Goodbye to Baloney

[Zero]

Ha, I understand what you are saying and I just haven't noticed the associations with the other things you mention.

But darn it, I want a fried bloney sandwich, fry it to char a bit, put it on white bread with mayo and a fried flat egg. Ummmmm, memories of visiting my rellies in OK.

 

[Sarah in SC]

FWIW, I eat more red meat than DH. He was a vegetarian when I met him and still doesn't like eating beef. He's okay with chicken and turkey but is always happy when I come home without ground beef or pork. I don't think he feels guilty about it, but it is just a matter of taste.
I still cook meat, because, well, I do the shopping and cooking and we eat what I like. But I do try to accommodate his preferences as they are usually the healthier choice.
And baloney sandwiches! Yum! We had one of those Corelle-top stoves back in the 80s and unbeknownst to Mom, we'd fry baloney directly on the burners (cutting the corners as Feever mentioned). Man that was good eating!

 

[BayBum]

how can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

 

[HFWR]

OK, now I'm curious!

What does eating red meat say about some one?

Something like this...

 

[Zero]

So, eating red meat leads to smoking? Or a Stetson? Or a bodacious pornstache?

 

[BigNick]

A fried baloney sandwich is still a treat for me!

I'd never heard of this delicacy until it got a shout-out in this ad:
YouTube - ‪FX Network 'Lawyer' TV Commercial‬‏

 

[ItDontMeanAThing]

The article linked in the OP is about a meta-analysis of epidemiological (epi) studies, most of them being cohort and case-control studies. One of the problems with epi studies on low probability outcomes (colon cancer in this case) is the mountain of statistical tests one has to do. Run enough samples and stat tests and you will conclude some of the time that a fair coin or set of dice is biased. Measure things like diet and lifestyle and the pure amount of exaggeration, BS and outright lies from the subjects make researchers conclude the cleanest study is no more than a suggestion to scientists in more rigorous fields to take a closer look. Unless, of course, the only way to study the subject is using epi methods.

One surprise was that nutritionists consider pork to be a red meat. What's up with that?

 

[GregLee]

One surprise was that nutritionists consider pork to be a red meat. What's up with that?

Answers.com says:

Its myoglobin content is lower than beef, but much higher than chicken white meat. The USDA treats pork as a red meat. Pork is very high in thiamin.

In 1987 the U.S. National Pork Board began an advertising campaign to position pork as "the other white meat", due to a public perception of chicken and turkey (white meat) as more healthy than red meat. The campaign was highly successful and resulted in 87% of consumers identifying pork with the slogan. As of 2005, the slogan is still used in marketing pork, with some variations.
Answers.com - Is pork red meat or white meat

The Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat says pork is traditionally white in gastronomy but is considered red in nutrition. (It also has a number of references on the cancer risk question -- I gather that the evidence for the link is considered strong only for colorectal cancer.)

 

[calmloki]

Eschew red meat. Fish! That's the ticket! Of course you want to stay away from tuna and such given the high levels of mercury, but there's lots of Tilapia on the restaurant menus:

"Tilapia have very low levels of mercury[14] as they are fast-growing and short-lived with a primarily herbivorous diet, and thus do not accumulate mercury found in prey.[15] Tilapia is a low saturated fat, low calorie, low carbohydrate and low sodium protein source. It is a source of phosphorus, niacin, selenium, vitamin B12 and potassium. However, farm raised tilapia (the least expensive and most popular) has a high fat content (though low in saturated fats). According to research published in July 2008, farm raised tilapia may be worse for the heart than eating bacon or a hamburger. The research suggests the nutritional value of farm raised tilapia may be compromised by the amount of corn included in the feed. The corn contains short chain omega-6s that contribute to the buildup of these materials in the fish. "Ratios of long-chain omega-6 to long-chain omega-3, AA to EPA respectively, in tilapia averaged about 11:1, compared to much less than 1:1 (indicating more EPA than AA) in both salmon and trout."

Wikipedia.

Chicken? maybe google "fecal soup"

Grain? High cholesterol

I'm gonna just live on love.

 

[HFWR]

I'm gonna just live on love.

You forgot "beer"...

 

[Nords]

... but there's lots of Tilapia on the restaurant menus:

I eat a lot of fish, but tilapia has to be one of the most boring fish on the menu...

 

[Gumby]

I'll stick with the Aristotelian "golden mean" -- eating a little of this, a little of that, not forsaking anything, but also not eating too much of any one thing.

 

[W2R]

I'll stick with the Aristotelian "golden mean" -- eating a little of this, a little of that, not forsaking anything, but also not eating too much of any one thing.

Me too, except that I detest jalapenos so they are forsaken. Otherwise I try to get a variety of nutritious foods and just cut back and keep working out at the gym. I lost just under two pounds this week and continue to average about a pound a week, so that is working for me.

 

[Nords]

I lost just under two pounds this week and continue to average about a pound a week, so that is working for me.

