Shreveport.com

Shreveport.com (http://www.shreveport.com/forums/index.php)
-   Health & Wellness (http://www.shreveport.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=40)
-   -   Seven Medical Myths Even Doctors Believe (http://www.shreveport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3311)

Isaac-Saxxon 12-25-2007 07:56 AM

Seven Medical Myths Even Doctors Believe
 
Reading in dim light won't damage your eyes, you don't need eight glasses of water a day to stay healthy and shaving your legs won't make the hair grow back faster.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318168,00.html

j.nc 12-26-2007 12:16 AM

LOL, yeah. The H2O thing among other myths has gotten way out of hand, as a kid (healthy and active - or a.k.a "back in the day") - we never drank that much H2O - we drank water when we were bloody well thirsty and didn't when we were not.

So I-S - does this mean you'll stop shaving your legs now? :cool:

another debunked myth is about second hand smoke. It seems valid studies have shown no corellation between second hand smoke and increased risk for heart disease or lung cancer. Not that it can't be nasty to be around a smoker when you are adverse to it - but it is just that it's another case of someone with an agenda propagating "fact" when it ain't proven.

edit: added "proven"

Morpheus 12-26-2007 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j.nc (Post 26934)
LOL, yeah. The H2O thing among other myths has gotten way out of hand, as a kid (healthy and active - or a.k.a "back in the day") - we never drank that much H2O - we drank water when we were bloody well thirsty and didn't when we were not.

So I-S - does this mean you'll stop shaving your legs now? :cool:

another debunked myth is about second hand smoke. It seems valid studies have shown no corellation between second hand smoke and increased risk for heart disease or lung cancer. Not that it can't be nasty to be around a smoker when you are adverse to it - but it is just that it's another case of someone with an agenda propagating "fact" when it ain't proven.

edit: added "proven"

Could you provide documentation of this study? The CDC, the department of Health and Human Services, and the Surgeon General all disagree with you.

j.nc 12-26-2007 09:54 PM

Glad you asked and I’ll have to dig something up or see if my memory is correct or my assumptions are incorrect. Basing it off a talk given about medical studies and reporting by the popular press by a UNC professor a while back. The gist of it was that actual controlled studies did not find a link between exposure and disease caused by the exposure (these were not funded by the tobacco lobby). On the other hand the statements issued by the SG and CDC, etc. use wording to the effect “evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke [and disease]” without the hard data provided by valid studies* to prove something beyond causal inference.

That is why I worded it as “propagating "fact" when it ain't proven”. Not saying it cannot be proven as fact.

I think my lead-in sentence using, loosely “debunking a myth”, was poorly worded and mislead from my rambling point.

*valid studies = significant population size, valid sampling, bias exclusion, etc.

Morpheus 12-27-2007 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j.nc (Post 26957)
Glad you asked and I’ll have to dig something up or see if my memory is correct or my assumptions are incorrect. Basing it off a talk given about medical studies and reporting by the popular press by a UNC professor a while back. The gist of it was that actual controlled studies did not find a link between exposure and disease caused by the exposure (these were not funded by the tobacco lobby). On the other hand the statements issued by the SG and CDC, etc. use wording to the effect “evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke [and disease]” without the hard data provided by valid studies* to prove something beyond causal inference.

That is why I worded it as “propagating "fact" when it ain't proven”. Not saying it cannot be proven as fact.

I think my lead-in sentence using, loosely “debunking a myth”, was poorly worded and mislead from my rambling point.

*valid studies = significant population size, valid sampling, bias exclusion, etc.

no "soft" language here...

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_stat...dhandSmoke.htm

* Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults.2
* Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25–30% and their lung cancer risk by 20–30%.2
* Breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk of heart attack. People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk.2
* Secondhand smoke exposure causes respiratory symptoms in children and slows their lung growth.2
* Secondhand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in children.2
* There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous.2

j.nc 12-27-2007 10:13 PM

Check. Thanks for the link.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:47 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
2008 Shreveport.com