I know, I know, I'm late. I don't have a trained eye

>>7644995
eating increases your risk of cancer
http://www.prevention.com/health/health-concerns/diet-salad-and-wine-linked-higher-breast-cancer-risk
even fucking salad.

Just let what you like kill you.

>>7644995
Oh, gee, bacon isn't good for you. What a fucking surprise. It must be a conspiracy.

>>7644995
It does increase your risk of cancer. However, based on the given numbers, it's not that much of a big deal. If you ate bacon every day, it would only give you an extra 0.4% chance of dying of cancer you wouldn't otherwise have gotten.

This works out to a lifetime of bacon-eating costing you, on average, maybe three weeks of your life, or about one minute per serving. You probably lost that much time out of your life cooking it in the first place.

>>7645011
>What women eat linked to woman cancer shocker.

>>7645039
What's the reference though? Is it bacon vs eating nothing?

>>7645039
This doesnt seem right.
>The experts concluded that each 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%.

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

>>7645048
Pretty sure the study was between processed meats (bacon, sandwich meats etc) and non-processed meats (ie. steak etc)

>>7645062
So if I eat 500 grams a day there's a 180% chance of cancer? You don't see how that's impossible?

>>7645080
Each time you eat 50g would increase your risk by an additional 18%. So if your risk is 10(cancer units), 50g increases you to 11.8%. More increases to 13.924%. It's compounding increased risk.

>>7645089
Ok so essentially they're making this whole big deal even though literally stuffing yourself with bacon every day would only increase the chance of cancer by a few percent? Thx finally can shut up all those vegans at work.

>>7645062
Nope, that's actually consistent.

Your base risk of colorectal cancer is about 5%*. An 18% increase in this is 5.9% - or a little less than 1 extra case of cancer per 100 people eating 50g a day. A bit less than half of all colorectal cancers are fatal**, and thus 0.4% additional lifetime risk of cancer from eating 50 grams of bacon every single day of your life.

*http://www.cancer.org/cancer/colonandrectumcancer/detailedguide/colorectal-cancer-key-statistics

**http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-028312.pdf

>>7645100
Going from 6 to 7 people out of 100 in a population is a large number. Nothing to do with vegans here.

>>7645127
Oh I know, it's just all the vegans I know won't shut up about this study and keep trying to make the people who eat meat feel like they're murdering little children.

>>7645121
The point is that most people who eat slim jims, bacon, and hot dogs don't just eat 50 grams. 50 grams is nothing...

>>7645121
The average age of diagnosis with colon cancer is 69; the average life expectancy is 79. So let's just take the simplest, most liberal possible estimate and say that a fatal case of colon cancer takes 10 years off your life. Multiply by 0.4%, and we get about two weeks on average lost to bacon cancer.

And, oh, let's say that every case of cancer, fatal or nonfatal, causes enough non-death-related distress and general suckitude to be worth another two years of your life - that's about another week.

So on the whole, you lose around 3 weeks of life expectancy on average to eating 50g of bacon every single day for your entire life.

3 weeks, distributed amongst each one of your daily bacon-eatings over your average 79-year lifespan, is about 1 minute on average.

So indeed, an 18% increase in colorectal cancer due to eating 50g of bacon - say, a bacon sandwich - daily, works out to about 1 minute of your life lost per bacon sandwich.

>>7644995
It's not so much about whether it's processed or not (unless in the context of sodium nitrate), it's more about neu5gc. Which is present in most mammals humans consume, and only present in trace amounts in poultry / fish (probably dietary accumulation from whatever source). There are also some aspects of animal fats that result in negative interactions with the body, that I don't really know much about. So take it with a grain of salt.

A bit about neu5gc -
History and some background:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4026345/

Carcinogenesis and cancer promotion:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3928833/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586336/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596253/

Antibody generation:
http://jem.rupress.org/content/207/8/1637.full

The issue is, once something is a thing, it becomes very inflammatory and people readily separate into almost binary camps with very little variation in the part of the spectrum they occupy. Sometimes that polarity becomes less extreme as time goes on, sometimes not. Meat consumption has been a thing for a very long time, and people feel assaulted by the idea that it might be bad to be engorging themselves on meat at every single meal. That attachment exists both in their culture and how they were raised, as well as subsequently formed adult desires. Which makes it very hard to shake, and very difficult for people to acknowledge nor find legitime information.

