New study says you will get cancer with one slice of bacon

calories
(bulkbiker) #5

Here you go

(Scott) #6

“Saliva causes cancer, but only if taken in small amounts over a prolonged amount of time”
Chevy Chase

(Bunny) #7

Toxins are in everything in our environment, it is the bodies ability to detoxify carcinogens.

I always thought it was strange why people would tear the skin off the chicken (to me that was the best and tastiest part of the chicken) and say “…how bad it is and it will clog up your arteries…” that fatty chicken skin is what’s going to counteract the possible carcinogens and cancer formation you might have gotten from that deadly slice of bacon you ate two days before?

We see the shicken bones as useless then throw away the bones without understanding the nutritional value and being too lazy to make some soup out of it? Instead in today’s world we see the bones as garbage and lose our appreciation for the nature that gives us sustenance and sustains life?

I use to take milk thistle as a supplement when I was younger just because I liked the way the word sounded (lol) and for no other reason then I knew it was good for the liver but I as with all things you kind of loose interest in it and quit taking it. I had no idea it was also activating the production of glutathione (the master antioxidant of all antioxidants and the dark overlord of all antioxidants) in the body? WOW!

With a high fat diet their could be the lingering possibility of rapidly depleting glutathione levels without the properties that reside within the bones of the meat you are eating like eating the bacon but not the bones, ham hocks, pig knuckles and feet and making it into a soup etc? Your not getting the the full meal deal?

But by the time people start to supplement with antioxidants when soneone finds out they have some type of cancer, the cancer cells start using the antioxidants also to survive?

…just some thoughts…

Overview on working hypothesis:

  1. Glycine (searchable database of the methionine/glycine balance of almost 4000 foods)
  2. Cysteine (Top 10 Foods Highest in Cysteine)
  3. Glutathione & Glutathione synthetase deficiency (10 Natural Ways to Increase Your Glutathione Levels ) ”…Milk thistle activates glutathione production in the body. Glutathione is a powerful antioxidant found in every cell in the body. It is made of three types of molecules known as amino acids. One unique thing about glutathione is that the body is able to make it in the liver, which is not true of most antioxidants. …” …More
  4. Catalase (Vegetable & Fruit Sources of Catalase) Onions (highest concentrations) & Wheat Grass

References:

[1] Methionine vs. Glycine — Is Too Much Muscle Meat Bad?

[2] “…The reason it is important to balance these amino acids is that consuming too much methionine can deplete our glycine levels. Methionine is especially abundant in eggs, dairy, meat, poultry, and fish. Glycine is especially abundant in skin and bones. While our ancestors tended to eat “nose-to-tail,” making liberal use of the skin and bones of the animals they ate, we tend to eat the meat and throw out the skin and bones. For example, skinless, boneless chicken breast is rich in methionine, but the glycine-rich skin and bones have been removed. …” - Chris Masterjohn

[3] “…Glutathione is an abundant natural tripeptide found within almost all cells. With respect to cancer, glutathione metabolism is able to play both protective and pathogenic roles. It is crucial in the removal and detoxification of carcinogens, and alterations in this pathway, can have a profound effect on cell survival. …” …More

[4] Biochemical Studies On The Effect Of Sodium Nitrite And/Or Glutathione Treatment On Male Rats “…Conclusion: Due to the hazardous effect of food additives as sodium nitrite, it is recommended that the use of sodium nitrite as food additives must be limited and glutathione has the ability to prevent its toxic effect. …” …More

[5] Correcting glutathione deficiency to restore mitochondrial fat oxidation in aging: Supplementing diets of older mice with cysteine and glycine for 6-weeks corrected GSH deficiency in muscle and liver, restored whole-body NEFA oxidation, and lowered total body fat, hepatic fat and body weight. These data suggest that in aging, GSH deficiency predisposes to impaired NEFA oxidation and excess body and tissue fat; correcting GSH deficiency by supplementing cysteine and glycine in the diet restores NEFA oxidation and reverses these defects. …More

[6] “…Animal-derived foods that are high in fat and protein are generally AGE-rich and are prone to further AGE formation during cooking.[3]…”

[7] Advanced glycoxidation and lipoxidation end products (AGEs and ALEs): an overview of their mechanisms of formation: Advanced lipoxidation end products (ALEs) and advanced glycation end products (AGEs)

