Re: Lance Armstrong & physical abilities

[Guest guest]

On 7/25/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> 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.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/25/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> 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. Which I guess just means that I'll though I'm much saner than I

used to be, I'm still a little neurotic.

> 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?

Usually in the 90s, although I haven't tested it for a long time.

> How much cardio are you doing a week?

That depends. In a way, I mostly only do cardio as warmups. However,

I often do weight training with very low resting times. So, for

example, last time I was at the gym I did squats and then a calf

workout, probably 12 sets altogether plus warmup sets, with one minute

resting between all sets. Would that count as interval training? It

certainly speeds my heart rate up. Anyway, I've just started to

include some cardio when at the gym to help fat loss, but it hasn't

become a regular habit yet. I also work out with kettlebells usually

once or twice a day, sometimes skipping a day, which are supposed to

have a more profound effect on lowering resting HR than aerobics.

Yesterday I did a k-bell workout that I tried to make mimic interval

cardio training, where I did 20 sets of 10 two-arm swings, each

separated by a little under one minute rest.

> Are you still on coffee?

Dropping it was a disaster, even weeks after, which indicates to me

that my need for coffee is not simply a caffeine dependence created by

caffeine intake, but partly self-medication for an underlying

metabolic problem. I'm now consuming coffee, but generally less than

a mug a day, so much less than I was before.

> I am,

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

> should completely drop. NOW!

Well I sometimes go a day without smoking at all and at most smoke two

cigarettes in a day, so I doubt it is a major priority. I basically

smoke right now out of boredom. Also, since I'm trying to put a

website together, I sometimes get to " thinking " time, and smoking a

cigarette is nice for contemplation.

I'm going to start karate training, and I'll probably drop smoking

altogether then.

> In someone with high blood pressure,

> smoking along with it amounts to THE BIGGEST TWO CONTROLLABLE RISK

> FACTORS FOR CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE by far.

But it's a risk factor. Just because something is a risk factor,

without further knowledge, that doesn't necessarily indicate any

*reason* to control it.

> 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.

Still, a " risk factor " is just that: it indicates a correlation, not

causality. Besides " smoking " is too vague. Is there a dose-dependent

response? If so, what's the difference in risk factor status for

smoking 40 cigarettes a day, 20 cigarettes a day, and 2 cigarettes a

day?

Besides all that, while the risk of heart disease at my age is

negligible, if there is anything that puts me on the map, it is

periodontitis, my wisdom teeth, and my remaining root canaled tooth.

Periodontitis is a worse risk factor than obesity, and mine is pretty

bad, due, according to my dentist, to the presence of my deformed and

mal-fitting wisdom teeth, of which I've had one of four removed so

far. Root canaled teeth can cause heart disease, basically by the

same mechanism, I think, as periodontitis, only probably worse.

(Bacterial toxins are a primary cause of heart disease, some research

indicates.)

> 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.

Well, apparently I'm not truly hypertensive, since they never say

anything about it at the doctor's office. I've been doing intense

workouts for a couple years now. What kind of symptoms should I

expect if they are doing any damage or putting me at any risk?

> 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.

I don't really know if I am hypertensive. And I don't smoke enough to

make me think it is a major thing to consider. As far as I know,

dose-dependent response is considered one of the indicators of

causality, which would mean that were the smoking a causal factor, in

all liklihood, my smoking one or two cigarettes a day would have 1/10

or 1/20 the effect of the average smoker smoking a pack (20) a day.

And that's assuming these studies are adequately adjusting for diet,

exercise, and other lifestyle and environmental factors with smoking

still being a significant risk-factor, and that the cigarettes that I

smoke are as harmful as the flume-cured smokes loaded with all kinds

of toxic chemicals, both of which I am skeptical.

In any case, my high heart rate and BP reaction have nothing

whatsoever I do with smoking, because I haven't been smoking during

any of the times that these observations were made. While it may be

possible that the marginal benefit of getting rid of my one or two

cigarettes a day is significant to my health, I think my main priority

should be figuring out why my nervous system seems to be imbalanced.

