Tag: Ingredients

Let’s be honest with ourselves, if a product states “cleansing properties” or “eliminates toxins”, our interests are perked. There are numerous “quick fixes” targeting hopeful dieters, and we all have fallen victim to these marketing ploys at one time or another. Whether they are packaged as juices, supplements, or food, “quick fixes” are never going to fix a problem created by an unhealthy lifestyle.

Activated charcoal is believed detoxify our bodies from impurities and toxins we come into contact with on a daily basis. But, do we even truly understand what a toxin is? These days, terms like “toxins” are thrown around so frequently that they often lose their meaning. We know that toxins are harmful and can enter your body through many different channels. But what else should we know?

Toxins are everywhere and can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed. Certain behaviors like overeating, indulging in processed foods, lack of exercise, poor diet, and excess alcohol prevent your body from working efficiently to remove toxins.

Of course, we are realists and it can be hard to avoid temptation! Because of this, Americans often rely on crash diets to solve bad long term habits. This is where we often go wrong! Juice cleanses, for example, have taken on a life of their own. The cold-pressed juice industry is currently estimated at $100 million! But, as we have reviewed on D2D, your body already has the tools to naturally detoxify.

Activated charcoal is one of the newest quick fixes that claims to target the toxins in your body. Why activated charcoal, you ask? We were wondering the same thing.

Activated charcoal is created for medicinal purposes through a controlled heating process. Performed in a lab, heat, and gas are applied to charcoal to make it increasingly porous. These pores are what allow the charcoal to capture hazardous substances when administered by a medical professional to remove poison, chemicals, or drug overdoses from your body. Typically, when activated charcoal is administered in the hospital, the objective is to get the patient in question to vomit so the charcoal absorbs the chemical with its millions of tiny pores.

However, the idea of using charcoal as a healthy drink to target toxins is not very feasible. Yes, activated charcoal is able to trap substances, but there is no way for the charcoal molecules to differentiate between beneficial substances inside your body and harmful ones! Therefore, when you consume activated charcoal you risk eliminating essential minerals and vitamins from your body.

In an interview with Time Magazine, Dr. Kent Olson, medical director of the San Francisco Poison Control System and clinical professor of Medicine and Pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco discussed the medicinal uses of activated charcoal. “‘The problem with charcoal is that it’s non-specific. It’ll bind to anything…that could include toxins as well as nutrients. Remember that might include vitamins and amino acids and other things you actually need in your diet.’” (Dr. Kent Olson for Time Magazine, 2016)

image source:www.intothegloss.com

Recently, companies like Goop, Juice Generation, and Shape Magazine have touted the benefits of activated charcoal. In fact, Juice Generation has even created a new line of activated charcoal juice products that are said to target the toxins in your body. These juices are now the company’s best selling products. According to the label, they are able to take a traditional green juice to the next level. And while the products certainly will not hurt you, they do highlight a common disconnect between seller and consumer.

Unfortunately, these labels do not mention the large lack of research behind this detoxifying phenomenon. In the past 30 years, 159 human studies have been performed pertaining to activated charcoal, almost all of which were for medicinal application. In a 2015 meta-analysis of these studies, Dr. Thomas Pirelli Ph.D., of Harvard University, examines the results of research pertaining to the use of activated charcoal. There were only two reported human studies pertaining to the claim that activated charcoal helps intestinal gas. One study stated that the activated charcoal did improve gas and bloating while the other did not. 

Most simply put, extensive research just doesn’t exist. Not to mention, our understanding of activated charcoal’s composition suggests the substance can eliminate equal parts of nutrients to toxins. So, while there may be a teeny tiny chance that activated charcoal might help a severe hangover or temporarily reduce internal gas, it is not something you need to incorporate into your everyday routine.

Our choices and varieties of fruits and vegetables have expanded.

Early in the 20th century, what people ate in the U.S. primarily depended on their heritage and traditions, where they lived, what they could grow, and how much money they had. Fruits such as oranges and bananas were a special treat compared to the role of “lunchbox staple” that they play in our diets today.

