Fad Diets and Quackery

Remove this Banner Ad

Bazzar said:
All I'm saying is his crazy holistic mentor diagnosed an issue that was backed up 2 months later when Djokovic had blood tests. That's all. I don't believe, I don't disbelieve.
Click to expand...
That wasn't a diagnosis. It was quackery.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

More evidence that high levels of red meat consumption are possibly bad for you. Like, by real sciencey dudes with "PhD" at the end of their name. Not by dudes looking to sell you investments in their new chain of cafes.

Let's take one straw-man out of the discussion right now:

No-one’s proposing that we ban bacon, put warnings on hot dogs or take beef off the barbie. But this WHO review provides compelling evidence that the long-term consumption of red meat and/or processed meat increases your risk of cancer.
This report is based on the evidence contained within 1,000 previous studies looking at this topic. So it is one of the most complex assessments of the medical and scientific literature ever undertaken concerning a particular cancer risk. - Professor Bernard Stewart​

No one doubts that red meat is a nutritious food. Nor is there any nutritional reason to remove it from the diet. However, in view of the World Cancer Research Fund's evidence of a convincing relationship between red and processed meat and colorectal cancer, and the results of studies on red meat and cardiovascular disease, the Australian Dietary Guidelines recommended limiting fresh red meat to approximately 450g a week. - Dr Rosemary Stanton OAM​


Red meat linked to cancer – WHO report
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization, has evaluated the links between the consumption of red and processed meat, and cancer.

The group, led by Prof Bernard Stewart from UNSW and the Cancer Council haveclassified the consumption of red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A). This association was observed mainly for colorectal cancer, but associations were also seen for pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer.

The group classified processed meat as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence in humans that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer.


For those journalists with a login,the press release, report and any associated materials are available on Scimex.

Cancer Research UK has some good infographics available here: http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. Any further comments will be posted on our website and on Scimex. If you would like to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 or by email.

NEW COMMENT:

Dr Trevor Lockett is a Research Scientist at CSIRO’s Food & Nutrition Flagship

“Bowel cancer is a complex disease. In Australia, the risk of being diagnosed with bowel cancer by the age of 85 is around 1 in 10 for males and 1 in 15 for females. As people age their risk of developing bowel cancer increases rapidly after age 50 years. Diet and lifestyle factors also impact on bowel cancer risk: Obesity and sedentary lifestyles are significant risk factors. Numerous epidemiological studies have investigated the impact of dietary factors on risk of colorectal cancer. A summary of a new meta-analysis, published yesterday in the Lancet, suggested that consumption of high levels of red meat probably causes bowel cancer, really meaning that a positive association has been observed between high level consumption of red meat and cancer but that other explanations for the observations could not be ruled out but there was convincing mechanistic research to support the claim, while for processed meat (meat that has been treated to enhance flavour or preservation by salting, curing, fermenting and smoking, e.g. hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and biltong or beef jerky as well as canned meat), there was sufficient evidence in humans to conclude that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer.

A proper commentary will only be possible once the full paper detailing the study has been published, but assuming the results are correct what might this mean for us? For processed meat it has been estimated that for every 50 g portion of processed meat one ate every day of one’s life, one’s risk of developing bowel cancer at some stage in one’s life would increase by about 18% for every 50 gram portion of processed meat consumed daily. For red meat the numbers are estimated to be 17% per 100g serving of red meat consumed daily throughout life. At the level of the individual, these effects are quite small but they can have significant impact at a whole of population level where a high proportion of people are consuming high levels of these products daily.



But red meat is a valuable source, not only of protein but also micronutrients such as iron, zinc and vitamin B12 so how do we balance the risks against the benefits? The most recent Dietary Guidelines for Australians recommend that, over a week, no more than 7 serves (1 serve = 65g cooked or 100g raw weight) of lean red meat should be consumed http://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/. Within this envelope the benefits of red meat should balance the risks. Further while large daily intakes of processed meats may not be recommended their occasional consumption should probably also be acceptable but the results of this study will help us reassess our current national recommendations



The devil, however, will be in the detail and we still await the publication of the full study. Key will be understanding the extent to which bowel cancer risk-reducing dietary components such as dietary fibre content of the diets and potential cofounding cancer risk factors such as overweight, obesity, alcohol consumption and sedentary lifestyle have been accommodated in the analyses.”


