Red meat increased risk of colon cancer

[VivaRevolution]

there was probably a time when these stats meant something, probably.....but that wasnt in our lifetimes..they figured out how to use these numbers to manipulate the herd and figured out how to shadow over whom is actually conducting these studies so it becomes either hard to argue or an endless debate.

Don't get me wrong. They have definitely proven smoking increases your likely hood of cancer and heart disease.

The phrase 'increases your likelyhood', isn't what I question, is it the degree and perspective of what those numbers actually mean that I challenge.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Jack V Savage link?

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

 

[panamaican]

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

Thanks and yup.

I've posted about this before. For some people, when you challenge their beliefs, they basically enter flight or fight mode and double down on protecting themselves from your "attack". It also coincides with my thread about cynics being less intelligent.

Through and through, many people simply don't respond well to new information that contradicts strongly held beliefs. It's good to be aware of and a damn good reason not to take any of these internet "debates" too seriously. You're rarely going to convince someone to take on a new perspective on an old issue.

 

[ocean size]

That wasn't what I meant to ask.

I've never known anyone over 6'6" that lived passed 70.

Being a very large man, will likely kill you in your 50's. And I don't mean a obese man. I mean 6'8" 280 lbs. Being that big wreaks havoc on the heart.

Here let's try another one.

If your parents, and grandparents, and great grandparents all lived into their 80's and 90's, what are the chances that smoking will kill you in your 60's?

Also, if you are bound to die of pancreatic cancer due to a genetic deficiency would smoking kill you sooner?

What are you getting at though?

Are you suggesting the reporting of the risk associated with smoking isn't nuanced enough? Like if with certain genetics, smoking won't cause cancer?
Because that isn't the case - genetics play a tiny role if any for lung cancer.
"In our study, there is little if any effect of inherited predisposition on development of lung cancer. Genetic factors are not likely to be strongly predictive of lung cancer risk in most male smokers older than 50, the age group in which the vast majority of cases occur."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673694917701

 

[JDragon]

A bacon a day
Keeps the apple away

 

[Jack V Savage]

Thanks and yup.

I've posted about this before. For some people, when you challenge their beliefs, they basically enter flight or fight mode and double down on protecting themselves from your "attack". It also coincides with my thread about cynics being less intelligent.

Through and through, many people simply don't respond well to new information that contradicts strongly held beliefs. It's good to be aware of and a damn good reason not to take any of these internet "debates" too seriously. You're rarely going to convince someone to take on a new perspective on an old issue.

On that last point, that's true, but I think it's good intellectual exercise to work through the arguments anyway (even knowing that there's little chance that getting it right will change anyone's mind). Also, as a matter of curiosity, I like to see why people think what they do, even if they're wrong.

 

[JDragon]

Thanks and yup.

I've posted about this before. For some people, when you challenge their beliefs, they basically enter flight or fight mode and double down on protecting themselves from your "attack". It also coincides with my thread about cynics being less intelligent.

Through and through, many people simply don't respond well to new information that contradicts strongly held beliefs. It's good to be aware of and a damn good reason not to take any of these internet "debates" too seriously. You're rarely going to convince someone to take on a new perspective on an old issue.

The point of the article is, though, that intelligence doesn't even matter a lot. It just means you get better at finding arguments to support your deeply held beliefs.

 

[panamaican]

On that last point, that's true, but I think it's good intellectual exercise to work through the arguments anyway (even knowing that there's little chance that getting it right will change anyone's mind). Also, as a matter of curiosity, I like to see why people think what they do, even if they're wrong.

I agree with that.

 

[panamaican]

The point of the article is, though, that intelligence doesn't even matter a lot. It just means you get better at finding arguments to support your deeply held beliefs.

Yeah, for my first point about flight or fight, it's not about intelligence. It's what people do unless they've been trained to overcome that tendency. The stuff about cynics is just another side of the same issue, how people handle information that potentially upsets their existing perspective. More intelligent people rationalize, less intelligent people are cynical. Both struggle with accepting that they might have to change their beliefs.

 

[AlexDB9]

Pretty much everything gives you cancer now so just YOLO

 

[VivaRevolution]

What are you getting at though?

Are you suggesting the reporting of the risk associated with smoking isn't nuanced enough? Like if with certain genetics, smoking won't cause cancer?
Because that isn't the case - genetics play a tiny role if any for lung cancer.
"In our study, there is little if any effect of inherited predisposition on development of lung cancer. Genetic factors are not likely to be strongly predictive of lung cancer risk in most male smokers older than 50, the age group in which the vast majority of cases occur."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673694917701

No. I mean more from a general philosophy point of view.

