What else would you call it?
Formerly known as al7478...
HC: Panasonic PXP 42 V20; Panasonic DMP BD35; Humax Foxsat-HDR
Music: Optical out from Asus P7H55-M Motherboard into AVI ADM 9.1 speakers.
"Music will provide the light you cannot resist"
The indoctrination of children by the meat industry.
LOUNGE: Panasonic TX-P50GT50 (is poorly) / Panasonic DMP-BDT120 / Yamaha RX-A2020 / Dali Zensor 3 (front) / Dali Zensor Vokal (centre) / Mordaunt Short MS20i Pearl Edition (rear) / Q Acoustics1000Si (sub) / Roksan Radius 5.2 (is poorly) / Ortofon Super OM20 Cartridge / Sky HD / WD My Book Live 2TB / Seagate Expansion 2TB / Nintendo Wii / Tacima CS-929
BEDROOM: Samsung LE32C450 / Sony BDP-S360 / Echostar HDS-600RS / Netgear WNCE2001
Oh, they want us adults too, and they want to sell us bread, coke and fries with that meat. But I accept there's hardly a move to make a veggie diet sexy/cool/whatever, but that applies to adults and kids alike.
Kids are more susceptible though aren't they?
Been good chatting with you though Alec, but it's time for bed.
"Red meat – such as beef, lamb and pork – can form part of a healthy diet. But eating a lot of red and processed meat probably increases your risk of bowel (colorectal) cancer."
And this from our NHS. That worries me. Here is a good counterpoint http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/is-red-meat-killing-us
Isn't it logical though? The more animal DNA you consume, more the chances of your own DNA bring altered resulting in cancer.
My Home Cinema Pioneer KRP 500A, Yamaha RX-V1900, MA Radius R225HD LCR, R90HD rears, AW12 sub, Panasonic BD60, PS3, Boxee Box, Sky HD, Boxee Box, Logitech Harmony One, Logitech PS3 Adapter, Sonos ZP90
Bedroom Samsung UE32C6510, PS3 slim white, Apple TV, Sonos S5, Sonos ZP90, Audioengine 2, Oppo OPDV971H
Miscellaneous: Synology DS212J + 2 X WD Red 2TB drives, WD 1TB NAS, Sonos ZoneBridge, BT HH3 as modem & AirPort Extreme router
And this latest study published only few days ago proves my point, that it's all at a genetic level:
Here's the abstract of the original study:
We often argue that our ancestors hunted animals for food so it's ok to have lots of meat. Let's not forget that our ancestors had a life expectancy of 35-40 years only. They died of diseases before they reached old age. We cannot replicate their diet after doubling our life expectancy. The older you are, more susceptible you're to cancer.
For the record, my main diet is vegetarian, but eat moderate amounts of chicken & fish, and very occasionally lamb.
Yup, we tend to allocate 3-4 days of meat-free dinners every week. In moderation meat is fine but over indulge can lead to a whole raft of health problems.
Amp: Leema Pulse; Source: Naim CD5i-2, Denon 260MKII, Pro-ject XP I; Speakers: PMC TB2i
Formerly known as plastic penguin
Of course it is very unhealthy to eat red meat.
There's nothing quite like a rare Sirloin steak, with potatoes, salad or veg, gravy or sauce, and a bottle of nice red wine.
And life is too short to worry about such things. I'd rather live a shorter life and eat and drink what I want, than live to 100 and worry about everything I put in my mouth
Cous cous salad with beans, drizzled with low fat seasoning and a glass of Evian, OR venison, sweet potatoes and baby carrots with a bottle of Zinfandel...hmm It's a tough one.
“Out beyond ideas of wrong and right, there is a field.
I'll meet you there."
Good to see the stereotypes coming out, frog!
Seriously, many cuisines have a strong vegetarian part, and in countries like India half the nation are vegetarians. The Middle East has some classics, too, like Taboule and falafel. Then there's all the dips - Greek, Turkish, Middle Eastern - not to mention Frnch salads and so forth.
There's no rule that says you can't drink wine, either, though I'd prefer a decent Aussie Shiraz, Cab Sav or Pinot over Zinfandel any time.
I'd rather die at 70 with most of my wits about me and (hopefully) no mobility issues, than live to 85 unable to make it to the toilet on my own or sitting in a chair drooling onto my lap, unable to recognise The Wife.
I've worked in enough old folks homes to know I never want to end up in one. If a steak or a few burgers help me achieve that goal then so much the better.
..... And yes, I'm pretty sure I'd still have that opinion at 69.
Hi-Fi: Arcam A85, P85, CD192. B&W 602S3, PV1, Grado SR125, Atlas Titan, Hyper 2.0.
A/V: Sony KDL-V40A12U, BDP-S760, Humax Youview, Onkyo TX-SR875, B&W MT30 7.1, QED HDMI-P, S.A XT
The study you cite, bigboss, appears to be another observational study, indeed, it seems to be one that collates the results of various other studies (I've forgotten what you call them, and it's something really obvious...). Both these kinds of studies have significant weaknesses, with the chief problem with that second kind of study being a phrase we are all familiar with here - rubbish in = rubbish out; you can't study inadequate studoes and expect good results.
It worries me that a Doctor, and our NHS, just say "it's logical, innit". Sorry, I really don't want to be rude, but we are on a forum wehre people demand the highest scientific standards in establishing if one x is better than another x, but don't care much for the same standards in more important areas, I see it all the time and it's very sad.
EDIT - there is some evidence implicating carbs and sugar in cancer, but we would rather, it seems, just go with received wisdom and not bother testing properly or thinking scientifically.
EDIT - Indeed, th estudy seems to mix "processed" with "red".
EDIT - Sorry! ^
The red meat/bowel cancer Vs smoking/lung cancer figures I quoted earlier are incorrect, though I was on the right lines:
Moreover, this meat-eating association with disease is a tiny association. Tiny. It’s not the 20-fold increased risk of lung cancer that pack-a-day smokers have compared to non-smokers. It’s a 0.2-fold increased risk — 1/100th the size. So with lung cancer we could buy as a society the observation that cigarettes cause lung cancer because it was and remains virtually impossible to imagine what other factor could explain an association so huge and dramatic. Experiments didn’t need to be done to test the hypothesis because, well, the signal was just so big that the epidemiologists of the time could safely believe it was real.
© 2014 Haymarket Publishing