AudioCircle
Community => Non-audio hobbies and interests => Health and Fitness => Topic started by: FullRangeMan on 2 Nov 2015, 08:33 am
-
In a recent report to press WHO informed processed meats, as ham, sausages, bologna etc cause cancer.
The link between these products and cancer was higher in cases of bowel cancer, but also noted his connection with pancreatic and prostate cancer.
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf
For now WHO researchers considered not to have irrefutable data that unprocessed red meat causes cancer, although it probably do. As more studies may appear condemning the ingestion of this product, it is likely that soon red meat will be also declared as definitely carcinogenic to humans.
They are in the same class of cigars!
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/bacon-ham-sausages-processed-meats-cancer-risk-smoking-says-who
According WHO just 50g of processed meat a day increase chances of developing bowel cancer by 18%. This is 2 slices of bacon or ham.
Products considered healthier as turkey breast, chicken sausage also are risk to health.
The universe of the survey were 800 people for 20 years.
-
Ah, bologna! :lol:
-
breathing air causes cancer....
-
An increased chance of 18% is not the same as causing cancer. That's chicken feed.
-
An increased chance of 18% is not the same as causing cancer. That's chicken feed.
It's an 18 percent risk increase against the standard 5 percent risk that everyone has of developing colon cancer.
That means someone who eats bacon everyday, has a 6 percent chance of developing colon cancer in their lifetime.
-
Good grief. It drives me nuts when scientific studies are reinterpreted / only share part of the story in order to cause hysteria or to gain political footing in some way (ie. If we ate less red meat we'd lower health care costs and decrease climate change).
Fact of the matter is, there may be association between red meat (particularly processed meat) and cancer, but no clear causation has been established.
Just eat balanced diets, folks. That's really all there is to it.
http://examine.com/blog/scientists-just-found-that-red-meat-causes-cancer--or-did-they/
-
If I spend a week or so eat ham or bologna + mussarela sandwich in the breakfast I get various balls under the skin at the nape and behind the ears.
So something very bad these products have, but they are very inexpensive and easy to prepare.
-
Yes. Processed meats tend to be inexpensive.
Note, at least here in the States, nitrate and nitrite free processed meats (including organic) can be found at many/most grocery stores. However, these healthier processed meats also cost significantly more than the regular stuff, so the average American is unlikely to buy it. Essentially, only those who can afford to be health conscious, buy it.
-
Next WHO'll be telling us its caused from mom, apple pie & chevy.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsQyru5ACmA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsQyru5ACmA) :thumb:
-
Next WHO'll be telling us its caused from mom, apple pie & chevy.
No! The problem is gluten.....every single case of cancer is caused by gluten. I'm surprised WHO overlooked this important fact. :lol:
https://youtu.be/Oht9AEq1798
-
It's common knowledge (particularly in countries other than the US) that consumption of high amounts of meat is not healthy for a variety of reasons. Hundreds of longitudinal studies all across the globe generally arrive at the same conclusion regarding unhealthy meat consumption. So it doesn't matter whether scientists can prove beyond all doubt that meat causes cancer -- it's still not healthy to eat a lot of it.
-
It's common knowledge (particularly in countries other than the US) that consumption of high amounts of meat is not healthy for a variety of reasons. Hundreds of longitudinal studies all across the globe generally arrive at the same conclusion regarding unhealthy meat consumption. So it doesn't matter whether scientists can prove beyond all doubt that meat causes cancer -- it's still not healthy to eat a lot of it.
That's not very accurate, or at all.
The studies such as the Chinese study don't prove meat causes cancer in large amounts. They only show that a diet devoid of vegetables and fruits are more likely to cause cancer. The problem with the studies is they don't have anyone eating lots of vegetables and fruit while also consuming lots of meat. If they had that data they could make a conclusion on meat levels and cancer.
Furthermore I'll point out that most of the processed meats are pork based, at least any that are in high numbers to produce results such as the stated above. That's no surprise. Pork wrecks havoc on the digestive system. People who eat lots of pork produce considerably higher indican excretion (bad gut bacteria identifier) in urine. Not only that but the health community knows full well the body produces a bad immune response against pork in our bodies whether we eat it or have a heart valve replacement.
To counter the meat point, there's communities that only eat grass fed beef and butter, that has such low cancer levels they're studied.
