11–20 of 50 posts
Also worth noting: The same "known carcinogens" list also includes birth control pills and sunlight. Not all carcinogens should be avoided.
And sure enough, the formally-respectable tabloid known as Ars takes the bait: http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/its-official-bacon-ho...
Kinda funny how hard some people try to reject a finding which is as well supported as it is obvious ... red meat is bad. Same logic applies here as with cigarettes - you decide if you want to take the risk. Beyond your personal consequences - meat and dairy industry is also directly destructive to the environment and society on a global level ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3302820/ ). http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Anatu…
Also, people should know that even "no nitrates/nitrites added" doesn't mean devoid of nitrates or nitrites, because most companies add tons of celery salt, and, for the most part, you end up with an equivalent amount of sodium nitrite in your processed/cured meats.
Kinda funny how hard some people try to reject a finding which is as well supported as it is obvious ... red meat is bad. Same logic applies here as with cigarettes - you decide if you want to take the risk. Beyond your personal consequences - meat and dairy industry is also directly destructive to the environment and society on a global level ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3302820/ ). http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Anatu…
That has little to do with the linked article, which is only rejecting the bombastic headlines comparing the two.
Furthermore - people need those "comparisons" - only few will change their behavior based on purely statistical reasoning.
My first thought was that the report is only talking about rectal and colon cancers, so yes diet might affect them as much as (or even more than) smoking. But that really isn't even close to to being a good comparison when discussing overall effect of risk factors: talking about the effect of smoking while only counting damage to the bottom end of the digestive system is like talking about the effect of drink driving…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That has little to do with the linked article, which is only rejecting the bombastic headlines comparing the two.
Is it really that bombastic? Lot of people are smoking and will readily justify it with anecdotal evidance proving that smoking isn't really that bad at all - "you know there was this 105 year old Japanese guy and they asked him how he got that old and he said he stopped smoking at the age of 99 ..." Furthermore - people need those "comparisons" - only few will change their behavior based on purely statistical reason…
For processed (cured) meats, they must assuredly mean sodium nitrite (which sodium nitrate turns in to) and/or salt is known carcinogens. In which case, it should be "sodium nitrite known to cause cancer". Also, people should know that even "no nitrates/nitrites added" doesn't mean devoid of nitrates or nitrites, because most companies add tons of celery salt, and, for the most part, you end up with an equivalent amo…
My first thought was that the report is only talking about rectal and colon cancers, so yes diet might affect them as much as (or even more than) smoking. But that really isn't even close to to being a good comparison when discussing overall effect of risk factors: talking about the effect of smoking while only counting damage to the bottom end of the digestive system is like talking about the effect of drink driving…
Compare with smoking, which increases the risk of lung cancer by 1,000-1,500%
http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-and-nitrite-myth-another...