I'm guessing it is probably related to some kind of thyroid-adrenal

imbalance, and it could be caused or aggravated by my dental problems.

I was thinking I was hyper-thyroid a couple years ago, but now I'm

wondering whether I've switched, or whether my " sped-up " symptoms have

been a result of my adrenals compensating for my low thyroid with

excess adrenaline. It seems possible that *some* of my cells could be

de-sensititzed to one or the other hormone, thus inducing an excess of

adrenaline, while other cells might *not* be desensitized to that

hormone, thus creating a sped-up effect. In other words, my heart

rate could be responding to the hormones correctly while my fat cells

aren't, which could result in high heart rate coincident with the

energy sludge and symptoms of low-metabolism I've had off coffee and

with fat gain over the past few months.

But I'm just throwing guesses out.

> 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.

Well they don't seem to tell much. Aside from being risk factor

studies, which are only helpful in generating hypotheses and not

confirming them, the odds ratio of age is enormously stronger than the

odds ratio of smoking. The odds ratio of " regular smoking " which

probably means 15-20 cigarettes a day for the average person (now that

prices are up!) was around 2, while the odds ratio for age was around

1 per year. Which means the odds ratio of being 20 years older than I

am now would be roughly 20, which is 10 times the odds ratio yielded

by " regular smoking. " The odds ratio of being 40 years older than I

am now would be roughly 40, which is 20 times the odds ratio of being

a " regular smoker. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/26/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> >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.

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.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/26/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

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

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

Oh, so it's fair game to call my actions pathetic, but if I say the

same, I'm ungrateful and insulting?

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.

Chris

[Guest guest]

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.

What struck me in your conversation was the increased coffee

consumption, cigarette habit and concern about fat accumulation in the

mid-section. These are the signs of adrenal fatigue.

Add in the various symptoms and long-term lifestyle stressors you've

recounted in your posts and one gets a picture of someone heading for

trouble--bad trouble. To a middle-aged butterfly like myself, it's

like an opportunity to avert a disaster from my own past. However

suboptimally we might express ourselves to you, please consider the

underlying desire that you not suffer ill health.

When I read your story of ecxema following your root canal(s), I felt

so sad; I didn't realize that had been the trigger for you and I

imagine it would be disheartening to experience.

BTW I just happened to read that nightmares are caused by: toxins in

the colon and eating meals too close to bedtime. Uncanny!

B.

/not against tobacco per se, in fact, for it

//real, out-and-out diarrhea you have, or " loose " stools?

[Guest guest]

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

> 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.

Well *that* is something serious that I can consider. If there is any

immediate type of harm that I can see from smoking, it is that a

certain degree of smoking, because I inhale, might decrease my

respiratory fitness. 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.

> 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.

Oh, I agree. I smoke because I have always liked smoking. I don't

think I will every stop liking smoking. I don't know if it makes

sense to psychoanalyze it much further. It's just something I do,

like another collects beanie babies.

> 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.

But I don't have a " need " to smoke. I like to smoke, and I don't

think that indicates a metabolic problem any more than liking to

collect beanie babies. I DO have a " need " to drink coffee. If I

don't drink coffee, I feel significant negative effects on my

metabolism, energy level, mood, and functioning, and I agree that

those need to be addressed but I drink small amounts of coffee now

because I'm not sure how to address them. There is no such negative

effect that I feel if I do not smoke for a few hours, a few days, a

few months, or a few years, all of which I have done after smoking.

> 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.

I don't see what I am failing to examine openly. I know that you know

that blaming my digestive problems on smoking is absurd. So, my

reactions against these should be seen for what they are-- rational

counters to hysterical claims, rather than a pathetic rationalization

about an underlying addiction about which I am in denial.

