meat (usually following a disease state).

Rather than spout propaganda and ideologically driven nonsense, the Guardian should fact check the results of Paleomedicina, who reverse chronic conditions on a meat based diet:


Maybe the Guardian could assist Paleomedicina get their blocked publications online or again fact check the results here:
https://revero.health/category/success-stories/
 
I found that "Deli" cold cuts especially ham sent my blood sugar sky high especially when I travel in the USA, then I started reading a lot of so called healthy ways of curing meats included putting them in a Salt and Brown sugar brine.
 
Yes, it's also very loaded to present it as 'a far more universal habit than smoking'. You could equally say it's a far more universal habit than drinking coffee, but that wouldn't set up the bias and intent to scare and draw false comparisons. When material is presented in such an emotive and 'cherry picked' fashion, you can largely discount any form of objectivity or honesty. Some of it may be true- it's definitely an interesting article. But points such as the above aren't really being presented in good faith.
 
Last edited:

Also of course the IARC study is notoriously dodgy..

 
That's the clever thing. If you get gifted eloquent writers and half truth a scenario, you can be almost right. E.g. probably the most popular breakfast sausage roll, by a well known establishment has only 20% pork - that should not even be allowed under some sort of consumer misinformation right; and of course the health status of this would be terrible. This would be a perfect of example where the fillers are the danger (and in my view the outer coating), but meat would be blamed.

Last week I needed to get my dinner out being hundreds of miles from home. I went into one of the top 3 supermarkets for some take-way chicken. Every piece of deli chicken had added sugar!


That's another way of making something true that wasn't, by adulterating it.
 
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/public...4LoApBqUBxYkyBC8-7lproOEG-kYF5rhoCqqAQAvD_BwE

It's still 70 for males in the UK. My research into my ancestry does not show many due to cancer apart from the last 100 years. Gout, yes, TB yes, feebleness yes, influenza and syphilis, yes. But not cancer But then we did not have the diagnostic tools. But it does seem that cancer is a more modern disease and rising relentlessly. The major cause of death used to be a heart attack or failure, but while it is still prevalent, it is no longer the primary killer it used to be.
 
The article you cite says:-
"by 2019, life expectancy at birth in England had increased to 80 years for males and 83.7 years for females (see Figure 2). However, the Covid-19 pandemic caused life expectancy in 2020 to fall for males to 78.7 years and for females to 82.7 years, the level of a decade ago." Where did '70 for males in the UK come from?
 
The association between N-nitrosin compounds as a carcinogen is weak and based on animal studies only. In their quest to prove this they injected animals with large doses of these compounds and then waited for tumours to grow. This is not surprising. Then they linked this to research into what chemicals in tobacco produced the same reactions, and found nitrosamines again. Then they looked at food sources to see where these compounds occurred. They found them in onions first, then coffee beans, then many other foods. Since it is common to occur naturally in the water this is not entirely surprising. But why stop at onions> They extrapolated their research into humans, but injecting humans with suspect compounds is not ethical, so they theorised that there is read across, and hence the panic about cancer-causing pathways. Not proven in vivo.

The association in the human with acetyl compounds was traced by some back to animal products and cooked meats, Now our bodies run on acetyl products, which is the primary fuel we burn (not glucose, but the next stage of dissociation,) so acetyl byproducts that are demonised by these scientists are actually essential for us.

But cancerous cells also thrive on acetyl compounds so this is not a surprise either. Cancers love sugar it seems. Cancer cells are body cells gone wrong, so use the same energy mechanisms - DUH!.

There is a lot of mumbo jumbo behind these claims, but some fairly flimsy science possibly massaged to fit the curve.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2017213/
 
Agree. the King Fund graph tops out at 75.8 in 2020. That is the ONS graph, The Kings fund Fig 2 does show a peak at 79.8 but this is not the official tally.
 

Avoid BBQ source or flavored, also avoid anything marinated or dusted. Some brands do indeed use sugar-loaded wash baths. I used to buy a very well known brand of beef slices in gravy because the stated carb content was <0.5, but they spiked me very badly, and the effect was repeatable, so their declaration appears to be lacking. I also found a brand of faggots that gets my meter very excited. Some brands of fish fingers spike me as much as a sweet & sour takeaway but are low carb on the packaging. Even some packs of frozen peas seem to be adulterated and connected to certain food store chains, It seems Joe Public has a sweet tooth - capisce?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…