The average American diet is no longer restricted by local or seasonal produce. Because of our expanded choices, the fresh produce Americans eat today is not the same as it was 100 years ago. There has been a considerable change in the commodities we enjoy year-round. Prior to the turn of the century, many produce items were primarily available only in season – i.e., blueberries, kiwi, papaya, persimmons, pineapples, raspberries, and miscellaneous tropical fruits. Other commodities such as mizuna and kohlrabi, although common outside the U.S., were virtually unheard of until recent years!

We still enjoy the same fruits and vegetables as we did in 1970!

While we have integrated new produce into our diet regimen, it is safe to say, old habits die hard. In 1970, three vegetables – lettuce, tomatoes, and potatoes – were the most consumed fresh vegetables in the US.

Per capita fresh vegetable consumption, 1970 and 2013

Food Availability Data. 

The latest USDA statistics for 2013 show that these same three commodities are still the leading fresh vegetables consumed in the U.S. However, we have expanded the diversity of these three popular veggies. Between 1970 and 2013, there were changes in the number of potatoes and the different types of lettuce available, as well as an increased variety of other vegetables incorporated into the average American diet.

For example, after a peak in the late 80s/early 90s, by 2013 head lettuce consumption declined by 51% while romaine and leaf lettuce consumption increased by 69%. U.S. consumers also ate more broccoli, cucumbers, onions, and peppers during this same time frame. Still, even with our preference for new lettuce types and increased consumption of other vegetables, our preference for lettuce, tomatoes, and potatoes stayed relatively consistent.

We have retained a strong preference for certain fruits.

In 2013, American’s fruits of choice were bananas, melons, apples, and oranges. Our fruit preferences were the same in 1970. In the 43-year time span, consumption of avocados, bananas, cantaloupes, grapes, pineapples, and strawberries increased while consumption of apples, cranberries, peaches, and plums declined. In recent years, robust demand for avocados, blueberries, cherries, lemons, limes, mangoes, papayas, and pineapples has been driving growth in fresh fruit commodities. USDA analysts attribute this growth in fruit used to the preparation of traditional dishes by a more ethnically diverse population as well as heightened interest in a healthy diet.

There are various interactive graphs illustrating the changing American diet from 1970 to 2012/2013.  See the FlowingData.com’s website and articles in  Scientific American and Time magazine’s articles.

Not only have there been changes in the diversity of what Americans eat, but there has also been an even greater change in when we eat fresh produce. Prior to the turn of the century, the majority of the U.S. population was eating strawberries for one, two, or if you were lucky, maybe three months of the year. Now eating fresh strawberries year-round is commonplace, as is noted by a 320% increase in per capita consumption from 1970 to 2010. And it is just not strawberries – the same is true for blueberries, raspberries, blackberries, pineapples, cantaloupe, and a litany of other fruits and vegetables.

So why the increasing diversity in our produce?

To help meet the growing demand for fruits and vegetables, plant breeding has resulted in new varieties of popular produce items with increased yields, extended growing seasons, improved product quality fruit, and enhanced shelf-life. Tomatoes and strawberries are two prime examples of fruits where year-round availability is a direct result of breeding new varieties.

Suppliers have also improved shelf-life and product quality during transportation by modifying harvesting methods. A good example of these improvements can be seen with the banana which bruises easily when it is ripe. Bananas used to be harvested after ripening until growers discovered they could harvest unripe, green bananas and ship them all over the world without damaging the still firm unripe fruit.

Alternate-day fasting diets, like the 5:2 diet, have become a popular way to quickly lose weight. The 5:2 diet made its way into the spotlight in 2013 when BBC aired a documentary entitled Eat, Fast & Live Longer. In this program, journalist Michael Mosley investigated the health benefits of fasting. Before attempting the various and attainable fasting methods himself, Mosley met with a series of doctors and industry professionals who assessed his current health condition. Mosley wanted to understand how to best protect himself against the negative effects of aging. From his story on alternate-day fasting, Mosley derived the 5:2 diet, which subsequently took the UK by storm.

