U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Food and Drink
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-09-2008, 11:12 PM
bjh
 
Location: Memphis - home of the king
26,091 posts, read 22,780,245 times
Reputation: 119709

Advertisements

Without going into a list of people i know who did/didn't die young and what their health habits are/were, what we both have is anecdotal information.

What if it was your job to report on medical studies and (to use your earlier statistic) you had a report that 20% of smokers had cancer while the rest of the population experienced noticeably lower percentages? Would you consider it scare tactics to let people know about these correlations??

There must be some things we can do (exercise, eat like an adult, etc.) that just might enhance our life span and quality of life while we are here.

The other side of that coin is that there must be some things we can avoid (sucking the fumes of burning plants into our lungs, ingesting large quantities of fermented beverages, laying down in the middle of a busy street during rush hour, etc.) that just might reduce our life span if we don't avoid them.

I don't think there is some sort of a conspiracy on anyone's part to frighten people about smoking, drinking, eating meat, etc. There is no one 'crying wolf.'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2008, 11:30 PM
 
Location: Seattle Area
3,455 posts, read 6,168,264 times
Reputation: 3569
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Nope, that hasn't been addressed - yet. They addressed the main "boogie man" that smokers (and I'm not one) were threatened with (and, as I said, it wasn't until this study was published that that interesting fact about 80% of smokers not getting lung cancer got any press at all - THAT I found interesting - the not mentioning, not the fact).

The point was that it's not an easy black and white, cause and effect thing. Many of those who have the gene and who got lung cancer and smoked, very likely would have gotten lung cancer if they hadn't smoked or been around smokers. And 80% of those who smoke don't get the Big C that they've been warned about forever - any wonder people don't take the warnings, any warnings, seriously sometimes?

A story about a little boy and a wolf comes to mind . . .
Regardless of any study, smoking is something that should be avoided.

Personally I avoid processed and packaged foods, don't smoke, eat red meat only on rare occasions, and try to purchase organic fruit and produce whenever possible. I do this not because of any warnings...I do this because I personally believe it is best for me.

Just my two cents...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2008, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
19,879 posts, read 36,385,911 times
Reputation: 21312
Regardless of any study, smoking is something that should be avoided.

On what basis? That you don't like it? I don't smoke, but there are things that I do enjoy (that may or may not be good for me) and I'd be hard pressed to come up with any reason that I should be allowed to do them if I think that everyone should avoid things based on my personal preferences and prejudices. Which is what your statement above implies, if you think it regardless of any studies (or regardless of any study that disagrees with your personal preferences and prejudices).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2008, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Seattle Area
3,455 posts, read 6,168,264 times
Reputation: 3569
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Regardless of any study, smoking is something that should be avoided.

On what basis? That you don't like it? I don't smoke, but there are things that I do enjoy (that may or may not be good for me) and I'd be hard pressed to come up with any reason that I should be allowed to do them if I think that everyone should avoid things based on my personal preferences and prejudices. Which is what your statement above implies, if you think it regardless of any studies (or regardless of any study that disagrees with your personal preferences and prejudices).
On what basis, surely you are joking. The damage caused by smoking is well documented...

I said it is something that should be avoided and I stand by my words. Nowhere did I say anything about not allowing people to smoke if they so wish.

Last edited by seattlerain; 08-10-2008 at 09:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2008, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
19,879 posts, read 36,385,911 times
Reputation: 21312
Again, on what basis, if you're eliminating studies as a basis (as your post that I quoted stated)?

That's not a joke. It's a real question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2008, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Seattle Area
3,455 posts, read 6,168,264 times
Reputation: 3569
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Again, on what basis, if you're eliminating studies as a basis (as your post that I quoted stated)?

That's not a joke. It's a real question.
That was one study, and one study only. Leaving the possibility of cancer out of the discussion the other damage caused by smoking is well documented.

At any rate, in my opinion it is not worth further discussion. You are not going to change my mind...and I'm not going to change your mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2008, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
19,879 posts, read 36,385,911 times
Reputation: 21312
Oh, so you were only eliminating the study that seems to cast doubt on your statement, not all studies. Got it.

Myself, I prefer to have all the information available, not just that that supports my own personal beliefs. The thing about that one study that I found particularly interesting was not what was in the study itself, but the reason for its existence - that there are 80% of smokers who don't get lung cancer, and that that information was strangely eliminated from all previous information distributed on the subject. The subject of the study - smoking - is not the real issue, it's the manipulation of what we (the general public) think and feel about things by what's provided and what's withheld that's of interest to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2008, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Chicago
38,691 posts, read 86,797,403 times
Reputation: 29355
^^^What the hell's all this got to do with aspartame?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2008, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
19,879 posts, read 36,385,911 times
Reputation: 21312
Has more to do with the freaking out bit, I think. "Scary information" is distributed freely (and makes the rounds more quickly, as bad news is always more fun to pass on than good news, for some reason). Information that is not so bad and might mitigate the freaking out, not so much.

The bad news is always given more credibility than the good, too, by some, whether it be aspartame, smoking, mold, or whatever else the current bugaboo might be.

So, while not directly having to do with aspartame, the fact is that there are good studies that show that there's no correlation between aspartame and cancer (some of them funded by cancer institutes, come to that, who one would think would be more likely to lean towards something causing cancer than not). So those should be given equal weight, initially, with the claims that aspartame is of the devil and causes cancer, until the credibility of both kinds of studies is examined by someone at least moderately an unbiased third party, one would think.

By the way, I love your tag line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2008, 09:39 PM
 
6,771 posts, read 6,856,061 times
Reputation: 6938
I do not understand why the only thing that really seems to worry people is cancer. I work in health care treating a variety of chronic illness and there are many people who are suffering and have low quality of life arguably worse than having cancer.

I get enough chemicals in my body just living in this world without adding a chemical sweetener, not to mention they taste disgusting. The best way to be healthy is to eat real food in moderation and stop buying all the crap everyone is trying to sell you. The current thought is that artificial sweeteners can lead to weight gain because the body knows the difference and increases appetite to compensate. I bet the thought of gaining weight is scarier than cancer to many people who suck down diet soda. If that can be proven I recommend selling all stock in companies that manufacture that nasty stuff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Food and Drink
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top