[Research] Several studies show red meat most likely does not increase cancer risk

source: youtube

Share this post

Leave a comment

Comments (69)

  • Loyce Olson Reply

    To preface my comment, I have a BS in biomedical science and am working on a doctorate studying many different diseases. Only certain types of brain tumors in certain areas of the brain would cause a change in his thinking. You realize most of the brain is not used for cognition of thoughts, right? He could have a horrible tumor on his occipital lobe, but that wouldn't have anything to do with conscious thinking because all that lobe does is vision. It's so much more complicated than brain tumor equals irrational thoughts. You seem to also have a gross misunderstanding of how cancer is formed. Anyone can get cancer at any time. Your body is constantly killing off cancerous cells on a normal basis no matter how healthy you try to be. It's a part of being human. Yes, other factors can raise your risks, but everyone is at risk all the time.

  • Myrtis Cartwright Reply

    He did say we should watch our sugar intake too. My husband doesn't go in for sweets, he loves red meat. Whereas I don't eat much meat at all, but I know I have a problem with carbs. High fat low carb seems counterintuitive. Guess we just need to eat more salad, haha.

  • Arno Hand Reply

    > I believe having the ability to do something does not mean you should do it. Nor does it mean shouldn't. Nor does YOU think shouldn't mean NOBODY should. >I'm by no means arguing with you about this because my personal taste differs from yours. Yes, you absolutely are. Not taste as in actual tongue and taste buds, but your taste of what should and should not be. I agree, we do not NEED to eat animals to survive; but we WANT to and CAN, and EVOLVED to. >We've turned animals into products. The way we raise, treat and abuse animals is not comparable to the way wild animals hunt, kill and eat each other. Yes, it is still animals eating animals. But I'm sure you understand the difference between someone hunting a single animal every now and then to feed his/her family and a ceaseless global massacre. No, I don't see any difference between the "ceaseless global massacre" and a person going out and killing animals to eat. The treatment of the animals in the meat industry is horrible, I agree, but that is our shitty meat industry, not inherent nor universally true. >called "appeal to nature". Appeal to nature is, as you said, claiming something is good because it is natural. I do not make that claim. I don't think it is good or bad, I think it just IS. It just is the way things are, and is in no way immoral. >That isn't an argument to continue eating meat though. Nor is that my argument. My argument is showing YOUR arguments amount to emotionally driven nonsense, and a misunderstanding of how meat industry COULD work (and does in some places). >So the risk of millions of people losing their jobs is minimal and based on an unrealistic hypothesis. Whether it happens over night, or over a generation, it is still a loss of millions of jobs. That isn't an "unrealistic hypothesis", it absolutely IS the loss of livelihoods for millions of people. From immigrants in meat packing plants, to fish farmers, to the truck drivers that bring the corn and grain to feed the animals. Lost jobs ARE lost jobs, and you cannot just shrug them off as if the jobs wouldn't go away. Yes, other industries would get more jobs, but at even CLOSE to the rate of job loss? Highly unlikely. >Okay, so since environmental, ethical and economical reasons are not enough to convice If you gave solid environmental and economical reasons, they might be. Your reasons are against our current, horribly-regulated meat industry; they would not hold up against a meat industry with closed circuits and grass feeding and less waste and more green initiatives and on and on. Your arguments ARE perfectly valid arguments for why the meat industry in this country in particular, but the world over as well, need reform. NOT for why they should just be dismantled. >There are many diseases associated with eating meat and other animal products. As discussed earlier, various types of cancer are associated with the consumption of red meat. No, there are diseases associated with eating LARGE AMOUNTS of meat. Not with the occasional burger, or chicken dinner, or bit or fish. Your argument against eating meat falls completely apart here, because you are comparing eating a LOT of meat with eating ANY meat. >We can eat meat, however that does not mean we should. Again, nor does anything mean we should not. All you have given is why YOU think we should not, why YOU believe it is unethical. You have not convinced me it is anything but perfectly fine. It isn't good to eat meat, nor is it bad. It just is. >But the cellulose we consume doesn't affect us negatively. Actually, it can in a number of ways. Can cause some pretty wicked farts (not so bad), and diarrhea if you have too much of it. Having too much can also cause bowel obstruction, like most plant matter. But the problems from it are pretty minor. Just digestive upset, really. >The average female should have an protein intake of about 46 grams a day, for average males it is 56 grams Did you even bother to read all of that? It states quite clearly below it, some people need more protein. Some need a LOT more. A sedentary lifestyle doesn't need a whole lot, a construction worker likely needs a good deal more. And while this is possible to get from many means, meat tends to be one of the easiest. >4) "We have canines and incisors." Even some herbivores, like hippos have (HUGE) incicisors. Some herbivores have incisors, none have incisors AND canines AND molars. That is the difference. We have all 3 types, and only omnivores have all 3 types. Also noticed you just skipped the whole "how our jaws are built" part of it. >Humans are capable of thriving[9] on a plant based diet and if this also benefits the environment why oppose it? Humans are capable at living at 14,000 feet, but it sucks a lot up there. Humans are capable of living off millet, moss and lentils, but it would suck a lot too. Humans are capable of living without sugar, or beds, or electricity, or coffee, or books, but losing any of those things would suck like hell. Being capable of living without something is not a good argument for living without that thing. >But that does not mean that we should eat meat. And again, it is coming down to your "should". I agree, it doesn't mean we should. Nor does it mean we shouldn't. It just is. > and can even be associated with a higher rate of death[11] another one I am guessing you didn't bother to actually read. Read the end of the conclusion. Here, I will paste it. "Given the observational study designs with the inherent possibility of residual confounding and reverse causation phenomena, a cautious interpretation of the results is recommended."

  • Boyd Lynch Reply

    The article that you posted only suggested a correlation between high estrogen levels in men and breast cancer. I didn't see anything regarding soy? Luckily, the phytoestrogen found in soy does not raise your actual estrogen levels (like the actual estrogen found in cow's milk might I add). In fact, phytoestrogens have been shown to possibly reduce the risk of certain cancers due to blocking the effects of estrogen. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524299/pdf/IJPH-44-742.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/pdf/nihms271669.pdf

  • Deangelo Veum Reply

    >This is the key. Its a lot harder to plan a vegetarian/vegan diet. Plus you have to actually get your kid to follow it. I know of exactly no parents without stories about things their kid refuses to eat. It's not hard at all to plan such a diet. Vegetarians tend to be much more educated in nutrition as well. >Unbalanced omnivore diets tend to be in excess of their needs, as you pointed out with childhood obesity on the rise. They tend to be in excess of calories but often exclude fruits and vegetables. Vitamin deficiencies are common in bad omnivore diets as well. Long term damage to the heart, liver and kidneys is easy to cause with a bad omnivorous diet. There is a reason that the AND says that vegetarian diets can lower your risk for many diseases. >Unbalanced vegetarian diets tend to be unbalanced in deficiencies. And its actually impossible to get a balanced vegan diet without supplements. Deficiencies that are minor and easily fixed. It's easier to undo the damage of low iron than that done by meat consumption. Vegans don't need to supplement. Fermented foods contain B12 and the body recycles it. Soy milk and bread are usually enriched as well. >Our diets include meat because we are meat eaters. Your statement is the same as saying somebody is forcing their kids to breath or drink water. Its in our nature. Naturalistic fallacy. The ability to live on a variety of things in various environments doesn't imply that we need all things that are available. Meat is calorie dense and has lots of protein. It's great when food is scarce. Food isn't really scarce anymore and other protein sources are much better for you. Evolution gets you to the age of procreation. Longevity is another story and the research shows that vegetarians live longer and healthier lives. You want meat? Great. Eat it. I can raise my kids in a healthy way that is well supported by modern medical science. They can eat whatever they want when they are old enough to decide for themselves. Omivorous diets are not the default. Good health is more likely without meat. The research supports that. Setting your kid up for a lower chance of heart disease, cancer and diabetes is wrong? Give me a break. We learn new things from science and if you're made uncomfortable by the advancements of science, you should figure out why rather than spouting unscientific nonsense based on your biases.

  • Antonietta Moore Reply

    Life is not fair, but even research in Apes show they don't like unfairness...

  • Adele Greenfelder Reply

    Studies suggest a possible link. There's a good reason recommended red meat intake is 700g per week.

  • Adolf D'Amore Reply

    Aren't there studies though that show it does something?

  • Humberto Steuber Reply

    Alright! I only eat breakfast. Often brocolli or some other low carb veg, with some type of protein, chicken or red meat, sometimes tuna. With 50-100grams butter and some coconut oil and cheeese. I try to never go over 150 grams of fat.

