Deathwich

[quote name='exangel' post='3264148' date='Nov 14 2010, 09:58 PM']the damage done by the sandwich is arguably worse than a single cigarette, even if it's an unfiltered rollie.[/quote]


[quote name='Demonbart' post='3264179' date='Nov 14 2010, 10:16 PM']So no, smoking one cigarette isn't that bad.[/quote]


Huh... If you factor in second-hand smoke, the carcinogens you release into the air and the pollutants to go with it, a cigarette is way worse. At least if you eat one sandwich you're just killing yourself. A cigarette has that small capability to harm other people beside the one smoking it.

[quote name='Shinigami357' post='3266240' date='Nov 15 2010, 01:14 AM']Huh... If you factor in second-hand smoke, the carcinogens you release into the air and the pollutants to go with it, a cigarette is way worse. At least if you eat one sandwich you're just killing yourself. A cigarette has that small capability to harm other people beside the one smoking it.[/quote]

All the carcinogens you speak of, in one cigarette, including any second hand smoke you generate that you may accidentally inhale...
If you don't continue to smoke any more cigarettes your lung tissue will recover completely as quickly as it would recover from a kitchen fire. Although, if you're exposed to sustained smoke inhalation from a kitchen fire, there may be some damage to brain cells due to lack of oxygen that wouldn't be caused by cigarette smoke.

On the other hand, if you do not exercise or make any other type of conscious compensation (like filling your surrounding meals with steamed or fresh vegetables and less sources of fat/sodium/cholesterol), the sandwich is worse.

It does not take any additional effort from a person to recover from the physical effects caused by smoking one cigarette (assuming the person doesn't have an existing respiratory condition).

It takes additional effort from any person to make use of the fat/calories and expel the excess sodium from one of these sandwich (and foods like it), no matter what kind of health the person is in. Otherwise it adds weight, which is one of the most visible and measurable side effects.

I don't think it's worth it. I look at all the fat people around me and feel quite disgusted. There's lines wrapping all the way around these places at midnight. All those gross people gorging their fat faces then rushing home to test their blood sugar all to fat and tired out after their excursion to even fuck. Mean while those corporations are laughing, raking in millions of dollars while never having to deal with the health care costs that they create. I'd rather cook a lean cut of beef or pork tender loin. You cam eat really well without putting shit in your body.

Right... Why is everyone so conscious about counting calories, sodium counts and whatnot? It's one goddamned sandwich, get over it. The problem with modern society is not that we eat foods that are so packed of this and that, it's that we don't burn it. So, as a handy excuse, everything that goes into your gullet now has every microgram of sodium scrutinized because it makes us feel like we're doing something when in fact, we are just scrunching numbers. If people moved more, or maybe found better ways to exercise, this won't be a problem. And don't tell me the numbers are for "health reasons". God knows all people care about nowadays are waistline measurements.

Oh, by the way, you are assuming a person won't smoke a cigarette again, but he won't ever exercise? What, one sandwich can kill the healthiest man alive, that your point? Are you kidding? That line of thinking is so naive, I don't know what to make of it.

I probably ate one while I was in NY or in Paris (can't remember) and it was delicious.

I'd SO eat another one.
...But I live in a stupid country without KFCs!

[quote name='Shinigami357' post='3266706' date='Nov 15 2010, 09:05 AM']Oh, by the way, you are assuming a person won't smoke a cigarette again, but he won't ever exercise? What, one sandwich can kill the healthiest man alive, that your point? Are you kidding? That line of thinking is so naive, I don't know what to make of it.[/quote]

Look, if you really think I'm naive, who is taking this hypothetical situation seriously?

One cigarette is not as bad as
One sandwich containing no balanced nutrition

Because, as I said before, the body can recover from the first automatically, but the second requires effort on the part of the consumer.

I never claimed it was at all a realistic situation but I'll tell you what to make of it.
You just want to win an argument.

[quote name='exangel' post='3266715' date='Nov 16 2010, 12:12 AM'][quote name='Shinigami357' post='3266706' date='Nov 15 2010, 09:05 AM']Oh, by the way, you are assuming a person won't smoke a cigarette again, but he won't ever exercise? What, one sandwich can kill the healthiest man alive, that your point? Are you kidding? That line of thinking is so naive, I don't know what to make of it.[/quote]

Look, if you really think I'm naive, who is taking this hypothetical situation seriously?

