There needs to be more data on red meat. I haven't really seen the hard evidence.

Still, I think it's sensible to limit or cut out processed meats, vary your protein sources to include organ meats, eggs, cheese, fish and chicken as well as red muscle meats, and to avoid fried or charred meat. (It may seem tough to stop eating fried and char-grilled meats, but when you get over 40 you really need to up your game and start going the extra mile in order to stay vigorous.)

Quote: (10-26-2015 07:30 PM)kleyau Wrote:  

Eating processed meat is an easy way to raise your testosterone levels.

Higher testosterone levels help you have more sex.

Sex reduces the risk of colon cancer.

Ergo, processed meats only cause colon cancer in losers.

Thats the kind of awesome answer Donald Trump would give in an interview.

I mean wasn't trying to convince anyone by posting the study, to each their own. After all no one can tell you what to do or not to do.

I never eat much meat maybe because where I grew up we didn't have the wide selection there is here, also red meat is illegal unless issued by a government diet.

Quote: (10-26-2015 07:30 PM)kleyau Wrote:  

Eating processed meat is an easy way to raise your testosterone levels.

Higher testosterone levels help you have more sex.

Sex reduces the risk of colon cancer.

Ergo, processed meats only cause colon cancer in losers.

hahahahaha, amazing

You got a genuine laugh out loud there. Cheers!

I was going to write out a better response but Lizard already beat me to it. However, I will expand a little.

In the US the chances of a male getting colon cancer is 48.9 per 100,000 people. If the stated facts are correct and eating processed/red meats raises it 18%, the risk is now 57.7 per 100,000. Your odds just went from 0.049% of getting this cancer to 0.057%. Statistically significant but I can certainly think of plenty of other extremely riskier things I have done such as getting out of bed every day and taking a shower.

Here is the actual information from the IARC. Only processed meats were classified as Group 1 (carcinogenic). Also just because it is in the same group as asbestos and smoking does not make it as dangerous. It simply means there is a provable link to causing cancer. The incidence of cancer is not the same with everything in Group 1. The report attributes 34,000 deaths WORLDWIDE to processed meats. IARC attributes 6,000,000 deaths to tobacco worldwide annually.

Red meat was classified as 2a (probably carcinogenic). Other items in the 2a list includes sunshine and shift work. I think we all know that red meat varies in quality from cheap processed McDonalds to high quality, organic and grass fed ribeye. I would imagine the cancer risks correspond accordingly. Additionally, in the US we think if red meat as solely beef. The IARC includes horse, goat etc.

Lastly, this report specifically states it does not encourage people to not eat meat but that it is rather just a collection of the evidence of 800 studies.

Is this study strictly regarding "processed" meats, or just meats in general, also what exactly constitutes "processed", does organic meat apply in this situation, I think these are important questions. When I think of "processed" meat I think of Oscar Meyer bacon or salami a meat loaded with nitrates and other artificial shit to make it last and keep longer. I don't think organically raised meats are bad for you, but of course their always going to be those cuts that are higher in fat, etc.

I think the problem in the U.S. is people who eat a very heavy diet of factory farmed meat, but then get little to no vegetables and fruit in their diet, I'm thinking of your classic Midwestern fat guy diet of burgers, meat loaf, pork chop, but no vegetables to be seen other than the potato, and usually that is in fried form. If you're eating nothing but red meat and not getting enough veggies and greens in your diet than yes a person will most likely have poorer health and be more prone to cancer and other diseases.

I eat a huge portion of some kind of animal protein at every meal, but I also make sure to round it all out with a lot of high quality fresh/organic fruits and veggies, the key is to be well rounded, but giving up on your animal protein is not the right choice.

They need to sound the warning on high fructose corn syrup soft drinks. The shit is killing millions of people through obesity.

