Bacon = Bad for you

SSBrew - 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
DrunkleJon

DrunkleJon

Objects in mirror are closer than they appear
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
8,182
Reaction score
2,570
Location
Alexandria
I am sure everyone is well aware of how awesome Bacon is (and yes it is deserving of a capital B). Who would have thought that it is bad for you as well?

Look at the wonderful news article saying processed and red meats are 'probably' carcinogenic.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...con-processed-red-meats-cause-cancer-says-who

Why is this a surprise? What isn't bad for you anymore? Do you think they are trying to come up with reasoning to take my bacon away? Add a sin tax to fund health care?

Read it, be not shocked. Discuss.
 
I have read that and I am OK with eating Bacon. The occasional piece of Bacon is ok. If you eat bacon every single day you will have an increased risk of cancer.
Somewhere in the negativity (perhaps within a different article) they come out and say that Bacon is nowhere near as toxic as a cigarette.
 
Seeing this study made me think of Dennis Leary's early standup - I'll substitute "bacon" for "cigarettes:"

Like the problem is we just haven't noticed yet. ... Sure, Bill, I've got some bacon and HOLY &@#!!! This stuff is bad for you?! thought it was good for you! I thought it had Vitamin C in it and stuff!" You {€^! dolt! Doesn't matter how big the warnings are. You could have bacon that was called "warnings." You could have bacon that comes in a black package, with a skull and a cross bones on the front, called "tumors" and bacon lovers would be lined up around the block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these &@/#! things!"
 
DrunkleJon said:
I am sure everyone is well aware of how awesome Bacon is (and yes it is deserving of a capital B). Who would have thought that it is bad for you as well?

Look at the wonderful news article saying processed and red meats are 'probably' carcinogenic.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...con-processed-red-meats-cause-cancer-says-who

Why is this a surprise? What isn't bad for you anymore? Do you think they are trying to come up with reasoning to take my bacon away? Add a sin tax to fund health care?

Read it, be not shocked. Discuss.
Click to expand...

No, the article states that processed meats (cured, smoked, etc..) cause cancer. It then goes further to state that red meats "probably" cause cancer.

Congratulations Science! You equivocally narrowed down that anything we eat, drink, breath, or touch has the potential to cause cancer. Can we now focus on finding the cure rather than how to capitalize on it? I mean, you had since 1600BC to sort this one out.
 
GilaMinumBeer said:
You know, those people that handled the Ebola epidemic with such surgical precision.
Click to expand...

Ha! Good one. We've know that processed crap loaded with nitrates and nitrites have been less than desirable, and are not "health foods" for quite sometime. Now some American meat council is on the case not wanting use to reduce red meat consumption beacause it is a money thing. They do not care about our health any more than the tobacco industry, with that said everything in moderation. Bacon for my Sunday brunch and red meat a couple times a week is not that risky. And, we are all going to die from something. The idea is to live well so our last few years are difficult, not our last decade. My 2 cents.
 
I'm with paraphrased Denis Leary. I don't think anyone is under the delusion that [Bacon] is good for them, well except maybe SWMBO's one co-worker who told her that bacon was better for her than an apple...but she's a carb-free, anti-GMO, anti-gluten whack job.

Everything in moderation (including moderation)...
 
I like this bit from this article.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/26/who_processed_meat/ said:
"Red and processed meat are among 940 agents reviewed by IARC and found to pose some level of theoretical 'hazard'. Only one substance, a chemical in yoga pants, has been declared by IARC not to cause cancer."

Having worked up a good head of steam, Booren mocked: "IARC says you can enjoy your yoga class, but don’t breathe air (Class I carcinogen), sit near a sun-filled window (Class I), apply aloe vera (Class 2B) if you get a sunburn, drink wine or coffee (Class I and Class 2B), or eat grilled food (Class 2A). And if you are a hairdresser or do shiftwork (both Class 2A), you should seek a new career." ®
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/news/i...ernational-agency-opinion-red-meat-and-cancer

“Cancer is a complex disease that even the best and brightest minds don’t fully understand,” says Shalene McNeill, PhD, RD. “Billions of dollars have been spent on studies all over the world and no single food has ever been proven to cause or cure cancer. The opinion by the IARC committee to list red meat as a probable carcinogen does not change that fact. The available scientific evidence simply does not support a causal relationship between red or processed meat and any type of cancer.”
 
I am a nutritional researcher. Work for industry but not beef/meat.

I know why these groups claim that X causes Y, but I do not agree with it.

