/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9898208
Everything causes cancer.

>>9898208
post more than your shit image faggot shill

>Everything causes cancer.

>>9898219
ONIONS SHILL

>>9898223
BASEDSHILL GAMECUBER

>>9898223
Onions? Whatever do you mean?

>>9898219
How about the WHO? http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

How about the fact that the ACA doesn't recognize red meats as carcinogenic?

it's pretty well accepted in the longevity field that protein restriction extends the lifespan of organisms.

Being alive gives you cancer.

>>9898219
>>9898230
And what about when the research reports over 800 studies linking red meats to cancer? https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer.html

>High animal protein intake was positively associated with mortality and high plant protein intake was inversely associated with mortality, especially among individuals with at least 1 lifestyle risk factor. Substitution of plant protein for animal protein, especially that from processed red meat, was associated with lower mortality, suggesting the importance of protein source.
https://prolonpro.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/JAMA-Animals-vs-plant-based-Proteins-August-2016.pdf

>>9898208
not all meats have as damning data re: their carcinogenicy yet.
the real reason is that meat makes a fuck ton of money. what else were you expecting?

>>9898242
correlation does not equal causation. jesus fuck i thought this was a science board yet you fucks cant even understand the first fucking thing you learn in science

>>9898208
No, processed meats and red meat are likely to contribute to the development of cancer moreso than abstaining from them. They do not cause cancer, you wont get cancer from eating them like you would if you ate something like benzine regularly.

>>9898322
if you eat red meat that is even the slightest bit charred, that is directly carcinogenic. this has been proven

>>9898253
This thread is about red meat.
Not an attempt to make everyone a vegan fag.
Your article is irrelevant.

>>9898322
While it's true that correlation does not imply causation, it is possible in some cases to infer causation based on ample correlative data.

Damn so much for my sopressata habit

but i like burgs

>>9898356
I'm not vegan but at least I can accept that evidence suggests that high animal protein intake is NOT healthy.
Why does evidence suggesting that your lifestyle choice might lead to premature death anger you?

>>9898208
Don't really care, mate.
It tastes good and so long as it doesn't make up the vast majority of your diet it won't be that much of a problem.

>>9898208
because the "studies" that "prove" this relationship rely on extremely dubious and badly analyzed multivariate analysis.

>>9898404
Are you saying the WHO would lie to you?
>>9898393
I urge you to reconsider and stop eating meat. You will live a healthy and happy life.

>>9898382
you didn't even read your own article. if you even made the slight effort you would see how weak their analysis was.

there are 30 different caloric sources recorded for each participant, their diets weren't controlled, and the participants were just asked to recall what their diets were for a long period of time.

their data shows a correlation (weak) between meat consumption and mortality, but the study itself is unreliable.

>>9898408
>Are you saying the WHO would lie to you?
do you see those words in my post?
fuck off, imbecile.

>>9898411
WHO can't lie it's an unbiased source.

>>9898415
oh sweety

Eating delicious meat is an acceptable risk

>>9898408
>I urge you to reconsider and stop eating meat. You will live a healthy and happy life.
I am already living a healthy and happy life.

>>9898230
How about the fact that most of large organizations are in fact political, not scientific? Pseudoscientific, in actual fact. Control organizations.

The WHO is discredited at best.

>>9898410

https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(14)00062-X?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS155041311400062X%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

the authors of this study verify causation and determine the mechanism

>>9898593
>The WHO is discredited at best
You sure showed me with those arguments, way to go!

>>9898208
Eating healthy while being vegan is actually pretty hard.
Meat and dairy are the shortcuts to complete nutrition.

>>9898607
That study doesn't differentiate the kind of animal protein.
So far a causal link has only been shown for red meat.
It does work to further evidence that, however.
Show me one study which correlates things like chicken or fish consumption specifically to even close to the same mortality increase that you see with red meat.

>>9898611
You're welcome.

>>9898208
>eating land animals

>>9898633
>eating
Meme'd.

Moderation, as always is the key. Limit processes meat to once a week if you can and red meat 2-3 a week. I just don't understand why a lot of people can't eat fish, it's delicious.

>>9898669
I haven't eaten red meat in several years, and stopped eating poultry (turkey) a year ago. I eat fish occasionally in the form of sardines, and eggs a few times a week.

