An outbreak of listeria has U.S. health officials advising people who are pregnant, elderly or have compromised immune systems to avoid eating sliced deli meat.
Why are you talking about things that aren’t meat and aren’t processed in the way we’re talking about meat being processed? We are specifically discussing meat. Not meal, potatoes or milk.
Okay, well if you want to pretend that processed food is just as healthy as fresh food, I’m not going to convince you otherwise.
You said food. I responded with food.
As far as meat, you said deli meat due to how processed it was with the salts. The source you quoted said meat, full stop. So deli meat is the same as normal meat according to your source. Level of processing doesn’t matter
You do know that the source didn’t compare the amount of salt in fresh vs. processed meat, right? Believe it or not, it’s far, far higher in the latter.
But do show me the data showing that 56g of fresh turkey has 500 mg of salt.
I showed you that processed turkey deli meat has 500 mg of salt per serving. Is that more or less than fresh turkey meat? Is more salt more or less unhealthy for you?
Because I think you know the answers to those questions.
Healthy vs unhealthy, I’m not a doctor. Salt certainly isn’t a carcinogen. Your source and original view was using that as a buzz word. Their sources for making the claim don’t say that though.
Re: 2 comments, you wouldn’t respond to edits either, so I thought separate threads of separate thoughs would be easier for you. The second comments have arguably stronger and better views anyway since they address the foundation of your arguments instead of how you are trying to shift things. Watching how you respond, or which you respond to is telling
EDIT IN CASE YOU MISS IT: for example, I mentioned potatoes. Instead of addressing anything I said, you called me out about talking about non meat, while you had said food. Was this a misunderstanding on my part? Your part?
I stopped at your second sentence. You’re condemning me for my sources and then making declarations based on nothing as if they were fact.
For processed meat, Cantonese-style salted fish and foods preserved by salting, the evidence shows that, in general, the more people consume, the higher the risk of some cancers.
Besides cardiovascular disease, a high salt intake causes other adverse health effects, i.e., gastric and some other cancers, obesity (risk factor for many cancer sites), Meniere’s disease, worsening of renal disease, triggering an asthma attack, osteoporosis, exacerbation of fluid retention, renal calculi, etc. Diets containing high amounts of food preserved by salting and pickling are associated with an increased risk of cancers of the stomach, nose and throat. Because gastric cancer is still the most common cancer in some countries (especially in Japan), its prevention is one of the most important aspects of cancer control strategy. Observations among Japanese immigrants in the U.S.A. and Brazil based on the geographic differences, the trend in cancer incidence with time, and change in the incidence patterns indicate that gastric cancer is closely associated with dietary factors such as the intake of salt and salted food.
My arguments have been good faith, have directly addressed not only your rebuttals but also your initial assertion.
I don’t think you’ve read through your links too well. (There will be some edits since I’m on my phone and can’t compose this at once)
Number 1:
A global recommendation about consumption of Cantonese-style salted fish has not been made, as this type of fish is consumed only in specific parts of the world. Nevertheless, the Panel advises that it’s best not to consume Cantonese-style salted fish.
A global recommendation about consumption of foods preserved by salting has not been made as these types of food are mostly consumed only in Asia. Nevertheless, the Panel advises that it’s best not to consume foods preserved by salting.
There is also other evidence on preservation and processing of foods that is limited (either in amount or by methodological flaws), but is suggestive of an increased risk of some cancers. Further research is required, and the Panel has not used this evidence to make recommendations.
Numba 2, if you follow their cancer link, it leads to this:
Causes of stomach cancer
Some factors that can increase your risk of stomach cancer include:
smoking tobacco
being over 60
infection with the bacteria Helicobacter pylori
a diet high in smoked, pickled and salted foods and low in fresh fruit and vegetables
…
Notice how the ‘low fruits and veggies’ is left out of the initial claim
Your last source is the most interesting and compelling and should have been your first go-to since it’s the strongest, but even they say
A high-salt intake strips the lining of the stomach and may make infection with H. pylori more likely or may exacerbate the infection. Salting, pickling and smoking are traditionally popular ways of preparing food in Japan and some parts of Asia. In addition to salt intake, cigarette smoking and low consumption of fruit and vegetables increase the risk of stomach cancer. However, it is not known whether it is specifically the salt in these foods or a combination of salt and other chemicals that can cause cancer.
Hell, on top of that, your argument of carcinogens is moot with the salts, since according to YOUR OWN SOURCE, meat itself is the carcinogen. Not the preservation of the meat.
Fuck dude, I’m half cocked today and following logic better than you.
Why are you talking about things that aren’t meat and aren’t processed in the way we’re talking about meat being processed? We are specifically discussing meat. Not meal, potatoes or milk.
You said food. I responded with food.
As far as meat, you said deli meat due to how processed it was with the salts. The source you quoted said meat, full stop. So deli meat is the same as normal meat according to your source. Level of processing doesn’t matter
You do know that the source didn’t compare the amount of salt in fresh vs. processed meat, right? Believe it or not, it’s far, far higher in the latter.
But do show me the data showing that 56g of fresh turkey has 500 mg of salt.
You said “thing is bad”.
I said “why is it bad and why differentiate between the same things”?
You said “cause this study”.
Study said “bigger thing is bad , not because of what flying squid says”.
Flying squid thinks this proves his point and is happy arguing details while his original source doesn’t back up his claim
This is where we are
I showed you that processed turkey deli meat has 500 mg of salt per serving. Is that more or less than fresh turkey meat? Is more salt more or less unhealthy for you?
Because I think you know the answers to those questions.
Healthy vs unhealthy, I’m not a doctor. Salt certainly isn’t a carcinogen. Your source and original view was using that as a buzz word. Their sources for making the claim don’t say that though.
Re: 2 comments, you wouldn’t respond to edits either, so I thought separate threads of separate thoughs would be easier for you. The second comments have arguably stronger and better views anyway since they address the foundation of your arguments instead of how you are trying to shift things. Watching how you respond, or which you respond to is telling
EDIT IN CASE YOU MISS IT: for example, I mentioned potatoes. Instead of addressing anything I said, you called me out about talking about non meat, while you had said food. Was this a misunderstanding on my part? Your part?
I stopped at your second sentence. You’re condemning me for my sources and then making declarations based on nothing as if they were fact.
https://www.wcrf.org/diet-activity-and-cancer/risk-factors/preservation-and-processing-of-foods-and-cancer-risk/
https://www.cancer.org.au/cancer-information/causes-and-prevention/diet-and-exercise/food-and-nutrition/salt-and-sugar
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20649083/
You are not here in good faith and, furthermore, you’ve been very rude. So I think we’re done.
My arguments have been good faith, have directly addressed not only your rebuttals but also your initial assertion.
I don’t think you’ve read through your links too well. (There will be some edits since I’m on my phone and can’t compose this at once)
Number 1:
Numba 2, if you follow their cancer link, it leads to this:
Notice how the ‘low fruits and veggies’ is left out of the initial claim
Your last source is the most interesting and compelling and should have been your first go-to since it’s the strongest, but even they say
Hell, on top of that, your argument of carcinogens is moot with the salts, since according to YOUR OWN SOURCE, meat itself is the carcinogen. Not the preservation of the meat.
Fuck dude, I’m half cocked today and following logic better than you.
I am not going to respond to two different comments you make to me per reply and if you keep doing it, I will just stop responding entirely.