Processed Meats are Too Dangerous for Human Consumption Says World Cancer Research Fund.
The World Cancer Research Fund has published a review of over 7,000 clinical studies covering links between human diet and cancer related illnesses.
The review says that processed meats are too dangerous for human consumption. Practically all red meat used in frozen prepared meals was said to be unsafe as well as other processed meats including bacon, sausage and hot dogs.
The World Cancer Research Fund claims the link to cancer is through the carcinogenic ingredient known as sodium nitrite, which is used in the production of all such products to make the color more attractive to consumers.
So.... why not frame Sodium Nitrite as the culprit and find some healthier alternatives? While this report is not groundbreaking, it does remind us how terrible processed food is for us, really.
Or, better yet--- support your local farmers and buy fresh. Yummy.
It's a wonder we survive past puberty in an age of toxins and carcinogenics!
But I must agree it isn't a news source. I agree with TIB if you can then support your local farmers or better yet if you have a yard grow some food. If you don't have a yard encourage your communities to have some land set aside for community gardens. 2 lots a block over have become available and we are thinking about purchasing them just for planting a few fruit trees, bushes and a garden..would be small but could help ourselves and others out.
If humans were designed to tear the flesh of an animal, why are most of our teeth designed for plant marterial (aka flat)?
Meat should only be eaten as a last resort, not a first choice. It only causes our bodies stress, which is acidic to the body. And if anyone knows anything about cancer, they know that cancer can only exist in acidic environments!
Meat also makes us irritable and lowers our mental acuity. Those that eat meat all the time would not understand this, but switch to a raw food diet and you'll soon come to realize that meat is hindering your mental capacity. It also is making you feel worse.
We have teeth for a multiude of purposes, including eating meat. The split that lead to humans and primates was caused when one group moved onto plains and ate meat, the other stayed in jungles and ate plants.
We dont have gills and webbed feet, but few argue fish is unhealthy.
i stopped listening to the cancer research studies after french fries were found to be carcinogenic, but i always new something funny was up with processed meats. certain members of my family have always had a problem with deli meats, especially ham and hot dogs (but not turkey dogs, weird!). pepperoni tho... man, i love toasted pepperoni sandwiches! i'm so getting cancer
Because Man is smart enough to make tools that do the tearing for us. Yet another biased opinion from a vegetarian. You guys are just going to milk this aren't you? Cancer or not I'm still going to enjoy my big juicy burger topped with bacon while you sit with your flavorless bowl of grass.
For the most part it's not the meat or the fries(chips in the UK) that are the problem. Most of the time it's the preservatives, artificial colours, other misc. chemicals that are the culprit.
As for the whole meat vs veg argument, humans are omnivores, roughly half of our teeth are designed for cutting/tearing (mostly to the front of the mouth), while the teeth to the sides and back are made for chewing. Keeping in mind that humans are omnivores, a diet that consists of either all meat or all fruits/vegetables is not natural.
are the cause of all of this. Cut out the artificial additives and industrial contaminants and food, including the FISH will be much healthier. Eat meat sparingly.
I wanted to join in on the riping of a new hole for you. First youre a vegetarian I am assuming since you think that humans were not ment to eat meats from other animals, well why not have a human baby filet then. Second off yes man was designed to eat meat otherwise we woul dhave not become one of the dominate species on this planet. Lastly please remind me again how much protien and iron occurs naturally in veggies, next to zilch bucko. Go bench press more than your body weight about 30 times and see how long it takes to recover eating soy and veggies, much longer than eating some steak and eggs. BLAMM!!
Of course meat is not 100% devoid of health benefits just as alcohol isn’t 100% devoid of health benefits. However, both are acidic and both are linked to cancers. How could this be?