Conflicts of Interest: CSIRO has the total wellbeing diet series of books. We have research suggesting that dietary fibre can reduce DNA damage induced in the colons of animals and humans associated with high dietary intakes of red meat.


To contact Trevor call Pamela Tyers, Communications Advisor, CSIRO Food and Nutrition and CSIRO's food innovation centre, Phone: +61 3 9731 3484 | Mobile: 0488 995 023

-----------



PREVIOUS COMMENTS:



Kathy Chapman is Chair, Nutrition and Physical Activity Committee, Cancer Council Australia.



"The new WHO analysis on red and processed meat and cancer risk is consistent with research commissioned by Cancer Council Australia that was released earlier this month. The study found that 2600 bowel cancer cases each year could be attributed to excess red and processed meat consumption.



"The National Health and Medical Research Council's current dietary guidelines recommends consuming no more than 65 to 100 grams of cooked red meat, three-to-four times a week. Cancer Council recommends staying within this guideline but we don't encourage avoiding red meat altogether - lean red meat is a good source of iron, zinc, vitamin B12 and protein."



"Processed meats, however, are nutrient poor by comparison and more likely to be high in fat, salt and nitrates. This is why we recommend reducing or limiting processed meat intake.



"It's also important to put the cancer risks associated with red and processed meat into context in terms of other preventable cancer causes. While Cancer Council's recent research found that red and processed meat accounted for around 2600 cancer cases each year, 11,500 cancer cases each year are caused by tobacco, 3,900 cancer cases are attributable to obesity and overweight and 3,200 are attributable to alcohol. An overall healthy lifestyle, including diet, is important to reduce your cancer risk."



To speak to Kathy please call Hollie Jenkins at Cancer Council Australia T: +61 2 8063 4153 | M: 0400 762 010


-----------


Professor Bernard Stewart is a Conjoint Professor with the School of Women's & Children's Health at the University of New South Wales and Chief Scientific Advisor for the Cancer Council Australia. He chaired the committee which conducted the review for WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer. He was the single Australian involved in the review.

“No-one’s proposing that we ban bacon, put warnings on hot dogs or take beef off the barbie. But this WHO review provides compelling evidence that the long-term consumption of red meat and/or processed meat increases your risk of cancer.

This report is based on the evidence contained within 1,000 previous studies looking at this topic. So it is one of the most complex assessments of the medical and scientific literature ever undertaken concerning a particular cancer risk.

The findings provide a new degree of certainty for health authorities who produce evidence-based dietary guidelines.”

To speak to Bernard please call Hollie Jenkins at Cancer Council Australia T: +61 2 8063 4153 | M: 0400 762 010



-----------


Dr Rosemary Stanton OAM is a Nutritionist and Visiting Fellow at the School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales. She was a member of the NHMRC’s Dietary Guidelines Working Committee.


“No one doubts that red meat is a nutritious food. Nor is there any nutritional reason to remove it from the diet. However, in view of the World Cancer Research Fund's evidence of a convincing relationship between red and processed meat and colorectal cancer, and the results of studies on red meat and cardiovascular disease, the Australian Dietary Guidelines recommended limiting fresh red meat to approximately 450g a week. This is well below the average consumption of 700g of red meat* reported recently by Australian men. (*This figure does not include poultry or fish). The extensive analysis from WHO's expert group confirms the message of the Australian guidelines - to limit consumption of red meat.

The guidelines also moved processed meats out of the basic food groups to the list of 'discretionary' foods. These foods are not essential in a healthy diet and should either be omitted or consumed only occasionally or in small quantities. Those who are overweight and those who are small and inactive have no room for discretionary foods.”

