General Discussion: Grumpy Young Men


Show original post
bill
bill avatar

4930 posts since 5/8/09

posted 30 Sep 2016 14:16, edited 30 Sep 2016 14:16
figurine wrote:
bill wrote: A couple slices of ham isn't going to kill you, neither is a couple cigarettes. But who just eats a couple slices of ham a year? or has a couple cigarettes a year?
Patients need to eat, they don't need to smoke. The two can't be compared.

LOL, c'mon man that's so weak. Patients needs to eat so let's give them food they have no nutritional requirement for and will contribute to their cancer and ultimately cost us more money. People like to hear good things about their bad habits. If the NHS was giving people cigs, I think you might say that's pretty shit stop that right now, not something like 'one cig won't harm, people need to relax'. Because you enjoy the odd sausage you'll try and convince yourself it's ok and that despite the fact it's proven to increase risk of cancer, because you do it then maybe it's not so bad that the NHS serve it to people. If anyone needs more processed red meat, it's definitely people in hospital uh?

figurine wrote:
bill wrote: I just believe that the NHS should promote foods that are proven to promote health, not ones that are proven to cause cancer. If any institution should be 'shining example of nutrition', it should be the NHS shouldn't it? It has the word 'Health' in it for a start.
I agree with this in principle, but in practice it isn't that simple. Hospitals can't just serve vegan lentil stews, people won't eat them. The costs and production of meals need to be taken into account, ham is cheap, chicken breasts aren't. There was also a choice of foods, it not like you were forced to have ham, there were other options.

Oh so now it's a cost thing. Ham is cheaper than lentils? rly? And as I said in my OP, apparently 'lifestyle choices cost the NHS 11 billion a year' http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/lifestyle-illness-cost-nhs-11-billion-a-year_uk_57e8df98e4b0db20a6e9814d so if it's a cost thing it doesn't make much sense to give people food that causes more health problems and ends up costing you more money.

And you're right they were other food options. Like I said, fried pork balls, cheese and ham pasty, beef sandwich, ice cream, jacket spud with cheese…. there was probably a solitary banana on there as well, all 90 calories of it. If the menu was unsatisfactory we had a choice of sweets, fizzy drinks, chocolate and crisps from the dozens of vending machines scattered around. I have 2 packets of skittles and a bag of salt and vinegar crisps for my lunch.

figurine wrote:
bill wrote: There's no where to go with this argument. Yes, it doesn't seem as bad eating bacon as it does smoking fags, what harm is a bacon sandwich, everyone loves a bacon sandwich don't they etc etc…. But there's as much evidence to prove that processed meat causes cancer as there is that smoking causes cancer. So unless you can debunk all that evidence, then processed meats have no place in hospitals. See, I get it, I get why people don't think these things are bad and you can eat them #EverythingInModeration but by the time you reach 50-60-70 and you're paying for a lifetime of eating cancer causing junk foods, they'll be fuck all you or the NHS can do about it and the irony is when you're getting your dose of radiation and copulus amounts of drugs pumped into your veins down your local NHS hospital with your fingers crossed that you'll be one of the 2% of people that chemo is successful for, you'll get served a bacon sandwich for lunch in between your chemo sessions.


People who eat low meat diets have approx a 5.6% chance of developing bowel cancer, this rises to 6.6% for those who have a diet high in processed meat


That's another very vague weak point you're trying to make isn't it? What's considered a 'low meat diet', 2 slices of bacon a day vs 6 slices??? I mentioned a specific report by the World Health Organisation but you probably don't want to quote it exactly because 18% increased risk doesn't quite give you the 1% chance figure you're looking. (see below)


figurine wrote: I'm also happy to offset that risk through exercise and eating a relatively high fibre diet. Maybe instead of getting all your info about this from here, you could try reading something like this instead.



LOL, I'd put CancerResearch on a par with the Daily Mail. I'd rather set fire to my money than give a penny to fraudsters like cancer research. You may as well give your money to your local crack dealer and get your information from iraqi information minister. Anyways, here is the WHO report, the only report I mentioned so you’re DM reference falls on deaf ears.:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26514947

From the WHO website: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

"An analysis of data from 10 studies estimated that every 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by about 18%"

It’s a relative increase and it’s based on only one form of cancer. If you want to play the numbers game and compare diets why are you comparing meat diets to meat diets? Just so the numbers are lower? http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/vegetarian-diet-linked-to-lower-colon-cancer-risk-201503117785 …. 22%, 43% We can play the numbers/google game but we’d be here all day.

