Bacon under siege!

[Midpack]

Not really, once again the headlines are worse than the details. I've seen several "reports" today suggesting processed meats are as dangerous as cigarettes and asbestos in terms of cancer risk ***. Rubbish...

Quote:

The experts concluded that each 50 gram portion — about 1.75 ounce, or about two strips of bacon — of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%, the IARC said

Hot dogs, bacon, processed meats linked to cancer

*** Bacon to be listed alongside cigarettes, asbestos as carcinogens: Daily Mail

Quote:

Although the WHO doesn’t rank these known carcinogens, their data does provide some information about relative risk. They estimate that 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are caused by eating a diet that’s high in processed meat. You can compare that number to the 200,000 deaths per year caused by air pollution, 600,000 per year caused by alcohol consumption and 1 million deaths per year caused by cigarettes according to the Global Burden of Disease Project, another WHO research body. Air pollution causes another 200,000 deaths. So yes, bacon causes cancer, but no, it's not the same as smoking.

[pb4uski]

I'll take my chances.

[Lakewood90712]

If the research is accurate, I should already be dead.

[W2R]

Let's see, I'm 67 already and cancer free so far (knock on wood).

Statistically, I probably have another 15-20 years left. If anyone thinks I am going to completely eliminate bacon, hot dogs, and red meat for the rest of my life, for fear of getting cancer, then I'd like to sell them a bridge.

I believe that too much of any one food is probably not so good, and conversely getting a variety of different foods in one's diet is a healthy thing to do. And that includes red meat, hot dogs, and bacon, along with many other types of foods. Even the occasional jalapeno once in a blue moon. .

[Gumby]

We shall not stand for this outrage. As Shakespeare said "Cry havoc, and let slip the pigs of war!"

[braumeister]

As most would surmise, this can be ignored.

As I posted elsewhere:

The WHO says eating those 50 grams of bacon increases your risk of bowel cancer by 18%. But that's relative risk. As I read it, the actual numbers are that the risk rises from about 6% to about 7%. Hardly worth giving up my beloved bacon!

[donheff]

The increased risk is real but small and for red meat (not processed) the increased risk is barely noticeable. The idiotic pundits who compared this with tobacco were reacting to the reported reliability of the finding, not the magnitude of the impact. I wish they would report some of these alarming studies in terms of the average increased days of life for choosing a giving intervention. Recent studies on statins indicate that you can expect about 1 day more of life for every year you take a statin (I am rushing to the pharmacy right now). My guess is you can expect even less of an impact by dropping bacon and sausages from your diet (and even then, only if you replace the processed meats by some similar mix of protein and fat - not carbs). I'm sticking with my bacon and eggs just like the oldest woman in the world.

Bacon rules!!!

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by braumeister As most would surmise, this can be ignored. As I posted elsewhere: The WHO says eating those 50 grams of bacon increases your risk of bowel cancer by 18%. But that's relative risk. As I read it, the actual numbers are that the risk rises from about 6% to about 7%. Hardly worth giving up my beloved bacon!

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff The increased risk is real but small and for red meat (not processed) the increased risk is barely noticeable. The idiotic pundits who compared this with tobacco were reacting to the reported reliability of the finding, not the magnitude of the impact. .... Bacon rules!!!

It would be interesting to compare that 18% increase (going from ~ 6% to 7% lifetime risk) for bacon, versus the increased risk for tobacco use and lung cancer. I don't know what the numbers are either, offhand, but I do know that the incidences of lung cancer correlated very highly with smoking.

But 18% is a 'better' headline grabber than 'going from 6% to 7%', so that is what the general public (who also are not great with numbers) will see/& hear.

-ERD50

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 It would be interesting to compare that 18% increase (going from ~ 6% to 7% lifetime risk) for bacon, versus the increased risk for tobacco use and lung cancer. I don't know what the numbers are either, offhand, but I do know that the incidences of lung cancer correlated very highly with smoking. But 18% is a 'better' headline grabber than 'going from 6% to 7%', so that is what the general public (who also are not great with numbers) will see/& hear. -ERD50

NBC Nightly News reported last night that processed meats are now in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos, as in they seem to cause cancer, but whereas processed meats increase chances by 18%, cigarettes raise it by 2000%. No idea their sources or specifics.