Not eating meat is political. It's economic. It's philosophical. It's moral. Therefore, it's a fucking mess, and it barely matters how scientific it gets. Put climate change and waste of resources into the equation, and oh man... Still, I look forward to any further endeavors to resolve what really makes it all tick.

>>7644995
>Does the consumption of processed meats increase your risk of cancer?
Maybe, or maybe eating more processed meats correlates with cancer for unrelated reasons.

Even if it's an actual causal relationship, and there's no reason to believe that it is, they're talking about eating bacon or hot dogs every day giving you an additional whole-life 1% chance of colon cancer, when the average risk of colon cancer is 5% and average overall lifetime risk of getting some kind of cancer is nearly 50% anyway.

Compare this with smoking: non-smokers have a ~1% chance of getting lung cancer, but smokers have a ~26% chance of getting lung cancer.

>>7645140
According to Wolfram Alpha, 1 slice of bacon is 7 grams, so 50 g is 7.1 slices of bacon.

That strikes me as rather a lot of bacon.

>>7645167
>1 slice of bacon is 7 grams
So when you buy a pound of bacon, you get 64 slices in it?

File: colorectal cancer.png (100KB, 899x623px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 899x623px

>>7644995
Yes, it will. There is overwhelming evidence for causality criteria to be met. The RR numbers that the World Health organization released are actually quite significant when you consider they are relative to a population with already high colon cancer rates and an abundance of other behavioral risk factors that contribute to them. Changes to the overall dietary pattern and lifestyle (including substitution with foods that actually reduce your risk of cancer below the baseline) are more important than mere avoidance of single foods.

>>7645089
Yeah, that's definitely not how it works. It says that if you eat 50g of bacon per day (for the rest of your life), you will have an 18% higher risk of getting colorectal cancel.

>>7645080
>implying consumption of 500 grams of protein wouldn't just fuck your liver up before you got cancer

>>7645044
>I don't understand how statistics works

File: jews.png (11KB, 274x290px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 274x290px

>>7644995
Yes, who would want to ban bacon?
Who indeed?

>>7645179
>foods that actually reduce your risk of cancer below the baseline
Hey, guess what? Fruits and vegetables significantly reducing cancer risk has been debunked.

>>7645383
>Debunked
Usually anyone who communicates their thoughts this way, can be safely ignored. But I'll go along with it. Anything more you'd like to say about that?

>>7645386
The idea that fruits and vegetable lower your cancer risk significantly has been a stubborn meme in the face of evidence, but you can only support that conclusion by cherry-picking studies. Other studies show no effect or increased cancer risk.

For a while, antioxidants were thought to be so important that eating fruit and vegetables would cut your cancer risk in half. When they went looking for the data, it showed no such effect. For a while there was publication bias favoring studies that showed support, so you can't trust naive metastudies.

>>7645435
I would have to see the design of these studies and what parameters were actually tested. A good deal of plants have relatively novel compounds that modulate or augment immune system function, and fruit and vegetables aren't much of an exception. Some work against intrinsic cancer promoting factors. Though admittedly this is more common in tropical plants, herbs, and spices.

>For a while there was publication bias favoring studies that showed support
>so you can't trust naive metastudies.
Doesn't surprise me, I suppose. I just wish more people acknowledged that this kind of thing goes on in cases when it doesn't suit their pre-established world view.

I'd have to actually do more broad research. I've only extensively studied pharmacological properties of a small range of plants.

>nitrates and some other preservatives are known to cause cancer
>no, not all preservatives, you assholes
>bacon is heavily dosed with nitrates

..............

>>7645454
>A good deal of plants have relatively novel compounds that modulate or augment immune system function
Think about this. Does it really make sense that something other than ordinary adequate nutrition would make some system of your body work *generally* better?

...as opposed to messing with how your body works in ways that might be useful in special situations?

If you're looking at druglike substances in plants, they're probably going to be negative on average, like taking medicine when you don't need it.

I don't think enough respect is given to the merits of a simple, consistent diet, which avoids overnutrition of micronutrients as well as macronutrients and lets the body adapt and stabilize. Variety is over-rated.

>>7645501
It's difficult to respond to this, I both agree and disagree and can't figure how to concisely delineate the two.

There's a lot of marketing out there that overstates small or conditional benefits, and a lot of fixation on the notion of an undiscovered and yet unseen perfect diet. The magic fix all, the best. It's a shame people (both are made, and choose to) ride these waves instead of resolving a baseline understanding of food and their own body. It's really not hard to avoid eating garbage and get a moderate amount of exercise, even from a monetary standpoint.

