7 ms·

Were there really people thinking that inhaling a mix of highly carcinogenic compounds would be less harmful than eating protein?

Cless 13y ago
That's the world we live in. "You need to eat healthier," says a skinny person smoking a cigarette and drinking alcohol.
- codelap 13y ago
  Drinking alcohol has many health benefits. Even a beer a day, something that 'common sense' would lead you to think was unhealthy, demonstrates to be good for your overall health. And eating processed foods while smoking and drinking would likely be more detrimental than eating well, while smoking and drinking. The hard part is determining what eating well is.
  - stdbrouw 13y ago
    People keep yapping on about the health benefits of alcohol, red wine in particular, but I'd be impressed if you could find me a single drinker who only ever drinks that one unit of alcohol a day. At that point it very quickly stops being beneficial to your health.
    - cobrausn 13y ago
      I typically drink one glass of red wine a night, occasionally two if dinner is particularly good. Feel free to be impressed.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        This, of course, also describes about 80% of the population of France.
    - Dewie 13y ago
      That might depend heavily on the kind of culture that you live in.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that light drinkers inevitably become heavy drinkers, and thus the benefits of light drinking are irrelevant?
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      I drink one bottle of beer with dinner each day. Now and again I have two or even three, but that's only a few times a year. Certainly, when I was younger I used to engage in more recreational/social drinking, ie going to a bar or a party, but I got tired of it.
    - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
      Where do you live? I'm fascinated by your use of the word 'drinker', as if people who ever drink any alcohol aren't in the vast majority. Where I live (UK), pretty much everyone drinks alcohol at least weekly. Most people drink socially, within healthy boundaries (3-4 units per day is the current guideline), occasionally overindulging, often detoxing for a period of time. Whilst there are social problems caused by alcohol abuse, there is no way that in our society we would 'look down' on each other for consuming alcohol, nor define anyone as a 'drinker'. In my whole life I've met 2 people who are not 'drinkers', and one of them has a very rare drink from time-to-time. As to your point, yes, of course hardly anyone who ever drinks never drinks more than one unit of alcohol per day; that is practically impossible. But many will drink on average, no more than one unit per day.
  - zxcdw 13y ago
    > The hard part is determining what eating well is. Eating well in seven words: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.". ...where "food" is defined more or less as: "as little processed as available, mostly plant-based food in as close to it's natural form as possible".
    - Thrymr 13y ago
      Citation: Michael Pollan: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t....
    - codelap 13y ago
      But that's kinda my point, we don't know that, anymore than we know an all meat diet is okay for us. Most of the "science" around nutrition would only be acceptable in theoretical physics and paleontology. We're starting to see nutrition studied a little better, but it's the past half decade where we seeing actual science around nutrition, and we'll need at least a couple hundred years before we can say with certainty what is best for human longevity. Until then, we're guessing. We think cholesterol is bad in excess, and conventional wisdom dictates, that since eggs are high in cholesterol, that eggs should be avoided. Except, the body doesn't metabolize much if any dietary cholesterol, and instead it's the cholesterol that you synthesize that's dangerous. There are some interesting observations with high fat dairy, which actually reduces cholesterol instead of increasing it. Again, conventional wisdom is demonstrating itself to not be correct. Calories in, calories out sounds good on paper, eat less, and you will lose weight. But this also is proven incorrect over and over. I have seen this in studies, and witnessed it first hand with a girl I was living with who was trying to lose weight. She would eat a fifth of the calories that I would eat, and would gain weight, where I would chow down on meat, fats, and green beans and lose weight. What does appear to be apparent is it's easier to maintain a healthy weight if you never gain weight in the first place; essentially your body attempts to return to it's heaviest when calories are available. Many new studies show that the war on salt is based in bad science, and it may not have as much of an impact as we thought. So is a little haiku the answer? I don't know what the right answer is, but I know it isn't that simple.
- aestra 13y ago
  What's wrong with drinking a small amount of alcohol? There is a small amount of evidence that it is good for you in small amounts* and it is [or can be] a social experience. You can meet a lot of interesting people in pubs. Beer and wine contain antioxidants. I really really enjoy a beer or two now and then, and I'm not going to feel the least bit guilty about it. I also happened to meet my (now) husband in a pub. * http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1059/is-alcohol-beneficial-in-small-amounts http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1059/is-alcohol-...
  - Cless 13y ago
    These tend to be people who drink it heavily.
  - throwu444 13y ago
    Same as smoking then?
a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
Smoking is not as simple as many assume. Smoking actually changes the disease risk profile a lot, lowering risk for many diseases. It's probably an open question if light smoking is even bad for you. Super centenarians have disproportionately been light smokers.
- cafard 13y ago
  Super centenarians have way disproportionately been born when everybody smoked. Check back in 50 years.
- aestra 13y ago
  I hate when people claim things as fact in comments which are entirely unsourced. EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity Study of the regions of the world known as blue zones,[11] where people commonly live active lives past 100 years of age, have speculated that longevity is related to a healthy social and family life, not smoking, eating a plant-based diet, frequent consumption of legumes and nuts, and engaging in regular physical activity. In another well-designed cohort study, the combination of a plant based diet, frequent consumption of nuts, regular physical activity, normal BMI, and not smoking accounted for differences up to 10 years in life expectancy.[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_into_centenarians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_into_centenarians Many centenarians manage to avoid chronic diseases even after indulging in a lifetime of serious health risks. For example, many people in the New England Centenarian Study experienced a century free of cancer or heart disease despite smoking as many as 60 cigarettes a day for 50 years. The same applies to people from Okinawa in Japan, where around half of supercentenarians had a history of smoking and one-third were regular alcohol drinkers. It is possible that these people may have had genes that protected them from the dangers of carcinogens or the random mutations that crop up naturally when cells divide.[15] http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-secrets-of-the-supercentenarians-scientists-seek-to-unlock-key-to-longer-lives-a-719208.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-secrets-of... The results are sobering: "There is no pattern," says Barzilai, 54. "The usual recommendations for a healthy life -- not smoking, not drinking, plenty of exercise, a well-balanced diet, keeping your weight down -- they apply to us average people," says the researcher, "but not to them. Centenarians are in a class of their own." He pulls spreadsheets out of a drawer, adjusts his glasses and reads out loud: "At the age of 70, a total of 37 percent of our subjects were, according to their own statements, overweight, and 8 percent were obese; 37 percent were smokers, on average for 31 years; 44 percent said that they only moderately exercised; 20 percent never exercised." But Barzilai is quick to point out that people shouldn't start questioning the importance of a healthy lifestyle: "Today's changes in lifestyle do in fact contribute to whether someone dies at the age of 85 or already at age 75." But in order to reach the age of 100, says the researcher, you need a special genetic make-up. "These people age differently. Slower. They end up dying of the same diseases that we do -- but 30 years later and usually quicker, without languishing for long periods." 37 percent isn't disproportionate. It is about average. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_tobacco_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_tobacco_consumpti...
stdbrouw 13y ago
First sentence of the linked piece: > “People who eat diets rich in animal protein carry similar cancer risk to those who smoke 20 cigarettes each day,” reports The Daily Telegraph.
pizza234 13y ago
The problem is in the cancer cargo-culting mindset that people without a scientic education or mindset tends to have. A person I know doesn't freeze bread because she says it causes cancer, and she's not the only one (far from this...) with such ridiculous preconceptions.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Among the Daily Telegraph readership? Absolutely. They're generally contrarian on public-policy matters.

