Nutrition and Physical Regeneration

A reader writes in response to my comment about following the Kitavan diet for 40 days:

Hi,

I've recently become more inclined to think that good quality tobacco, minus all the disgusting chemicals put in it by the tobacco companies may actually be very healthy. Google the health benefits of tobacco to see what I mean. If I am correct, then this would be one other thing that the Kitava have going for them as a health benefit.

Have you any idea of the type and quality of tobacco the Kitava smoke? That is, is it harvested by them, for example, with no chemical additives etc?

Thanks.

Regards,

Eric

______

Eric,

Thanks for writing.

Actually I don't know the type and quality of tobacco the Kitavans are smoking (probably something from the mainland) but most foreign cigarettes do not have all the junk in them that American cigarettes do, unless you roll your own or smoke American Spirits. I think if they grew and harvested their own tobacco the researchers would have noted that, unless they were already biased against the use of tobacco, which would not be unusual.

I am hesitant to write this. I am sure I will lose some RSS subscribers, email readers, twitter followers and other assorted folk. Yet I have never been shy about speaking my mind or taking on controversial matters, even though I try to do so in a relatively genteel manner. Another reason I am hesitant is that I am still working my way through the specifics of the science, with an e-book planned in the not so distant future. So my musings below represent my preliminary thoughts even though I have held a number of them for many years.

I have long been a proponent of the idea that tobacco per se in moderation is mildly healthful. I am a cigar aficionado. Put me in a room with a cigar, glass of port, cognac or scotch, a book, and all the luscious fatty food you can eat, and I'm a happy camper for days on end.

The new home remodeling movement dealing with man caves has my name written all over it, not because I want a manctuary, but because I like designated places for entertainment, relaxation and study. I must also admit some of the best relationships I have had with the opposite sex are with ladies who enjoyed the fruit of the vine and the nectar of the (fermented) field (i.e cigars), so why would I want to discontinue that?

I have never much cared for cigarettes but a lady with a cigar…well…that just does something for me. Could it be because one of my favorite tobacconists when I lived in California was this drop dead gorgeous woman who loved a great cigar? Could be, but I doubt it. When I attended a Cigar Aficionado Big Smoke in Las Vegas a few years back I was amazed at the number of women in attendance, not only puffing away but very knowledgeable about cigars.

In Sugar Blues author William Dufty has a chapter titled Reach For A Lucky Instead Of A Sweet, where he seeks to demonstrate that sugar is far more dangerous than tobacco. In his breezy largely non-footnoted journalistic style he doesn't do a bad job. Of course it is not an exhaustive treatise chock full of references but he makes his point.

One thing he noted is in Chinese philosophy according to yin and yang smoking is mildly positive regarding health. I tend to agree. Despite the huge political movement against smoking the science just isn't there against tobacco per se.

Thus, in my opinion, while there are some minor risk factors, the dangers of smoking are greatly overhyped. Every time I study the issue it amazes me all the junk science that is thrown at the topic. Actually, a better way to say it is that I am amazed at the bad conclusions drawn from studies that do not even come close to demonstrating the point, i.e the harmfulness of tobacco per se, and the heavy handed political attempts to quell any dissent from the mainstream line.

It appears to me that many anti-smoking activists of all stripes (lay or professional) have an agenda, one that seems to remain operative regardless of what facts come their way. One of the first well known critics of tobacco smoking was King James back in the 17th century (yes that King James. And yes the English are right when they eschew the American term for that Bible and call it the "Authorized Version" and leave King James out of it) when he wrote his A COVNTER-BLASTE TO TOBACCO in 1604.

James took a particular interest in the colony of Virginia, sending instructions on growing fruits, making wine, and breeding silk worms. He did not give instructions for growing tobacco…He disliked tobacco smoking and declared his views in a 1604 edition.

James found it incredible that his "country-men" should "imitate the barbarous and beastly manners of the wilde, godlesse, and slavish Indians, especially in so vile … a custome" as smoking tobacco.

James also waxes elequent on the "great iniquitie, and against all humanitie" of secondary smoke: He notes the effects of peer pressure in making "divers men very sound both in judgement and complexion" take up the habit, "because they were ashamed to seeme singular.

Jamestowne Society

Notice his comments about peer pressure, a barbarous (read: nasty) habit, and second hand smoke. Boy, he could have been writing today!

As best as I can ascertain, no one has yet to demonstrate that smoking tobacco is a cause of much of anything, and certainly not lung cancer. I seem to recall one study by the FDA (I think) that showed an inverse relationship between lung cancer and smoking (a study of course which the FDA did not publish). Even most studies that show a negative effect for tobacco are statistically irrelevant and rarely, if ever, take into account certain confounding factors.

