5% chance of risk if one eats no bacon. 5.9% if you eat two strips every single day of your life. Is .9% even statistically significant?
That's not how it works. 5% difference is not the threshold—5% likelihood that there is zero difference between the groups (i.e. that the null hypothesis is true) is the threshold. Effect size is not the same as statistical significance.
This is observational data. There is no proof anywhere that bacon increases your risk for anything
In fact there’s just as much hard evidence that bacon will make you go to heaven as there is that bacon will increase your risk of cancer.
This is also true. None of these data are experimental, as far as I know, so technically you cannot claim causation.
Studies don't have to be experimental to show causation, it just helps. Muh observational studies is more-or-less a cope for cognitive dissonance. That said the evidence for meat causing cancer is pretty weak tbh
This is observational data. There is no proof anywhere that bacon increases your risk for anything
In fact there’s just as much hard evidence that bacon will make you go to heaven as there is that bacon will increase your risk of cancer.
It's not. This shit is statistical noise, nothing more. Even the percentages presented are lies, they describe relative risk. So, if 2 out of a 1000 people get dick cheese cancer or whatever, increasing that by 4% would... still mean 2 people get dick cheese cancer. The correlation we've seen with smoking was on the order of many multiples, hundreds of percent at least.
This. And since 5% is the baseline that means it's basically zero, and going from 0 to 1 is an increase of infinity X, meaning if you eat bacon even once you're guaranteed to die from colorectal cancer
Isn’t this just an example of correlation not being causation? For all we know, people who eat 8 strips a day are the people who also happen to eat 3500+ calories a day in processed foods and live a completely sedentary life
Exactly
There’s no way to know what factors are confounding even. Because it’s observational data most likely based on a questionnaire. Hysterical thread
Is this chart implying that 1 in 20 people has ass cancer? this sounds like pure horseshit. I know hundreds of people personally and I'm not aware of a single case
Ass cancer is one of those cancers like prostate cancer where everyone has it, it's just a matter of "how far along is it" and "how fast is it growing." Most people die of something else long before it claims them.
>base risk: 0.00001% >multiple by 9.5%
Wow! It's fricking nothing! Reminder that there are daily smokers that live to 90 without issue. All this for something that will only hit you when you're in your 70s/80s/90s.
It is not, every study pointing to that is rubbish, lmao. The very notion that meat might be carcinogenic is moronic. Plants, on the other hand, certainly are.
Generally, the opposite of what vegetards preach is usually true
It's pumped full of nitrites to cure it. Then it's smoked. The nitrites are the main cancer risk. Also "nitrite free" bacon is injected with celery juice which is naturally high in nitrites.
you are moronic, israeli, or both. Red or processed meat have nothing to do with colorectal cancer according to the best evidence >Most importantly for the IARC report, two major dietary intervention studies that should have contributed to the assessment of the claimed relationship of red meat and cancer were not considered. The first was a study of colon polyps, the precancerous growths that greatly increase the likelihood of developing colon cancer. Almost 1,900 subjects with a recent history of having a polyp removed were divided into a control group that ate their usual diet and a group following a diet characterized by significant decreases in total fat, red, and processed meat along with increases in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes (Schatzkin et al., 2000). Participants were followed for 3 years and at the end of that time, the recurrence of colon polyps was identical in both diet groups. It is possible that the precancerous stage may not have been the proper time for dietary intervention. The Women’s Health Initiative, therefore, studied a low-fat diet, achieved in large part by reducing red- and processed-meat consumption, among almost 49,000 women (Beresford et al., 2006); about 30,000 followed their normal diets and almost 20,000 were assigned to low-fat diets. After 9 years, the rate of colon cancer was almost identical in the low-fat and control-diet groups. These studies strongly suggest that the observational studies are not supported by dietary intervention studies at either the precancerous or malignant tumor stages of colon cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7015455/
>you are moronic, israeli, or both. Red or processed meat have nothing to do with colorectal cancer >israeli >https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7015455/
That too written by one ~~*David M Klurfeld*~~. They want us all sick and dead alright but your ire is misplaced, friend
>Bacon is unprocessed
the frick, are you moronic? it doesn't come off the pig cured and loaded with nitrites and nitrates, that is processing. it's also carcinogenic.
I would wager that if there is some connection to cancer, it's due to the preservatives. You can get uncured bacon with pork and salt as the only ingredients.
these are always so funny because they make no sense if you look at them.
5% chance of risk if one eats no bacon. 5.9% if you eat two strips every single day of your life. Is .9% even statistically significant?
generally 5% is regarded as the threshold for statistical significance
not in the days of p-hacking
That's not how it works. 5% difference is not the threshold—5% likelihood that there is zero difference between the groups (i.e. that the null hypothesis is true) is the threshold. Effect size is not the same as statistical significance.
This is also true. None of these data are experimental, as far as I know, so technically you cannot claim causation.
Studies don't have to be experimental to show causation, it just helps. Muh observational studies is more-or-less a cope for cognitive dissonance. That said the evidence for meat causing cancer is pretty weak tbh
>T. Brainlet
and how do they determine the risk?
This is observational data. There is no proof anywhere that bacon increases your risk for anything
In fact there’s just as much hard evidence that bacon will make you go to heaven as there is that bacon will increase your risk of cancer.
moron.
>.
It's not. This shit is statistical noise, nothing more. Even the percentages presented are lies, they describe relative risk. So, if 2 out of a 1000 people get dick cheese cancer or whatever, increasing that by 4% would... still mean 2 people get dick cheese cancer. The correlation we've seen with smoking was on the order of many multiples, hundreds of percent at least.
This is worthless and means nothing
I will never stop eating bacon.
