The cancer arm of the World Health Organization has some serious concerns about some of Americans’ favorite foods. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies processed meat as a carcinogen, something that causes cancer. And it classifies red meat as a probable carcinogen, something that probably causes cancer.

Processed meat includes hot dogs, ham, bacon, sausage, and some deli meats. It refers to meat that has been treated in some way to preserve or flavor it. Processes include salting, curing, fermenting, and smoking. Red meat includes beef, pork, lamb, and goat.

Twenty-two experts from 10 countries reviewed more than 800 studies to reach their conclusions. They found that eating 50 grams of processed meat every day increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. That’s the equivalent of about 4 strips of bacon or 1 hot dog. For red meat, there was evidence of increased risk of colorectal, pancreatic, and prostate cancer.

Overall, the lifetime risk of someone developing colon cancer is 5%. To put the numbers into perspective, the increased risk from eating the amount of processed meat in the study would raise average lifetime risk to almost 6%.

----------------------------

Read the study. The average raises almost 1 percent. This was copied straight from https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/hot-dogs-hamburgers-bacon.html.

And what exactly does veganism have to do with alcohol consumption? The vast majority of alcohol is vegan friendly.

Vegans have nothing to gain from decreased alcohol consumption.


----
Also Dr.Greger makes no claims. He simply reads out the research from a world wide scope of researchers, none of which are vegan.

And cherry picking what exactly? He's presented literally 10s of thousands of research papers all from unrelated researchers. And it's not like he's picking out some fringe groups, he's quoting the biggest health organisations in the world.

While it's easy to call him a cherry picker, I challenge anyone to find any credible evidence of cherry picking. I'm yet to hear back from someone over the last 6 years.

And I also challenge you to find an article that isn't funded or tied to the egg/milk/beef/fish industry which claims that eating x animal product is healthy.

Even easier, find an industry funded study which shows the detrimental effects of their own product. You won't, because they are inherently biased - an industry would never publish something that would hurt their bottom line. And no he doesn't ignore or cherry pick around industry funded studies, he exposes their tricks and data manipulation as well. That's not cherry picking, that's proper analysis.

And actually thanks to the freedom of information act, we can see how many studies they hide from us (when they don't like the results), and only publish the ones that suit their revenue centered agenda.

And this is why he's labelled a cherry picker - revenue loss. Broccoli ain't making anyone rich.

Let me put it into perspective:

He did a few video on how those WIFI sensitivity diseases are fake, and the comments are insane - because it's hurting people's income. And this is a pretty niche market, so you can imagine what a billion dollar industry would attempt to do to discredit him. Of course, they never address the research, just him.

It's pretty clear the governments can't get their shit together, so it is up to us as individuals to drive the change.

If you want to do your part to combat climate change, then any reduction in products that come from animal farming is going to decrease your carbon (and methane) foot print.

e.g. Go for the bean burrito with guac or tahani dressing, instead of a beef and cheese burrito.

Go for the coconut/soy/almond ice cream instead.

Watch the COWSPIRACY documentary on Netflix, and look up Dr. Richard Oppenlander speaking to the EU parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet

It's pretty clear the governments can't get their shit together, so it is up to us as individuals to drive the change.

If you want to do your part to combat climate change, then any reduction in products that come from animal farming is going to decrease your carbon (and methane) foot print.

e.g. Go for the bean burrito with guac or tahani dressing, instead of a beef and cheese burrito.

Go for the coconut/soy/almond ice cream instead.

Watch the COWSPIRACY documentary on Netflix, and look up Dr. Richard Oppenlander speaking to the EU parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet

At a life expectancy of 44 heart-disease for the Masaai is the least of their concerns.... but the it's also a myth that they have perfect health on beef https://nutritionstudies.org/masai-and-inuit-high-protein-diets-a-closer-look/

Traditional Okinawan's eat very little fish - less than 4% of their calories is from animal products.
https://www.superfoodly.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/pie-chart.png

These are the people who we now see living to well over 100 years old. Where as modern Okinawa's have a far worse life expectancy now that they have more animal foods in their diet.

Both of these cultures are further examples of how fewer animal foods in the diet always has better health outcomes.

And thanks to the vegan 7th Day Adventists in Loma Linda, we know that zero animal products has the best health outcomes.

This is a very strong indication that animal products are obsolete in the human diet.

No sir....we KNOW vegans are lying.
What I can't understand is why.
There's plenty of evidence that plant based (not vegetarian or vegan) diets are the healthiest choice.
There's plenty of evidence that vegan diets are almost always lacking in nutrition....they can be healthy but it's a full time and expensive proposition.
You are wrong, studies on cultures that eat large amounts of fish show it's good, and most weren't funded by the fishing industries. The Massai are pretty healthy too, and they eat and drink beef, blood, and milk almost exclusively. They have been studied extensively. You seem to always feel compelled to exaggerate enough to be wrong.

I grew up in Amish country in PA and I know for a fact that all of those pesticides that the Amish aren't using (they use them) ended up polluting the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. General manure runoff is a problem as well.

