The Mediteranean diet

[bigjim]

Your waste products are mostly cellulose from fruit and veg. The stuff your body cannot process, so maybe meat is not so bad.

But the 'stuff your body cannot process' is called fibre, which reduces the bowel cancer rate instead of increasing it like meat.

I'm always confused about that idea. As meat is completely absorbed by our enzymes there is nothing left to sit around in the intestine/colon. Its a myth about meat rotting in the colon. Its grains/fruit etc that does that, which is why we fart. So how something that disappears in a few hours gives you cancer I have no idea. Now, if we are talking about processed meat and what the industry puts in to it, then maybe there is a case for concern. Much like the pesticides on all that lovely healthy fruit. Don't get me started on sugar in, good for you, cereals, Now I'm off to my back garden to pick the last of my unsprayed Raspberries and Blackberrys for tomorrows porridge.
Oh. Cellulose is fibre which the body cannot digest, so it moves through the system and cleans your pipes. Good innit.

[axel_knutt]

So how something that disappears in a few hours gives you cancer I have no idea.

"So, looking at all the evidence, it seems that haem breakdown is probably responsible for the increased risk of bowel cancer amongst people who eat large amounts of meat."

If it causes cancer it doesn't really matter how.

[bigjim]

So how something that disappears in a few hours gives you cancer I have no idea.

"So, looking at all the evidence, it seems that haem breakdown is probably responsible for the increased risk of bowel cancer amongst people who eat large amounts of meat."

If it causes cancer it doesn't really matter how.

At least you agree with me. From that article-
"But as with so much about diet and cancer, we should stress that they’re just that – theories.

Until we’ve really pinned down the culprit or culprits, the best advice remains to keep red and processed meat to a sensible level in our diets."
Oh and it also stress the effects of processed meat. As I said.
So really. They don't know. I'm sticking with logic.

[661-Pete]

Firstly, although obesity is associated with some medical problems, people who are overweight according to either BMI or modern perceptions are not necessarily unhealthy.

There are some good points in this thread. I knew a bloke (around ten years younger than me, an avid forummer for a while, though maybe not on this forum) who was by his own admission morbidly obese (i.e. BMI>40). He could certainly outpace me on the level and probably up most hills. He had a story to tell, that on one of his check-ups, the doctor told him, "the only reason you're not dead yet, is that you don't smoke". True enough: he could well have retorted "the main reason I'm not dead yet, chum, is because I cycle everywhere" but he said, he held his peace. Makes you think about the way some doctors perceive their patients.

At least my own GP is keen to ask me how the cycling's going (I always confess to him, I don't do enough )...

Judgemental shaming of people who are overweight or obese doesn't help anyone.

Also true. How long has calling someone 'fat' in their presence been a social taboo? I remember that in my early childhood we had the services of a nanny since both my parents were out at work (unusual in those days). She was a young lady in her early 20s and extremely obese. I certainly got taught, even as a toddler, not to point at her and call her 'fat' - so the taboo was ingrained in me from a very early age. But she, on the other hand, was quite open about her predicament. I don't believe some of the stories people tell, about obesity not always being down to overeating, but she said she'd tried every diet in existence, and had undergone various kinds of medical intervention (though bariatric surgery and the like lay far in the future, back then). Nothing had worked for her. I heard all this upon meeting her, some years later when I was old enough to understand, and after she'd left my parents' employ.

I don't know what became of her. If she's still alive she'd be in her 80s now. But I don't hold out much hope .

[axel_knutt]

At least you agree with me.

So what is it that I agree with? The science says that red meat increases your risk of cancer, and you scoff at the idea for apparently no reason and on no evidence.

the best advice remains to keep red and processed meat to a sensible level in our diets

So are you accepting their definition of a sensible level, or are you inventing one of your own?

They don't know.

They know it causes cancer, they don't yet know exactly how.

I'm sticking with logic.

What logic?

[bigjim]

I will leave you to your opinions and I will happily stick with mine. Good luck.