To contact Rosemary: https://www.scimex.org/experts?name=rosemary-stanton&a=7314


-----------


Dr Christina Pollard is Nutrition Policy Advisor at Curtin University and a Fellow of the World Cancer Research Fund International


“The IARC assessment are a hazard analysis, answering the question “is there evidence that substance(agent), in this case meat, is carcinogenic (capable of causing) cancer in humans?” ranking from Group 1 “carcinogenic to humans” to Group 5 “probably not carcinogenic to humans”.

Group 1 means convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer in humans. Evidence shows development of cancer in exposed humans and also strong evidence in experimental animal research.

Group 2 agents have varying evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and experimental animals.

Group 2A means the agent is probably carcinogenic to humans (limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans (positive association, but cannot rule out confounders) and sufficient in experimental animals.)

You cannot compare agents in the same group because the risk associated with exposure is not part of the assessment.


Group 1 agents are all hazards, they are capable of causing cancer, but the risk may be different due to different levels of exposure across the population.


What do cancer findings mean for Australian population health dietary recommendations?

The risk associated with meat (red meat and processed meat) consumption in the Australian diet was reviewed for the 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines.

The risk of cancer and other chronic disease as well as beneficial contributions of foods in the overall diet was considered (for meat protein-rich and an important source of iron, zinc).

Due to risk of colorectal cancer, Australian guidelines do not recommend processed and cured meats and recommendation to limit intake of lean meat or equivalents *to a maximum of 455grams per week of per week (one serve of 65grams of cooked lean red meat a day) for adults.


Mean daily intake of meat was greater than recommended for men, and the guidelines suggested eating 20% less on average.”

For more information about the IARC process, http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/News/Q&A_ENG.pdf


*Equivalents the minimum number of serves of lean meats, poultry, fish, eggs, tofu, nuts and seeds and legumes per day.


To contact Christina call+61 8 9266 1142


-----------


Professor Mark L Wahlqvist is Visiting Professor at the National Health Research Institute (NHRI) in Taiwan and Zhejiang University in China and Emeritus Professor at Monash University


“As important as the IARC findings are, we must now be more prudent ,sparing and equitable in the use of meat and meat products to be consistent with the new UN Global Goals and the increasing need for food security with climate change '
 
Chief said:
More evidence that high levels of red meat consumption are possibly bad for you. Like, by real sciencey dudes with "PhD" at the end of their name. Not by dudes looking to sell you investments in their new chain of cafes.

Let's take one straw-man out of the discussion right now:

No-one’s proposing that we ban bacon, put warnings on hot dogs or take beef off the barbie. But this WHO review provides compelling evidence that the long-term consumption of red meat and/or processed meat increases your risk of cancer.
This report is based on the evidence contained within 1,000 previous studies looking at this topic. So it is one of the most complex assessments of the medical and scientific literature ever undertaken concerning a particular cancer risk. - Professor Bernard Stewart​

No one doubts that red meat is a nutritious food. Nor is there any nutritional reason to remove it from the diet. However, in view of the World Cancer Research Fund's evidence of a convincing relationship between red and processed meat and colorectal cancer, and the results of studies on red meat and cardiovascular disease, the Australian Dietary Guidelines recommended limiting fresh red meat to approximately 450g a week. - Dr Rosemary Stanton OAM​


Red meat linked to cancer – WHO report
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization, has evaluated the links between the consumption of red and processed meat, and cancer.

The group, led by Prof Bernard Stewart from UNSW and the Cancer Council haveclassified the consumption of red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A). This association was observed mainly for colorectal cancer, but associations were also seen for pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer.

The group classified processed meat as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence in humans that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer.


For those journalists with a login,the press release, report and any associated materials are available on Scimex.

Cancer Research UK has some good infographics available here: http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. Any further comments will be posted on our website and on Scimex. If you would like to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 or by email.

