[WGH]

Consider that the majority or processed meats are pork...

Why not judge it based on some facts?

"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)

[Bemopti123]

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.

[randytsuch]

Consider that the majority or processed meats are pork...

Why not judge it based on some facts?

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.

[thunderbrick]

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.

[Folsom]

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 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.

[skunark]

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.

[JerryM]

"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

[thunderbrick]

"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.      

[Bemopti123]

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. 

[FullRangeMan]

No! The problem is gluten.....every single case of cancer is caused by gluten. I'm surprised WHO overlooked this important fact.
https://youtu.be/Oht9AEq1798

You must be referring to transgenic wheat, which has 500% more gluten than the natural wheat.

[Guy 13]

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

[FullRangeMan]

Thanks Guy. 

[RDavidson]

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.

[FullRangeMan]

You need to watch the video. I was being facetious.

Oh nice I will see it later.

OK Iam very gluten tolerant but my understanding of the spoken English language are not great, so those english cookies seems delicious.

[werd]

"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.

[Johnny2Bad]

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.

[thunderbrick]

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.

[Early B.]

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.

[charmerci]

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.

[Folsom]

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?