- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Who the fuck is eating “as little as one Hotdog per day”?
WHO IS EATING TUBE STEAK EVERY DAY?!?
So if I eat 1 gram of processed meat, am I gonna die or something?
Eventually, yes
So… if we eat an unrealistic amount of processed meat we will get sick?
Who knew?
Next they’ll tell us that swallowing even 1 mouthful of hydrogen peroxide mouthwash is unsafe.
Doesn’t hydrogen peroxide just degrade into water and oxygen? How is it harmful?
when it spontaneously degrades, yes, it turns into tame water and healthy oxygen, but when it touches organic matter (your skin, tongue, mouth, etc) the oxygen directly reacts with the carbon atoms to make CO2, effectively “burning” away your tissues very slowly.
Usually, you don’t notice that because you use store-bought 3% peroxide, but chemists regularly use the much more powerful 35% peroxide, which gives you nasty burns
peroxide burn
also, fun fact, some cells produce hydrogen peroxide as a waste product, so nature has evolved the catalase enzyme to break it down, and that’s why you see bubbling when using it on a scar but not on skin, because that enzyme is only inside you and your blood
Looks unpleasant but generally not dangerous.
I think that’s the point he was trying to make.
as little as one hot dog a day
That is a lot processed meat to be eating if its every single day. Who is buying more than a pack of sausages per person each week? Also hot dog sausages are surely some of the worst sausages for being highly processed. Don’t forget about the strange bread used in hot dogs too. That must have a shitload of stuff added to it or it would be stale and mouldy. Bread shouldn’t still be fresh days later.
Who is buying more than a pack of sausages per person each week?
Poor people
You are clearly a richer poor person than I am then.
Been there, and hotdogs are far and away not the cheapest protein.
Chicken breast and thighs traded blows back and forth as the cheapest meat per lb in my grocery store when I was scraping by a few years ago. I’m vegan now, but I can just as easily say dry beans as being a viable alternative.
You can also just not eat meat very often to help keep costs down. For the 2 of us this week we have a single pack of 600g which is above average for us.
Sometimes get tinned mackerel which is much less total meat, but it’s got a stronger flavour than chicken or pork so it can go further in a meal. I would look at catching crabs from the harbour but my partner refuses to eat them.
as convenience foods go, 2/$1 gas station hot dogs exceed 500kcal. nothing comes close.
also celery salt, or juice in those bougie organic hot dogs, in places like whole foods is all nitrates too. nitrate/nitrite salts have distinctive taste and smell. many orgnaic brands might have celery salt. your safe if the ingredients isnt mentioning any salts or celery.
when your heating up nitrates, it forms things like nitrosamine which have been implicated in lab studies of causing cancer in model organisms.
smoked and UNCURED meat might still have the same nitrates in them.
So what I’m hearing is we just need to return to tradition and start curing our own meats in our backyard smokehouses?
Curing (removing moisture from food by means of salt) is a distinct process from smoking (adding smoke to food as well as removing moisture via heat). Curing with nitrite and nitrate based salts (sodium nitrate and sodium nitrite) is what’s been implicated in cancer.
Smoking meat is much more complicated from a chemistry perspective. Different types of wood, different temperatures, moisture content, salt content, and cooking durations can all affect the concentrations of carcinogenic compounds in the food. For example, softwoods (such as pine) tend to produce a lot of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), a known class of carcinogens, but thankfully softwood is undesirable as a smoke wood anyway so is rarely used.
Smoking technique can also dramatically affect the result. Poor smoking technique allows the wood to smoulder at a lower temperature, producing a harsher smoke with more carcinogenic, toxic, and bitter compounds. Expert smoking technique uses a smaller, hotter fire which produces a much cleaner smoke that also results in better flavour.
TL;DR: Cancer is coming for us all.
But I only buy boars head so it obviously safe.
/s, although I did reluctantly buy some teriyaki chicken boars head that sounded amazing.
I guess 7 hotdogs a day is a little high…
Does … anything happen on the way to work?
What is the definition of “processed” here? blended meat? high salt %? specific preservatives? artificial casing?
Only $209 per year for access to the content
Or
Similar research from around a year ago:
"Introduction Ultra-processed foods, as defined using the Nova food classification system, encompass a broad range of ready to eat products, including packaged snacks, carbonated soft drinks, instant noodles, and ready- made meals. 1 These products are characterised as industrial formulations primarily composed of chemically modified substances extracted from foods, along with additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance, and durability, with minimal to no inclusion of whole foods. 2 "
Only $209 per year for access to the content
Fuck academia and fuck publishers
Here’s the full pdf, for free, for everyone
What a vague definition that totally misses the specifics that matter. There’s an overwhelming variety of food additives.
