Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 The biggest problem I see is that people (especially Americans) don't tend to be moderate in our behavior. Has anyone laid out heart health statistics next to drunk driving and other social and health problems caused by over consumption of alcohol?I don't think it's simply a matter of Americans by nature being immoderate. Alcohol is an addictive substance. Best not to mess with it to any extent. Even for cooking.
cjcampbell Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 I don't think it's simply a matter of Americans by nature being immoderate. Alcohol is an addictive substance. Best not to mess with it to any extent. Even for cooking.Indeed. Although it is probably impossible to become addicted to the alcohol used in most recipes, many a cook has become an alcoholic from getting into the cooking sherry.
katherine the great Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 I don't think it's simply a matter of Americans by nature being immoderate. Alcohol is an addictive substance. Best not to mess with it to any extent. Even for cooking.Although Jesus seemed to think it was okay to "mess with it" on occasion. If we all were moderate, it would not be a problem. We aren't.
MorningStar Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 I eat ice cream for calcium. It's good for me.
thesometimesaint Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 "Alcohol is an addictive substance. Best not to mess with it to any extent. Even for cooking."Ya gotta keep that yeast bread from the kids Mrs. Robinson.
rhinomelon Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 I don't think it's simply a matter of Americans by nature being immoderate. Alcohol is an addictive substance. Best not to mess with it to any extent. Even for cooking.Is alcohol by nature addictive? It can be for some, but not all. To use myself as a example, I have maybe two beers a month, just with a certain meal or something. I can certainly live without it and usually forget I have it in the fridge. My parents are the same way (I had great examples of moderation). Alcohol can be addictive, but so can food, sex, and other aspects of the normal human experience. Like katherine said, moderation is the key in all these things. Take care, everyone
J.S. Mill Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 Over the past several years, some studies have suggested that moderate alcohol consumption is beneficial for cardiac health. Although medical researchers have been very cautious about this -- frequently advising non-drinkers not to take up drinking on the basis of the findings -- certain (in my experience, mostly secularist) ex-Mormons and anti-Mormons have loudly crowed that science is proving the Word of Wisdom false and redundantly demonstrating Mormons to be (once again) deluded buffoons.Now, though, a very large study of British women seems to demonstrate that even moderate alcohol consumption -- whether beer or red wine or whatever -- significantly increases a woman's risk of various cancers, and that the risk increases with each additional regular drink:http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/...nt_10894798.htmI doubt that this finding will be trumpeted at such places as the so-called "Recovery" board, but there it is.My own feeling is that the scientific findings will continue to go up and down on the topic of alcohol. But, in any case, celebrations of red wine as a Mormonism-refuting health food seem to have been premature.Which is not to say, of course, that no Mormon doctrines are at odds with current medical understanding. For example, men who do not ejaculate for several years are at a substantially-increased risk (about 50% higher) for prostate cancer. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3072021.stmDoes the Church want its young single men to be at a higher risk for prostate cancer later in life? I don't think so, but some of the Church's policies actually have this effect.
Confidential Informant Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 Which is not to say, of course, that no Mormon doctrines are at odds with current medical understanding. For example, men who do not ejaculate for several years are at a substantially-increased risk (about 50% higher) for prostate cancer. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3072021.stmDoes the Church want its young single men to be at a higher risk for prostate cancer later in life? I don't think so, but some of the Church's policies actually have this effect.Oh my gosh, can I nominate this post for dumbest of the day? You are kidding, right? By counseling young men to avoid masturbation, the church is encouraging prostate cancern. That has got to be the dumbest point I've seen made in some time on this board. Our bodies are self regulating. Men have "nocturnal emission" that take care of that ejaculation issue.Just silly. C.I.
J.S. Mill Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 Oh my gosh, can I nominate this post for dumbest of the day? You are kidding, right? By counseling young men to avoid masturbation, the church is encouraging prostate cancer. If fewer ejaculations lead to prostate cancer, then yes, this logically follows. It doesn't follow that the Church is intentionally encouraging prostate cancer, but then, I actually voiced opposition to that idea, didn't I? Our bodies are self regulating. Men have "nocturnal emission" that take care of that ejaculation issue.You're right -- I should have said "few" ejaculations instead of "no" ejaculations. The same principle applies, though, because men do not have several nocturnal emissions each week, or even each month.
captain-jack Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 The same principle applies, because men do not have several nocturnal emissions each week, or even each month.If each man were supposed to have these emissions several times a week or months, then I would wager that the average man's risk would always be higher than 50% given the data you provided. Seeing as less than 50% of the male population does not have it, I will stick to the idea that your assertion is over reaching and looking like a hyperbole.