[axel_knutt]

Bad Thoughts is a short manual on how to debate rationally by Jamie Whyte, who used to lecture in philosophy at Cambridge. This passage is apt, I think:

"Another test for the hopeless lack of evidence is what might be called moral positioning. Does the opinion's defender seem a little precious on the topic? Perhaps it hasn't yet come to a fatwa, but he may in more subtle ways suggest that those who wish to keep friends in polite society ought to back off. Hurt feelings are on the cards if the matter is pushed too far.

Such sentiments are rarely roused in someone who can defend his position with sound argument and evidence. Tell someone his feet don't look like a size nine and he will gladly prove you wrong by displaying an old shoe box or setting his feet against someone's whose you accept are a nine. It is only when someone cannot defend his opinion, and is not interested in believing the truth, that he will attempt to stifle discussion with good manners. Those who take religion, politics and sex seriously do not adhere to the general prohibition on discussing these topics. And they don't take offence when they are shown to be wrong."

[Smudgerii]

Bad Thoughts is a short manual on how to debate rationally by Jamie Whyte, who used to lecture in philosophy at Cambridge. This passage is apt, I think:

"Another test for the hopeless lack of evidence is what might be called moral positioning. Does the opinion's defender seem a little precious on the topic? Perhaps it hasn't yet come to a fatwa, but he may in more subtle ways suggest that those who wish to keep friends in polite society ought to back off. Hurt feelings are on the cards if the matter is pushed too far.

Such sentiments are rarely roused in someone who can defend his position with sound argument and evidence. Tell someone his feet don't look like a size nine and he will gladly prove you wrong by displaying an old shoe box or setting his feet against someone's whose you accept are a nine. It is only when someone cannot defend his opinion, and is not interested in believing the truth, that he will attempt to stifle discussion with good manners. Those who take religion, politics and sex seriously do not adhere to the general prohibition on discussing these topics. And they don't take offence when they are shown to be wrong."

Not read all of this thread, but found the quote interesting...

I've read it several times and have come to a conclusion. It is just his opinion, no actual evidence is given, he should follow his own theory and qualify his statement.

[661-Pete]

Meanwhile....

Here's an article presenting a somewhat different angle: highlighting the cons of 'healthy eating'.

I suppose a reasonable balance between good and bad is what's called for. If I wanted to eat meat, I'd eat meat, just not every day and every meal. As it happens I stick with fish - all kinds of fish and seafood, some less 'healthy' than others. Again, just not every day and every meal.

Scrolling down the article, my eyes couldn't help lighting on a piccy of a plate of bourbons. Aaaaaaaarrrrrrrggggghhhhhh! I haven't bought Bourbons in years. I remember the bad old days when I could easily wolf down a whole packet in an hour or two. The odd bourbon may have passed my lips now and again, since those bad old days, if offered to me at someone else's house: but that's all. Don't tempt me please, Grauniad!!!

You see the problem some folks have?

[meic]

highlighting the cons of 'healthy eating'.

Except it isnt a healthy diet (or even what is conventionally considered one), it is some people pushing yet another unhealthy, unbalanced fad diet.

[661-Pete]

Except it isnt a healthy diet (or even what is conventionally considered one), it is some people pushing yet another unhealthy, unbalanced fad diet.

...which is why I put the words in quotes.

Nevertheless, what is illustrated could well be part of a healthy diet.

[axel_knutt]

Bad Thoughts is a short manual on how to debate rationally by Jamie Whyte, who used to lecture in philosophy at Cambridge. This passage is apt, I think:

"Another test for the hopeless lack of evidence is what might be called moral positioning. Does the opinion's defender seem a little precious on the topic? Perhaps it hasn't yet come to a fatwa, but he may in more subtle ways suggest that those who wish to keep friends in polite society ought to back off. Hurt feelings are on the cards if the matter is pushed too far.