The belief that fasting can improve your health shares similarities with the Paleo diet. Like Paleo dieters, Mosley looked to our ancestors for help when investigating fasting. When hunters and gatherers had a successful kill, they gorged themselves on the meat. This feast might last a few days and certainly was not restricted— however, if the hunters went days without a kill, they would be starved, surviving on minimal food and nutrients. Thus, our bodies are capable of functioning when we are underfed. But, bear in mind, our hunting and gathering ancestors put themselves in great peril, even wrestling mammoths to provide a feast. That is a lot of physical activity that we do not necessarily get today.

Throughout Mosley’s investigation, he interviewed a handful of researchers and specialists, one of them being Mark Mattson, an expert on the aging brain. Mattson, Chief of the Laboratory of Neurosciences at the National Institute on Aging and Professor at John Hopkins University, discussed the laboratory studies he performed regarding starvation. Based on the tests he had been conducting on mice, Mattson identified positive aspects of fasting. In one of these studies, Mattson found that when mice were given an unhealthy diet high in saturated fats and sugars, mice health declined much more rapidly, roughly 3-4 months sooner. On the other hand, mice given a diet lower in fat and subjected to intermittent fasting lived roughly 6 months longer. Thus, the mice maintaining a smaller size proved to live longer.

5:2 dieters argue that our bodies are not made to handle the modernization of food and that giving the digestive system frequent “breaks” helps to mend any issues with digestion.

Additionally, in his meeting with Mark Mattson, Michael Mosley learned that sporadic bouts of hunger help stimulate new neurons to grow in our brains. Mattson also looked to our mammoth-hunting ancestors to answer the question regarding cell growth. From a survival standpoint, hunger provides a survival advantage as it causes you to be more focused. Fasting’s effect on the brain is actually compared to exercising’s effect on your muscles…well, for mice anyway. In order to truly prove that these findings hold true for humans, human trials must be performed.

So how did this research and studies like it lead to Mosley’s famed 5:2 diet?

As Mosley attempted intermittent fasting, he realized how difficult this task is. Anyone can attest that we need food, and regularly! To accommodate this need, Mosley met with Dr. Krista Varady, author of The Every Other Day Diet and an advocate of alternate-day fasting. Like the 5:2 program, the “Every Other Day Diet” instructs participants to limit their caloric intake to 500 calories on fasting days. Although they are very similar in practice, on the “EODD” you are fasting slightly more than on the 5:2 diet. For example, one week you will fast 3 days and the next you will fast 4, then the following you are back to 3 days of fasting, and so on…

During Dr. Varady’s clinical studies of alternate-day fasting, researchers found participants decreased their levels of LDL cholesterol (bad cholesterol), triglycerides (fat), and blood pressure. Surprisingly, these scientists found it actually didn’t matter if you were eating a high-fat diet versus a low-fat diet on the given feast days—the LDL cholesterol and blood pressure were relatively the same for all participants.

Because they consumed 25% of their energy needs on fasting days, Dr. Varady predicted that most participants would consume 175% of their energy needs on a “feed” day. But, throughout the course of her study, participants were only consuming 110% of their energy needs on the feed days. Inevitably, there is a -65% consumption deficit.  This tells us that starving a few days a week and then feasting on cookies, pasta, pizza, and cheeseburgers will probably help you lose weight because you are reducing your overall caloric intake. However, your body will be missing proper nutrients. Additionally, if you are exercising regularly, your energy levels may be negatively affected by the significant decrease in calories on the fast days.

While the 5:2 diet and similar programs are not sensible dieting practices, the science behind fasting is worth a second look.