Do you know where they eat some of the most processed food in the world? Japan. Some of the highest life expectancy in the world.
What are they doing differently? Without knowing what exactly the commonalities are, there is no value to this study.
Also what definition of “safe”.
My grandpa eats at least one burger per week and he’s turning 90 next year. So obviously “safe” isn’t a measure of imminent and near term death?
As always, unsafe never means 100% chance to kill. Not wearing s seatbelt while driving is unsafe, but it doesn’t mean that you will not be able to survive to 90 is you’re lucky.
I agree with you, but using a relative that does something unhealthy that got old to prove a point is not really scientific nor right.
We absolutely know that smoking causes cancer is a really unhealthy habit, yet we see people that smoke reach very high age. However the average smoker lives a shorter life.
You’re right, its a suboptimal example.
But I can conclude that its not so dangerous as to lead to imminent death / disability within 30 years. So how “unsafe” is eating processed meat anyway?
The article makes like you’re doomed to develop colon cancer if you mom ever fed you a single bite of hamburger helper as a kid. Obviously, that’s a ridiculous conclusion.
Habitual consumption of even small amounts of processed meat, sugary drinks, and trans fatty acids…
Followed by
The data showed that people who ate as little as one hot dog a day …
As little as one hot dog a day? I eat like one every few months. How many hot dogs is the average American eating daily?
Yeah, but ignoring that small oversight, they can get an attention-grabbing headline that meats their agenda.
Obligatory Whitest Kids U Know plug
I talk about this one all of the time. Such a classic.
You don’t have a daily dog? What else would you eat after dinner?
No hot dog surprise cereal either, apparently!
I would be really surprised if most people average one a week. But that doesn’t mean it’s not happening.
Yeah but does lunch meat count?
I ate some pepperoni on pizza, that surely is doing damage.
The Toddlers Union of America would like a word…
I think “hot dog” was used as an example here. A hot dog has around 50 grams of meat (1.8 oz).
I thought hot dogs weighed at least a quarter lb?
That seems like a large hot dog. Hang on, I’ve got a pack in the fridge (gotta have my one hot dog a day, after all).
Ball Park brand bun size beef franks are 53g each.
I see your point but give you an republican reply: "The european mind cannot comprehend this.*
And it’s known that more than 2 - 3 times meat a week is unhealthy.
Surely 1g every day is better than 750g once a week. Is there a quantity to that?
deleted by creator
Thank you for that inspiring addition to the conversation.
We know we can Google it, but asking questions is what creates discussion.
Which reminds me. I need to start eating chicken again. Rn I have a rotating menu of fish, tofu, beef.
Would this mean that cultured-cell meat would be unhealthy too?
Can you think of anything more processed than trying to grow meat in a vat? I can’t imagine what chemicals get pumped into that to make it grow.
oh, everyday chemicals, you know, like the blood of unborn baby cows, things we can all relate to.
I am not joking. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_bovine_serum
I have to agree
If I were to guess the biggest problem is modified fats and high temperature processing are the biggest dangers
So no, lab grown meat wouldn’t have that problem provided they don’t use modified fats or steam canning you should be fine.
The thing is whatever trace contaminants are in the substrate will manifest in concentration in the meat
“If we are indeed in the glitchiest of timelines, remember we have collective will. Collective authorship. We are not beholden to the nightmares of those men of old who envisioned the world in extraction and pain.” - Zoe Todd
im okay with not living to 100 at this point, life is short, and id like it to be shorter.
“I would never commit suicide, but I would like to die naturally soon.” - Zoltan Kaszas
You don’t want to stick around for the climate collapse, never be able to own anything or retire, and fascist death camps / genocide?
What do you man stick around for? Those things are already here.
There are some very useful things you can do with this mindset
Mariokart tournament?
#BlueShell
I would never suggest such a horrible thing. CEOs lives matter. Thin green line.
Who cares about ceos except tankies. Ice and everyone in white house are friends of the people. Every single American must pray for their well being daily.
sorry, im canadian. and i talk a lot of shit about the president so its not like i can cross the boarder. but i respect the hustle.
you won’t live longer, it’ll just seem longer.
Too bad, eating it anyways. Besides, the government will kill me first.
The sun has entered the chatroom
Like… is it written to excite anxiety?
Getting a colorectal cancer probability in a lifetime is about 0.04, eating hotdog adds 8% to it or ~0.003. I like how precisely we can measure it using regular statistics, but what does it tell to a human being? To me it tells nothing about hotdogs
Histeria clickbait makes money. Extra points if some kind of agenda can be pushed so more people share.
