Essay talk:Health effects of bacon

Bacon is neither liberal nor conservative, it's unhealthy. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I really try to limit my pork, but it's sooo tasty. including bacon. GodotGrow a vagina 01:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Bacon is immoral, and disgusting.--Elvis is King (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, I ate salmon cream bacon soup for dinner in a traditional sit-down family meal. Тy^rannis 01:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Bacon can cause heart disease, high cholesterol, cornorary artery disease, high blood pressure, among other problems.--Elvis is King (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is immoral how? Тy^Talk 01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It's allowing filth in your body where it doesn't belong.--Elvis is King (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Тy^{Serious Business Guy} 01:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation? An American Nihilist (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

okay? Тy^Complaints 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

here, bubba--Elvis is King (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

“When we looked at average nutrients in unprocessed red and processed meats eaten in the United States, we found that they contained similar average amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol. In contrast, processed meats contained, on average, 4 times more sodium and 50% more nitrate preservatives,” said Micha. “This suggests that differences in salt and preservatives, rather than fats, might explain the higher risk of heart disease and diabetes seen with processed meats, but not with unprocessed red meats.”

This ideologically satisfies me. Fallacy² (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

But what if we buy unprocessed bacon? Тy^{sic semper} 01:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Impossible! An American Nihilist (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently boar hunting is rare wherever you live. :P Тy^rant 01:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Now I kind of want to live where you do. Nihilist (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually wild boar hunting is quite popular where I live.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

the food is great! Just ignore the crazies. Тy^{Lonely. Ever so lonely.} 01:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I stopped eating pork a couple of months ago. Not really anything to do with health or politics, I'd just grown sick of the taste. I've never cared for bacon though. Everyone makes out it's the greatest fucking thing under the fucking sun, but it tastes crap, the fat to meat ratio is about 50 to 1, and it's greasier than a big bucket of grease. SJ ^Debaser 13:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Someone finally said something intelligent.--Elvis is King (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yum! The grease is the best part. Seriously. It's not surprising that people think otherwise, having been conditioned by a barrage of anti-fat propaganda in the media for over thirty years. People not exposed to that, I saw in Morocco, we were carrying back a package of over a pound of aged lamb fat to the U.S., having been given the "delicacy" by a Moroccan family to pass on to their son who was here. We were told that this could cause problems with customs, so we gave it to our guide, and watched him eat the whole thing on the spot.

When I was a kid, my favorite foods were fat: the fat on steak, and large amounts of butter and sour cream on baked potatoes. People used to tell me, "Have some bread with your butter!" And, sure, I ate cake, but my favorite part was the frosting, which was commonly made with lard and sugar. About thirty years ago, my doctor looked at cholesterol levels a bit over 200, and recommended a low-fat diet. Being cooperative, I did it, and the result was predictable: weight gain of about thirty pounds, and, more controversially, about thirty years later, prostate cancer. (Yes, there is evidence for that linkage). I'm now following low-carb principles, and my blood lipids are fine (yes, high total cholesterol, but we now know that's not really a concern in itself), and my arteries, as shown by a cardiac CAT scan, are relatively clear. People who buy the Fat Bad myth, seeing me buy quarts of heavy cream at the market, think I'm probably going to drop dead in the next few days. Maybe, you never can tell, but probably not from the cream. --Abd (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not because of "anti-fat propaganda", like I said, I'm not worried about my health (though I drink regularly, so I probably should be). There's not many high profile anti-fat, anti-fast food campaigns in Britain, so I haven't been conditioned to hate bacon, or indeed worry greatly about my food intake. I just don't see why every single conversation about food ends up with every meat-eating participant professing their undying love for a few strips of a dead pig. As for anti-x, pro-health campaigns, people here seem to have a bigger chip on their shoulders about smokers. Advertising tobacco and smoking in public buildings is now illegal across the UK, and the age for legally smoking was raised from 16 to 18. While I rarely smoke anymore (like pork, I've simply lost interest in it), the more people moan at me not to do it - namely those who've never smoked and think they're better than me because of it, rather than ex-smokers who don't have a superiority complex about it - the more it encourages me to do it. SJ ^Debaser 12:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Jimmy?

