Nitrates in cheese

H.L · Joined: 27 Oct 2007 Posts: 26

I noticed that most "big pieces of" cheeses contain preservatives with
the codes in the range from E249 to E252. They have in common that they
are different forms of nitrates. I thought that they should be avoided
because of the cancer risk. Checking the web site of a major dairy
company, I read that "only very small or no amuonts of nitrate" remains
in the product after processing and that "cheese does not contain the
type of nitrate that may transform to nitrosamine". Do you know whether
this is correct or not? I am considering whether I need to only eat
cheeses without any preservatives. Thanks.

Archived from group: alt>support>diet>low-carb

Doug Freyburger · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 168

"H.L" wrote:
>
> I am considering whether I need to only eat
> cheeses without any preservatives.

Then nitrate free cheese is the way to go. How conservative
do you want to be about manufacturer claims? Since there
are plenty of nitrate free varieties are you limiting yourself
much by taking a conservative approach?

Hakan Lane · Joined: 21 Feb 2008 Posts: 3

--
Newsoffice.de - Die Onlinesoftware zum Lesen und Schreiben im Usenet
Die Signatur läßt sich nach Belieben anpassen Wink

Bad Ass · Joined: 12 Feb 2008 Posts: 3

H.L wrote:

> I noticed that most "big pieces of" cheeses contain preservatives with
> the codes in the range from E249 to E252. They have in common that they
> are different forms of nitrates. I thought that they should be avoided
> because of the cancer risk. Checking the web site of a major dairy
> company, I read that "only very small or no amuonts of nitrate" remains
> in the product after processing and that "cheese does not contain the
> type of nitrate that may transform to nitrosamine". Do you know whether
> this is correct or not? I am considering whether I need to only eat
> cheeses without any preservatives. Thanks.

Nitrates are usually cheaper than Dayrates.

Hollywood · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 132

On Feb 21, 1:50 pm, Bad Ass wrote:
> H.L wrote:
> > I noticed that most "big pieces of" cheeses contain preservatives with
> > the codes in the range from E249 to E252. They have in common that they
> > are different forms of nitrates. I thought that they should be avoided
> > because of the cancer risk. Checking the web site of a major dairy
> > company, I read that "only very small or no amuonts of nitrate" remains
> > in the product after processing and that "cheese does not contain the
> > type of nitrate that may transform to nitrosamine". Do you know whether
> > this is correct or not? I am considering whether I need to only eat
> > cheeses without any preservatives. Thanks.
>
> Nitrates are usually cheaper than Dayrates.

Not with locksmiths.

H.L · Joined: 27 Oct 2007 Posts: 26

This is not really a response to a post in the "nitrates in cheese"
thread. Having followed up on my original query by checking the numbers,
it strikes me that I have read about the link between "red meat" and
cancer a few times. The abscence of cancer in several native groups with
very high consumption of meat made me curious about this connection. I
don't dispute the scientific findings, but is it because of the nitrates
from preservatives and processing techniques? Low carbers might do well
from those kind of products, including preserved meat, smoked fish and
bacon.

Jim · Joined: 31 Jan 2008 Posts: 29

H.L wrote:
> This is not really a response to a post in the "nitrates in cheese"
> thread. Having followed up on my original query by checking the numbers,
> it strikes me that I have read about the link between "red meat" and
> cancer a few times. The abscence of cancer in several native groups with
> very high consumption of meat made me curious about this connection. I
> don't dispute the scientific findings, but is it because of the nitrates
> from preservatives and processing techniques? Low carbers might do well
> from those kind of products, including preserved meat, smoked fish and
> bacon.
>
>

It is useful to bear in mind the publication on false [medical] research
findings....

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

John P. A. Ioannidis

Summary

There is increasing concern that most current published research
findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may
depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same
question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among
the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a
research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in
a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a
greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where
there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and
analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and
prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in
chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study
designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false
than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed
research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the
prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these
problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

Competing Interests: The author has declared that no competing interests
exist.

