Which of these kills the most people in the US every year: Guns, Sugar, Marijuana, Cigarettes, or Salt

You're just saying that because you're one of the meanest knife fighters around and you like to use it hunt for fresh meat chalked full of fat and protein. But we all know that Edmon Dantes can beat you in a knife fight.

jacabo wrote:

You can most definitely live without sugar. Fat and protein are necessary for survival and health (along with many, many other vitamins, minerals, etc.) Carbohydrates are not necessary for survival.

I'm not saying all carbohydrate foods are bad. Many are, many aren't. Unlike fat and protein, they aren't essential for life.

Most people will see a dramatic change - for the better - in their health if they dropped sugar from their diet.

Alcohol + Stupidity kill waaaaay more peeps than weed, salt and sugar combined.

Did you ever hear the most famous last words of a southerner?

"Hey Y'all!!! Watch this!!!"

Wetcoast wrote:

People are arguing semantics.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns or other weapons. So I would suggest this one should have been worded: People by use of gunshot.

Who is arguing semantics?

Anyway, I don't think you have a point here. Or else, you should add that "sugar doesn't kill people, people who eat too much sugar kill themselves. Cigarettes don't kill people, people who smoke them, ..."

For the point of this discussion, guns kill people. Everything else is semantics.

Back to topic: Salt significantly contributes to high blood pressure. People with high blood pressure, who are typically also overweight, do not only benefit from moderate excercise and weight loss, but also from reduced salt intake. But that's the only significant detrimental health effect of salt. For people without high blood pressure, salt is not a problem. And of course, excercise requires a higher salt intake along with hydration.

Guns may not kill as many people as smokes or salt or sugar, but if you consider the number of years of life lost, guns may be number one. Cigarettes almost always take decades to kill you; guns take an instant. If cigs kill 100 people average age 65; they take fewer away years of life than guns killing 25 people average age 30.

Cigs kill virtually no teen-agers. Guns kill plenty of them

Plus it is not alway clear what has killed someone who smokes and dies due to poor health; there is no doubt when someone has his brains blown our by a gun.

I know you Righties don't want to hear it, but guns are the number one killer

[quote]towhee wrote:

I heard a doctor talking about various factors of lifespan, and he said there was research showing that religion increases avg. lifespan by 7 years or so.

Oh Please. Religion wipes out entire peoples.

.

What? Guns don't kill people, people kill people? But cigarettes, sugar and salt, without the aid of people, do kill? And you see no inconsistency in this view?

I am unaware of any stories of people being killed by strangers of friends who used a cigarette or salt shaker to do the deed. Or of anyone killing himself with a packer of sugar in a moment of weakness or extreme intoxification.

Guns kill lots of people who have never owned or used a gun. Same cannot be said of smokes, sugar, weed, salt.

Guns are the number one killer. Sorry gun nuts

Reducing salt in the American diet by as little as one-half teaspoon (or three grams) per day could prevent nearly 100,000 heart attacks and 92,000 deaths each year, according to a new study. Such benefits are on par with the benefits from reductions in smoking and could save the United States about $24 billion in healthcare costs, the researchers add.

It really is that simple, preventative health care. If everyone took care of themselves, we wouldn't have these outrageous health care costs.

Same idea of if your tires are inflated properly, you'll save money on gas

Agree with everything Mr./Ms. Not Sure posted.

Guns kill more people. No contest.

I'll also add that the aftermath of a traumatic gun kill impacts even more people in terms of the mental health of the victim's circle of friends and relatives. Diet/health-choice related deaths don't leave as much anguish in their wake.

i live nearby....... wrote:

Are you retarded? You cannot live without carbohydrates. They are necessary for life.

Wrong. You can live on fatty meat alone if you want to.

"In the 1920s, Arctic explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson noted in his travels that Eskimos seemed to fare quite nicely on a zero-carbohydrate diet (the Arctic being not exactly the ideal climate for cultivating fruits, grain, or vegetables). Under the watchful eyes of physicians from New York's Cornell University Medical College and Bellevue Hospital, Stefansson and a colleague submitted themselves to a meat-only diet for a year. They ate 2,500 calories a day, of which 75 percent was fat. As reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, on July 6, 1929, the two men finished out their year of a no-carbohydrate diet not only slimmer—each had lost 6 pounds—but with reduced (and completely normal) cholesterol. It's worth repeating that the men were eating a diet with 75 percent of the calories coming from fat. Current recommendations are to eat no more than 30 percent of calories as fat—which very few people can maintain—and there are some recommendations for even lower percentages than that."

