- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 70% of supermarket ground beef contains "pink slime"
Posted on 3/8/12 at 1:06 pm to MSMHater
Posted on 3/8/12 at 1:06 pm to MSMHater
The China Study was prompted off of tons of other research, largely ignored in the 40s and 50s that showed animal protein could in effect turn on and off tumor growth in mice. Looking at that research, prompted the DR.'s in the study to undertake the China Study.
Take a look at the movie Forks over Knives.....it details The China Study and other research linking animal protein to tumor growth.
And BTW, it has nothing to do with how it's cooked.
And I'm not going to argue over it. People can believe what they want.
Take a look at the movie Forks over Knives.....it details The China Study and other research linking animal protein to tumor growth.
And BTW, it has nothing to do with how it's cooked.
And I'm not going to argue over it. People can believe what they want.
This post was edited on 3/8/12 at 1:09 pm
2
Posted on 3/8/12 at 1:15 pm to simbo
quote:
The China Study was prompted off of tons of other research, largely ignored in the 40s and 50s that showed animal protein could in effect turn on and off tumor growth in mice. Looking at that research, prompted the DR.'s in the study to undertake the China Study.
Take a look at the movie Forks over Knives.....it details The China Study and other research linking animal protein to tumor growth.
And BTW, it has nothing to do with how it's cooked.
And I'm not going to argue over it. People can believe what they want.
I'm not trying to argue or tell you you are wrong. But in my field, it takes more than a single book, based on studies from 5 decades ago, to draw conclusions.
I've been on pubmed and searching archives in oncology journals since you posted that link. I can't find anything to confirm your conclusion.
I work at one of the best cancer centers in the world, and in fact, we ENCOURAGE our patients to maintain a level of red meat consumption both before and after treatment. It's about balance between groups, and moderation.
quote:
And BTW, it has nothing to do with how it's cooked.
Uh, yea, it does...
quote:
Several hypotheses, which are mainly based on studies carried out on red meat, may explain why processed meat intake is linked to cancer risk. Those that have been tested experimentally are (i) that high-fat diets could promote carcinogenesis via insulin resistance or fecal bile acids; (ii) that cooking meat at a high temperature forms carcinogenic heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
ETA: With all due respect, I've posted excerpts from 6-7 peer reviewed journal articles. You posted a wiki page abotu a single book. Is it any wonder why I have some doubts?
This post was edited on 3/8/12 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 3/8/12 at 1:22 pm to simbo
So that's it? Just the book.
Have American diets gotten better or worse over the past 2 decades?
And just so you know I'm not being close minded, heres a bit that supports your claim...
That's a pretty srong point for your cause, but not enough to assume a definitive cause and effect. Strong data point, none the less.
quote:
Rates of death in the United States from all cancers for men and women continued to decline between 2003 and 2007, the newest reporting period available. The findings are from the latest "Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer," coauthored by researchers from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, the National Cancer Institute (part of the National Institutes of Health), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Cancer Society.
Have American diets gotten better or worse over the past 2 decades?
And just so you know I'm not being close minded, heres a bit that supports your claim...
quote:
The drop in U.S. meat consumption is most dramatic in the beef industry, with Americans eating 25 percent less beef than they were in 1980. But people aren't just cutting down on steaks and burgers.
According to USDA estimates, U.S. meat consumption in 2012 will be down 12.2 percent from five years ago.
That works out to almost 23 pounds less per person than in 2007, dropping average total meat consumption to about 165 pounds in 2012.
In a country that eats about one-sixth of all meat worldwide, nutrition experts suggest less meat might not be a bad thing.
That's a pretty srong point for your cause, but not enough to assume a definitive cause and effect. Strong data point, none the less.
This post was edited on 3/8/12 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 3/8/12 at 1:26 pm to MSMHater
quote:
Have American diets gotten better or worse over the past 2 decades?
I say they've gotten worse. No way should people be eating anywhere close to 300g carbs per day as is recommended.
Posted on 3/8/12 at 1:28 pm to MSMHater
quote:
I work at one of the best cancer centers in the world, and in fact, we ENCOURAGE our patients to maintain a level of red meat consumption both before and after treatment. It's about balance between groups, and moderation.
What do you tell patients who are vegetarians?
Posted on 3/8/12 at 1:32 pm to BrockLanders
quote:
What do you tell patients who are vegetarians?
To find increased levels of protein wherever they can, particularly during chemo and xrad. We actually give them a chart with nutritional levels they should hit each day. Our cafeteria is accomadating to them as well.
Our "power plate", that is served daily, always has some form of meat on it, and is created to achieve those suggested levels. Unless the patient directs us otherwise.
This post was edited on 3/8/12 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 3/8/12 at 1:32 pm to MSMHater
quote:
So that's it? Just the book.
Dude, you want me to research this for you? I don't care what you believe. The study references tons of other research along with the gentleman from the video I linked. He's a Cornell researcher.
