WHO report released into processed and red meat finds links with cancer

[Rob_74]

I know it nit picking but Moorey's going to out live us all.

 

[Knuckles]

I know it nit picking but Moorey's going to out live us all.

If he buys another set of pikes, cancer will be the least of his worries.....

 

[pharmaboy]

Pays to look at the figures. Currently it's about 6 out of 100 people in Australia who get bowel or coleo-rectal cancers. Eat processed and red meat and your chances are increased to 7 out of 100. Hardly a 20 pack a day risk taking activity.

!

Slightly wrong . It's eating 50g per day of processed meat. No strong link found for red meat, and it requires 50g every day.

So if you have 2 rashes of bacon every morning, or 2 salami sandwiches every day then your lifetime risk changes by around a 1 in a hundred.

Further only 1 in 3 people will die of the cancer, plus it arrives at a late age. So even if you eat a shit load of processed food, love salami and bacon, are obese and then get colo rectal cancer at 70 which most likely won't kill you, 82% of the time it wasn't anything to do with your processed meats in your diet.

 

[pharmaboy]

Doesn't increase the risk.

Has it been studied?

Or is it just an assumption ?

 

[scblack]

Further only 1 in 3 people will die of the cancer, plus it arrives at a late age. So even if you eat a shit load of processed food, love salami and bacon, are obese and then get colo rectal cancer at 70 which most likely won't kill you, 82% of the time it wasn't anything to do with your processed meats in your diet.

Yup, and from my understanding, it is not a causal link at all either.

I know I eat plenty of processed meats (not over the top), but the people who are eating more than 50g per day sound to me like people who are not terribly health conscious anyway. I mostly eat cereals for breakfast, have fresh meats mostly and my health is generally excellent except slightly high cholesterol.

I will continue to eat lashings of bacon when I get the urge.:love:

 

[DMan]

Yup, and from my understanding, it is not a causal link at all either.

I know I eat plenty of processed meats (not over the top), but the people who are eating more than 50g per day sound to me like people who are not terribly health conscious anyway. I mostly eat cereals for breakfast, have fresh meats mostly and my health is generally excellent except slightly high cholesterol.

I will continue to eat lashings of bacon when I get the urge.:love:

Yeah, I was like "maybe I could cut down". Not that I eat a lot of processed meat. But then they fucking dissed bacon and now it's on!!!

 

[Calvin27]

Damn, I am going to have to moderate my chirizo habit. Is chirozo included since it is a sausage?

 

[wesdadude]

I mostly eat cereals for breakfast

Watch out, most of those are packed with sugar!

 

[pink poodle]

I've been eating far too much kransky and mustard of late.

Shit is pure glory with a beer.

I didn't hear mustard on the black list. Don't go jumping to conclusions and causing more problems!

Does eating clean, wholesome foods decrease the risk of cancer?

Supposedly...I've met a few people who made claims of well researched nutrition healing diets. They tend to be odd mofos.

I cebrated the news by eating Bacon for dinner. In a cream sauce. With cheese.

 

[link1896]

I didn't hear mustard on the black list. Don't go jumping to conclusions and causing more problems!



Supposedly...I've met a few people who made claims of well researched nutrition healing diets. They tend to be odd mofos.

I cebrated the news by eating Bacon for dinner. In a cream sauce. With cheese.

Put bacon is my salad to celebrate.

 

[pharmaboy]

I've been eating far too much kransky and mustard of late.

Shit is pure glory with a beer.

Ok, I need to do a scientific experiment here. What is the appropriate mustard style, and does the type of beer make a difference?

I am of course assuming that "shit is pure glory" is local parlance for very nice, and not to be taken literally.

 

[pink poodle]

Ok, I need to do a scientific experiment here. What is the appropriate mustard style, and does the type of beer make a difference?

I am of course assuming that "shit is pure glory" is local parlance for very nice, and not to be taken literally.

It is a little localised addition johnny makes to his beer...you don't want any of it.

 

[stirk]

Cancer of some form or another is practically inevitable for most of us.
There's no escape, but I suppose we can prolong the inevitable.

My entire diet was practically meat, processed or not, it didn't matter to me... nor does the fact that it is/can be carcinogenic.
My lady is vegan due to ethical reasons, and I've been trying bits and pieces of her food lately in an effort to cut back, or eliminate meat consumption (5th day with no meat so far), and in turn - support her on her journey and adjust my own personal health.

Some of that meat-free mock stuff is actually pretty decent!

Had some skewer thingos, and schnitzel the past two nights and quite enjoyed them.
Saying a lot from somebody who hasn't eaten any fruit or vegetables (aside from corn on the very odd occasion and potato) since 1994.

I do love the taste of meat, but we gotta do what we gotta do.
Looming cancer or not!

How are your boobs coming along?

 

[Ezkaton]

Nice now that there's no hormone pumped meat flowing through my body.