Hey retard - have you ever heard of Eskimos? Inuit?

i live nearby....... wrote:

Are you retarded? You cannot live without carbohydrates. They are necessary for life.

Not Sure wrote:

Guns may not kill as many people as smokes or salt or sugar, but if you consider the number of years of life lost, guns may be number one. Cigarettes almost always take decades to kill you; guns take an instant. If cigs kill 100 people average age 65; they take fewer away years of life than guns killing 25 people average age 30.

Cigs kill virtually no teen-agers. Guns kill plenty of them

Plus it is not alway clear what has killed someone who smokes and dies due to poor health; there is no doubt when someone has his brains blown our by a gun.

I know you Righties don't want to hear it, but guns are the number one killer

You maybe referring to only the options given by the OP when you say guns are the number one killer but it sounds like you are saying guns are the overall number one killer. That would definitely be wrong. Rightie or Leftie, vehicle accidents kill way more than guns each year.

And you can add that up anyway you like.

End the war on drugs; stop the oppression, save lies, and earn tax revenue. Our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they could see this.

joho wrote:

You maybe referring to only the options given by the OP when you say guns are the number one killer but it sounds like you are saying guns are the overall number one killer. That would definitely be wrong. Rightie or Leftie, vehicle accidents kill way more than guns each year.

And you can add that up anyway you like.

.

If automobiles were one of the options given in the original premise, I woulsd agree with you. They were, of course, not.

I think it is a brilliant question. What is your educational background?

Actually there is some merit to this. But I think we should say energy is necessary for life, but someone could do some research about which energy forms are the most necessary.

I was taking a graduate course on Obesity and a past president of the ACSM was teaching the course. We looked at a study in which rats were intravenously given all the "nutrients" needed to survive. I don't know what each and every nutrient was, but the goal was see if rats would survive on essential nutrients without the calories. Obviously, they wouldn't live at all without protein, fat, or even some carbohydrates. But the rats actually lived longer than the control rats with the moral of the story being, as long as we are getting the required nutrients, consuming very few calories could cause a human to live longer.

If cigarettes are reported to result in premature death, then marijuana will do the same. Neither kill directly like guns, but there is some cause and effect relationship there. Few people get lung cancer without smoking marijuana and/or tobacco during some point of their lifespan. Bob Marley died of lung cancer and he was a frequent marijuana user. But I'm sure this last fact is not new to anyone.

Luigi will tell you that I am the best he has ever seen. He speaks true. Zatarra is overrated.

I am responding to multiple posts (you can't survive without carbs, your brain needs sugar to function. etc.)

The brain needs blood glucose to function, not sugar. The human body is very good at keeping blood sugar at proper levels, and when someone consumes a low amount of carbohydrate it does this by breaking down body fat and delivering into the bloodstream in the form of blood glucose. Our brains actually function very well off of ketones as well.

I know we're all supposed to be deathly afraid of ketones because they'll fry our kidneys, but what dime-a-dozen dieticians don't tell you is that there is a difference between the state of ketosis and diabetic ketoacidosis (DK). DK is very dangerous for a diabetic. Ketosis is perfectly fine for otherwise healthy people.

I have tried eating very low carb (less than 20% total calories) for extended periods of time (usually 2-3 months at a time) just to see what happens to my body when I do. The last time I did it, I found I had boundless energy and lowered my 5k pr from 15:12 to 14:54 at the end of the 3 months.

For me, it works great. Different people have different experiences. Sugar (the refined, white stuff) is deadly. I would never say carbs are evil, just certain types of carbs. Just like certain types of fat (polyunsaturated vegetable oils, trans fats) are horrible while other types (monounsaturated fats, saturated fats from healthy animals) are very healthy.

Basically, low-carb, low fat, high protein, whatever: it doesn't matter. Just eat whole foods and avoid processed crap like the plague that it is.

And to the poster who commented on Dr. Atkins: He helped thousands of people. His system was not perfect and you have people who abuse the guidelines (endless bacon and no veggies), but his line of thinking was many times more correct than 90% of doctors and nutritionists out there today.

Everybody dies. Who cares how when and how it happens? It's going to happen. If its not the sugar, its the salt... if not the gun, maybe a car accident. Maybe a combonation of factors. Why are people so obsessed with saving the people?? Such a futile endeavor.