NEW COMMENT:

Dr Trevor Lockett is a Research Scientist at CSIRO’s Food & Nutrition Flagship

“Bowel cancer is a complex disease. In Australia, the risk of being diagnosed with bowel cancer by the age of 85 is around 1 in 10 for males and 1 in 15 for females. As people age their risk of developing bowel cancer increases rapidly after age 50 years. Diet and lifestyle factors also impact on bowel cancer risk: Obesity and sedentary lifestyles are significant risk factors. Numerous epidemiological studies have investigated the impact of dietary factors on risk of colorectal cancer. A summary of a new meta-analysis, published yesterday in the Lancet, suggested that consumption of high levels of red meat probably causes bowel cancer, really meaning that a positive association has been observed between high level consumption of red meat and cancer but that other explanations for the observations could not be ruled out but there was convincing mechanistic research to support the claim, while for processed meat (meat that has been treated to enhance flavour or preservation by salting, curing, fermenting and smoking, e.g. hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and biltong or beef jerky as well as canned meat), there was sufficient evidence in humans to conclude that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer.

A proper commentary will only be possible once the full paper detailing the study has been published, but assuming the results are correct what might this mean for us? For processed meat it has been estimated that for every 50 g portion of processed meat one ate every day of one’s life, one’s risk of developing bowel cancer at some stage in one’s life would increase by about 18% for every 50 gram portion of processed meat consumed daily. For red meat the numbers are estimated to be 17% per 100g serving of red meat consumed daily throughout life. At the level of the individual, these effects are quite small but they can have significant impact at a whole of population level where a high proportion of people are consuming high levels of these products daily.



But red meat is a valuable source, not only of protein but also micronutrients such as iron, zinc and vitamin B12 so how do we balance the risks against the benefits? The most recent Dietary Guidelines for Australians recommend that, over a week, no more than 7 serves (1 serve = 65g cooked or 100g raw weight) of lean red meat should be consumed http://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/. Within this envelope the benefits of red meat should balance the risks. Further while large daily intakes of processed meats may not be recommended their occasional consumption should probably also be acceptable but the results of this study will help us reassess our current national recommendations



The devil, however, will be in the detail and we still await the publication of the full study. Key will be understanding the extent to which bowel cancer risk-reducing dietary components such as dietary fibre content of the diets and potential cofounding cancer risk factors such as overweight, obesity, alcohol consumption and sedentary lifestyle have been accommodated in the analyses.”


Conflicts of Interest: CSIRO has the total wellbeing diet series of books. We have research suggesting that dietary fibre can reduce DNA damage induced in the colons of animals and humans associated with high dietary intakes of red meat.


To contact Trevor call Pamela Tyers, Communications Advisor, CSIRO Food and Nutrition and CSIRO's food innovation centre, Phone: +61 3 9731 3484 | Mobile: 0488 995 023

-----------
Funny stuff.


PREVIOUS COMMENTS:



Kathy Chapman is Chair, Nutrition and Physical Activity Committee, Cancer Council Australia.



"The new WHO analysis on red and processed meat and cancer risk is consistent with research commissioned by Cancer Council Australia that was released earlier this month. The study found that 2600 bowel cancer cases each year could be attributed to excess red and processed meat consumption.



"The National Health and Medical Research Council's current dietary guidelines recommends consuming no more than 65 to 100 grams of cooked red meat, three-to-four times a week. Cancer Council recommends staying within this guideline but we don't encourage avoiding red meat altogether - lean red meat is a good source of iron, zinc, vitamin B12 and protein."



"Processed meats, however, are nutrient poor by comparison and more likely to be high in fat, salt and nitrates. This is why we recommend reducing or limiting processed meat intake.



"It's also important to put the cancer risks associated with red and processed meat into context in terms of other preventable cancer causes. While Cancer Council's recent research found that red and processed meat accounted for around 2600 cancer cases each year, 11,500 cancer cases each year are caused by tobacco, 3,900 cancer cases are attributable to obesity and overweight and 3,200 are attributable to alcohol. An overall healthy lifestyle, including diet, is important to reduce your cancer risk."



To speak to Kathy please call Hollie Jenkins at Cancer Council Australia T: +61 2 8063 4153 | M: 0400 762 010


-----------


Professor Bernard Stewart is a Conjoint Professor with the School of Women's & Children's Health at the University of New South Wales and Chief Scientific Advisor for the Cancer Council Australia. He chaired the committee which conducted the review for WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer. He was the single Australian involved in the review.

