Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Sinister sausage - will you still eat processed meat? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Will you still eat processed/red meat?
    I'll still eat it
    310
    29.47%
    I'll cut down the amount of meat I eat
    265
    25.19%
    I'm going vegetarian/vegan
    121
    11.50%
    Don't care. Everything gives you cancer these days
    356
    33.84%

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Personally, I very rarely smoke (the odd night out), drink lightly most of the time except for holidays etc, very rarely touch fast food, and generally eat healthily. I eat a lot of beef, pork, lamb, duck, etc, probably at least a couple of times a week, and have (grilled) cooked breakfasts with bacon and sausage maybe a little more than that. Sometimes I have processed beef (mince) in chilli and end up eating it for days. There are worse vices than that. I'll take the little bit of extra risk :dontknow:

    I'm glad that the WHO is doing its job, in general. I'm glad they published this report. I'd still rather not have seen it. I'll live with it, though. Just as long as they don't start putting pictures of bowel cancer on packs of bacon and requiring it to be sold in plain packages from behind the counter.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    People demanding that somebody cannot do something to their own body because of said findings, however, is.
    I've found those types of statements to be very intriguing. Is there a limit to this? Is preventing someone from doing something to one's body such as eating something that is known to cause health problems (from scientific findings that sugar in excess is bad for one's health) the same as preventing someone from doing something like killing oneself (which has been proven to cause death. That was a joke. Please take a moment to laugh at my awful sense of humor. Laughing is a nice thing to do.)? I'm not trying to cause an argument (really), I'm just curious about where people think the boundary between what is okay to limit and what isn't is (this is relevant to this post, not entirely off topic, I promise).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Why is it that only boring foods and unpleasant activities like exercise are healthy? About the only thing that feels good that's also good for you is sleeping.

    If I were to do everything in a healthy manner, my life would be like this. I would use electronic devices as little as possible, have no cell phone, spend most of my time at the gym exercising, go for walks at night or on cloudy days, eat nothing but fresh, organically grown plants, drink only purified water, and bathe without soap or shampoo.

    Healthy life is so awful that after a few weeks of living that way, you might start to wish you were dead. LOL.

    It seems like almost everything that's pleasant or brought to us by a new technology is also bad for us somehow. It's like healthy lifestyles force you to live like it's several hundred years ago, at least, but with additional restrictions based on new knowledge.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by animayo)
    This information has been around for so long, how has it only been published in the news now?
    Good point. Someone wanted to discredit Germany? I do hope the unemployment rate wouldn't increase sharply.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jeremy1988)
    About the only thing that feels good that's also good for you is sleeping.
    https://www.newscientist.com/article...-sitting-down/

    Sitting, on the other hand, appears to be positively awful for you, and no amount of time on the treadmill changes that. So scientific advancement, which created the job of sitting in front of a computer, has now concluded that it's killing us.

    One can obsess too much over these things.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I probably eat red or processed meat a couple of times a month at most because I don't really like the taste so I think there's probably other things I do which increase my risk of cancer more like drinking diet drinks.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Except maybe breathing.


    Jammy Duel, scientists carrying out science and then publishing their findings is not authoritarianism.
    Hyperventilation increases the amount of CO2 in your blood. If you kept doing that ad infinitum you'd eventually asphyxiate.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    I only eat meat when other people feed it me anyway usually, or when out.
    Living as a vegetarian just doesn't feel very easy to do, considering the society we live in.
    R.e. the question - not really changed behavior, as have known in practically forever that eating red meat is bad for health outcomes generally.
    This is my stance too no meat in the house but found it too difficult/didn't like putting others out by being strict about it.

    I've actually found it encourages way more people to cut down than when I was proper vegetarian.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I find it funny that the people arguing their right to eat meat now are generally also the ones bashing fat people for costing the NHS money...

    Is it not also someone's right to be fat?
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    (Original post by redferry)
    I find it funny that the people arguing their right to eat meat now are generally also the ones bashing fat people for costing the NHS money...

    Is it not also someone's right to be fat?
    Exactly. Also there are many people in here claiming and bashing vegans and vegetarians for being militant when not one person who claimed to be vegetarian or vegan piped in once on their 'high horse' as some people had put it.

    If you wanna eat meat - fine continue to do so and make whatever excuse makes you feel better about the facts within this study but don't then go and make broad sweeping statements bashing on other groups for doing things they want. If you feel that you can do what you want then why can you make a statement about someone choosing to abstain from animal products or to be obese from eating too many fatty or sugary foods and costing the NHS money?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Yavanna)
    I've found those types of statements to be very intriguing. Is there a limit to this? Is preventing someone from doing something to one's body such as eating something that is known to cause health problems (from scientific findings that sugar in excess is bad for one's health) the same as preventing someone from doing something like killing oneself (which has been proven to cause death. That was a joke. Please take a moment to laugh at my awful sense of humor. Laughing is a nice thing to do.)? I'm not trying to cause an argument (really), I'm just curious about where people think the boundary between what is okay to limit and what isn't is (this is relevant to this post, not entirely off topic, I promise).
    Well, you have to remember that it did used to be illegal to attempt to commit suicide, and people are still encouraged not to, especially given that in the majority of cases there will be some underlying issue that can be dealt with, whether that be completely dealing with it or controlling it. WE could even step down slightly to self harm, again encouragement not to do it, despite being very dangerous to one's health. And although there will be some people who think suicide and self harm should be made illegal, I expect, there are definitely people who think that milder things should be made illegal. There are people out there who think smoking should be made totally illegal because of an increased cancer risk, and, I imagine the far more important reason, they don't like the smell; I can be pretty certain that on the back of this research especially, people will be calling for a ban on processed foods because it increased your lifetime cancer risk from about 5% to about 6%. I believe that nothing, bar maybe a few substances taken through choice with an incredibly high risk attached, should be banned, people should be encouraged not to take those substances, whether that be tobacco, processed meats, or coke, but they should not be outright banned.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    I find it funny that the people arguing their right to eat meat now are generally also the ones bashing fat people for costing the NHS money...