Daniel Peterson Posted February 25, 2009 Author Posted February 25, 2009 Oh my gosh, can I nominate this post for dumbest of the day? You are kidding, right? By counseling young men to avoid masturbation, the church is encouraging prostate cancer. That has got to be the dumbest point I've seen made in some time on this board.I second the nomination.
J.S. Mill Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 If each man were supposed to have these emissions several times a week or months, then I would wager that the average man's risk would always be higher than 50% given the data you provided. Seeing as less than 50% of the male population does not have it, I will stick to the idea that your assertion is over reaching and looking like a hyperbole.I'm pretty sure you underestimate the male population (at least, the population in their 20s, which is the relevant group to talk about here).
katherine the great Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 I'm pretty sure you underestimate the male population.I'm pretty sure you are taking this thread in an inappropriate direction.
J.S. Mill Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 This is medicine, guys. No need to be prudish.
katherine the great Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 This is medicine, guys. No need to be prudish.The topic is alcohol.
captain-jack Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 I'm pretty sure you underestimate the male population.I'm pretty sure you're just trying to find a reason to exclaim the church is wrong.From cancer.org:About 1 man in 6 will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during his lifetimeI'll say it again, I believe that less than half the male population has "emissions" more than once a week on average. I have no evidence to assert this because I really don't want to go drudging through that neck of the internet.
krose Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 Is anybody suggesting, on the basis of this study, that non-drinkers take up drinking as a health measure?From the news on it I've been reading and seeing, the answer is emphatically No. If anything, it's been to the contrary.The only reason health professionals do not advise taking up moderate drinking for health reasons is because of the slight chance that a patient might become an alcoholic or overindulge. However, when a patient informs his doctor -- after the fact -- that he has developed the practice of drinking a single glass of red wine every day, I would bet that very few doctors would express alarm for the patient's health and tell him to stop.
J.S. Mill Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 The topic is alcohol.Tangentially, sure. The essence of the post, though, is that Mormonism's critics are ostensibly wrong when they point to modern medicine as evidence against the Church. I am responding directly to that element of the original post.
katherine the great Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 Tangentially, sure. The essence of the post, though, is that Mormonism's critics are ostensibly wrong when they point to modern medicine as evidence against the Church. I am responding directly to that element of the original post. Uh huh.
Daniel Peterson Posted February 25, 2009 Author Posted February 25, 2009 The only reason health professionals do not advise taking up moderate drinking for health reasons is because of the slight chance that a patient might become an alcoholic or overindulge.The study once under discussion here might suggest another reason. That's the point of the thread.However, when a patient informs his doctor -- after the fact -- that he has developed the practice of drinking a single glass of red wine every day, I would bet that very few doctors would express alarm for the patient's health and tell him to stop.I'm well aware of that. That's not the point of the thread.As originator of the thread, incidentally, I believe I have some slight say in how it goes. I would appreciate that it not become a discussion of masturbation. I would much prefer that that topic be left to some of the folks over on the so-called "Recovery" board, where it's a recurring favorite.Tangentially, sure.Tangentially????The essence of the post, though, is that Mormonism's critics are ostensibly wrong when they point to modern medicine as evidence against the Church. I am responding directly to that element of the original post.The post was about alcohol and the Word of Wisdom.I know.I wrote it.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 I second the nomination.I move that it be declared dumbest by acclamation.
krose Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 ... I believe that less than half the male population has "emissions" more than once a week on average.You can't be serious.[deleted further comments because thread originator doesn't want this tangent continued]
MorningStar Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 Which is not to say, of course, that no Mormon doctrines are at odds with current medical understanding. For example, men who do not ejaculate for several years are at a substantially-increased risk (about 50% higher) for prostate cancer. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3072021.stmDoes the Church want its young single men to be at a higher risk for prostate cancer later in life? I don't think so, but some of the Church's policies actually have this effect.Wow. You wanted to talk about ejaculation that bad, huh?
Daniel Peterson Posted February 25, 2009 Author Posted February 25, 2009 I move that it be declared dumbest by acclamation.I agree.And if the nonsense about ejaculations and masturbation doesn't cease, I'm going to ask the moderators to bar certain people from the thread.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 Which is not to say, of course, that no Mormon doctrines are at odds with current medical understanding. For example, men who do not ejaculate for several years are at a substantially-increased risk (about 50% higher) for prostate cancer. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3072021.stmDoes the Church want its young single men to be at a higher risk for prostate cancer later in life? I don't think so, but some of the Church's policies actually have this effect.We now know what you spend your time thinking about? Lol This is great. Dont quite your day job.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.