  • Clarabelle Stehr Reply

    While a commendable initiative, I always question whether or not programs like these are effective. From a human standpoint, I'm glad we ensure students have food to eat. But does it improve schools? I'm a big believer in the idea that our capacity to 'change' is limited. We can only, both individually and collectively, focus on a few things at a time. People have lives, organizations have other priorities, and a lot of people just won't be that interested in the issue(s) to begin with. I laud schools that take the initiative to have mobile libraries and send school lunches to homes. I know that these programs are run by people who are genuinely compassionate and who genuinely sacrifice to get this much done. But when people see these problems and ask "what is being done about it?" schools can say we've created mobile libraries and send school lunches home. It doesn't really fix the problems and it barely alleviates them. But when you have a solution, as inadequate as it may ultimately be, it allows an excuse to not do more and to not do something else. * Kids aren't doing well enough in school. -- We need them to study more, so to make doing so easier and more accessible, we've put libraries on buses. * There are systemic issues challenging these kids that make even studying difficult. -- We include meals with their books, studies^^^^TM show that helps. Mrs X, Mr Y, and Ms Z have spearheaded this campaign and sacrificed a lot of time and gone out into the community to raise funds for this. They are all such great people and we're proud to have them at our school. * Really? It seems like not starving is a pretty low bar, but it sounds like they're good people and have worked hard to get this program, so keep up the good work! X, Y, and Z probably have worked hard, but the struggle sells itself. Its not about the efficacy, its about the fact people *are* struggling to fight these issues. This concerned parent is working their own job, struggling to pay their own bills, trying to live their own life, that they don't have the time, inclination, or effort to really tackle this issue. Teachers don't either. Neither do administrators. Parents want to know *something* is being done, and eventually, something new is being done if it seems to not be working. Teachers want more to be done. Pretty much always, because they see how rarely things ever work. But they spend too much time and energy tackling the problems right in front of them to get at the larger causes. Administrators spend most of their time ensuring teacher have enough duct tape to hold everything together. Now, as a collective, we get some time, some energy, and some inclination to focus on some issues. But there is a limit to it because we're all in the position of teachers in this example about most things in our lives. So if someone says "we have mobile libraries" that is often "good enough" in the face of "how am I going to pay rent?" or "how am I going to afford new clothes for my kid?" because piling on worry and concern on top of worry and concern is suffocating. I also think this turns punitive after a point as well. "Look, those kids get food delivered to their neighborhoods and libraries, and they *still* don't study?" I think you can see this with a lot of other issues too. Like we all know about asbestos, and many of us know it causes mesothelioma, but fewer know it causes lung cancer even though more people die from it. We've had all these lawsuits and regulations surrounding asbestos. But how many of us know about radon gas, which [causes 5-7x as many deaths?](http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/radon/radon-fact-sheet)? Seriously, it is like the 5th or 6th leading cause of deadly cancer. Have you [seen this map?](https://www.epa.gov/radon/find-information-about-local-radon-zones-and-state-contact-information#radonmap) FYI, if you live in the red you should probably test your home. You can get a test kit [here](http://sosradon.org/test-kits). These deaths are [very preventable](https://www.epa.gov/radon/how-protect-your-family-radon-when-buying-newly-built-home). But why don't we know about it nearly as much? One, because we can only promote, promulgate, and be outraged collectively by a few things at once and lead paint, asbestos, and BPA have eaten most of our outrage. Two, someone is much more likely to get lung cancer with radon if you also smoke. Same with asbestos. We've collectively decided smokers dying deserves tut-tutting rather than compassion. So while we could prevent tens of thousands of deaths every year, its just not worth it to us because smokers get what they deserve. A lot of policy measures like discriminatory hiring practices and very high taxes are more punitive and PR than actual attempts to improve public health. Sounds a lot like failing schools, right? Kids don't study, their parents don't raise them right, they don't have "the culture," they're violent, they're potheads, and so on. Let's create standardized testing, enact zero-tolerance policies, and take care of the "bad" teachers. Ineffective hand waving more about doing something than fixing things that are often not only ineffective, but often somehow manage to worsen the situation.

  • Juston Torp Reply

    When looking for evidence either way I found: http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/09/a-single-cigarette-can-raise-the-risk-of-cancer-and-heart-disease/ > a new report from the U.S. Surgeon General concludes that even a single cigarette can cause immediate harm and raise the risk of diseases like cancer and heart disease. Personally, I don't believe their results that 1/year is bad for you in any measurable way. I wouldn't be surprised if you also read a study that said that exact opposite and shows 1/year is good for you. The problem with these kinds of studies is they are generally done through [p-hacking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging). All you have to do is find 20 health measures (weight, diabetes rate, cancer rate, heart disease rate, etc.) and then find two groups (one that never smokes and one that smokes absurdly little) and you will expect to find at least one health measure to be randomly worse/better in your group of smokers. In fact, you'll probably find that at least one measure is so different between the groups that you'd only expect it to be that skewed 5% (1/20) of the time just by chance! But since you did 20 test, you'll expect to find one. And this 5% (p=.95) chance is the generally accepted cutoff for publishing academic research, so by magic you have a publishable result. So I tend to feel that 1/year is probably not measurably bad, even though the study says it is bad. That being said, I think that this goes well beyond "relative moderation" into practically no existent usage. I still believe the evidence points to that *no amount of cigarettes are good for you*, however.

  • Janelle Tillman Reply

    Your second link states that 'we function best eating both animals and plants'. This references a study which concludes that as best we can tell, hunter gatherer nutrition usually consisted largely of meat. This does not lead to the conclusion that 'we function best eating both animals and plants', it leads to the conclusion that 'in times where we didn't have the ability to harvest enough food, we ate meat'. This makes sense, as meat is calorically dense, high in protein and other vitamins, and tastes very good to most people, but it doesn't mean that we literally, necessarily function better as individual humans when we eat both. The second reason listed is that meat has nutrients that plant sources can't provide. If you look carefully at all the nutrients they list, they are all either produced by the body (and therefore nonessential) or are available in some form from animal products. Reason 3 is meat doesn't raise risk of CV disease or diabetes. That's fine, but simply null advantage, not a benefit. Reason 4 is meat contains high quality protein. You can get all the protein you need, including all essential amino acids, from plant sources. It may take a specific tweaking of the diet to achieve desired protein levels (at least 1 g/lb/day for optimal muscle growth), but it can be done. Reason 5 is 'there is only a very weak correlation with cancer'. Definitely not a benefit, and the strength of correlation isn't exactly settled science. Reason 6 is there are no proven benefits to avoiding meat. Again, not a benefit of eating meat. And reason 7 says you can be completely healthy while not eating meat, so. The third link starts with a claim that we are 'genetically programmed for optimal functioning on a diet including meat'. It links to... itself, and the article it links to does not support the conclusion that we are 'genetically programmed for optimal functioning on a diet including meat'. Then it talks about how modern health problems weren't problems when cavemen were living off of diets including meat, ignoring the fact that our diets have changed massively in other ways as well that confound the causation of these modern health problems. It keeps blood sugar stable because it has fat and protein. Okay. You can also get fat and protein from plant sources. Not an actual advantage except for convenience. Then it talks about the benefits for muscle growth, of which there are some, but again, you can get protein from plant sources, and creatine is produced in the body. You can also supplement creatine, which most bodybuilders do anyway, and that creatine is synthesized in a lab, not extracted from animals. Then it talks about how vegetarians are at higher risk of neurotransmitter issues because... meat has all the essential amino acids. Plants also have all the essential amino acids, and several popular ones [have all of them in one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_protein). It references a study suggesting vegetarians have poorer health outcomes. [The study in question](http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/04April/Pages/Vegetarians-have-poorer-quality-of-life-study-claims.aspx) has an absurd number of limitations and flaws, and emphatically it does not prove causation. Then it says meat is a good source of amino acids and iron. Well, yes, but again, you can also get all amino acids and iron from plant sources. It then goes on to say that vitamin B12 is not found in plant sources. However, it is produced commercially by [fermentation of bacteria.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#Synthesis_and_industrial_production) Therefore, you do not need to eat meat to get B12. And the first article amounts to 'we could potentially raise animals for meat responsibly in environmental terms (although we don't right now)'. Nothing to do with the benefits to individual humans eating meat, just an argument of potential convenience. >our brains are better when we eat meat. The whole advantage of humans is about being more intelligent. This was facilitated in exponential fashion when we developed the concept of cooking meat, yes, but there's no reason for it today, when we can get all necessary nutrients from non-animal sources. >Most of the animals we eat can't even survive without us at this point, assuming we did stop eating meat we'd just end up putting them down. Presumably these animals could lead pleasurable lives if we decided not to kill them and instead help them lead pleasurable lives. And then we could stop breeding animals we don't use for meat anymore completely, or else just breed them for non-traumatic/suffering inducing purposes like wool from sheep and milk from cows and goats (who aren't separated from their calves). >The ethical argument is a poor one, some people feel bad for animals, that's all this really comes down to. You do not understand the ethical argument well if you think it's down to 'some people feel bad for animals'. There are many serious philosophers with significant ethical arguments against the killing of sentient animals; see Peter Singer's Animal Liberation or Practical Ethics.

  • Trudie Beatty Reply

    Only with people who take themselves too seriously.

  • Hector Thompson Reply

    Can someone show me the research behind the theory!?