I know you have an axe to grind with Sam, but to bring it here?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Shut up, Taylor-loving Chicken Boy! You're an imbecile who knows absolutely nothing about anything.--Elvis is King (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Alleged health effects

I don't eat bacon from pork, because I'm Muslim, but the essay confuses possible harm from preservatives with possible harm from the bacon itself, and specifically from the fat in it. If preservatives are your concern, you can get fresh bacon that is preservative-free (and "turkey bacon" and "beef bacon," which I do eat). There is little evidence that bacon fat -- or any natural fat -- is harmful, and evidence that it's beneficial. It's a high-calorie food, but fat also tends to suppress appetite, so low-carb diets tend to use fatty foods to be enjoyable and sustainable. The claim that bacon will clog your arteries is woo, a widespread belief promoted by activists (and, yes, those included we know better than you "liberals") in the 1970s, which became "received wisdom," in spite of there being inadequate scientific basis, and they knew that.

(I.e, if we wait for evidence, millions might needlessly die, and what could be the harm of reducing fat in the diet? and so, people were subjected to a massive uncontrolled experiment. Because lowering fat in the diet practically inevitably raises carbohydrate content, it's possible, in fact, that millions of premature deaths were caused. We don't really know, not clearly.)

Arteries are not clogged by dietary fat, however, but by complex processes, one factor in which is regular consumption of high-glycemic-index foods, i.e., simple, rapid-digestion, carbohydrates. --Abd (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence. Eating foods such as bacon which are full of saturated fat, sodium, and other stuff will clog arteries. No one who tries to eat healthily will eat bacon. It's bad for you: plain and simple. The preservatives are too: no one here buys bacon without them. It's a disgrace to the American diet, and should be shunned in favor of healthier breakfast foods, such as raisin bran. Lemme guess: you're crazy like Chicken Boy?--Elvis is King (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless he's lucky, I'm much crazier. What some think of as sanity is over-rated. --Abd (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know: Chicken Boy is pretty crazy. He smokes pot, loves Taylor Swift, and burns fetuses. You seem better than that.--Elvis is King (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I (fairly) recently saw a documentary, Fat Head, that was a response to Supersize Me and argued the points you made, so I'd say yeah, bacon itself isn't the problem.

Anyways, bacon is awesome, especially in a BLT. Fallacy² (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Enjoy the heart problems a few years later.--Elvis is King (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That's stupid -- no one enjoys heart problems. Nihilist (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You must- you think bacon is awesome.--Elvis is King (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you enjoy Satanic rituals? You must if you like Elvis, the king of Sin 'n Roll. Stupid Troll Guy (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

He was a godly man: he just had a few personal demons. You seem rather unintelligent: have you been hanging out with liberal elites, and Chicken Boy?--Elvis is King (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read Jesus-is-Savior.com. Impostor (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Typical liberal hogwash. Who wrote that, Fred Phelps? Why don't you go choke on a sausage? Or smoke some dope with Chicken Boy.--Elvis is King (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Satan-loving heretic. An American Nihilist (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Elvis is King, you can believe that if you want, but it is not science-based. The opposite. This view is woo, a social myth. High-fat diets (like Atkins) do not worsen blood lipids, and, in fact, show slight improvements, though the field deserves much more work. Without the worsening lipids, there is no evidence that is still standing that connects high fat with heart problems. The idea was originally based on an epidemiological study, sometime around 1970, that purported to show a correlation between fat in the diet and death from heart disease, but the study was apparently cherry-picked, i.e., populations that would have shown the reverse were simply not included.
• Dietary fat doesn't generally make you fat, carbohydrates do, that's basic body chemistry. (what would be toxic levels of blood glucose -> removed by insulin by stimulating storage as fat.) But the woo "You are what you eat" is common. --Abd (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should add that to the Food woo article. Fallacy² (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

So, bacon's healthy? Nonsense. Grease causes HEART PROBLEMS.--Elvis is King (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec with below)Because you say so? Prove it! This is serious business. Recommendations that people cut fat out of their diet, if they follow it, will cause, it's known, the percentage of carbohydrate in the diet to increase, because the whole appetite/metabolism mechanism tends to be homeostatic. High simple carbs in the diet, I've seen persuasive evidence, are the primary cause of the so-called diseases of civilization: Heart disease and diabetes (both related to obesity) and, more controversially, cancer. A proposed mechanism for the latter is plausible. --Abd (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You know what causes heart problems? Sin, like Sin 'n Roll (I came up with that myself). An American Nihilist (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Liberal hippie. Not clever. You're likely in bed with the Obama Administration. Quoting Phelps articles...--Elvis is King (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