-
People accustomed to the diet of the western world rarely, if ever at all, die of old age.
-
our life expectancy is lot longer Now then before maybe process meats got alot to do with also :thumb:
-
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=31474)
-
There was an article in Time last week about this, I thought it was an interesting read.
Does anyone really think a hot dog is good for you 8)
To me, the question is how bad for you is it, and how much can you eat.
Randy
-
It's common knowledge (particularly in countries other than the US) that consumption of high amounts of meat is not healthy for a variety of reasons. Hundreds of longitudinal studies all across the globe generally arrive at the same conclusion regarding unhealthy meat consumption. So it doesn't matter whether scientists can prove beyond all doubt that meat causes cancer -- it's still not healthy to eat a lot of it.
Not sure what your definition of meat is, but from what little I know, people who eat significant amounts of seafood (such as the Japanese) live significantly longer than all other people.
To me, this flies directly in the face of the core vegan argument that meat is unhealthy. (The issue of causing pain to animals is a completely different argument). Quite frankly, I am on the fence on this issue. I appreciate both sides, and personally feel that it is less important to focus on how much meat we consume and more important to focus on how much vegetables and low sugar fruit we actually consume.
But "studies" like these are so annoying! They intentionally mislead. For example, if there is a 1 in million chance of being hit by lightning, and someone figure out that women wearing high heels have a 2 in million chance of getting hit by lightning, they will instead say, "Women wearing high heels have a 100% more chance of getting hit by lightning!", or even worse, "Women wearing high heels attract lightning strikes".
-
You might read this.. for a better perspective...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/upshot/know-your-risks-but-meat-still-isnt-the-enemy.html?hpw&rref=upshot&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0
According to the article, at age 50 your chances to get colon cancer increases 18% from 2.7% to 3.2%, it's not an 18% chance, but a 3.2% chance. One in five-ish 50 year-old do not have colon cancer nor would i expect 1 in 125 50 year-old have colon cancer. I'm curious what element of the process meats cause the increase though... is it the nitrates commonly used to extend the shelf life? if so are there alternatives? It is an increase to note, and I rarely eat processed meats as it is but probably reduce it even more... Maybe just limit it to pastrami since that's "the most sensual of all the cured slated meats".
Jim
-
I'm curious what element of the process meats cause the increase though... is it the nitrates commonly used to extend the shelf life? if so are there alternatives? It is an increase to note, and I rarely eat processed meats as it is but probably reduce it even more... Maybe just limit it to pastrami since that's "the most sensual of all the cured slated meats".
Jim
Consider that the majority or processed meats are pork...
To me, the question is how bad for you is it, and how much can you eat.
Randy
Why not judge it based on some facts (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7449139)?
-
Consider that the majority or processed meats are pork...
Why not judge it based on some facts (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7449139)?
"The influence of erythrocytes of different blood groups on the intestinal isoenzyme of alkaline phosphatase (EC 3.1.31.1) was investigated. Binding of the enzyme to erythrocyte membranes was demonstrated by sedimentation experiments, by enzyme electrophoresis, by gel chromatography and immunologically using a modified Coombs technique. We found that red cells of blood group A bind almost all intestinal alkaline phosphatase; erythrocytes of blood group B or O to a much lesser degree. This is in accordance with the fact that intestinal alkaline phosphatase is found more frequently in the serum of individuals of blood group O or B than in serum of persons of blood group A. We conclude that underlying the described blood group dependent differences in synthesis of intestinal alkaline phosphatase lies a mechanism involved in the regulation of the activity of intestinal alkaline phosphatase in human serum."
By the time I understand what that gobbledygook means I'll be dead. (He says while munching on a mini-Snickers bar left over from Halloween)
-
Processing meat....jerky and fire pit stuff has been giving humans cancers since the invention of fire. Oh, please stop the madness. I don't want to live to 200 years. No one should.
-
Consider that the majority or processed meats are pork...
Why not judge it based on some facts (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7449139)?
The influence of erythrocytes of different blood groups on the intestinal isoenzyme of alkaline phosphatase (EC 3.1.31.1) was investigated. Binding of the enzyme to erythrocyte membranes was demonstrated by sedimentation experiments, by enzyme electrophoresis, by gel chromatography and immunologically using a modified Coombs technique. We found that red cells of blood group A bind almost all intestinal alkaline phosphatase; erythrocytes of blood group B or O to a much lesser degree. This is in accordance with the fact that intestinal alkaline phosphatase is found more frequently in the serum of individuals of blood group O or B than in serum of persons of blood group A. We conclude that underlying the described blood group dependent differences in synthesis of intestinal alkaline phosphatase lies a mechanism involved in the regulation of the activity of intestinal alkaline phosphatase in human serum.
