4 ms·

As a vegan, this is neat. There are tons of "vegan bacon" substitutes on the market, and most of them are pretty bad. It being as unhealthy as "real" bacon is

As a vegan, this is neat. There are tons of "vegan bacon" substitutes on the market, and most of them are pretty bad. It being as unhealthy as "real" bacon is concerning a bit - but, I'll be fine.

amval 8y ago
And how is real bacon unhealthy?
- reaperducer 8y ago
  And how is real bacon unhealthy? A friend of mine in Texas hit a wild boar in the road with his Honda. Almost totaled the car, and he ended up in the hospital. Also, bacon has fat in it or something.
- henryaj 8y ago
  High levels of salt, fat, nitrates. Is this a serious question?
  - plopz 8y ago
    Are you saying those three things are unhealthy?
    - dymk 8y ago
      They are in the quantities that bacon is eaten at. Who eats just one strip of bacon?
      - mactrey 8y ago
        Lots of things are unhealthy if eaten in excess. Is the argument really just that bacon is unhealthy because it tastes so good?
  - amval 8y ago
    Completely serious. I am not sure I am in the mood for another long post sourcing my claims, so feel free to question any of what I say: - The idea of limiting salt and fats in the diet comes from very misguided health recommendation based on bad science from the 70s motivated by commercial reasons. - Bacon actually has quite a healthy lipidic profile even with those recommendations (50% monounsaturated rich in Oleic acid, like olive oil; not that saturated fat is actually unhealthy...) - Same for nitrates; bacon doesn't even have that much, nitrates are not proven to be harmful and most of nitrites/nitrates are endogenous (70-90%) anyway...
    - MarkusAllen 8y ago
      I admire you courage @amval... the "vegan police" have been notified and will be here shortly. Here is a website that supports your position: that meat is actually VERY good for us... just look at all the case studies: http://meatheals.com http://meatheals.com
      - magnamerc 8y ago
        I wouldn't go that far. IGF-1 which is released due to the consumption of protein (particularly leucine) has been shown to be responsible for increases in mTOR signaling which is a nutrient sensor responsible for initiating cell growth in some forms of cancer, see this study for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392529/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392529/. In effect, leucine and IGF-1 increases mTOR signalling which is responsible for growth, the opposite effect of calorie restriction (which turns off mTOR and has been shown to reduce the growth of cancer).
        MarkusAllen 8y ago
        That NCBI study (which I am 100% was not scientific) was funded by the Winkler Family Foundation. Yep, the guy who produced the movie "Rocky" funded this. And the Winklers have direct ties to the evil Monsanto Corporation: https://usrtk.org/tag/winkler-family-foundation/ https://usrtk.org/tag/winkler-family-foundation/ Monsanto (now Bayer) wants to eliminate meat eating. So, no thanks... I will pass your "tip."
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- lizknope 8y ago
  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. https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/hot-dogs-hamburgers-bacon.html https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/hot-dogs-hamburgers-bacon...
  - amval 8y ago
    The cancer arm of the World Health Organization did a disservice to World Health by using such a poor study as an excuse to link cancer and meat consumption, in my opinion. To the point it makes me question if the WHO motives are honest or driven by other reasons (opposition to animal consumption out of ethical reasons or ecological reasons, which are absolutely legit but not health-related). Some of the reasons why I say this: - It puts consumption of red meat and curated meats under the same category as smoking. According to that study, it increases relative risk of colorrectal cancer by 18%. That puts the average 50yo man from 1.8% to 2.12%[1]. A bit different from the 2.500% increase of lung cancer risk in smokers. - These studies always have a self-selection bias. In Western countries, people that eat read meat also have worse habits and don't follow other health recommendations. This is a known effect [3], and other studies won't find higher risks associated to meat unless there are other factors (obesity, alcohol consumption) [4] - Diet was self-reported, which makes results very unreliable. - Colorrectal cancer and meat consumption are not linked in other countries. It's not the cause in Europe [5] and certainly not in Asia, where the opposite correlation is found [6]. There must be other factors at play. - "Of 22 members who voted on its conclusions, seven either disagreed or chose to abstain."[7] And yet, the WHO made recommendations based on a single, not particularly conclusive study. Hum... - Under red meat, it puts things like a sausage or hamburger and a grass-fed filet mignon steak. A strange thing to do, as if processing and quality were not factors to account for. I could probably continue, but hopefully I made my point. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16338133 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16338133 [2] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer/art-20044092 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-dep... [3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-010-1609-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-010-1609-1 [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27479196 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27479196 [5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26143683 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26143683 [6] http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/07/31/ajcn.113.062638.short http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/07/31/ajcn.113.... [7] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/health/report-links-some-types-of-cancer-with-processed-or-red-meat.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/health/report-links-some-...
ilamont 8y ago
A friend of a friend is a vegan "except for bacon." Maybe the new vat-grown stuff can make this person a true vegan.