Cless 13y ago

That's the world we live in. "You need to eat healthier," says a skinny person smoking a cigarette and drinking alcohol.

codelap 13y ago
Drinking alcohol has many health benefits. Even a beer a day, something that 'common sense' would lead you to think was unhealthy, demonstrates to be good for your overall health. And eating processed foods while smoking and drinking would likely be more detrimental than eating well, while smoking and drinking. The hard part is determining what eating well is.
- stdbrouw 13y ago
  People keep yapping on about the health benefits of alcohol, red wine in particular, but I'd be impressed if you could find me a single drinker who only ever drinks that one unit of alcohol a day. At that point it very quickly stops being beneficial to your health.
  - cobrausn 13y ago
    I typically drink one glass of red wine a night, occasionally two if dinner is particularly good. Feel free to be impressed.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      This, of course, also describes about 80% of the population of France.
  - Dewie 13y ago
    That might depend heavily on the kind of culture that you live in.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that light drinkers inevitably become heavy drinkers, and thus the benefits of light drinking are irrelevant?
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    I drink one bottle of beer with dinner each day. Now and again I have two or even three, but that's only a few times a year. Certainly, when I was younger I used to engage in more recreational/social drinking, ie going to a bar or a party, but I got tired of it.
  - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
    Where do you live? I'm fascinated by your use of the word 'drinker', as if people who ever drink any alcohol aren't in the vast majority. Where I live (UK), pretty much everyone drinks alcohol at least weekly. Most people drink socially, within healthy boundaries (3-4 units per day is the current guideline), occasionally overindulging, often detoxing for a period of time. Whilst there are social problems caused by alcohol abuse, there is no way that in our society we would 'look down' on each other for consuming alcohol, nor define anyone as a 'drinker'. In my whole life I've met 2 people who are not 'drinkers', and one of them has a very rare drink from time-to-time. As to your point, yes, of course hardly anyone who ever drinks never drinks more than one unit of alcohol per day; that is practically impossible. But many will drink on average, no more than one unit per day.
- zxcdw 13y ago
  > The hard part is determining what eating well is. Eating well in seven words: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.". ...where "food" is defined more or less as: "as little processed as available, mostly plant-based food in as close to it's natural form as possible".
  - Thrymr 13y ago
    Citation: Michael Pollan: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t....
  - codelap 13y ago
    But that's kinda my point, we don't know that, anymore than we know an all meat diet is okay for us. Most of the "science" around nutrition would only be acceptable in theoretical physics and paleontology. We're starting to see nutrition studied a little better, but it's the past half decade where we seeing actual science around nutrition, and we'll need at least a couple hundred years before we can say with certainty what is best for human longevity. Until then, we're guessing. We think cholesterol is bad in excess, and conventional wisdom dictates, that since eggs are high in cholesterol, that eggs should be avoided. Except, the body doesn't metabolize much if any dietary cholesterol, and instead it's the cholesterol that you synthesize that's dangerous. There are some interesting observations with high fat dairy, which actually reduces cholesterol instead of increasing it. Again, conventional wisdom is demonstrating itself to not be correct. Calories in, calories out sounds good on paper, eat less, and you will lose weight. But this also is proven incorrect over and over. I have seen this in studies, and witnessed it first hand with a girl I was living with who was trying to lose weight. She would eat a fifth of the calories that I would eat, and would gain weight, where I would chow down on meat, fats, and green beans and lose weight. What does appear to be apparent is it's easier to maintain a healthy weight if you never gain weight in the first place; essentially your body attempts to return to it's heaviest when calories are available. Many new studies show that the war on salt is based in bad science, and it may not have as much of an impact as we thought. So is a little haiku the answer? I don't know what the right answer is, but I know it isn't that simple.
aestra 13y ago
What's wrong with drinking a small amount of alcohol? There is a small amount of evidence that it is good for you in small amounts* and it is [or can be] a social experience. You can meet a lot of interesting people in pubs. Beer and wine contain antioxidants. I really really enjoy a beer or two now and then, and I'm not going to feel the least bit guilty about it. I also happened to meet my (now) husband in a pub. * http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1059/is-alcohol-beneficial-in-small-amounts http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1059/is-alcohol-...
- Cless 13y ago
  These tend to be people who drink it heavily.
- throwu444 13y ago
  Same as smoking then?