While we dismiss the 5:2 diet and similar programs, like the “Every Other Day Diet”, as viable dieting practices, we acknowledge that the science behind fasting and Mark Mattson’s research is worth a second look. Scientists have found that restricting caloric intake can help to regulate your body’s blood sugar levels. Research in mice has discovered that by reducing daily caloric intake, the body lowers its production of hormone IGF-1. A drop in the creation of this hormone is known to help your body go into repair mode—meaning, the body begins to protect itself against carcinogens, heart disease, diabetes, and other health issues.

These days, it feels like new food trends are constantly coming to market. From juice cleansing to going gluten-free, dieters and healthy eaters alike are left wondering, “What are the smart choices for my diet and my body?” In an effort to offer some clarity and take it back to simpler times, we have chosen to examine: the Paleolithic diet.

Inspired by the foods of our ancestors.

A Paleolithic, or “Paleo,” diet is a diet inspired by the foods of our ancestors. Often called “the caveman diet,” this diet regimen focuses on a more simple call to action: clean, primal eating. The Paleo diet emphasizes the importance of the foods that our ancestors had access too, which include grass-produced meats, nuts, fresh fruits and vegetables, fish, healthy oils (those of olive, avocado, coconut, etc.), and animal products, such as eggs.

The Paleo method believes that human metabolism was not made to digest today’s highly processed foods. Instead, the diet emphasizes the importance of the foods that our ancestors had access too, which include grass-produced meats, nuts, fresh fruits and vegetables, fish, and healthy oils (those of olive, avocado, coconut, etc.), and animal products, such as eggs.

Proponents of the Paleo diet believe the human digestive system has wrongfully adapted to eating “toxic” foods, such as grain, legumes, and dairy. Foods such as these were not available to our ancestors, thus our bodies are not designed to consume them. However, lean meats, seafood, and seasonal fruits and vegetables were the basis of a Neanderthal’s diet and our digestive system is equipped to break these foods down.

or example, while we agree that protein is a very important part of your diet, the way our ancestors consumed protein is not similar to modern practices. When our ancestors hunted and killed an animal for its meat they gorged themselves on the food for days and could go months without another successful hunt.

There are health benefits from eating whole grains.

While it is healthy to consume protein and whole fruits and veggies as the diet prescribes, there are health benefits from eating whole grain. Whole grains are high in fiber–which is good for your digestive system, are digested slowly so can keep you full for longer, and can help reduce the risk of heart disease. As for the argument that eating whole grain can cause inflammation, this is certainly true for those suffering from celiac’s disease, however, it is untrue if you have no wheat sensitivity. In fact, going gluten-free can often lead to a diet higher in sugar and saturated fats. For these reasons, we disagree with the Paleo diets requirement to cut grain completely from your diet.

There are health benefits from eating legumes.

In addition to eliminating grain, the diet recommends eliminating legumes, like lentils, beans, or peas, from your diet. The Paleo diet argues that the lectins, which is a sugar-binding protein, found in legumes eliminate their nutritional value. But this is not true! A 2013 study suggests the nutritional content of legumes outweighs the issue with lectins. The Huffington Post also reported that cooking legumes can eliminate the anti-nutrient qualities of lectins. Legumes pack a powerful punch! They are high in dietary fiber, protein, antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals while being low in fat.

There are health benefits from drinking and eating dairy products.

Now that we’ve covered grains and legumes, let’s put dairy under the microscope. Dairy is where it gets a little trickier. Did you know that the human species is the only species that consume dairy in adulthood? This is one of the primary reasons why dairy is a strict “no” in the Paleo diet. Paleo dieters believe that by eating the food that our ancestors ate, we are eating the most natural, “untouched” foods. The milk we know today has been harvested from animals that have been bred for milk production. When we drink cow’s milk, we are ingesting the hormones that have been fed to the cow, which the Paleo diet does not condone. But—when you think about it, of course, humans are able to eat dairy into adulthood…because we can produce it.

