Honkman

Nowhere in the paper are they declaring a definite causal relationship - they only describe an percentage increase of possible cancer when eating certain amounts of certain meats. They just describe the correlation but don't imply absolute causality. That's all what meta analyses are about. Have you actually read the original paper ?

There is a difference between negative results in lab or in "clinical" relevant studies - there is no doubt that in particular negative lab experiments are not often reported (even though this is too much of a generalization and has to be looked on from case to case or which scientific field we are talking about). Negative "clinical" data is often reported, especially from academic groups (which has also to do with their funding/grants) and to a certain degree even from industry studies. I know that in my field (drug discovery) there is a lot of reporting of negative results and if you look on some of the studies used in the meta analysis of the red meat paper some of them showed negative results/no correlations. I think that meta analyses are very helpful and relevant to find clear trends (like in the one published), the exact percentage of correlations is often questionable due to selection of studies used in the analysis

This is simply not true. There are many studies (actually the majority of studies (clinical or not)) don't show significant results or don't see a correlation between to variables (food or otherwise). Therefore your further conclusions in your post "It is the statistical equivalent to surrounding yourself with people who have the same view as you and then saying that everyone you asked agreed with you so you must be right." is completely wrong and shows that you didn't understand the statistics

Just checked it on Amazon and it looks interesting as it covers cuisines which are often not covered in other vegetarian cookbooks

Vegetarian Cooking for Everybody (with Plenty and Plenty More) are our some of our vegetarian cookbooks at home but Passionate Vegetarian sounds quite interesting

There are some older discussions but I am always looking for more vegetarian cookbooks. So it would be interesting to hear some favorites (old and new) covering all types of cuisines (and I am actually also interested in the more unknown/obscure ones, e.g. in a recent discussion on another board I read for the first time about "Madhur Jaffrey's World-of-the-E​ast Vegetarian Cooking" which wasn't really on my radar but after reading about it seems to be very interesting.)

If you read the twitter (and other social media accounts) of Kenji you get the impression that he thinks his recipes are the be-all-and-end-all versions (Must be the ATK influence)

Nobody disputes that one of the roles of the immune systems is eliminating potential tumor cells but it is by far not the only role - and a enzyme pathway which is turned on to react beneficial on a potential tumorous cell might have detrimental effects on another type of cells in the body at the same time. I don't have an agenda but simply work in this field and always interested in a scientific discussion - but I think people tend to try to simplify too much and so there is no answer to the question " is it really the bacon" - or the only answer (as shown in the original paper) bacon (and other processed meats) seem to increase the changes of getting cancer to a certain percentage statistically. "Odd, though, that fiber is associated with lower mortality" - Again, correlation doesn't imply causation

Your view on the human body and its functions are too simplistic - for example to describe the immune system's role as to "to clean up damaged cells" is way too limited. And this complexity of the role of the immune system (with its many feedback loops etc) make it very unlikely that one factor, e.g. fiber (or any other factor) is THE factor to have such an impact you are implying. Also correlation doesn't imply causation.

I think literature shows a relatively high likelihood that bacon (or other processed or smoked meats) have a correlation with certain types of cancers with nitrosamines a possible reason (but nitrosamines also occure in other types of food like beer.)

They welcome challenging scientific hypotheses but not ignoring science completely

I am always amazed how ignorant people can be about science. (Just curious, do you believe in evolution ?)

