You are not a f*cking DJ. You’re an overpaid, untalented, cake-throwing c*nt.

Clanket

In all fairness to the Star, it is by far the best paper for Sport. Well it was when I use to buy papers. Haven't bought any in about 2 years because of the constant bad news/negativity.

ianuss

Is mise le key wrote: »

Fixed your post chief.

Now i understand it wont apply to everyone but a lot of the population is simply kept in the dark about the majority of stuff in order to maintain the ruling system, True?

No. People are idiots.

BaZmO*

jtsuited wrote: »

The ONLY time I'm ever exposed to tabloids is when I'm getting a chinese take away and there's one on the counter and I've got five minutes to kill.

Same here. And also while waiting for someone to get a sandwich in a shop I'll catch a glimpse of the headlines.

Clanket

Come on now Is Mise. Is it not up to each person to make up their own minds rather than believing what the papers/politicians etc tell them. If they can't, then they are idiots.

Is mise le key

ianuss wrote: »

No. People are idiots.

SHÍT!!

Better find that Fine gael registration form that came through the letterbox a while back & get it in quick :P

jtsuited

Is mise le key wrote: »

Fixed your post chief.

Now i understand it wont apply to everyone but a lot of the population is simply kept in the dark about the majority of stuff in order to maintain the ruling system, True?

no.
People are idiots. End of story.

Zascar

Have to agree, I really do not understand why anyone would buy any of the tabloids. To me it's basically paying money display your ignorance to other people.

I do understand why people don't want to read a 2000 word article for every detail of a simple story, but sadly the quality of the journalism decreases in quality along with the decrease of word count. I wonder if there would be a market for a 'quality tabloid' where the story is well written and accurate, but it's just shrank down into a good summary without going into too much detail.. Or is that just an oxymoron?

My consumption of news varies greatly depending on my mood. I have far far more interest in things like business & technology - specifically social media, so I read Mashable, Arstechnica and Techcrunch every day - but I would not be on IrishTimes, BBC, Sky etc nearly as much. I like the Guardian, it's definitely my favourite. NTY is going behind a paywall soon i think

I quite like the way TheJournal.ie does the 'Top 9 at 9' with really short snippets of what's happening that day. You can then go and read full stories of whatever interests you.

jtsuited

I never get the 'ah the news is presented in a short bite size' thing. A quality paper will have a headline and then a little bit right underneath it so you can get the gist. If you have any interest, you read further. Simple really.

The Guardian is by far the best news source out there......HOWEVER, their coverage of the nuclear non-disaster was bloody disgraceful and they let their green bent get out of hand.

But best of a bad lot by a very large margin. The Irish Times website is just fcuking abysmal. That paper gets worse and worse by the day.

Zascar

I might get slammed for this but it really boggles my mind as to why sometimes up to half the entire newspaper is dedicated to sport. Seriously, there are more important things going on in the world that people should be informed about.

joker77

Zascar wrote: »

I might get slammed for this but it really boggles my mind as to why sometimes up to half the entire newspaper is dedicated to sport. Seriously, there are more important things going on in the world that people should be informed about.

Simple really, it's what most people are into. Lots of lads will skip right to the sports section, disregarding most of the rest of the paper.

old gregg

as usual, hopeless at self promotion but ..... just confirmed ....

I'll be performing at the Ambiosonic festival in the south of France in June. This will be the première performance of the new Berlin material and in hiQ octophonic surround sound (don't ask me about hiQ octophonic till I get back). Crikey I'm looking forward to this!

http://ambiosonic.org/en/index.php

g5fd6ow0hseima

jtsuited wrote: »

no.
People are idiots. End of story.

People are people so why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully

Scubadevils

old gregg wrote: »

as usual, hopeless at self promotion but ..... just confirmed ....

I'll be performing at the Ambiosonic festival in the south of France in June. This will be the première performance of the new Berlin material and in hiQ octophonic surround sound (don't ask me about hiQ octophonic till I get back). Crikey I'm looking forward to this!

http://ambiosonic.org/en/index.php

Sacrebleu!

Scubadevils

I have paid a lot of attention to what I eat in recent years and moving nearer to being a vegetarian lately - gave up pork about 3 years ago and beef just over a year ago, only chicken and fish remain, haven't eaten lamb or any other meat since I was probably in my teens. I can't say that I feel 10 or 15 years younger in terms of health etc, I can say that I feel healthier than ever... I know its not just that I've dropped certain foods but also what I now eat, plus I pay a lot more attention to fitness and things like stress management etc.