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago

Smoking is not as simple as many assume. Smoking actually changes the disease risk profile a lot, lowering risk for many diseases. It's probably an open question if light smoking is even bad for you. Super centenarians have disproportionately been light smokers.

cafard 13y ago
Super centenarians have way disproportionately been born when everybody smoked. Check back in 50 years.
aestra 13y ago
I hate when people claim things as fact in comments which are entirely unsourced. EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity Study of the regions of the world known as blue zones,[11] where people commonly live active lives past 100 years of age, have speculated that longevity is related to a healthy social and family life, not smoking, eating a plant-based diet, frequent consumption of legumes and nuts, and engaging in regular physical activity. In another well-designed cohort study, the combination of a plant based diet, frequent consumption of nuts, regular physical activity, normal BMI, and not smoking accounted for differences up to 10 years in life expectancy.[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_into_centenarians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_into_centenarians Many centenarians manage to avoid chronic diseases even after indulging in a lifetime of serious health risks. For example, many people in the New England Centenarian Study experienced a century free of cancer or heart disease despite smoking as many as 60 cigarettes a day for 50 years. The same applies to people from Okinawa in Japan, where around half of supercentenarians had a history of smoking and one-third were regular alcohol drinkers. It is possible that these people may have had genes that protected them from the dangers of carcinogens or the random mutations that crop up naturally when cells divide.[15] http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-secrets-of-the-supercentenarians-scientists-seek-to-unlock-key-to-longer-lives-a-719208.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-secrets-of... The results are sobering: "There is no pattern," says Barzilai, 54. "The usual recommendations for a healthy life -- not smoking, not drinking, plenty of exercise, a well-balanced diet, keeping your weight down -- they apply to us average people," says the researcher, "but not to them. Centenarians are in a class of their own." He pulls spreadsheets out of a drawer, adjusts his glasses and reads out loud: "At the age of 70, a total of 37 percent of our subjects were, according to their own statements, overweight, and 8 percent were obese; 37 percent were smokers, on average for 31 years; 44 percent said that they only moderately exercised; 20 percent never exercised." But Barzilai is quick to point out that people shouldn't start questioning the importance of a healthy lifestyle: "Today's changes in lifestyle do in fact contribute to whether someone dies at the age of 85 or already at age 75." But in order to reach the age of 100, says the researcher, you need a special genetic make-up. "These people age differently. Slower. They end up dying of the same diseases that we do -- but 30 years later and usually quicker, without languishing for long periods." 37 percent isn't disproportionate. It is about average. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_tobacco_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_tobacco_consumpti...

stdbrouw 13y ago

First sentence of the linked piece: > “People who eat diets rich in animal protein carry similar cancer risk to those who smoke 20 cigarettes each day,” reports The Daily Telegraph.

pizza234 13y ago

The problem is in the cancer cargo-culting mindset that people without a scientic education or mindset tends to have. A person I know doesn't freeze bread because she says it causes cancer, and she's not the only one (far from this...) with such ridiculous preconceptions.

anigbrowl 13y ago

Among the Daily Telegraph readership? Absolutely. They're generally contrarian on public-policy matters.