Citation: Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are
False. PLoS Med 2( Cool

: e124 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Published: August 30, 2005

Copyright: © 2005 John P. A. Ioannidis. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abbreviation: PPV, positive predictive value

John P. A. Ioannidis is in the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology,
University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece, and
Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Department of
Medicine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of
Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America. E-mail:
jioannid@cc.uoi.gr

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent
evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and
controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical
trials and traditional epidemiological studies [1–3] to the most modern
molecular research [4,5]. There is increasing concern that in modern
research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority
of published research claims [6–8]. However, this should not be
surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are
false. Here I will examine the key factors that influence this problem
and some corollaries thereof.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Hollywood · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 132

On Feb 22, 8:57 am, "H.L" wrote:
> This is not really a response to a post in the "nitrates in cheese"
> thread. Having followed up on my original query by checking the numbers,
> it strikes me that I have read about the link between "red meat" and
> cancer a few times. The abscence of cancer in several native groups with
> very high consumption of meat made me curious about this connection. I
> don't dispute the scientific findings, but is it because of the nitrates
> from preservatives and processing techniques? Low carbers might do well
> from those kind of products, including preserved meat, smoked fish and
> bacon.

Atkins, at least the version I own of DANDR, makes comment on this.

How about a different interpretation? It's the carbs + the red meat.

Doug Freyburger · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 168

"H.L" wrote:
>
> Having followed up on my original query by checking the numbers,
> it strikes me that I have read about the link between "red meat" and
> cancer a few times.

Where such studies ignore carb intake.

> The abscence of cancer in several native groups with
> very high consumption of meat made me curious about this connection.

Where such groups have very low carb traditional diets.

> I
> don't dispute the scientific findings, but is it because of the nitrates
> from preservatives and processing techniques?

The most obvious traditional meat diets are also ones that do not
use nitrates to preserve their meats. Sun drying, salting,
fermenting,
the array of preserving used is bewildering. But use of nitrates is
only a few centuries old.

Because of this I hesitate to blame nitrates. Those high meat diets
that are high risk appear to be "red and potatoes" folks. Blaming
the combination of high fat and high carb seems the way to go.

> Low carbers might do well
> from those kind of products, including preserved meat, smoked fish and
> bacon.

There are certain people who react poorly to nitrates. Those who
know they have such an issue should have already been avoiding
nitrates before starting to low carb. Those who follow the Atkins
process as written to include the eliminate and challenge aspect
can discover if they have problems with nitrates. Anyone with
problems should avoid nitrates.

Having everyone avoid nitrates because some have problems with
nitrates is a paleolithic approach. It's conservative and effective,
but
it is unnecessarily restrictive in some cases. Will some benefit
by avoidance? Yes. Will all benefit from avoidance? I do not think
so. How to tell if you'll benefit by avoidance? By dropping from
your
diet for at least a week then reintroducing, standard issue eliminate
and challenge from Atkins and several other plans. If you feel better
by the end of the elimination period and/or feel worse when you
reintroduce (it's easier to tell getting worse than to tell getting
better)
then you know you'll benefit from avoidance.

I don't think there's a big downside to avoiding nitrates. They
weren't
used until recent history (recent in terms of thousands of years,
not briefer centuries like refined flour and not longer tens of
millenia
like the introduction of grain agriculture).

I tried the elinimation process and discovered I don't have ill
effects,
so I don't avoid preserved meats. This might be a mistake on my part.

Opinicus · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 194

"Jim" wrote

> Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

"Including this one."

--
Bob
http://www.kanyak.com

Hakan Lane · Joined: 21 Feb 2008 Posts: 3

Doug Freyburger wrote:

> The most obvious traditional meat diets are also ones that do not
> use nitrates to preserve their meats. Sun drying, salting,
> fermenting,
> the array of preserving used is bewildering. But use of nitrates is
> only a few centuries old.

> Because of this I hesitate to blame nitrates. Those high meat diets
> that are high risk appear to be "red and potatoes" folks. Blaming
> the combination of high fat and high carb seems the way to go.

OK. This may well be true. I am still wary about high levels of
nitrates in meat. Didn't you warn me from nitrates in cheese? Those
levels are decidedly lower.

> Having everyone avoid nitrates because some have problems with
> nitrates is a paleolithic approach. It's conservative and effective,
> but
> it is unnecessarily restrictive in some cases. Will some benefit
> by avoidance? Yes. Will all benefit from avoidance? I do not think
> so. How to tell if you'll benefit by avoidance? By dropping from
> your
> diet for at least a week then reintroducing, standard issue eliminate
> and challenge from Atkins and several other plans. If you feel better
> by the end of the elimination period and/or feel worse when you
> reintroduce (it's easier to tell getting worse than to tell getting
> better)
> then you know you'll benefit from avoidance.