Anyway, an interesting video below from a US chef (I'd never heard of him) about what is wrong with the western diet and typical consumption of meat.

http://www.ted.com/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_what_we_eat.html

Scubadevils

Oh and if you have about an hour to spare, this should be interesting also on the subject of food - I've read the book 'In Defense of Food' by Michael Pollan but haven't actually watched this, I assume the content is much the same. Basically again what is wrong with what we eat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBr_i1mH_08

BaZmO*

On a related subject, I just had my first BBQ of the year tonight. I won't say "Nyom Nyom" cos I know you hate it, but it was absolutely beautiful......and the first of many!

cranky bollix

Scubadevils wrote: »

I have paid a lot of attention to what I eat in recent years and moving nearer to being a vegetarian lately ........

Thick fillet steak on the bbq - like ive just had today - is with out a doubt the nicest food Known to man - that is all

Scubadevils

Scumbags, you've obviously never had a BBQ carrot :pac:

jtsuited

wow, that guy is completely talking out of his arse. he's a chef, not a scientist.

The reason the 'evil empire' told us to eat more dairy, meat, poultry etc in the 1950s was because malnutrition was one of the biggest killers in Western society. Eat more high protein, high fat food and you have less chance of being malnourished and dying from it.

Also, obesity is one of the biggest killers around today. Before we didn't have enough food to see us through to 60. Now we have too bloody much, we live A LOT longer and a lot of us die of things we get from over-consumption.

And you know how we got to this very very fortunate position???? Intensive farming made astoundingly efficient by three main things - nitrate fertilisers, proper pesticides and animal antibiotics.
3 things that clueless environmentalists like to demonise but on the whole are the reasons even the poorest people in the West can die from over-consumption.

The whole problem with the Western diet is that we have too much of everything (not exactly a problem tbh). Our bodies love calories so they taste nice. It's that simple.

Eat more vegetables and don't go mental with meat and sugar. Not because there's any magic goodness in vegetables but because they're not particularly calorie laden.

And the main thing that we have to control is our calorie intake. Less calories, less subcutaneous fat, less stress on our cardiovascular system.

There are indeed some tenuous (not at all as clear as the press would like to make out) links between high beef consumption and certain stomach and bowel cancers but overall, to look at the Western diet in a 'oh we've completely been doing it all wrong' way is simply wrong.

End Rant.

Scubadevils

Not only do we have too much of everything, but we have too much of food that consists of crap preservatives and ingredients that we probably shouldn't be eating. The argument isn't just against meat eating, its against the western diet overall and the amount of sh1t people eat these days that passes off as food.

Scubadevils

Also, I can't quite bring myself to read all of it tonight but the below link includes what appears to be a pretty comprehensive study into the western diet... its a 21 page PDF document again about the western diet.

http://www.dovepress.com/the-western-diet-and-lifestyle-and-diseases-of-civilization-peer-reviewed-article-RRCC-MVP

Scubadevils

Had to dig around my internet history to find this one... the wonderful and also difficult thing about the internet is that typically you can find the results that best support your argument, and clearly the below suggests a link between cancer and meat eating. I'm sure Jeff or another google search can yield an argument against however...

Cancer Facts - Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk

The World Health Organization has determined that dietary factors account for at least 30 percent of all cancers in Western countries and up to 20 percent in developing countries. When cancer researchers started to search for links between diet and cancer, one of the most noticeable findings was that people who avoided meat were much less likely to develop the disease. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters.1-3 In the United States, researchers studied Seventh-day Adventists, a religious group that is remarkable because, although nearly all members avoid tobacco and alcohol and follow generally healthful lifestyles, about half of the Adventist population is vegetarian, while the other half consumes modest amounts of meat. This fact allowed scientists to separate the effects of eating meat from other factors. Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat.4 In contrast, Harvard studies showed that daily meat eaters have approximately three times the colon cancer risk, compared to those who rarely eat meat.

A number of hypotheses have been advanced to explain the connection between meat consumption and cancer risk. First, meat is devoid of fiber and other nutrients that have a protective effect. Meat also contains animal protein, saturated fat, and, in some cases, carcinogenic compounds such as heterocyclic amines (HCA) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) formed during the processing or cooking of meat. HCAs, formed as meat is cooked at high temperatures, and PAHs, formed during the burning of organic substances, are believed to increase cancer risk. In addition, the high fat content of meat and other animal products increases hormone production, thus increasing the risk of hormone-related cancers such as breast and prostate cancer.

