Nick Wright coming hard with his Bears prediction

[inchibearfan]

There is a clear correlation between red meat consumption and various cancers. Do a little research if you don't believe me.

That was old science bad science you are citing:

Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said. Now Some Believe That Was Bad Advice. (Published 2019)

The evidence is too weak to justify telling individuals to eat less beef and pork, according to new research. The findings “erode public trust,” critics said.

www.nytimes.com

Nutrition science is flawed because of other poor behaviors people participate in. If someone goes out for burgers, they are not only eating red meat but also a horrible processed bun and most likely french fries which has more cancer causing chemicals than a pack of cigarettes. The lifestyle the average red meat consumer is not a very healthy one, i.e., smoking, drinking, little to no exercise, as well as a lot of processed food.

There is one study where they were able to isolate the diets of the study participants (it was in an institution) but the results were not what they wanted so they buried them in the basement:

A Decades-Old Study, Rediscovered, Challenges Advice on Saturated Fat

The study, whose data had never been fully analyzed, found that a diet of low-saturated fat did not reduce mortality. Some top nutrition experts said the study was flawed.

archive.nytimes.com

Keep on believing that red meat causes cancer and that saturated fat causes heart disease so they can sell you more processed food with seed oils which actually do. Red meat and saturated fat consumption has been significantly decreasing while cancers have been increasing and starting at earlier ages.

 

[inchibearfan]

Same here. As a junior basketball player in high school i was nearly 6'4", 165. I was healthy as hell, just skinny.

The BMI is pretty crude though. There's only so much to be gained from it. People know if they're carrying extra fat on their bodies pretty easily. It's the visceral fat that's the problem, and some "skinny" people can be "internally obese", so to speak, meaning they've got that visceral fat stored around their organs even if it's not showing outwardly as "fat."

If you are the same weight you were in high school you are more likely to have more fat than you were then. Muscle mass decreases at about 10% a decade as you age which BMI does not account for. They are actually trying to lower the obesity metric for people over 40 due to this:

Millions more middle-aged are obese, study suggests

Using a lower cut-off for obesity would give a truer picture of who is affected, researchers say.

www.bbc.com

"If we continue to use the WHO standard for obesity screening, we will miss many middle-aged and older adults who are at risk for obesity-related diseases including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and some cancers," co-author, Prof Antonino De Lorenzo said.

A BMI of 27 should be used to define obesity in future, the researchers said.

 

[DefNextYear]

Fair enough, but same as above. Hurts is a year removed from the superbowl putting up a 101.5 QB rating. Maybe that was an aberration though, we'll see.

Pretty off topic... but I saw this about Hurts yesterday and found it interesting.

 

[DanielCCSBears]

Have you considered that it’s ALMOST a requirement for a QB’s resume for HOF to have at least 1 SB win?

Considering more QBs are in the Hall of Fame without a Super Bowl win it's not the same jarring statistic as the percentage of Super Bowls won by QBs in the Hall of Fame.

 

[greg23]

Bears blew 3 games they shoulda won and it wasn't really on fields.

They would have been in the playoffs last year if fluss knew how to coach.

Like the game at det when on 3rd down to clinch the game fields throws it deep vs an easy open completion over the middle for a 7-10 yard completion and gw 1st down?

While the Fluberbus hasnt been good; you can't "coach" with a historical awful 4th quarter QB

 

[greg23]

Yes I’m sure that the addition of Will Anderson had nothing to do with their turnaround, as well as a new coaching staff.

If they just added will Anderson and Ryan's staff...and rolled out davis mills or case keenum as their qb....Hou would've been drafting top 5 again.

Elite qb play makes the drastic difference

 

[msadows]

Like the game at det when on 3rd down to clinch the game fields throws it deep vs an easy open completion over the middle for a 7-10 yard completion and gw 1st down?

While the Fluberbus hasnt been good; you can't "coach" with a historical awful 4th quarter QB

Calm down greg, the bad man isnt here anymore to make ur boomer self cry

 

[greg23]

Calm down greg, the bad man isnt here anymore to make ur boomer self cry

Bears just need "the haul" and a shitty qb will be HOF material!!!!

 

[MDB111™]

Considering more QBs are in the Hall of Fame without a Super Bowl win it's not the same jarring statistic as the percentage of Super Bowls won by QBs in the Hall of Fame.

wrong and huh?

 

[SugarWalls]

Considering more QBs are in the Hall of Fame without a Super Bowl win it's not the same jarring statistic as the percentage of Super Bowls won by QBs in the Hall of Fame.