This kind of testing is not really applicable to the threat caused by
preservatives. They are liable to cause cancer, so it is not like you
will notice it coming until it is too late. How would you feel that a
cancer is developing?

> I don't think there's a big downside to avoiding nitrates. They
> weren't
> used until recent history (recent in terms of thousands of years,
> not briefer centuries like refined flour and not longer tens of
> millenia
> like the introduction of grain agriculture).

It is still short as compared to the evolution of the human body. If
you tend to think as I and argued in the Atkins books that there was not
enough time for us to adapt to grain agriculture, then nitrates should
be a problem as well. A low carb diet high in nitrates might be a high
cancer risk. Taking the approach that "it won't happen to me" might not
be very good idea. I would at least try to stay away from smoked foods.

--
Newsoffice.de - Die Onlinesoftware zum Lesen und Schreiben im Usenet
Die Signatur läßt sich nach Belieben anpassen Wink

Doug Freyburger · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 168

Hakan Lane wrote:
>
> Didn't you warn me from nitrates in cheese?

No. I pointed out you have plenty of other cheese types to
choose from so avoiding cheese with nitrates is not a large
loss. If you chose to be conservative on the topic you are
not greatly restricting yourself.

Marengo · Joined: 21 Jan 2008 Posts: 11

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:42:09 +0100, Hakan Lane wrote:

>
>Doug Freyburger wrote:

>> Having everyone avoid nitrates because some have problems with
>> nitrates is a paleolithic approach. It's conservative and effective,
>> but
>> it is unnecessarily restrictive in some cases. Will some benefit
>> by avoidance? Yes. Will all benefit from avoidance? I do not think
>> so. How to tell if you'll benefit by avoidance? By dropping from
>> your
>> diet for at least a week then reintroducing, standard issue eliminate
>> and challenge from Atkins and several other plans. If you feel better
>> by the end of the elimination period and/or feel worse when you
>> reintroduce (it's easier to tell getting worse than to tell getting
>> better)
>> then you know you'll benefit from avoidance.
>
> This kind of testing is not really applicable to the threat caused by
>preservatives. They are liable to cause cancer, so it is not like you
>will notice it coming until it is too late. How would you feel that a
>cancer is developing?

This is pure fiction. Name one person who as died from cancer caused
by nitrates in their diet. Or even cite statistics from a study that
shows nitrate fatalities. I can do this with tobacco, but you can't
do it with nitrates .. because there has never been a human cancer
death caused by eating nitrates/nitrites in their meat.

This is merely hysteria perpetuating hysteria. Just like the
saccharine hysteria in the 1970's when it was banned because of the
same type scaremongers. Then after testing it on thousands and
thousands of people, they found no harmful effects whatsoever in
humans ingesting normal food levels of saccharine daily and put it
back on the market. I've been using sweet n' low daily for 25 years
and eating bacon my whole life. Nope, no cancer yet.
---
Peter
270/227/180

H.L · Joined: 11 Dec 2007 Posts: 3

>
> This is pure fiction. Name one person who as died from cancer caused
> by nitrates in their diet. Or even cite statistics from a study that
> shows nitrate fatalities. I can do this with tobacco, but you can't
> do it with nitrates .. because there has never been a human cancer
> death caused by eating nitrates/nitrites in their meat.
>
> This is merely hysteria perpetuating hysteria. Just like the
> saccharine hysteria in the 1970's when it was banned because of the
> same type scaremongers. Then after testing it on thousands and
> thousands of people, they found no harmful effects whatsoever in
> humans ingesting normal food levels of saccharine daily and put it
> back on the market. I've been using sweet n' low daily for 25 years
> and eating bacon my whole life. Nope, no cancer yet.
> ---
> Peter
> 270/227/180

I believe that there are studies enough. I quote two web links and a
full story from USA Today below. The higher risk does not mean that
everyone gets it, so perhaps you are luckily immune. The link is still
established. Beyond these kind of studies, there is a known mechanism
for it as the nitrates convert to nitrosamines in the stomach. Knowing
what kind of terrible effects a cancer might have, I don't think that it
is being overly conservative to avoid the high level of these substances
found in foods like smoked fish and bacon. I feel quite safe with the
very low levels in cheese.

http://www.waternet.com/newsprint.asp?print=1&mode=4&N_ID=21690
http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/55/3/143

The following is a quotation from USA Today.

