Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

Eating red and processed meat

Luxion
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 8:59:55 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
This article downplays the increased cancer risk from eating red meat too much and displays a general misunderstanding of statistics and food.

1. keeping the title vague by using "but not by that much" makes for an unscientific start

2. using quotes for ""probably" carcinogenic" is unforgivable in the way it tries to discredit a conclusion from a study, where the scientists have already taken the effort of not pushing the amount of stock that should be put into the conclusion

3. "Yes, there is a link between consuming these foods and cancer, but the risk is incredibly small " much smaller than smoking cigarettes or being exposed to other known carcinogens." is like saying a hand grenade has been linked to death but not as much as atomic bombs

4. "The report also doesn't identify if there is a safe level of meat to eat." finally an objective piece of information, but where is the insight that explains to me why this is a good or bad thing?

5. "The IARC concludes that if a person eats a 50-gram portion of processed meat per day, he or she increases the risk of getting colorectal cancer by 18 percent." why isn't the 50- gram portion emphasized here? 50-grams is a ludicrously small daily amount to the average consumer. Furthermore, all of the sudden a percentage is used (18%) whereas two sentences earlier is was sufficient to use "significantly increase their risk". How is the reader supposed to compare this information?

6. "In other words, smoking is responsible for a fifth of all cancers in the UK, while only 3 percent of cases are caused by red and processed meat." this interpretation of the data puts way too much credence in a statistical estimation based on incomplete data sets

7. "Absolute amounts for both the top and the bottom groups of meat-eaters " like how many red or processed meats they would eat a day " weren't part of these estimates." a very good side note based on which the preceding paragraph should not be in the article

8. "There are much more effective ways to reduce your risk of colorectal cancer." a factual statement based on the opinion of Buyers. The statement should have been backed up by a study

9. "not entirely cut out" please stop trying to desperately defend your own eating habits

10. "However, red meat is a good source of iron, so there are still some reasons to keep these foods on your dinner plate." Vegetables are just as good a source of iron, so there is absolutely no reason to keep meat on your dinner plate.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:58:25 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 8:59:55 AM, Luxion wrote:
This article downplays the increased cancer risk from eating red meat too much and displays a general misunderstanding of statistics and food.

1. keeping the title vague by using "but not by that much" makes for an unscientific start

2. using quotes for ""probably" carcinogenic" is unforgivable in the way it tries to discredit a conclusion from a study, where the scientists have already taken the effort of not pushing the amount of stock that should be put into the conclusion

3. "Yes, there is a link between consuming these foods and cancer, but the risk is incredibly small " much smaller than smoking cigarettes or being exposed to other known carcinogens." is like saying a hand grenade has been linked to death but not as much as atomic bombs

4. "The report also doesn't identify if there is a safe level of meat to eat." finally an objective piece of information, but where is the insight that explains to me why this is a good or bad thing?

5. "The IARC concludes that if a person eats a 50-gram portion of processed meat per day, he or she increases the risk of getting colorectal cancer by 18 percent." why isn't the 50- gram portion emphasized here? 50-grams is a ludicrously small daily amount to the average consumer. Furthermore, all of the sudden a percentage is used (18%) whereas two sentences earlier is was sufficient to use "significantly increase their risk". How is the reader supposed to compare this information?

6. "In other words, smoking is responsible for a fifth of all cancers in the UK, while only 3 percent of cases are caused by red and processed meat." this interpretation of the data puts way too much credence in a statistical estimation based on incomplete data sets

7. "Absolute amounts for both the top and the bottom groups of meat-eaters " like how many red or processed meats they would eat a day " weren't part of these estimates." a very good side note based on which the preceding paragraph should not be in the article

8. "There are much more effective ways to reduce your risk of colorectal cancer." a factual statement based on the opinion of Buyers. The statement should have been backed up by a study

9. "not entirely cut out" please stop trying to desperately defend your own eating habits

10. "However, red meat is a good source of iron, so there are still some reasons to keep these foods on your dinner plate." Vegetables are just as good a source of iron, so there is absolutely no reason to keep meat on your dinner plate.

What article.
Meh!