Cancer experts - Don't eat meet, drink booze or actually anything but water and maybe you'll have a chance

Rojo, why are you getting angry about people presenting objective scientific findings? Nobody is forcing you not to eat meat- they are just saying that you might have a lower chance of of getting cancer if you do.

This is an uncomfortable truth, but you should be able to recognize it as cognitive dissonance within yourself. Getting annoyed at the scientist and reporters for presenting their findings is a sign of mental weakness and resistance to change.

Life is mitigation of risk, genetics (luck), and luck. There is nothing else.

loqueelvientoajuarez wrote:

Don't eat good things because it gives cancer, don't do booze, don't fsck because it gives AIDS, don't run trails because of bears and pumas, avoid going out in winter to avoid flu.

You'll live until you are 126 years old and die of boredom.

I picture you running half drunk through a crowded nursing home in winter with an "Always Save" hot dog in one hand, and a bottle of vodka in another, on your way to have unprotected sex with a grizzly bear.

I never eat hamburgers or sausages or any fastfood, my diet is a lot of fish, vegetables, fruits and berries, eggs, bird. I have a fantastic exciting life with no need of starting posts like this. It is easier than you think (maybe not in the US, but at least in Europe).

SprintTriathlon wrote:

I never eat hamburgers or sausages or any fastfood, my diet is a lot of fish, vegetables, fruits and berries, eggs, bird. I have a fantastic exciting life with no need of starting posts like this. It is easier than you think (maybe not in the US, but at least in Europe).

I have a boring life, which is why I require the services of booze and bacon. So f*ck off.

i agree wrote:

I kind of agree with rojo

About eating meet?

That is no life worth living...

Limit your fish intake to once a week. High levels of mercury. Eating too much is no good as well.

Perfectly said.

What fraction of rojo’s posts are drunk posts? I’d guess around 1/3.

Don't meet whom?

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

[quote]rojo wrote:

https://www.pritikin.com/your-health/health-benefits/reduce-cancer-risk.html

And how did Pritikin die? Suicide at 69 due to despair of multiple cancers, after decades of eating a tasteless, miserable diet in the name of "longevity". Meanwhile Jeanne Calment was eating eggs and chocolate, drinking wine and smoking on her way through a life of 122 years.

Diets too low in fat and cholesterol have higher mortality due to cancer. A lot of current vegans and vegetarians are going to get a nasty surprise when they find out they have been duped into "plant-based" propaganda, and don't outlive their parents' "unhealthy" lifespan.

ice mann wrote:

You don't get sick in the winter from going outside, you get side because you spend too much time inside jacking off with the windows closed.

fixt.

Life is a Carcinogen wrote:

Diets too low in fat and cholesterol have higher mortality due to cancer. A lot of current vegans and vegetarians are going to get a nasty surprise when they find out they have been duped into "plant-based" propaganda, and don't outlive their parents' "unhealthy" lifespan.

I will LMAO and toast with a large chunk of delicious pork product when a few of my acquaintances kick off early. ("Did you know I'm a fvcking vegan?!? Did I mention it yet in this conversation, or only every single conversation ever? By the way, did you know I'm a vegan???" --Every vegan, ever.) And even if it's me who kicks off early, I still win. Because I won't be remembered for shoving my lifestyle choice down everyone else's proverbial throat. And also, delicious pork product.

gdeegz wrote:

Rojo, why are you getting angry about people presenting objective scientific findings? Nobody is forcing you not to eat meat- they are just saying that you might have a lower chance of of getting cancer if you do.

This is an uncomfortable truth, but you should be able to recognize it as cognitive dissonance within yourself. Getting annoyed at the scientist and reporters for presenting their findings is a sign of mental weakness and resistance to change.

FYI Health/Diet Science generally does not represent actual 'objective scientific findings'

How do you control for people not eating red meat or drinking beer without being confounded by other variables?

Entirely possible to get some rough estimates on that given a strong correlation, but probably not within the mathematical capacity of most people studying diet science.

Additionally other considerations need to be taken into account such as the point that eating red meats and drinking beer can often be tied to more tissue growth (fat or muscle) so while it more cells means more chances at failed/cancer cells it could also impact other health variables. If I am 10x as likely to die of a rare cancer, but half as likely to acquire a top ranked death cause like heart disease then it would represent a better choice.

All that typing and you have no clue what you are talking about.. cooking oil does not create transfats (oil either has trans fats or it does not). Transfats were created in a lab to make food "shelf stable". You can't add hydrogen atoms to fat during cooking... don't believe me google it.

I have my doubts. wrote:

"Dont eat,meet, drink booze."

no food, no socializing, no beer.

average person won't last 2 weeks on that diet

no thanks

Yes please. Been on it for the last four years. Health is the default state of humans, not sickness.

MEET

Sugar accelerates the effect of the various cancer risks.