When consumed in moderation, dairy is a good source of potassium, protein, and fat, and is important for your bone health. Many non-Paleo physicians argue that adults have no nutritional requirements for dairy. Our opinion? You do not need to eliminate the food group entirely, but you do not need to consume more than two servings of dairy per day to maintain a balanced diet. There are additional ways to get potassium, protein, and healthy fats.

In order to properly follow the Paleo diet, you must eliminate potatoes, dairy, cereal grains, salt, refined vegetable oils, and refined sugar from your diet. Eating at a restaurant is not easy!

The Modern Paleo: 85:15

Legumes, whole grains, and dairy can be consumed as part of a healthy, well-rounded diet. There are certainly some benefits to the Paleo approach, specifically that your diet is high in fruits and vegetables, lean meats and fish, nuts and healthy fats— but it is unnecessary to eliminate entire groups of food from your diet unless prescribed by a doctor. A modern version of the Paleo diet is the 85:15 rule. This means 85% of the time you are strictly Paleo and 15% you are allowed to consume non-Paleo foods. That way you are not completely eliminating certain beneficial food groups from your diet.

Wheat has come under fire recently. The rise in gluten-free dieting has left many questioning its nutritional value. One-third of American consumers are trying to eliminate gluten, and subsequently wheat, in the hopes of losing weight.

But the U.S. Department of Agriculture advises adults to eat between 3 and 5 servings of whole grains a day, and 6 to 11 servings for children.

Is wheat unhealthy?

It is hard to talk about wheat without mentioning its relationship to gluten. Walk into your local grocery store and the popularity of gluten-free products is astounding. Even foods that would never contain gluten are being stamped with the famous “GF” mark. We recently discussed “the gluten myth” on D2D and can confirm: gluten is not the enemy. Many non-celiac afflicted people choosing to maintain a GF diet do find they experience sudden weight loss, however, this is from the elimination of an entire food group and sudden change in eating habits. This is not gluten weighing you down. And whole grains are an important part of a balanced diet.

Modern wheat production

Some researchers have taken issue with modern wheat because it has changed from its original form. In order to keep up with a rapidly growing population, wheat farming has adapted. As such, mass-farming has manipulated the wheat we consume today relative to the wheat that our ancestors consumed.

The creator of modern wheat, Norman Borlaug, a biologist from Iowa, won both the Nobel Peace Prize and the World Food Prize for his positive contribution to farming.

Norman Ernest Borlaug, photographed in Mexico for LIFE Magazine in November 1970 (Flickr)

Borlaug was able to roughly double wheat production per acre. Instead of long grain stalks, wheat farmers are now producing higher yielding crops, which are smaller in size—18 inches in height compared to the traditional 4-foot tall wheat plant. These crops are smaller in size due to the weight of excess grain now created per stalk. If they maintained their original height, the stalks would not be able to support themselves. While these crops produce more wheat to feed the growing population, it is argued that these crops are less nutritious.

What is Wheat Belly?

One anti-wheat proponent, who lobbies for all humans to eliminate wheat from their diet is Dr. William Davis MD, author of Wheat Belly. According to Dr. Davis, we are victims of “Frankenwheat”, which he considers addictive and toxic. Davis asserts that today’s wheat contains a protein called gliadin that, Davis argues, “has the potential to bind to the opiate receptors of the human brain—like heroin or morphine—except it has a different effect of course. Wheat doesn’t provide relief from pain, it doesn’t provide a euphoria, it only stimulates appetite, so that people who consume modern wheat are triggered to consume 440 calories more per day.” (Davis, Wheat Belly).

Davis believes that consuming gliadin tells your body it wants more carbohydrates and as a response, you end up overeating. These excess carbs eventually are stored as fat. Dr. Davis believes if you eliminate modern wheat from your diet you will see a noticeable change in your hunger levels, lose weight, and benefit from positive health changes like decreased blood pressure, low blood-sugar levels, and less joint pain.