The substantial evidence is based upon observational studies. Observational studies are great for looking at associations, but less so for defining if something causes something else. The propsective cohorts remove some of the time relative aspects of observational studies (a happened before b) but not much else. Sure people love to bring up Bradford-Hills ground breaking work on tobacco and cancer, but the relatively risks here are enormous compared to that seen from food and cancer. This increases the likelyhood of finding a true association. Plus the animal studies are pretty consistent as a means to perform controlled trials of the exposure. The WHO/IARC admit their animal work is inadeqate to define a causal link. So the reported increased risk fo red meat of 17% and 18% for processed is from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21674008

In this they explain the problem, the dataset, and compile by known statistical techniques to improve hte power of the analysis to come up with the values. Nine studies made up the processed meat pool and eight made up the red meat pool.

on average there was a follow up of ~10 years. Food intake was estimated via whats known as a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) at teh begining of the trials. Two had another assessment some point, but with a different questionnaire asking a different thing. The FFQ is usually asking people how often they eat something, and how big the serving is (with a few twists) and then the servings are then converted into amounts *But not always*. Sometimes they are 'validated' but not always for all foods/nutrients, and even then, validating does not mean accurately correcting for the variables - never mind the method used for validation is also imprecise. In cases the meta-analysis authors couldnt extract grams of food from a trial (ie if it presented servings rather than weight) they converted it into grams (g) using 120 g as a standard portion size for red and processed meat combined and for red meat, and 50 g was assumed as standard portion size for processed meat. Others have used similar values but still adds noise.

Just think of that for an analysis set, that people are meant to take as substantial evidence. One unreliable measure of food intake at the begining, and associating this to 10years of disease risk.

Its vague assocations, with poor quality data.

the relationship may be bigger or smaller, it may be true or false. But with data like this, its wishful thinking if they can assign causality, But that has never stopped do-good public health folk.
 
There are millions of tons of toxic, carcinogenic pollution spewed into the air every day & they're worried about bacon. :rolleyes: We've known for decades that all the nitrites & nitrates in bacon weren't good for you, and that too much fat from bacon (and other fatty meats) wasn't good for you, now they're trying to tell me "meat causes cancer." Eating meat is what allowed Australopithecus (and other hominids) to evolve larger & larger brains; without the added protein & fat from a diet that included meat, we wouldn't be much more than smart chimps with an odd toe...
Though there are some that might argue that that is just what we are.
I'll continue to eat bacon & other meats just as I have, I see no reason to alter my diet.
Just my two cents worth.
Regards, GF.
 
Honestly, I don't eat red meat or pork, but believe everything is toxic in large enough amounts.

I've known that since I was a kid. Bill Nye maybe....
 
Life is to be enjoyed and if a lb of bacon a month, helps so be it, Remember we are consuming much more ALCOHOL then what is recommended. I know I damned well enjoy bacon and Beer!
 
Oscar Meyer uncured bacon = no nitrites = no worries. Tastes no different to me, maybe a little less salty.
 
Here is an interesting statistic. 100% of all people eventually die. That includes vegetarians and all of the people who slice grapes for dinner. Known people who were considered perfect weight and healthy eaters that died in their youth. Fact is, we all die.

I will keep eating my bacon, ham, beef jerky and enjoy life. What meat to smoke this weekend? Brisket? Pork Shoulder? Yummmmmmmmmmmm.
 
theseeker4 said:
For everyone freaking out about this, I will just leave this here....

Alcohol increases your risk of cancer too...

:mug:
Click to expand...

Uh oh, I'm in trouble

Bacon and beer.jpg
 
Vandulus said:
Most of the "uncured" meats actually have additions like celery powder that naturally contain nitrates so the labeling is misleading.

http://www.meatmythcrushers.com/myths/the-use-of-celery-powder-to-cure-some-meats-is-misleading.html
Click to expand...

Oh man, that sucks,! I thought I was making a good choice for once. This is an intriguing statement at the end, however:

"While the myth that nitrite is linked to various diseases persists, studies have shown that not only are nitrate and nitrite safer at the levels used, they also can have significant health benefits."

Maybe it's not so bad for you after all.
 
Soon everyone will be shocked and amazed with the news reversing on their judgement. I can hear it now.

Breaking News: Bacon and other cured meats are the cure for cancer. Details at 11.
 

Similar threads

orgenomescii
Brewing like a Barbarian: Ancient Irish Descriptions of Malting & Brewing
Replies
2
Views
1K
McMullan
McMullan
Murrayatuptown
Recognizing Good/bad aging in Stout/Porter?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Teufelhunde
T
K
Salt Lime Lager brew day recap (a beginner's journey in learning hard lessons)
Replies
6
Views
2K
BrewZer
BrewZer
Y
Thank you for all the help!
Replies
10
Views
643
Dr_Jeff
D
mongoose33
NorthEast Brewery Tour
Replies
12
Views
3K
mongoose33
mongoose33

Latest posts

Back
Top