Lmao if a QB the wins a Super Bowl he has a higher chance of making it into the hall of fame. Thereby you aren’t wrong that most qbs that win a Super Bowl are great, but your argument that you need a HOF QB to win a Super Bowl is stupid because winning a Super Bowl (certainly winning more than 1) immediately puts that qb in conversation for HOF - see Eli manning

 

[EDPeezy]

Hahaha that should shut him up

Only an idiot would think that without Anderson they don’t make the playoffs. What he’s saying is stupid. One play doesn’t make a season. He’s just trying to bully the whipping boy around here. Anderson might turn out to be a great player but he was a rookie with 7 sacks and 45 tackles on the year. Nice rookie season, but I dont think anybody would consider him a game changer at this point in his career. There are tons of guys who could put up those numbers. Stroud is the reason for that turnaround. And yeah, the coaching staff might be good. A rising tide lifts all boats though and no doubt having what looks to be a superstar at QB is going to make everyone look better. No doubt some of their competence is a result of having a great QB leading them.

 

[Bearcub13]

Of course you're afraid to go all in.

This team was held back because of Justin Fields and until you can fully admit that to yourself you won't get to that point.
In your brain you think they'll be the same team because they're going to get the same type of QB play because in your mind Justin Fields was average and held back by everyone else.

You need to admit to yourself that it wasn't the team that held Justin Fields back it was Justin Fields that held the Bears back. This is exactly the point he's making.

Wow, some people can not give it up. In just a few months we will have a pretty good idea of whether or not Williams is the man. Trashing Fields and giving Williams endless digital BJs is pointless at this stage of the process.

 

[DanielCCSBears]

Wow, some people can not give it up. In just a few months we will have a pretty good idea of whether or not Williams is the man. Trashing Fields and giving Williams endless digital BJs is pointless at this stage of the process.

What's your obsession with BJs?

 

[greg23]

I'm still laughing that someone thinks that

5 foot 10
240
is normal/healthy/not fat

BMI is a bit outdated but you'd be in the obese category

 

[bamainatlanta]

I'm still laughing that someone thinks that

5 foot 10
240
is normal/healthy/not fat

BMI is a bit outdated but you'd be in the obese category

Did someone really post that?

 

[napo55]

Wow, some people can not give it up. In just a few months we will have a pretty good idea of whether or not Williams is the man. Trashing Fields and giving Williams endless digital BJs is pointless at this stage of the process.

Kind of apples and oranges. but glad to see Williams is being given the offensive skill players that Fields lacked.

 

[napo55]

That was old science bad science you are citing:

Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said. Now Some Believe That Was Bad Advice. (Published 2019)

The evidence is too weak to justify telling individuals to eat less beef and pork, according to new research. The findings “erode public trust,” critics said.

www.nytimes.com

Nutrition science is flawed because of other poor behaviors people participate in. If someone goes out for burgers, they are not only eating red meat but also a horrible processed bun and most likely french fries which has more cancer causing chemicals than a pack of cigarettes. The lifestyle the average red meat consumer is not a very healthy one, i.e., smoking, drinking, little to no exercise, as well as a lot of processed food.

There is one study where they were able to isolate the diets of the study participants (it was in an institution) but the results were not what they wanted so they buried them in the basement:

A Decades-Old Study, Rediscovered, Challenges Advice on Saturated Fat

The study, whose data had never been fully analyzed, found that a diet of low-saturated fat did not reduce mortality. Some top nutrition experts said the study was flawed.

archive.nytimes.com

Keep on believing that red meat causes cancer and that saturated fat causes heart disease so they can sell you more processed food with seed oils which actually do. Red meat and saturated fat consumption has been significantly decreasing while cancers have been increasing

 

[napo55]

The evidence that red meat is associated with cancer is strong, But make your own decisions and live with the consequences.

 

[ursamajor]

We'd look awfully silly standing next to each other.

Give him a piggy back ride, and you two could go out as a sunflower next Halloween.

 

[ursamajor]

That was old science bad science you are citing:

Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said. Now Some Believe That Was Bad Advice. (Published 2019)

The evidence is too weak to justify telling individuals to eat less beef and pork, according to new research. The findings “erode public trust,” critics said.

www.nytimes.com

Nutrition science is flawed because of other poor behaviors people participate in. If someone goes out for burgers, they are not only eating red meat but also a horrible processed bun and most likely french fries which has more cancer causing chemicals than a pack of cigarettes. The lifestyle the average red meat consumer is not a very healthy one, i.e., smoking, drinking, little to no exercise, as well as a lot of processed food.

There is one study where they were able to isolate the diets of the study participants (it was in an institution) but the results were not what they wanted so they buried them in the basement:

A Decades-Old Study, Rediscovered, Challenges Advice on Saturated Fat

The study, whose data had never been fully analyzed, found that a diet of low-saturated fat did not reduce mortality. Some top nutrition experts said the study was flawed.

archive.nytimes.com

Keep on believing that red meat causes cancer and that saturated fat causes heart disease so they can sell you more processed food with seed oils which actually do. Red meat and saturated fat consumption has been significantly decreasing while cancers have been increasing and starting at earlier ages.

Have you considered that maybe crazy pills prevent cancer? The geezers at the retirement home in the study, probably all died of old age, before the red meat cancer could get them.