Re: Re: Lance Armstrong & physical abilities

[Guest guest]

>>Deanna

>>resting heart rate 52, BP 90/50

>>

>>

>Never in my life, at least that I remember, have I tested my pulse

>under 90. My blood pressure is usually sky-high when they first

>take it, and then they take it a few more times till they get an

>answer they like. I get a big adrenaline rush from getting my BP

>pressure tested.

>

That's the problem: you get stressed out over having the blood pressure

taken, and it spikes from there. BP has always been low for me

generally, but HR has definitely been in direct proportion to the amount

and intensity of cardiorespiratory training I've been doing. Your

resting HR is pretty high. What is the usual number, in the 90s or higher?

How much cardio are you doing a week? Are you still on coffee? I am,

but should really drop it and stick to tea. Smoking is something you

should completely drop. NOW! In someone with high blood pressure,

smoking along with it amounts to THE BIGGEST TWO CONTROLLABLE RISK

FACTORS FOR CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE by far. Cholesterol , which we all

know that it is not very reliable indicator CHD, is not as high on the

risk factor list as either smoking or hypertension. Smoking *combined

with* hypertension together are a double whammy. I have not been

working as a personal trainer now for a few years, and I sure ain't no

physician, so new or better information may be available. It raises big

red flags in mehead, though. If the standards for this are the same as

before, and depending on how high that BP is (140/90 used to be the

cutoff), a trainer couldn't start you on any exercise program without a

doctor's release. The fact that you are doing intense workouts is

dangerous if you are hypertensive.

" This is important information for you as a personal trainer because

blood pressure increases with exercise, especially in activities

involving heavy resistance, such as weight lifting, or isometric

exercises. If a person's resting blood pressure is already high, it may

elevate to dangerous levels during exercise, increasing the likelihood

of a stroke. " - Personal Trainer Manual, American Council on Exercise, 1997

I agree with Robin that you are too young to be experiencing ill

health. And we don't want to beat you up ... so you'd better comply,

lol! Seriously, if you are hypertensive, please cease smoking today.

http://tinyurl.com/8pcqr

" If hypertensive patients reacted to smoking similarly, the risk of

developing CAD would be greater in smoker hypertensives than in

non-smoker hypertensives. This could also explain, at least partially,

the synergistic effects of hypertension and smoking as coronary risk

factors. We have not come across any report on the immediate effects of

smoking on serum lipids and lipoproteins in hypertensive patients. Hence

the present study.

" We have not observed a significant change in serum cholesterol,

triglycerides and lipoproteins immediately after smoking in both normal

subjects and hypertensive patients. Similar observations have been made

earlier in healthy subjects[9], [10], [15] and patients of CAD.[9] "

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/2/392

" Results--On the basis of multivariate statistics, only regular

cigarette smoking at any time was a significant risk factor for the

presence of multiple aneurysms. The odds ratio (OR) of smoking for

multiple aneurysms was 2.10 (95% CI, 1.06 to 4.13) after adjustment for

age and sex. After additional adjustment for hypertension, the risk was

2.06 (95% CI, 1.04 to 4.07). Of other variables, only age (OR, 1.02 per

year; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.05; P=0.09) and female sex (OR, 1.60; 95% CI,

0.90 to 2.85; P=0.11) showed a tendency to increase the risk for

multiple aneurysms after adjustment for smoking. On the other hand,

patients with hypertension had significantly (P=0.029) more aneurysms

(1.61±1.04) than did those without (1.37±0.68), although they did not

more frequently have multiple aneurysms. "

Sorry if these studies aren't the best on the subject, I skimmed through

to find anything to support the double whammy effect so you'll be

convinced to quit smoking altogether. Much research has been done

concerning these risk factors and disease, so please seek further if you

have the need.

Oh, and concerning the Lance Armstrong subject:

" Well-trained endurance athletes have developed an efficient

cardiovascular system and often have resting heart rates in the low

40s. " - Personal Trainer Manual, American Council on Exercise, 1997

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

>HR has definitely been in direct proportion to the amount

>and intensity of cardiorespiratory training I've been doing.

>

Duh, indirect proportion I meant. Amount and intensity of exercise

increases, resting heart rate decrease.

Deanna, who like has resorted to talking to herself

[Guest guest]

> > That's the problem: you get stressed out over having the

> blood pressure

> > taken, and it spikes from there.

