PDA

View Full Version : So red meat actually does increase the chance of cancer...


spamuell
06-14-2005, 09:24 PM
linky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Society/cancer/story/0,8150,1506801,00.html)

PoBoy321
06-14-2005, 09:25 PM
Mmmmmmmmmmm... cancer.

Dynasty
06-14-2005, 09:26 PM
But, cows are still delicious.

2+2 wannabe
06-14-2005, 09:28 PM
"Big Study Links Red Meat To Cancer"

am i the only one who thinks the words "Big Study" make the study look less credible (although obviously it's credible)?

miajag81
06-14-2005, 09:28 PM
Eating meat and living to 82 > not eating meat and living to 85.

spamuell
06-14-2005, 09:29 PM
am i the only one who thinks the words "Big Study" make the study look less credible (although obviously it's credible)?

No, I can't believe they'd have such a pathetic headline in such a widely-circulated, mainstream newspaper.

holeplug
06-14-2005, 09:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Eating meat and living to 82 > not eating meat and living to 85.

[/ QUOTE ]

spamuell
06-14-2005, 09:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Eating meat and living to 82 > not eating meat and living to 85.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you find the numbers 82 and 85?

miajag81
06-14-2005, 09:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eating meat and living to 82 > not eating meat and living to 85.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you find the numbers 82 and 85?

[/ QUOTE ]

nowhere, just a general observation

wacki
06-14-2005, 09:57 PM
I posted a bunch of links about this in bruisers thread. The difference is about a decade.

spamuell
06-14-2005, 09:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eating meat and living to 82 > not eating meat and living to 85.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you find the numbers 82 and 85?

[/ QUOTE ]

nowhere, just a general observation

[/ QUOTE ]

lol a general observation of what? Have you observed a large amount of people both who have frequently eaten red meat and who have not done so and seen that one set has died at an average age of 82 and another at 85?

Or, by "general observation," did you mean that you just made those numbers up so you could pretend cancer doesn't exist or won't have any significant effect on you so you can continue living how you want?

spamuell
06-14-2005, 09:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I posted a bunch of links about this in bruisers thread. The difference is about a decade.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw those, thanks. According to this article (which could well be wrong), the results of the large-scale trial it's talking about weren't released until yesterday.

wacki
06-14-2005, 10:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I saw those, thanks. According to this article (which could well be wrong), the results of the large-scale trial it's talking about weren't released until yesterday.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know. Still this isn't really grounbreaking news. People have just studying this for a while. The "low meat" movement is just gaining momentum which sucks because I love cow.

Nottom
06-15-2005, 12:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I saw those, thanks. According to this article (which could well be wrong), the results of the large-scale trial it's talking about weren't released until yesterday.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know. Still this isn't really grounbreaking news. People have just studying this for a while. The "low meat" movement is just gaining momentum which sucks because I love cow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just means more cows for us to eat. Yum.

woodguy
06-15-2005, 12:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Those who eat two portions a day - equivalent to a bacon sandwich and a fillet steak - increase their risk of bowel cancer by 35% over those who eat just one portion a week

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmm, comparing two servings A DAY to 1 serving A WEEK, seems like to fairly extreme ends of the spectrum.

The key phrase, as always, is all good things in moderation and pass the steak.

Regards,
Woodguy

nothumb
06-15-2005, 12:38 AM
Crap.

Who needs bowels anyway?

NT

jakethebake
06-15-2005, 09:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So red meat actually does increase the chance of cancer...

[/ QUOTE ]

Increases risk of cancer... Reduces risk of living your life as a pasty-faced, emaciated little vegan freak. And it tastes soooo good.