To keep it simple, meat causes acidity which in turn leeches the mineral buffers from our bones to balance the body’s PH. To replenish these mineral buffers, we need to eat healthy fruits, vegetables, herbs, ect. If a person refuses to eat enough of these fruits, vegetables and herbs, our natural mineral buffers may become so depleted that our body’s health is reduced to the point of chronic illness. This of course is a simplified explanation and does not necessarily describe all chronic illness. If you’d like more info, this study provides some great background information on what I’m talking about here:
As for human teeth, of course they are designed for many things. However is there any reliable evidence that says the jaws of our earliest human ancestors, who moved to the plains, specifically evolved towards better eating more meat? Of course I could be missing some, if there is some you can show me I'd appreciate it. After a quick search, I did find this recent story on this issue:
Root and tuber chow could help to explain dental changes found in the fossil record for the earliest human ancestors. Fossil evidence dating from 3 million to 4 million years ago has revealed changes in the teeth and jaws of the first hominids that indicate some fundamental change in diet that would require hardy chewing—more than is required by eating meat.
"We know that our earliest ancestors changed their diet in some fundamental way, because the teeth got bigger, especially the molar teeth, the jaws got stronger, the enamel got thicker," Moore said. He added the dental change "seems to be associated with moving into savanna-like habitats."
"For a variety of reasons, the meat-eating scenario hasn't been a very good explanation for why teeth got bigger," Moore told LiveScience. "People have tried to shoe-horn it in there. But of course, you don't need really thick enamel or very large molars to eat meat."
“Because Man is smart enough to make tools that do the tearing for us. Yet another biased opinion from a vegetarian. You guys are just going to milk this aren't you? Cancer or not I'm still going to enjoy my big juicy burger topped with bacon while you sit with your flavorless bowl of grass.”
Nah I don’t believe that is the correct explanation. We know that man’s ancestors have not always had the ability to use and make tools for cutting. If the reason why we don’t have teeth for the better tearing of flesh is because of our use of tools, then would it not be reasonable to expect that we had probably had larger canines for tearing flesh before the stone age (before about 2.5 million years ago)?
“By 4 million years ago australopiths had developed the human characteristic of having smaller, flatter canines. Canine reduction might have related to an increase in social cooperation among humans and an accompanying decrease in the need for males to make aggressive displays.
The australopiths can be divided into an early group of species, known as gracile australopiths, which arose prior to 3 million years ago; and a later group, known as robust australopiths, which evolved after 3 million years ago. The gracile australopiths—of which several species evolved between 4.5 million and 3 million years ago—generally had smaller teeth and jaws. The later-evolving robusts had larger faces with large jaws and molars (cheek teeth). These traits indicate powerful and prolonged chewing of food, and analyses of wear on the chewing surface of robust australopith molar teeth support this idea.”
Now, if you were to switch to a primarily raw food diet, you may not find all this meat so tasty. My tastes changed dramatically when I did. Things that were good for me actually started tasting good, while things that were bad for me seemed nearly flavorless (or revolting). I have nothing against the eating of meat and dairy every once in a while, just so long as we eat an adequate amount of fruits and vegetables to balance out the damaging acid it produces.
As for bias, are you so attuned to it in others that you fail to see your own?
I agree that all the preservatives that we put in our food definitely do hinder our optimal health. I also agree that a plant only and meat only diets probably are not completely natural/healthy (especially meat only). I’m not so sure that our optimal diet would be half meat and half plants though. If it were 50/50, wouldn’t it be fairly reasonable to expect that the longest living, healthiest people would tend be on this 50/50 diet?
I tend to agree. Some of the latest thinking is that our early ancestors may not have been hunters, but scavengers of meat; eating a carcass only when the opportunity arose.
“Based on that observation, the team estimated that early humans might have picked up a carcass every few days in the wettest areas, but in drier areas might have got as little as one a month: nowhere near enough to live on.”
“I wanted to join in on the riping of a new hole for you.”
Good luck.
“First youre a vegetarian I am assuming since you think that humans were not ment to eat meats from other animals, well why not have a human baby filet then.
Your assumption is off base, not to mention, the suggestion to eat a baby makes little sense, lol.
“Second off yes man was designed to eat meat otherwise we woul dhave not become one of the dominate species on this planet.”
Yes man does have the capacity to eat meat. The thing that many don’t seem to comprehend is that meat may not have been meant to be eaten nearly as much as it is currently comparatively to plants.