Ok, please interpret.
EDIT: Oops, I didn't notice WGH beat me to it.
-
If I spend a week or so eat ham or bologna + mussarela sandwich in the breakfast I get various balls under the skin at the nape and behind the ears.
So something very bad these products have, but they are very inexpensive and easy to prepare.
So, since millions of people eat ham or bologna + mussarela (whatever that is) sandwiches, and we have only one reported case (yours) of "various balls under the skin," maybe the problem is with the bread. Or you.
-
Carcinogens from very well cooked meats are harder on fast acetylators. No surprise that slower acetylators typically are O and B blood.
The article I linked to basically says that the well known (documented in other articles that read like this) ABO groups of O and B not only have more IAP (intestinal alkaline phosphate) but the IAP nearly all binds to the A antigen of the ABO (which includes AB, not just A).
Even more simple, if you're blood type A or AB, you probably have little to no IAP. This means your ability to digest and process the fats and cholesterol found in meat (red has by far the most) is really not good. *The content of fat is entirely unrelated to the content of cholesterol.
Here's a fun little experiment (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130408152902.htm) showing just how important IAP and digestion is! And just so you know, bad metabolic control makes it hard for the body to prevent cancer because it stops the cleaning house mechanism of cells.
-
Processing meat....jerky and fire pit stuff has been giving humans cancers since the invention of fire. Oh, please stop the madness. I don't want to live to 200 years. No one should.
Is that really true though? I remember a history teacher mentioning that "Americans" started to eat meats three meals a day during World War I or II to boast morale, and once those troops returned home, it was expected and became the norm. I assume that included processed meats, and that you would binge on the fresh meats, and either salt or smoke the rest to make it last a few more days or month, but mostly was a Sunday luxury for those who could afford or reasonably hunt it.
-
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco
-
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco
Case closed. :thumb:
-
Is that really true though? I remember a history teacher mentioning that "Americans" started to eat meats three meals a day during World War I or II to boast morale, and once those troops returned home, it was expected and became the norm. I assume that included processed meats, and that you would binge on the fresh meats, and either salt or smoke the rest to make it last a few more days or month, but mostly was a Sunday luxury for those who could afford or reasonably hunt it.
I believe that the hunter scavanger cultures have lived fast and furious and their consumption of meat was opportunistic, not like the steady junk that people consume today. One thing is sure, they died early enough not to worry about whether they would get cancers or not.
The study made by WHO should have also analyzed the age factor on those with increased risks to certain cancers. Many times, I have believe the maladies we suffer have a LOT to do with the fact that we are pushing the boundaries of what we once used to live up to.
-
No! The problem is gluten.....every single case of cancer is caused by gluten. I'm surprised WHO overlooked this important fact. :lol:
https://youtu.be/Oht9AEq1798
You must be referring to transgenic wheat, which has 500% more gluten than the natural wheat.
-
Hi all,
this topic might turn ugly or might be quanrantine if you started talking
and mentionning the name Monsanto,'' You are what you eat ''.
Therefore, be carefull not to get carried away...
Just an advice from an experienced AudioCircle member.
Guy 13
-
Thanks Guy. :thumb:
-
You must be referring to transgenic wheat, which has 500% more gluten than the natural wheat.
You need to watch the video. I was being facetious. :D
-
You need to watch the video. I was being facetious. :D
Oh nice I will see it later. :thumb:
OK Iam very gluten tolerant but my understanding of the spoken English language are not great, so those english cookies seems delicious.
-
"The influence of erythrocytes of different blood groups on the intestinal isoenzyme of alkaline phosphatase (EC 3.1.31.1) was investigated. Binding of the enzyme to erythrocyte membranes was demonstrated by sedimentation experiments, by enzyme electrophoresis, by gel chromatography and immunologically using a modified Coombs technique. We found that red cells of blood group A bind almost all intestinal alkaline phosphatase; erythrocytes of blood group B or O to a much lesser degree. This is in accordance with the fact that intestinal alkaline phosphatase is found more frequently in the serum of individuals of blood group O or B than in serum of persons of blood group A. We conclude that underlying the described blood group dependent differences in synthesis of intestinal alkaline phosphatase lies a mechanism involved in the regulation of the activity of intestinal alkaline phosphatase in human serum."
