Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, Oct-04-18, 23:26
locarb4avr locarb4avr is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 243
 
Plan: My own plan
Stats: 220/138/132 Male 65in
BF:
Progress: 93%
Location: 92646
Default Bacon, processed meats linked to breast cancer in study

Bacon, processed meats linked to breast cancer in study

https://abc7chicago.com/health/stud...cancer/4410683/

Consumption of red and processed meat and breast cancer incidence: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective studies

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi....1002/ijc.31848
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Fri, Oct-05-18, 04:49
thud123's Avatar
thud123 thud123 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,881
 
Plan: ~25NC/IF
Stats: 342.2/196/000 Male 182cm
BF:
Progress: 43%
Default

Both appear to be 100% true facts! Processed meats. Yuck!
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Fri, Oct-05-18, 05:57
PilotGal PilotGal is offline
Look up to the sky
Posts: 43,422
 
Plan: Maintenance since 2007.
Stats: 206.6/173/178 Female 5'7
BF:awesome
Progress: 117%
Location: USA
Default

wonder why i'm not dead.......................
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Fri, Oct-05-18, 06:09
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 2,456
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

I'm surprised they didn't mention shoes. The majority of people who contracted cancer wore shoes, so there's a definite correlation. They need to add this as a question on the next food history consumption questionnaire. Go barefoot, save lives.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Fri, Oct-05-18, 07:10
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 4,194
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/128/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Vermont
Default

I have become weary of all these pseudo studies proving nothing and pseudo articles advocating whatever pops into the writer's head. I am trying to just ignore it all and go with what I have found to work and what is supported by "science" that is not as corrupted by conflicts of interest or strict adherence to conventional views.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Fri, Oct-05-18, 07:34
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 9,238
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 247/217/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Quote:
Red meat (beef, veal, pork, lamb, offal)

Processed meat (bacon, smoked ham, salami, frankfurter, Cumberland sausage, cold cuts, liver pa^teŽ, processed fish that is fish prepared by pickling, salting, or smoking)





Red meat= far more than beef, all the livestock AMericans typically eat except fowl and fish.

Processed meats include pickled fish, salted fish and pate.....

This criteria looks very muddied. This study did not determine anything.


Veal producers would be horrified to know veal is now "red" and pork has been advertised as " the other white meat"---to call the sorted list "red meat" is purposely misleading IMO. Why was wasn't the label "UNprocessed meat" used?

All very suspect. Lots of useless research hours.

Last edited by Ms Arielle : Fri, Oct-05-18 at 07:44.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Fri, Oct-05-18, 08:01
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,452
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Yeah, some scientists these idjits are. Look here:
Quote:
Conclusion

This systematic review and meta‐analysis including prospective cohort studies of red meat and processed meat consumption provides evidence that higher consumption of processed meat is associated with higher risk of breast cancer. However, red meat was not a significant cause of breast cancer. Moreover, we did not find evidence for differing associations according to NAT2 genotypes. Further studies examining molecular subtypes of breast cancer are needed.

...was not a significant cause of...

That's the phrasing somebody uses when he's trying to show causation (but fails). In spite of the fail, the message is clear - red meat causes breast cancer.

I just figured out a trick. This is how it's done. An example to illustrate.

Let's say I wanna show pepper causes flibbits (who knows what flibbits is, I'm just trying to turn pepper into a bad guy). So I look at both pepper and aflatoxin consumption in the same meta-analysis of a series of prospective cohort studies that look at that, then I title this study something like so.

Consumption of Pepper and Aflatoxin and Flibbits Incidence: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective studies

I name pepper first, see? In the conclusion, of course, based on truly mindbogglingly extensive data massaging, I report that pepper does not cause flibbits, cuz it just doesn't, but I report it, cuz I looked at it so deeply and wrote every little bit of insignificant data I looked at and massaged all that data in every imaginable way, and then some, just so I could justify writing about pepper and flibbits at least a few times in every paragraph. Now for the clincher. When that reporter reports about all that, he smartly omits to report that pepper does not cause flibbits, cuz it's just not newsworthy. Instead, he focuses only on the aflatoxin.