The Mark Twain quote about statistics is true as it ever was. There is no need to show pictures of power lifters. The entire UN has an agenda and it is not to our benefit. I dare say no one who posts this on Facebook has even an inkling of an understanding of the statistical methods and assumptions used in this study. However, it fits a certain narrative, so it is "science" and "truth!" I'm sure the studies used in this meta-analysis did not control for confounding variables, and how could they, you can't regulate human subjects like lab mice and feed only a specific diet.

There are ample scientific studies, starting with the "fat is bad stuff" that were either poorly done or not understood, that lead to all kinds of stupid things like eating low fat diets with plenty of grains!

I read two different news articles about this report.
Yet in neither article did I ever see the words - Sodium Nitrate.

Yes I can imagine too much processed meat isn't ideal, but I'd say that has more to do
with the extra junk they throw into the lower grade meat (& into the animals - rBGH),
than the actual meat itself.

Plus, if you're using junk cooking oils (generic processed vegetable oil), as opposed to 'healthier' oils
(high grade olive / coconut), that would be another factor as well.

Anyway; if the sheep want to follow the pied piper off the cliff, cest la vie.

I'll take my chances.

As a former butcher, you guys really don't want to know what is in processed meat. Basically most hot dogs, canned hams, bologna, and the such are everything that can't be used in some way. The only other stuff is what is usually made into dog food from the bone bucket.

What I am curious about is how fertilizer plays a role in this.

Especially with factory farming controlling the market instead of local farms.

It may seem strange, but fertilizing practices build up radioactive particles in the soil and this is then taken in by the plant and ultimately digested by animals and will find its way to you.

My dad studies this stuff and while it isn't common knowledge, it is pretty scary. Especially considering I am a smoker. What's even more fucked up is that if big companies changed up their farming practices then they could mitigate against this to a large degree.

Here is an article on it:

Radioactive Fertilizer—The Surprising Primary Cause of Lung Cancer in Smokers

Quote:Quote:

It's well-recognized that smoking cigarettes can cause lung cancer. What isn't clear is exactly what it is in the cigarette or its smoke that causes it. Interestingly, while it may seem obvious that added chemicals would be prime culprits, research suggests it may be something else entirely.

This "something else" in turn could also have potential ramifications for our food supply, and might be an indicator of potential carcinogenicity in genetically engineered foods as well as tobacco, although there's no evidence of such a link as of yet.

The factor I'm talking about is polonium-210—a highly radioactive element1 that releases alpha particles as it decays. It's also chemically toxic.2 While alpha particles cannot penetrate deeply into your body, they can cause serious damage to cells they do come into contact with.

While naturally present in small amounts in the environment, one of the primary sources of exposure is via calcium phosphate fertilizers, used on tobacco fields and food crops respectively.

The Hidden Threat of Radioactive Fertilizer Contamination


Research suggests that it's the radiation from these fertilizers that appear to cause the most lung damage, and are the primary cause of cancer in smokers.3, 4, 5 In fact, polonium is the only component of cigarette smoke shown to produce cancer in laboratory animals.6 As noted in a 2009 study:7


"In a person smoking 1 1/2 packs of cigarettes per day, the radiation dose to the bronchial epithelium in areas of bifurcation is 8000 mrem per year -- the equivalent of the dose to the skin from 300 x-ray films of the chest per year."

According to a 2011 report published in the journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research,8 secret internal documents obtained from the major tobacco industries in 1998 reveal that the industry was well aware of the presence of this radioactive element in cigarettes as early as 1959.


"Acid wash was discovered in 1980 to be highly effectively in removing polonium-210 from the tobacco leaves; however, the industry avoided its use for concerns that acid media would ionize nicotine converting it into a poorly absorbable form into the brain of smokers thus depriving them of the much sought after instant 'nicotine kick' sensation," the researchers noted.

The report concluded that "the evidence of lung cancer risk caused by cigarette smoke radioactivity is compelling enough to warrant its removal." Now, if tobacco leaves become a source of cancer-causing radioactivity due to the fertilizers used, what about food grown with these phosphate fertilizers?

