61–70 of 126 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But most smokers will be exceptions. Most smokers will not get cancer. They get cancer significantly more often than non-smokers, but that's not scary sounding enough, I guess.
Smoking causes problems other than cancer.
I look around at my colleagues and see apparent misuse of the body. Carbs and fat for lunch every day, smoking, no exercise, sitting in a chair all day long, buckets of coffee, stress, poor posture and body alignment, doing the same shit every day, poor outlook on life, no sunshine on you during half of the year, etc. Of course this is going to wreck a person. Yet no one seems to even be conscious of the wrongness of…
Where is the evidence that dietary fat and coffee increase cancer risk?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To give specific numbers, according to one study ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7895211 ), the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is: male smokers: 17% female smokers: 12% nonsmokers: 1%
Which backs up what I said. It's really unusual to see anyone talk about the actual lifetime risk. It's not as scary as saying "your chances are X times greater"... greater than what? If those numbers are accurate, and entirely due to the effects of smoking (not just other lifestyle behaviors more common with smokers, like drinking) that's easily reason enough to quit. But even in the worst case, the fact remains, mo…
Regardless, smoking increases your overall risk pressure along with all of the other risky choices you can make. It's cumulative with the rest of life's choices.
I look around at my colleagues and see apparent misuse of the body. Carbs and fat for lunch every day, smoking, no exercise, sitting in a chair all day long, buckets of coffee, stress, poor posture and body alignment, doing the same shit every day, poor outlook on life, no sunshine on you during half of the year, etc. Of course this is going to wreck a person. Yet no one seems to even be conscious of the wrongness of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eating healthy and exercising improves the quality of your life right now, as well as in the future. As does cutting back on alcohol, and smoking.
Almost all food advertised or described as "healthy", I've found to be neutral at best, to actively unpleasant. High fibre, lots of vegetables, fruit, etc.; I actively dislike almost all of it. My favourite foods are lamb, butter, cheese and freshly baked goods, to the point that my morning ritual, before breakfast, involves a (scooter) trip to a bakery. Similarly, I've never enjoyed exercise. I used to cycle to and…
My list of unhealthy foods is largely: processed/highly processed foods, industrially raised meats/eggs/dairy, processed carbs, sugar, HFCS, soda, flour, baked goods (sorry), trans-fats, white rice/potatoes. Few vegetable fats (corn, canola, soybean, etc. oils). Allowable in very small quantities, but frankly few of these appeal to me at all after a few years of eating clean.
And the quality-of-life benefits are huge.
The other underappreciated element to fitness is strength training. One article that's been featured at HN before that's particularly good at highlighting what's wrong with conventional wisdom on fitness is "Everything You Know About Fitness is a Lie": http://www.mensjournal.com/everything-you-know-about-fitness...
With socialized medicine, these people are stealing from the state. Britain should outlaw smoking, drinking, and eating fatty foods. Two servings of vegetables per day is now compulsory, enforceable by a fine of 20 shillings.
And this kind of financial view ignores that the whole purpose of doing something collectively is to support what the collective, on average, _wants_ to do. It makes no sense to apply some supposedly objective standard of how people should lead their lives.
Thank god coffee wasn't on the list.
I've found that relying on tea through the course of the day (after a morning mug of espresso) keeps my energy levels more even. Dittos knocking off the carbs -- much more even energy levels, and no post-lunch slump.
With socialized medicine, these people are stealing from the state. Britain should outlaw smoking, drinking, and eating fatty foods. Two servings of vegetables per day is now compulsory, enforceable by a fine of 20 shillings.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-tobacco-c...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Susceptibility to lung cancer due to smoking is at least partly genetic. If you have certain variants of a specific gene (don't have time for the lit search right now), smoking won't significantly increase your chances of lung cancer. The problem is not everyone has this gene variant, and you probably don't want to be playing Russian Roullette with your health.
Does this mean a person can potentially get tested for this, and find out that they have a free pass to smoke as much as they want?
I have a lifestyle cancer: melanoma. That said, I didn't realize "going outside with short hair and no hat" was a bad lifestyle choice until it was too late, so I'm posting here: Hey fair skinned folks! Just wearing sunscreen IS NOT ENOUGH . Wear a hat if you're going to spend more than a short time outside! If you have a family history of skin cancer, ask your barber to keep an eye out for moles when you're getting…
Using sunscreen reduces the body's production of vitamin D, a potent anti-cancer agent: http://greathealinggetaways.com/Sunscreenarticle.html Sunscreens often contain carcinogens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_health_risks_of_sunsc... Consequently staying indoors and using sunscreen may _increase_ your likelihood of developing cancer. Children who avoid sunshine will get rickets, a disease that was once almo…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypovitaminosis_D#Cancer
That said, if you are going to spend time outside, the benefits of wearing sunscreen and a hat undoubtedly outweigh whatever risk they may induce.