At the extreme risk of adding something sensible to this debate, too much of anything - including water - is bad for you. A bit of bacon as part of an otherwise balanced diet won't harm you. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not 'adding something sensible to the debate', that's just stating the plainly obvious. An American Nihilist (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

True. I should have said, "At the extreme risk of pointing out the bloody obvious".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed sensible and reasonably correct, however, one caveat: our sense of what is "balanced" may have been heavily influenced by cultural bias, both long-term and short-term. There are peoples who ate diets with practically no carbs in them, who were healthy, as far as heart disease and diabetes were concerned. When the unusually high carb content foods, products of agriculture (the original industry) and, later, processing to remove fiber, and heavy addition of sugars, were introduced, those diseases skyrocketed, along with obesity. comment split by Sophie through adding section header, original signature --Abd (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

About "balanced diet"

What people consider a "balanced diet" is quite possibly far higher in carbohydrate than the diet we evolved to handle. We are omnivores, and can eat carbs, but we handle them by storing the energy as fat. What the Atkins diet does, by the way, often overlooked in criticism, is to seek an optimal level of carbohydrate for the individual, based on monitoring weight and carb content, after having reached a weight considered optimal. At that point, carbs in the diet are increased slowly until weight gain appears, they are then backed down to an individual maintenance level. Atkins starts with about 20 g/day of carbs. People may settle at something like 50-60 g/day. Everything else is ad libitem, i.e, by appetite. Atkins does work for lots of people, and appears to be heart-healthy. After all, Atkins was a cardiologist, and his diet was science-based. --Abd (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are you wittering about Atkins? Nobody mentioned it until you came along. Sophie^{because liberals} 19:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Why, you're right, Sophie. Should I strike it? As to your question, however, it's often written that Atkins is the "Bacon is good for you diet," which is a poor summary of Atkins, but who cares around here? If you want to search for research on fat in the diet, one of the paths is to look up research on Atkins. --Abd (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to, I just wondered why you wandered into the conversation with an irrelevant comment. Sophie^{because liberals} 19:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant, it's directly relevant, and I gave part of the reason. That you didn't see the relevance does not establish that it doesn't exist. ""Balanced diet" was mentioned, and Atkins experimentally determines a balance. Know of any other approach that does that? Know of any non-woo way of determining "balance"? Got it? Thanks. --Abd (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Then I will rephrase my obvious point. A bit of bacon in your diet won't kill you.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup, unless you are so worried about a bolt of lightning striking you down from eating it that you step in front of a bus. In Islam, actually, there is a Qur'anic exemption from the prohibition: "... unless you are hungry, and are not really telling God to fuck off." Or something like that. Maybe trying to find out what "prohibited" means, as we seem programmed to do? --Abd (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What is "a bit"? Most Americans who eat bacon eat gobs, not "a bit", whatever that means.--Elvis is King (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Gobs of bacon? Really? "Most Americans"? They serve a couple of small, thin strips of bacon (2, maybe 3) in restaurants. What is EtK talking about? And it would make the point that Bob was making, in fact, if it were true. --Abd (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This conservation is between a troll, a half-troll, and somebody highly questionable. Fallacy² (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

And someone totally useless. --Abd (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the big deal about bacon anyway. Regardless if it causes health problems, it's the right of the person eating it to eat it, and take the possible risks of health problems in the future.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Libertarianism! :O Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 02:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. Have you seen my user page?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm on a vegetarian diet: I only eat vegetarians. And a libertarian diet would be? What do they taste like? --Abd (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

ahem

Copperhead^Hisssssss 23:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

But xe's so hungry :( Nihilist (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I know, right :( --Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

RationalWiki is largely a trolling site, trolling for outraged response from "believers." It doesn't seem to matter if the material is rational or not, some is and some is not, but it's heavily slanted toward maximized snark. That's trolling! Just sayin' --Abd (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

How about these?

Japanese people eat plenty of soya and the Japanese have the longest life expectancy in the world. It could take a generation before we know if soy meat substitute is as healthy as tofu which the japanese typically eat.