[8] “… A 2011 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that although glutathione deficiency in elderly people occurs because of a marked reduction in synthesis, supplementation with the glutathione precursors cysteine and glycine fully restores glutathione synthesis. This helps increase concentrations and lowers levels of oxidative stress and oxidant damages that lead to aging. (7) - Dr. Josh Axe

[9] Fat and Diabetes: Bad Press, Good Paper, and the Reemergence of Our Good Friend Glutathione - Chris Masterjohn “…The authors of this study did not measure glutathione levels, but the hypothesis that glutathione is protective is consistent with a study I wrote about in a post back in January, “Eating Fat and Diabetes.” In that study (6), high-fat diets depleted glutathione and impaired insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance in rats and mice, but treating the rats with a mitochondrial antioxidant and genetically engineering the mice to make lots of the antioxidant enzyme catalase both reversed these effects. Catalase is an enzyme that converts hydrogen peroxide to water. …” “…If this is correct, does a “high-fat diet” cause diabetes? The obvious question that must follow is “which high-fat diet?” An anti-inflammatory, invigorating, nutrient-dense diet likely protects against diabetes regardless of whether it is low or high in fat. …” How Does This All Fit Together? When mitochondria are overloaded with more energy than they can handle, they begin making increasing amounts of the free radical superoxide. Superoxide carries out important signaling roles. Among them, it directs excess energy into fat synthesis. But it can also wreak havoc on the cell by forming oxidants that can damage vulnerable proteins, lipids, and other important molecules. Thus, a manganese-dependent enzyme called superoxide dismutase converts it into hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide can also damage important molecules, but increasing evidence suggests it also regulates the activity of hundreds of proteins by controlling several “redox switches,” including glutathione.

An interesting picture begins to emerge as a working hypothesis:

  • When the mitochondria’s capacity to burn lipids and fats in order to make ATP is overloaded, it makes signals such as superoxide that will redirect incoming energy to be stored as fat.
  • Superoxide also generates hydrogen peroxide, which oxidizes glutathione and thereby flips a “redox switch” controlling a multitude of proteins . These proteins may then help the cell stop responding to insulin in order to minimize energy overload.
  • This is a desperate attempt of the cell to protect itself from oxidants that would otherwise destroy its basic machinery, and has the unfortunate consequence of increasing glucose and other forms of energy in the blood, and thus contributing to the metabolic abnormalities we associate with diabetes.
  • Supporting the cell’s antioxidant defense network helps it to handle more energy and thereby protects against this entire process. Thus, providing NAC to cells, synthetic mitochondrial antioxidants to rats, or extra catalase to mice all seem protect against the development of diabetes-like features in the face of energy overload. …More

[9] Glutathione peroxidase (GPx) (EC1.11.1.9) is the general name of an enzyme family with peroxidase activity whose main biological role is to protect the organism from oxidative damage. The biochemical function of glutathione peroxidase is to reduce lipidhydroperoxides to their corresponding alcohols and to reduce free hydrogen peroxide to water. …More

(Hyperbole- best thing in the universe!) #8

My question is where did they find someone who ate one, and only one, slice of bacon.

(Alec) #9

What study? Do we have a link?

(Bunny) #10

A lovely way to play head games with statical analysis?

20% is really 0.02%?

However you want to see it? Bigger is better?

Time is always the significant factor when looking at statistics and you only need a ten year sample rate to get an average, it will never change. Ask any statician? (although it is possible?)

image

The Actual Bacon/Red Meat Outcome:

The increase is not between 40 and 48 people but 40/10,000 (that is 0.004 or 0.40%) people and 48/10,000 (0.0048 or 0.48%) people. This is a major error in transferring assumptions. Assuming that is 40 people didn’t get bowel cancer but 48 did, we assume the difference is the 8 people, which is 20%. But this is not correct! The original numbers are given per 10,000 people; it is a ratio and not a number. The actual difference is 0.0008 people.

Given that we are looking at 40 people out of 10,000 people versus 48 people out of 10,000 people, the true increase is from 0.40% to 0.48%, which is a whopping is a 0.02% increase –spelled out: a zero point 2 percent increase.

What do People Think is the Outcome?

People are greatly confused by statements like “20% increase”, and rightly so, because it is seldom used correctly. It is also hard to relate to for the novice in statistics and if the error is huge, as it is in this article, it amplifies the confusion. In this case, as I have shown, the 20% increase is really 0.02% increase, so miniscule.

Placing the information into context, we find that the 0.02% increase in risk of increase in bowel cancer–supposedly associated with and not caused by red and processed meat-eating–is preferable to some other daily risks we all take.

