Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?

[kabbes]

Cancer is the leading cause of death, so any increase in risk should be thought about carefully, whether it is relative or absolute.

Lifetime risk of getting cancer is about 50%, is that high enough for you?

And what is the marginal impact on that 50% from eating non-processed meat? That’s the crucial missing piece of information. If the difference is between 50% and 50.00001% then I don’t care.

Literally everything you do increases your risk of cancer, by the way. Cancer results from runaway cell reproduction, which is an event potentially triggered in your body every time it comes across anything that isn’t “normal”, which basically includes everything. You have systems designed to destroy problem cells but sometimes, very rarely, those systems fail and a cancer starts. That’s why the lifetime risk aggregates to 50%. It’s also why you can’t just spit activities into “cancer forming” and “non cancer forming”. To have an idea of whether an event matters, you need to know the marginal effect, not just whether or not it has an effect at all.

 

[friedaweed]

You were complaining that vegetarian dishes are boring,

No I wasn't. That's just a conclusion that you jumped to.

 

[friedaweed]

So this -> is you 'taking the time to explain your position to me in good faith.'

Yeah, right.

There's no point trying to engage with you in good faith. That's been proven on this thread time and time again.

 

[friedaweed]

And that's another mighty impressive strawman.

You really do seem unhealthily obsessed with 'evangelical', 'holier than thou,' 'whiny' and 'self congratulatory' veggies. Is insulting people your coping mechanism?

Believe me, I've no obsession with reactionary vegetarians. More a passing amusement. If there's anybody on this thread that has an overt obsession with other peoples dietary choices it's you

 

[editor]

There's no point trying to engage with you in good faith. That's been proven on this thread time and time again.

Posting up a in response to a sensible post is not 'engaging,' neither is endlessly insulting people who choose a different diet to yours.

I think I'll put you on ignore for a while because I'm fed up listening to your stupid strawmen and negatively stereotyping bullshit. Bye.

 

[editor]

And what is the marginal impact on that 50% from eating non-processed meat? That’s the crucial missing piece of information. If the difference is between 50% and 50.00001% then I don’t care.

Literally everything you do increases your risk of cancer, by the way. Cancer results from runaway cell reproduction, which is an event potentially triggered in your body every time it comes across anything that isn’t “normal”, which basically includes everything. You have systems designed to destroy problem cells but sometimes, very rarely, those systems fail and a cancer starts. That’s why the lifetime risk aggregates to 50%. It’s also why you can’t just spit activities into “cancer forming” and “non cancer forming”. To have an idea of whether an event matters, you need to know the marginal effect, not just whether or not it has an effect at all.

I hope people listen to the NHS rather than you.

Red meat – such as beef, lamb and pork – is a good source of protein, vitamins and minerals, and can form part of a balanced diet. But eating a lot of red and processed meat increases your risk of bowel (colorectal) cancer.

That's why it's recommended that people who eat more than 90g (cooked weight) of red and processed meat a day cut down to 70g or less. This could help reduce your risk of bowel cancer.

Red meat and bowel cancer risk

Find out how you can reduce your risk of getting bowel cancer by eating less red and processed meat.

www.nhs.uk

 

[friedaweed]

Posting up a in response to a sensible post is not 'engaging,' neither is endlessly insulting people who choose a different diet to yours.

I think I'll put you on ignore for a while because I'm fed up listening to your stupid strawmen and negatively stereotyping bullshit. Bye.

A quick scroll sees you repeatedly using the rolleyes at people in this thread. Off you pop.

 

[kabbes]

I hope people listen to the NHS rather than you.

Red meat and bowel cancer risk

Find out how you can reduce your risk of getting bowel cancer by eating less red and processed meat.

www.nhs.uk

I’m curious to know in what way you think that conflicts with what I have said.

 

[WouldBe]

There i so little to feel good about these days, if I (or anyone) can develop a sense of "self-congratulatory" satisfaction on having filled my stomach on bread, lentils & barley rather than on the flesh of a fellow creature, I'd be unconvinced that this, in and of itself, is not a good thing and something to be lauded, rather than mocked by eye rolling.

Hate to tell you this but bread, barley and lentils are hardly healthy.

 

[friedaweed]

I’m curious to know in what way you think that conflicts with what I have said.

Because he's right and everyone else is wrong of course.

 

[friedaweed]

There i so little to feel good about these days, if I (or anyone) can develop a sense of "self-congratulatory" satisfaction on having filled my stomach on bread, lentils & barley rather than on the flesh of a fellow creature, I'd be unconvinced that this, in and of itself, is not a good thing and something to be lauded, rather than mocked by eye rolling.