I think you're underestimating those compounds have novel characteristics though. At this point it's very much dependent on individual physiology, both as a whole and at the time, as well as what a person actually sees as desirable. Take cocoa bean for example. Flavan-3-ols improve cardiovascular and brain function, as well as reducing inflammation. Endogenous cannabinoid reuptake inhibitors alters immune system function and can improve mood or modulate feeding behaviors. Histamine released from mast cells functions as a stimulant in the CNS, and inhibits appetite. Theobromine is a vasodilator and reduces arterial plaque buildup and calcification. Other compounds function as mao inhibitors and raise levels of norepinephrine and serotonin, the latter of which -can- improve learning and memory as well as promote hippocampal neurogenesis, and improve the survival rate of those new cells. Exposure to salsolinol and the subsequent rise in prolactin levels goes either way, it really depends if the person likes the feeling. Etc etc. Some areas cAMP rises dramatically, others it lowers. Inhibition of substance P, reduced inflammation in the trigeminal branches, etc.

That's obviously an extreme case and not an average food you could live on. But most foods have some degree of properties like that going on, whether in a primary or indirect sense. Fucking character limit.

>>7645556
[continued] It's always right at the end.
It can and should be evaluated when determining the relative value of a given food. Otherwise, I'd agree. Most people can and will be fine with basic heuristics and a little bit of common sense.

>>7645556
Oh. I also forgot some evidence indicating a conversion of white to brown adipose, and type 1 (but not 2a) muscle fibers rapidly growing new mitochondria. As well as elevating thermogenesis and the body's preference for, and efficiency performing lipolysis.

>>7645435
>>7645383

Have any evidence for this or are you just some high schooler talking out of their ass? Because virtually every major scientific authority on nutrition appears to disagree with you

http://www.aicr.org/foods-that-fight-cancer/
http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer-risk/diet/elements_phytochemicals.html
http://preventcancer.aicr.org/site/DocServer/E81-TLPW.pdf?docID=1861

>AICR recommends filling at least 2/3 of your plate with vegetables, fruit, whole grains and beans

http://www.wcrf.org/int/research-we-fund/cancer-prevention-recommendations/plant-foods
http://www.wcrf-hk.org/hk-en/here-help/eat-well/dietitian-mailbox

>Different phytochemicals help prevent cancer through different mechanism. For example, some phytochemicals act as antioxidants in the body and may decrease inflammation and the growth of tumour cells. While others may stimulate the production of anticancer enzymes, thus increasing the body’s natural ability to ward off cancer.

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/119926/E70041.pdf

>Plant foods contain many biologically active components, or metabolites, which have been used for centuries in traditional cures and herbal medicines. These plant metabolites are related to their potential protective role against chronic diseases, notably specific cancers and cardiovascular disease.

>>7645587
http://origin.www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/DGAC/Report/D-2-NutrientAdequacy.pdf

>It is possible that beta-carotene and other nutrients are most beneficial to health when they are consumed in their natural form and in combination with each other, such as in vegetables (including cooked dry beans and peas), fruits, and whole grains. These foods contain not only the essential vitamins and minerals that are often targeted in nutrient supplement pills, but also hundreds of naturally-occurring phytonutrients and other substances, including carotenoids, flavonoids, isoflavones, and protease inhibitors that may protect against cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, and other chronic health conditions.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm064919.htm

>Diets rich in whole grain foods and other plant foods and low in total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol may reduce the risk of heart disease and some cancers.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/

>The healthiest sources of carbohydrates—unprocessed or minimally processed whole grains, vegetables, fruits and beans—promote good health by delivering vitamins, minerals, fiber, and a host of important phytonutrients.

And so on. I could post many more.

>>7645587
>virtually every major scientific authority on nutrition
Literal appeal to authority.

>http://www.aicr.org/foods-that-fight-cancer/
When your first link is shit like this, you can't expect me to waste my time reading any further.

>>7645596
>doesn't even know what the AICR is

Wow, you got me convinced alright. I'll just take the word of some anonymous pseudo-intellectual shitposter on /sci/ over medical organizations and scientific consensus. I tip my tinfoil hat to you sir!

>>7645604
>doesn't even know what counts as evidence in a scientific sense
Suggestions, suppositions, and theories from a "respected authority" are not relevant here.

>>7645615
Why are you on a science board if all you're capable of doing is posting baseless claims without evidence? What ever will you ignorantly and arrogantly dismiss without understanding next? Evolution? General relativity?