Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Someone1234 3895 days ago
The way the 18% figure is used in THIS article is extremely misleading/unhelpful. Thank you for clarifying exactly what they mean by that (the 5-6% thing puts it into perspective).
2 comments

Also note that an increase from 0.5% to 0.6% would be the same amount of "increased risk." Always look for the base rate.
Meat has been linked with colorectal, prostate and breast cancer not to mention heart disease. So if you take more of an holistic view.. it is quite damaging to yourself.
Be aware that this doesn't count for all meat. Grass-fed red meat is actually healthy, partly because it contains way more Omega-3 compared to Omega-6 and seems to prevent cancer.

See also here: http://www.anh-usa.org/you-are-what-your-food-ate/

You may get more benefits from what the cow ate, but it is still probably a carcinogen. To avoid eating carcinogens, cut out the middleman and eat vegetables and leafy greens yourself.
No it's not. It's the opposite of a carcinogen. It becomes carcinogenic because of the food, grass-fed meat has anti-inflammatory properties, and therefore helps preventing cancer.

Vegetables and leafy greens are not the holy grail, because for this goes almost the same as meat. They can be full with pesticides and be nutrition deficient because of industrial farming.

Whatever you eat, if you want to avoid or lower your risk of getting cancer, eat only organic, non-processed food, ban sugar, and drastically limit the intake of fructose-rich fruits.

And for those who don't care, eat whatever you want, nobody stops you from doing so :)