In 1997, the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) published a review of the major studies on food, nutrition, and cancer prevention. For cancers of the breast, prostate, kidney, and pancreas, it was determined that red meat (beef, pork, or lamb) consumption possibly increased cancer risk. For colorectal cancer, a review of the literature determined that red meat probably increased cancer risk and that processed meat, saturated/animal fat, and heavily cooked meat possibly increased risk.5

Carcinogenic Compounds in Cooked Meat

Heterocyclic Amines
HCAs, a family of mutagenic compounds, are produced during the cooking process of many animal products, including chicken, beef, pork, and fish. Even meat that is cooked under normal grilling, frying, or oven-broiling may contain significant quantities of these mutagens.6,7,8 The longer and hotter the meat is cooked, the more these compounds form. In some studies, grilled chicken has formed higher concentrations of these cancer-causing substances than other types of cooked meat.9

The major classes of heterocyclic amines include amino-imidazo-quinolines, or amino-imidazo-quinoxalines (collectively called IQ-type compounds), and amino-imidazo-pyridines such as PhIP. IQ-type compounds and PhIP are formed from creatine or creatinine, specific amino acids, and sugars.10 All meats (including fish) are high in creatine, and HCA formation is greatest when cooking meat at high temperatures, as is most common with grilling or frying. Consumption of well-done meat and PhIP has been associated with increased risk of breast cancer and colon cancer, as discussed in greater detail below. A recent case-control study at the University of Utah that included 952 subjects with rectal cancer and 1205 controls found that men and women with the highest consumption of processed or well-cooked meat had an increased risk of rectal cancer.11

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Grilling or broiling meat over a direct flame results in fat dropping on the hot fire and the production of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-containing flames. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) adhere to the surface of food, and the more intense the heat, the more PAHs are present.5 They are widely believed to play a significant role in human cancers.12 A fairly consistent association between grilled or broiled, but not fried, meat consumption and stomach cancer implies that dietary exposure to PAHs may play a role in the development of stomach cancer in humans.5

Breast Cancer

Countries with a higher intake of fat, especially fat from animal products, such as meat and dairy products, have a higher incidence of breast cancer.13,14,15 In Japan, for example, the traditional diet is much lower in fat, especially animal fat, than the typical western diet, and breast cancer rates are low. In the late 1940s, when breast cancer was particularly rare in Japan, less than 10 percent of the calories in the Japanese diet came from fat.16 The American diet is centered on animal products, which tend to be high in fat and low in other important nutrients, with 30 to 35 percent of calories coming from fat. When Japanese girls are raised on westernized diets, their rate of breast cancer increases dramatically. Even within Japan, affluent women who eat meat daily have an 8.5 times higher risk of breast cancer than poorer women who rarely or never eat meat.17 One of the proposed reasons is that fatty foods boost the hormones that promote cancer.

The consumption of high-fat foods such as meat, dairy products, fried foods, and even vegetable oils causes a woman’s body to make more estrogens, which encourage cancer cell growth in the breast and other organs that are sensitive to female sex hormones. This suggests that, by avoiding fatty foods throughout life, hormone-related cancer risk decreases. A 2003 study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, found that when girls ages eight to ten reduced the amount of fat in their diet—even very slightly—their estrogen levels were held at a lower and safer level during the next several years. By increasing vegetables, fruits, grains, and beans, and reducing animal-derived foods, the amount of estradiol (a principal estrogen) in their blood dropped by 30 percent, compared to a group of girls who did not change their diets.18

Harvard researchers recently conducted a prospective analysis of 90,655 premenopausal women, ages 26 to 46, enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study II and determined that intake of animal fat, especially from red meat and high-fat dairy products, during premenopausal years is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Increased risk was not associated with vegetable fats.19

In addition, researchers at the Ontario Cancer Institute conducted a meta-analysis of all the case-control and cohort studies published up to July 2003 that studied dietary fat, fat-containing foods, and breast cancer risk. Case-control and cohort study analyses yielded similar risk results, with a high total fat intake associated with increased breast cancer risk. Significant relative risks for meat and saturated fat intake also emerged, with high meat intake increasing cancer risk by 17 percent and high saturated fat intake increasing cancer risk by 19 percent.20

Several studies show meat intake to be a breast cancer risk factor, even when confounding factors, such as total caloric intake and total fat intake, are controlled.21,22 Part of the reason may be that meat becomes a source of carcinogens and/or mutagens, such as HCAs, that are formed while cooking meat at high temperatures. A review of HCAs showed that certain HCAs are distributed to the mammary gland and that humans can activate HCAs metabolically.23 As a consequence, frequent meat consumption may be a risk factor for breast cancer.21