  • Norberto Daugherty Reply

    "Research shows that a moderately low-carbohydrate diet can help the heart, as long as protein and fat selections come from healthy sources." i.e. not red meat, bacon, etc.

  • Brando Kunde Reply

    Drink tons of water / cranberry juice, eat lots of red meat, take vitamin b pills daily, do lots of fat burning exercise, sit in a sauna, and try to eat cleaner, low fat foods.

  • Mathias Sporer Reply

    That people who take themselves too seriously are the most boring to be around.

  • Sabrina McCullough Reply

    Thank you for your help. Gonna' use this in my defence tomorrow, wish me luck! Have you any suggestion or show interest in my research proposal, you can have a read if you'd like.

  • Alphonso Nienow Reply

    >Good... > plans now require maternity coverage and can't discriminate by charging women higher premiums. Before Obamacare, there were huge additional premium costs for the privilege of starting a family Well, you say it's good. It's not. First, imposing life on someone else is wrong. It is a bad thing. And if you take an [objective calculation](https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/benatars-asymmetry/) of what life is, you can understand it's not something worth doing. So encouraging that bad thing is a bad idea. Also see r/antinatalism. Second, most people having kids are dumb and poor. The higher you go up on educated and $ worth, the less kids people are having. So this encourages poor people to breed more poor people. Poor people are a burden on productive members of society and are not offered a fair chance to get educated & be productive. Creating more of that is a bad thing. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/07/childlessness-falls-family-size-grows-among-highly-educated-women/ The title is misleading but the link shows that educated women have downsized the number of kids over time while uneducated haven't. They are the ones spamming babies. >my birth control has no copay. At what cost? Birth control pills = type 1 carcinogen. [As contraception use increases, so does cancer](http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/features/birth-control-cancer-which-methods-raise-lower-risk). iuds, pills, whatever other hormone/steroid/metal based birth control all increase risk of other diseases which drive up healthcare cost. they are funding the wrong end of the spectrum. instead of free birth control, there should be free vasectomies and abortions. Otherwise informative post.

  • Jamaal Gleichner Reply

    It certainly does tell you if you have the gene shows an increase risk of breast cancer. If I am not mistaken I believe that gene also can effect uterine cancers as well. It tells you basically if you are more susceptible to things, not if you have that thing in the present or if you will have it. But that there's an increased risk.

  • Mario Hamill Reply

    I agree. It's controversial at the hospital. We advise parents to follow a regular diet low in fat and sugars. Red meat only 1x a week. After 18 they can choose whatever

  • Mariah Maggio Reply

    I don't mean to be a know it all or whatever but your assumption is 100% wrong. [This link from the CDC](http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpvandoropharyngealcancer.htm) clearly shows that oral HPV can and does lead to oropharyngeal cancer. It's misinformed to assume that oral sex can't lead to cancer. Hate to be the bearer of bad news but the dental dam guy is correct. Nobody wants to have that conversation with a new prospective partner but it only takes one bad judgement to put you at risk to all sorts of STDs. Get tested not only for your own piece of mind but also for your partners'. Be safe.

  • Jermey Ernser Reply

    People who take themselves too seriously.

  • Chandler Kling Reply

    "If the risk of lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, and stroke aren't enough to scare you off cigarettes, how about all those wrinkles you'll get?Study after study shows just how extensively smoking ages the skin. 'It does a lot of what the sun does. It just does it inside (the body) instead of outside,'It makes the skin weak, tired, and listless looking.’ If that weren't enough, smoking also yellows the skin, interferes with its blood supply, and slows wound healing. 'So if you injure your skin it may not heal as well if you're a smoker."mercy said"

  • Ernestina Effertz Reply

    >For example now you claim i said icelanders are a spezies. Nobody claimed this. Then why bring up Icelanders at all? I was talking about the diversity of species. Your response was to cite the relative homogeneity of a single country’s human population. Why was this relevant? >It is one example how racemixing is bad, and i can give you 100 more. Is it? I don’t think it says that. What is says is that interracial children are slightly more likely to inherit a single burdensome trait. But it doesn’t weigh that trait against potential benefits of coming from a particular coupling and then declare the risk more worrisome than the gain, which is what the study would have to do to bolster the claim that “racemixing is bad” (from the point of view of health). >Wow, this really shows me how much you know about evolution. This means not at all we are 1% different than them, this would also mean we are 17% the same as a bannana. 99% of our dna is junk dna, it don't gets used, and the 1% difference we have is the actuall dna that gets used. Yes, but if that “junk DNA” is the same “junk DNA” a chimpanzee has, then the two genomes are indeed 99 percent (or 98.8 percent, in this case) the same. That is how figures work, after all. I’m still not sure what you’re even on about? >Again i could name 100 Examples. Their bones are different, their muscles are different, their face structure are different, hell, they even get more prostate cancer because they have more testostoron than we do. How can someone be so naive and think evolution just counts for skin colour and nothing else? I’m sorry, “the bones” are different? Do tell? But again, you’re not even really understanding the terms here: I didn’t say that the “only” anatomical difference between one race and another was skin color. I said that skin color was the “difference between what you deem two separate races.” If a guy walked into the room right now with the exact facial structure of the average white man but black skin, would you call him white? No, you’d call him black, wouldn’t you? The melanin level in his skin is the feature you use to determine which race is which. >What? Nobody ever claimed this. But what we understand as a german sheepheard will be destroyed if you mix it with a poodle, and never you get a german sheepheard out of it again. Yes, just as wolves have been “destroyed” by our breeding of domestic dogs. Right? >You in your buble hate all the racist, without realizing that every african tribe, and every muslim shithole is racist as fuck. And thats why you will raise the son of your wife that don't even has your own dna, and other people go and make their own kids. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZlFBSRrSR0

  • Lavonne Ernser Reply

    > It is very possible to isolate what substances are harmful to humans and which lead to a significantly higher risk of cancer. Science can ever identify foods which are very good at preventing some very specific types of cancer but not others. If a researcher studies lizards or bugs or whatever, they can raise those bugs or lizards from "birth" or collect them from un-impacted study sites or whatever their study dictates. In that case, so long as the study was designed properly, the researcher can be reasonably certain that whatever results arise from their experiment are real and there probably aren't any significant confounding factors (meaning there probably aren't any issues that would skew the results without the researcher's knowledge). Unlike lizards, humans can't be raised in a lab or locked in a box for the duration of a study so there are *always* confounding factors in studies on humans. This is particularly problematic with studies attempting to link cancer with potential carcinogens (i.e. things that may be carcinogenic but aren't yet designated as such) because there are so many potentially carcinogenic substances people come in contact with every day, many of which the subjects themselves may not be aware of. For example, let's say you want to look for the carcinogenic effects of meat in a population of adults living in upstate New York and you find that eating *less* meat was correlated with *higher* rates of cancer (yes, i know that's opposite of the findings from OP's question). Maybe you think you found something really neat there, huh? But what if meat doesn't actually have anything to do with it? What if something else entirely produced those results but you didn't see it because you weren't looking for it? For example, a lot of groundwater has radon in it (a naturally occurring radioactive gas) and most people are completely unaware of that fact. The amount of radon in groundwater is generally low enough that it shouldn't cause any problems but heating water and running it through a shower head does increase the amount of radon available to breathe in (as opposed to what you'd get from taking a cold bath). Unfortunately, neither you nor the subjects in your meat = cancer study were aware that there's a slightly higher amount of radon in the water in upstate New York (btw, there really is radon in groundwater but IDK if concentrations are truly higher in NY. I made that bit up). So, what if the people who ate less meat also tended to take longer, more frequent showers than those who ate more meat (e.g. perhaps the men in the study ate more meat on average than the women, and the women generally took longer showers than the men because hair). Well, hell. That could potentially invalidate all of your findings. Neither you nor the scientific community would ever know your results were crap because your study *appeared* to be well designed and you never thought to ask your subjects about their personal grooming habits (because why would you ask that in a meat-related cancer study?). It is for this reason that any *individual* study attempting to illustrate a link between a particular human illness and an environmental factor(s), needs to be taken with a grain of salt. No matter how good the study was, how high the n (n = number of participants/samples), or how rigorous the design, you can never be sure that the findings of any study like this are going to hold up over time. It's only when you start seeing the same result over and over again that the truth becomes clear (e.g. studies linking tobacco use to cancers and heart disease. There are lots of others but that was the first that came to mind). Other types of medical studies are much clearer (e.g. does this drug work? Is this treatment effective? Will this test actually find this disease? etc.). However, while they can be collectively important, individual studies aiming to link human diseases or outcomes with environmental factors are inherently squirrely. I did not go into all of this in my original post because this is ELI5, not ELI-Introduction-to-Biostatistics. However, since you seem to be so concerned about my credentials, you will be happy to know that I have a PhD in Oceanography and I am quite proficient in both univariate and several multivariate statistical techniques. I hope that is sufficient to meet your rigorous standards of scientific and statistical literacy, but either way, I've got to get back to work on that journal article that's been sitting on my desk all week. It's simply begging me to run a PERMANOVA and some cluster analyses with SIMPER diagrams. Probably some MDS plots too, and maybe a PCA for the physical data if need be....

