481–490 of 584 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lack of bioavailability analysis and links between processed meat and cancer are fears... of the established scientific community.
Sure. This thread is talking about bread. Processed wheat products like bread and seitan are nutrient dense foods usually caught in the social media meme diet crossfire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mayo is processed garbage?? Please explain. It’s whipped egg with lemon and oil, maybe some salt.
It may depend on the brands, but one big brand of mayo here in France (Amora) has all kinds of weird crap, apart from "whipped egg with lemon and oil". It has rapeseed oil, which to me seems dubious since it requires special processing to make it non-toxic. It only has 5.1% eggs (according to the label). It also has "flavorings", thickeners and coloring agents. So yeah, it's nothing like the homemade mayo I make, whi…
It's better to not use sweetener at all, nor sugar. After some withdrawal period body stops to crave either. The only good amount of either is zero.
I am a Luddite when it comes to tastes, no two ways about it. I suspect many people are, and so some tradeoff has to be made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is really a wholesome plant extract instead of something chemists have invented which leads me to have confidence in its (so far as we know) lack of carcinogenicity. This sounds like the naturalistic fallacy [1]. A naturally occurring substance is not automatically less carcinogen, or harmful, than a manufactured one. Coffee is associated with elevated risk for bladder cancer. Cycad trees are known to be highly…
I don't think it's a fallacy to conclude generally that consuming plants which coevolved with humans is safer than consuming chemicals which are completely exogenous to any stage of the human body's development. It would be a fallacy to suggest that one group or the other were unconditionally safer, but I find no dilemma in generalizing that the human body is more capable of processing plant-based substances. Just li…
For stevia to be arguably safer due coevolution with humans, the following would need to be true:
1. There is a selective pressure for stevia to not increase the risk of cancer in humans.
2. There is a selective pressure on humans to not have an increased risk of cancer from consuming stevia.
In other words, it is firstly to argue that a stevia plant which had a tendency to increase cancer risk in humans would be significantly less likely to reproduce. This effect would be hard enough even if the hypothetical carcinogen were to be otherwise selectively neutral, but it could have a selectively positive pressure if it were an essential hormone or defence against insects, pathogens, competitors, etc.
Secondly, it is to argue that if stevia were potentially carcinogenic, then humans that were susceptible to its effects were significantly less likely to reproduce. This fails on two levels. First, consider that even in the cut-and-dried cause of cancer that is smoking, lung cancer is still extremely rare among young smokers. Lung cancer patients are virtually always well past their reproductive age, meaning that even if a genetic mutation to be immune to tobacco were to appear (or indeed it may well already exist) then said mutation still has no selective advantage with regards to the consumption of tobacco. Second, even if a hypothetically-carcinogenic stevia[0] could exert selective pressure on humans to become unaffected by it, then that effect would only have taken place on the populations which consumed significant amounts of stevia over generations and not humanity as a whole.
[0] Which I insist, I don't believe is the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a good reason to eat something either - reducing cancer growth typically means something is poisonous.
Any way (or source) for you or anybody else to back up this claim?
Similarly though, antioxidants are often sold as a health food but can promote cancer because they benefit the cancer more than the rest of you, and some of them directly shut off chemo drugs. There's plenty of evidence of that one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's a decent argument. You are using the "I was at the train station and I was never mugged there, therefore mugging never happens at train stations" extrapolated argument. People still think that smoking doesn't cause cancer, even when they are in the hospital because of not being able to breathe. People still deny that climate change exists because of that one bought study in the 60s. People still dr…
It's not that argument. It's more like "1 million people were at the train station and were never mugged there".
Reminder that bacon is already a known carcinogen for those worrying about artificial sweeteners but happily eating processed meats.
It’s actually sodium nitrite that’s carcinogenic (after being exposed to high heat), and I can find bacon without sodium nitrite here pretty much at every grocery store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What marketing? Everyone I know who drinks diet soda myself included basically assumes we're getting cancer from it eventually. It's like the most common meme about it.
??? I’m hearing this first. Know a lot of people who drink Diet Coke.
The challenge you have here is that aspartame isn't just one of most widely studied substances in the food chain, but that it's also one of the most widely and vigorously consumed. People drink a lot of diet soda; a lot of people drink it to the exclusion of all other liquids. So it's going to be tricky to get the epidemiology to match up with the claim here: if aspartame is meaningfully carcinogenic (meaning: more t…
I don't drink a lot of soda so I picked up on the reaction sooner rather than later. From then on I avoided it. Until one day it was in something and I wasn't aware of that. My chest hurt so much I thought I was having a heart attack. Maybe I was.
So while that isn't cancer, it's still not a good sign. Standard sugar will do.