Does meat cause cancer? Or is it just some cheap vegan/environmentalist

>>39192342
Everything causes cancer. May as well fire uo that escape bag m8

>>39192342
Not directly, no. There has never been a direct correlation

>>39192356
>[Citation needed]

>>39192342

everything causes cancer.

sunscreen causes skin cancer.

you can't win. just roll with it.

yes goy, meat is cancerous! better turn into a good little vegan nu-male, it's for your own benefit!

>>39192356
Pretty difficult to determine direct correlation with any food type. Need long term studies with numerous participants and isolated variables.

>>39192364
> meat eaters still exist 5000000 years later because they didn't all die out from cancer

>>39192364
>provide a citation for the absence of a citation

File: Screenshot_20161023-134453.png (1MB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x2560px

>>39192371

Meat lowers your vibration. Eating dead flesh isn't going to give you life force. This is new age/spirituality theory of course. It may hold true. It would be wise to fast from meat/food every once and a while.

It is like everything gives you cancer. Might as well just accept you are dead and start living life

>>39192370
1960s and on, almost everything in grocery stores became commericalized. The meat you buy is processed, weak unhealthy cows/pigs/poultry that are not in optimal shape and subject to infections, fed hormones, probably have parasites, etc. The quality just isn't the same as old Farmer Fred's livestock. The years you're talking about, none of this existed. Meat was either from a farm or brought back from a hunting expedition.

>>39192370
>implying a disease that only affects you in your later years when procreation has already occured is able to make a species go extinct

>>39192384
are you stupid? the burden of proof falls on you.

>>39192364
Burden of proof is on you tho.

>meat causes cancer
No it doesnt
> prove it!!!1!!

Total propaganda to effeminize western men, you evolved to eat meat
t. doc

File: razor.jpg (139KB, 625x424px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 625x424px

>>39192364

>>39192356

I remember reading an article about a study which says eating lots of red meat increases your chance of getting various gut cancers by like 13%, the thing is your base chance of getting those gut cancers is like 3% so a 13% increase on that only brings it up to like 3.3% - pretty neglible

>>39192760
Old farmer Fred's stock went out of business because his shit sucked

>>39192768
> St Judes hospital doesn't exist

>>39192782
It falls on you actually
>Does meat cause cancer
>No
>prove it
>boohoo I dont have to cite what I'm claiming to be fact, you do Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

File: autism.jpg (57KB, 567x561px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 567x561px

>>39192848
You must be one of dem hardcore religiousfags

>>39192876
What makes you say that?

>>39192819
Farmer Fred is still in business, just not in business friendly California. Grow up lad

>>39192342
/fit/ causes cancer, unless it's the other way around.

>>39192848
> boohoo I dont have to cite what I'm claiming to be fact, you do Reeeeeeeee

Thats literally what your doing.
Thats your entire argument. Are you retarded or just bad at trolling

Just a quick sheep test.

Which is more plausable;
a/ Big Farm / Industry / Governement support for Meat / Dairy is more likely to be corrupt and use propaganda.
or
b/ Big Vegan / the vegan industry is more likely to be corrupt and use propaganda.

If you said 'b' you're a sheep, illiterate and devoid of any ability to think critically.

Whether or not one things causes cancer or not is a different thing, but this notion that there's vegan propaganda with any sizeable influence is absolutely comical (although, do american's get irony?).

I work in a university with people who are strictly anti dairy (for health reasons, not animal welfare reasons) but they're funding is paid by big dairy and they produce academic articles, published in peer review, that support dairy / healthy cheeses / etc.

Largely it's part funded by governement and part by industry.. because the caps (production limits) are being lifted on dairy so we're gonna have shit tonnes of it (which is already worthlessly cheap) and they need to keep the industry aloat with new ways of pushing dairy.

I'm not supporting veganism one way or the other, or the notion that meat causes cancer one way or the other, but shedding some light on what 'science' ultimately means, how political it is, and where the real 'propaganda' is coming from.