• Bacos Bacon Flavoured, (Soya), Chips: 116g Tub
• Bacon Soy Crisps
• MorningStar Farms® Veggie Bacon Strips

Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You do realize this conversation is almost 5 months old? Тy^{passive-aggressive sigs are the best sigs} 14:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You do realize the japanese eat FISHFISHFISH, virtually no fried foods, and not "typically tofu". Just saying facts matter. GodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 14:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Tempura Sure facts matter. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of god, proxie. that is a TREAT. something you do for special occasions. *virtually no fried foods*, not *no fried foods*. Read something before you comment. learn about other people and their cultures rather than just googling. You really have such a small view on life, and it's sad. GodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 15:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're sure you've got your facts right please give links to prove that the Japanese don't eat tempura regularly. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Rolls eyes. i'll do a proxy. google and paste. http://www.japan-zone.com/culture/food.shtml, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cuisine#Overview_of_traditional_Japanese_cuisine, http://www.justhungry.com/2006/08/the_anatomy_of_a_japanese_meal.html. Now it is true that as Japan adopts a more and more western "immediate and fast food" lifestyle, american style fried foods, eaten at least weekely, is far more common. but, obesity is on the rise in the young population. Still, where americans eat fried food almost daily, you will not find anything like that in a japanese home. If you are curious, I'd recommend a series called "Japanology", produced by NHK World. you'll learn all about what most families eat on a regular basis. "Your Japanese Kitchen", also produced by NHK world focuses on Japanese homemakers and how they cook, with advice tips from Harumi Kurihara, world famous "home chef" or "traditional cook". Both are easily accessable at NHK World. thanks! It's always fun to share the husband's cultural obsessions.GodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 15:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Facts really matter to Godot. Godot even checked carefully that all the facts in the Wikipedia article supported her argument. Or did she?

Traditional Japanese food, generally speaking, is not prepared using a lot of food oils. An exception is deep fried types of preparation was introduced during the Edo Period due to influence from Western foods (once called Nanban ryōri (南蛮料理?)) and Chinese foods,[16] and became commonplace with the availability of oil due to increased productivity.[16] Examples of these such as Tempura, aburaage, satsumaage[16] are now part of established traditional Japanese cuisine. Words such as tempura or hiryōzu (synonyous with ganmodoki) are said to be of Portuguese origin. Also, certain homey or rustic sort of traditional Japanese foods such as kinpira, hijiki, kiriboshi daikon usually involves stir frying in some oil before stewing in soy sauce flavoring. Some standard osōzai or obanzai(ja) dishes feature stir fried Japanese greens with age or chirimenjako(ja). [1]

From the link that Godot gave me, thanks teacher. So traditionally food oils weren't used much but deep frying became commonplace during the Edo period (1603 to 1868). Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again Godot. I just wanted some light-hearted fun, I also wanted to show the other RationalWikians some tasty food that's a bit like bacon without the saturated fat.

Godot had to change it all into yet another, "Let's see how much I can humiliate Proxie" game. I'm pleased I'm not one of your students or one of the kids you teach at (you say) Sunday school. When you want to be humiliating you can be hard to bear. The youngsters you teach won't have the maturity to resist your caustic stings. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually amazingly nice. I'm just tired of trying to help dense people who refuse to think about what they say, before they say it; reread it to make sure that it actually is what they wanted to say; not make comments that are ungrounded, and pulled from personal "guesses" as fact, etc. GodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 20:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have this bollocks

This "essay" and its talk page are prime examples of why, if we can purge fun space and CP space we should also purge essay space. Can anyone say how this in any way supports our mission or makes RW a go-to place? Bad Faith (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Тy^{passive-aggressive sigs are the best sigs} 14:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Because by and large, essay space is for you to say what you want to say, without anyone saying "that's not on mission". We have people who have written about vegitarianism, and atheism, abortoin and their own personal weekend that went to hell. This is a community of real people and trolls, all of whom have things to say. These essays are not (or should not be) linked to anything OTHER than the user's space, without community approval. but it is fully wrong to say "this is an essay that is stupid" or "this essay is on mission". You should feel free to say "this is an amazing essay, and should be linked to relative articles". GodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 15:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

C®ackeЯ 15:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You should also be able to say "This is a crap essay;I hate it and this is why," without the situation devolving into wikipolitics or coop drama. Fair criticism and all that. But no, the question of site mission should not be part of that criticism in essayspace.±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 16:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sure. I meant specficallly in the sense of judging what is or is not a "worthwhile" essay here, in the sense of "so let's delete it". You can say wahtever you want about the topic, teh author, the opinions expressed, etc. :-) The reason I brought highlighting specifically, is that i personal think some of the essays here are among our best work, and we should be linking them to articles. we have people who not only have interesting things to say, but say it in an interesting way!GodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 19:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)