By the time I understand what that gobbledygook means I'll be dead. (He says while munching on a mini-Snickers bar left over from Halloween)
It reads like they are referring to phosphate contamination into animal feed. That is my guess. :scratch:
-
I'd have to look it up, which I'm not inclined to do because I've put this issue behind me, and so should you.
Illustrating the lack of science education of the average journalist, which is the real problem here, this is all you need to know:
60,000 premature deaths worldwide attributed to this issue. That's out of the seven billion of us (or whatever the number is this year).
Look up the risk of premature death for just about anything ... for example getting in your car is about 60 times more risky.
I would bet the risk of premature death from eating animal protein that was not subject to this preservative treatment is probably many times greater simply due to bacterial multiplication that would naturally result.
Move along folks ... nothing to see here.
-
It boils down to poor headline writing, which is swallowed whole by Chicken Littles* the world over. Showing a slight elevated risk in one study does not necessarily equate to causing anything. Unless of course you are in California where everything causes something.
*Gustavo, Chicken Little runs around screaming "The SKY is falling, the Sky is falling!!!!" Kinda like airliners spewing toxic fumes in jet trails for political control purposes.
-
Just an observation -- some of you guys are making the mistake of saying this is just one study, but this is a "study" of over 800 studies that have been conducted on the relationship between cancer and red meat or processed meat by a group experts from all over the world. This is NOT a typical research study.
-
Here's my take -
first of all - eating a lot of processed meat increases your chances of getting cancer.
I'm fairly sure it's the chemicals (nitrates, nitrites, etc.) that could possibly increase your chances.
If you're eating a lot of processed meats, just cut back on it. I seriously doubt that people who eat fresh, unprocessed, organic meats have an increased chance of getting cancer.
We live in a modern society where we have an abundance of fairly fresh, properly taken care of foods available to us, that given you eat little if no processed foods along with an active, relatively stress-free lifestyle, your chances of getting cancer is pretty small.
This study is something to be aware of but not to be worried about.
-
Here's my take -
first of all - eating a lot of processed meat increases your chances of getting cancer.
I'm fairly sure it's the chemicals (nitrates, nitrites, etc.) that could possibly increase your chances.
If you're eating a lot of processed meats, just cut back on it. I seriously doubt that people who eat fresh, unprocessed, organic meats have an increased chance of getting cancer.
We live in a modern society where we have an abundance of fairly fresh, properly taken care of foods available to us, that given you eat little if no processed foods along with an active, relatively stress-free lifestyle, your chances of getting cancer is pretty small.
This study is something to be aware of but not to be worried about.
Based on how you feel about it?
-
Based on how you feel about it?
Did he not say "Here's MY take -" at the very beginning of his statement? His take = His feelings on the topic.
-
This news has raised my stress levels! Oh noes...I will have cancer for sure now. :P
For the record sun causes cancer, most water has many contaminates including prescription drugs. Fish has mercury or has been farm raised in terrible conditions, along with most of the other live stock and poultry being pumped with antibiotics and hormones. Not to suggest that processed meats are healthy, but nothing is perfect. I agree with moderation, except for drinking since that is good for you. :icon_surprised:
-
Hi all,
if I win the lottery jack pot I will go 100% organic - bio ! :thumb:
Even if I win tons of money, that's still not possible today. :(
There is always some toxic stuff in everything you eat,
however, eating more healthy reduce your chances of getting sick
or cancer :thumb:
and that's what I am doing with my limited budget
or my small retirement pension. :D
Guy 13
By the way, I have stop completely eating processed meat.
-
I'd have to look it up, which I'm not inclined to do because I've put this issue behind me, and so should you.
Illustrating the lack of science education of the average journalist, which is the real problem here, this is all you need to know:
60,000 premature deaths worldwide attributed to this issue. That's out of the seven billion of us (or whatever the number is this year).
Look up the risk of premature death for just about anything ... for example getting in your car is about 60 times more risky.