>

> Oh yes, and I know that, so I try to deliberately relax and not think

> about it, in order to counter it, but that just makes it worse-- much

> like when I used to have anxiety attacks, deep breathing would make

> them worse because it would increase my awareness of my heart rate,

> etc.

Your story is much like mine -- just accelerated.

I too had a terrifying experience on pot that put me into tachycardia -- and

my pot was not laced with anything. I spent a half hour in 1992 terrified I

was having a heart attack. Fortunately I was so stoned I didn't really care

and largely forgot about the incident until it came back to bite me on the

ass in 1999.

I too had high blood pressure.

I too developed panic/anxiety attacks that sounded much like yours. Almost

identical in pattern to the pot incident 7 years earlier.

I too can hear my heart and know that something is not working right when

that pattern starts.

On the other hand I have largely fixed all of the problems. I quit smoking,

drinking alcohol and caffeine in September of 2001. I stopped eating the

SAD diet in January of 2002. By September of 2002 most of my symptoms had

stopped.

Unfortunately, I was still in a chronic state of underlying anxiety that

would come and go. No overt attacks but just the feeling as though I was

going to get an attack. I've done a lot of mental work to relieve that

state and have had significant success. Primary success has come through

deep breathing techniques and that's why I'm taking the time to write this

post.

When I first started doing a very simple Qigong like process involving deep

inhalation and slow forced exhalation three times a day I felt like I was

going have a full blown panic attack and pass out. During an energy

workshop that I did I got so emotionally mangled from the breathing that I

was in near panic and couldn't think straight. But persistence won out and

I'm now able to do full and deep conscious breathing and it calms me down in

the way that it's supposed to 90% of the time. The other 10% I get the old

symptoms but I keep on going through them and they discharge over time. I'm

no longer suffering on a daily basis with the anxiety attack precursor

symptoms and only get triggered up in specific fear situations.

Start deep breathing for 3 minutes a day and keep it up until it clears.

As for your smoking -- the amount of your considerable mental energy that

you are expending defending your 2 cigs a day is pretty pathetic. If you

were a healthy guy, no problem. I've always said that if I could smoke two

cigs I day I would. But I can't and neither can you. The hell with the

science -- you are wired to react strongly to stimulants and even tiny

amounts can trigger you. Nicotine, caffeine -- they are keeping you

chronically accessed and in a sub anxiety state. Quitting makes it worse

but the thing that you need to know is that it will pass. I still struggle

with caffeine but my blood pressure and pulse rate are normal so it's a

struggle that I can live with. You, OTOH, have significant problems and need

to give them both up until you are fully healed. It took me 6 months of

torture to get over the nicotine and caffeine withdrawal when I quit in 2001

and I suspect it will take you just as long. My biggest mistake was

thinking that I could integrate caffeine back into the program.

Fortunately, I've known that I cannot touch a cigarette for the rest of my

life so I'm completely over the desire to smoke at this point.

Ron

[Guest guest]

Ron,

>As for your smoking -- the amount of your considerable mental energy that

>you are expending defending your 2 cigs a day is pretty pathetic.

>

My sentiments exactly. Interesting story with a happy ending, good for you.

Deanna

" If there was a god, I'd still have both nuts. " - Lance Armstrong

[Guest guest]

>Since I didn't bring up this issue, I would be in an even better

>position to point out that the lengths that you go to in order to

>scrape the bottom of the evidence barrel for reasons to scare me into

>not smoking is pathetic. That I could be at immediate risk for

>stroke, or that smoking is causing my digestive problems, comes to

>mind.

>

Yes you did. Here's how it all started. And by all means, shove a

cigarette in your mouth. I'm through with you.

Deanna

>>resting heart rate 52, BP 90/50

>>

>>

>Never in my life, at least that I remember, have I tested my pulse

>under 90. My blood pressure is usually sky-high when they first

>take it, and then they take it a few more times till they get an

>answer they like. I get a big adrenaline rush from getting my BP

>pressure tested.

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Since I didn't bring up this issue, I would be in an even better

>position to point out that the lengths that you go to in order to

>scrape the bottom of the evidence barrel for reasons to scare me into

>not smoking is pathetic. That I could be at immediate risk for

>stroke, or that smoking is causing my digestive problems, comes to

>mind.

Forget about stroke and digestion. Smoking isn't doing your lung capacity

any good, regardless of your feelings that it's at least not making much of

a difference yet.