“Lastly please remind me again how much protien and iron occurs naturally in veggies, next to zilch bucko.”
Again, wrong. For example, lettuce gets about 34% of its calories from protein, and broccoli gets about 45% of its calories from protein. Spinach about 49%. Cauliflower about 40%. Celery about 21%. Beans range from 23% to 54% depending on the variety. Grains anywhere from 8% to 31%.
Also, you can find good amounts of iron in Soybeans, Lentils, Spinach, Tofu, Seasame seeds, Kidney beans, Pumpkin seeds, Peas, nuts, leafy greens etc.
Check WorldsHealthiestFoods.com or just about any other health site for more info.
“Go bench press more than your body weight about 30 times and see how long it takes to recover eating soy and veggies, much longer than eating some steak and eggs. BLAMM!!”
Wrong again. My energy levels, endurance and recovery time from exercise is notably much better when on a primarily raw food diet. I also don’t need as much sleep because my body is not contending with the acids that I used to feed it (I had 3 hours last night).
Here’s a study of other primarily raw foodists that report very similar results.
I'm sorry but I can't help to notice that your statements are completely ridiculous. So you are saying that u will recover faster from lets say a High Intensity Interval Training where it absolutely shocks your Central nervous system (I won't even mention about weight training) session faster with food? I don't think there is no way in the world will you even recover even in 4 days with the kind of diet you are on. The cold hard facts are even though lettuce has 34% of its calories from protein, please do remind us how much lettuce you have to eat to get lets say 15g, heck I won't even mention the Biological Values of protein in vegetables.
The flaw in this theory is that there is a preponderance of evidence that shows early human consumption of meat, mostly in the form of charred and tool-marked bones, bone tools, and depletion and extinction of animal species due to human predation (to name a few).
We have an intestinal tract designed for the consumption of meat (not exclusive, but neither is it designed for exclusivly veggies either). In short we are well-designed as tool-using omnivors. When we learned how to cook our food much of the now-excessive tooth and jaw structures declined.
Nearly all of the primates are omnivors. Many eat mostly fruit but can and will eat meat whenever they can access it, either in the form of kills or carcasses.
Even animals that are otherwise entirelly herbavors will eat meat on occasion (example: deer can and will strip some flesh from human bodies. I've got more than one forensic case in my database wehre human bodies have been chewed on by critters without canines).
Are we designed to eat as much meat as modern man in 1st world nations eat? No we are not. Not fatty meats at least. In our daily diets we should be getting ~30% of our calories from relativly lean meats. Consistently eatting more or less can caue health problems. Obesity, heart disease, et al from too much, deficencies from too little.
Also of note, not all proteins are equal. Even if you are getting your daily equvalents of meat proteins from vegtable sources you actually need to eat more and a greater variety of plant proteins to cover the amino acid spread that you find in meat (and that your body needs).
Early man would not have had access to the array of required amino acids if they only ate meat on rare occasion. This molecular requirment for either meat or a wide variety of vegtable matter clearly illustrates that man was not designed for a diet lacking or sparing in meat. We have the modern *choice* to aquire these amino acids from soley vegtable sources, but that's a different argument entirely.
I’m sorry if you find my statements ridiculous. Sometimes though it’s the things we find the most ridiculous that we understand the least.
"[A] healthy vegan diet gives important advantages over a meaty diet, which is why many Olympic and professional athletes are vegetarians. … A healthy vegan diet will give you the strength and stamina you need to leave those sluggish meat-eaters in the dust." -Neal Barnard, M.D.
What I am saying is that my energy levels increased, my stamina got better and I feel tired much less often with exercise on this diet. You would have to eat a load of lettuce to get 15 grams of protein. You would also have to eat a load of lettuce to get all the calories you need in a day. That’s where other foods besides just lettuce come into play.