Mind you, I only eat a pack (8 strips) once or twice a year
These are the same people telling others to stop eating processed goyslop. Peak cognitive dissonance
Who eats 10 strips of bacon a day?
ketoschizos
another 1PBTID vegan thread
Just make your own.
>baseline risk 5%
Misleading graph. Eating bacon daily increases your risk by 1% . Eating xbox huge amounts by 4%. Big woop
can you read?
going from 5% to 6% is a 20% increase already
This. And since 5% is the baseline that means it's basically zero, and going from 0 to 1 is an increase of infinity X, meaning if you eat bacon even once you're guaranteed to die from colorectal cancer
Isn’t this just an example of correlation not being causation? For all we know, people who eat 8 strips a day are the people who also happen to eat 3500+ calories a day in processed foods and live a completely sedentary life
Exactly
There’s no way to know what factors are confounding even. Because it’s observational data most likely based on a questionnaire. Hysterical thread
They didn't show the full graph
If you eat 16 strips you have -46 percent chance of getting colosomething cancer
Is this chart implying that 1 in 20 people has ass cancer? this sounds like pure horseshit. I know hundreds of people personally and I'm not aware of a single case
Ass cancer is one of those cancers like prostate cancer where everyone has it, it's just a matter of "how far along is it" and "how fast is it growing." Most people die of something else long before it claims them.
>base risk: 0.00001%
>multiple by 9.5%
Wow! It's fricking nothing! Reminder that there are daily smokers that live to 90 without issue. All this for something that will only hit you when you're in your 70s/80s/90s.
>Source: World Health Organization
Yeah, nice try but I'm not eating the bugs
>he doesn't want the chitchin fiber gains
Sad.
World health organization? You mean crisco?
wtf is causing cancer in bacon. should just be meat and salt
Meat is carcinogenic
It is not, every study pointing to that is rubbish, lmao. The very notion that meat might be carcinogenic is moronic. Plants, on the other hand, certainly are.
Generally, the opposite of what vegetards preach is usually true
who the hell is eating 10 strips of bacon a day? Sounds like heartburn hell.
>Source: WHO
Could have just put Source: israelites
Same thing
>bacon is processed meat
Its just pork belly meat cut thinly
It's salted and smoked, smoking means more carcinogens
It's pumped full of nitrites to cure it. Then it's smoked. The nitrites are the main cancer risk. Also "nitrite free" bacon is injected with celery juice which is naturally high in nitrites.
Stop eating processed foods altogether, it's bad for you.
Normal meat is great for you though.
So only a 6% increased risk from eating 2 strips a day? That's really not that bad, and that's a lot of bacon consumption.
>take apple
>Chop it in half
>Hey bro, that processed food willkill you
It's true though, modern apples are just sugar and fibers, and both are bad for you.
>Modern apples
I have vintage apples
100% wrong
100% correct
you are moronic, israeli, or both. Red or processed meat have nothing to do with colorectal cancer according to the best evidence
>Most importantly for the IARC report, two major dietary intervention studies that should have contributed to the assessment of the claimed relationship of red meat and cancer were not considered. The first was a study of colon polyps, the precancerous growths that greatly increase the likelihood of developing colon cancer. Almost 1,900 subjects with a recent history of having a polyp removed were divided into a control group that ate their usual diet and a group following a diet characterized by significant decreases in total fat, red, and processed meat along with increases in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes (Schatzkin et al., 2000). Participants were followed for 3 years and at the end of that time, the recurrence of colon polyps was identical in both diet groups. It is possible that the precancerous stage may not have been the proper time for dietary intervention. The Women’s Health Initiative, therefore, studied a low-fat diet, achieved in large part by reducing red- and processed-meat consumption, among almost 49,000 women (Beresford et al., 2006); about 30,000 followed their normal diets and almost 20,000 were assigned to low-fat diets. After 9 years, the rate of colon cancer was almost identical in the low-fat and control-diet groups. These studies strongly suggest that the observational studies are not supported by dietary intervention studies at either the precancerous or malignant tumor stages of colon cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7015455/
>you are moronic, israeli, or both. Red or processed meat have nothing to do with colorectal cancer
>israeli
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7015455/
That too written by one ~~*David M Klurfeld*~~. They want us all sick and dead alright but your ire is misplaced, friend
Dont care """"scientists"""" are gays.
Bacon is unprocessed
It's literally just a cut of meat around the midsection of piglies
Also, do you have any idea how extensive of a study would have to be done to actually claim this is a fact?
>Bacon is unprocessed
the frick, are you moronic? it doesn't come off the pig cured and loaded with nitrites and nitrates, that is processing. it's also carcinogenic.
>Baseline risk 5%
Really, 5% of people on planet earth get colon cancer?
Could be.. 1 in 3 nonviolent deaths will die of cancer.
How do we avoid cancer?
fasting, baking soda, iodine C B3, exercise
EDTA if the cancer is caused by mercury, aluminum, lead, etc
I think it's 5% of overall cancer cases
homies who cook on teflon be like
>it's a linear increase
sus
I would wager that if there is some connection to cancer, it's due to the preservatives. You can get uncured bacon with pork and salt as the only ingredients.
probably not causal
>fat people more likely to eat bacon every day
>fat people get cancer because they're fat
>bacon causes cancer
Bacon is literally just pork, salt and nitrates. Idk if americans put something else in there tho.
i don't even have a "colorectal" in my body so how is it gonna get cancer, genious
No
so what you're saying is that if I'm going to co some bacon it better be in bulk since the cancer risk % has diminishing returns
i hear if you eat enough bacon and smoke cigarettes youll go back in time