More generally, you say you do it just because you don't think there's any

reason not to, but that's hardly an adequate explanation. I don't collect

beanie babies or build model boats even though there's no apparent reason

not to. Actions require positive motivations, not just the absence of

reasons not to take them.

You've also mentioned that you'd rather smoke a couple American Spirits

than snack all day. That might be an OK bargain -- if smoking were the

only alternative to snacking. But the need to snack or, failing that,

smoke, is indicative of metabolic problems, and as such, either " solution "

is a problem unto itself rather than a real solution, a way of at least

temporarily avoiding the real underlying problem (and in a way that may

well do significant long-term damage) rather than addressing it.

I'm not going to get into an argument with you about smoking, but I do

think you owe it to yourself to examine the issue a little more openly.

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/26/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Chris-

>

> >Since I didn't bring up this issue, I would be in an even better

> >position to point out that the lengths that you go to in order to

> >scrape the bottom of the evidence barrel for reasons to scare me into

> >not smoking is pathetic. That I could be at immediate risk for

> >stroke, or that smoking is causing my digestive problems, comes to

> >mind.

>

> Forget about stroke and digestion. Smoking isn't doing your lung capacity

> any good, regardless of your feelings that it's at least not making much of

> a difference yet.

Hehe...there seems to be a lot of " ink " being spilled about a couple

of cigarettes a day, something I think only recently started

again.

I'm not sure about the lung capacity issue. It certainly sounds

plausible on the face of it. It seems counterintuitive to think

otherwise, but then many things we do on this list seem

counterintuitive, like eating fat to lose fat for example.

I don't have any research to back this up precisely because I don't

think much research has been done in this area regarding athletes. But

anecdotally, I never noticed a decrease in my lung capacity. Also

anecdotally, although you don't see it in the press much cuz smoking

is frowned upon, but many athletes smoke cigars, *regularly*. The

latest issue of Cigar Aficionado with Jordan on the front is

no publicity stunt, he smokes them for real, and has throughout his

career. So do a lot of athletes where endurance is important.

Athletes sometimes do stupid things, but it is usually for enhancing

performance, not for tearing it down. I can assure you that if

something made training and conditioning harder than it was, it would

usually be avoided, LOL! The thought of something making two-a-days

even worse???? Heavens nooooooooooo.

Maybe its different for a sedentary person. Maybe the act of training

mitigates what otherwise would be a lung capacity reducing effect.

Maybe already being conditioned makes a difference. But it never

seemed to affect me. It doesn't seem to affect others.

> More generally, you say you do it just because you don't think there's any

> reason not to, but that's hardly an adequate explanation. I don't collect

> beanie babies or build model boats even though there's no apparent reason

> not to. Actions require positive motivations, not just the absence of

> reasons not to take them.

Maybe he didn't say it in this thread but I do recall him saying in

the past that he simply enjoys it. And given that he doesn't think it

is destroying him, that would count, eh?

By the way, I do seem to recall in _Sugar Blues_ that he mentions that

tobacco can actually have a mildly positive effect on health. Don't

remember much more than that.

[Guest guest]

>Really, I meant no personal offense by my observation that many of the

>claims you were making were hysterical-- such as risk of stroke for a

>person my age, smoking inducing digestive orders, etc, and I didn't

>take any when Ron called my actions " pathetic " and you agreed.

>

Likewise. The smoking-digestion link was way out in left field. I

never did say stroke was an *immediate* threat, afaik. It is not

unheard of in young people who smoke(d). I apologize for any offense or

hysteria. I care, that's all.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>

>Right, but you do understand why it was so absurd, right? It's not

>that there was no reason to think it; it's that smoking is, in

>general, *good* for digestive issues. Heidi has posted evidence that

>smoking tobacco plays a causative role in preventing celiac, and the

>beneficial effect of nicotine to the gut is a major avenue of current

>research. Smokers have 8 times less a chance of gut cancers than

>non-smokers, and beginning smoking helps improve gut cancers or

>induces remission. Anecdotes of people smoking for improved digestion

>after a meal or to improve IBD or other gut problems are widespread.

>That's what made it so crazy, and really made it seem like your main

>concern was bashing smoking rather than looking at the situation

>reasonably.

>

>

I would suggest that if ongoing digestion problems exist, that a

solution should be found for it. Smoking presents other problems, like

vascular degeneration and lung disease. That's nice about the gut

cancer relation, but CHD is way more common and a much bigger

contributor to death than gut cancer. And smoking is the biggest risk

factor for it. Hypertension comes next.