I would like to openly examine how smoking effects my respiratory

condition, which I think is actually something to take seriously, but

I'm not sure how to evaluate it. If I engage in greater activity, say

through taking karate, as I plan to do, this might prove to me whether

smoking is cutting down my respiratory capacity. And if it was, I

would probably quit. Although if I were occupied with some particular

feat it might be that I would not have the time to want to smoke

anyway.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/26/05, downwardog7 <illneverbecool@...> wrote:

> What struck me in your conversation was the increased coffee

> consumption, cigarette habit and concern about fat accumulation in the

> mid-section. These are the signs of adrenal fatigue.

Ok, interesting. Here's another piece that might be interesting:

when I was at my concrete job, I found that I could work high-energy

as long as I didn't stop. There were a couple weeks during a cement

shortage where getting cement was goofed up and we had to hang around

for a couple hours. I found that this totally killed my energy and

was having trouble revving back up. The lead in the shop said this

might be indicative of a health problem and I should get it checked

out. I wonder if it plays in anywhere.

Also, if I do have hypochloridia, indicated by the need to take HCl to

prevent negative effects of cheese, I think that is also evidence of

adrenal fatigue.

My understanding is that adrenal and thyroid problems are so

interdependent on one another that it is difficult to unravel them,

because symptoms can be confounded for one from the other.

Ok, so where should I start in addressing this?

> Add in the various symptoms and long-term lifestyle stressors you've

> recounted in your posts and one gets a picture of someone heading for

> trouble--bad trouble. To a middle-aged butterfly like myself, it's

> like an opportunity to avert a disaster from my own past. However

> suboptimally we might express ourselves to you, please consider the

> underlying desire that you not suffer ill health.

Yes, I do appreciate that. Forgive me, everyone, if I have seemed

under-appreciative of your concern for my health. I have not gotten

angry at anyone, but the discussion on cigarette smoking seemed to be

going overboard to the point of absurdity in many ways, hence my

negative comments, and it really annoys me that everyone is using a

tautological reasoning to justify their analysis that I am " addicted "

to smoking, while ignoring my own analysis, even though I know very

well what it is like to be addicted to smoking and when I have been I

have had no qualms about admitting it.

> When I read your story of ecxema following your root canal(s), I felt

> so sad; I didn't realize that had been the trigger for you and I

> imagine it would be disheartening to experience.

Thank you. Yes it didn't make me look or feel too great.

> BTW I just happened to read that nightmares are caused by: toxins in

> the colon and eating meals too close to bedtime. Uncanny!

Interesting. Everyone in my family has told me this my entire life,

and since I was a little kid I've always thought it was so

preposterous. I have always suffered from nightmares.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/26/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Likewise.

Good, thanks.

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

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

> unheard of in young people who smoke(d).

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.

> I apologize for any offense or

> hysteria. I care, that's all.

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.

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.

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.

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*.

Chris

[Guest guest]

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

,

From Chapterleaders list:

" 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 "

B.

[Guest guest]

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

> 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.

Yes, I understand your point and agree. The stroke is definitely

indicative of his health otherwise. Still, there were many factors in

his poor health, which you already noted.

> 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.

Fair enough. However, while smoking might be a net negative on my

health, the point remains that it isn't a significant priority. My

heart rate and blood pressure problems may or may not be impacted

negatively by the very small amount of smoking I do, but they,

causally, have NOTHING to do with smoking! This is well-established

by my history of high heart rate/BP and my history of smoking, which

do not in any remote way match up. So, fine, maybe I should quit

smoking, but obviously whatever is actually causing the anxiety and

overactive sympathetic nervous sytem is a much more important issue.

And I suspect that my apparent metabolic need for coffee is actually

tied into that problem, unlike smoking.

So, it's really a waste of everyone's energy to debate this smoking

thing and neglect the more important factors. It's like I've got a

log in my left eye and a speck in my right and people are pestering me

about getting the speck out.

> Bigger than digestion. Folks live

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

I doubt that's true. The heart and brain are intimately tied to the

gut. Systemic infections might be the primary silent killer behind

heart disease, and they start in the digestive system, whether the

mouth or gut, not in the respiratory/circulatory system.