If you'd like, this is from a recent survey on the exercise habits of raw foodists:
http://www.iowasource.com/ "The survey results show a dramatic increase in energy levels among respondents since transitioning to live foods, specifically from 31% to 88% in those who reported having "good" or "excellent" energy levels. Cardiovascular endurance improved for 67% of respondents on a live foods diet versus worsening or staying the same. Flexibility improved for 73%, and muscular strength for 58%. Again, these improvements were largely attributed to the change in diet (88%) and the natural by-product of that change in diet, "physical health" (54%). Arthritis/joint problems, muscle stiffness, back/neck pain, sciatica, and muscle cramping all showed improvement on a live foods diet. The number of respondents who selected "not applicable" (i.e. did not experience any of these conditions), rose by 88%. Respondents seem to be exercising more on a live foods diet than they did previously. 67% indicated they do so "every other day" or "daily" versus 46% before live foods. Furthermore, they report feeling "good" or "uplifted/invigorated" after exercise in larger numbers (89% versus 56%)."
Are you going to tell me exactly which theory you are referring to or do I have to guess? :D It would be nice to know which time frame you’re referring to as well. Yes there was human consumption of meat when our ancestors cut it from the bones of carcasses and afterwards we learned to cook it too. That’s been well established for a while. Let’s keep the following in mind though:
"Undoubtedly, all of these [meat-containing] diets were adequate to support growth and life to an age of successful reproduction. To bear and raise offspring you only need to live for 20 to 30 years, and fortuitously, the average life expectancy for these people was just that. The few populations of hunter-gatherers surviving into the 21st Century are confined to the most remote regions of our planet;- blike the Arctic and the jungles of South America and Africa;- some of the most challenging places to manage to survive. Their life expectancy is also limited to 25 to 30 years and infant mortality is 40% to 50%. Hunter-gatherer societies fortunately did survive, but considering their arduous struggle and short lifespan, I would not rank them among successful societies." - John McDougall, M.D.
Of course what he is saying in a nutshell is that the most likely reason we ate meat was for short-term survival purposes only. For long term health however, so much meat is completely unnecessary and largely unhealthy.
"Early man would not have had access to the array of required amino acids if they only ate meat on rare occasion. This molecular requirment for either meat or a wide variety of vegtable matter clearly illustrates that man was not designed for a diet lacking or sparing in meat."
I don’t believe that is correct. According to the American Dietetic Association:
"It was once thought that various plant foods had to be eaten together to get their full protein value, otherwise known as protein combining or protein complementing. Intentional combining is not necessary to obtain all of the essential amino acids."
"In our daily diets we should be getting ~30% of our calories from relativly lean meats. Consistently eatting more or less can caue health problems."
Lean meats are definitely the better animal meats in many aspects than red meats. Though, I’m not so sure that we need about 30% of our calories from them. Could you lead me to the studies that show we require appx 30% lean meats to be healthy? And are you considering nuts and seeds as lean meats or just animal flesh?
If you would like, provided below is a study that the University of Chicago conducted about the health of people who are vegetarians compared to those that eat meat.
University of Chicago’s research:
"The adverse effects of dietary animal fat intake on cardiovascular diseases is by now well established. Similar effects are also seen when meat, rather than fat, intake is considered," Martin and Eshel wrote. "To our knowledge, there is currently no credible evidence that plant-based diets actually undermine health; the balance of available evidence suggests that plant-based diets are at the very least just as safe as mixed ones, and most likely safer."
You may do well to point out that most vitamins/minerals in a vegetarian diet are eliminated from the body if there is no fat. Most veggies are fat soluble not water soluble, and without a degree of fat in the mix, pass through as bulk material. Maybe some bacon bits on that salad?
How about some healthy sunflower seeds instead? Fat can be found in places besides meat (including some vegetables). Not that having meat every once in a while is a bad thing.
Tis true, tis true. However.. a good bowl of soup well simmered to melt the gelatins, and leach the marrow, goes a lot further in adding the solubility to your raw vegetables. Soup and salad is hard to beat!
Yea, even some vegetable nutrients are absorbed by the body better if you cook them (like broccoli for example).
I'm not 100% raw or 100% vegan either, because there are benefits to some cooked foods and I also want the good omega-3 that fish gives. Overall, I'd say that I'm about 80-90% raw and 95-99% vegan.