If you can't see this stuff you're dumb af.

>>39193223
> he thinks meat and idary are corrupt
> he thinks vegans aren't

Come on anon. They both make up lies and slander the other with misinformation

>>39193223
nice blog.

in the end everyone is trying to sell you something and will manipulate information, because they can. just do whatever you want, were all going to die either way. ill die a happy and strong meat eater.

>>39193266
at 55*

>>39192760
>probably have parasites

There would be a lot more parasites if meat wasn't processed. I'm not saying the meat is great, just saying...

>>39192810
I'd question the veracity of any such study unless they do a very good job of isolating the variable. Problem is, from what I've seen, most studies are just looking for statistical correlations. In other words they simply take two groups, people who eat meat and people who don't eat meat, and compare the incidence of cancer in each. It's overly simplistic because the group that doesn't eat meat is much more likely to have people who are very serious about staying healthy and avoiding known carcinogens like nitrates. The "default" for the population is eating an omnivorous diet, which also means that all the dumb idiots stuffing their face with bacon and twinkies are grouped together with people who only eat organic meat (or some such).

Listen here op, cause I'm probably the only one that's gonna give you a non-meme answer.

Processed meat and red meat do cause cancer, with processed meat being classed as a Group 1 carcinogenic and red meat as a Group 2A. That means that processed meats are 100% carcinogenic, while a positive association has been shown with red meat but with in a small data pool.

The risk also increased depending on how much meat you consume, and on the method of cooking. Cooking at high temperates like grilling or frying produces more carcinogenic chemicals.

What I would suggest is eating lean chicken or turkey, broiled or boiled. I personally broil my chicken breasts and don't let them char.

You might have this anon's >>39192352 mentality, but that's just rationalizing your indulgences and lack of self-control. If you plan on lifting in the long-term, you will be consuming much more meat than the average person in your lifetime. Hence it's essential that you do it in a way that won't cause intestinal cancer in your 40s.

Here's the WHO Q&A about the matter:

http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

and here's the report they quote

https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf

>>39192342
Cooking things at high heat creates acrylamide which is carcinogenic and that's how most of us eat meat. Sometimes vegetables, but they're more likely to be boiled, steamed, or eaten raw.

>>39193286
>not having healthy children by 30.
Your bloodline is weakened by your lack of masculine traits.

>>39193236
Of course there are vegans who lie, the question was just which source is overall more likely to be corrupted by money. And the answer is that there's a HUGE meat and dairy industry, but only a TINY one for vegan replacement products (which a lot of vegans don't even eat).

Ultimatley, one has to make up one's own mind, but that's a problem when the science - which is supposed to be the goddamn TRUTH - is also corrupt. So one way to get closer to the truth is to ask "who has the resources to pay off the scientific community?". And again the answer is more likely to be the huge industry than the tiny one.

Everything causes cancer eventually.

If one were to simply exist for a long enough period of time, the incidence rate of cancer would eventually reach 100%.

It's biologically programmed into [most] of life to die, cancer is there in case all else fails to kill you.

https://examine.com/nutrition/does-red-meat-cause-cancer/

/thread

>>39192710
Eating dead plant parts will do me better?

>>39195322
Yeah but "we all die eventually" is the excuse fatties make for being fat. We're all about fitness - we wanna delay death and also be as healthy and fit as possible while alive. I mean I love beef, but I'm not gonna let cancer steal my gains: if there's something to this 'meat causes cancer' stuff, then I wanna know.

>>39192352
>>39192366
>>39192734
>>39195322
>everything causes cancer, deal with it
Yes, that's why you sniff asbestos everyday, right?

>>39195356
Yes there is. Google "WHO meat cancer". Processed and burnt meat is especially bad, so is alcohol.

I think chicken is less harmful.

This should help

http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

>>39192710
7/10 bait, would cringe again.

>>39192342
No.

Yes.

>eat our soy products with massive profit margins and a shelf-life longer than the jurassic era