Remarkably, according to a report by the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research,9 American meat products and dairy may expose your organs to radiation doses that are equivalent to the dose received by smokers via cigarette smoke. I bet that might come as a huge shock to you.

Fluoridated Water—Another Hidden Source of Radioactive Polonium


You can also consume polonium by drinking fluoridated water, courtesy of the fluorosilicic acid used. While pharmaceutical grade fluoride is a harmful-enough drug, this is not the type of fluoride being added to drinking water. If it was, at least then it would be a pure, uncontaminated form.

Rather the fluoride that is typically used to fluoridate local water supplies is a frequently contaminated chemical byproduct created during the phosphate fertilizer manufacturing process. It's a concentrated, highly toxic chemical riddled with hazardous impurities, making it extremely expensive to safely dispose of when not sold for profit as a water additive.

Uranium and radium are two known carcinogens found in fluorosilicic acid used for water fluoridation, and polonium-210 is one of two decay products of uranium. Furthermore, polonium decays into stable lead-206, which also has significant health risks—especially in children—and research has indeed shown that drinking fluoridated water increases lead absorption in your body.

Back in 1983, the Deputy Administrator of the EPA Office of Water, Rebecca Hanmer, summarized and defended the EPA's policy on adding toxic fluoride to drinking water in the following manner,10 which is quite telling once you know where the fluoride comes from, and the origins of the idea behind water fluoridation as a public health policy:


"In regard to the use of fluosilicic (fluorosilicic) acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them." [Emphasis mine]

How Polonium Affects Your Body


But let's get back to phosphate fertilizers and its use on tobacco and food crops... According to the report in Nicotine and Tobacco Research,11 radioactivity in tobacco comes from two sources: the atmosphere and uptake through soil rich in calcium phosphate fertilizer contaminated with polonium phosphates. In 1995, the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research12 stated that:


"It has been known for many years that phosphate fertilizer ore contains 50~150 parts per million (ppm) of natural Uranium, and hence its radioactive decay products [i.e. polonium and radon], when compared to most other soil and rocks - which average 1 or 2 ppm."

A CNN article13 from last year addressed the health effects of polonium when the radioactive element was being investigated as a potential cause in the death of Yasser Arafat, the former leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization. According to their report:


"If you ingest polonium-210, about 50 percent to 90 percent of the substance will exit the body through feces, according to a fact sheet from Argonne National Laboratory. What is left will enter the bloodstream. About 45 percent of polonium ingested gets into the spleen, kidneys and liver, and 10 percent is deposited in the bone marrow.


Radiation poisoning from polonium-210 looks like the end stage of cancer... Liver and kidney damage ensue, along with extreme nausea and severe headaches. Victims often experience vomiting, diarrhea and hair loss. The alpha particles emitted from the decaying substance get absorbed in the body, which is what causes harm."

Phosphate Fertilizers Also Used in GMO Agriculture


Phosphate fertilizers linked to lung cancer in smokers, via the route of inhaling the smoke from contaminated tobacco leaves, are also used on food crops. Granted, food-borne polonium may be absorbed and react differently in your body than that in tobacco smoke.

Still, as stated by the International Atomic Energy Agency,14 internal exposure, which is more or less the only dangerous form, does occur primarily through food, water, and inhaling contaminated air. So it's possible that you might be exposed to greater levels of this (and other) radioactive elements than was previously thought, through the aggressive use of phosphate fertilizers in food production.

While we may not be able to estimate the potential cancer risk from contaminated foods, and GMOs in particular, research has shown that dietary calcium phosphate has a detrimental effect on your gut health. According to a 2002 study in the Journal of Nutrition:15


"Most Gram-positive bacteria are susceptible to the bactericidal action of fatty acids and bile acids. Because dietary calcium phosphate (CaP(i)) lowers the intestinal concentration of these antimicrobial agents, high CaP(i) intake may enhance intestinal colonization of Gram-positive pathogens and the subsequent pathogenesis."

