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

101–106 of 106 posts

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

#101

Post by tkyjonathan »

mvanvoorden wrote: post #99
tkyjonathan wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meat has been linked with colorectal, prostate and breast cancer not to mention heart disease. So if you take more of an holistic view.. it is quite damaging to yourself.

Be aware that this doesn't count for all meat. Grass-fed red meat is actually healthy, partly because it contains way more Omega-3 compared to Omega-6 and seems to prevent cancer. See also here: http://www.anh-usa.org/you-are-what-your-food-ate/

You may get more benefits from what the cow ate, but it is still probably a carcinogen. To avoid eating carcinogens, cut out the middleman and eat vegetables and leafy greens yourself.

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

#102

Post by tkyjonathan »

ascorbic wrote: post #48
myth_buster wrote: post #23

a member of the Meat Advisory Panel... said "“The top priorities for cancer prevention remain smoking cessation, maintenance of normal body weight and avoidance of high alcohol intakes.”" emeritus fellow at the Institute of Food Research, also said the effect was small. The North American Meat Institute said defining red meat as a cancer hazard defied common sense. Due to economies of McDonald's, Burger King et al, t…

"McDonald's, Burger King et al" aren't really affected by this. This is about smoked, salted or otherwise preserved meats. "Processed" doesn't covered mincing/grinding. They may be covered by the weaker claims about red meat in general.

Burgers count towards processed meats. Especially when it comes ready made from a factory for the staff in the restaurant to heat up.

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

#103

Post by mvanvoorden »

tkyjonathan wrote: post #101
mvanvoorden wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be aware that this doesn't count for all meat. Grass-fed red meat is actually healthy, partly because it contains way more Omega-3 compared to Omega-6 and seems to prevent cancer. See also here: http://www.anh-usa.org/you-are-what-your-food-ate/

You may get more benefits from what the cow ate, but it is still probably a carcinogen. To avoid eating carcinogens, cut out the middleman and eat vegetables and leafy greens yourself.

No it's not. It's the opposite of a carcinogen. It becomes carcinogenic because of the food, grass-fed meat has anti-inflammatory properties, and therefore helps preventing cancer.

Vegetables and leafy greens are not the holy grail, because for this goes almost the same as meat. They can be full with pesticides and be nutrition deficient because of industrial farming.

Whatever you eat, if you want to avoid or lower your risk of getting cancer, eat only organic, non-processed food, ban sugar, and drastically limit the intake of fructose-rich fruits.

And for those who don't care, eat whatever you want, nobody stops you from doing so :)

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

#104

Post by INTPnerd »

mazatta wrote: post #53
INTPnerd wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, but most of them do use it as a preservative. I agree the article should address this instead of just saying processed meats are bad. Also, high quality vitamin C can block the nitrosamine formation if you consume it with your processed meat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxWRxtS_cGI http://store.naturalnews.com/NanoNutra-Liposomal-Vitamin-C-1... http://store.naturalnews.com/Optimal-Liposomal-Vitamin-C--5-…

This might not necessarily refute your argument, but I wouldn't rely on Natural News as a source. They're a known source of pseudoscientific drivel.

I don't know of any modern source of health information that I trust completely. That goes for the articles in Natural News and even the things Mike Adams himself publishes. I will admit that it is not uncommon for his reasoning to be biased and one-dimensional. However, I think overall he is really knowledgeable about health and is one of the best sources to learn from. He seems to be really trying to find out the truth about health, and I trust his opinions more than most others. Go back and listen to his earliest radio show episodes. Then look at some of the recent stuff he has done with doing his own independent scientific testing. He is a great source of information about health, but definitely question the reasoning of his arguments and do other research.

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

#105

Post by INTPnerd »

howlin wrote: post #74
INTPnerd wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this all the time whenever I say anything about anything contributing to cancer. People use the excuse "Everything gives you cancer, so who cares?" No, not everything gives you cancer. Only things that give you cancer, give you cancer. Lots of foods have anti-cancer properties. Basically, the more natural the food is, the more likely it will be to prevent or even treat cancer. Now when I say treat cancer, I am…

http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/natural/natcarc.htm Natural = less carcinogenic is not always true. E.g. peanuts with fungicide are way less likely to give you cancer than peanuts in their natural state. Also, saparilla has almost been completely removed from the diet due to perceived cancer risk.

It is true that natural is not always less carcinogenic, but it is one of the simplest and most effective reasoning points. In fact this way of reasoning is so effective, that I am already pretty sure you are wrong about the peanut thing, or at least oversimplifying it in a misleading way, despite the fact that I have never even heard of this before and have done no research at all. I would be interested to see what evidence there is that I am wrong about peanuts. It is also good to reason about whether something was intended for human consumption. Marijuana may be "natural", but I don't think we are intended to eat it for food. If you think a certain food was intended to be eaten it it's original raw state, then reasoning about different ways it can be changed away from that state will help you. The way we grow, process, cook, and eat food is getting farther and farther away from the natural state it started with.

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

#106

Post by howlin »

INTPnerd wrote: post #105
howlin wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/natural/natcarc.htm Natural = less carcinogenic is not always true. E.g. peanuts with fungicide are way less likely to give you cancer than peanuts in their natural state. Also, saparilla has almost been completely removed from the diet due to perceived cancer risk.

It is true that natural is not always less carcinogenic, but it is one of the simplest and most effective reasoning points. In fact this way of reasoning is so effective, that I am already pretty sure you are wrong about the peanut thing, or at least oversimplifying it in a misleading way, despite the fact that I have never even heard of this before and have done no research at all. I would be interested to see what…

The problem with peanuts is aflatoxin. It's a really, really bad contaminant. If human livers weren't so resilient, ingesting this toxin would almost guarantee liver cancer. Most commercial peanuts have either been rigorously inspected or doused in fungicide.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/568443/fda-warns-public-on-pean...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aflatoxin

Post reply on HN