>

>It's not unheard of in young people, but it is rare. Byrnes

>smoked, but he smoked 20 times as much as me, he smoked more over

>time, whereas I smoke less over time, he had all kinds of other

>problems, and his stroke came after a major life-destroying event. It

>seems to me that the major life-destroying event was probably the

>primary contributor.

>

>

If people croaked at every life-destroying event, we wouldn't survive as

a species. His body was weak, and the event did him in. Sure he might

not have died without it, but without the bad health to start with, the

life shattering events wouldn't have done him in either. Remember, I

lost a child, and I am still alive to talk about it. I realize you

don't have the experience of it, but trust me, it is one of the top

stressors for humans out there. And please do take care if you question

me on this as it is a very sensitive issue that cannot be understood

without at least the experience of having children. Parents usually

say, " I can't imagine what it would be like to lose my child. " And they

are right, but they are at least closer to understanding it.

>I appreciate that, I do. But when I repeatedly state my situation, in

>which I have said that I have tried numerous times to quit drinking

>coffee but find that I can't function very well and my mood is

>negatively effected even weeks after quitting, and, on the other hand,

>that I have absolutely no problem going without smoking cigarettes,

>that I have quit easily whenever I have felt like it, etc, and then

>people jump on smoking like it is the devil and almost ignore the

>coffee issue, it really seems like what's at work is fulfilling the

>desire to irrationally bash smoking.

>

>

In your case, cigarettes and coffee both are not helping your health.

You did ask about it, after noting my elite fitness, which is what it is

in terms of stress tests and has been since I was younger than you. Are

my vascular and respiratory systems more efficient and sound than

yours? Yes most likely, and I am 17 years your senior. The fact that

you are so young and your heart rate and blood pressure are high (most

likely) are big concerns for you. Bigger than digestion. Folks live

without colons, but your heart and brain you need absolutely to live.

The good news is you have the ability to change this for the better, as

it is a long term concern.

I think you care about health. You have some problems which, given your

age, are worrisome. It's good you got out of toxic concrete work. You

are searching and many of us are trying to offer assistance. It is not

irrational to knock it: Smoking is not health promoting.

I want to make note now of something I am seeing in WAPF circles. It

seems like the idea is since we can buck the orthodoxy and eat our

animal fats without worry, that we can somehow buck other trends and

thumb our noses at all mainstream thought. I find this dangerous. In

fact, it seems like if a WAPF authority even suggests that smoking (or

lack of exercise) might be good, then that is enough for many people to

run with and forget all the research out there. No one can deny the

exercise-health connection science out there. It is well-established

and much more obvious than dietary studies. Smoking as well. The areas

, like vascular heath, where smoking is found harmful, stand. I have to

question my affiliation (again) when suggestions are made that smoking

is somehow healthy and exercise might strain the body. These things I

have experience with personally and as a fitness professional for over

20 years.

And why is it that you will accept anecdotes from some, yet unfairly

scrutinize anything I send your way as scraping some proverbial evidence

barrel? I don't have the health problems you do and I am almost

twice as old. Obviously something is not right with you, probably many

somethings, but it is like you are selective with what you want to

hear. If you say, " Yes, well maybe smoking isn't great, but I will

focus on coffee first, " then that would be honest. And maybe you have

said this. This is a health focused list and smoking is not health

promoting.

>I haven't looked it up but I would be pretty surprised if coffee

>didn't raise blood pressure, and it quite certainly increases heart

>rate, and it's stimulant effect is anxiety-producing whereas

>nicotine's effect is anxiety-relieving. Because nicotine is

>short-term and I don't smoke much, I'm under the influence of caffeine

>for much or most of my active day and not under the influence of

>nicotine hardly at all.

>

Smoking raises blood pressure just like coffee and it constricts

arteries. If you want permission to give up coffee, fine. But I won't

tell you smoking is okay or even helps asthma, as I have heard

recently. What would say to that, I think I can imagine. You will

make your choices, of course.

>All these things it seems would indicate to an unbiased observer that

>the caffeine dependence is a more important and immediate issue than

>the light smoking that is not associated with any dependence, and is

>indicative of an underlying metabolic problem that needs to be

>addressed.