I would bet the risk of premature death from eating animal protein that was not subject to this preservative treatment is probably many times greater simply due to bacterial multiplication that would naturally result.
Move along folks ... nothing to see here.
This is some serious number misrepresentation here. Thats 60k per year and its not 7 billion but probably some percentage of the North American/Euro population. Plus you have to calculate the percentage over the course of lifetime. Also it says cancer not death. So what is the real number percentage now? Probably something more scarier.
-
... Unless of course you are in California where everything causes something.
We Californians know that everything causes something. Terrible things.
Go ahead, have a bacon cheeseburger. Then watch in silent horror as all of your babies come out naked... :green:
-
Just an observation -- some of you guys are making the mistake of saying this is just one study, but this is a "study" of over 800 studies that have been conducted on the relationship between cancer and red meat or processed meat by a group experts from all over the world. This is NOT a typical research study.
My take is that WHO is completely clueless. The studies are ALL epidemiological, meaning they prove correlation not causation. The relative (not absolute) risk was incredibly small, on the order of 20% or so. Compare that to cigarettes and getting lung cancer, where the relative risk was 2,500%.
My take with all of nutrition is that it's political and not based on scientific evidence. Case in point: saturated fat. The vast majority of randomized controlled trials (NOT epidemiological studies) indicate that saturated fat has no effect on heart disease. Yet, we're still counseled to avoid saturated fat. Why? Because for 50+ years, entire careers have been made and supported by this idea. You can't change it until the people in these positions die off or retire.
It's the same with meat: WHO is anti-meat. So, they make statements to support their anti-meat agenda.
-
No! The problem is gluten.....every single case of cancer is caused by gluten. I'm surprised WHO overlooked this important fact. :lol:
https://youtu.be/Oht9AEq1798
I'm of the opinion that modern wheat is very bad, at least for me. I'm on a low carb diet (where I eat "processed meats" -- whatever those are) and every time I eat wheat, I develop allergies, acid indigestion, painful joints, chest congestion, etc. So, I keep my wheat eating to a minimum and only have wheat every once in a great while. (Pizza is my downfall.)
If you want to read an interesting take on wheat, I recommend the following:
http://www.amazon.com/Wheat-Belly-Lose-Weight-Health/dp/1609611543
While I don't agree with everything in the book, there are some interesting highlights. For instance, randomized controlled trials where one group was given a drug used to prevent drug addicts from craving drugs and the other given a placebo. Both groups then ate wheat-based products. The people on the drug ate much less than the people on placebo. Why? Modern wheat causes xorphins to be generated, which are pleasurable and cause people to overeat. The drugs block that action.
If WHO really wants to condemn something, they should condemn high carb diets and particularly sugar. Sugar causes many, many, many more cases of cancer than does meat.
-
Hi all,
I am not anti-meat.
I've been saying for quite some time now:
Eat everything with moderation.
Even chocolate (But the 72% cacao) multi-grain Cheerios,
pasta, rice, once in a while one chocolate muffin, etc...
With of course, lots of vegetable and some fruits +
water, tea and unsweetened almond-coconut milk.
With the above, I can maintain a 6.5% blood sugar level
without any pills (Methaformin).
My way... works !
Guy 13
No smoke, no alcool...
In my vegetable soup in put gound beef, pork and wild pink salmon.
-
I'm of the opinion that modern wheat is very bad, at least for me. I'm on a low carb diet (where I eat "processed meats" -- whatever those are) and every time I eat wheat, I develop allergies, acid indigestion, painful joints, chest congestion, etc. So, I keep my wheat eating to a minimum and only have wheat every once in a great while. (Pizza is my downfall.)
If you want to read an interesting take on wheat, I recommend the following:
http://www.amazon.com/Wheat-Belly-Lose-Weight-Health/dp/1609611543
While I don't agree with everything in the book, there are some interesting highlights. For instance, randomized controlled trials where one group was given a drug used to prevent drug addicts from craving drugs and the other given a placebo. Both groups then ate wheat-based products. The people on the drug ate much less than the people on placebo. Why? Modern wheat causes xorphins to be generated, which are pleasurable and cause people to overeat. The drugs block that action.
If WHO really wants to condemn something, they should condemn high carb diets and particularly sugar. Sugar causes many, many, many more cases of cancer than does meat.