1 in every 2 people will now get cancer in their lifetime. It wasn’t so long ago it was 1 in 3. http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v112/n5/full/bjc2014606a.html repeated here (only linking this because you think it’s a respected source of information) http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/press-release/2015-02-04-1-in-2-people-in-the-uk-will-get-cancer

Where going off on tangents but that’s your fault. My point is a simply one, not sure why you’re so set on arguing against it, do you work on a pig farm? Processed red meats like bacon and ham, which are proven carcinogens to humans should not be served in hospitals. End of story. There’s no logical argument for it and you’ve definitely not provided one. Given people already have a 50% chance of getting cancer in their lifetime, hospitals should be serving food that fights cancer, not fucking giving them more of it. And that’s before we talk about the cholesterol and saturated fat. Smiling
C-Stylez
C-Stylez avatar

5232 posts since 4/7/12

30 Sep 2016 14:31
OnlyOneStop
OnlyOneStop avatar

2936 posts since 3/8/08

30 Sep 2016 14:35
Someone is feeling guilty about the hot dog they had for lunch…
MuayThaiPimp
MuayThaiPimp avatar

7925 posts since 10/8/11

30 Sep 2016 14:38
Bill defo smells his own farts
figurine
figurine avatar

6014 posts since 14/5/07

30 Sep 2016 14:53
People who eat low meat diets have approx a 5.6% chance of developing bowel cancer, this rises to 6.6% for those who have a diet high in processed meat


That's another very vague weak point you're trying to make isn't it? What's considered a 'low meat diet', 2 slices of bacon a day vs 6 slices??? I mentioned a specific report by the World Health Organisation but you probably don't want to quote it exactly because 18% increased risk doesn't quite give you the 1% chance figure you're looking. (see below)
To make this simple for you I'll explain this in detail. 5.6% chance is 56 in 1000 people, 6.6% chance is 66 in 1000 people. The percentage change between these two rates is worked out as such, ((66 - 56)/56) * 100 = 17.9% or the 18% you are quoting.

If the NHS was giving people cigs, I think you might say that's pretty shit stop that right now, not something like 'one cig won't harm, people need to relax'.
The risk of dying from lung cancer for non smokers is 0.2%, for lifetime smokers it is 9 - 15.9 %. Seeing as Cancer Research isn't ok, here's an academic journal article backing this up http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/164/12/1233.full. That's a 44% to 78.5% increase for smoking, and thats for death as well not just getting cancer, so not directly comparable, but gives you an idea of the order of magnitudes worse smoking is in terms of getting cancer compared to processed meats.

It’s a relative increase and it’s based on only one form of cancer.
There isn't really much point looking at the effect of processed meat on rates of lung cancer, processed/red meats are linked to colorectal (bowel) cancer, hence why I've used those figures specifically.

Processed red meats like bacon and ham, which are proven carcinogens to humans should not be served in hospitals. End of story. There’s no logical argument for it and you’ve definitely not provided one.
There is a logical argument, its that eating processed/red meat isn't that big a risk in terms of getting cancer. If the meals provided are healthier its inevitable patients will go for the other option, getting something from the vending machine, so they could remove all processed meat from the menus but there could be worse unintended consequences. The nearest hospital to my house has a McDonalds opposite it, I can guarantee if they trialed a new healthy menu the McDonalds would see a rise in business. I wouldn't be surprised if at some level a decision has been taken to continue serving processed meat as part of meals within hospitals, and this is in line with WHO guidelines that you keep posting.

16. Should I stop eating meat?

Eating meat has known health benefits. Many national health recommendations advise people to limit intake of processed meat and red meat, which are linked to increased risks of death from heart disease, diabetes, and other illnesses.
bill
bill avatar

4930 posts since 5/8/09

posted 30 Sep 2016 16:13, edited 30 Sep 2016 16:13
figurine wrote: To make this simple for you I'll explain this in detail. 5.6% chance is 56 in 1000 people, 6.6% chance is 66 in 1000 people. The percentage change between these two rates is worked out as such, ((66 - 56)/56) * 100 = 17.9% or the 18% you are quoting.

Perhaps you need to read my post again. I said 'you didn't want to quote it exactly' because 18% INCREASE sounds worse than 1% CHANCE so please save the maths lesson for someone who needs it.

As I said, if you want to play numbers games go back to google and look at numbers of people who eat meat vs those who don’t and their risk of cancer, not meat diet vs meat diet. But this was never about you eating meat, this was about serving food that increases your risk of cancer is hospitals which you know but seemed to take it personally.

The risk of dying from lung cancer for non smokers is 0.2%, for lifetime smokers it is 9 - 15.9 %. Seeing as Cancer Research isn't ok, here's an academic journal article backing this up http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/164/12/1233.full. That's a 44% to 78.5% increase for smoking, and thats for death as well not just getting cancer, so not directly comparable, but gives you an idea of the order of magnitudes worse smoking is in terms of getting cancer compared to processed meats.