>

So what are you waiting for? Give up the more difficult first? Hmm,

most people want the easy choice. But no matter. Anything is better

than nothing. And your vascular health is iffy, so give up coffee and

stop talking about it. If you can't give up coffee, then do smokes, as

they are so much easier to drop, as you say. Better yet, drop both, one

at a time, same time, whatever. And do increase the cardio over time.

Try to work on getting resting heart rates first thing in the morning;

that number needs to go down.

>I'm not sure what smoking is indicative of, except maybe oral fixation

>or a nostalgia for my youth, or I just like it. I like coffee, but

>it's the caffeine that I feel I *need*.

>

>

I was addicted to smoking before ever picking it up thanks to my step

mom smoking around me all the time. I am thankful to have given it up

for exercise at an age where I could really make a difference in my long

term health. I don't have any health problems now and am quite fit. I

wish the same good health and fitness to you.

Deanna

" Also smoking increases cholesterol a little. Again, it is

LDL-cholesterol that increases, while HDL-cholesterol goes down,

resulting in an " unfavorable " HDL/LDL ratio (2). What is certainly

unfavorable is the chronic exposure to the fumes from burning paper and

tobacco leaves. Instead of considering the low HDL/LDL ratio as bad it

could simply be smoking itself that is bad. Smoking may provoke a heart

attack and, at the same time, lower the HDL/LDL ratio. " - from _The

Cholesterol Myths_, by Uffe Ravnskov, M.D., Ph.D.

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>I want to make note now of something I am seeing in WAPF circles. It

>seems like the idea is since we can buck the orthodoxy and eat our

>animal fats without worry, that we can somehow buck other trends and

>thumb our noses at all mainstream thought. I find this dangerous. In

>fact, it seems like if a WAPF authority even suggests that smoking (or

>lack of exercise) might be good, then that is enough for many people to

>run with and forget all the research out there.

Has any actual WAPF employee endorsed smoking in any way?

-

[Guest guest]

,

>

>Has any actual WAPF employee endorsed smoking in any way?

>

Do search " smoking " on onibasu for details. You'll need to judge for

yourself. Let me just say that the idea that poor smokers can't quit is

much like saying poor junk food junkies can't quit, so let them eat soy.

Smoke in peace.

Eat Mcs in peace.

Rest in peace.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

-

>To a middle-aged butterfly like myself,

I'm hearing more and more people describe themselves as middle-aged when it

makes no sense. When does middle age start nowadays, in kindergarden?

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Still, my fitness is above average, but if my

>other choices require a significantly above-average degree of

>respiratory fitness, what might otherwise be a benign decrease might

>prove significant.

>

>Upon verification, THAT is something that would make me quit smoking,

>or shift it from a semi-daily thing to a weekly or occasional thing.

I'm not sure what kind of verification you'd require, because it was

well-accepted even many years past that smoking would reduce even a very

fit person's respiratory fitness, and I have a hard time imagining deciding

to accept such a reduction. Of course, I've had asthma all my life, so I

don't necessarily have the usual perspective on lung capacity.

-

[Guest guest]

>> " Also smoking increases cholesterol a little. Again, it is

>>LDL-cholesterol that increases, while HDL-cholesterol goes down,

>>resulting in an " unfavorable " HDL/LDL ratio (2). What is certainly

>>unfavorable is the chronic exposure to the fumes from burning paper and

>>tobacco leaves. Instead of considering the low HDL/LDL ratio as bad it

>>could simply be smoking itself that is bad. Smoking may provoke a heart

>>attack and, at the same time, lower the HDL/LDL ratio. " - from _The

>>Cholesterol Myths_, by Uffe Ravnskov, M.D., Ph.D.

>>

>First, it is very difficult to make sense of your posts when you post

>an excerpt from something without any analysis on your part or context

>indicating what you intend to show by it, which you do often.

>

>

Get out and get some fresh air! You are reading way too much into my

quotes. Oh, congrats on your smoke free days. Good luck getting off

the caffeine.

Deanna

" God helps those who help themselves. " ~ lin

[Guest guest]

-

> " American Spirit cigarettes are air cured and have no additives.

>Smoking in

>moderation can be helpful for certain conditions, such as asthma. If you

>smoke, be sure to take extra cod liver oil to protect the lungs.

>Please don't

>interpret this as my endorsement of smoking, but we do need to have

>sympathy on

>those who do smoke and find it helpful--even to calm their nerves.