I wasn't referring to you sugar. Calm down

My response to your plait du jour was your lack of other ingredients and the use of "a vegatable". Surely you could add a few spices and a bit more variation on the veg front. If you described that meal as you did on a menu I'm not sure you'd get many takers. It just sounds like a carrot and a few bland beans. May I suggest a little stock and some herbs? I was excited by the bread it was just that the dish sounded a bit bland

 

[friedaweed]

Hate to tell you this but bread, barley and lentils are hardly healthy.

and 'a vegetable'.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As a point of information, the bowel cancer risk increases by 20% with high levels of red meat/processed meat consumption according to this study.

Taking the lifelong risk of bowel cancer to be about 0.05, that means an increase from 0.05 to 0.06.

A daily low dose of aspirin is associated with a decrease in bowel cancer by roughly the same amount, fwiw. The apparent protection against all cancers provided by aspirin is quite well established now.

For comparison, smoking is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer by something in the order of 7,000%.

 

[Cat Fan]

As a point of information, the bowel cancer risk increases by 20% with high levels of red meat/processed meat consumption according to this study.

Taking the lifelong risk of bowel cancer to be about 0.05, that means an increase from 0.05 to 0.06.

A daily low dose of aspirin is associated with a decrease in bowel cancer by roughly the same amount, fwiw. The apparent protection against all cancers provided by aspirin is quite well established now.

For comparison, smoking is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer by something in the order of 7,000%.

Exactly, so 20% increased risk is quite significant. Bowel cancer is not fun.

 

[WouldBe]

and 'a vegetable'.

I've never cooked a vegetarian meal before but I think even I could do better than that.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

As a point of information, the bowel cancer risk increases by 20% with high levels of red meat/processed meat consumption according to this study.

Taking the lifelong risk of bowel cancer to be about 0.05, that means an increase from 0.05 to 0.06.

A daily low dose of aspirin is associated with a decrease in bowel cancer by roughly the same amount, fwiw. The apparent protection against all cancers provided by aspirin is quite well established now.

For comparison, smoking is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer by something in the order of 7,000%.

0.05? Where did you get that figure from? According to the American Cancer Society the life-time risk of bowel cancer in men is 1 in 23 (a bit lower for women) which is about 4.3% life-time risk. 20% of that is about an 0.86 increased risk. Maybe an under 1% increased risk of bowel cancer alone isn’t enough to motivate individual dietary change, the imperative to reduce seems pretty urgent from a public health perspective. In a population like the UK, that small increase of a risk from an individual level represents tens of thousands of extra deaths a year. Is this really a price worth to maintain some level of palate pleasure derived from what is at best a highly ethically dubious practice?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Exactly, so 20% increased risk is quite significant. Bowel cancer is not fun.

It's an increase from 0.05 to 0.06. Not nothing, but there are lots of other lifestyle choices, from smoking to drinking alcohol to not doing enough exercise, that are associated with larger risks.

But yeah, not nothing. The evidence for the protective capacity of aspirin against bowel cancer has led me to take a daily low dose of aspirin for the last ten years due to roughly the same order of magnitude of effect.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

0.05? Where did you get that figure from? According to the American Cancer Society the life-time risk of bowel cancer in men is 1 in 23 (a bit lower for women) which is about 4.3% life-time risk. 20% of that is about an 0.86 increased risk. Maybe an under 1% increased risk of bowel cancer alone isn’t enough to motivate individual dietary change, the imperative to reduce seems pretty urgent from a public health perspective. In a population like the UK, that small increase of a risk from an individual level represents tens of thousands of extra deaths a year. Is this really a price worth to maintain some level of palate pleasure derived from what is at best a highly ethically dubious practice?

0.05 is 5%

 

[Cat Fan]

Hate to tell you this but bread, barley and lentils are hardly healthy.

Nonsense, lentils and whole grain barley are very healthy. Bread, it depends.

 

[editor]

I’m curious to know in what way you think that conflicts with what I have said.

So you agree that eating too much meat leads to a real increase in the chance of developing cancer and cutting back would be a very sensible response? Great!

 

[editor]

Hate to tell you this but bread, barley and lentils are hardly healthy.

You don't half post up some bollocks

Top 5 health benefits of lentils | BBC Good Food

High in fibre and a great source of plant-based protein, are lentils good for you? Nutritionist, Kerry Torrens, explores the health benefits of lentils.

www.bbcgoodfood.com

9 Impressive Health Benefits of Barley

Barley is a versatile grain, packed with vitamins, minerals and other beneficial plant compounds. Here are 9 impressive health benefits of barley.

www.healthline.com

 

[WouldBe]

Nonsense, lentils and whole grain barley are very healthy. Bread, it depends.

Depends how often you eat it.

 

[WouldBe]

Depends how often you eat it.

Hardly balanced is it. I only see some B vitamins in those links, where are the rest?

 

[editor]

Hardly balanced is it. I only see some B vitamins in those links, where are the rest?

Try reading

Lentils are rich in fibre, folate and potassium making them a great choice for the heart and for managing blood pressure and cholesterol. They are also a source of energising iron and vitamin B1 which helps maintain a steady heartbeat.

