AFF Weight Gain/Loss Program

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by b0son

Well, if you can take the p155, why can't I...

I was not taking the ****, I simply linked a video that explained the studies, the studies are there to be looked at and read and are available for everyone, but most people will not bother doing that and will simply read the headline.

Them make an uneducated comment like you did where you say cooking meat causes cancer, when in fact if you actually read the whole study there is no evidence of this.

The study isolated the bad part of the cooked meat, and fed a dosage many thousands of times higher to rats, they also fed it in the absence of the actual meat and the nutrition, so these rats were existing on the poisonous part of the process, and then they got sick. What a surprise.

Basically they poisoned the rats and then when the poison worked they concluded that cooking meat makes you sick.

Apples contain small amounts of arsenic, so we isolate the arsenic from apples and feed it in high concentration to something, then when the animal dies we can conclude that apples are poisonous and we should not be eating them.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

Them make an uneducated comment like you did

So not even with my PhD in biochemistry would my opinion be considered educated?

WTFever.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by b0son

So not even with my PhD in biochemistry would my opinion be considered educated?

WTFever.

Unless you read the study and understood it then you can't have an educated opinion on the subject.

Not sure how biochemistry relates to nutrition anyway.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

Unless you read the study and understood it then you can't have an educated opinion on the subject.

I can, and I do, because my opinion is exactly that - educated. By something a little more rigorous than youtube.

Not sure how biochemistry relates to nutrition anyway.

FMD... this facepalm is actually burning calories.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by b0son

I can, and I do, because my opinion is exactly that - educated. By something a little more rigorous than youtube.

Makes no sense, you have not read the study, you have not even looked at it. So how can you have an educated opinion on something that you have not even looked at??

The mere fact of having an educated opinion would require you to actually look at what you have an opinion about, otherwise it's not an educated opinion, it is just an opinion based on nothing. So really it's an uneducated opinion as you have not educated yourself on the subject.

Because if you had educated yourself you would have come to the same conclusions that the scientists from the National Institute of Cancer have come up with, ie that there is absolutely no correlation between eating cooked meat and cancer. Or are you suggesting that you know more about the causes of cancer that the scientists who have dedicated their lives to the subject?

However I will give you the benefit of the doubt and I will ask you to provide me some sort of evidence of your claim, hopefully in the form of a valid study that supports your claims, because if in fact cooked meat is linked to causing cancer I would really like to know about it as I eat a lot of cooked meat.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

Makes no sense, you have not read the study, you have not even looked at it. So how can you have an educated opinion on something that you have not even looked at??

I read the IARC study when it came out. Similarly, when the WHO started recommending no more than 5tspn sugar per day, I read the foundational research to get a context for that recommendation. I prefer to go to the source than to YouTube.

Because if you had educated yourself you would have come to the same conclusions that the scientists from the National Institute of Cancer have come up with, ie that there is absolutely no correlation between eating cooked meat and cancer.

Seems you're the one didn't read. NCI's own website lists cancer stats related to red meat and processed meat consumption (stomach, colorectal, pancreas and prostate - NCI even label them as such). You've misquoted what NCI have said - that there is no direct correlation demonstrated in humans between PCA/HCAs and cancer. And that's fine, they're just a postulated mechanism. The correlations between meat consumption and cancer have been demonstrated and researched for decades. You can disagree with how PCA/HCAs might play a role in cancer, but it doesn't change the fact that they probably do.

The reason they postulate PCA/HCAs as the causative agent is because the rate of cancer varies with type of meat, and red meats and charred meats (which are associated with higher cancer rates) give rise to agents that white meats and fish (which are not associated nearly as much, if at all) for the most part do not.

However I will give you the benefit of the doubt and I will ask you to provide me some sort of evidence of your claim, hopefully in the form of a valid study that supports your claims, because if in fact cooked meat is linked to causing cancer I would really like to know about it as I eat a lot of cooked meat.

It's no secret. Google meat cancer and Cochrane review, you'll get many hits. You needn't stop eating meat. As already pointed out, the added risk is small if you're otherwise fit and heathy. Similarly, I consume diet soft drinks for the same reason - the risk of consuming them is small, a statement you seem to have taken great issue with given we've derailed the thread comprehensively because for you there is plenty of risk of consuming a chemical cocktail with unknown side effects and long term consequences. Apparently, if your chemical cocktail was grass-fed, it's all good.