Re: Lance Armstrong & physical abilities

[Guest guest]

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.

I have no idea whether that supports your point or mine, since there's

no way (for me, anyway) to evaluate whether that pain is a result of

dependence on nicotine, or whether it is a result of withdrawing a

pain-killing effect of nicotine that was initially used for

self-medication.

Additionally, it says nothing about the pleasure the person derives

from smoking, and which one, in the future, will be the ultimate

determinant of whether this person makes it all the way to quitting.

My point was never that physical withdrawal is EASY. As I pointed

out, my physical withdrawal from conventional smokes was very intense,

and my mother's physical withdrawal simply from switching from

conventional to American Spirits was even more intense. 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.

Obviously the relative proportion of components will vary between individuals.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Hi everyone! I'm new to this forum, just heard about it, and here is

a discussion of addiction, a subject near and dear to my heart. I

follow DesMaison's " Potatoes not Prozac " food program using foods

friendly to this group, I gather.

the phenomenon you mention about having difficulty months

after the acute withdrawal period, could come from the continuing

upregulated state of beta-endorphin receptors. Often addicts

quit " using " which quits the priming and withdrawal cycles, but they

don't go on and fix the underlying cause in the first place, which

is low beta-endorphin levels from both nature and nurture. Or I

should say, one cause of many.

I should say - I quit bingeing and being carb addicted after 40

years by dealing with the brain biochemistry of addiction. I never

could get the food plan right without that piece. Oh I quit alcohol

too.

Connie

> > 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

[Guest guest]

On 8/6/05, cbrown2008 <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

> Hi everyone! I'm new to this forum, just heard about it, and here is

> a discussion of addiction, a subject near and dear to my heart. I

> follow DesMaison's " Potatoes not Prozac " food program using foods

> friendly to this group, I gather.

Welcome!

> the phenomenon you mention about having difficulty months

> after the acute withdrawal period, could come from the continuing

> upregulated state of beta-endorphin receptors. Often addicts

> quit " using " which quits the priming and withdrawal cycles, but they

> don't go on and fix the underlying cause in the first place, which

> is low beta-endorphin levels from both nature and nurture. Or I

> should say, one cause of many.

That demonstrates my point precisely. I am suggesting that the

so-called " addictiveness " of nicotine is largely due to factors other

than the nicotine, which wouldn't be properly called " addiction " if

the term is to be meaningful.

> I should say - I quit bingeing and being carb addicted after 40

> years by dealing with the brain biochemistry of addiction. I never

> could get the food plan right without that piece. Oh I quit alcohol

> too.

Good for you!

Chris

[Guest guest]

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

> 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.

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

Chris

[Guest guest]

> >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

Ditto. Oddly enough, after I got married, and started having to make

more starches to help fill up DH, I was plagued with large amounts of

gas. I thought I was becoming lactose intolerant (because it was the

disease du jour), tried some special lactose-handling items, and then

decided to simply chew my food more thoroughly. That seemed to do

the most good.

Since then, I've read that we ought to chew starchy carbs more

thoroughly...which would have been natural if they weren't REFINED

starchy carbs, right? ;-)

[Guest guest]

....

>

> Since then, I've read that we ought to chew starchy carbs more

> thoroughly...which would have been natural if they weren't REFINED

> starchy carbs, right? ;-)

>

>

Good day to all of you.

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?

I am afraid I have messed up the original thread. That wasn't a very

elegant way for me to join the group again, was it?

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> -

<snip>

> 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.

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*?)

> -

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> -

>

> >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=3701609 & 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.

>

>

>

> -

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?

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?

Anyway, for just in case, I would chew well even my chunks of meat

rather than swallow them, for two or three reasons: 1. because when

you swallow you hardly feel the taste; 2. because I want my denture

to exert a function; 3. because swallowing makes for a very quick

meal, and in my opinion, a good meal should last in time, almost like

making love and having an interesting conversation, you see.

What do we have teeth for after all? Just to masticate carbs? In my

opinion, though I could be wrong, it is safer to masticate well

everything. Even what you *drink*, if you see what I mean.

Cheers,

José

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> -

>

> >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.

>

>

>

> -

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

José