Meat is unnecessary and ecologically damaging. Not only that, the quality of most meat is one step up from absolute garbage. The animal has spent its life half dead. And you're eating the fruits of this free radical and stress hormone laced mess, fed with herbicide and pesticide laden (heavily subsidized) crops. This is not the meat of our ancestors, and historically meat was eaten quite sparsely.

>>9898685
Yes, we should reduce our red meat consumption. And I'm against unfair and inhuman treatment of animals. That's much different from being vegan. The only reason it's becoming an enviromental problem is volume, but replacing it with crops is not going to do anything positive either. The rest is just peta nonsense.

>>9898695
Also, meat is everything but unnecessary, and all the recent literature shows no evidence between saturates fat and CHD. So cancer is still an issue, but there are many alternatives, like poultry/fish. You need fat, and our ancestors (pre agriculture) rellies on it. Our modern dependence on carbs and sugar is what is causing all these fucking metabolic problems.

>>9898702
>Our modern dependence on carbs and sugar is what is causing all these fucking metabolic problems.
Do you have any articles that support this view?
I've heard it said before that humans are even born in a form of fat burning "ketosis," however I haven't been presented much evidence on the topic.

>>9898695
>but replacing it with crops is not going to do anything positive either
Reducing water consumption, runoff, and all the space required to grow crops to feed livestock, and eliminating their methane output, most certainly does make a difference.

>The rest is just peta nonsense.
It's simply the truth. Tough luck if you don't like it.

>>9898702
>Also, meat is everything but unnecessary,
Explain me. The only oil I take in is sunflower oil, occasionally, and plant oils from legumes. Which I don't eat often either.

>Cancer
Carcinogenesis is complex, however a "red meat" heavy diet is an obvious case of a tumor promoter. Neu5gc can also serve as a tumor initiator.

>Our modern dependence on carbs and sugar is what is causing all these fucking metabolic problems.
It plays a role. Diet in general does, eg there's evidence that early childhood exposure to artificial sugars and MSG causes damage to the hypothalamus with subsequent metabolic and autonomic disturbance in adulthood. Not even to mention fluoride compounds and aluminum intake with subsequent accumulation in the brain, and various EMFs, which also happen to act strongly on the hypothalamus and promote chr9onically elevated intracellular calcium and oxidative stress. There are some case reports of type 1 diabetics losing blood sugar control when exposed to wi-fi fields, so it clearly has a role in the functioning of insulin in the body. To someone who's read studies in the thousands from the last 80 years of literature, this is not surprising.

All facets of American life are toxic. Literally, physically, toxic.

>>9898706
Lipolysis will be driven down by a constant stream of carbohydrates / sugars. The body will never have cause to function via ketosis. Most people probably haven't been in a state ketosis in years and can barely tolerate even brief fasting.

>>9898724
>Most people probably haven't been in a state ketosis in years and can barely tolerate even brief fasting.
Are symptoms of such apparent exhaustion?
Anecdotally I've noticed that sort of complaint when those around me go ~6 hours without food.
It's pretty sad.

>>9898208
ITT: meat-esting breinlets are defending their bloody lifestyle.

>>9898731
>It's pretty sad.
Considering I haven't eaten in the last ~36 hours, yes. It is pitiful.

>Are symptoms of such apparent exhaustion?
Potentially. Insulin resistance, chronic inflammation, and poorly functioning hypothalamic-adrenal-pituitary axis, as well as depressed thyroid function, will do that. Really the causes are too numerous to list and unfortunately you can pretty accurately say "everything will do that", hence:
>All facets of American life are toxic. Literally, physically, toxic.
Don't drink the water, don't breathe the air, don't eat the food. I saw a book the other day titled "How not to die". Accurate framing.

>>9898208

That's not even true based on the image that you've posted. It says that processed meats are group 1, red meats are group 2A, & chicken & fish are fine.