One cigarette is not as bad as
One sandwich containing no balanced nutrition

Because, as I said before, the body can recover from the first automatically, but the second requires effort on the part of the consumer.

I never claimed it was at all a realistic situation but I'll tell you what to make of it.
You just want to win an argument.
[/quote]


Oh, God. The body recovers from all that shit in a cigarette but it it helpless against one single sandwich? You ever heard of metabolism?

PS
Don't divert this. You know you never once said in your first reply that it was hypothetical. And even if it was hypothetical, facts are facts.

[quote name='Demonbart' post='3264179' date='Nov 14 2010, 07:16 AM'][quote name='neo duality' post='3264174' date='Nov 14 2010, 04:15 PM'][quote name='Demonbart' post='3264166' date='Nov 14 2010, 07:42 PM'][quote name='neo duality' post='3264140' date='Nov 14 2010, 03:54 PM']Give it a pass. Not only is it overrated, but also extremely unhealthy. Logistically, (and this is equalizing an assumed negative fallacy) a double down sandwich is almost as unhealthy as smoking a cigarette .[/quote]
Smoking just one cigarette isn't THAT bad for you though.
[/quote]


...it is.
[/quote]
Just one isn't.
Have you ever tried? I think not if you're saying that.
Have I ever tried? Yes I have, and I only smoke a couple a week, and I don't notice any negative effects on my health or condition.
So no, smoking one cigarette isn't that bad.
[/quote]

^^
This is what my original statement was part of. Notice that neo duality's actual posts were removed because he got banned for completely unrelated reasons.

Now, if facts are facts, are you a nutritionist, do you study metabolism, have you had any college level classes about dietary health and/or do you study about it frequently in your free time? Do you or have you smoked, or have immediate family that does/has smoked, but not as a frequent habit?

You're turning this into an argument about facts so that you can try to make me look like an idiot, but my points are made based on experience and because of my father's extensive research into diet-related health problems.
He has a neurological degenerative disease and it's a very serious issue for us because if he doesn't care for his diet every single meal and take his supplements every day, he is at risk of a worsening condition that among all diagnoses is terminal. Yes, death. And not a pleasant one either. The condition I am referring to is ALS/Lou Gherig's Disease. Seeing that if he doesn't take his daily care very seriously he will more quickly become fully paralyzed and atrophy until death, he has a lot of motivation to have straight facts about diet. (And both my father and I have personally known and been very close to a family who lost the young father within a year of diagnosis and traditional treatment back in the early 90's, so this mortal situation is pretty vivid to us.)

For some, metabolism alone may be enough for this stupid sandwich to be as healthy/unhealthy as a cigarette, so to them, call it food and all is well.
For some, respiratory problems will actually make the proposition of smoking a single cigarette a terrible idea.

You exaggerate, "The body recovers from all that shit in a cigarette but it it helpless against one single sandwich? You ever heard of metabolism?"

All what/which shit in a cigarette? "helpless against one single sandwich?" That's pretty overboard. Neither will kill the average person. But the sandwich will have a longer effect, especially on an older adult, if they don't make an effort to compensate for the imbalanced content, than a single cigarette will have on a person, including older adults, regardless of their efforts.

Ah, I see. Fine, I get it, you're not high on food coz you have bad experience. Maybe I came on too strong, so, my apologies.

My point here is rather simple. Food is chewed, digested and then shipped out. Whatever is in the food goes through the circulatory systems for the body to use (thus metabolism) and what's left over is circulated to various waste-filtering organs. If for some reason there's still some waste left, then that's what hurts your body. A single meal, going through that whole process won't amount to much lasting damage unless you happen to be allergic or have a prior medical condition.

A cigarette , for the most cases, means inhaling smoke. All the carcinogens, nicotine, and whatever things the particular brand decides to add to the cigarette, go straight to the lungs. There's only really a little bit of mucus or saliva perhaps, that can lessen it (unless you smoke through your nose, in which case you'd at least have cilia). Foreign material, whatever it may be, when it gets into the lungs is bad news.

I remember having the McGriddle once, it was AWESUM!!

