Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#81

Post by cruise02 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #78
cruise02 wrote: post #29

It's important to understand what "increased risk" means. From the linked article: > The IARC’s experts concluded that each 50-gram (1.8-ounce) portion of processed meat eaten daily increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. From a related article: > To put this in perspective, the lifetime risk of colon cancer is 5 percent. If you have a hot dog every day, your risk goes to 6 percent. http://www.cbsnews.com/new…

The way the 18% figure is used in THIS article is extremely misleading/unhelpful. Thank you for clarifying exactly what they mean by that (the 5-6% thing puts it into perspective).

Also note that an increase from 0.5% to 0.6% would be the same amount of "increased risk." Always look for the base rate.

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#82

Post by dageshi »

fredkbloggs wrote: post #73
dageshi wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That and you don't inhale cigar/pipe tobacco plus for whatever reason they don't appear to be addictive in the same way cigarettes are. In an ideal world I wish all tobacco wasn't lumped together with cigarettes because while I'm sure smoking a pipe/cigar has its risks my impression is those risks are no where as bad as with cigarettes. Unfortunately I've never been able to find any real studies on cigars/pipes in is…

Less lung cancer, more mouth and esophogeal cancer. You have to adjust for the fact that people who smoke pipes and cigars smoke much less overall, and then also for the fact that cigarettes almost always have filters. It's not hard to find studies with good data; e.g., http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/4/333.full . Note that the NIH refuses to answer this question (viz. http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/cau…

Thanks for the link.

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#83

Post by Kurtz79 »

dalacv wrote: post #3

Basically: Don't eat anything because it will give you cancer. I've been living by that rule for about 15 minutes now, but I'm starting to get hungry.

Smart people should take findings like these with a grain of salt, having a good idea of what risk factors are.

It is basically impossible to prevent with 100% certainty the occurrence of a illness like cancer, since it depends on factors outside our control.

It is possible to lower the likelihood of it by following a reasonably healthy lifestyle, which is a factor under our control.

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#84

Post by matwood »

fredkbloggs wrote: post #73
dageshi wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That and you don't inhale cigar/pipe tobacco plus for whatever reason they don't appear to be addictive in the same way cigarettes are. In an ideal world I wish all tobacco wasn't lumped together with cigarettes because while I'm sure smoking a pipe/cigar has its risks my impression is those risks are no where as bad as with cigarettes. Unfortunately I've never been able to find any real studies on cigars/pipes in is…

Less lung cancer, more mouth and esophogeal cancer. You have to adjust for the fact that people who smoke pipes and cigars smoke much less overall, and then also for the fact that cigarettes almost always have filters. It's not hard to find studies with good data; e.g., http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/4/333.full . Note that the NIH refuses to answer this question (viz. http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/cau…

> The data's pretty compelling, though; I wouldn't smoke anything on a regular or frequent basis.

And I feel like this is the key for many of the these health issues. Habitual is really the problem.

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#85

Post by PerfectElement »

boothead wrote: post #38
thomasfl wrote: post #26

This confirms the findings described in the book "The China Study". It describes a massive long term survey done in china. Animal proteins is harming.

The China Study has been very thoroughly debunked. I think this article is probably the most highly thought of http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fal...

It seems Denise Minger has changed her mind: http://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-cal...

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#86

Post by Someone1234 »

It is extremely odd that this article has a burger at the top of it. As far as I know burger patties aren't normally processed, someone correct me if I am wrong?

A lot of people find it surprising that aside from the veggies the patty is the next healthiest part of a burger. It is the bun and sauce which will kill you (both have a lot of sugar/complex carbs), and then maybe the cheese in third worst.

Just for an example, a Big Mac has three layers of bun (2x patties), while a McDouble has only two layers of bun (2x patties also). The McDouble has 7g of sugar, while the Big mac has 9g of sugar. Now, yes, the sauce will account for some of the delta here, but my point is those buns are extremely unhealthy.

As a strange result, it is often healthier to get smaller but stacked patties rather than a single patty that is larger since the buns, sauce, and cheese will be smaller also. That's why if you look at the Quarter Pounder (1x patty) at McDonald's it is much more unhealthy than the McDouble (more so than you'd expect), the McDouble (2x patties) is 7g of sugar, the single layer Quarter Pounder is 10g(!) of sugar.

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#87

Post by blacksmythe »

cruise02 wrote: post #29

It's important to understand what "increased risk" means. From the linked article: > The IARC’s experts concluded that each 50-gram (1.8-ounce) portion of processed meat eaten daily increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. From a related article: > To put this in perspective, the lifetime risk of colon cancer is 5 percent. If you have a hot dog every day, your risk goes to 6 percent. http://www.cbsnews.com/new…

A more relevant way to look at risk is reduction of life expectancy.

If your adult life expectancy is 78 years old (http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/your-life-expectancy-by-a...) and a hot dog a day gave you a 1% chance of dying at a median age of 52, that would be a life expectancy reduction of 3 months for eating a hot dog a day. If it were a 1% chance of dying at a median age of 69, that would be a 1 month life expectancy reduction.

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#88

Post by andy_ppp »

myth_buster wrote: post #70
andy_ppp wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are only about 30000 fatalities from all car driving per year.

The report indicates that worldwide the total number of road traffic deaths remains unacceptably high at 1.24 million per year. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_st...

In America [0] (I thought the other stats were American ones too), it actually says in [1] 480000 cigarette deaths which disagrees with the previous stats of 1 million, but a million isn't enough for the world surely?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/healt...

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#89

Post by bluedino »

ssmoot wrote: post #46
bluedino wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nitrates used to preserve the meat. Although, your risk is elevated only a tiny fraction compared to say, smoking cigarettes.

I feel like this would be much more informative if they were more specific then. It's fairly easy to avoid pink-salt. Hebrew National hot dogs don't have it. "Uncured" bacon doesn't have it. Problem solved without much compromise (IMO all-beef, nitrate/nitrite free hot dogs taste much better Oscar Mayer or Ballpark anyways but I love my high(er) quality meat-in-tube-form). Does celery seed fall under this? BTW, "trad…

"Nitrate-free" means cured with celery salt which is still a nitrate, just not a bad "chemical one".

Re: WHO says processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes

#90

Post by garrettgrimsley »

myth_buster wrote: post #37
pilsetnieks wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's the Guardian's fault. The BBC article ( http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34620617 ) does mention some numbers: > Is meat as bad as smoking? > No. > Estimates suggest 34,000 deaths from cancer every year could be down to diets high in processed meat. > That is in contrast to one million deaths from cancer caused by smoking and 600,000 attributed to alcohol each year.

600,000 attributed to alcohol each year. That number is a bit misleading. Does that include the deaths say due to DUI,, liver damage, poisoning? It ideally shouldn't as we are discussing carcinogens. Edit: Added additional alcohol related deaths.

I found numbers for how many cancer deaths in the US are attributable to alcohol [0] and it puts it at 18 200 to 21 300 deaths. For worldwide figures see Table 1 of this study [1] that breaks down alcohol-attributable deaths by category. It lists alcohol-attributable cancer deaths at 487 000 in the year 2004. So it looks like the number isn't misleading, only unclear. Misleading would have been listing the total 2 225 000 alcohol-attributable deaths.

[0] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673233/

[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673609...

Post reply on HN