  • Thad Howell Reply

    I would say cutting sugar would be better than cutting out all meat. Are there studies that prove otherwise, or do you have any other info on this?

  • Timmothy Smitham Reply

    >Oh this is juicy. Once more I thank you for engaging in calm reasonable discourse with me on the sensitive issue. I engage because we need to, like I said, screaming 'I'm right and you're wrong' isn't going to do anything other than entrench the polar opposite sides. >I'm not against private medical services, that's fine. But I'm sure a private dentist would say "you need the crown/filling/whatever" where as a a state funded or volunteer would say "it's a lot of effort for small improvement, you don't need it but it's up to you" because at the end of the day when doing your work puts food on the table you try to get more of that work. It's fine to get some unnecessary dental work but abortion is more serious than that. It can't be suggested by someone with monetary gain in the situation. Morally it's a more weighty issue but medically it's not much more complicated. It's a day patient procedure with some monitoring as after care and escalation in care if bleeding issues manifest. The 'more serious' part is purely psychological, not medical. And also I'd still say after the costs of the clinic, staff and security, plus additional disposal issues most places won't be making a whole pile of profit. If someone wants to spend €2000 on an abortion they're choosing (that word again) to do that because maybe they've an overnight service or counsellors on staff, they're paying for extra services beyond the medical procedure, like any private medical procedure you can purchase. >What I have heard happen is emotional blackmail. E.g. "I'll never talk to you again, I'll tell your friends/ parents, I'll spread rumors". Note I think this is foul behaviour but it does happen. Once abortion isn't an option, nor is running away, the father will have to take responsibility and accept he can't get out of this lightly. Part of the national debate, on the pro choice side, is the de-stigmatisation of having an abortion. Real women are standing up and telling their stories in order to show the gamut of people who choose the option and for the myriad of reasons. If we can stand united and support those that choose it, it undermines the emotional blackmail. But up til very recently getting pregnant outside of wedlock in and of itself was the utter shame, that's faded a good bit but the pioneers will have a tough road. And no, the father should take his half the responsibility especially if he has sold a family life of support as the choice over the abortion but as it is people are making the choice not to travel and still ending up as separated single parents because one of them goes 'I can't continue to do this'. Access to abortion won't change those outcomes, people sometimes pick one path for the 'right' reasons but it doesn't work out, but access to abortion gives the potential parents one more option when sitting down to discuss things, minus the cost of travelling to the UK. >Granted a relationship that's going no where shouldn't be forced, but I never said they have to stay together only that the biological parents make arrangements for the well-being and health of the child. They can give the kid to the grandparent or friends, as as they pay support. So...you want to hand off a kid to grandparents who might be physically unable to care for a child, or friends? I love my friends like family and would take a bullet for them, and maybe if they died tragically I'd raise their kids but to just step in and go 'ok, I'll take em' have you ever had that close a relationship with your mates like? Of course if the choice to have and not terminate is taken this will still happen but come on! Surely allowing some adult responsibility in not having children via the choice of abortion and avoiding potentially burdening others with your child when you find it too difficult to cope with is better than just going 'here, you have this now'. Do you want to be stuck raising kids that aren't yours and that you didn't choose to have? >Same for previous answer. I'm not demanding the biological parents stay together, just make arrangements for the child's life. But this is what I'm trying to say, what you arrange now cannot be relied upon to last for the duration of 18-22 years depending on how long you've to actively look after the child. People drift apart, meet other people, maybe acquire more kids who's other parent they live with so the new kids become the priority because maybe on of them is sicker, they're definitely younger and need more active care and the salary of the parent paying support won't cover everyone...and so on down the what if rabbit hole. Just look at the family courts, chock full of families in there for lots of reasons, and a bunch of people fighting over the kids, which isn't healthy for anyone. Hell even when ye get married you can't reliably guess where you'll be in 5 yrs so you certainly can't say 'I can do x for the next 20 years of my kids life' Life is way more messy than that. (I'd love to give you proper examples on this but I can't as I'd be doxxing people which isn't good but look around your family and friends, guaranteed messy life shit is happening right now) >Ok I'll Grant you that the 8th needs to be amended in areas like FFA, but a full repeal and abortion on demand is just too far. At least that's a start. >Yes ideally one someone discovered an unwanted pregnancy they should go through all the available options to them except abortion. Except abortion is a) a valid medical procedure and b) is a responsible way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy But I know we are never going to see eye to eye on the movable moral line so I won't try. >Let me jump in here, you sustainability is the criteria for life. They have medical intervention available, medical intervention has worked for premature babies of no younger than 21 weeks and 5 days, a record that has stood for 30 years. Those babies survived with massive medical intervention and is why you would set the term limit at lower again at somewhere around 19 weeks, where no medical technology that exists today can help that foetus survive (and if you want to see the developmental stage of 19 weeks have a google). We can't cure certain things because medical science isn't there, we can't support a pregnancy external to the mother at less than 21 weeks 5 days, that's the viability hard line currently, set the legislative one back to 19 weeks and you're virtually guaranteeing that unless medical science develops entirely artificial means of gestation, that you are terminating well before the viability line where other options like adopting out could be back on the table if you so wanted. >Historically the average lifespan for a human is around 30~40 years old Medical and food technology advancements have raised those life span ages for most of the population, we're talking about where medical science cannot help gestate the foetus further and allow viability extant to the womb. There are no hardened lines in medicine but in the last 30 years we've unlocked the human genome, developed a myriad of smart cancer treatments and drugs to help with all sorts of things but the complexity of pregnancy and the fragility of the foetus makes furthering medical survivability has so far been stagnant for 30 years, a long time in medicine these days. Setting the termination term limit back to 19wks gives ample room for medical advancement and also choice to not carry on with an unwanted pregnancy. >given a push. 'Given a push', what kind of push? Monetary enticement? Social shaming? 'You won't take this child so your a bad person' The adoption process is much more rigorous these days because it should be, it needs to be. Look back at the good aul Magdelan Laundry days when all you needed was an envelope of cash and you could walk out with a baby. Being a parent is hard, a life long commitment of good and bad things and while it's not fool proof those who make it though the adoption process are far more mentally able to adjust to having a child than any randomer who just happens to find their pregnant and says 'ok, I'll keep it'. The fact the adoption process is tough shows that not everyone is capable or prepared to be a parent even when they think they are. Kids are hard. Also, not everyone wants kids, not everyone has that maternal/ paternal yearning, making it easier may have zero effect of the actual numbers of adoptions in categories that are already at their natural maximum. Not every gay couple wants to be Neil Patrick Harris and his family (who were surrogate children anyway but for illustrations purposes they'll do). Elon Musk can say whatever he wants, he's an ideas man with a bunch of cash but to honestly say that the planet that is currently failing to feed vast swathes of it's existing population is underpopulated by a factor of more than 5 is crazy! We can't grow food fast enough to feed everyone and the gate keepers to the food growing revolution are patenting grain for maximum profit. Sort the food levels out for the people we already have, then we can look at large scale expansion. Sometimes you just have to take the karma hits for the cause. I'm not d/v'ing you anyway. Once it's gone legislation is required to define the legal scope of abortion. Repealing the 8th doesn't throw open the abortion floodgates, not in the slightest! It just takes the abortion issue out of the constitution and puts it into the legislative sphere. Even if we got, and passed a repeal referendum tomorrow do you honestly think the current crop of Irish politicians are going to allow anything more than the bare minimum where abortion is concerned? If we're lucky, ffa will be finally covered. If we're lucky the risk of suicide assessment may not require 3 doctors to sign off on you wanting to slash your wrists. If we're lucky we'll help some women who truly need it. The rest of us will just have to keep fighting for the rest of us to get safe and legal abortion if we see fit to choose. Btw, I'm replying using my phone, hence why it takes so long to reply.

  • Kelton Brown Reply

    Oh I see now. It doesn't prove that trt does NOT cause prostate cancer. Basically, you're kinda asking if there's research that shows TRT doesn't increase prostate cancer risk.

  • Laury Block Reply

    Studies show coffee is addictive too.

  • Lucinda Wolff Reply

    I was consuming soy isolate after my workout but after some searching I found that it might raise IGF-1 levels which promotes cancer growth. [Dr. Greger](http://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-soy-is-too-much/) talks about how many servings of soy a day is too much. You would have to eat a lot of tofu to exceed the safe limit. Dr. McDougall talks about a study of people who consume 40g of isolated soy protein a day in a [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHYFOJBU434#t=7m10s). This [study](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17571965) shows that increased IGF-1 levels are associated with increased risk of prostate cancer. > However, given the recent literature indicating that high intake of protein rich in essential amino acids (animal or soy protein) may increase IGF-1 >These results suggest that dietary protein and soy isoflavones, in the context of comprehensive lifestyle changes, may not significantly alter IGF-1 > Soy products are typically high in protein. Some manufacturers have exploited this fact, packing isolated soy protein into shakes and turning it into meat substitutes. However, it may be prudent to avoid highly concentrated proteins from any source, including soy. It has long been known that cow’s milk increases the amount of insulin-like growth factor in the bloodstream,20 and this compound is linked to higher cancer risk. Some evidence suggests that highly concentrated soy proteins (indicated as “soy protein isolate” on food labels) can do the same.21 Simple soy products, such as tempeh, edamame, or soynuts, are probably best choices.