Yeah, two guys got accused. One found innocent. But nobody talks about him. It's all about the guilty. In the end, the innocent is still guilty in our eyes, cuz everybody thought he was guilty, and nobody was notified that he actually isn't.

Now let's look at a more honest paper, my favorite, the all-meat trial. They tested meat consumption. This wasn't a comparision with some other potential culprit, it's just meat. In the conclusion, they couldn't possibly report about anything else, so meat is the only thing they report on. And guess what? It's the same conclusion as this retarded meta-analysis. Consuming meat in literally any quantity does not cause any bad thing whatsoever, ever. Ever.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Fri, Oct-05-18, 09:07
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 9,238
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 247/217/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

While I essentially agree with your view, I would like to point out that this phrasing stems from the design of the study. It should not have any of the implied meaning at all but I understand how it could be viewed that way.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Fri, Oct-05-18, 09:07
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 13,095
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

It's always bacon, processed meats. Never pickled herring, processed meats. Processed meats are such a broad category, and bacon has not been singled out here in the research, only in the press report. If somebody reported that Italians, Europeans are more prone to type I diabetes--but there was no separate analysis of Italians and their rate of diabetes, this would be frankly dishonest. No problem with giving examples of processed meats--it's the singling out that I have a problem with. It's important to be specific about just how specific (or not) the findings are.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Fri, Oct-05-18, 12:47
Meme#1's Avatar
Meme#1 Meme#1 is online now
Posts: 9,427
 
Plan: Atkins DANDR
Stats: 210/188/160 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 44%
Location: Texas
Default

Please pass the bacon...
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Thu, Oct-11-18, 11:03
locarb4avr locarb4avr is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 243
 
Plan: My own plan
Stats: 220/138/132 Male 65in
BF:
Progress: 93%
Location: 92646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cotonpal
I have become weary of all these pseudo studies proving nothing and pseudo articles advocating whatever pops into the writer's head. I am trying to just ignore it all and go with what I have found to work and what is supported by "science" that is not as corrupted by conflicts of interest or strict adherence to conventional views.


Those are "statistical studies" which is also refereed as soft science. Still need hard science to back them up.

I read some papers times ago. If I come across them, I'll post a follow up.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Thu, Oct-11-18, 11:12
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 10,602
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

"Prior studies on red and processed meat consumption with breast cancer risk have generated inconsistent results." So without the results we wanted, we then tortured the data and results until we got a scary headline by using "The multivariable‐adjusted relative risk (RR) combined comparing the highest with the lowest category of red meat (unprocessed) and processed meat consumption using a random‐effect meta‐analysis."

The Science is Not Settled: Red Meat: Does It Cause Heart Disease and Cancer?
https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/r...ease-and-cancer
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Thu, Oct-11-18, 11:17
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 13,095
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

This is me, quoting me, referring to me. Stay humble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
There's an old study I usually pull up for threads like this where they tried to kill rats by implanting them with cancer and then feeding them various meat products. Bacon was particularly disappointing, it seemed to have an anti-cancer effect. The researchers theorized that the salty bacon was making the animals thirsty, and the extra water the animals were drinking was fighting the cancer. I never came across an follow up studies giving rats extra salty food or force-feeding them water to fight cancer, though.

Okay, found it;


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10050267

Still cracks me up...



Of course this statement doesn't fill me with optimism about the competence of the research.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Thu, Oct-11-18, 12:22
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 2,456
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Relative risk comparisons seem to appear when the trial doesn't prove anything of significance. It's all they have left to try and force something to prove a bias.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Mon, Oct-15-18, 10:59
64dodger 64dodger is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 309
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 251/218.2/200 Male 76 inches
BF:
Progress: 64%
Default

Another stinking pile of liberal BS.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:03.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.