Why are you spending your time trying to convince me that smoking is worse than eating ham? Listen, I realise I keep repeating myself here but you just don’t seem to get it. Let me go back to the beginning and quote what I said in relation to hospitals serving junk food:

“The World Health Organisation classed cured meats, ie HAM as class 1 carcinogens(same risk category as cigarettes)”

I get that you’re desperate to point out that smoking will kill your faster than your bacon sandwich. Have you heard me say otherwise??

There is a logical argument, its that eating processed/red meat isn't that big a risk in terms of getting cancer. If the meals provided are healthier its inevitable patients will go for the other option, getting something from the vending machine, so they could remove all processed meat from the menus but there could be worse unintended consequences. The nearest hospital to my house has a McDonalds opposite it, I can guarantee if they trialed a new healthy menu the McDonalds would see a rise in business. I wouldn't be surprised if at some level a decision has been taken to continue serving processed meat as part of meals within hospitals, and this is in line with WHO guidelines that you keep posting.

I think this is probably your dumbest argument yet. You’re saying the justification for having junk food in hospitals is the fact that people won’t probably want the healthy food and will instead leave hospital and pop across the road for a McDonalds. That is actually what you just said. LOLOLOLOL…I’ve never met a single person in my life who doesn’t like tasty food, make food tasty people will eat it, regardless of what it is.

16. Should I stop eating meat?

Eating meat has known health benefits. Many national health recommendations advise people to limit intake of processed meat and red meat, which are linked to increased risks of death from heart disease, diabetes, and other illnesses.


Sigh….This was never about what YOU eat. You could eat your own mother for all I care. Pretty sure I made a point about serving known carcinogens in hospitals…

“Eating meat has known health benefits. “

Every single food on the planet has health benefits, every single food. ….Fried human feces has lots of healthy gut bacteria!!! Olive Oil is high in omega 3s!!! Milk is high in calcium!! Just ignore all the negatives. Fried turd will probably give you HepB. In order to get your RDA of omega 3 from Olive Oil you’ll need to drink 2000 calories worth of it. Get your calcium from milk and your daily dose of IGF-1.

“Many national health recommendations advise people to limit intake of processed meat and red meat”

‘Meat has benefits, but eat less of it’ lols….If meat has health benefits, why are you told to limit it? Obviously we all know why because the positive health benefits are drastically outnumbered by the negative ones. True be told what they’d really like to say is don’t eat these foods at all but they know that would cause uproar because too many people like bacon sandwiches and one of the biggest industries in the world would be very upset. Just look how long it took to battle the tobacco industry and the meat industry is 1000000 times as big.

I don’t care what you eat, each as much meat, bacon as you want. This was never about what you eat.
figurine
figurine avatar

6014 posts since 14/5/07

1 Oct 2016 08:12
Perhaps you need to read my post again. I said 'you didn't want to quote it exactly' because 18% INCREASE sounds worse than 1% CHANCE so please save the maths lesson for someone who needs it.
You didn't, you said the below. To me it reads as though you've no idea what you're on about, which is pretty much par for the course in this whole thing. It not a 1% chance it's a 1 percentage point change, which is equivalent to an 18% increase, when giving percentages it always useful to provide context
I mentioned a specific report by the World Health Organisation but you probably don't want to quote it exactly because 18% increased risk doesn't quite give you the 1% chance figure you're looking.


I think this is probably your dumbest argument yet. You’re saying the justification for having junk food in hospitals is the fact that people won’t probably want the healthy food and will instead leave hospital and pop across the road for a McDonalds. That is actually what you just said. LOLOLOLOL…I’ve never met a single person in my life who doesn’t like tasty food, make food tasty people will eat it, regardless of what it is.
This is absurd, people don't like change, they like familiarity. People don't normally associate healthy food with tasty food. I get it, you've a healthy diet and your shit doesn't float, but the vast majority of people aren't like that and aren't as concerned with what they eat nutritionally and just want to eat the same shit they've been eating for the past 20 years. You can't just expect the NHS to roll out a new ultra healthy menu and them to have high levels of uptake, especially when they're already facing massive budgetary cuts.

I don't understand how I can quote the same WHO page you constantly link to and you sigh at it and ignore what it says, you can't pick and choose what WHO advice you listen to based on what fits your argument, and this point
True be told what they’d really like to say is don’t eat these foods at all
is just bullshit.

If meat has health benefits, why are you told to limit it?
Again bullshit argument, all food has nutritional benefits, as you've said, sugar has benefits, but you need to limit that, as does fat but you need to limit that etc.
Rirawin
Rirawin avatar

9537 posts since 17/7/05

1 Oct 2016 08:58
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p049b59q?intc_type=singletheme&intc;_location=bbcone&intc;_campaign=thetruthaboutmeat&intc;_linkname=vidclip_meatpreview_contentcard2
bill
bill avatar

4930 posts since 5/8/09

1 Oct 2016 09:29
I'm sighing because you're using their comment to try and suggest bacon is somehow fine and they recommend it because it some health benefits.