  • Krystel Roob Reply

    Now show me your fucking studies

  • Arnold Heaney Reply

    Our diets would generally benefit from less red meat. But aside from that, it has a low levels of fat and cholesterol. It's also higher in some vitamins (B3, B12) and minerals (iron, zinc).

  • Bernie Kulas Reply

    What the meat weighs, the rest is seaweed and filler if you believe the online studies.

  • Jo Hartmann Reply

    not my post, but i will requote it for you. feel honored. u/EssentialOrchestral said: > The fact you are comparing this to male circumcision shows a lack of understanding of both procedures. > 1) Male circumcision is not the removal of a sex organ. The flap of skin covering the head of the penis is removed. In FGM the woman is routinely losing her entire clitoris. To put that into comparison would be the equivalent of a man having the head of his penis chopped off. > 2) The medical benefits of male circumcision are documented and verified by multiple medical organizations. > The CDC of the United States verified the benefits of the procedure and endorsed that the procedure should be covered under insurance plans due to the long term health benefits. They even suggested adult males who are not circumcised should be counseled on the procedure because of these benefits. > http://www.healthline.com/health-news/cdc-encourages-circumcision-120314 > • Circumcision lowers your risk of transmitting and contracting HIV > • Circumcision lowers your risk of developing prostate cancer > • Circumcision lowers your risk of UTI infection which means children are less likely to be exposed to antibiotics. > Two large scale studies were done in Africa. One in Uganda and one in Kenya. Both involved sexually active adult men and it was done to test whether the procedure caused a negative impact on male sexual performance and sensations. > They found that the procedure INCREASED sexual sensations and followed up with these men for two years after the procedure to ensure that there wasn't a loss in sensation over time. None was reported. > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07369.x/full > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18761593 > Beyond those two studies, multiple Meta reviews have been done on the subject. > Meta reviews are studies which examine all of the known data concerning a topic and determine the validity of claims and the evidence that has been found on a topic. > Multiple Meta reviews have found that circumcision is beneficial and does not impact sexual function or sensation: > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881635/ > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23937309 > If circumcision did not provide medical benefits to anyone, you would 100% correct in your arguments and I would be supporting the prohibition of the procedure. The fact we have multiple levels of evidence from multiple medical organizations supporting the health benefits of the practice means that the procedure is valid and that parents have a right to circumcise their children. > Don't want to circumcise your kids? Don't. You have the right to raise your child any way you see fit as long as you are not putting them in danger. > You don't get to ban parents from making recommended health decisions for their children because you have a personal moral issue with a procedure. > Transexuality offends some people. We don't get to ban sexual reassignment surgery because people are upset by it. original post: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4v38mc/egypt_jails_female_genital_mutilation_doctor_in/d5vbdoh

  • Elton Pfeffer Reply

    Studies show..

  • Joseph Anderson Reply

    This doesn't' take since because most women suffering from breast cancer are in the 50-something crowd and their fathers were born in the 30's and 40's when obesity among men was much less of a problem than it is today. The biggest risk factor of the 50-somethings with cancer is menopause. Menopause is known to raise the risk of developing breast cancer due to estrogen exposure. Fat or not all women have an increased risk, especially if they go through it later in life. Being fat though increases the risk even more since fat starts producing estrogen instead of the ovaries, this is why gaining weight during menopause is such a problem. Even still you can have all of the risk factors and never develop cancer while someone who does everything right gets it. That's just genetics.

  • Sherman Weber Reply

    Studies show that over 90% of women do not regret it

  • Brittany Paucek Reply

    Yep. They're pros at taking people who take themselves too seriously down a notch.

  • Brown Bednar Reply

    and research chems do not show up when drug testing a corpse.

  • Ceasar Jerde Reply

    Studies show its an Oligarchy

  • Una Daniel Reply

    Bacon does not cause cancer, and meat is healthy. FFS people do your own research (and stop listening to idiot government organizations run by lobbyists): http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/food/meats/

  • Kariane Kutch Reply

    There is some research that shows being overweight or obese in premenopausal years can be protective against breast cancer. No one really know why but the speculation is that excessive body fat can impair ovarian function and ovaries pumping out lots of estrogen can raise risk. However that does not carry over to postmenopausal years when fat takes over as the main source of estrogen. And many more cases are diagnosed in post menopausal rather than premenopausal women. http://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/OverweightWeightGain.html

  • Kane Sanford Reply

    [1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/) [2](http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/cannabis-smoke-and-cancer-assessing-the-risk) [3](http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/05/23/marijuana-does-not-raise-lung-cancer-risk.html) (Fox News, Yuck) And finally, ***directly from the United States Government*** [4](http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/cannabis-pdq)

  • Rollin Adams Reply

    Because people who don't take themselves too seriously (even if total ignorance is the reason for it) are the best kind of people.

  • Leanna Volkman Reply

    I was eating way too much protein. Shakes, bars, red meat, etc. That's what caused the stones. The pursuit of gains doomed me.

  • Wilton Leffler Reply

    There are some heavily debated links between red meat, and heart disease and cancer. The problem is that meat is both a major industry and an emotional issue, making it hard to find unbiased research.

  • Rocky Hirthe Reply

    It won't. In fact, the American Institute of Cancer Research categorically recommends eating more fruits and vegetables along with less meat, eggs, and dairy in order to fight cancer.

  • Brad Lind Reply

    He actually doesn't say it's completely healthy. He Admits it's not the best thing for you in many of his videos that I've seen. But he has had an actual oncologist come on his channel and give his research. His research shows that smokeless tobacco does not elevate your risk for oral cancer. And as for the American part, his parents were natural born American citizens that migrated to Canada.

  • Bruce Keebler Reply

    okay show me your research?

  • Fernando Lemke Reply

    I'm not saying drinking 3-5 times a week is a tragedy. It does raise your cancer risk though, so scoffing at smokers is a little hypocritical.

  • Rosemarie Rolfson Reply

    I have heard of studies that show that people with ADHD typically have higher iq

  • Reilly Flatley Reply

    While true, if the research would show that X isn't harmful, nobody would hear about this.