> Enig

>does not think that smoking causes lung cancer--she believes the

>culprit is

>vegetable oils. However, smoking is the number one risk factor for

>heart disease

>(although no one has looked at the relation of smoking cigarettes without

>additives with heart disease.) Sally "

Someone else forwarded me this offlist, and I have to say, it's pretty

appalling. I know you're inclined to take criticism of Sally's positions

personally, so you have my apologies in advance, but as an asthma sufferer,

I find it outrageous and wantonly negligent to recommend smoking, no matter

how " moderate " , to asthmatics for any reason whatsoever. I have yet to

encounter an asthmatic who's not bothered to some degree by smoke. Yes,

some asthmatics smoke, but they are worsening their problem, not

ameliorating it, and they know it.

The idea that smoke could aid asthma was probably another bit of marketing

flimflammery created by the tobacco companies back in the day along with

all the other " benefits " that were supposed to accrue from smoking, but I

suppose it could've come from anywhere, and its origin isn't really the

point. Pot smoking was also supposed to be good for asthmatics, but my

experience with it and with other asthmatics is the same. Some friends

once lit up a joint and passed it around, and when I refused, one of them

told me exactly that -- that pot used to be the standard remedy for

asthma. But even though I didn't actually take a hit myself, the

second-hand smoke was enough to precipitate a massive asthma attack which

led directly to bronchitis which lasted for a week or so. Granted, my diet

and health at the time weren't what they are now, so I seriously doubt I'd

actually get sick from an asthma attack anymore, but the smoke was

obviously not " treating " my problem in any way, shape or form, and even

though my diet is radically better now, my lungs still do not improve when

I'm exposed to cigarette smoke of any kind.

In short, I find the suggestion, no matter how oblique, that asthmatics

should smoke dangerously irresponsible and repellent to boot, and I hope it

doesn't gain traction in the WAPF community or anywhere else. It also has

the potential to discredit the entire movement, so it's foolish even on

purely strategic and tactical grounds.

That said, there's obviously a big difference between American Spirits

(assuming they're as natural as they're cracked up to be) and modern

cigarettes with all their additives. Modern cigarettes are much more

addictive, for one, and all those additives and other chemicals likely do

their own harm. I've read that the material used to make filters is

actually very harmful, though I haven't followed up on it and don't know

whether it's really true. (That said, I know a former smoker who found

American Spirits to be incredibly harsh and irritating to her lungs, in

contrast to standard brands.) Also, vegetable oils undoubtedly play a

role, because PUFA simply isn't stable, and thus any oxidative stress will

cause much more oxidation in a heavy PUFA consumer than in someone who eats

largely saturated traditional fats and eschews vegetable oils. (It seems

likely to me that a diet founded heavily on fatty seafood could have a

similar liability.) But that doesn't excuse the actual oxidative stress,

which in this case is smoking, it simply means that there's a contributing

factor involved too. And I wonder why she's recommending CLO without

mentioning the importance of saturated fats for lung health. Yes, vitamin

D is important for cancer prevention, but saturated fat is an absolute

requirement for lung function.

To make a long story short, I'm completely disgusted, and this just

reinforces my attitude that blind faith in any person or institution is

just an axe waiting to chop off your head.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Well for what it's worth I haven't smoked for three days. I don't

>really feel any different, for better or worse.

Your lungs aren't going to respond nearly that quickly, and neither are the

other systems in your body which might be adversely effected by smoking.

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/27/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> I would suggest that if ongoing digestion problems exist, that a

> solution should be found for it. Smoking presents other problems, like

> vascular degeneration and lung disease.

The science behind that is quite dubious.

> That's nice about the gut

> cancer relation, but CHD is way more common and a much bigger

> contributor to death than gut cancer. And smoking is the biggest risk

> factor for it. Hypertension comes next.

There is a greater risk factor than both of the above - being single.

[Guest guest]

,

>

>There is a greater risk factor than both of the above - being single.

>

Well, that can be eliminated too, it's called marriage. <g>

Deanna

[Guest guest]

-

>You, OTOH I observe at times reacting strongly out of prejudice.

If you're going to make an accusation like that, I think you should back it

up with examples. It shouldn't be hard to find whatever it is you're

looking for with Onibasu, either.

>I copied Sally's comments in response to your request, perhaps

>imprudently.

Not imprudently, I think.

>She specifically asks not to be misinterpreted as

>endorsing smoking.

I understand that, but that doesn't change what she said about asthma.

>Nor am I attempting to convince you of anything

>but offering you information: the smoking of herbs--and other forms of

>nasal administration (which includes application of oil to the

>ears)--has a long history in traditional medicine--like it or not.

I'm well aware of that, but that doesn't mean much by itself. There's good

and bad to be found in traditional medicine. Also, many traditional uses

for smoking (of a variety of different plants) were psychoactive. Without

saying that all psychoactive effects are bad, I do think it's safe to

classify them separately from the sort of fundamentally physical (and

particularly respiratory) therapeutic uses we are actually talking about.

>Sally likely didn't suggest taking sat. fat along with the extra clo

>because she is terse in her comments and she was addressing the

>chapter leaders, who are already eating plenty of sat. fat and

>recommending it to all who will listen. She is advising to keep the

>*vitamin* levels up to mitigate the smoking damage potential. Damage!

Fair enough. Presumably an official position paper would be comprehensive.

>What I hear, in her comments, is a show of compassion to smokers; I'm

>all for compassion in any form. She is not so sympathetic re: alcohol

>and even chocolate.

I'm all for compassion for smokers. I think a lot of hatred and rage

directed their way is disgusting, and I think measures should be taken to

give smokers places to smoke that won't harm non-smokers. The practice of

requiring smokers to smoke outside buildings has serious flaws in that it

often exposes passersby to second-hand smoke and forces smokers out into

the heat in summer and the cold in winter. Large companies, at least,

ought to set up sealed and ventilated smoking rooms IMO, though of course

there are decent financial arguments against that. But this is all neither

here nor there when it comes to the actual virtues or lack thereof of

smoking itself.

I also regret her attitudes towards alcohol and chocolate and partakers

thereof, though interestingly enough, Chimay has been recommended in recent

shopping guides. (And oh how I wish I could drink some! <g>)

>Your so-called friend's attempt at peer-pressure reasoning on you to

>smoke pot is unremarkable.

Of course, but it doesn't mean they were incorrect in asserting that pot

smoking was widely considered to be a remedy for asthma. (These friends,

BTW, were all much older than I am. I don't think there's that much

awareness of these older notions in my generation or among younger people.)

>Your accrued damage from childhood disease/treatment of same and poor

>nutrition does not change tobacco's historical use and possible

>therapeutic value.

I've never come across ANYONE who claims smoking helped his or her asthma,

and that's in a pretty large sample size. (Hundreds or thousands at this

point.) Nor does the suggestion that one might have to be in the pink of

health to withstand smoking bolster the argument that it might have some

positive respiratory virtues, particularly since all the historical

material I've ever come across, dating back to well before the advent of

modern chemically-doped cigarettes, concedes that smoking reduces one's wind.

>The jury is out, for me, on American Spirits. More commerce.

I think we can probably agree that someone smoking a few American Spirits

who also eats an extremely good diet and has no significant health problems

is in an entirely separate class from people eating the SAD and smoking

doped cigarettes by the pack, but I have a hard time imagining how inhaling

smoke of any kind could wind up conferring respiratory benefit. Periodic

fires are good for grasslands and deciduous forests, but animals always

flee. They don't stick around for the smoke.

-

[Guest guest]

>>>There is a greater risk factor than both of the above - being single.

>>>

>>>

>>Well, that can be eliminated too, it's called marriage. <g>

>>

>>

>Well I guess that's my main problem then, although smoking probably

>hurts chances of finding a mate considerably, not that it would be

>very easy anyway.

>

I don't know the validity regarding this claim of 's. But given

*his* age, it's high time he got married, dontcha think? Just in case,

I mean.

Deanna

73 degrees out today, yipee!

[Guest guest]

,

>> " American Spirit cigarettes are air cured and have no additives.

>>Smoking in

>>moderation can be helpful for certain conditions, such as asthma. If you

>>smoke, be sure to take extra cod liver oil to protect the lungs.

>>Please don't

>>interpret this as my endorsement of smoking, but we do need to have

>>sympathy on

>>those who do smoke and find it helpful--even to calm their nerves.

>> Enig

>>does not think that smoking causes lung cancer--she believes the

>>culprit is

>>vegetable oils. However, smoking is the number one risk factor for

>>heart disease

>>(although no one has looked at the relation of smoking cigarettes without

>>additives with heart disease.) Sally "

>>

>>

Thanks for joining me in the hot seat. Beyond the asthma, which is most

definitely hurt and often provoked in the first place by smoke - first

or second hand - the idea of sympathy for the smokers borders on

rationalization for unhealthy behaviors and can be applied to anything.