 

[redbruce]

Damn, I am going to have to moderate my chirizo habit. Is chirozo included since it is a sausage?

Depends. The study defined processed sausage as cured, fermented, smoked meat, not fresh meat sausages.

However Chorizo comes in both forms.

 

[stirk]

Inconclusive, limited, probably are all commonly used in the q&a.

I'll enjoy my cured hams and steak knowing other foods I eat with it are (supposedly) healthy, until a report is conducted on it....


http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/Monographs-Q&A_Vol114.pdf

 

[scblack]

Here is an article in the Financial Review today - copied from Washington Post.

It seems statistics don't tell the REAL answer, as many of us know.

Cancer, bacon and misrepresenting statistics


"Bacon may increase your risk of colorectal cancer by a bit, but the World Health Organisation appears to have been after the best headline."

by Justin Fox

You have of course heard the sad news about bacon. As the World Health Organisations International Agency for Research on Cancer put it Monday in a news release:
"The experts concluded that each 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18 percent."
How much is 50 grams of processed meat? In bacon terms it's about two slices. Just to be clear, it isn't that eating two pieces of bacon will increase your colorectal cancer risk by 18 percent. It's that eating two pieces of bacon every day for the rest of your life will.
But here's the important question that isn't directly addressed in the pages and pages of information released Monday by the IARC or in any of the subsequent news coverage that I read: What's the risk of colorectal cancer to begin with?

To illustrate how much this can matter: In 1995, the U.K.'s Committee on Safety in Medicines issued a warning that third- generation oral contraceptive pills increased the risk of thrombosis by 100 percent. What that meant was that the risk of getting thrombosis -- potentially life-threatening blood clots in the legs or lungs -- went from one in 7,000 for women taking second-generation birth control pills to two in 7,000 for those taking the third-generation variety.
Not a huge risk, then. But a 100 percent risk increase sounds quite ominous. As psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer describes in his book "Risk Savvy," the warning scared many women away from the pill. One result was an estimated 13,000 additional abortions the following year in England and Wales. Another was, ironically, a lot of thrombosis cases - pregnancies and abortions are much more likely to bring on the condition than does taking a third-generation birth control pill.
Absolute risk

Information about relative risk can be misleading, then, unless it's presented in the context of absolute risk. So what's the absolute risk of getting colorectal cancer? To sum up tables from the National Cancer Institute, men men 60 and younger face almost 5 percent chance of getting colorectal cancer in their lifetimes, and a greater than 2 percent chance of dying from it. For women it's about 4.5 percent and 1.9 percent.


Colorectal cancer, then, is a relatively common and deadly disease. It tends to hit people later in life, when they're eventually going to die of something in any case. But still, it's worth trying to avoid. Let's say you're a man, you have about a 5 percent chance of eventually getting colorectal cancer, and you up your bacon consumption by two pieces a day. That increases your cancer risk to almost 6 percent -- not a trivial jump.
Unlike the ill-advised and since-revoked US dietary recommendations against cholesterol, these processed-meat cancer-risk estimates are based on years and years of empirical research. The 18 percent figure comes from a 2011 meta-analysis, published in the open-source journal PLOS One, of nine different studies of colorectal cancer.
It's just an estimate, and it's always possible that other things that processed-meat eaters tend to do - such as standing around grills full of burning charcoal - raise their cancer risk. Still, it wouldn't be unreasonable to make changes in your diet based on this evidence (and similar but weaker evidence on the link between red meat and cancer). I like bacon a lot, but I'd rather have a five in 100 chance of getting colorectal cancer than a six in 100 chance. Good on the World Health Organisation for getting the word out. What I don't understand, though, is why they didn't present the risks in those terms.
Justin Fox is a Bloomberg View columnist writing about business.

The Washington Post

Read more: http://www.afr.com/opinion/cancer-bacon-and-misrepresenting-statistics-20151027-gkk8g7#ixzz3posb8Wq9

 

[pharmaboy]

Here is an article in the Financial Review today - copied from Washington Post.

It seems statistics don't tell the REAL answer, as many of us know.

Oh contrare! Statistics tell the real and proper answer as highlighted by the article, it's the headlines from the WHO that don't.

Most statistics of risk are presented as relative risk, but as the author says, it's pointless without also the absolute incidence, or the event rate.

I reckon it's fair to say that eating bacon everyday is probably too much. Im sure most of us are safe - surely it's not rocket science that slamming down 2 rashes of bacon every day for breaky is probably a bit overdone.

 

[The Duckmeister]

They all seem to forget that the leading cause of death is life....

 

[Boom King]

Processed meats are not normal.

Some of that meat-free mock stuff is actually pretty decent!

So a piece of salt cured pork isn't normal. But a piece of facon, where someone has done fuck knows what to a poor innocent soy bean in order for it to taste like bacon is better?

I await studies into heavily processed soy products....