When consumed as a whole grain, barley is a particularly rich source of fiber, molybdenum, manganese and selenium. It also contains good amounts of copper, vitamin B1, chromium, phosphorus, magnesium and niacin (2).

Additionally, barley packs lignans, a group of antioxidants linked to a lower risk of cancer and heart disease (3Trusted Source).

However, like all whole grains, barley does have antinutrients, which impair your body’s digestion and nutrient absorption.

 

[WouldBe]

Try reading

I did read it you plank. Where are the other B vitamins? Where are vitamins A, C and E? Where is the calcium needed for bone strength and proper nerve conduction? Where is the phosphorus also needed for bone strength?
Where is the potassium?

If you think that beige gloop is healthy you try eating it for a month and report back on how your health is.

And you have the nerve to say I'm talking bollocks. With your pathetic knowledge of what's required in a diet you should not, in any circumstances, be giving dietary advice to anyone.

 

[kabbes]

So you agree that eating too much meat leads to a real increase in the chance of developing cancer and cutting back would be a very sensible response? Great!

It doesn’t say that. For a start, it talks about red and processed meat, not meat in general. Second, it talks about avoiding a “lot” of meat, and advises a specific amount of red and processed meat to keep below. It doesn’t say anything about cutting back if you are already below that. Third, it gives no indication as to what the marginal risk actually is, merely that it exists. And that leads to the most important point of all, which is that “sensible” is a cultural construct, which depends on local norms and what is seen as needed for social participation. “Sensible” does not exist out of context, as some abstract truth.

People take risks every single day. The NHS gives a tonne of advice about risks, from avoiding more than 150ml of fruit juice (and carbonated sugary drinks completely) to types of stretching that should be done on a regular basis — how much of it do people live by purely on the grounds that it is “sensible”? Should they? For that matter, do people prioritise safety over risk on other aspects of life? Of course not — life would not be worth living. The minimisation of risk is not how human beings live. We gauge risk against reward. And to do that, we need to know more than simply “this thing raises risk by some unspecified amount”

 

[editor]

Where is the potassium?

Lentils are packed with potassium and seeing as no one is suggesting that people should eat NOTHING BUT lentils, the rest of your argument is completely nonsensical.

11 foods that have more potassium than a banana

While bananas are certainly a potassium-packed snack, many foods contain more potassium than the popular yellow fruit.

www.insider.com

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, the evidence for processed red meat such as bacon is strong. The evidence for red meat in general is weaker as there are some problems with the various studies on this. And non-red meat such as chicken plus fish, which for some strange reason gets excluded from the category 'meat', has no associated elevated risk of bowel cancer. For those who don't know, pork is classified a 'red meat' in this context. A lot of people seem not to know this.

 

[editor]

It doesn’t say that. For a start, it talks about red and processed meat, not meat in general. Second, it talks about avoiding a “lot” of meat, and advises a specific amount of red and processed meat to keep below. It doesn’t say anything about cutting back if you are already below that. Third, it gives no indication as to what the marginal risk actually is, merely that it exists. And that leads to the most important point of all, which is that “sensible” is a cultural construct, which depends on local norms and what is seen as needed for social participation. “Sensible” does not exist out of context, as some abstract truth.

People take risks every single day. The NHS gives a tonne of advice about risks, from avoiding more than 150ml of fruit juice (and carbonated sugary drinks completely) to types of stretching that should be done on a regular basis — how much of it do people live by purely on the grounds that it is “sensible”? Should they? For that matter, do people prioritise safety over risk on other aspects of life? Of course not — life would not be worth living. The minimisation of risk is not how human beings live. We gauge risk against reward. And to do that, we need to know more than simply “this thing raises risk by some unspecified amount”

Everyone should be eating less red meat anyway, regardless of your Grand Tour of Whataboutery.

 

[Spymaster]

It doesn’t say that. For a start, it talks about red and processed meat, not meat in general. Second, it talks about avoiding a “lot” of meat, and advises a specific amount of red and processed meat to keep below. It doesn’t say anything about cutting back if you are already below that. Third, it gives no indication as to what the marginal risk actually is, merely that it exists. And that leads to the most important point of all, which is that “sensible” is a cultural construct, which depends on local norms and what is seen as needed for social participation. “Sensible” does not exist out of context, as some abstract truth.

People take risks every single day. The NHS gives a tonne of advice about risks, from avoiding more than 150ml of fruit juice (and carbonated sugary drinks completely) to types of stretching that should be done on a regular basis — how much of it do people live by purely on the grounds that it is “sensible”? Should they? For that matter, do people prioritise safety over risk on other aspects of life? Of course not — life would not be worth living. The minimisation of risk is not how human beings live. We gauge risk against reward. And to do that, we need to know more than simply “this thing raises risk by some unspecified amount”

Eagerly awaiting the response to this!

Edit> How disappointing.