  • Christelle Farrell Reply

    Since there's a lot of people commenting on the efficacy of this "program", I figure I should chime in since I purchase my health care privately and have seen and felt effects of the program. I am in my early 30s and have been purchasing health care privately since I was in my mid-20s. I've always worked as a contractor for a specific type of industry. While I have had the opportunity to be "on staff", taking both short (several months) and long term (1-3 year) contracts allows me the quality of life I desire (I often work from anywhere I decide, I can travel while working and I have no "boss", other than the client). Further, one of my parents is self-employed and buys insurance privately as I do for themselves and younger sibling. *If you're curious why I am providing all of this information, I am establishing my backstory and years of experience in the private health care market, pre and post "obamacare". Here's what I've experienced: **The very first effect** I witnessed from the ACA was that my younger sibling, who has Epilepsy, for the first time in years was able to be insured for a reasonable cost and have comprehensive health care. [Under the new rules created by The Affordable Care Act](http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-law/pre-existing-conditions/index.html), health insurance providers can't raise costs or deny coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. This was an issue with my younger sibling in the past, but as of 2014 it has been much more affordable to provide the health coverage my sibling needs so much. **+** **The second effect I realized** was that it was *much, much* easier for me to shop for a variety of health plans. My state uses the [healthcare marketplace](https://www.healthcare.gov), which shows users a wide variety of plans at different costs. In the past I would be my insurance "privately" through a broker, of whom I had to meet in person or talk to over the phone. I was *not* aware of the selection that existed for the different providers until the ACA went into effect (if that selection even existed prior). **+** **My first time using the [healthcare.gov](https://www.healthcare.gov)** was a debacle. The site was incredibly difficult to use, slow to load and certainly did not function like I had envisioned it would. It was a good idea that failed miserably in it's initial execution which caused many people (myself included) to immediately think that the site and the "new program" would be a miserable failure. I kept at it, even though it was a horrible experience, and was able to sign up when signing up was still offered. The government and advocated of the "program" have stated that the website experience and issues have been worked out and they continue to work out, but from my experience using the website this year again; there are still many issues with the experience, but it has overall improved from a tremendously shitty website/experience to an acceptable and slightly confusing website experience. **-** **Many people talk about the cost of Healthcare now**, and that is certainly an issue for people like me who have to or choose to buy privately. In the past, my premiums were *much* cheaper, *but* there's more involved than premium cost. When I was younger, I had what people call "catastrophic coverage". That means I pretty much didn't have healthcare unless I got severely damaged or ill and simply *was* the case. I had huge deductibles and co-pays and did not often visit the doctor, even though I was paying ~$200/month (that was pre-obamacare). I am now paying *much* more. I purchase my healthcare as a single person as does my partner, I personally pay around $400/month, which seems *awfully* high to me. While I *can* afford that, I was under the false assumption that coverage costs would decrease with the new plan; I am not sure that is the case. Other variables that go into the cost of coverage is that, now, I have a *much more* comprehensive plan than I did when I was paying about $200 a month. As one gets older, the need for good comprehensive health coverage increases and that is exactly what happened to me; when I hit 30 I decided it was time to improve my plan. Side note, when browsing plans through the marketplace they give you 4 tiers of plans; bronze, silver, gold and platinum. The idea that there are tiers aggravates me, because silver is obviously better than gold and the fact that someone has to weigh getting treated for an illness against the cost blows my mind. I signed up for a "gold" plan that was seemingly better (and more cost effective) than most "platinum" plans. If I decided to sign up for catastrophic health coverage, like I did in the past, it would cost me at least $269/month. Looking at my old coverage, it costed me $229/month; the price went up $40 in the span of about 4 years. It might be fair to say that the Affordable Care Act did nothing to lower the costs of health plans, but you *do* get more for your money now (explained below). Also, feel free [to explore costs yourself on the website, without needing to sign up](https://www.healthcare.gov/see-plans/). **-** **Like I said above, the cost of health has not decreased for me or my family** under The Affordable Care Act, but I believe you do get more for your money. Luckily at the time of signing up, I did not have a pre-existing condition, if I did, the price of my premium would likely have gone down. There are [a number of preventive services](http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts-and-features/fact-sheets/preventive-services-covered-under-aca/) that previously costed some consumers (like myself) money, that now are covered by all plans. This is especially beneficial to women, who need annual exams like mammograms. For everyone from children to men, this includes annual wellness visits and lab tests (EKG, Blood Tests, etc..). Also, the insurance companies can no longer limit the amount spent on a patient, or what people called lifetime limits. In practical terms, if you end up sick with cancer and need a shit load of money to survive, the insurance company can no longer deny you any more assistance or drop you off their plan even though you've been paying your premiums on time for the life of your plan. So *yes*, the cost went up, but the quality of service did as well. I guess it's like you are paying a bit more for a lot more. **+** **One really simple practical benefit I've witnessed** is that the insurance companies seem obliged to provide plain english guidelines of what is covered, how much the insuree has pay and what is not covered. I've never seen a guideline for this, that I can recall, but it seems prevalent. **One argument against the ACA I see a lot is that you get taxed if you don't want health insurance**. This get's thrown around a lot, "I got fined because I couldn't afford healthcare", etc... I am not sure how all states do it, but in my state, that is inexcusable. To me, that sounds like you are pretty broke and don't bother finding the information that is readily available to you. In my state, depending on your income, your cost of premium changes. If you truly don't have enough money to afford healthcare, then you will be rolled into [Medicaid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid), which is essentially "free healthcare", but in reality it is *not* free, you fellow American citizens are footing the bill for you. Further, the cost of your premium, even if *you can* afford a plan changes depending on your income. For example, my plan costs $398 per month, assuming I make (let's say) $87,000/year. If I made, let's say, $30,000/year, the cost of that *same* plan would be adjusted to (let's say) something like #295/month. You get tax credits towards your plan the less money you earn per year, and when you do your taxes at the end of the year you can get a reimbursement depending on your premium costs and you annual income. That being said, if you really can't afford health coverage (depending on your state, but I think it is most) you are likely entitled to adjusted cost or "free" health care and won't get fined. Don't go uninsured, it's not worth the risk to your health or burden on the American tax payers. **+** Overall, my experience with the Affordable Care Act has been overwhelmingly positive. I think most people who comment on it either don't have actual experience with it's guidelines, have ulterior motives for bad-talking it or live in a shit state that doesn't give a shit about their people (those without encompassing Medicaid programs and who don't participate in the marketplace). I urge you to do your research on your own, since I am no expert, just a guy with private insurance buying experience. Sorry for the grammar and typos, this took longer than expected.

  • Turner Cronin Reply

    BBQ with low fat/no red meat? Does not compute

  • Lenny Tromp Reply

    Does research show it though? If not, he'd be wrong even if its true.

  • Susan Cremin Reply

    amazing theory, but please show some sources for the research you conducted. if you don't i will be severely triggered

  • Jamison Deckow Reply

    I'm not "worried about cholesterol", I am worried about people spreading scientifically wrong statements as facts. The meat-analysis shows that **it is scientific consensus** that in general dietary cholesterol does raise blood cholesterol. If that in turn is harmful is a different story. As the meta-analysis states, so far increased CVD risk from dietary cholesterol could not be proven. That is not to say it definitely doesn't exist, it might just hard to demonstrate given all the other factors involved. I think the situation could be described with the following analogy:   Imagine you live in a world where most people smoke 10 cigars a day (= trans fats, saturated fats, no exercise…), and some people in addition smoke 1-3 cigarettes (dietary Cholesterol) a day. No try to prove cigarettes cause lung cancer. The baseline of lung cancer (or in our world CVD) will be so high it is almost impossible to prove that the cigarette smoking has something to do with it. And if you avoid the cigars, and only smoke the cigarettes, you'll probably do much better than the average population. But cigarettes *still* cause lung cancer.   It is also scientific consesus that [hypercholesterinemia is associated (again, causality is hard to proof, I agree) with increased CVD risk.] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27447612) These are the facts, and I think we should all agree on them (unless of course, you can show me articles that demonstrate that scientific consensus is wrong, I am absolutely open to be shown otherwise if the data is accessible and sound). Now you can feel free to interpret these facts in two ways: a) dietary cholesterol raises blood cholesterol, and high blood cholesterol is associated with disease, **but** there is no causality, and no need to reduce cholesterol. b) dietary cholesterol raises blood cholesterol, and high blood cholesterol is associated with disease, and there **is** causality, (and hence reason to avoid cholesterol in diet), we just cannot prove the causality yet.   I respect your decision to go with theory a). I’m just trying to familiarize people on this sub with option b). To spread scientific facts, and to *maybe* (if b is right) help stopping preventable diseases and deaths.

  • Kathryn Bernier Reply

    Red meat eh? Maybe that's what my problem is. I was thinking it might be dairy related, but maybe not.

  • Dewayne Halvorson Reply

    This is the summary from the Public Health England regarding the mouse studies: Summary There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes. Effects of e-cigarette vapour on mice lungs A paper published in February 2015 [135] generated worldwide media coverage with claims that it linked EC to lung inflammation, lung infection, and even lung cancer. Groups of mice were put in a small container exposing them to vapour from six EC (‘Menthol Bold’ 1.8% nicotine) puffed on a rotating wheel at six puffs per minute for 1.5 hours, twice daily, over two weeks. The control mice were not exposed to this treatment. Animals were infected with either streptococcus pneumonia via intranasal instillation and killed 24 hours later, or with tissue culture influenza virus and monitored for weight loss, mortality, and lung and airways inflammation. Compared to the control group, the experimental animals had an increase in pro-inflammatory cytokines, diminished lung glutathione levels, higher viral titre, and were more likely to lose weight and die. The study identified free radicals in EC vapour as the potential culprit. There are several problems with the study and with the way its results have been interpreted. EC vapour is inhaled as a replacement for tobacco smoke, but the study attempted no comparison of the effects on the lungs from smoke and vapour exposures. This makes a meaningful interpretation of the results difficult. A comparison was made, however, of the levels of free radicals. Even at the very high vapour density generated by the study procedure, the level of free radicals identified in vapour was “several orders of magnitude lower than in cigarette smoke”. In addition to this, the mice in the experimental group were exposed to a much higher level of stress than the control group, and stress affects bacterial and viral response. Long and repeated containment in the small and crowded smoke chamber emitting an overpowering smell is a stressor in itself, but the animals also suffered repeated nicotine poisoning. The mice showed an average cotinine concentration of 267ng/ml. Cotinine is the primary metabolite of nicotine and in humans the amount of nicotine needed to give similar cotinine levels are tolerated by heavy smokers, but highly aversive to non- smokers, who would be expected to feel sick and vomit at this level of exposure. Mice are much more sensitive to nicotine than humans (LD50 in mice is 3mg/kg, in humans 6.5–13mg/kg [69]). Accelerated weight loss, reduced immunity and early death in the experimental group were much more likely the result of protracted stress and nicotine poisoning than the result of exposure to free radicals (which were in any case 1,000 times lower than from cigarettes). A similar study from 2015 [134] reported oxidant reactivity (which is linked to free radicals) of e-liquid and cytokine release in exposed lung tissue and in mice exposed to EC vapour. Again, no comparison with exposure to smoke was reported. Human studies do not corroborate any of the findings reported here. A case study of lipoid pneumonia, which could have been caused by EC flavouring, received worldwide attention in 2012 [142] but despite extensive interest in the phenomenon, no further cases were published. Adverse effects of vaping are primarily local irritation and dry mouth [132]. A study that monitored asthma patients who switched from smoking to vaping found significant improvements in symptoms and in respiratory function [143]. The recent Cochrane Review found no significant adverse effects associated with EC use for up to 1.5 years [39]. Summary The mice model has little relevance for estimating human risk and it does not raise any new safety concerns. Here is the link for the entire pdf report https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/454516/Ecigarettes_an_evidence_update_A_report_commissioned_by_Public_Health_England.pdf