If someone is telling you to limit something, it's because it's not good for you. I'm not sure why you would think that's a 'bullshit' argument. When was the last time you heard someone recommend you eat less fruit and vegetables or do less exercise?

You can sum up it up like this 'Bacon causes cancer. It has some health benefits but we think you should eat less of it'. They're not recommending you eat bacon, they're telling people who eat it to eat less of it because they cannot come out and say DO NOT EAT BACON for reasons I already explained.

All throughout this you just keep going off on tangents and putting words in my mouth. "You can't just expect the NHS to roll out a new ultra healthy menu and them to have high levels of uptake, especially when they're already facing massive budgetary cuts."

Did I ever suggest the NHS ought to put out a new 'ultra healthy menu'…?? NO. I just said they shouldn't be serving food that is proven to cause cancer.

bill
bill avatar

4930 posts since 5/8/09

1 Oct 2016 09:38
https://bacontoday.com/top-10-reasons-bacon-is-actually-healthy-for-you/

'Effective Mood Elevator: Bacon makes you feel happy, satisfied, blissful, which greatly reduces stress in our lives and effectively relieves the negative effects of frustration, self-deprivation and sense of lack in one’s existence.'
Superprecise
Superprecise avatar

2212 posts since 16/7/11

posted 1 Oct 2016 11:43, edited 1 Oct 2016 11:43
Fucking hell. You two will never agree because you think differently, fundamentally. In my view you're both right in a way. Bill is boiling it down in a way that is difficult to argue against, but life is more complicated than that. Is air pollution bad for you? Yes, so don't live in a city..?

As far as hozzie food goes, there is surely a balance to be had between what is healthy and what the general public will eat (and what they fancy when they're feeling fed up or rough).

I now fancy a bacon sandwich, thanks guys.
HiFi
HiFi avatar

1046 posts since 17/7/06

1 Oct 2016 12:09
Would you like to see more yoghurt on the menu, Bill?
MuayThaiPimp
MuayThaiPimp avatar

7925 posts since 10/8/11

1 Oct 2016 12:20
Only if it's been 0% Greek scraped from the cheese of Greek Orthodox nuns hole
MLI
MLI avatar

5173 posts since 6/10/09

posted 1 Oct 2016 12:24, edited 1 Oct 2016 12:24
Bacon, eat. Good. Eat bacon.
bill
bill avatar

4930 posts since 5/8/09

1 Oct 2016 18:03
HiFi wrote: Would you like to see more yoghurt on the menu, Bill?

probably not mate no.
padawan
padawan avatar

4467 posts since 27/6/03

1 Oct 2016 18:12
MLI wrote: Bacon, eat. Good. Eat bacon.

agreed. bacon more bacon eat. more
bill
bill avatar

4930 posts since 5/8/09

1 Oct 2016 18:34
Superprecise wrote: Fucking hell. You two will never agree because you think differently, fundamentally. In my view you're both right in a way. Bill is boiling it down in a way that is difficult to argue against, but life is more complicated than that. Is air pollution bad for you? Yes, so don't live in a city..?

They don't serve air pollution in hospitals mate. Though, maybe they should replace the bacon sandwich with an air pollution sandwich. I imagine it would be healthier. "It has some health benefits, it contains Oxygen"

As far as hozzie food goes, there is surely a balance to be had between what is healthy and what the general public will eat.

No doubt there is and if I was sat around the table during that discussion I'd say 'Maybe the first thing we ought to do is to stop serving proven cancer causing foods to our patients?' and then go from there.
gawkrodger
gawkrodger avatar

7640 posts since 4/11/08

posted 3 Oct 2016 11:24, edited 3 Oct 2016 11:24
just finished an MSc and now looking for jobs. Jobsearching is one of the most depressing activities around. To make me more fed up - there are probably 5 or 6 items (clothes wise) I want and then I will be happy with a more or less completed wardrobe. 3 of those are currently on yoox at about 60% off retail at a time when I have no money Evil
Owlix
Owlix avatar

2057 posts since 16/10/08

3 Oct 2016 11:47
gawkrodger wrote: just finished an MSc and now looking for jobs. Jobsearching is one of the most depressing activities around. To make me more fed up - there are probably 5 or 6 items (clothes wise) I want and then I will be happy with a more or less completed wardrobe. 3 of those are currently on yoox at about 60% off retail at a time when I have no money Evil
You've been in this game long enough to know you'll never be happy.
Bennelli
Bennelli avatar

3461 posts since 25/5/11

3 Oct 2016 12:20
Finished my post-grad and in the same boat on both counts