After reading all the threads about diets and health and studies and controversies, I think we should write a book: "The Early Retirement Diet".

After all, it seems to be a common element in many successful weight-loss and health-improvement programs...

 

[Zero]

"No Baloney! How to Retire Fat-Free on One Tilapia a Day"

 

[WhoDaresWins]

Ah, fried baloney (or as we call it in Pittsburgh, jumbo). Cook it up a little charred in a skillet and put it on some white bread with a slice of fresh garden tomato with salt and pepper. Yum! I haven't eaten it since I was a kid but it was a summer favorite due to access to those big homegrown tomatoes from the backyard patch.
I get tired of the quarter pound of sliced turkey breast that I occasionally buy at the deli and substitute Genoa salami or prosciutto. I don't know why I don't buy jumbo anymore. Maybe as Thomas Wolfe said, you really can't go home again.

 

[Zero]

Ahhhh, I could go for a Primanti Bros. Jumbo and Cheese right now.

 

[haha]

I see that you guys are resisting the healthy foods idea pretty well. Fried baloney

 

[Richard8655]

OP is absolutely right. Red meat consumption has been consistently shown to increase the risk of colon cancer. What adds even more risk is when you throw that burger or steak on a grill and allow it to get blackened or seared. The chemicals produced in this process have been shown to be carcinogenic.

The Japanese, who eat much less red meat and more sea food and vegetables, have a much lower rate of this disease. I think we need to wean ourselves off this fascination with burgers and steaks. It just ain't healthy, especially if we want to live long and enjoy ER.

 

[deserat]

The article linked in the OP is about a meta-analysis of epidemiological (epi) studies, most of them being cohort and case-control studies. One of the problems with epi studies on low probability outcomes (colon cancer in this case) is the mountain of statistical tests one has to do. Run enough samples and stat tests and you will conclude some of the time that a fair coin or set of dice is biased. Measure things like diet and lifestyle and the pure amount of exaggeration, BS and outright lies from the subjects make researchers conclude the cleanest study is no more than a suggestion to scientists in more rigorous fields to take a closer look. Unless, of course, the only way to study the subject is using epi methods.

One surprise was that nutritionists consider pork to be a red meat. What's up with that?

I saw last year one of the most amazing presentations regarding research - essentially, it debunked most research saying that it was very difficult to get rid of bias and or truly prove correlation - it was difficult because you couldn't control every variable nor actually account for every variable--moreover, using 'file cabinet searches' for research is even more fraught with problems (which I believe you stated above).

From my post-graduate school days doing research, I remember taking a "class" (call Journal Club) on how to critically read a research paper - I walked away from that with a heaping helping of skepticism towards many research papers. How you state your hypothesis, how you set up your experiment to test your hypothesis, what your statistics truly said (gotta have a large n and small p to be truly relevant) were all areas in which you could err.

Lastly, being a biomedical engineer, I realize that the human body is amazing and yet quite variable - what may be good for one person, may not be so good for another. There are some generalities that can be stated, but the variability between people makes it difficult to be truly specific. In other words, YMMV

 

[Calgary_Girl]

Not an issue for me....I rarely eat anything that once had four legs. I eat chicken and fish for protein and that's about it.

 

[rgarling]

OP is absolutely right. Red meat consumption has been consistently shown to increase the risk of colon cancer.
...

Perhaps you could point out one convincing study for consideration?

 

[Richard8655]

Perhaps you could point out one convincing study for consideration?

A few among many. Just do google search.

Colon cancer study flags red meat

Red-Meat Eaters Risk Colon Cancer

Red meat and colon cancer

 

[rgarling]

A few among many. Just do google search.

Colon cancer study flags red meat

Red-Meat Eaters Risk Colon Cancer

Red meat and colon cancer

Sorry, those are journalists reporting about studies. You can safely ignore the meta study (and endless references to it). It lumps red meat and processed meats into a single category, and it is interpreted by a committee. Also, you also will need to find a study that does not involve self reported food intake, since on average people can't accurately report their consumption.

At the moment, I think the best you will be able to do is say that consumption appears to be positively correlated to cancer.

 

[Richard8655]

Sorry, those are journalists reporting about studies. You can safely ignore the meta study (and endless references to it). It lumps red meat and processed meats into a single category, and it is interpreted by a committee. Also, you also will need to find a study that does not involve self reported food intake, since on average people can't accurately report their consumption.

At the moment, I think the best you will be able to do is say that consumption appears to be positively correlated to cancer.

I don't know how much more evidence you need. There have been many studies done that show a cause/effect relationship. I'm not here to argue studies methodologies and convince you otherwise. Your health is based on your reseach with the onus on you. The fact that so much scientific evidence points to this conclusion is sufficient for me to avoid that kind of diet. If you want to quible studies methodologies to justify ignoring the evidence and consume in that way, that's really your choice.