  • Johan Hand Reply

    A smart man once said... *"theronin23 isn't bullshitting anyone. We spoke for about an hour earlier today. If anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them here. FYI- the following is written with no malice or ill will toward anyone here. Many of the tweets used in your email campaign were honestly taken out of context...I've used the term "feral beast" and "need two behind the ear, they need to be put down like animals" to describe Tim McVey and Dylan Roof as well as Mike Brown and Colin Ferguson. Two of the tweets used were commenting on the ISIS animals that burned alive that Jordanian pilot. "They should be sent to the deepest darkest Africa and never be heard from again" where the word "They" was referring to ISIS and/or Al Queda (multiple posts) Animals killing American soldiers...20-30-somethings your age. It pissed me off. One of your examples of "White Supremacy and racism" was actually me talking about my lead singer when he quit a year or so ago. "My little monkey is angry"..."he won't go out and make money for me anymore"...a photoshop of me as the organ grinder and Gene as a monkey accompanied that tweet. That part was omitted. One or 2 were referring to bad people of color. Nigger? Yeah, I've used the word as a descriptive term for some people, myself included...But as far as me going on "frequent racist rants"? and being a "self proclaimed white supremacist"? You guys used the right language to accomplish what you set out to do, but they were engineered dishonestly for maximum effect. I can guarantee that there isn't an O&A fan, or anyone reading this sub, that hasn't used the N word here at one time or another...whether in jest or to fuck with someone. It doesn't make you a racist, self-proclaimed or otherwise. Anonymity is key. So I'm learning...Thanks for the lesson. My question is simply "why"? I've had some hot headed moments on this sub, and I may have come across as a cunt to those of you who don't care enough to look any deeper than the last post that bashed me. Then when I'd become enraged, I'd come off like a butthurt faggot...but I still don't understand why anyone would care to fuck up the "real life" of a 57 year old father and husband (practically) who has responsibilities and has never done anything to fuck you over personally. It feels like it was done just because you were pretty sure you could do it. The pay off was knowing you indeed affected my life when I'd stated multiple times right here that you couldn't. Here's the damage that was done: I lost 5 gigs total. 4 of them were contracted and the agencies had to pay me off. The client didn't like having to do it, but they were legally obligated, and it was their choice to cancel. The cancelation clause in my contracts only make provisions for canceling due to an "act of God" or illness. 100% of my shows are contracted. Many of you think that I do this band thing like a kid having fun on weekends. I don't. It's a business that's been in existence for 20 years. So, the damage done was tangible, but not as substantial as some of you may have thought. The real damage was done when a school show we were playing for cancer research benefit was called off because of a phone call. "JunkieThrowAway88" wrote about calling the School we were playing the free show at, posted the name and number of the school here. Someone called, threatened to post negative reviews of the school on SM, and it was canceled. Detectives were involved, the School went into lockdown, and worst part was the black guy that put the whole thing together was apologetic to me for the head of school canceling in spite of our best intentions to raise money for a charity event by playing for free. Again, I'm not trying to sound like a bitch, or like I'm looking for any sympathy, I'm simply explaining to those of you who had no clue what actually transpired and what exactly was most impacted by your email campaign. I've been told that I seem like an entitled tool at times. Meh- let's face it...when I introduced Ant (look no H!) and Opie, I hit fucking lotto. No shit. It took 10 yrs or so to actually start seeing any residuals from that initial introduction, but Ant made good on a promise between family members and brothers. A money grubber, leech, Ant paying me off to stay away from him, an embarrassment...ok, maybe an embarrassment on the air, once or twice...but the agreement and promise we made to each other as kids was no bullshit. If either of us became a millionaire we agreed to do something for the other. That's the long/short if it. If he was a construction or Wall Street mogul rather than in the public eye, how many of you would care with whom he shares his good fortune? I'm not as delusional as many of you would like to believe. I'm not a member of SAMCRO (though that one does genuinely make me laugh in a very good natured kind of way) I'm shitty at podcasting and making public social commentary, and I really suck at sports...I'll never be a comedian, I sometimes open my mouth when I should STFU, and I play mediocre guitar and was lucky enough to figure out a way to get paid doing it. I TAKE NOTHING IN MY LIFE FOR GRANTED. I hit lotto without having to buy a ticket. A charmed life? Hardly. I have an ex that literally wishes death on me constantly, my mom is in a full care facility with Alzheimer's, my dad died when he was in his late 50's (gulp), I help care for and support my GF's kids and grandkids....and as for my brother.. Well, I'm not going there at this time. Maybe if I'm asked back, or specific questions that I can address are asked, I'll touch on that next time. My point being, Im not Ant, I'm not Opie, I'm not any of you..I'm just a guy from Long Island that got lucky. I do know that when I told a few haters about "not having to work" and throwing it into several of your faces, it wasn't the wisest thing to do, and it certainly wasn't showing any class on my part. When in the thick of it, you try to come up with anything that you think will hurt your opponent most. Knowing that you're either former or current O&A fans, and knowing how much disdain you have for me, I knew it would be infuriating to you for me to portray myself in that light. It was said and used as a verbal weapon, and that's why it's still such a big sticking point and mainstay of "Joe Bashing Material" for you guys. But again, it's the furthest thing from the truth. I've never felt entitled to anything in my entire life, and until Ant became Anthony the Millionaire, I worked my balls off for the things I have. In short, I'm just a lucky fuck. (Side note: if I'd have gotten lucky and been, I dunno...as successful as Dave Grohl...Anthony would have shared in my good fortune as well...That is the plain truth. Most of you heard the stories of our formative years. My Dad was about a piece of shit as far as a Father goes.. Left the 4 of us when he was around 32 to go play cowboy in CA. That left me to do most of the things that a real Dad does, so I took care of Ant and Dawn while my Mom worked to raise us as normally as possible. You see how well that worked out? We're not perfect, all 3 of us have our issues. Me, I'm the big angry lummox that runs to his younger sibling's defense, sometimes when they don't even need it. I can be so defensive that I come off as being offensive. Dawn is probably the most normal out of the 3 of us. She's got her issues too, but they're not as apparent as Ant's and mine. Anthony is who he is because of.. Well, who he is, and I mean that in the sense of what shaped him growing up. I was old enough to understand and face up to my Dad leaving, the physical fights that our parents had in front of us, the ruined Christmas's , their alcohol Abuse, sometimes neglect, outright racist behavior by our drunk father, and lots of tears from all 3 of us as kids...My sister was too young to really remember, but Ant was right in the middle. He was the one that was traumatized the most...Why am I getting into this? In the hopes of explaining the WHY's of our behavior. Everyone has their issues. I'm sure some of you can piss all over what I've just said with horror stories of your own that make my drivel sound like...drivel. It was never anyone's intention to make so many enemies here. You can take that for what it's worth. I have no reason for writing all of you like this other than an honest request for, if not an actual truce, simple detente. Things could continue on as they are. I'm sure that some of you would rather have me here to bash, than to gain better insight to what "makes the Cumia Brothers tick", but it's with an open mind and a genuine desire to mend at least a few fences here that I've written this fucking book tonight. At the risk of fucking up everything I've said this far, and again, with no malice or ill will, I wouldn't want you rabid fuckers to think I'm "laying down my arms" because you've given me a beating, I'm coming here with my fists unclenched and head held high to show you that I've actually learned a few valuable lessons here, and it's you that are directly responsible for that. That's all for now...SAMCRO JOE (still cracks me up)"*

  • Bryce Goodwin Reply

    Wanting a strong family unit with a traditional parenting model doesn't make me right wing. I was raised as a religious anarchist, and in my old age I'm a liberal who voted for Bernie in the primaries. Whether or not I feel like a man should run his own family has nothing to do with my political beliefs. * Pro-Choice * Anti-gun control * In favor of Glass-Steagal * Raise taxes on the wealthy due to *math* - you can only get money from places where money already exists * Equal pay is great - but don't try to bullshit about women earning less in their overall careers when they take years off for child rearing. If a man did the same thing, he should take the same income hit. * Pro-immigration, anti H-1B abuse. Not a big fan of illegal immigration (I live in Texas) but we can't just go deporting 11 million people, that's ridiculous. * Very pro Obamacare - I had cancer as a young man and was fucked if I lost my coverage at any time due to pre-existing conditions until Obamacare passed. I was prevented from becoming an entrepeneur until Obamacare was passed because I couldn't take that financial risk. Pre-existing condition rules were bullshit. * USPS - a model of efficiency, honestly. No other service in the world will reach as many rural areas as quickly and at such a low price. The conservative hatred of this great institution is retarded. * Infrastructure - Hell yes, more please. * Global warming - totally real and definitely needs dealt with. Limiting CFCs did great work and shows that we can make a difference. * Legal system - It sure ain't a "justice system" and that needs changing. The reforms necessary for that are brutal and far reaching. * LGBTQWTFBBQ rights - I'm all for them, so long as it is true equality and not privilege for being a special snowflake. I think gay marriage is fabulous - what other people do in their own lives is their problem so long as everyone is consenting adults. * Campaign finance reform - this is the big one that fixes everything else.