Regardless, of organic or not - many problems crop up out here in the West in the form of water consumption. Obviously, we don't have much water to spare - but CA is always taking more and more water to grow crops that require enormous amounts of water, like avocados. One avocado takes about 18.5 gallons of water to grow - that said, an average american shower costs about as much a day if it's 8 minutes long (17.5); which I also see as a problem. Not to mention that CA also produces a shit ton of America's beef (#4). 80% of all of CA (which is like a country) water use is agricultural. I just think that CA (it might all burn to the ground anyway) needs to stop supporting the grocery needs of america (spread it out!) and stop wasting so much water that a lot of other states in the west need. It's a whole other Chinatown film that should be created to represent what is going on.

I'm not suggesting you do it for your own benefit, but rather to see if the methodology in the study works, as I figured this would be much more productive than splitting hairs about the study details :-)

I think you may have also misunderstood the methodology, as it doesn't require non-exercise, it just says it doesn't play an important part of the weight loss. If you were to try this for a few weeks, you could still exercise, and you should still see your results mirror those of the study.

There's also nothing restrictive about it, you can eat any cuisine you want, it's just a matter of replacing a couple of ingredients to minimize the processed ingredients and animal foods.

E.g. beef burrito turns into a bean burrito. All the flavours are still there :-)

If you love marine animals be vegan. Animal agriculture is the #1 most destructive force on the planet.....

You aren't just killing a chicken when you eat them, the chain of consequences has far more reach which is why the UN is advising people to stop eating animals. We are effectively replacing the environment's massive biodiversity with 3 types of farm animals. We'll be lucky to make it to the 22nd century:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet

Wrap your lips around a vegan "beef" patty. They are winning awards these days, so no excuses :-)

They should do this test again and replace boiled beef with chicken fried steak bits under gravy.

It's like those cows had a beef with her or something.

So, some silly math. The cost of a side of beef in Canada is approximately $1125:

A side of beef (½ beef) is sold by the hanging weight. Hanging weight is the weight of the animal before it is trimmed and cut. The approximate hanging weight of a side is 300 lbs. The cost is $4.75/lb cut and wrapped. Therefore the approximate cost of a side of beef is $1125. On a 300 lb side, you will take home approximately 200 pounds of actual meat. A side of beef is cut to your specifications.

The roast was 60 pounds which is 30% of 200 pounds.

So $1125 * 30% = $337.50 CDN

or

$256.74 US


That is one roast you do not want to fuck up in the oven.

Oops,I must have missed the start of the video somehow lol.

But if that was his reasoning, he's still passing the buck. Why do we have to wait for the government to tell us on to throw plastic into the ocean or not to buy beef because it causes more emissions than all transport. For a person who constantly wants to keep government out of our lives, he seems to want them to also solve his problems.

Anyway I don't like the guy, but thanks for the follow up, I really did miss the message. Thx.

No Bill, if people swapped their beef for kale smoothies we'd have at least 18% less global warming - potentially up to 52% depending who's published the study. http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

I got interested in that question based on the Elder Scrolls series. Morrowind had a basically static world, Oblivion was basically entirely scaled to the player, and Skyrim is scaled to the player but within a min/max range.

To me, Morrowind was great because it could put appropriately powerful rewards in difficult (or just plain obscure) areas. Oblivion in particular was bad at making leveling feel like a treadmill because every time you leveled up as the player, pretty much every enemy would be that much more powerful also. Skyrim was better about that since an area would generally set its difficulty scale based on the first time you visited it, so you could leave and come back later if it was too tough, but it still felt a little off.

Another associated problem is how loot gets influenced by those leveled lists. In Skyrim, loot in containers and in the inventory of leveled enemies generally scales, but loot sitting out in the open in the game world generally doesn't. Which is really annoying, because all generic loot pretty much everywhere ends up being crappy low-level iron. God forbid there's some steel, elven, or dwarven gear in places where it would totally make sense to be (say, dwarven gear in dwarven ruins) that you might venture into before that gear becomes "level appropriate".


In a related issue, one beef that I have with general RPG mechanics is how they all feel the need to make you drastically more powerful at level 5 compared to level 1, and again at level 10 compared to level 5, and so on. By the time you're near the level cap, you're probably 100-1000 times as powerful as you were at level 1, which gives a good sense of accomplishment but just doesn't seem realistic, and leads to this problem with fixed difficulty or level scaling. Western RPGs (boiling back to pen and paper DnD rules) certainly aren't great about this, but JRPGs are completely ridiculous about it, which is pretty much why Final Fantasy 3(6) was the last one that I enjoyed. In my adulthood, I just can't handle them -- even going back and trying to play FF3 that I *loved* way back when.

I'd like to see more games where you get more skills, polish, and versatility as you progress, but overall you aren't more than 3-5 times as powerful at max level as you were at the beginning. Mount and Blade is one of the few games I can think of that comes close to that.