Colorectal Cancer

As with breast cancer, frequent consumption of meat, particularly red meat, is associated with an increased risk of colon cancer.24,25 Total fat and saturated fat, which tend to be substantially higher in animal products than in plant-derived foods, and refined sugar, all heighten colon cancer risks. At Harvard University, researchers zeroed in on red meat, finding that individuals eating beef, pork, or lamb daily have approximately three times the colon cancer risk, compared to people who generally avoid these products. 25,26 A review of 32 case-control and 13 cohort studies concluded that meat consumption is associated with an increase in colorectal cancer risk, with the association being more consistently found with red meat and processed meat.12 And, in the recently published Cancer Prevention Study II, involving 148,610 adults followed since 1982, the group with the highest red meat and processed meat intakes had approximately 30 to 40 percent and 50 percent higher colon cancer risk, respectively, compared to those with lower intakes.27 In this study, high red meat intake was defined as 3 ounces of beef, lamb, or pork for men and 2 ounces for women daily, the amount in a typical hamburger. High processed meat intake (ham, cold cuts, hot dogs, bacon, sausage) was defined as 1 ounce eaten 5 or 6 times a week for men, and 2 or 3 times a week for women—the amount in one slice of ham. In addition, earlier studies have also indicated that those consuming white meat, particularly chicken, have approximately a threefold higher colon cancer risk, compared to vegetarians.28

Secondary bile acids are probably part of the problem. In order to absorb fat, the liver makes bile, which it stores in the gallbladder. After a meal, the gallbladder sends bile acids into the intestine, where they chemically modify the fats eaten so they can be absorbed. Unfortunately, bacteria in the intestine turn these bile acids into cancer-promoting substances called secondary bile acids. Meats not only contain a substantial amount of fat; they also foster the growth of bacteria that cause carcinogenic secondary bile acids to form.

Cooking methods that promote the formation of HCAs are believed to play a significant role in colorectal cancer risk. A case-control study in North Carolina that analyzed meat intake by level of doneness, cooking method, and estimated intake of HCAs in 620 colon cancer patients and 1038 controls, found that not only was red meat intake positively associated with colon cancer risk, but also pan-frying was the riskiest way to prepare meat due to high HCA formation.29 Confirmation of the link between frying and colorectal cancer risk was adduced in the review mentioned above, where high frying temperature was found to increase colon cancer risk almost twofold, and rectal cancer risk by 60 percent.12

Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is one of the leading cancers among men in the U.S., and researchers have explored a number of possible dietary factors contributing to prostate cancer risk. These include dietary fat, saturated fat, dairy products, and meat, as well as dietary factors that may decrease risk, such as the consumption of carotenoids and other antioxidants, fiber, and fruit. As with breast cancer risk, a man’s intake of dietary fat, which is abundant in meat and other animal products, increases testosterone production, which in turn increases prostate cancer risk. One of the largest nested case-control studies, which showed a positive association between prostate cancer incidence and red meat consumption, was done at Harvard University in an analysis of almost 15,000 male physicians in the Physicians’ Health Study.30 Although this study primarily analyzed plasma fatty acids and prostate cancer risk, the authors found that men who consumed red meat at least five times per week had a relative risk of 2.5 for developing prostate cancer compared to men who ate red meat less than once per week. The most comprehensive dietary cohort study on diet and prostate cancer risk reported on nearly 52,000 health professionals in Harvard’s Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which completed food frequency questionnaires in 1986.31 The report, based on 3 to 4 years of follow-up data, found a statistically significant relationship between higher red meat intake and the risk of prostate cancer, with red meat as the food group with the strongest positive association with advanced prostate cancer. These and other study findings suggest that reducing or eliminating meat from the diet reduces the risk of prostate cancer.32

Other Cancers

Although not as extensively studied as breast, colon, and prostate cancer risk, a number of studies have concluded that meat consumption may play a significant role in kidney and pancreatic cancer risk. Three of eight case-control studies examining the relationship between renal cell carcinoma and meat consumption found a statistically significant increase in risk with a high consumption of meat. In addition, a prospective study in Japan found that people consuming meat daily had higher death rates from kidney cancer than those eating meat less frequently.5

Pancreatic cancer is relatively uncommon, yet it is frequently fatal, with fewer than 20 percent of cases surviving for one full year. Daily meat intake has been shown to be associated with increased pancreatic cancer risk in a number of prospective, cohort, and case-control studies.5 Some of these studies have singled out beef and pork consumption and have concluded there is a higher risk for pancreatic cancer with a higher intake of these foods.5 Dietary fat, saturated fat, and protein intake has not demonstrated a relationship with pancreatic cancer risk, however. This finding implies that cooking methods, and possibly HCA and PAH formation in cooked meat, might explain the association as well as some of the inconsistencies in data that show a relationship between meat in the diet and pancreatic carcinogenesis.5

Conclusion

Two themes consistently emerge from studies of cancer from many sites: vegetables and fruits help to reduce risk, while meat, animal products, and other fatty foods are frequently found to increase risk. Consumption of dietary fat drives production of hormones, which, in turn, promotes growth of cancer cells in hormone-sensitive organs such as the breast and prostate. Meat is devoid of the protective effects of fiber, antioxidants, phytochemicals, and other helpful nutrients, and it contains high concentrations of saturated fat and potentially carcinogenic compounds, which may increase one’s risk of developing many different kinds of cancer.