Whatever respiratory and cardiac problems I have are probably due

either to endocrine problems or digestive problems, the latter two of

which are probably related.

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

> it is a long term concern.

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

really feel any different, for better or worse.

> 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 think that can probably be qualified, but I wasn't saying it was

irrational to believe that smoking is not health-promoting. But that

doesn't mean all perspective on the situation can just be shunned. I

think from everything I've described it is clear that smoking is the

least of my problems.

> 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.

Actually I think that we can and should buck any scientific

orthodoxies in favor of evaluating each theory on its merits. I don't

think we should automatically accpet or reject any theory, regardless

of what esteem with which it is held in the mainstream.

> 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.

Who does that? I'm sure there is good research indicating smoking is

not health-promoting, but obviously you don't know where it is,

because the studies you provided weren't conclusive about anything.

So if you KNOW that there are good studies out there, because you've

READ them, rather than reading some article from an anti-smoking

authority that quoted selected abstracts with a double layer of

interpretation (researcher's conclusion in abstract, then article

author's interpretation of that), then I suppose you should be able to

produce them. has offered numerous times the free e-book at,

IIRC, http://www.lcolby.com which summarizes a more or less

comprehensive case against the smoking orthodoxy. Have you read it?

I don't ever see questioning as " dangerous. " What I see as dangerous

is believing one side of the story without every looking into the

other.

> No one can deny the

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

> and much more obvious than dietary studies.

I haven't looked into the " exercise can be bad for you " side of the

issue, but it is my general experience that exercise is a net positive

on health. However, I think it is plausible that an excess of

exercise in relation to rest or dietary replenishment could be a net

negative on health in some circumstances.

> Smoking as well.

Umm, no, it is pretty controversial. At the very least you have to

admit that smoking certain forms of tobacco with the backdrop of an

optimally healthy population appears to be entirely harmless. The

smoking evidence is only conclusive if you ignore more than half the

evidence! And then you also have to ignore nuances in how the tobacco

is cured and what is added to it.

> The areas

> , like vascular heath, where smoking is found harmful, stand.

By your mere assertion? I have not thoroughly reached it, but from

what I have seen, the intervention studies with animals generally fail

to back up the human correlative studies. For example, a friend was

visiting from Canada who had a pack of Canadian smokes, which had a

big picture across the front of a cigarette with a long, limp ash,

shaped like a limp penis, that said that smoking causes impotence. I

looked up what I could find, and it turns out that are a lot of

studies that correlate smoking with impotence. But it turns out that

when they try to induce impotence in rats with tobacco smoke, they

can't! The one study I found at the time (it was a while ago), was a

rat study where they exposed them to large amounts of tobacco smoke,

and stimulated erections electrically. The smoke rats had much lower

levels of nitric oxide synthase, but had no difference in erectile

function. I suspect that the low NO synthase might have been a result

of low-level carbon monoxide, which has the same effect on blood

vessels as nitric oxide. So it could have been that the CO was

replacing the NO. In any case, there was tons of correlative data,

which is NOT by itself " evidence, " but no evidence, at least at the

time I researched it.

And I think that qualifies as " vascular health. "

> 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.

Naturally you a right to your own opinion. I don't think there is a

monolithic opinion on smoking in the WAPF community. I think it is

healthy that there is a variance of opinion. It is very dangerous

when there is anything that is not questioned by anyone at all,

whether it is an orthodox or alternative view.

> 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?

Because I don't? For example, I don't consider 's observations

that many athletes secretly smoke to be proof that smoking has no

harmful effect on athleticism! Likewise, the anecdotes about

digestive health are not particularly helpful *by themselves*, but are

helpful when combined with true studies showing a causitive effect of

smoking ameliorating digestive health.

I do not unfairly scrutinize anything you send along. I merely point

out, fairly and accurately, that they are not good evidence of

anything. You can avoid that by providing some evidence! Correlative

studies have their value, but their value is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT

confirming hypotheses!

> 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.

