Not to be deliberately contrarian but I think one can over-analyze alleged potential health threats to the point of suffocation. Obviously, heavy consumption of alcohol, smoking and eating foods high in salt and/or sugar content is not something anyone would recommend. Caffeine consumption is likely not beneficial to our overall health, either, and I say this as a person who drinks copious amounts of coffee, every day of my life (wilth no ill effect) but would dissuade others from doing the same. While some things are patently risky, such as smoking, others are risky based on statistics and opinions of researchers and physicians, who we respect. However, I think one must account for our human uniqueness in the way our bodies deal with various substances. Some folks walk by a candy bar and gain 2 pounds, others eat junk food all the time and don't seem to gain weight. However, no sane person would recommend anyone make junk food a major part of their diet just because some people can eat it without any tangible, observable negative consequence to their health. My view is that while it's always good to have information on what may or may not be detrimental to our overall well-being, 'one size does not fit all' and we can stress over things that may later be 'proven' to be not as 'bad' for us as the researchers once proclaimed. Caffeine consumption (via drinking coffee) has been alternately condemned and approved, depending on the time period and source of the 'study' involved. This destroys the credibility of the likely very real studies on the subject and by now, most people probably don't pay much attention to warnings about the 'threat' of coffee consumption. Look at the success of Starbucks and fancy coffee drinks that even McDonald's now sells. There must be a market for all that coffee being brewed.
I'm not putting down research or endorsing a hedonistic lifestyle, just noting that everything we ingest is not necessarily fraught with danger to our health and that one man's meat may sometimes be another man's poison - or not. I also like Nancy Mc's doctor's observation that, in a doctor's opinion "too much" (of almost anything) is usually translated as more than the doctor uses. That kind of subjectivity is rampant in many areas of 'health' information and has to be taken into account when we're being told what is supposedly 'bad' for us. I believe that most Americans have been told, via over-hyped TV and magazine stories, about allegedly 'dangerous' foods, additives, etc that they now ignore most of the hype and go with what seems sensible to them. They are probably right.
Jim