For example, we have much higher odds of ending up with skin cancer just by living:

“the lifetime risk of getting melanoma is about 2.6% (1 in 38) for whites, 0.1% (1 in 1,000) for blacks, and 0.58% (1 in 172) for Hispanics” (here)

Or the odds of ending up with breast cancer:

“The absolute risk of developing breast cancer during a particular decade of life is lower than 1 in 8”

The younger you are, the lower the risk. For example:

  • If your current age is 20, the probability of developing invasive breast cancer in the next 10 years is .06%, or 1 in 1,732. This means that 1 in 1,732 women in this age group can expect to develop breast cancer. Put another way, your odds of developing breast cancer if you are in this age range are 1 in 1,732.
  • If your current age is 30, the probability of developing invasive breast cancer in the next 10 years is .44%, or 1 in 228.
  • If your current age is 40, the probability of developing invasive breast cancer in the next 10 years is 1.45%, or 1 in 69.
  • If your current age is 50, the probability of developing invasive breast cancer in the next 10 years is 2.31%, or 1 in 43.
  • If your current age is 60, the probability of developing invasive breast cancer in the next 10 years is 3.49%, or 1 in 29.
  • If your current age is 70, the probability of developing invasive breast cancer in the next 10 years is 3.84%, or 1 in 26.” (here)

It appears that this study also made some other major errors that are hard to relate to. This “research” was not based on any experiment, and so it is not even a research. It was data-mining of result in databases of people whose diet was not controlled at all and so no one knows the true cause of their bowel cancer–for all we know the bowel cancer may have been caused by high carbs, lots of junk and processed foods, or anything else. Absolutely nothing can be determined from data that was collected from food surveys; one can only observe associations. Associations are not causation.

DUMB!

With such misleading statistics, making people believing anything, one wonders of the ulterior motive. I often wonder if news reporters are really this dumb making announcements like this to deliberately mislead the people… they seem to be doing a good job at getting regular people totally confused. And the scientists? In all honesty: they are not scientists. If they have a PhD, this would be the ideal time to question the merits by which they have earned them. …” …More

('Jackie P') #11

It was the person lying dead in the lab. Probably choked on it😂

(Brian) #12

I didn’t even bother to click. Sensationalism without substance… It seems to sell.

(Ketoviking) #13

Oh well, guess this ship has left the harbor. No looking back now!!! :bacon:

(Full Metal KETO AF) #14

He’s the same guy who tried to eat “just one” Lay’s Potato Chip.

(Bunny) #15

That’s like Cheetos you just can’t eat one!

(Scott) #16

I can, I have never liked Cheetos for some reason.

('Jackie P') #17

Never had a cheeto and I don’t suppose I ever will😊

#18

“New study says you will get cancer with one slice of bacon”

Meanwhile @PaulL just chilling.

(Bunny) #19

Always remember:

“…Just 76 grams of red meat each day can increase the risk of bowel cancer by 20 percent,…” …More

(Mame) #20

I had no idea of the ‘why’ behind milk thistle being good for one’s liver. Thanks for this info.

(Scott) #21

Dead man walking!

(Maria Ortiz) #22

Lmao. I wish people would focus on the real problem, which are the nitrates added to most bacon and not the meat itself.

(Alec) #23

More like dead man eating bacon.

#24

This is such a gross oversimplification. The problem is many people have insulin resistant lean tissues and insulin sensitive fat. They eat and eat and the lean can’t take it up, so it gets shuttled to the fat cells. Finally when the fat cells get full enough they are about to burst, they finally start making superoxide and stop storing fat. Then the ectopic fat storage starts, macrophages move in to clear it up, they turn into foam cells, and things start sounding familiar.

What you want is lean to take up the nutrition, and fat cells to reject it. This is part of the reason keto works so well. A low carb high fat diet helps this in large part through increasing superoxide in fat cells. Superoxide is your friend, just like nitric oxide is your friend. Suppressing oxidative signaling is probably the reason high doses of antioxidants tend to shorten lifespan of laboratory animals instead of prolong them. The free radical theory of aging has really been falling apart in recent years. Anyway I’m drifting even further off topic.

This video is a good primer on why superoxide is our friend and why saturated fat is better than PUFA.

For all you “show me the science” types, the hyperlipid blog he mentions is an absolute goldmine. When I first found it, reading it occupied all of my free time for almost a week.

Sorry about the hijack, but I had to say something.