By your fiat. This list is loaded with people with digestive issues,

some of whom smoking might benefit. Granted, I wouldn't recommend

anyone who didn't already do it to pick it up, but I think it remains

a possibility that smoking could negatively effect some people while

positively effecting others. There are too many variables. It's

quite clear that some people can live to 90 in perfect health and

smoke. Some can do that with other crap things and it doesn't mean

it's good, but when combined with pretty good evidence of a causal

role in preventing or helping certain health problems, it does

indicate that for some subset of the population, health benefits can

be derived, while the negatives can be ineffectual.

Maybe that is only a very small proportion of the population, but it

still remains that smokings physiological effects are not

monolithically " bad. " So this whole " this list is for health, smoking

is anti-health, so no one can smoke, " thing is just ideological. It

definitely isn't that black and white.

> 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.

There is some evidence of that, but obviously many asthmatics react

very very negatively to smoke. Anyway my point is that I'm reliant on

coffee and not on smoking, and that I'm hardly at all under the

influence of smoke, whereas I'm under the influence of coffee for much

of the day, and that any problems I have have developed independently

of smoking. Thus it makes little sense to put 95% of energy into the

smoking (non-)issue and 5% into the caffeine issue.

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

> mom smoking around me all the time.

I'm curious to know how you verified this.

> 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.

Thank you.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/27/05, downwardog7 <illneverbecool@...> quoted Sally Fallon:

> Please don't

> interpret this as my endorsement of smoking,

Well I guess that constitutes an " endorsement, " wouldn't you say?

Chris

[Guest guest]

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

> " 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.

I should have commented on this previously.

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.

That said, Dr. Ravnskov does not present any evidence whatsoever that

smoking causes heart attacks, nor did he mean to, nor did he intend to

be perceived as doing such. So this does not support the point that

smoking causes heart attacks.

Apparently your use of this is to show that WAPF-approved alternative

" authorities " believe that smoking causes heart attacks, therefore,

since those of us stubborn WAPF-ers who object to all orthodoxies

should follow the orthodoxies followed by the " authorities " in our own

community. This is clearly meritless and is an argument by authority,

which is by its nature invalid, and tends to decrease the credibility

of the person arguing it.

I would also like to point out, regarding your reaction to Sally's

recent comments:

1) Sally did not by any means endorse smoking or claim it was safe

2) Sally explicitly asked for her comments not to be considered as an

endorsement of smoking

3) There has been no change in anyone's opinion of smoking at all

since Sally made her comments.

Everyone who has been defending smoking or at least questioning parts

of the scientific orthodoxy regarding it has been doing so long before

Sally made that statement. So I don't know where you get the idea

that a WAPF authority makes a statement endorsing smoking and then

everyone in the WAPF community runs with it, denies all evidence, and

takes up smoking. That interpretation of the event is thoroughly

divorced from the reality of what happened, which was insignificant.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/27/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> 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.

Well no, but first, let me reiterate my smoking history breifly:

Smoked heavily from 12-15. Quit for 7 or 8 years. About one year

ago, smoked moderately to lightly for six months or so while working

during concrete. Didn't smoke for three months. Smoke lightly for

last month.

So, I do have a reasonable idea of what it is like to be smoking or not smoking.

Anyway, that wasn't the entire point. Were I physically dependent on

the cigarettes, I would feel worse right now, and going through

nicotine withdrawal. I don't. Which supports my earlier protests

that everyone stop referring to my " addiction. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

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

> >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.

Chris

[Guest guest]

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

> personally,

I don't think I do, but I may have displayed oversensitivity in some

of my past responses and I apologise for that and work for improvement

in my presentation. I don't take the criticism personally, no, but I

see Sally as a person of rare virtue--if not infallibity--and I stand

up for that.

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

you also show great wisdom and rationality and I admire you for it.

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...

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

imprudently. She specifically asks not to be misinterpreted as

endorsing smoking. 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.