    Is it not also someone's right to be fat?
    Because that's comparable...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeyK)
    Chicken is safe :dance:
    Even though I know it's white meat

    Though I just knew pork was dangerous,
    Not beef and mutton too :zomg:
    It is a bit extreme to say pork is dangerous. The people of Okinawa in Japan are known for being some of the healthiest and longest living people in the world, and much of it has been attributed to their diet. What is interesting is that the Okinawa people who follow the traditional Okinawa diet live longer than the average Japanese person and have a lower incidence of all types of cancers, and yet they consume much more pork than the typical Japanese person.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    https://www.newscientist.com/article...-sitting-down/

    Sitting, on the other hand, appears to be positively awful for you, and no amount of time on the treadmill changes that. So scientific advancement, which created the job of sitting in front of a computer, has now concluded that it's killing us.

    One can obsess too much over these things.
    A recent study (published yesterday) that took place over 16 years and involved around 5,000 came to a rather different conclusion. The conclusion of the study is that "Sitting time was not associated with all-cause mortality risk. The results of this study suggest that policy makers and clinicians should be cautious about placing emphasis on sitting behaviour as a risk factor for mortality that is distinct from the effect of physical activity"

    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/conten...je.dyv191.full


    As they say in this recent study, "Further research is needed to address the uncertainties regarding the true nature of the exposure and the biological mechanisms that underpin previously observed associations between sitting time and health outcomes." So I guess things aren't so clear in regards to sitting.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    A recent study (published yesterday) that took place over 16 years and involved around 5,000 came to a rather different conclusion. The conclusion of the study is that "Sitting time was not associated with all-cause mortality risk. The results of this study suggest that policy makers and clinicians should be cautious about placing emphasis on sitting behaviour as a risk factor for mortality that is distinct from the effect of physical activity"

    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/conten...je.dyv191.full


    As they say in this recent study, "Further research is needed to address the uncertainties regarding the true nature of the exposure and the biological mechanisms that underpin previously observed associations between sitting time and health outcomes." So I guess things aren't so clear in regards to sitting.
    Interesting :holmes:

    I will now sit with slightly less guilt!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Interesting :holmes:

    I will now sit with slightly less guilt!
    One hypothesised reason for this study coming to a different result was, "people working in London are relatively active compared with people living and working in other geographical areas of the United Kingdom: This may have offered them a degree of protection." I'm not sure how true this is though...

    The evidence for the benefits from exercise still seem to be pretty strong though, and so whilst you can take a breath of relief in regards to sitting (for now at least ), exercise still seems to be an important part of healthy living.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    One hypothesised reason for this study coming to a different result was, "people working in London are relatively active compared with people living and working in other geographical areas of the United Kingdom: This may have offered them a degree of protection." I'm not sure how true this is though...

    The evidence for the benefits from exercise still seem to be pretty strong though, and so whilst you can take a breath of relief in regards to sitting (for now at least ), exercise still seems to be an important part of healthy living.
    Seems plausible to me. It's much more difficult to drive everywhere in London, so a lot of people at least have to walk to the tube station. I'm sure it's cancelled out at least to some degree by the fact that they're walking through pollution, though.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    It is a bit extreme to say pork is dangerous. The people of Okinawa in Japan are known for being some of the healthiest and longest living people in the world, and much of it has been attributed to their diet. What is interesting is that the Okinawa people who follow the traditional Okinawa diet live longer than the average Japanese person and have a lower incidence of all types of cancers, and yet they consume much more pork than the typical Japanese person.
    Are coins dangerous??

    No
    Spoiler:
    Show
    If you answered no to the above question. Then you have belief in your quoted statement :clap2:.
    Just know that everything is dangerous

    Yes
    Spoiler:
    Show

    If you answered no to the above question. Then you don't believe in your quoted statement :noway:
    Yes babies are more inclined to injure themselves and there are less deaths amongst the adults but it could still pose a danger to us.


    P.S. I know this a dumb and irrelevant example but just know I agree that it is a tad extreme to call pork dangerous.
    But in the end some of us can die from it (well it's runoffs) , hence still can be deemed dangerous.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I will still continue to eat red and processe meat. If you overdo anything it can lead to an illness or disease. Everything in moderation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    When I was in South Africa and Germany I enjoyed eating sausages but I find it hard to have them in the UK as I generally find they are just extra salty cheap crap padded out with other stuff as filling.

    If you have proper boerwors in SA it is like prime meat and because of that I really don't have much appetite for cheap processed food here. I also am concerned about the health risks of it, but if I really liked eating sausages I would do so in moderation. The more pressing issue for me is less the risk that overconsumption of sausages has bad health risks, and more that the quality of what you are eating is very poor.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.