Imagine using this argument with someone that gets cancer. Statistics mean nothing to the individual.
This is like saying it’s not safe to go outside because there’s some marginal percent you’ll be murdered or some shit.
Higher chance you will die of heart disease if you don’t.
Egads! Everythings dangerous!
I guess the point is that it shows the correlation between processed food and cancer is statistically significant. As in there is definitely a link, and this meta analysis shows good evidence this link exists. Even if the impact is small.
As for the day to day impact of this study, I’m not sure there is one. Processed food is already on WHOs list of things that definitely cause cancer.
Getting a colorectal cancer probability in a lifetime is about 0.04, eating hotdog adds 8% to it or ~0.003.
Depending on the average amount of processed meats eaten, it could also show not eating a hot dog every day will reduce your risk of cancer by about that much. It’s probably only important in the cumulative though. When we have studies like this for many foods, you could put together a diet that reduces your chance of cancer by 20 or 30%, say. But one food’s impact like this is probably only important to scientists.
So getting back to your original question:
Like… is it written to excite anxiety?
Yes. Anxiety drives clicks which drives revenue.
1000 people show up to the annual picnic. If we remove hot dogs from the market, and dont serve them at our picnic, or any picnic, ever, 40 of those 1000 people are going to get colorectal cancer.
If we do serve hot dogs at our picnic (and every other picnic), 43 people are going to get colorectal cancer at some point in their lives.
Pass the mustard.
What if you could have a grilled fish instead though?
Mercury.
Isn’t that only an issue with some types of fish though, like tuna?
Fish are carnivorous, and mercury is bioaccumulative. So, larger fish tend to have higher concentrations than smaller fish, but pretty much all fish have some level of mercury. There is no “safe” concentration.
But the real problem with your scenario is that I’d prefer hunger pangs over fish, grilled or otherwise.
Freshwater fish also exist, or areas with less contamination. If you won’t eat fish though that sounds more like a you problem.
It’s probably only important in the cumulative though. When we have studies like this for many foods, you could put together a diet that reduces your chance of cancer by 20 or 30%, say.
I don’t think that quite transfers, epidemiology is very weak, it only surfaces associates which is a good point to do a interventional trial but that is rarely done. The core problem with these studies is that to isolate variables they have to make a model of that variable in isolation, this relies on both assumptions of the model maker, accuracy of data, and is very vulnerable to p-hacking. Model assumptions that a hamburger and fries counts as meat, but not vegetable (potato) also impact the outcomes.
The large observational food surveys conducted typically have a 1-4 year questionnaire about how many servings of different food someone ate. Once every 4 years leaves lots of room open for forgetfulness.
There is a huge problem with healthy user confounders, people trying to follow all the modern health advice are going to skew results - not because all of the advice is correct, but some of it is. If someone exercises regularly, practices mindfulness, avoids processed foods, avoids meat - Are their improvements due to any single variable, yet on a food survey they get over represented because of these exclusionary behaviors.
We also have multiple different epidemiology studies covering the same topics and getting different results, that probably means we are focusing on the wrong question, it’s noisy.
From my reading its far more likely the modern epidemic of chronic disease is caused by the introduction of excessive carbohydrates in processed foods, the novel addition of industrial oils (again processed foods) into the food supply - they account for 30%!!! of the average westerners average calorie intake, exposure to food contaminates from agrochemicals such as pesticides. The metabolic context of people filling out these surveys is a critical part that is being omitted.
In the following graphs notice how the incidence is very high in countries with traditionally low meat consumption like india? This indicates the hypothesis generated from the abstract paper isn’t asking the right question.
example graphs
CVD
Type 2 Diabetes
My point is that you can follow every bit of advice from associative food surveys, but since the wrong questions are being focused on, your outcomes wont be as good as you hope. Quite frankly epidemiology is more about publicity and marketing then being part of the scientific process.
If you haven’t read about the Metabolic Theory of Cancer I highly recommend giving it a read. It’s a much more compelling model, and explains the surge of cancer since 1900, as well as actionable steps to reduce incidence (reduce sugar and inflammation).
Like I said, it may be a scientifically interesting study, but the broader audience can’t take anything from it but anxiety.
a diet that reduces your chance of cancer by 20 or 30%, say.
That would be significant, but probably not today. The lifetime risk of dying as a pedestrian in a car accident is around 1 in 100, so mitigating other risks is not an option for now
Cancer is the leading cause of premature mortality and morbidity (death and disability) in Canada.
So, an accumulation of small risks, and avoidance of risks, have significant benefits at both the individual and population levels.
The general population needs to be aware that unhealthy eating is impacting their lives and quality of life.