From _The Yoga of Herbs_:

" Herbs are often smoked as part of detoxification therapy...to burn

residual toxins from the system. Herbs may also be used in the place

of tobacco to help stop smoking.

Smoking of herbs helps enhance their decongestant and anti-cough

action and is good for colds and sore throats. It gives them

immediate action on the nerves and may help clear the mind for yoga

and meditation.

Herbs for smoking: ajwan, bayberry, black pepper, cardamom, cinnamon,

cloves, cubebs, ginger...and such special rejuvenatives for the mind

as calamus and gotu kola. "

I don't smoke, okay? And I think that unconscious recreational use

of, and addiction to, commercial cigarettes is unhealthy for people--

primary and secondary consumers both. I do, however, acknowledge that

smoking herbs--including tobacco--has a respectable history in

traditional medicine and ceremony.

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!

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.

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

smoke pot is unremarkable.

That people get ill from smoking modern tobacco products in our

society is all-too-predictable.

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

nutrition does not change tobacco's historical use and possible

therapeutic value.

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

B.

[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

Marine layer in Hermosa Beach--but warm 72.

B.

[Guest guest]

On 7/27/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Deanna-

>

> >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.

>

> Yeah, AFAIK. That would certainly reduce damage a lot, particularly

> coupled with good diet and health.

I seem to have misplaced my copy, but towards the beginning of _The

Maker's Diet_ Jordan Rubin discusses a primitive group that made their

own cigarettes and smoked *daily* but were free of heart disease.

Granted daily probably didn't mean 20-40 cigarettes worth of tobacco.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/27/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Suze-

>

> >Has this been tested with NON regular

> >chock-full-o-toxic-crap-AND-addicting-additives-cigarettes? Or is this

> based

> >on regular 'ol cigs?

>

> I think it's been tested with isolated nicotine, on rats, but I don't have

> the refs at hand. Since I'm not a smoker and could never smoke anything

> without radically awful consequences, it's not something I maintain an

> arsenal of current research on.

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 read a very long and in-depth review a while back and I'll try to

find it and link to the .pdf of it later, but it reviewed the animal

evidence and from what I recall nicotine addictions per se have not

been induced in animals. The review also discussed the scientific

validity of the concept of addiction, which was very interesting,

although somewhat semantic.

There is no question that nicotine in considerable and consistent

doses causes physical dependence and also tolerance. However,

tolerance decreases rapidly does not set in very well unless the dose

is, in my experience, distributed evenly through the day. Dependence

does occur, but the level of dependence that occurs from American

Spirits compared to the level of dependence that occurs from

conventional cigarettes makes American Spirits much closer to NO

DEPEDENCE than to conventional cigarettes.

Trust me, I've experienced it. By merely switching from Newports to

American Spirit menthols, my mother went through dramatic and intense

withdrawal symptoms for three days that included hallucinations.

This, despite the fact that AS cigarettes contain not only more

nicotine, but a MUCH greater content of free-base nicotine than the

conventionals, who actually ADD IN synthetic free-base nicotine to

increase the potency. 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.

The concept of " addiction, " which, if it is to be distinguished from

dependence and tolerance, would have to contain a behvioral component

(although no one agrees on the precise definition), where the

substance has an effect that actually induces the behavior. Otherwise

I'm not sure it's a valid concept.

In any case, absent from the *assumption* that nicotine is addictive

or one of the most addictive substances in the world, or whatever

(absurd, in my opinion), is that the psychological profile of people

drawn to smoking is not necessarily the same as those who do not

smoke, and self-medication may be involved.

So, for example, nicotine has potent anti-psychotic effects, which is

one reason why schizophrenics have a much higher smoking rate. The

nicotine is not causing the psychotic symptoms, but relieving them.

Schizophrenics would have a much harder time quitting because part of

what they experience when they stop is an ffective stoppage of their

medication. Since I appear to have psychotic tendencies (which I say

because my vegetarian days induced a borderline psychotic state, so,

in the absence of proper nutrition, I can head towards psychosis),

this might explain why I have always been attracted to smoking.