Hi ctviggen,
no sugar for me, only Stevia (Powder and soon, I will also try the liquid form)
I read labels to avoid any form of sugar,
however, the food manufacturers can play trics on you
and use some fancy words,
but if I don't know a word, I avoid the product.
Guy 13
-
My take is that WHO is completely clueless. The studies are ALL epidemiological, meaning they prove correlation not causation. The relative (not absolute) risk was incredibly small, on the order of 20% or so.
WHO is anti-meat. So, they make statements to support their anti-meat agenda.
It's important to separate one's personal opinions from the facts. It's common knowledge that excessive meat consumption leads to poor health outcomes. WHO is merely stating that too much meat leads to a higher risk of cancer. Not ground breaking at all. Just more confirmation from a reputable source (or at least as reputable as any other international health organization).
-
Just not true. I eat according to my blood type which is "O" and lean organic is what I eat. Never felt better. No wheat, no dairy and life is good. My doctor is puzzled but after reading Eating for your Type by Dr Peter Adamo , he has changed his opinion.
My blood tests are great. Before eating veggies mostly I was in poor health. One size does not fit all.
charles
-
The study is on processed meat only-ham, sausage, bologna etc
Regular meat in OK.
-
Just not true. I eat according to my blood type which is "O" and lean organic is what I eat. Never felt better. No wheat, no dairy and life is good. My doctor is puzzled but after reading Eating for your Type by Dr Peter Adamo , he has changed his opinion.
My blood tests are great. Before eating veggies mostly I was in poor health. One size does not fit all.
charles
Your health improved as a result of positive dietary changes, not because you're eating in accordance with your blood type. There's no credible scientific body of evidence that supports the need to adopt a diet based on blood type.
-
The study is on processed meat only-ham, sausage, bologna etc
Regular meat in OK.
What is "regular meat?" It's all processed, unless you kill the chicken or catch the fish yourself and cook it.
-
Hi all,
for now, I will restrain from commenting,
I will let you guys make comments on what you believe.
This topic is getting very interesting,
different views on what's good and what's not...
Keep going, this topic is getting hot ! :thumb:
Guy 13
Note: I hope someone will come up with a logical explanation
on why you need a different diet from different blood type ????? :scratch:
I hope to learn a thing or two before this topic get quarantined...
-
There is a diet that changes the foods according the type of blood.
-
That's true - here is some info - http://authoritynutrition.com/the-blood-type-diet-review/
-
There is a diet that changes the foods according the type of blood.
Hi FullRangeMan.
Are you saying:
Your diet should change or be matched with your type of blood ?
Is that what you are saying ?
Guy 13
-
Here is some more info (I realize that not every expert in the field agrees with this theory) - https://www.drlam.com/blood_type_diet/
-
What is "regular meat?" It's all processed, unless you kill the chicken or catch the fish yourself and cook it.
Here there is fresh meat that isnot processed pic below:
(I forget to before mention bacon and hamburger as processed meat.)
(http://www.feedfood.com.br/wp-content/uploads/carnes.jpg)
-
That's true - here is some info - http://authoritynutrition.com/the-blood-type-diet-review/
Hi Phil A,
the below text taken from your link makes more sense to me than the diet vs type of blood.
For the record, I think any of these dietary patterns would be an improvement for most people,
no matter what their blood type is.
All 4 diets (or “ways of eating”) are mostly based on real,
healthy foods, and a huge step up from the standard Western diet of processed junk food.
So, even if you go on one of these diets and your health improves,
it doesn’t necessarily mean that it had anything to do with your blood type.
Maybe the reason for the health benefits is simply that you’re eating healthier food than before.
Guy 13
-
There is a lot that is not known about evolution which makes it a bit more difficult.
-
Wish I was in Paris :)
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-agenda-behind-the-bacon-scare-1447115536
EDIT: to read the whole article google "wsj The Climate Agenda Behind the Bacon Scare"
-
Just not true. I eat according to my blood type which is "O" and lean organic is what I eat. Never felt better. No wheat, no dairy and life is good. My doctor is puzzled but after reading Eating for your Type by Dr Peter Adamo , he has changed his opinion.
My blood tests are great. Before eating veggies mostly I was in poor health. One size does not fit all.
LOL - That whole concept of eating right for your blood type has been debunked...