[quote name='Shinigami357' post='3266783' date='Nov 15 2010, 10:12 AM']Ah, I see. Fine, I get it, you're not high on food coz you have bad experience. Maybe I came on too strong, so, my apologies.

My point here is rather simple. Food is chewed, digested and then shipped out. Whatever is in the food goes through the circulatory systems for the body to use (thus metabolism) and what's left over is circulated to various waste-filtering organs. If for some reason there's still some waste left, then that's what hurts your body. A single meal, going through that whole process won't amount to much lasting damage unless you happen to be allergic or have a prior medical condition.

A cigarette , for the most cases, means inhaling smoke. All the carcinogens, nicotine, and whatever things the particular brand decides to add to the cigarette, go straight to the lungs. There's only really a little bit of mucus or saliva perhaps, that can lessen it (unless you smoke through your nose, in which case you'd at least have cilia). Foreign material, whatever it may be, when it gets into the lungs is bad news.[/quote]
Your point is fairly sound, though it's based more on common knowledge than scientific fact, since digestion, metabolism, and waste processing in the body is more complicated than that. A single meal going through that whole process will have a marginally more lasting affect than a single cigarette though, if that single meal is that sandwich being served at KFC. If you take it home and balance the sandwich with some more wholesome things then it's so negligible that there's no point in arguing it. (I don't know about the Philippines but KFC's do not serve any wholesome vegetables in the southwestern US. And no, corn is not a vegetable.) But eating it alone or as part of a meal at KFC is bad, because it isn't just food.

Inhaling "carcinogens" regardless of the source, when it gets into the lungs, is bad news. However, there's more than just mucus mitigating all the carcinogens in cigarette smoke. I spent a while looking for articles about cellular regeneration as I had read some things some years ago saying pretty specifically that tobacco smoke is a lot less harmful than wood or other smoke produced by cooking, comparing time needed for full recovery and normalization of lung function or something.
I found something else on http://www.tobaccoinduceddiseases.com/content/2/1/3 which describes in very extensive detail the actual pulmonary surfactant, which is not actually mucus or saliva, but a coating found on all of the cells that interface with air.

At the level of the air exchange tissue, the pulmonary surfactant presents the first interface encountered by inhaled smoke, whether from tobacco, marijuana or any other inhaled aerosolized material, for example fungal spores, mites or other allergens.

Click to expand...

Most of the article describes the surfactant and how/why it is produced, but the purpose of the article was to show that chronic tobacco use will negatively affect the production of the surfactant. Now the article does prove that smoking is horrible in a lot more definite ways than people traditionally think, but it also says, in the section titled "Tobacco Smoke and Lung Surfactant",

Smoking appears to reduce the overall recovery by endobronchial lavage of surface active material and phosphatidylcholine in particular [149*], although more recent reports suggest this change may not be as great as originally thought [150-152*]. A somewhat contradictory finding suggests an initial rise in alveolar surfactant levels may occur [153,154] which the authors attribute to the short-term moderate-smoker characteristics of the population sampled. While several studies have been unable to detect alterations in the general phospholipid profile in the lavage fluid, the complexity of the lavage material dictates that such findings be taken in a critical light.

Click to expand...

--this is the only part of the article that touches upon studies involving non-chronic smokers. The quote could suggest that people with a short term or non chronic smoking habit, their lungs are still able to compensate, at least in the production of this substance.

My point was only to assure that one cigarette would not have a more significant effect than a double down.

Now that I've proved I'm naive enough to take this all seriously, I'm done. omw to KFC!!!

.

Update: I'll be going for it despite all the negative rap. Things just made me even more curious! XD My friend said that the mayo was unnecessary for the already-salty chicken though.



On both occasions that I've attempted to buy, the DD was sold out. IS THIS NORMAL!? >_>

i'm not a fan of KFC foods but i guess i'll try this if i go to the mall...

[quote name='Mei-o' post='3272788' date='Nov 19 2010, 12:15 AM']Update: I'll be going for it despite all the negative rap. Things just made me even more curious! XD My friend said that the mayo was unnecessary for the already-salty chicken though.



On both occasions that I've attempted to buy, the DD was sold out. IS THIS NORMAL!? >_>[/quote]
When we went to the mall on tuesday it wasnt