>>9898724
>reducing water...
Yes, that's why I'm in favour of reducing red meat consumption. I'm just saying there's no need to eliminate it. Also, agriculture (in particular for subsistence agriculture) has a massive impact on deforestation. And no, the half death kid on the amazon-congo is not going to make sure to use organic shitz and will use fertilisers that act agressive on the eco system.
>It's simply the truth
Yes, they give hormones to cows and pesticides are used. I'm still waiting for any evidence that this has any repercussions on human health. I'm in favour of better practicea, and I'm opposes to the retarded subsidy with corn, but there are plenty of ways to have sustainable farms that arent organic wacky memes.
>The only oil I take
Why do I have to explain your perceptions on your diet and health? I am on a low carb diet (not ketogenic) and I have regular checkups and I am perfectly healthy. Makes no difference.
>"red meat" heavy diet is an obvious tumor promoter
Well it's not that obvious as it hasn't been reported as such by any credible source. Though it's probable and again, it's better to find alternatives.
>It playes a role
It plays a significant role. Obviously we understand that refined sugars are shit and soda in particular is the cause of many dietary issues, but it's not just that.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/obr.12229 and while I understand that fat can also lead you to a lot of these, losing/maintaining body weight is easier in a low carb diet which is important when there is not a lot of time for exercising (40 min of speedwalk should be enough a day).
>wi-fu fields
You are reading tabloids
>>9898706
It's all in the article I posted. Though I don't know about that "ketosis". In general it doesn't seem like a good idea to go on a ketogenic diet, for other reasons. You are going to feel weird and if you are doing serious exercise it's not good. That's why carbs are good for athletes.

>>9898749
>Also, agriculture (in particular for subsistence agriculture) has a massive impact on deforestation.
At present the bulk of our crop production goes towards feeding livestock and producing ethanol. Livestock take up far more space than crops, even moreso when they're allowed to graze in their limited way.

>I'm still waiting for any evidence that this has any repercussions on human health.
Consult the literature. All common pesticides and herbicides have been well studied in the concentrations humans will encounter primarily and secondarily. The picture is very clear. You're going to be waiting for a long time if you don't go and seek it out yourself. You're not going to see on the news one day "Alright guys, I know we have an established power structure and economic layout, but it's time to change the whole deal." While you're swept along in this motion of change.

Use of fertilizer also causes accumulation of heavy metals in soil.

>organic wacky meme
Unfortunately organic has been diluted on three fronts:
-Legit organic stuff that takes it to a disingenuous point (uncommon)
-Large corporations moving in and altering organic criteria
-Farmers that use legally organic methods that are still bad for one reason or another

There is some portion of organic farming that's done right. Using complementary farming, plating in various ways, so on.

>I have regular checkups and I am perfectly healthy.
Checkups are a poor metric of health. Extensive blood work is also only a very coarse heuristic.

>Well it's not that obvious as it hasn't been reported as such by any credible source.
I'm dubious of how hard you've looked, and your own conception of credibility. It might well be you're not capable of uptake of anything that contradicts what you want to be true, which I'm beginning to think is true given our sharp difference in idea of truth. I know I've done extensive research, so how can our opinion be so different?

>>9898724
Thanks for the link, though it's important to point out that the article isn't saying that carbohydrates are solely to blame as you seemed to imply in the original post.
>The major risk factors for developing MetS are physical inactivity and a diet high in fats and carbohydrates
High fat diets lead to similar negative consequences, and same with physical inactivity.
It's just one of many risk factors.

>>9898765
[cont]
>and while I understand that fat can also lead you to a lot of these, losing/maintaining body weight is easier in a low carb diet
Many fats actually trigger fat usage in the body. The body is less apt to access adipose otherwise.

>You are reading tabloids
I'm reading published peer reviewed research conducted over the last 80 years. And no, microwave fields were not invented with wifi. Yes, fields with similar characteristics to wifi have been studied for a long time, modern research using wifi equipment has confirmed these old observations.

>You are going to feel weird and if you are doing serious exercise it's not good.
I've walked 45 miles in subzero temperatures in 1 day on a ketogenic diet. Without food outright. It's suboptimal, but not so profound as you might expect.

>>9898749
Thanks for the link, though it's important to point out that the article isn't saying that carbohydrates are solely to blame as you seemed to imply in the original post.
>The major risk factors for developing MetS are physical inactivity and a diet high in fats and carbohydrates
High fat diets lead to similar negative consequences, and same with physical inactivity.
It's just one of many risk factors.