There is a reason a guy can smoke a pack of Paul Maul non filtered a day from age 10 til 90 while chewing a can of Kopenhagen everyday.

It has to do with the fact that he was a farmer. He exercised everyday through labor, ate reasonably well, and had great genetics.

Smoking is bad for you. It will shorten your life.

But most people that smoke and die of lung cancer at 60, were going to die of lung cancer anyways, just at age 70.

The % of smokers this isn't true of and die of lung cancer, is less than 10%.

 

[Beechwood]

Wouldn't it be easier just to take vitamin D? No UV damage to the skin, no increased chance of skin cancer, etc.

It would be nice if that worked. No, I don't believe that. Taking vitamin D and sunshine exposure are not the same thing.

I personally suspect the cancer lowering ability of sun exposure is due to sunshines ability to help with circulation. Part of our circulation, the lymphatic system, does not rely upon the heart. Instead the lymphatic system is passive and relies upon muscle movement to work. I suspect that sunshine exposure also moves lymph along.

The lymphatic systems helps removes toxins from the body. Toxins or carcinogens are a leading theory for the cause of cancer. Long term exposure to a toxin is believed to be responsible for the development of most cancers. That is just my guess on how sunshine exposure can be helpful with preventing some cancers.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I imagine there are healthier sources of fiber than bread and breakfast cereals.

Bullshit. I thank my mom for getting me off to such a healthy start!

 

[ocean size]

No. I mean more from a general philosophy point of view.

There is a reason a guy can smoke a pack of Paul Maul non filtered a day from age 10 til 90 while chewing a can of Kopenhagen everyday.

It has to do with the fact that he was a farmer. He exercised everyday through labor, ate reasonably well, and had great genetics.

Smoking is bad for you. It will shorten your life.

But most people that smoke and die of lung cancer at 60, were going to die of lung cancer anyways, just at age 70.

The % of smokers this isn't true of and die of lung cancer, is less than 10%.

No. That farmer got lucky. You rerun his life ten times, he gets cancer or heart disease in a few of them.

I feel like you are missing what I've said in every post- but the farmer that smokes is much much more likely to die from lung cancer than if he didn't smoke, and the fat guy who sits on the couch is more likely to die if he smokes.

There's no magical combination of traits that will protect someone from smoking. Its just that bad for you.

And no, most of the people who got lung cancer from smoking were not going to get it if they didn't smoke. We have the twins studies to prove it.

Not sure what your last sentence is supposed to say.

 

[VivaRevolution]

No. That farmer got lucky. You rerun his life ten times, he gets cancer or heart disease in a few of them.

I feel like you are missing what I've said in every post- but the farmer that smokes is much much more likely to die from lung cancer than if he didn't smoke, and the fat guy who sits on the couch is more likely to die if he smokes.

There's no magical combination of traits that will protect someone from smoking. Its just that bad for you.

And no, most of the people who got lung cancer from smoking were not going to get it if they didn't smoke. We have the twins studies to prove it.

Not sure what your last sentence is supposed to say.

What % of people live a completely healthy lifestyle?

Pick your poison man. Maybe you are apart of the less than 10% of the population that has low levels of stress, a completely healthy diet, sleeps the right amount, doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, exercises regularly, and didn't win the genetic shit lottery.

For the rest of us, we should be aware of how each bad health choice is a compounding factor. You really want to smoke, ok, I advise you make very good choices in every other health category, because as bad as smoking is, it is really bad when combined with other issues.

Like wise, you can not smoke, and be far more unhealthy, than a smoker.

As I said, it is more a point of general perspective, and interpretation.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Plot twist: Sunbathing will give you skin cancer

That is actually a big part of the study so no plot twist there.

People tend to live in extremes, They went from sunbathing and thinking a George Hamilton tan was a healthy thing to now trying to ensure they or their child never get allow the sun to touch their skin without full SPF protection.

We evolved on this planet just as Plants and the Oceans did to take advantage of the Sun and get benefits from it. Most studies say we should allow for about 2 hours of sun exposure a day before using SPF and the benefits are the list of things provided in that article.

 

[bushman505]

If you have to die, you might as well die from colon cancer.

My grandpa died of colon cancer. Never struck me as the way I want to die.

 

[WarDosAnjos]

Lol how is this political again?

 

[tonni]

My grandpa died of colon cancer. Never struck me as the way I want to die.

Sorry about that.

 

[Armbars]

Lol how is this political again?

My dodgy question within the OP is all I got.

So my question is, given the climate impact cattle farming has on the environment and the ever growing links to cancer, is it time we looked at red and processed meat consumption?