  • Hans Gutkowski Reply

    >In an earlier response, you insist that there would be "natural barriers" which prevent a company from becoming too large. What are those barriers? One fact of capitalism's structure is that it tends to create monopolies over time. So, what happens when a monopoly eliminates competition and creates extremely high barriers to entry in industry X or Y? The natural barrier for a company becoming too large, when government doesn't create corporations, is that people won't take the risk of unlimited liability of partnerships or sole proprietorships. Without government protection of shareholders of corporations, few people would invest, and raising capital would be limited. You are incorrect in your assertion that capitalism creates monopolies. Governments create monopolies, and the only monopoly that I am aware of that grew out of free market competition was Alcoa which wasn't a monopoly, but was so effective at giving customers what they wanted at good prices that nobody could come along and challenge their market dominance. Read about the history of corporations, which apparently you have never done. The first ones were created to grant them monopoly. One of the reasons for the American Revolution was the monopoly granted to the Dutch East India Corporation for trade with the Colonies; this resulted in much resentment, (and smuggling) and in fact the Tea Tax leading the the Boston Tea Party was imposed to benefit the sagging profits of this monopoly. There is a difference between a monopoly and a dominant player in a free market. A monopoly is a grant of privilege by government, such as an exclusive territory, or the government licensing of products to the exclusion of competitors. A dominant player in a market may have a large share of the market, but it will lose its dominance if it becomes uncompetitive. When I was a kid Sears was a dominant player in retailing, but did not have government protection, so when they didn't keep up, they got pushed to the back burner and have been inconsequential ever since. There have been some interesting studies done on the life cycles of corporations, and they follow similar patterns of ascendency, plateau, and decline. Walmart is where Sears once was, and is getting long in the tooth. None of them however could become giants and capture such large amounts of capital without government granted limited liability. > Who steps in when a company takes over a town (or just creates one) and forces its workers to accept lower wages and unsafe working conditions so the company can squeeze more profit out? If the workers refuse to work and try to leave, what stops the company from hiring private security to beat the hell out of them and force them to stay at work? You are making some unsupportable assertions. People are mobile. They have a choice, and there is a balance between the need for employees, the willingness of people to work, and pay rates. Workers frequently think they are underpaid, and employers frequently think workers are overpaid. The problem begins with governments creating corporations; then some of them become large because of the effect limited liability has on the ability to raise capital. The power that comes from operating in the corporate form allows the possibility of abuse, which then brings in union abuse. You seem to want to blame corporations instead of taking one step deeper into the cause effect sequence and blaming government for creating corporations to begin with. And unions themselves have done the same begging to governments to get privilege in the form of requiring businesses to deal with unions. In the end the black hand of government creates the problem and more problems in order to solve the problem they created. Your working class bias shows. >What? When? The American economy throughout the 19th century was riddled with recessions, depressions, and panics with, typically, three years separating each crisis. The 20th century, marked by the expanding role of the government in the economy, was far more stable. There are natural cycles in economic activity. When our economy was agrarian, farm production was a significant factor in the production of wealth with $1 of farm production driving $7 of non farm wealth creation. Cycles in weather had a far greater effect that they do today when farm production is a smaller factor and advances like fossil fuel driven irrigation is used. 19th century declines were sharp but over quickly at dislocations in the financial system were allowed to correct themselves. After creation of the Federal Reserve System, it was much more possible to extend expansions by the issuance of debt based money. Some panics or corrections were related to debt creation for wars. Back in those days the federal government actually taxed and paid off loans that it temporarily incurred. All that changed in the 20th century was that the expansion phase was artificially prolonged, but the contraction phase followed in depth proportional to the debt that was created in the expansion and in length in proportion to the effort of the Federal Reserve Bank and the federal government to contain the contraction. You might want to educate yourself by reading Ron Paul's book The Case for Gold in which he chronicles the history of economic swings and the relationship to banking in the US. >No, that's not the difference. That's what you're insisting is the difference, imposing what you think he believes and using words like "slavery" to characterize an economic system you clearly know very little about. The roads you drive on to get to work, the clean air you breathe when you walk outside, the safe food you eat when you take your lunch break -- these are all guaranteed by the government and the bureaucracy they engender. Are those guarantees tantamount to slavery? This is just your delusion. Government has taken over some economic functions that then exclude private enterprises from providing them such as roads. If you think that the best course to achieve good roads, clean air, and safe food, you simply are out of touch. For example, if food is so safe under government direction, why is the US a nation of declining health. You are no doubt aware that the federal government since the 1970's has pushed the low fat diet as what people should be eating to prevent heart disease. This concept originated in a fraudulent study done by Ansel Keys where he had data from numerous countries on fat intake and heart disease, but picked only six to prove that there was a correlation that existed between saturated fat intake and heart disease. Keys was laughed out of a scientific meeting in Italy and sought to gain acceptance of his views from the American Heart Association who then also rejected his study. He persisted and managed to get on the board of the AHA and by some miracle they then adopted his study. George McGovern then held committee hearings, and in spite of objections of many scientists, adopted the low fat diet as official government policy. (McGoverns wife later died of heart disease which is ironic, or perhaps poetic justice.) The manufacturers of seed oil jumped on the bandwagon also, wanting to sell seed oils as food instead of as toxic aldehydes to be added to varnish and paint, because petroleum was competing for the use of seed oils in varnish and paint. Because food tasted like cardboard without fat, carbohydrates were substituted for fats and the consequence was a huge increase in metabolic syndrome. Obesity, type II diabetes, hypertension, elevated blood sugar, high triglycerides, all were the result. The LA Veterans Hospital study later conclusively demonstrated that there was no effect on heart disease between a low fat diet and a high fat diet, but the low fat diet resulted in a significant increase in death from all causes. And when polyunsaturated fats were substituted for saturated fats, as part of this bogus government promoted diet, the result was an increase in cancer, problems with immune function and thyroid function. This is the safe food you think government is bringing us? The only mind that I imagine would believe what you believe is one nutritionally deprived, well on its way to one of the rampantly increasing neurological degenerative diseases. What is your own health status while consuming the food that you are relying on government to tell you is safe? Obesity, hypertension, high blood sugar, thyroid problems, frequent bacterial or viral infections from a malfunctioning immune system??? I bet at my age of 72 that my blood pressure is lower than yours, my blood sugar is lower than yours, and I can tell you I don't get colds or flu, I have no need for prescription medications, I am 5' 11" and weigh 165 (BMI 23) and I have no signs of heart disease or cancer. That is not genetics, but a result of a brain that functions at a high enough level to sort out what is real and what is delusion. I would say that you have displayed a significant lack of understanding of the world, no doubt licking the boots of government as a result of your need for someone else to take care of you. And at least my ass isn't located in my skull.

  • Trever Goldner Reply

    Fruits and vegetables. Red meat if you're okay with that. Fish, Dairy, eggs, nuts, seeds etc. Try and avoid or greatly reduce your added sugar intake. Don't opt for low fat versions of products.

  • Clarabelle Kozey Reply

    The wiki? I said before the actual question that i started taking all milk products has low fat. Stoped eating added sugar and also no fries. ( Forgot to mention no red meat either)

  • Talon Abshire Reply

    That's what Dimitri said after feeding me some strange meat....... Then my vision went red and I think I ate someone

  • Arnaldo Roberts Reply

    Crank up the red meat and fat intake and get rid of the protein shakes. Even the highest priced protein shake is low quality garbage compared to quality meat!

  • Freeman Satterfield Reply

    I'm still fat, but my iron is in the low side of normal. I've noticed when I forget my iron supplement and don't eat much red meat I'm a lot more sluggish than normal.

  • Clifford Greenfelder Reply

    Thats how it ends up, but the low-fat nonsense scared people off red meat.

  • gordon ramsay thumbs up
  • does not raise cancer risk
  • meat studies
  • studies show
  • does not raise cancer risk study
  • not raise cancer risk study shows
  • raise cancer risk study shows
  • what's red meat
  • does raise cancer risk study shows
  • does not cancer risk shows
  • not raise cancer risk shows
  • research show
  • does raise cancer risk shows
  • cancer research meat
  • آشپز
  • does not raise cancer risk shows
  • people who take themselves too seriously
  • low fat red meat