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/04/blood-type-diet-debunked/ (http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/04/blood-type-diet-debunked/)
http://news.utoronto.ca/popular-diet-theory-debunked (http://news.utoronto.ca/popular-diet-theory-debunked)
-
LOL - That whole concept of eating right for your blood type has been debunked...
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/04/blood-type-diet-debunked/ (http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/04/blood-type-diet-debunked/)
http://news.utoronto.ca/popular-diet-theory-debunked (http://news.utoronto.ca/popular-diet-theory-debunked)
Its works for me I get less belly, slim(almost).
-
LOL - That whole concept of eating right for your blood type has been debunked...
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/04/blood-type-diet-debunked/ (http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/04/blood-type-diet-debunked/)
http://news.utoronto.ca/popular-diet-theory-debunked (http://news.utoronto.ca/popular-diet-theory-debunked)
Wind Chaser several of those for you. :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
Thanks for the links.
Guy 13
-
Statistics also show that NOT eating bacon significantly increases your chances of blowing yourself up.
-
You're gonna die of something. ...just as well go down smiling.
-
You're gonna die of something. ...just as well go down smiling.
I don't know - after this thread I may die trying to figure out what and what not to eat :lol:
Stuff they used to say is bad for you now may not be that bad.
I try to eat relatively healthy and eat bad stuff in moderation. :duh:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsQyru5ACmA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsQyru5ACmA)
-
LOL - That whole concept of eating right for your blood type has been debunked...
http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/04/blood-type-diet-debunked/ (http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/06/04/blood-type-diet-debunked/)
http://news.utoronto.ca/popular-diet-theory-debunked (http://news.utoronto.ca/popular-diet-theory-debunked)
Of course they did. It upsets all the BS agendas the AMA and big Pharm has. Don't worry we have a pill for you. Our family has had wonderful results with this diet. BTW we get our meat from an organic farm in Canada. My wife is a veggie now as a type "A". Me a meat hound as type "O".
As I stated before our blood tests prove our better health. More energy, better sleep, great constitution, When we go off our diet is when our bodies let us now big time. If I eat diary or Pork or potato my body aches and our muscles sore the next day. It is not our imagination. When one sticks to the diet and changes their food intake the body responds when you go off.
That is more than enough proof for me. IMO the whole meat thing is an agenda not about our health. However that is another subect which would not last long before it gets canned.
charles
-
Of course they did. It upsets all the BS agendas the AMA and big Pharm has. Don't worry we have a pill for you. Our family has had wonderful results with this diet. BTW we get our meat from an organic farm in Canada. My wife is a veggie now as a type "A". Me a meat hound as type "O".
As I stated before our blood tests prove our better health. More energy, better sleep, great constitution, When we go off our diet is when our bodies let us now big time. If I eat diary or Pork or potato my body aches and our muscles sore the next day. It is not our imagination. When one sticks to the diet and changes their food intake the body responds when you go off.
That is more than enough proof for me. IMO the whole meat thing is an agenda not about our health. However that is another subect which would not last long before it gets canned.
charles
Charles - What do you think about Guy13's reply #60?
-
Charles - What do you think about Guy13's reply #60?
It makes alot of sense if that were the case. We did not eat much processed food to begin with. No junk food at all, no soda, no cakes or cookies Organic only. I cook everything myself. We have an organic garden as well.
charles
-
Hi all,
organic... Yes ! :thumb:
If you can afford it.
It's no secret that organic cost from 50% to double the price of regular raised - grown food.
Can't afford organic - bio !
No problem, eat as much as possible vegetables...
Avoid the sugar or anything with sugar
or anything that get transformed into sugar - fat.
Good food, even if not organic will build a good imune system abd fight cancer.
Guy 13
-
Good grief. It drives me nuts when scientific studies are reinterpreted / only share part of the story in order to cause hysteria or to gain political footing in some way (ie. If we ate less red meat we'd lower health care costs and decrease climate change).
Fact of the matter is, there may be association between red meat (particularly processed meat) and cancer, but no clear causation has been established.
Just eat balanced diets, folks. That's really all there is to it.
http://examine.com/blog/scientists-just-found-that-red-meat-causes-cancer--or-did-they/
Hi RDavidson,
isn't that we I wrote many times in '' What's up doc '' and the now deceased '' You are what you eat ''?
My way of saying : Just eat balanced diets
is: Eat everything with moderation,
of course avoid sugar in any forms.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=132897)
Guy 13