Gliadins are not the cause of overeating

How much of this argument should we hold true? According the article “Does Wheat Make Us Sick and Fat?” published by the Journal of Cereal Science, Davis’ understanding of gliadins is misleading as gliadins are present in all forms of wheat, including ancient grains. In some cases, “modern wheat” actually contains less gliadin than the grain of our ancestors. The article reports, “there is no evidence that selective breeding has resulted in detrimental effects on the nutritional properties or health benefits of the wheat grain” (Shewry et al., 2011).

Gliadins are not the cause of addictive eating behaviors

As for Davis’ theory regarding wheat opioids and their effect on the human brain, the Journal of Cereal Science also discredits this claim. According to a 2008 study, although gliadin is known to release a peptide called gliadorphin, which can induce an opiate-like effect, the compound’s composition of 7 amino acids actually cannot be absorbed into the intestine. Because of this, gliadin is not present in its original form in the circulatory system and therefore the opiate effects of gliadorphin do not affect the central nervous system. The evidence of this study undermines the Wheat Belly argument concerning gliadin. Therefore, Davis’ claims cannot be substantiated given today’s scientific understanding of wheat.

A pro-wheat organization that has examined the science behind grains is American Association of Cereal Chemists (AACC). Their journal Cereal Foods World is responsible for bringing current industry information regarding grain science and technology to light. Cereal Foods World does not believe that modern wheat is a so-called “super carbohydrate.” In a report written by researchers at CFW, the process of crop cultivation and modernization is examined. To quote their findings,

So why do “wheat-eliminators” lose weight and subsequently feel better?

Again, the answer is the drastic change in diet. When you eliminate an entire food group from your diet—especially one that you consumed frequently—your system is shocked and responds rapidly. Especially if the wheat you were consuming before making this switch was an indulgence, like pasta, bagels, or even pretzels. You aren’t eliminating gliadin, you are eliminating junk food!

Wheat and brain diseases?

Another anti-wheat assertion is that wheat consumption is a contributing factor in long term brain diseases, such as dementia and Alzheimer’s. David Perlmutter, MD is the author of the national bestseller, Grain Brain: The Surprising Truth about Wheat, Carbs, and Sugar. Perlmutter argues that the modern human diet has steered off course, relying heavily on carbs, whereas our ancestors’ diet was mostly fat and protein-based.

Grain Brain believes this dietary shift is the reason for increased inflammation in the body. “Researchers have known for some time now that the cornerstone of all degenerative conditions, including brain disorders, is inflammation. But what they haven’t documented until now are the instigators of that inflammation— the first missteps that prompt this deadly reaction. And what they are finding is that gluten, and a high-carbohydrate diet for that matter, are among the most prominent stimulators of inflammatory pathways that reach the brain.” (Perlmutter, Grain Brain)

One of the biggest issues Dr. Perlmutter and Dr. Davis have with processed grain is its ability to spike your blood sugar levels. When your blood sugar increases your body creates more insulin—and while insulin helps keep the glucose level of your cells healthy, too much insulin will cause your cells to desensitize. Davis and Perlmutter, MD believe that this leads to inflammation and inevitably may contribute to Alzheimer’s. However, data that shows a very weak link between blood and glucose levels and a risk for developing Alzheimer’s. This conclusion is considered to be a far stretch with current evidence.

In order to consider the harmful effects of inflammation, we must examine inflammation and its relationship with your body’s insulin and blood sugar levels.

Both Grain Brain and Wheat Belly discuss the effect whole grain can have on your blood sugar by highlighting the fact that two pieces of whole wheat bread actually raise blood sugar levels more than a Snickers candy bar. So, why is this?

Processed grains, like whole grain or white bread, cause blood sugar levels to rise, but you should not be scared away from wheat by the glycemic value and its likening to a chocolate bar. The nutrients of the two foods are very different and you cannot draw a conclusion on one being unhealthy because of its similarity to the other.