[travelover]

Resist!

[Chuckanut]

Then there is this to consider.

Saturated Fat Back in the Gutter; Failing to See the Bigger Picture

Quote:

However, things tend to change rapidly (except the guidelines) in the world of nutrition science. Now, after what appeared to be a successful rehabilitation, saturated fat is back in the gutter. But a closer look at the Yanping paper raises questions about some more obvious conclusions not addressed by the authors.

Note that though most of the discussion is about the need to cut saturated fats,
the table midway down the article show that those with the highest carbohydrate consumption had the worst rate of Coronary Heart Disease.

Interesting that the worst offender (carbs) somehow got a pass while a lesser offender (saturated fat) was made the villain.

Oh, also note that those people with the highest overall fat consumption had a lower CHD rate than those with the lowest overall fat consumption.

It makes one wonder who picks and chooses what to emphasize and what to ignore.

[TromboneAl]

It's so annoying. NBC reported that we now know that processed meats CAUSE cancer.

There's no evidence for causation, just as there's no evidence that Internet Explorer causes murders:



I have no doubt they are correlated. Here's why:

1. For many years we've been told to avoid red meat.

2. As a result, people who eat meat are those who ignore medical advice. They are less health-conscious in general. That is, people who ignore medical advice are more likely to smoke, not exercise, etc.

3. So, it's no surprise that less-health-conscious people have more cancer, but it doesn't prove that red meat causes cancer.

To prove causation, you'd have to randomly select people, have some of them eat processed meat and some not, then follow up in ten years. Without that, you cannot control for the other factors. That experiment hasn't been done, and never will be done.

More:

[Chuckanut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack Not really, once again the headlines are worse than the details. I've seen several "reports" today suggesting processed meats are as dangerous as cigarettes and asbestos in terms of cancer risk ***. Rubbish... Hot dogs, bacon, processed meats linked to cancer *** Bacon to be listed alongside cigarettes, asbestos as carcinogens: Daily Mail

+1 Absolute rubbish designed to scare people who did not study their math and/or understand how these things are reported in the scientific papers.

Keep in mind that that 18% is a relative increase, not an absolute increase. So, if your chances of getting cancer are 3%, an 18% increase means they are now about 3.6%. This assumes that the correlation equals causation, of course.

Gary Taubes was right. Some of the worst science and some of the worst news reporting is in the field of human health.

[braumeister]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl people who eat meat are those who ignore medical advice.

Or maybe just less apt to believe spurious reports in the media.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut +1 Absolute rubbish designed to scare people who did not study their math and/or understand how these things are reported in the scientific papers.

Rubbish indeed. However, most of the television and online reports I saw didn't provide any specifics. Even those that published the 18% number didn't report anything WRT cigarettes or asbestos. That shouldn't qualify as even remotely credible reporting IMO...

I have bacon less than weekly, and I suspect most people don't average 2-2/3rds strips per day.

[rodi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UqsvosPHAE

[hausfrau]

I live in the upper midwest. We love our brats and sausages here. In fact, I'm about to make my semi-annual sausage run to one of the butcher shops near me.

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by braumeister The WHO says eating those 50 grams of bacon increases your risk of bowel cancer by 18%. But that's relative risk. As I read it, the actual numbers are that the risk rises from about 6% to about 7%. Hardly worth giving up my beloved bacon! [/I][/COLOR]

Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Wasn't it the WHO that said: "Hope I die before I get old"?

Now they're changing their tune!?

[razztazz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff View Post The increased risk is real but small and for red meat (not processed) the increased risk is barely noticeable. The idiotic pundits who compared this with tobacco were reacting to the reported reliability of the finding, not the magnitude of the impact. .... Bacon rules!!!

Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. attrib to Einstein

I want to see a study on how dangerous statins are. And not the ones your doctor relies on.

[ziggy29]

Pry it from my cold, dead, cancerous fingers....