Tea Party as a Relief Society activity

[Litzy]

Can you give an example of this disconnect? Is it really a disconnect or is it just your interpretation of the information provided? For example, here's an introduction in an article about the benefits of drinking water.

 

Americans seem to carry bottled water everywhere they go these days. In fact, it has become the second most popular drink (behind soft drinks). But water lovers got a jolt recently when we heard that a new report had found that the benefits of drinking water may have been oversold. Apparently, the old suggestion to drink eight glasses a day was nothing more than a guideline, not based on scientific evidence.

 

http://www.webmd.com/diet/6-reasons-to-drink-water?page=1

 

The part in bold is not saying anything negative about drinking water just a clarification about the quantity of water to drink daily.

 

Is the information about coffee that you've read similar to this?

 

M.

 

No, nothing similar to that.

 

Some articles say Coffee is Good and here's why. Others say Coffee is Bad and here's why.

 

Maureen, I have nothing against coffee drinkers, both my parents and several of my siblings drink coffee. You sound like you're defending the practice by panicking over the notion some articles have been written against coffee.

[Maureen]

No, nothing similar to that.

 

Some articles say Coffee is Good and here's why. Others say Coffee is Bad and here's why.

 

Maureen, I have nothing against coffee drinkers, both my parents and several of my siblings drink coffee. You sound like you're defending the practice by panicking over the notion some articles have been written against coffee.

 

I thought my posts sound calm and collected, you think I'm panicking? :)

 

Litzy, you say you're frustrated with these disconnected statements made by the medical community about coffee, but you can't provide sources to show this disconnect.

 

That's what I would like to see - you providing sources to back up what you say you've read.

 

M. 

Edited April 1, 2015 by Maureen

[Guest]

I thought my posts sound calm and collected, you think I'm panicking? :)

 

Litzy, you say you're frustrated with these disconnected statements made by the medical community about coffee, but you can't provide sources to show this disconnect.

 

That's what I would like to see - you providing sources to back up what you say you've read.

 

M.

The "benefits of coffee" slant is relatively new. Coffee, throughout the 70's and 80's has been bad, now it's good. If you wait a while, the wheel is going to turn the other way again, I bet.

This TIME article is a perfect example of this confusion. "It's good for you, but you may not want to start drinking it..." is the gist of it.

http://time.com/3145435/is-coffee-bad-for-you/

And this nutrition expert admits it is a confusing thing, says it's good for you but maybe not.

http://drhyman.com/blog/2012/06/13/ten-reasons-to-quit-your-coffee/#close

I can go on and on with this one.

[Litzy]

I suppose I don't understand what is so vague about "I've read articles against coffee".

 

http://www.hungryforchange.tv/article/10-reasons-to-quit-coffee-plus-healthy-alternatives

 

http://authoritynutrition.com/coffee-good-or-bad/

 

It seems to me that a substance ought to be either healthy or unhealthy  without so much controversy. This is different from the water comparison that says water is healthy but says the 8 cups is a myth. That's a matter of quantity, not quality.

[Maureen]

I see both your articles and anatess' one article are by the same person, Mark Hyman MD.

 

I wonder what his thoughts on autism are?

 

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/hillarys-quack-health-adviser-has-scientific-community-worried

 

M. 

[Litzy]

I never know what some of these ultra-natural health gurus are thinking. I have no idea if they're right or wrong, but it would be interesting to see if he's on the vaccine medical minority.

[Maureen]

I'm linking this article:

 

"We looked at all the science," said Miriam Nelson, a professor in the School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, and a member of the committee that wrote the guidelines.

"We have found no negative, adverse effects on health when you drink up to three to five cups a day," she told AFP.

"In fact, there is a decreased risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, Parkinson's disease and a couple of cancers," including breast and prostate cancer, she said.

 

Read more: http://uk.businessinsider.com/afp-packed-with-health-benefits-coffee-gains-ground-with-experts-2015-4?r=US#ixzz3WBHZQB00

 

M.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Maureen

[Guest]

I'm linking this article:

 

"We looked at all the science," said Miriam Nelson, a professor in the School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, and a member of the committee that wrote the guidelines.

"We have found no negative, adverse effects on health when you drink up to three to five cups a day," she told AFP.

"In fact, there is a decreased risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, Parkinson's disease and a couple of cancers," including breast and prostate cancer, she said.

 

Read more: http://uk.businessinsider.com/afp-packed-with-health-benefits-coffee-gains-ground-with-experts-2015-4?r=US#ixzz3WBHZQB00

 

M.

As I've said... every few generations or so they say "We've looked at all the Science and..." And the next generation just tramples right over it when they say "We've looked at all the Science and..."

Science is so much more like Religion than people realize... you kinda have to use a lot of faith in its premises. Even the Law of Gravity had to be adjusted when the theory of Relativity came to light. It's just the way it is.

This thread is about the WoW - it says no coffee so we hang our premise on coffee having negative effects. Sure science may say otherwise, but as coffee is not one of those things (like sex) that you can't give up without putting the future of the entire human race in grave danger, we don't particularly need to laud it with yesterday's anti-coffee science nor defend it against today's pro-coffee science. We simply put faith in the authority of the prophets that say to avoid it and use it as a way to practice obedience.

[Litzy]

I'm linking this article:

 

"We looked at all the science," said Miriam Nelson, a professor in the School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, and a member of the committee that wrote the guidelines.

"We have found no negative, adverse effects on health when you drink up to three to five cups a day," she told AFP.

"In fact, there is a decreased risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, Parkinson's disease and a couple of cancers," including breast and prostate cancer, she said.

 

Read more: http://uk.businessinsider.com/afp-packed-with-health-benefits-coffee-gains-ground-with-experts-2015-4?r=US#ixzz3WBHZQB00

 

M.

 

 

And I've no fault with that article or see any reason to disbelieve it. But I do have to give a sigh when I see that article and another doctor or medical office saying coffee should be kept to a minimum and that it causes obesity or anxiety.

 

Which is it? Which study do I trust?

 

What I'm saying, Maureen, is that EVERY SINGLE DOCTOR AND/OR STUDY ought to be reaching the exact same conclusions. If a study is done properly, it will be repeated with the same conclusions every single time, if it's accurate.

 

All I'm saying that there shouldn't be different articles with different opinions on coffee. It's healthy or it's not. The entire medical community should agree on this. Not one professor with one opinion here and another committee with a different opinion there.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Litzy

[Maureen]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect everything to be so black and white; after all doctors and researchers are people too. And I'm sure there's a little bias with some medical professionals (ie Dr. Hyman).

 

We all have brains. We can process what we read; we can accept information we may find reasonable and reject information that may seem not reasonable.

 

We can follow the advice of religious leaders or follow our own advice. It's our choice.

 

M. 

[Guest]

We can follow the advice of religious leaders or follow our own advice. It's our choice.

 

M.

Of course.

But when it comes to coffee and LDS, it's not just advice of religious leaders. It's Commandment.

[askandanswer]

I know this post is kind of old, but I just came across a teaching from President Packer relevant to this topic that I thought was worth sharing. It gives the rationale for the Word of Wisdom.

 

“The habit-forming substances prohibited by that revelation—tea, coffee, liquor, tobacco—interfere with the delicate feelings of spiritual communication, just as other addictive drugs will do.

(in Conference Report, Oct. 1994, 78; or Ensign, Nov. 1994, 61).