The world’s premier network for those seeking to share and discuss high-impact,high results, super practical information for the developmentof superiorphysical performance.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21
    Eoin Kenny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Have any of you read "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger?

    That's a great book, he gives the low down on what a healthy diet should be nowadays based on a lot of good research. He does advocate a plant based diet but openly says "it doesn't have to be all or nothing".

    So personally I live by his daily dozen foods to eat which include serving of legumes, whole grains, berries, leafy greens, curcif veg, nuts, flax, turmeric, fruit, other veg, green tea, exercise etc.. but because I still think some meat is healthy I throw in lean cuts to help with recovery and B vitamins etc. Eating this way has lead to me finally having perfect blood tests after 2 years of crash diets, and, wouldn't you know... it's pretty much the food pyramid

  2. #22
    Eoin Kenny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Have any of you read "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger?

    That's a great book, he gives the low down on what a healthy diet should be nowadays based on a lot of good research. He does advocate a plant based diet but openly says "it doesn't have to be all or nothing".

    So personally I live by his daily dozen foods to eat which include serving of legumes, whole grains, berries, leafy greens, curcif veg, nuts, flax, turmeric, fruit, other veg, green tea, exercise etc.. but because I still think some meat is healthy I throw in lean cuts to help with recovery and B vitamins etc. Eating this way has lead to me finally having perfect blood tests with super good cholesterol after 2 years of crash diets, and, wouldn't you know... it's pretty much the food pyramid

  3. #23
    maxreps is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Darwin
    Posts
    5

    Default

    To be honest guys everything causes cancer these days the air that you breath the food that you eat the booze we all drink

    end of the day just eat the meat haha

  4. #24
    maxreps is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Darwin
    Posts
    5

    Default

    To be honest everything gives you cancer the food we eat the air we breath the booze we drink so on

    you might aswell just eat it

  5. #25
    MostlyFull is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    100

    Default

    If you read the Q and A on the study you realize what a farce it is. The answers take pain to show there is no actual proof that red meat increases the risk of cancer, but maybe if we could prove it, then we could actually say there is some risk.

    They also said that high temp cooking has not proven that it increases cancer, but certain compounds found in air pollution are created during high temp cooking of red meat.

    The whole thing smacks of collusion, sorta like when the Sugar industry paid a couple of Harvard researchers to suggest that saturated fat is a major cause of heart disease, but sugar was no problem at all. Or when butter was vilified in favor of the healthier trans-fats in margarine. Oops.

    The study stated that eating 2 ounces, or 50 grams, of processed meat per day probably increases your odds of colo-rectal cancer by 18%. That is all it is reasonably certain of. It is now classed as a schedule 1 carcinogen along with smoking and air pollution. They say that worldwide, 35,000 deaths per year can be attributed to processed meat. At least that's what they can agree on.

    Keep your mitts off my grass finished T-Bone.
    Last edited by MostlyFull; 10-25-2016 at 09:46 AM.

  6. #26
    Eoin Kenny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Sure you can't "prove" meat causes cancer, but you also can't prove that global warming exist, or that smoking causes cancer because doing so would be quite unethical and likely take too much time and resources.

    It's just a mound of evidence which builds and builds until there is little doubt.

  7. #27
    MostlyFull is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Kenny,

    Respectfully, where are these mounds of evidence??? The WHO had medical reps from 10 different countries look at ALL relevant studies that they could find. The slant of the panel was to find a causation between red meat and cancer. They found NOTHING. Science has found nothing. No causation. Yet it is listed as a Schedule 2 carcinogen.

    Sugar feeds cancer. That is a fact. Cancer cannot survive if you are burning fat for energy. If a person is on a ketongenic diet, free of any sugar, the cancer will die. That is a fact proven in many studies. So why don't we ban sugar? Why doesn't the WHO take a position on it?
    Last edited by MostlyFull; 10-25-2016 at 12:40 PM.

  8. #28
    ad5ly is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,413

    Default

    In every dose of medicine there is a little bit of poison. Too much of anything (perhaps even carrots and lettuce) might be harmful. But that would be mostly boring. You only have one life to live. Enjoy what you like to eat - just be mindful that bbq rib roast with mom's special German mashed potatoes and Samuel Adam's lager beer to wash it all down with three times a week might be too much. So eat that T-bone. Staying sane but reasonable is what will get you through to a long life. Frankly I have grown tired of all the "scientific" studies about food and all the "good" and "bad" of it all. This year coffee "good". But then the year before it was "bad". All these studies are nothing but schemes to garnish gov'tment grants based on bogus science. From Global Warming to coffee drinking to wearing underwear thats too tight. And don't forget about cow farts. We all should be getting tired of being jerked around by this kind of foolishness. Old fart rant over..hehe!!...Dennis

  9. #29
    Eoin Kenny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MostlyFull View Post
    If a person is on a ketongenic diet, free of any sugar, the cancer will die. That is a fact proven in many studies.
    I didn't know this, is that really true or is it something you read on a blog like mark's daily apple etc?

    If it were true I'm sure the whole world would know that there is now a cure for cancer, so, with respect my friend, I think this is probably exaggerated.

    The scientific concencous of the last century has strongly correlated animal nutrients (sat. fat, cholesterol) with disease. This is also true in large scale population studies, I suggest you look into the "Blue Zones" and what was discovered there, it correlates exactly with the scientific norm of limiting red meat to once a month, eating mostly fish(maybe 2 times a week) and mostly whole plants for calories.

    I'm no research scientist so I can't quote studies or I'd just embarrass myself

  10. #30
    ComradeCat is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MostlyFull View Post
    Sugar feeds cancer. That is a fact. Cancer cannot survive if you are burning fat for energy. If a person is on a ketongenic diet, free of any sugar, the cancer will die. That is a fact proven in many studies. So why don't we ban sugar? Why doesn't the WHO take a position on it?
    Because the Warburg hypothesis is still being investigated; although the results on solid tumors are promising.

    It would appear that the Warburg effect is a result of cancerous mutations, but not necessarily the cause. So banning sugar is kinda taking the extreme approach of fighting the symptoms, not the cause.

    That said, the WHO is blatantly politicized, behind the times and pretty much no more accurate than a monkey diagnosing an illness by pure chance. The fact that they supported the Rio Olympics despite the peak in Zika transmission tells you how credible they are and that they are motivated by money and not public health.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Free Course
Close