The same can be said for celiac and gluten-sensitivity. Since smoking

helps prevent damage to the gut in celiacs, and since it decreases

symptoms, those who are celiac or gluten-sensitive have higher smoking

rates and find it harder to quit. Part of the reason it is harder to

quit is because they are effectively going off medication that is

helping their symptoms, in addition to whatever dependence potential

nicotine has.

The list could go on. If nicotine is an anti-psychotic, one doesn't

need to be psychotic to benefit from those effects. Very subtle and

moderate psychotic tendencies could be present in people who are

merely neurotic, or who are more or less normal but have particular

stresses or very light psychological problems that are relieved from

smoking. These people, again, would find it hard to quit not only

because of nicotine dependence, but because they are self-medicating

with the nicotine.

In addition to this, there is also simple habit, and the pleasure of

smoking. There aren't really good substitutes for smoking. Chewing

on gum or seeds is not the act of smoking. This is a component that

is missing from most drugs of abuse. Heroin addicts do not, to my

knowledge, gain anything sigificant by putting a needle in their arm.

If they could replicate the feeling of injection perfectly, without

any psychoactive effects, they would probably not find anything good

in it. Someone addicted to perkodans will not find any relief in

water-pills in which the coating approximates the taste of perkodans.

So many people may find it hard to quit because of reasons completely

unrelated to nicotine: they enjoy the act of smoking, and specifically

the taste and texture of tobacco smoke. This adds a whole 'nother

dimension to why it would be hard to quit, because it is a pleasurable

ACT in itself.

So, in summary, I challenge that nicotine itself is powerfully

addictive because:

-animals do not form human-like nicotine addictions

-humans need more than nicotine for the satisfaction of a cigarette

-switching from conventional cigarettes to additive-free ciagrettes

can produce intense withdrawals

-quitting conventional cigarettes causes much, much, incomparably

much, greater withdrawal symptoms than quitting additive-free

cigarettes

-nicotine is self-medicating for a variety of psychological and

non-psychological conditions, thereby giving benefits unrelated to

relieving withdrawal symptoms

-smoking is a uniquely pleasurable act that is not replaceable, which

accounts for a portion of the so-called " addictiveness "

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.

Chris

[Guest guest]

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

> No I haven't asked him, but yes, you are probably right about the

> studies. Aren't there any marijuana studies anywhere about lungs and

> such? That might be an alternative to look at anyway.

With marijuana being illegal, and the probable impossibility of

getting an intervention study past an ethics board, I suspect it's

worse. You really have no idea if your pot's been dosed with paint

thinner or not, or whatever else, to enhance the high.

Chris

[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.

,

" Anyway, if I didn't have a dishwasher, I wouldn't cook. That's just the

way I am... "

" rant "

" Hmm, I guess that's kind of over the top, but it's an accurate

summation of

how I feel about washing dishes. <g> "

B.

[Guest guest]

> Are these personal biases, do you think? Is it that smoking was a part

> of life, but alcohol and chocolate weren't daily indulgences in her

family?

Deanna,

I have no idea. Her ways are a mystery.

B.

[Guest guest]

> Self-knowledge = bigotry?

,

" The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or

convictions. See Synonyms at predilection. "

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prejudice

Using the phrase, " that's just the way I am, " in any exchange is

beneath you, O Great One.

B.

[Guest guest]

> ly, I think this whole thing is a dodge. I called you on a

statement

> and this is your smokescreen. But I'm prepared to let it drop. It

makes

> very little difference to me.

,

Duly chastised.

B.

/stomps off to room

//slams door

[Guest guest]

On 7/29/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> The BBC is better than most. you'd better start a serious mate

> hunt now! And they say money doesn't matter. <g> From the article:

>

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

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

>

> " He said: " Forget cash. It is as clear as day from the data that

> marriage, rather than money, is what keeps people alive. "

His data is flawed: money is what gets people (men) married!

Chris

[Guest guest]

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

> 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.

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.

Chris