Let’s stick to the peer reviewed science and evidence consensus.
WHO established the four behavioural common risk factors for the four major chronic noncommunicable diseases decades ago.
The kind of research synthesis in this article is about continuing to build the evidence on relative and absolute risks, and in some cases look at how these differences impact different populations more or less due to intersecting determinants.
Common risk factors
- unhealthy diet
- physical inactivity
- tobacco use
- harmful use of alcohol
- air pollution added more recently
Major chronic noncommunicable diseases
- cancer
- cardiovascular diseases
- diabetes
- chronic respiratory diseases
funny thing is diabetes can cause all the rest of the illness, or as a comorbidity. if your type 2 your at risk for all of those other diseases. people who have type 2 already are taking avrostatin(anti cholesterol meds), maybe blood pressure meds if its high enough, medications to reduce triglycerides. of course insulin, or insulin stimulating medication, because type 2 is insulin resistance. diabetic neuropathy, renal disease. thats type 2 is also a very profitable disease, ton of medications for different associated illnesses.
type 1 is an expensive disease, but different causes.
The reason WHO frames common risk factors and common chronic diseases is because persons with these risks, conditions and diseases often end up with more than one of these diseases.
e.g., WHO now considers obesity a disease in itself, but obesity is also a biological risk factor for cancer and diabetes.
There are a lot of interrelationships in the risks.
More, with these conditions, they are also more vulnerable to infectious diseases.
It’s important though to keep in mind that, as I note in another reply, these kinds of studies aren’t just about informing individuals’ choices.
They’re not about ‘blaming’ or ‘shaming’ individuals choices.
They are about understanding what are the underlying determinants of health and risk factors that are shaping health outcomes.
Back to the study in question, and the OP’s remark that they were surprised that people were eating that much processed meat daily…
If the protein sources that are most available and affordable are the most unhealthy, preprocessed ones, then consumers will buy and consume more of these than healthier ones.
And their preferences and consumption habits will be shaped by these experiences.
And that will affect overall health and life expectancy of the population.
Parent comment discussed “anxiety”, a condition which has its own associated morbidity and mortality, and should also be considered when evaluating these studies.
I would argue that this is missing the point - and so, in fact, is the article reporting on the study.
What is important to keep in mind is that the benefit of this research is not primarily about ‘telling’ or ‘informing’ individuals so that they can make different food consumption decisions.
It’s more about how food environments are shaped to encourage healthy or unhealthy choices.
If eating that much processed meat daily or weekly increases cancer risks, what’s driving or nudging people towards that.
Is it barriers to availability, accessibility or affordability of healthier and palatable choices?
No questions regarding the populational risks as the small percentages would shine with the big numbers.
WHO’s recommendations remain the same for decades indeed: lower processed and red meat, eat chicken and fiber.
What’s your point exactly?
My point is that raising risks of getting hit by a car, or other accidental causes of injury and death beyond the individual’s control, is a deflection.
Cancer is the leading cause of death in Canada.
Full stop.
No one single risk factor is responsible for that. Building the evidence base to be able to both inform individual behaviour but also to inform food safety regulations is important.
Agreed and it should be mandatory to add in the headline who financed the study
Isn’t big tobacco still the major investor in cancer epidemiology research? I mean, when it’s not about cigarettes and nicotine
The title is also shit, leaving put sugars etc and only putting forward processed Meat.
It would be more useful to correlate this with other common risks, like PFAS exposure, genetic factors, etc
I’d like to be sealed in a sous vide bag, that way I can be perpetually protected from anything that tastes good and live forever.
Then you’d have to worry about micro plastics.
not a person in the western world that doesn’t already have a ton of microplastics inside
Hmmm, could we perhaps make a large enough one from a whale stomach?
The whales are also already full of microplastics.
Damn it.
Could we perhaps grow a whale in the vacuum of space?
deleted by creator
What an insane headline.
First meta data analysis.
Second, “This current research has shown, yet again and consistent with prior research … that to achieve health gains it is best to avoid or minimize the habitual consumption of each of processed meat, sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and industrially produced trans fatty acids (TFAs),”
So don’t eat a ton of shit every day. Got it. The CNN version of super size me propaganda rage bait.
You’re shitty at science and spreading propaganda. Feel bad about yourself.
You had me up until that last part
being shitty at science and spreading propaganda is pretty much ancel keyes, who played a big part in wrecking the country’s dietary health decades ago
no amount of bad feelings could make up for the damage he did
edit: further reading https://academic.oup.com/jhmas/article/63/2/139/772615?login=false
see also: antivaxxers. shitty science. propaganda. irreparable damage