Vegetarian diets and diets rich in high-fiber plant foods such as whole grains, legumes, vegetables, and fruits offer a measure of protection.5 Fiber greatly speeds the passage of food through the colon, effectively removing carcinogens, and fiber actually changes the type of bacteria that is present in the intestine, so there is reduced production of carcinogenic secondary bile acids. Plant foods are also naturally low in fat and rich in antioxidants and other anti-cancer compounds. Not surprisingly, vegetarians are at the lowest risk for cancer and have a significantly reduced risk compared to meat-eaters.33
http://www.cancerproject.org/survival/cancer_facts/meat.php

jtsuited

my point was, that there IS indeed a link between meat consumption and cancer, BUT there is so much more to it than simply 'beef causes cancer'.

Every time there is a comprehensive meta-analysis of the literature, the same things come up regarding food.............eating more vegetables/fruit and less meat gives you better survival chances w/regard heart disease etc.

Every time they try and do the same with cancer, you get very not so clear cut results. Certainly not enough to say meat causes cancer.

jtsuited

Scubadevils wrote: »

Not only do we have too much of everything, but we have too much of food that consists of crap preservatives and ingredients that we probably shouldn't be eating.

like?
if we didn't use preservatives, we would be over-run with health problems caused by food spoiling.

BaZmO*

Scubadevils wrote: »

Not only do we have too much of everything, but we have too much of food that consists of crap preservatives and ingredients that we probably shouldn't be eating. The argument isn't just against meat eating, its against the western diet overall and the amount of sh1t people eat these days that passes off as food.

I'm not sure I buy the "preservatives are bad" argument per se. After WWII most foods were stuffed full of the stuff, so much so that apparently it took the average body an extra 10 years to decompose. And even with all those preservatives, that generation lived much longer that previous generations. It's our generation that's the first generation that's predicted not to live longer than the previous one. It's a combination of highly processed foods and a more sedentary lifestyle that's the biggest factor.

There is no such thing as "bad food" but there is such a thing as a "bad diet", and when combined with a "bad lifestyle", i.e. little or no exercise, it leads to a miriam of health problems far beyond the simplified notion of "red meat BAD" "vegetables GOOD"

Scubadevils

Sorry yes, preservatives was the wrong choice there - what I meant to say was in relation to processed food.

jtsuited

BaZmO* wrote: »

I'm not sure I buy the "preservatives are bad" argument per se. After WWII most foods were stuffed full of the stuff, so much so that apparently it took the average body an extra 10 years to decompose. And even with all those preservatives, that generation lived much longer that previous generations. It's our generation that's the first generation that's predicted not to live longer than the previous one. It's a combination of highly processed foods and a more sedentary lifestyle that's the biggest factor.

There is no such thing as "bad food" but there is such a thing as a "bad diet", and when combined with a "bad lifestyle", i.e. little or no exercise, it leads to a miriam of health problems far beyond the simplified notion of "red meat BAD" "vegetables GOOD"

who in the name of all that is holy has predicted that??????? Seriously. In all my geeky interest in this area I have yet to hear that prediction even once.

jtsuited

BaZmO* wrote: »

it leads to a miriam of health problems far beyond the simplified notion of "red meat BAD" "vegetables GOOD"

leave miriam out of this!!:p

BaZmO*

jtsuited wrote: »

who in the name of all that is holy has predicted that??????? Seriously. In all my geeky interest in this area I have yet to hear that prediction even once.

Seriously? You have never heard that? I've heard/read it loads of times. Must try and Google it, although not sure what the source will be.

jtsuited wrote: »

leave miriam out of this!!:p

Haha! Gotta love typos!

jtsuited

Scubadevils wrote: »

Sorry yes, preservatives was the wrong choice there - what I meant to say was in relation to processed food.

but again, what are they putting into processed food that makes it so bad? You know that thing about 'processed vegetables have lost all their vitamins' is a myth right?

btw, the worst thing they put in processed food IS a preservative. This thing severely increases your risk of stroke, heart attack, and a billion other things. It's sodium chloride.