Re: Red Meat NO GOOD, Veggies no protection.... NOW WHAT?

From: Dutch (no_at_email.com)
Date: 01/13/05 

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:25:50 -0800

"Ron" <ronis@home.com> wrote
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

[..]

>> > > The answer to your subject line is in your post, as we have been
>> > > taught
>> for
>> > > decades, easy on the red meat, more fish and chicken balanced with a
>> variety
>> > > of fruits and vegetables, balance, balance, balance..
>> > >
>> > > It's not brain surgery.
>> >
>> > Theories of balance of moderation only delay or reduce harm they do not
>> > remove harm.
>>
>> Actually they do.A small amount of red wine is said to be beneficial.
>
> You are unwilling to provide a study and defend the research and it's
> conclusions. If you aren't willing to defend your own thinking -- I
> decline.

Aren't getting a little sick of being shown to be wrong? For some reason
unknown to me you seem to be attracted to erroneous ideas.

>> > I can apply the same principle to heroin use. Use less
>> > heroin and more crack, or pot to be a bit healthier and happier. The
>> > notion of moderation does not remove the risk of X that is moderated
>> > with Y, or Z.
>>
>> Pot is still smoke, so the increased risk of associated lung disease is
>> still present, but if used carefully it may reduce the incidence of
>> stress
>> and hypertension. The highly addictive nature of heroin makes this a less
>> likely scenario. Living in a city may increase your risk of lung cancer
>> from
>> pollution but it may benefit you in other ways that make it worthwhile.
>
> The harm still exists. It's a question of slowing down the death/dying
> process.

Agreed, which is one reason I advocate abstinence from pot smoking.

Relevant Pages