Doug - your opinion, please

[owensmath]

If this is true,it is very scary. Doug, would you read this article and share your thoughts?  I know that the less processed food we eat, the better, but this article gives some specifics that are a bit frightening.

http://www.thelifedept.co.uk/livelonger/eat-better/sausage-and-bacon-link-to-pancreatic-cancer/#.TxCMbgM4u40.facebook

[mouseissue]

It's long been known that eating processed meats (or ANY processed foods) every day, especially in quantity, is not good.

I noticed that the article seems to target "red meat".
I believe it's the preservatives used in the packaged meats (like bacon) that are dangerous. Not the meat itself.

But I too would like to hear what Doug thinks about this.

[umpa]

 I sent this to doug owensmath.He will read it in the morning

[Alex Cruz]

wow, that is scary... would the deli meats fall under this? processed so Im thinking yes...

[Doug Varrieur]

Well, I bounced around the web and the story is blogging in lots of places. I found the link you sent me didn't tell the whole story. Here's an exerpt from another; notice what I've highlighted in yellow.....I'm having a BLT for breakfast 

The latest study, published in the British Journal of Cancer, is from researchers at the respected Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. They examined data from 11 studies, including 6,643 cases of pancreatic cancer. They found inconclusive evidence on the risks of eating red meat overall, compared to eating no red meat.

They found a 29% increase in pancreatic cancer risk for men eating 120g per day of red meat but no increased risk among women. This may be because men in the study tended to eat more red meat than women.

They concluded: "Findings from this meta-analysis indicate that processed meat consumption is positively associated with pancreatic cancer risk.

"Red meat consumption was associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in men.

Here's the link- http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/13/bacon-linked-pancreatic-cancer-report

"Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings."

[owensmath]

Thank you, Doug!

[Doug Varrieur]

Any time Donna.... hugz! 

[mouseissue]

I guess I'm getting old... But something I learned in college years ago while studying scientific statistical methods just came to mind.

When analyzing data, preconceived notions about expected outcomes often taint conclusions.
Very often, a correlation between two (or more) outcomes an be mistaken for a cause and effect relationship.

Not to sound dark, but since we're looking at a lethal illness and meat consumption, the following example is appropriate.

If one were to study the number of deaths during inclement rainy weather compared to those on sunny days,
one could conclude that because significantly more deaths occur on rainy days, that rain causes death.

Clearly, an invalid conclusion on it's face... Rain does NOT cause death.
MANY other factors are at play here besides the weather.