06/22/2001 - Updated 05:18 PM ET

LYON, France (June 23) - Eating lots of preserved meats such as
salami, bacon, cured ham and hot dogs could increase the risk of bowel
cancer by 50 percent, early results of a major new study have
suggested.

However, when it came to fresh red meat - beef, lamb, pork and veal
- there seemed to be no link.

Previous studies have linked high meat intake to colorectal cancer,
but almost all the studies grouped fresh and processed meats together.

The latest findings come from an ongoing study experts say is the
most reliable research into the influence of diet on cancer to date - an
investigation involving almost half a million people, from southern
Greece to northern Norway. However, that does not mean red meat has
been cleared of suspicion, said Dr. Arthur Schatzkin, chief of
nutritional epidemiology at the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

``These results are very preliminary,'' said Schatzkin, who was not
involved in the study. ``There's more narrowing down that has to be done
before we can draw any conclusions.''

The study, presented Friday in Lyon at the European Conference on
Nutrition and Cancer, is being coordinated by the World Health
Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Experts say the findings show the issue is more complex than
previously thought, and that it's not as simple as meat being either
cancer-promoting or not. Scientists are learning that factors such as
cooking methods and duration, and cuts of meat must also be
considered.

Some research has suggested that frying or barbecuing may add
cancer-promoting chemicals to meat and that a crispy lamb chop or a
well-done steak may contain undesirable compounds.

``This points us in the direction we need to go. The only firm
conclusion is that lumping fresh and processed meat together is
inappropriate,'' said Martin Wiseman, a professor at the Institute of
Human
Nutrition in Southampton, England, who was not involved with the
research.

``But now, what about hamburgers? Are they processed or fresh meat?
And meatballs? Where do they fit in? We are just starting to disentangle
all this,'' Wiseman said.

The study's coordinator, Dr. Elio Riboli, chief of the nutrition
division at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, told
scientists no link was seen when all red meat was examined as one group.

But when the processed meat, which is usually red meat, was
investigated alone, those who ate an average of 2 ounces per day - the
equivalent of a thick slice or two of smoked ham, four slivers of
Parma ham or one giant hot dog - had a 50 percent greater chance of
developing cancer of the colon or rectum than those who ate no preserved
meat.

``However, we could not, so far, take into account cooking methods
in our analysis,'' Riboli said. ``So we could not, for the time being,
separate red meat consumption depending on whether it was
consumed well done or rare. Therefore, these are just intermediate
results.''

(USA Today 22/6-2001)

Hollywood · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 132

On Feb 24, 8:13 am, Bob wrote:
> You also can't proves deaths weren't caused by nitrates in meat.
You (and everyone else) cannot prove that deaths weren't cause by
air breathing, water drinking. masturbating, lemon, or whatever.

Again, correlation != causation, and proving something isn't anything
is impossible.

Feta Cheese? What's the big deal about Feta Cheese? I bought some at the greek market the other day because someone on Austin.food had raved about it, and I find it rather salty and overly rich. Sure not an eating cheese. What can I cook with it that would be low carb

REC: Easy One-Pot Mac & Cheese Easy One-Pot Mac & Cheese Makes 4 servings 2 cups Dreamfields or other LC macaroni 1/2 cup Cheese Whiz 1/3 cup medium or sharp cheddar cheese, shredded 2 tbsp heavy cream 1 tbsp sour cream or mayonnaise Cook macaroni according to package directions and

Cheese and anxiety ....any link I have tried low carbing hald a dozen times during the last couple of years. I always gave up when I started to feel really anxious, uneasy and generally shaky after a 2-3 weeks. I doubt it's the initial induction adjustment as I am used to t

Yogurt "cheese" Does anyone know where I can find low-carb recipes made with drained yogurt? Thanks, AK in PA

Cheddar cheese carbs If you look up Cheddar Cheese in the USDA database, it says there's 0.36g/oz of The package of most any brand of cheddar will say that the serving size is 1oz and that there is 1g of carb. That's a huge difference if you're counting carbs a