>>9898235
>protein restriction
you mean caloric restriction

>>9898770
>wifi
I'm leaving now. Refer to these reviews for more.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23802593
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26300312
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29573716

Here are the proceedings of some symposiums, and some books.
http://www.mediafire.com/folder/dj875cd10yb72/EMF

>>9898796
Also:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810017132.pdf

>>9898765
>Livestock takes up far more space than crops
Well yea, again I'm not in any way or form against reducing red meat, just that agriculture, and in particular, subsistence agriculture has impact. But yea as explained here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652614012931 Red meat has a huge impact. But there some healthy alternatives are showed that have potentially the same impact.
>All common pesticides and herbicides have been well studied
Correct, and they are poisonous, and the concern is primarily with workers and farmers who are near it for prolonged periods of time, which requires safety regulations. All I've ever found are problems in china, but no long study I know has determined consistently that in the U.S. at least, the levels of pesticide in our food are having an effect. The controversy seems to be with workers, which I obviously find shitty, but it doesn't mean supermarket veggis are going to kill you.
>Use of fertilizers
"Fertilizers" mean a lot of different things, and have much more problems than what you are referring to, but cow dung isn't the solution for the future. Again, I agree we need to use eco friendly shit, but that's different from any potential public health disaster. GMO's are considered one of the best alternatives, as it also could potentially unlock new locations for growing. There's a concern for biodiviersity but from what I can find, it's still at a speculative level.
>There is some portion of organic farming that's done right
No, the premise of "organic" has anti-scientific premises that hold no merit, and would make it impossible to field our human population. Organic is anit GMO as simply as that.
>Checkups are a poor metric of health
So instead of going to the fucking doctor what "metric" you recomend? That's just ridiculous.
>I'm dubious
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/joim.12543 it's on the OP pic... Processed meat is different from red meat.

its pretty well established that a plant based diet is superior to all others. the only meat i give exception to is fish.

>>9898822
>the only meat i give exception to is fish.
Why not chicken?
I still have yet to have been presented a study which proclaims poultry to have similar effects as red meat.

>>9898830

i only continue to eat chicken breast on the odd occasion.

>>9898770
>many fat
Yes, it's also important to distinguish between fats, and having ideal ratios, but why do you think ketogenic diets are used when you need to lose weight and fast?
>Wifi
Just no http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electromagnetic-fields-and-public-health-mobile-phones
>>9898773
Yes, obviously an important aspect is that you mantain general healthy habbits. You should exercise enough, and don't over eat. An example is this >>9898822
the amount of ignorance from the public about diet made them think that eating plenty of vegetables is now a "diet". You should get your primarily from fat, and it seems even saturated fat is fine with recent meta analysis (that means eggs), but obviously this doesn't mean you shouldn't eat vegetables, or very few. Yes, you don't need a lot of meat to satisfy your energy intake, but you need a lot of vegetables to get all the nutrients our body need, but this isn't really anything "new", it just mean a lot of people were such fat fucks, that eating vegetables regularly is novel.

>>9898839
You should get you energy*

>>9898839
>This isn't really anything "new", it just means a lot of people were such fat fucks, that eating vegetables regularly is novel.
I can't tell you how many acquaintances I have who eat out regularly and don't even know how to prepare healthy meals on their own.
If that's representative of the average then I have completely lost sympathy for this "obesity epidemic."

>>9898561
>healthy and happy
>on 4chan

>>9898839

sorry little man, but its been proven over and over again that people who follow plant based diets strictly have lower blood pressure, virtually no heart disease, lower rates of dementia, cancer, diabetes etc. even in people who already had heart disease, most of them show a regression of the disease. meat eaters are the ultimate brainlets.

>>9898822
pretty much. unpolluted fish i would think pretty unlikely to be carcinogenic, since humans have been eating so much of it for so long.
as for poulty, doubt its anywhere near as bad as red meat but doesn't seem like it should be eaten super regularly.

>>9898857
>we eat plants
>plants eat animals
>we are made of meat

Meat is healthy.

>>9898857
>>9898857
By who? Just by going to google scholar I found this
> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09637486.2016.1221900
And plenty of other "positive" articles on Mediterranean diet. Also all recent meta analysis can't even find any association between saturated fat and CHD or that there's only evidence if you change it with poly unsaturated fats
>Steven Hamley
But here's an article that contradicts that >The effect of replacing saturated fat with mostly n-6 polyunsaturated fat on coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
The spam filter is fucking me so just google that one.
There's no "ideal" diet because it has become clear that many markers come into play, from genetic to epigentic variables, plus the failure for many studies to properly maintain a controlled diet, and consider the impact of environmental issues and healthy habits

>>9898881
fugg, Here is the article on saturated fat
>https://www.lipidjournal.com/article/S1933-2874(18)30218-6/abstract
Fucking hiromoot fix this shit.

>>9898874
From my knowledge there aren't any compelling results from groups who only eat wild game
One interpretation of this is that the conditions these animals are kept in are the real cause for these health risks.