“No-one’s proposing that we ban bacon, put warnings on hot dogs or take beef off the barbie. But this WHO review provides compelling evidence that the long-term consumption of red meat and/or processed meat increases your risk of cancer.

This report is based on the evidence contained within 1,000 previous studies looking at this topic. So it is one of the most complex assessments of the medical and scientific literature ever undertaken concerning a particular cancer risk.

The findings provide a new degree of certainty for health authorities who produce evidence-based dietary guidelines.”

To speak to Bernard please call Hollie Jenkins at Cancer Council Australia T: +61 2 8063 4153 | M: 0400 762 010



-----------


Dr Rosemary Stanton OAM is a Nutritionist and Visiting Fellow at the School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales. She was a member of the NHMRC’s Dietary Guidelines Working Committee.


“No one doubts that red meat is a nutritious food. Nor is there any nutritional reason to remove it from the diet. However, in view of the World Cancer Research Fund's evidence of a convincing relationship between red and processed meat and colorectal cancer, and the results of studies on red meat and cardiovascular disease, the Australian Dietary Guidelines recommended limiting fresh red meat to approximately 450g a week. This is well below the average consumption of 700g of red meat* reported recently by Australian men. (*This figure does not include poultry or fish). The extensive analysis from WHO's expert group confirms the message of the Australian guidelines - to limit consumption of red meat.

The guidelines also moved processed meats out of the basic food groups to the list of 'discretionary' foods. These foods are not essential in a healthy diet and should either be omitted or consumed only occasionally or in small quantities. Those who are overweight and those who are small and inactive have no room for discretionary foods.”

To contact Rosemary: https://www.scimex.org/experts?name=rosemary-stanton&a=7314


-----------


Dr Christina Pollard is Nutrition Policy Advisor at Curtin University and a Fellow of the World Cancer Research Fund International


“The IARC assessment are a hazard analysis, answering the question “is there evidence that substance(agent), in this case meat, is carcinogenic (capable of causing) cancer in humans?” ranking from Group 1 “carcinogenic to humans” to Group 5 “probably not carcinogenic to humans”.

Group 1 means convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer in humans. Evidence shows development of cancer in exposed humans and also strong evidence in experimental animal research.

Group 2 agents have varying evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and experimental animals.

Group 2A means the agent is probably carcinogenic to humans (limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans (positive association, but cannot rule out confounders) and sufficient in experimental animals.)

You cannot compare agents in the same group because the risk associated with exposure is not part of the assessment.


Group 1 agents are all hazards, they are capable of causing cancer, but the risk may be different due to different levels of exposure across the population.


What do cancer findings mean for Australian population health dietary recommendations?

The risk associated with meat (red meat and processed meat) consumption in the Australian diet was reviewed for the 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines.

The risk of cancer and other chronic disease as well as beneficial contributions of foods in the overall diet was considered (for meat protein-rich and an important source of iron, zinc).

Due to risk of colorectal cancer, Australian guidelines do not recommend processed and cured meats and recommendation to limit intake of lean meat or equivalents *to a maximum of 455grams per week of per week (one serve of 65grams of cooked lean red meat a day) for adults.


Mean daily intake of meat was greater than recommended for men, and the guidelines suggested eating 20% less on average.”

For more information about the IARC process, http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/News/Q&A_ENG.pdf


*Equivalents the minimum number of serves of lean meats, poultry, fish, eggs, tofu, nuts and seeds and legumes per day.


To contact Christina call+61 8 9266 1142


-----------


Professor Mark L Wahlqvist is Visiting Professor at the National Health Research Institute (NHRI) in Taiwan and Zhejiang University in China and Emeritus Professor at Monash University


“As important as the IARC findings are, we must now be more prudent ,sparing and equitable in the use of meat and meat products to be consistent with the new UN Global Goals and the increasing need for food security with climate change '
Click to expand...

Cherry picked to perfection.
 