I didn't do the studies.....argue with the Cornell researcher who has spent his life trying to feed people with animal protein who saw it was causing cancer and killing people. Argue with him....demand studies from him.
Posted on 3/8/12 at 1:34 pm to simbo
quote:
Dude, you want me to research this for you? I don't care what you believe. The study references tons of other research along with the gentleman from the video I linked. He's a Cornell researcher.
I didn't do the studies.....argue with the Cornell researcher who has spent his life trying to feed people with animal protein who saw it was causing cancer and killing people. Argue with him....demand studies from him.
He's asking you to research it yourself, not believe 1 book. You so eagerly regurgitated the doctor's studies, but did not learn for yourself how he came to the conclusion, apparently.
Posted on 3/8/12 at 1:39 pm to simbo
quote:
Dude, you want me to research this for you?
I certainly offered you alot of alternative research. Only took me a few minutes
quote:
I didn't do the studies.....argue with the Cornell researcher who has spent his life trying to feed people with animal protein who saw it was causing cancer and killing people. Argue with him....demand studies from him.
Settle down. Are you that incredulous about alternative theories? hardly anything in oncology is as black and white as you are making it out to be. Sorry, that's just the way it is. There are too many spurious variables to so easily dismiss them. But I'll stop "arguing".
Posted on 3/8/12 at 1:41 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
it's worth mentioning juat how dominant Walmart truly is in the grocery store business.
If I had to guess, Wal Mart is probably one of the top sellers of organic food as well
Posted on 3/8/12 at 1:42 pm to Hulkklogan
quote:
He's asking you to research it yourself, not believe 1 book. You so eagerly regurgitated the doctor's studies, but did not learn for yourself how he came to the conclusion, apparently.
I have. That's why I said it. Maybe you need to look into this guy's studies. He has tons of support through other research from other people, all over the place. It's just not him.
Hell there were tons of researchers in the China Study alone. It's a book because it was revolutionary.
The NIH sponsored the China Study and supports its conclusions. Like I said, ask this Cornell researcher along with the NIH who sponsored it. Ask the NIH to give you examples.
Posted on 3/8/12 at 1:46 pm to MSMHater
quote:
I certainly offered you alot of alternative research. Only took me a few minutes
You pointed me to a study that shows this research to be false? I missed that link obviously. Watch the video I posted. He shows the research, not just from him but from others. Like I said, this was sponsored by the NIH and is the largest cancer cause study in the history of the world.
It's also kinda weird that a guy who works in IS is informing people who work in the cancer industry about the largest cancer cause study in the history of the planet that is sponsored and supported by the NIH, that shows animal protein causes cancer.
You'd think they'd know that study already.
This post was edited on 3/8/12 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 3/8/12 at 1:53 pm to simbo
quote:
that shows animal protein causes cancer
This still makes me laugh.
Animal fats and proteins are a vital part of healthy nutrition.
Posted on 3/8/12 at 1:56 pm to simbo
quote:
The China Study was prompted off of tons of other research, largely ignored in the 40s and 50s that showed animal protein could in effect turn on and off tumor growth in mice. Looking at that research, prompted the DR.'s in the study to undertake the China Study.
Take a look at the movie Forks over Knives.....it details The China Study and other research linking animal protein to tumor growth.
And BTW, it has nothing to do with how it's cooked.
And I'm not going to argue over it. People can believe what they want.
sounds like you "bought in" to the book "don't be a fat bitch"
Posted on 3/8/12 at 1:57 pm to simbo
quote:
You pointed me to a study that shows this research to be false?
Stop putting words in my mouth. I said I can't find any research that confirms, or even attempts to replicate, your conlusion that "High protein meat CAUSES cancer"
quote:
It's also kinda weird that a guy who works in IS is informing people who work in the cancer industry about the largest cancer cause study in the history of the planet that is sponsored and supported by the NIH, that shows animal protein causes cancer.
You'd think they'd know that study already
No shite, right? And you would think if said studies conlusion was so beyond reproach, that institutions like MD Anderson, Sloan Kettering, Mayo, and Dana-Farber wouldn't risk the lives of their cancer patients by feeding them a scientifically proven carcinogen.
Further, since NIH, literally, funds every study I manage...that they might revoke or refuse to provide those funds since we're willingly going against their previously established conclusions when treating and feeding our patients.
Maybe it's just an oversight. You know...government agency and all.
This post was edited on 3/8/12 at 2:02 pm
Posted on 3/8/12 at 1:57 pm to MSMHater
quote:
So that's it? Just the book.
yes
Posted on 3/8/12 at 1:59 pm to simbo
quote:
The NIH sponsored the China Study and supports its conclusions
does the NIH have anything to do with the "food pyramid"
?
Posted on 3/8/12 at 2:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
sounds like you "bought in" to the book "don't be a fat bitch"
Never heard of it.
Posted on 3/8/12 at 2:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
I don't trust any study funded by the government.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News