Interestingly, the adverse effect of dietary calcium phosphate was found to be dependent on the type of dietary fat consumed. In rats given diets containing corn oil, the calcium phosphate stimulated colonization of pathogenic bacteria, whereas this adverse effect was not found in animals given a diet with milk fat. There are many drawbacks to conventional fertilizers, and radioactive food can perhaps be added to that list (with or without radioactive fallout from Japan, which is a whole other story). While modern agricultural methods may appear to be the most cost effective and efficient strategy at first glance, it quickly becomes one of the most costly ways to produce food once you take into account the environmental and human health consequences.

There Are Better Alternatives


Modern fertilizer consists of varying amounts of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K). But both phosphorus and potassium, neither of which can be synthesized, are becoming increasingly sparse.16 According to the Swedish-run Global Phosphorus Research Initiative,17 we could hit "peak phosphorus" as early as 2030. Without these fertilizer ingredients, the entire world would quickly be in trouble—unless we change our ways, that is. And there are more than a few good reasons for making a U-turn back toward time-tested biological growing methods.

Calcium phosphate, mined primarily in the Western Sahara, Saskatchewan or Florida, typically contains polonium and that's the type of NPK fertilizer typically used on tobacco fields. Ammonium phosphate is typically used in the growing of GMO crops, and as mentioned earlier, the toxic byproduct from that process is fluorosilicic acid, used for water fluoridation. Now, it's possible that ammonium phosphate has very little polonium, since it tends to end up in the fluoride (and hence drinking water around the US). But it all has to end up somewhere...

As I've started writing about lately, biological agriculture can be profoundly efficient, out-performing virtually any conventional farming strategy, including genetic engineering. I've been implementing organic, biological farming strategies in my own garden, and the leaves on some of my plants, like fruit trees (limes, figs, mango, orange, tangerine, cherries, peach, plum, and banana), have a number of leaves that are literally 300 to 400 percent bigger than the typical leaf of these plants. You wouldn't even imagine that a leaf could grow this big—all without ANY chemicals, just using strategies that optimize soil health, such as using rock dust powders, compost teas and biochar. These strategies seem to maximize the hidden genetic potential of the plants.

Sustainable Soil Science to the Rescue


Earlier this year, I interviewed Dr. Elaine Ingham, an internationally recognized expert on the benefits of sustainable soil science. I also visited her at her new position at the Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania. According to Dr. Ingham and other soil experts, a key component of successful agriculture lies in having the right helper organisms in the soil; beneficial species of bacteria, fungi, protozoa, beneficial nematodes (not the weedfeeders), microarthropods, and earthworms—all of which contribute to plant growth in a number of different ways.

Nutrient cycling is another major issue. According to Dr. Ingham, there's no soil on Earth that lacks the nutrients to grow a plant. She believes the concept that your soil is deficient and needs added phosphorus or nitrogen, etc. in order to grow plants is seriously flawed, and largely orchestrated by the chemical companies, because it's based on looking at the soluble, inorganic nutrients that are partly present in your soil.

The real nutrition your plants require is actually derived from microorganisms in the soil. These organisms take the mineral material that's in your soil and convert it into a plant-available form. Without these bioorganisms, your plants cannot get the nutrients they need. So what you need is not more chemical soil additives, what you need is the proper balance of beneficial soil organisms. According to Dr. Ingham:


"It's very necessary to have these organisms. They will supply your plant with precisely the right balances of all the nutrients the plant requires. When you start to realize that one of the major roles and functions of life in the soil is to provide nutrients to the plants in the proper forms, then we don't need inorganic fertilizers. We certainly don't have to have genetically engineered plants or to utilize inorganic fertilizers if we get this proper biology back in the soil.


If we balance the proper biology, we select against the growth of weeds, so the whole issue with herbicides is done away with. We don't need the herbicides if we can get the proper life back into the soil and select for the growth of the plants that we want to grow and against the growth of the weedy species."