Is there a causation element to the study? I get disappointed with studies that have a statistical correlation between things and present them as a causation relationship, such as [this is an example] the overwhelming number of broken little toes occurring as a result of kicking furniture when it is dark - so you are more likely to break a toe when it is night time and the resulting press release is titled: "Light being shone on toes can stop them from breaking"
 
Nickos66 said:
Hang on a sec... Isn't this whole new publicised issue based on the pretense of consuming 50g of red meat a day? Hardly what one would consider a high amount. The strawman byline doesn't match the article in this instance.
Click to expand...
From Zoe Harcombe

"5) Relative vs. absolute risk

The press release headlines with “each 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%.” Crikey. 18%! Put that bacon sarnie down now (see – don’t blame the bacon for what the white bread & ketchup did!) This, however, is the game that all of these observational study research press releases play and it’s disgraceful scare-mongering.

Shall we look at the absolute risk?

Cancer Research UK has terrific statistics on all types of cancer. I’ve just looked at the UK. They do have data for other countries if you want to do your own rummage. The incident rate for all people in the UK, age-standardised (you pretty much won’t see bowel cancer before the age of 50 – look at the age data), in 2011 was 47 per 100,000 people.

47 per 100,000 people.

You would need to know 2,128 people, including enough older people, to know 1 person who developed bowel cancer in the UK in 2011.

Now – let’s do that relative vs. absolute risk thing.

Assuming that everything the WHO did had been perfect and that there really was an 18% relative difference between those having 50g of processed meat a day and those not (and assuming that nothing else was impacting this), the absolute risk would be 51 people per 100,000 vs. 43 people per 100,000.

Now where’s the bacon and egg before my CrossFit session?!"
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

"2) One’s diet vs. one food

By singling out red meat/processed meat in this way, the whole diet and lifestyle of a person is not taken into account. There is a world of difference between the health of a burger/hot-dog/ketchup/white bun/fizzy drink guzzling couch potato and a grass-fed-steak eating/CrossFit/six-pack Paleo specimen.

As I showed in this blog, the baseline for the processed meat eaters showed that they were far less active, had a higher BMI, were THREE TIMES more likely to smoke and almost TWICE as likely to have diabetes. This makes processed meat a MARKER of an unhealthy person, not a MAKER of an unhealthy person.

Even if all the smoking/exercise/other conditions baseline factors are adjusted for, there is no possibility of adjusting for all the dietary factors that make up the couch potato vs. the Paleo buff. The whole diet is not adjusted for when the one line (meat) is targeted."
 
Bazzar said:
Good to see Tom Elliot on 3AW just say the study is a crock. He looked at the Australian stats and the average for colon cancer is 5% and if you eat meat everyday and it increases by 18% as the WHO has said, so that increases to just 6%. Scaremongering he called it just as did Zoe Harcombe and no doubt more in the coming days
Click to expand...
The scaremongering is likely coming from inadequate reporting and inadequate understanding of what they are actually saying.

But go ahead and cherry pick radio sound bites.

And go ahead and have bacon and eggs for breakfast. Nobody is saying you shouldn't. They're just pointing out that the evidence shows that in a population of people, consuming these products raises occurrences of some cancers.
 
Wow... I never thought i'd agree with Barnaby Joyce on anything in my lifetime.. But, there you go.

http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-p...NO006&promote_channel=edmail&mbnr=MTAxMDE3OTc

Mr Joyce said the idea that sausages could be labelled as lethal as cigarettes was ridiculous.

"No it shouldn't be compared to cigarettes and obviously that makes the whole thing a farce – comparing sausages to cigarettes," he said.

"I don't think that we should get too excited that if you have a sausage you're going to die of bowel cancer because you're not.

"A lot of people to be honest don't eat two slices of bacon a day, they don't have bacon everyday and I think the biggest thing is to make sure you get a balanced diet."


Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-p...channel=edmail&mbnr=MTAxMDE3OTc#ixzz3pkBxN0Vo
Follow us: @watoday on Twitter | WAtoday on Facebook
Click to expand...
 
I would eat a slice or two of bacon a day... but I also eat more vegies than the vast majority of people too, so I'm pretty comfortable with that trade-off.

Hell, my ex was a vegetarian and I still ate heaps more vegies than she did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top