Such sentiments are rarely roused in someone who can defend his position with sound argument and evidence. Tell someone his feet don't look like a size nine and he will gladly prove you wrong by displaying an old shoe box or setting his feet against someone's whose you accept are a nine. It is only when someone cannot defend his opinion, and is not interested in believing the truth, that he will attempt to stifle discussion with good manners. Those who take religion, politics and sex seriously do not adhere to the general prohibition on discussing these topics. And they don't take offence when they are shown to be wrong."

Not read all of this thread, but found the quote interesting...

I've read it several times and have come to a conclusion. It is just his opinion, no actual evidence is given, he should follow his own theory and qualify his statement.

I think it's a matter of common experience that one of the primary causes of people getting tetchy is being backed into a corner and running out of ways to defend their opinion, the religious are notorious for it. If people are embarrassed by their inability to reason rationally they lash out and accuse their opponent of being offensive in an attempt to shut them up. It's highly effective, because either people drop it because they don't want to appear rude, or at the very least the debate gets side tracked onto one about manners whilst the issue in hand gets forgotten.

[borisface]

There is surely some difference between a Mediterranean diet and a Mediterranean lifestyle - the latter usually doesn't generally include, amongst other things, a three hour commute on hideous trains/gridlocked roads to some putrid office. It includes a long nap in the afternoon and time spent in a community where people know each other. Also Mediterranean food eaten in the Med tastes better because it is grown locally and not shipped halfway around Europe.

[Sweep]

Bad Thoughts is a short manual on how to debate rationally by Jamie Whyte, who used to lecture in philosophy at Cambridge. This passage is apt, I think:

"Another test for the hopeless lack of evidence is what might be called moral positioning. Does the opinion's defender seem a little precious on the topic? Perhaps it hasn't yet come to a fatwa, but he may in more subtle ways suggest that those who wish to keep friends in polite society ought to back off. Hurt feelings are on the cards if the matter is pushed too far.

Such sentiments are rarely roused in someone who can defend his position with sound argument and evidence. Tell someone his feet don't look like a size nine and he will gladly prove you wrong by displaying an old shoe box or setting his feet against someone's whose you accept are a nine. It is only when someone cannot defend his opinion, and is not interested in believing the truth, that he will attempt to stifle discussion with good manners. Those who take religion, politics and sex seriously do not adhere to the general prohibition on discussing these topics. And they don't take offence when they are shown to be wrong."

Thanks for that post axel. Not a great deal to do with cycling of course but very true and very welcome. The "moral positioning" of which you speak is very common in these days of the perpetually offended. Seems to have been borrowed from old religion and adopted by sections of the supposedly liberal politically correct. And I say that as a pretty lefty liberal politically correct peddler. Thanks again

[axel_knutt]

Bad Thoughts is a short manual on how to debate rationally by Jamie Whyte, who used to lecture in philosophy at Cambridge. This passage is apt, I think:

"Another test for the hopeless lack of evidence is what might be called moral positioning. Does the opinion's defender seem a little precious on the topic? Perhaps it hasn't yet come to a fatwa, but he may in more subtle ways suggest that those who wish to keep friends in polite society ought to back off. Hurt feelings are on the cards if the matter is pushed too far.

Such sentiments are rarely roused in someone who can defend his position with sound argument and evidence. Tell someone his feet don't look like a size nine and he will gladly prove you wrong by displaying an old shoe box or setting his feet against someone's whose you accept are a nine. It is only when someone cannot defend his opinion, and is not interested in believing the truth, that he will attempt to stifle discussion with good manners. Those who take religion, politics and sex seriously do not adhere to the general prohibition on discussing these topics. And they don't take offence when they are shown to be wrong."

Thanks for that post axel. Not a great deal to do with cycling of course but very true and very welcome. The "moral positioning" of which you speak is very common in these days of the perpetually offended. Seems to have been borrowed from old religion and adopted by sections of the supposedly liberal politically correct. And I say that as a pretty lefty liberal politically correct peddler. Thanks again

If you like the quote, I can thoroughly recommend the book, it's quite short, and very readable, so you can do it cover to cover in one sitting.