Interestingly enough, you can use a starter culture to boost the fermentation and generation of beneficial bacteria much in the same way you can boost the probiotics in your fermented vegetables. For compost, this strategy is used if you want to compost very rapidly. In that case, you can use a starter to inoculate the specific sets of organisms that you need to encourage in that compost. For optimal physical health, you need plant foods to contain the full set of nutrients that will allow the plant to grow in a healthy fashion, because that's the proper balance of nutrients for us human beings as well. Dr. Ingham has written several books on this topic, including The Field Guide for Actively Aerated Compost Tea, and The Compost Tea Brewing Manual.

Who Would Have Guessed...


With all the thousands of chemical additives in cigarettes, it's pretty staggering to consider that potentially the most carcinogenic ingredient in a cigarette appears to be contamination from the fertilizer used to grow the tobacco. It's even more disconcerting to consider that this contaminant can also be found in fluoridated drinking water and potentially genetically engineered and conventionally grown foods as well. From my point of view, this is simply one more reason to switch to a whole food organic diet, ideally grown locally to ensure maximum freshness. Here are some great resources to obtain wholesome food that supports not only you but also the environment:

Edit: So, while I posted the entire article the take away is that polonium from the fertilizer is absorbed by the plant and then eaten by us. Well, cows and pigs eat plants. In factory farming they usually don't graze on grass but eat large amounts of corn and other feeds that are cheaply grown on factory farms. Doesn't seem that far reaching that some of that polonium finds its way from the cow or pig, especially considering that it is largely stored in the same organs used to make processed meats, to humans through consumption.

Radioactive fertilizer now...

At least you can count on Tex Arcane to have an amusing spin on things :

Outlawing Red Meat for Peasants

http://vault-co.blogspot.com/2015/10/out...sants.html

' It's happening. The Melonheads reserve fresh grass-fed beef, garlic, chocolate and other extremely healthy foods for their
ruling classes. They had these proscriptions in Sumeria, India, Egypt and most other nations they reigned over throughout
history. The peasants have always been fed gruel. Lately they have been talking seriously about trying to wean the commoners
onto a diet of insect slurry. This of course would be a natural progression towards Soylent Green. One day you'd be
slurping on your Big Worm Gulp and you'd find out that is no longer mealworms in there. It is human livestock being recycled.

Melonheads know that meat makes strong and they don't want strong slaves. They want them vaccinated and fed
carbohydrates so they grow up to be the living dead. '

Quote: (10-26-2015 06:35 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

Quote: (10-26-2015 06:25 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

Quote: (10-26-2015 06:13 PM)Oz. Wrote:  

Here's a better read in my opinion, this is if you're interested in the matter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study

Here is the problem though, and sort of my point. A vegetarian diet will give you long life, less disease and this physique



versus the Brandon Lilly powerlifter diet



The government wants everyone to be on the china study diet for a reason, and its not our good health.

Do you seriously think an old Asian man versus this fat "power lifter" who looks 6 months pregnant is a good comparison?

No, but it has utility as entertainment value.

If we go by this logic, then you will have millions of Argentinians with cancer.

People in South America, especially Argentinians and Uruguayans eat meat on a daily basis. In fact, they are the leading consumers of meat in the entire world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...00996.html


Argentine Asado:











I call bullshit on these new studies.

WHO is controlled by the UN, which is pushing Agenda 21 to control resource use of everyone on the world and guilt trip people for wanting to live a middle class life in the name of "sustainable development" (i.e. depopulation). Their announcement matches their existing agenda and so they are a biased source.

If you look at the different cancer rates around the world, what the food culture is like, and the countries that lead in the statistics all this does look like bullshit.

http://www.wcrf.org/int/cancer-facts-fig...statistics

2012 statistics

Colon cancer is often linked with eating too much red meat by the medical profession. Let's look at the top 10 countries.



Except for maybe Australia none of those countries eat vastly more meat than any nation. The colon cancer rates in Korea have actually been linked to eating too much fermented foods (ie. Kimchi) Noticeably absent are the Latin American countries like Argentina which eat a shit ton of meat. Latin America actually has much lower incidences of colorectal cancer.


Let's look at prostate cancer rates which have also supposedly been linked to eating too much red meat

http://www.wcrf.org/int/cancer-facts-fig...statistics



Australia is on that list again but once again doesn't crack the top 5. France is #1. Do they eat more red meat than everyone else? If so why don't they also have high colon cancer rates too. Once again Latin America (major meat eating region) is absent.


Another big time cancer is lung cancer but that has nothing to do with eating meat. I'll just throw the world stats up just as a comparison though.




The prostate cancer rate worldwide is pretty horrific though and it's considered at least top 3 in world cancer rates but you notice that never gets any press in the mainstream SJW media.



edit: I'm not saying that eating processed meat or too much red meat absolutely has no effect on cancer rates but it's likely a very marginal effect. These cancer rates around the world are obviously due to many other factors besides eating red meat. I imagine the biggest causes of most forms of cancer is probably due to all the chemicals in all the products we use, the particles we breathe from exhaust, stress, and all other factors we probably haven't even discovered yet.

Quote: (10-27-2015 12:41 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

If you look at the different cancer rates around the world, what the food culture is like, and the countries that lead in the statistics all this does look like bullshit.

snip

edit: I'm not saying that eating processed meat or too much red meat absolutely has no effect on cancer rates but it's likely a very marginal effect. These cancer rates around the world are obviously due to many other factors besides eating red meat. I imagine the biggest causes of most forms of cancer is probably due to all the chemicals in all the products we use, the particles we breathe from exhaust, stress, and all other factors we probably haven't even discovered yet.

A while back I read that one reason you see certain cancers, especially cancer of the mouth and throat, are higher in some regions like Asia and south America is due to spicy food.

Basically really spicy food burns the skin cells in the mouth and throat and they are replaced at a higher rate, which means more cell-division than normal which then increases the chance of abnormal cell division which is basically what cancer is on a fundamental level.

I doubt that has anything to do with beef or pork, but I figured I would toss it out there.

Quote: (10-27-2015 01:00 AM)Troll King Wrote:  

Quote: (10-27-2015 12:41 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

If you look at the different cancer rates around the world, what the food culture is like, and the countries that lead in the statistics all this does look like bullshit.

snip

edit: I'm not saying that eating processed meat or too much red meat absolutely has no effect on cancer rates but it's likely a very marginal effect. These cancer rates around the world are obviously due to many other factors besides eating red meat. I imagine the biggest causes of most forms of cancer is probably due to all the chemicals in all the products we use, the particles we breathe from exhaust, stress, and all other factors we probably haven't even discovered yet.

A while back I read that one reason you see certain cancers, especially cancer of the mouth and throat, are higher in some regions like Asia and south America is due to spicy food.

Basically really spicy food burns the skin cells in the mouth and throat and they are replaced at a higher rate, which means more cell-division than normal which then increases the chance of abnormal cell division which is basically what cancer is on a fundamental level.

I doubt that has anything to do with beef or pork, but I figured I would toss it out there.

Yes cancer is where the body malfunctions at the cellular level. This is also why alcohol is linked to stomach, liver, and esophageal cancer as well. Alcohol is a solvent and does micro damage at the cellular level in your stomache, while it's going down, and as your body processes it in your organs.


Another medical theory that's been going around for a long time that Muay Thai fighters have higher incidences of rare bone cancer because they are always doing shin conditioning and bag work. They are constantly stimulating the same area of their shins with trauma again and again.

Quote: (10-27-2015 12:19 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

WHO is controlled by the UN, which is pushing Agenda 21 to control resource use of everyone on the world and guilt trip people for wanting to live a middle class life in the name of "sustainable development" (i.e. depopulation). Their announcement matches their existing agenda and so they are a biased source.

Yup - recently I was made aware again of that as I watched Minority Report the TV series and saw the wealthy actor eat insects on the show. This is the future that the UN has in store for the peasants:






I can tell you that even the alternative health field is opposed to that WHO crap. As others have pointed out the studies are highly tainted and you would have to sift through it in detail.