Do you really believe that a snicker’s bar is healthier than a serving of whole wheat bread? As delightful as it tastes, a Snickers has 250 calories, 12g of fat, and 27 grams of sugar with little nutritional components. Two slices of whole wheat bread also have 250 calories but only 5 g of fat and include protein and fiber as nutrition. You also need to consider how much whole wheat is in the bread in question. For a serving of bread with a Glycemic Index of 71, the bread in question is processed whole wheat or white bread—but these are not your only options. 100% stone ground wheat is a low Glycemic Index food, for example, Ezekiel 4:9 bread has a GI value of 35. Additionally, you are typically eating the serving of bread with a protein, such a turkey or peanut butter, which can also slow your spike in blood sugar.

When discussing the glycemic index, you must also consider wheat’s glycemic load. The glycemic load relative amount of carbohydrate the food contains in an average serving. By taking each gram of carbohydrate into account, you are able to better estimate how the food will affect your glucose levels. Yes, the glycemic index helps interpret how quickly glucose levels rise, but the glycemic load helps interpret how long glucose levels will stay elevated for, ie. how much the sugar is affecting you. Read what our research says about Glycemic Index vs. Glycemic Load.

So while two pieces of whole wheat bread can raise your insulin levels, consuming whole wheat will not lead to rapid weight gain. In his book, Dr. Davis makes the argument that our ancestors avoided diabetes because of their diet, which mainly consisted of wild boar, salmon, and berries. But there is no scientific data regarding the possible diabetic condition of hunters and gatherers! Not to mention, their diets relied entirely on what they were able to hunt or collect and their lifespans were much shorter than the average human today. As such, Dr. Davis is drawing hard conclusions from limited evidence.

If I eat steak or bacon, will I get cancer?

NO!

On October 26th, 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer— the cancer agency of the World Health Organization— gave a press release that evaluated the consumption of processed and red meat and its link to cancer. The study looked specifically at colorectal cancer and its association to stomach, prostate, and pancreatic cancer. While the IARC classified red meat as “probably carcinogenic to humans” and processed meat as “carcinogenic to humans”, it is important to note that the evidence supporting these claims is very limited.

The research reviewed over 800 individual studies and was run by twenty-two experts from ten different countries, and yet the findings released were not conclusive.

According to the American Cancer Society, in 2018, the chance of getting colorectal cancer for an average 50-year-old male or female is 4.49% or 4.15%, respectively. The World Health Organization stated the possibility of an 18% increase from eating red meat. It is misleading to say that one will have an 18% chance of getting cancer when it is really an 18% increase over a base of a little over 4%. This brings us to 4.9% (for women) and a 5.23% (for men) chance of getting colorectal cancer if we eat 50 grams of processed or red meat per day.

Consuming large amounts of processed meat is worth monitoring and not something to incorporate every day. So while you might not want to have 2 servings of bacon every day, you can enjoy it a few times a week without fear.

The American Cancer Society also weighed in on the issue. ACS managing director of nutrition and physical activity says, “we should be limiting red and processed meat to help reduce colon cancer risk, and possibly, the risk of other cancers. The occasional hot dog or hamburger is okay.” So, when consumed in moderation, red or processed meat does not pose a big health threat.

When considering the IARC’s classification of carcinogenic foods, you have to be aware of the serving size.

The degree to which your red or processed meat consumption will affect your health has a lot to do with the other lifestyle choices you make. Do you have a well-balanced diet, exercise regularly, and drink enough water? All of these factors influence your overall health. The protein and iron that your body receives from red meat support your cells, tissues, organs, bones, and overall immune system.

Based on the study’s findings, the World Health Organization labeled red meat as Group 2A, stating that the classification was made on “limited evidence.” The IARC clarifies, “limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.”

The WHO also inappropriately labeled processed meat as Group 1, the same group that contains asbestos, arsenic, and tobacco— some of the most carcinogenic dangers to humans. Is it fair and reasonable to say that your chance of getting cancer from smoking is equal to getting cancer from eating meat? Of course not. Then the WHO discredited their own argument by stating the following: