Re: Re: Lance Armstrong & physical abilities

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Animal studies seem to indicate it's a total load of bunk. The

>evidence indicating that nicotine is the primary " addictive component "

>in cigarettes for humans is in part based on studies that showed that

>de-nicotinized tobacco did not satisfy humans smokers. Also, that

>smoking lettuce and other stuff isn't satisfying. However, further

>better research contradicted the conclusion by showing that when

>nicotine is added back into de-nicotinized tobacco, human smokers find

>them just as unsatisfying. So apprently the reason that

>de-nicotinized tobacco is not satisfying is that the process of

>de-nicotinizing the tobacco destroys the taste and texture of the

>smoke, which would also account for why smoking lettuce and the like

>is not satisfying.

I'm not familiar with the de-nicotonized tobacco studies and I don't have

time to look further into this matter, but it turns out you're at least

partly right and the sources I read lo these many years ago evidently lied

about the animal studies on nicotine.

From http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=15578

>>Smoking cessation efforts could be improved by studying nicotine

>>interactions with acetaldehyde, according to UCI tobacco use researchers.

>>

>>Acetaldehyde, one of the main chemical components of tobacco smoke,

>>appears to increase the addictive properties of nicotine, according to

>>animal studies conducted by the UC Irvine Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use

>>Research Center (TTURC). In addition, the researchers found that

>>adolescents are most vulnerable to the rewarding effects of the

>>nicotine-acetaldehyde combination.

>>

>>Study results appear in the online version of Neuropsychopharmacology.

>>

>>Nicotine is the primary chemical in cigarette smoke that causes

>>addiction, yet when tested in animal studies, the draw of nicotine alone

>>appears to be relatively weak compared to other abused drugs. Surprised

>>by this phenomenon, UCI researchers conducted a series of studies in

>>rodents to determine whether nicotine may interact with some of the other

>>4,000 components of tobacco smoke to enhance addictiveness.

>>

>> " We chose to study acetaldehyde because it is a major component of

>>tobacco smoke, present in a one-to-two ratio to nicotine, " said

>>Belluzzi, lead researcher and adjunct professor of pharmacology in the

>>UCI College of Medicine. " Additionally, there is evidence that

>>acetaldehyde may play a role in alcohol addiction. "

>>

>>Belluzzi, researcher Ruihua Wang and Frances , professor of

>>pharmacology and TTURC director, evaluated possible acetaldehyde and

>>nicotine interactions in a rigorous self-administration test. Adolescent

>>and adult male rats were tested in a procedure during which each nose

>>poke by the rodents delivered acetaldehyde or nicotine, a combination of

>>both drugs, or saline.

>>

>>Adolescent animals quickly learned to self-administer the

>>nicotine-acetaldehyde combination significantly more than saline or

>>either drug alone. Furthermore, young adolescents were more responsive to

>>the drug combination than older adolescents.

>>

>>When adult animals were tested in identical experiments, they did not

>>self-administer the nicotine-acetaldehyde mixture or either drug alone at

>>levels significantly higher than saline.

Note, however, that nicotine was _somewhat_ addictive.

>This is anecdotal, but it strongly indicates

>that not only are there chemicals in conventional cigarettes that

>dramatically increase the dependence potential of nicotine, but

>probably chemicals that cause dependence in and of themselves,

>unrelated to the nicotine.

This wouldn't surprise me in the least -- big tobacco is extremely

unscrupulous -- and the implication of the above article is that

acetaldehyde has some addictive power of its own.

>I would also point out that it is relatively easy to make it through

>even intense physical withdrawal symptoms. When I quit smoking

>Marlboros when I was 14, I suffered very, very intense withdrawal.

>When I started again, the withdrawals were gone. It was not the

>physical withdrawals that made me start again. It was the fact that I

>liked smoking and just wasn't psychologically prepared to give it up.

I'm always amused (and somewhat irritated) when people who have something

like an easy time quitting something announce that it's relatively easy for

anyone, the implication being that anyone who has more trouble is just weak.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>That's not the implication at all. The implication is that physical

>dependence is a relatively small part of the phenomenon that is

>commonly referred to as " addiction, " and I think this is evidenced by

>the fact that a great many people who quit or try quitting are not

>most susceptible when the dependence symptoms are worst, which is in

>the first few days, but when the dependence symptoms are mild or gone,

>which is a week, weeks, or months later.

Well, I know someone who's in increasing physical pain from trying to quit

right as we speak.

-

[Guest guest]

Isn't it homeostasis that's the issue here? Or better, allostasis

which refers to the the notion that different circumstances require

different homeostatic settings -- basically your body adapts (for good

or bad) and once adapted doesn't like to be thrown out of that set

balance?

We assume that the liver, for example " wants " to be at that optimum

place it was at birth when, in fact, after years of drug and alcohol

abuse, on some level it actually " wants " to stay in that rather

congested miserable state and so there is a sort of resistence that

might be manifested in what we call withdrawal symptoms?

~Robin Ann

On 8/5/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Chris-

> >That's not the implication at all. The implication is that physical

> >dependence is a relatively small part of the phenomenon that is

> >commonly referred to as " addiction, " and I think this is evidenced by

> >the fact that a great many people who quit or try quitting are not

> >most susceptible when the dependence symptoms are worst, which is in

> >the first few days, but when the dependence symptoms are mild or gone,

> >which is a week, weeks, or months later.

>

> Well, I know someone who's in increasing physical pain from trying to quit

> right as we speak.

> -

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>My point was

>that I think that it's a relatively small contributor to difficulty

>quitting *compared to* the unique pleasure derived from smoking and

>the inability to replace it.

Evidently you enjoy smoking. Unfortunate for you, I'd guess, but again,

not everyone is just like you. The person I'm talking about HATES smoking.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Interesting. So why didn they *start*? Pain relief?

Working in a tobacco tent as a teen. Peer pressure.

-

[Guest guest]

>>Evidently you enjoy smoking. Unfortunate for you, I'd guess, but again,

>>not everyone is just like you. The person I'm talking about HATES smoking.

>>

>>

>

>Interesting. So why didn they *start*? Pain relief?

>

Apparently, Jennings started smoking after 20 years as an ex

smoker because of 9/11. He died of lung cancer yesterday. May he rest

in peace. Pain relief is probably not far off the mark as a reason to

smoke.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Deanna Wagner

> " Professor Oswald, who led the research, suggested that male

>smokers should get wed as soon as possible to counteract the risk.

Why is it every study I've seen on stuff like this shows a greater benefit

of marrying for men rather than women? Why aren't women getting as many

health benefits from marriage?

I might have to rethink my plans, especially since I'm planning on marrying

someone under whose influence I drink and smoke more than I do when alone or

with other people! Or maybe *that's* why there are fewer health benefits

conferred to women in marriage, assuming I'm not the only one. <weg>

;-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Suze wrote:

>Why is it every study I've seen on stuff like this shows a greater benefit

>of marrying for men rather than women? Why aren't women getting as many

>health benefits from marriage?

The theory I heard was that when a guy is married, the woman urges him

to take care of himself, see the doctor when needed, etc.

Seems like married guys don't take as many risks either.

But it doesn't work in reverse!

>I might have to rethink my plans, especially since I'm planning on marrying

>someone under whose influence I drink and smoke more than I do when alone or

>with other people! Or maybe *that's* why there are fewer health benefits

>conferred to women in marriage, assuming I'm not the only one. <weg>

That's meant humorously, but it's true! I started eating far worse

when I got married, because I had to cook " guy food " which meant

lots of starches etc. to fill him up.

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> Why is it every study I've seen on stuff like this shows a

> greater benefit

> of marrying for men rather than women? Why aren't women

> getting as many

> health benefits from marriage?

Oh, that's easy! It's because men get someone who cooks and cleans for them

every day for the rest of their lives. Not to mention the daily sex for the

duration of the marriage!

And the poor women have to do all of the work while the men watch football

and read the newspaper when they aren't in the office.

Ron

[Guest guest]

-

>Doesn't the digestion of starches start in the mouth? Isn't that the

>reason why we should try to chew them well? But what about fleshy

>foods? Doesn't the digestion of meat start in the stomach? Does that

>mean that we are *allowed* to swallow meat rather than bother to chew

>it? I hear that many people swallow their meat, either raw or cooked,

>but I can't help thinking that this is a perilous practice. Can we

>really imitate the carnivores? Is our digestive system really similar

>to and as all-powerful as a carnivore's when it comes to handling

>meat?

Yes, starch digestion starts in the mouth, meaning it's of prime importance

to chew starches well to stimulate saliva production, break the starch down

into the smallest possible pieces and thoroughly mix the saliva, with its

digestive enzymes, into the starch. As to meat, I expect people with truly

robust digestion could swallow chunks with no trouble. The pH of our

stomach, after all, is the same as that of a wolf. However, people with

impaired digestion who aren't supplementing with HCl and the like would do

well to chew their meat in order to expose the greatest possible surface

area to gastric juice.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>Thanks, . But are you sure of that? That a man`s stomach has the

>same pH as that of a wolf? Well I never! But is a man`s stomach just as

>as _muscular_ a wolf`s? (Or should I say *muscled*?)

Yes, our stomachs have very low pHs (when healthy). I can't find the chart

I used to have, but here's a passingly interesting study on Medline.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=3\

701609 & dopt=Abstract

>>Gastrointestinal pH as a function of time was recorded for 4 beagle dogs

>>and 10 human subjects using radiotelemetric pH measuring equipment.

>>Results indicated that in the quiescent phase, gastric pH in the dogs

>>(mean = 1.8 +/- 0.07 SEM) was significantly (p less than 0.05) higher

>>than in humans (1.1 +/- 0.15). No significant difference in the time for

>>the pH monitoring device to empty from the stomach was noted for the two

>>species (99.8 +/- 27.2 min for dogs, 59.7 +/- 14.8 min for humans, p

>>greater than 0.05). The fasting intestinal pH in dogs was consistently

>>higher than in humans, with an average canine intestinal pH of 7.3 +/-

>>0.09 versus 6.0 +/- 0.14 for humans. The implication of these

>>observations for extrapolation of drug absorption data from dogs to

>>humans are discussed.

As to stomach musculature, I don't think a healthy person has anything to

worry about -- but the differences between our dentition and mouths and

those of wolves dictate that we generally gulp smaller bites of meat anyway.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>Yes, I see, . I don't much understand about pH. Does it measure

>the acidity of a medium or an environment, in this case, of a

>stomach?

Yes, pH is a measure of acidity.

>I read somewhere (can't find where) that the stomach juice of a

>carnivore is three times more acid than the gastric juice in humans.

>Does this tell you anything?

I've read that the gastric juice of a carnivore is 20 times as acidic as

the gastric juice of humans. I don't believe it, though. I've never seen

anything completely definitive on the subject, but from what I can tell,

our stomachs are much like those of wolves.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>Thanks . I thought this subject had been dropped somehow.

No, I just got sick from mold and fell way behind on email.

>Can I

>go on asking? Do you think the stomach of other primates (monkeys)

>are also similar to a wolf's? Or is this similarity peculiar to

>humans? And do you know how it came to be? Was it natural or acquired?

>Give yourself plenty of time to respond.

Some primates eat meat, others are herbivores. I think we're the most

carnivorous of primates, but I'm not positive of that. As to how that came

to be -- evolution, which is to say both natural and acquired. Our distant

ancestors, based on the residual webbing between our toes and fingers, were

probably coastal and caught and ate lots of fish. Our more recent

ancestors seem to have thrived eating all sorts of mammalian megafauna, the

vast majority of which we apparently helped drive to extinction.

-