If you would actually read the Lancet article (have you done it ?) they describe in a scientific way the issues without arguing that we all should drop meat immediately. If people would take a little bit more time and effort to understand scientific manuscripts they wouldn't be scared away but would actually understand what was written (and it is not the job of scientists to write in "plain English" but in a scientific way even though it might be too much for some people with a short attention span). And your comments seems to imply that you don't really understand what a meta analysis is if you are asking for "personal" implications and that not "everyone will get cancer". And no, this manuscript shouldn't be buried in an "obscure journal" but it is important that the WHO brings it to everybody's attention because even though the risk effect might be small for the individual the risk factors in this studies have a tremendous effect on a society in terms of health care cost etc (and that's one of the main reasons to run meta analyses). By your argument it would have been better to bury the studies which showed a strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer in some "obscure journal" because they don't have a hug impact on the personal level (I hope we can agree that that your argument is rather ridiculous)

Your comment reminded me of people who still don't believe in global warming (because science is "complicated" and "always wrong") or people who don't want to here anything which they don't like and just brush over it with general disparaging comments which don't actual add anything to the topic. There are obviously many useless studies on food which try to link many things but at the same time just saying every study is useless similarly is pointless. In this case it is not even a study but a meta analysis which takes a statistical look at a number of fairly established studies and tries to find possible correlation/risk analysis. Nowhere in the article are the authors suggesting that you should avoid any food completely (and if your doctor is doing it, it might be a good time to consider changing to a better qualified one) but they are just describing statistical possibilities of certain food having an impact on the likelihood to get cancer.

There is a statistical value for every age of a male of female on the likelihood to get certain types of cancers, e.g. a 45 year old woman in Germany has a 0.3% probability to get cancer in the next 10 years. If she would eat 100 g processed meat per day (and it doesn't matter if she eats it 100g/day or 200g/ every other day, it is the addition over a certain time period) than she has a 36% higher probability than somebody in the same age who eats no processed meat and an overall probability of 0.4% to get cancer in the next 10 years

Here is our take on quark and how to make it http://twofoodiesonejourney.blogspot.com/2010/10/homemade-quark-staple-in-german-cuisine.html?m=0

According to his Twitter account they are working on it and it is expected in 2016

Welcome to California

That just states that they grind their beef themselves but says nothing about the source of the beef. But it is well known that the main source for In'n'Out beef is from Harris Ranch the largest producer of CAFO beef in California (which also provides beef to McD and others). Harris Ranch area along I-5 is also known as Cowschwitz and was one of the reasons Pollan started to write Omnivores Dillema

This post responded to a comment in a discussion of MacDonald's sirloin burgers, and has been moved here, where it is relevant. The only thing which makes an In'N'Out remotely edible is their animal style sauce. They get their beef from the "normal" sources where McD and other fast food restaurant also get it.

If you want to try it at C&C better hurry up - C&C will close next Tuesday and will be remodeled to be opened next year

Will the publisher support you (financially) to set up some kind of book tour (perhaps with one dish showcasing your approach)

I agree that you can become very interesting for publishers for a second cookbook if you can show that you can sell a significant number of books through self publishing in a certain amount of time. The question is how confident are you for example that you are able to sell 3000 books in 1-2 years which means you have to sell about 30-60 books a week. And don't forget that there might be a lot of additional work for you if people order it online and you have to ship it etc. I think it is a doable path forward but you have to have some reasonable indication about realistic numbers of books you might be able to sell and be willing to commit significant amount of work in addition to run a restaurant

I don't think it is a good idea for an established chef to rely on any kind of blog especially to potentially to publish a cookbook. You would dilute your message and be more recognized as a blogger than as a chef (and I don't think that is a path gfron wants to go). It is obvious that getting a publisher deal is complicated but at the same time I also think that self publishing can be damaging depending what your plans are for the future. If you just want to publish just this one book and you are confident that there will never be a second or third one self publishing is fine but if you consider ever publishing more than just this one self publishing might eliminate/complicate the chances to get a publisher in the future. I think you have to see yourself as a "brand" and consider your future goals (and not just cookbook goals) and how today's decisions might have an impact on your overall goals (one might argue some people could see self publishing as desparate. In addition, self publishing is often associated with low quality products)

That's a pretty common starting point for publishers today. They expect a lot from you upfront and it is the job of a good agent to negotiate a better deal. My mother has experienced the same when she published an own (political/historical) book. The publisher can offer you a lot of contacts and good distribution you won't get with self publishing.