+ Cancer is generally on the rise, but more carcinogenic elements are fluoride in water, toxic pesticides, toxic fertilizers, toxic food additives, toxic ingredients like aspartame, MSG etc.
+ Then you would have to discount also the nutrient intake of the given population - some take plenty of supplements or eat herbs which balance even the toxins
+ heating oils and preparation methods - not all are equal - canola oil for example is toxic, while certain grilling methods or oils like coconut oil are not

So of course hot dogs and highly processed meats are terrible, but organic grass-fed beef is probably one of the healthiest things you can eat.

Also the alternative health field clearly acknowledges that you can replace meat with a high-quality vegetarian, vegan or even 80-10-10 diet (basically most calories from fruit), BUT - AND THAT BUT IS INDEED A MASSIVE BUT - that alternative diet has to be of extremely high-quality, sometimes even more organic than the meat based one.

So essentially replacing hot dogs with pesticide soaked peas, potatoes and insects won't cut it.

The article is the usual push of the austerity, Agenda 21 plan that the elite is obsessed with. It can be simplified with: Insects and peas for you - steak and caviar for me. Don't fall for it.

I don't think it's a conspiracy. For years studies have pointed out this trend. Of course, there are so many variables like diet and lifestyle (that some posters have pointed out) that it's easy to discredit them. That's why in the end I rely on my personal experience - when I stopped eating meat 90% of my health problems went away. I went from sickly, anorexic, and chronically ill to a normal healthy person. Of course I had poorer health than average growing up, so anything I did wrong showed immediate effects, rather than showing up later in life as is the case with most people.

I think the fact most of the meat out there is garbage is a huge factor, rather than the eating of meat in general. The documentary "Food Inc" really shines a light on this. Almost all the meat we buy is laced with antibiotics, hormones, and ammonia, from animals fed unnatural corn-heavy diets. As a kid I ate chicken from my uncle's farm, 100% organic, and it didn't taste or look anything like you buy in the store. If no one told you otherwise, you would think the two were from completely different animals.

As far as eating meat being manly, I just don't see that connection. Don't grandmas and babies also eat meat? Some of the most jacked, alpha guys I know don't eat meat, or if they did avoid red & processed meat. Meanwhile, I went to a liberal arts college and didn't meat a single SJW who didn't eat meat. Anecdotal evidence, so take it as you will, but that's what I saw with my own eyes.

To each their own. I rarely mention this unless someone brings it up, and certainly don't go out of my way to tell people not to eat it. We choose our vices: as some posters and people in real life have told me, they don't care about any negative health effects because they enjoy eating it. I prefer to drink, and am under no illusions that will cut a few years off my life.

BBQ Pit Boys


vs

Frank Medrano, vegan bodybuilder

You can reduce your risk of colon cancer by upping your fiber intake.

Take your psyllium before bed boys and bully the limp wristed soy eaters.

I hope we see the collapse of the UN in our life times.

Red meat is great as long as you don't exclusively and constantly eat it, have a varied diet with plenty of different meat and fish sources, vegetables, fruits, rice and potatoes and you're good.

Processed meats like hot dogs are garbage that you shouldn't be touching anyway.

All the examples that people give of big powerlifters or vegan bodybuilders and their diets are pretty much useless because they never address the most important factor that makes them look the way they look, which is the copious amounts of drugs they take.

Quote: (10-26-2015 07:30 PM)kleyau Wrote:  

Eating processed meat is an easy way to raise your testosterone levels.

Higher testosterone levels help you have more sex.

Sex reduces the risk of colon cancer.

Ergo, processed meats only cause colon cancer in losers.

I know you're joking but processed meat certainly does not increase any testosterone levels, being the junk that it is it's actually harmful to you.

I am going to eat smoked black forest bacon with eggs and emmental cheese for dinner as a fuck you to WHO.