As a vegan, this is neat. There are tons of "vegan bacon" substitutes on the market, and most of them are pretty bad. It being as unhealthy as "real" bacon is concerning a bit - but, I'll be fine.

amval 8y ago

And how is real bacon unhealthy?

reaperducer 8y ago
And how is real bacon unhealthy? A friend of mine in Texas hit a wild boar in the road with his Honda. Almost totaled the car, and he ended up in the hospital. Also, bacon has fat in it or something.
henryaj 8y ago
High levels of salt, fat, nitrates. Is this a serious question?
- plopz 8y ago
  Are you saying those three things are unhealthy?
  - dymk 8y ago
    They are in the quantities that bacon is eaten at. Who eats just one strip of bacon?
    - mactrey 8y ago
      Lots of things are unhealthy if eaten in excess. Is the argument really just that bacon is unhealthy because it tastes so good?
- amval 8y ago
  Completely serious. I am not sure I am in the mood for another long post sourcing my claims, so feel free to question any of what I say: - The idea of limiting salt and fats in the diet comes from very misguided health recommendation based on bad science from the 70s motivated by commercial reasons. - Bacon actually has quite a healthy lipidic profile even with those recommendations (50% monounsaturated rich in Oleic acid, like olive oil; not that saturated fat is actually unhealthy...) - Same for nitrates; bacon doesn't even have that much, nitrates are not proven to be harmful and most of nitrites/nitrates are endogenous (70-90%) anyway...
  - MarkusAllen 8y ago
    I admire you courage @amval... the "vegan police" have been notified and will be here shortly. Here is a website that supports your position: that meat is actually VERY good for us... just look at all the case studies: http://meatheals.com http://meatheals.com
    - magnamerc 8y ago
      I wouldn't go that far. IGF-1 which is released due to the consumption of protein (particularly leucine) has been shown to be responsible for increases in mTOR signaling which is a nutrient sensor responsible for initiating cell growth in some forms of cancer, see this study for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392529/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392529/. In effect, leucine and IGF-1 increases mTOR signalling which is responsible for growth, the opposite effect of calorie restriction (which turns off mTOR and has been shown to reduce the growth of cancer).
      - MarkusAllen 8y ago
        That NCBI study (which I am 100% was not scientific) was funded by the Winkler Family Foundation. Yep, the guy who produced the movie "Rocky" funded this. And the Winklers have direct ties to the evil Monsanto Corporation: https://usrtk.org/tag/winkler-family-foundation/ https://usrtk.org/tag/winkler-family-foundation/ Monsanto (now Bayer) wants to eliminate meat eating. So, no thanks... I will pass your "tip."
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
lizknope 8y ago
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. https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/hot-dogs-hamburgers-bacon.html https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/hot-dogs-hamburgers-bacon...
- amval 8y ago
  The cancer arm of the World Health Organization did a disservice to World Health by using such a poor study as an excuse to link cancer and meat consumption, in my opinion. To the point it makes me question if the WHO motives are honest or driven by other reasons (opposition to animal consumption out of ethical reasons or ecological reasons, which are absolutely legit but not health-related). Some of the reasons why I say this: - It puts consumption of red meat and curated meats under the same category as smoking. According to that study, it increases relative risk of colorrectal cancer by 18%. That puts the average 50yo man from 1.8% to 2.12%[1]. A bit different from the 2.500% increase of lung cancer risk in smokers. - These studies always have a self-selection bias. In Western countries, people that eat read meat also have worse habits and don't follow other health recommendations. This is a known effect [3], and other studies won't find higher risks associated to meat unless there are other factors (obesity, alcohol consumption) [4] - Diet was self-reported, which makes results very unreliable. - Colorrectal cancer and meat consumption are not linked in other countries. It's not the cause in Europe [5] and certainly not in Asia, where the opposite correlation is found [6]. There must be other factors at play. - "Of 22 members who voted on its conclusions, seven either disagreed or chose to abstain."[7] And yet, the WHO made recommendations based on a single, not particularly conclusive study. Hum... - Under red meat, it puts things like a sausage or hamburger and a grass-fed filet mignon steak. A strange thing to do, as if processing and quality were not factors to account for. I could probably continue, but hopefully I made my point. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16338133 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16338133 [2] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer/art-20044092 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-dep... [3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-010-1609-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-010-1609-1 [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27479196 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27479196 [5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26143683 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26143683 [6] http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/07/31/ajcn.113.062638.short http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/07/31/ajcn.113.... [7] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/health/report-links-some-types-of-cancer-with-processed-or-red-meat.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/health/report-links-some-...

ilamont 8y ago

A friend of a friend is a vegan "except for bacon." Maybe the new vat-grown stuff can make this person a true vegan.