Hmmm, let's see. I need some morphine to calm my nerves. I ate that

whole bag of Doritos to help me relax. Et cetera ad nauseam. Promoting

health means just that.

>

>Someone else forwarded me this offlist, and I have to say, it's pretty

>appalling.

>

The whole list is there for the searching on onibasu. Who knows what

other tid bits are there for the quoting?

>The idea that smoke could aid asthma was probably another bit of marketing

>flimflammery created by the tobacco companies back in the day along with

>all the other " benefits " that were supposed to accrue from smoking, but I

>suppose it could've come from anywhere, and its origin isn't really the

>point.

>

>

YES! I was thinking of Mike Wallace and Reagan just yesterday

and the commercials they used to do for cigarettes. I saw them on a

documentary, how dare you think I am old enough to see tobacco

advertised on TV, lol.

>In short, I find the suggestion, no matter how oblique, that asthmatics

>should smoke dangerously irresponsible and repellent to boot, and I hope it

>doesn't gain traction in the WAPF community or anywhere else. It also has

>the potential to discredit the entire movement, so it's foolish even on

>purely strategic and tactical grounds.

>

>

I wonder what would happen if a doctor advocated smoking to his

patients? Not that many would anyway, but these remarks *do* have

potential impacts on choices, when coming from on high, so to speak.

It's enough to give me pause as a chapter leader. Or relieve myself of

duty, or something. And I don't want to sound like a broken record, but

smoking damages the body, regardless of any minor benefit that some

might find in it. Obviously, asthma is not one of the benefits of

smoking, as it often results from it!!! I know one child with asthma

whose parent(s) don't smoke, out of many of my sons' asthmatic friends.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> Deanna

> 73 degrees out today, yipee!

We are having a spectacular 102 degree day here in beautiful NC. 35%

Humidity and all the sun you can stand. Lovely.

Ron

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>or second hand - the idea of sympathy for the smokers borders on

>rationalization for unhealthy behaviors and can be applied to anything.

>Hmmm, let's see. I need some morphine to calm my nerves. I ate that

>whole bag of Doritos to help me relax. Et cetera ad nauseam. Promoting

>health means just that.

I'm half with you, but a lot of people historically did harmful things

because either it wasn't widely understood that they were harmful or

because they got off on the wrong foot during childhood. Even now, with

smoking pretty widely condemned and understood to be harmful, a lot of

smokers got started in childhood -- as did. The tobacco companies do

everything they can to market to children without being smacked down for

it, so it's hardly surprising. So sympathy and empathy are not

misplaced. Sympathy and empathy, however, don't require unconditional

acceptance.

>I wonder what would happen if a doctor advocated smoking to his

>patients? Not that many would anyway, but these remarks *do* have

>potential impacts on choices, when coming from on high, so to speak.

>It's enough to give me pause as a chapter leader.

It would probably be grounds for stripping said doctor of his or her

license. I guess doctors prescribing pot for cancer patients are sort of

getting a pass on that, but AFAIK smoking pot does legitimately help with

the nausea.

That said, doctors can lose their licenses for telling patients to stop

taking statins, so the area isn't exactly free of problems.

-

[Guest guest]

,

>

>I think we can probably agree that someone smoking a few American Spirits

>who also eats an extremely good diet and has no significant health problems

>is in an entirely separate class from people eating the SAD and smoking

>doped cigarettes by the pack, but I have a hard time imagining how inhaling

>smoke of any kind could wind up conferring respiratory benefit. Periodic

>fires are good for grasslands and deciduous forests, but animals always

>flee. They don't stick around for the smoke.

>

This is an important observation about animals. Of course, we type

emails and animals don't do that either ... well, my cats do lay on the

keyboard, but that doesn't count.

Wasn't smoking - that was done medicinally, ceremonially or for other

cultural reasons in the past - always periodic and never a daily thing?

Therein would lie the big difference, if so.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>We are having a spectacular 102 degree day here in beautiful NC. 35%

>Humidity and all the sun you can stand. Lovely.

Bleck. Though at least your humidity wasn't too bad. Here in sun-baked

NYC, it was 96 degrees and I think it peaked at 60% humidity. And I spent

a couple hours walking around in that weather. If you never hear from me

again, that's why.

-