Before the (world) war, nearly everyone who smoked, smoked cigars. They were inexpensive (.05 to .10 cents) and people indulged rather freely. Cigarettes were created as a marketing ploy to make tobacco more easily accessible for U.S. soldiers and create a bigger market at home.

With the changes in the market over the decades and the demand for cigars, cigars are now (generally) more expensive than cigarettes. They are also (generally) of a much higher quality.

Manufacturers found they could make very cheap smokes utilizing poor quality throw away tobacco, curing it cheaply with heat rather than air, lacing it with all kinds of chemical additives, and creating a product that not only makes them umpteen numbers of dollars but can be problematic in its long term effects depending on a person's reaction to the additives, but keep in mind this is just one risk factor in relation to heart disease and really means nothing without considering many other variables.

Cigar producers have never done the above on a large scale for a variety of reasons beyond the scope of this post. Today, you can buy a very inexpensive, satisfying, and quality cigar(s) for less than a pack of cigarettes, even though in today's political climate no cigar manufacturer would ever advertise in such a fashion.

At one time in my life I was smoking up to three a day with no negative effects on my respiratory health or aerobic abilities (and I was engaged in heavy athletics at the time). I have never found them addicting. I have found them a great vehicle for not only relaxing but for social intercourse, creating opportunities for interaction with people with whom in any other setting I would have never carried on a conversation.

The late Gregory Hines mentioned once in an interview that in attending a Big Smoke event he found himself seated next to Rush Limbaugh, something he wryly noted would have never happened outside of that event. Before the evening was over he said he looked at Rush so much differently. He found him to be kind, witty, personable, compassionate, a real human being. And while he still didn't agree with him politically, he saw him as he really was, a human being with as distinct a view of the world as he had, and not some political ogre. That was one of his (Hines) apologies (defense) for the world of cigars.

Sometimes I think we get to uptight about certain things. I can be a purist with the best of them. I will always be a stickler for quality. But it is okay to relax. It's okay to have comfort food, especially since comfort food is easily made in a healthy fashion. Its okay to "cheat" on occasion if it means harmony with your family for example. Some people are so neurotic that whatever gains are made through food are probably lost in the social diasasters caused by their uptight and functionally hermitic food style (for a primer on how to avoid such an approach see my series on Winning The War On Good Food).

Every once in awhile I will read an article about someone who lived an enormously long life by being a hermit and living on dust and bugs or something akin to that. The author is usually gushing over what the person has accomplished with this particular longevity scheme. My answer has always been so what? Who wants to eek out a few more years (or even a lot) living like that? After all good nutrition doesn't make us immortal. We all are going to eventually die no matter what we do. It is just one focal point on the circle that is involved in a healthy and productive life.

It should not be lost on us that several very healthy groups did and do smoke as a part of their lifestyle including the Kitavans, the Inuit, the Masai, and several Indian groups. As one of the articles I linked to in last week's web musings pointed out, relaxation of this nature (the article was focused on alcohol consumption) has been with us from time immemorial.

There is quite a bit of material available that takes on the conventional wisdom concerning smoking. A good free introduction to the whole subject can be found in Lauren Colby's book, In Defense of Smokers:

Up to that time, I'd pretty much accepted the establishment view of smoking, i.e., that it's bad for you and may lead to lung cancer. But when I saw what the health establishment was doing in the field of AIDS, I began ask myself some questions. Could it be that the government figures on smoking, like those on AIDS, were cooked to produce a desired result? I began a two year research project, which resulted in this book.

As a result of that project, I learned many things. Most important, I'm afraid, I learned that government statistics on smoking, like those on AIDS, cannot be trusted. Important figures, like the 400,000 "smoking related deaths every year", are made up out of whole cloth. Studies which appear to refute the "dangers" of smoking, e.g., animal studies or some of the second hand smoke studies, are either ignored or subjected to manipulation and distortion to make them fit the official line.

I wrote this book to refute the wild, irresponsible and untruthful anti-smoking propaganda which obscures the truth. I do not expect it will ever make any money, nor do I want it to make any money. Copies of the book were sent to numerous publishers, but even the subsidy publishers, who print and promote books for money, were unwilling to take it. All of which proves that in this country, "If you want a free press, you'd better own a press."

He then notes in one of the appendices, Tobacco Control in 1917,

It is generally supposed that the modern anti-smoking movement has its basis in some sort of "scientific" research, showing that smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, etc. Anti-tobacco crusaders such as John Banzaf and Joe Califano perpetuate this belief when they appear on television, talking about "what we know now, that we didn't know then".

The truth is, of course, that there have never been any rigorous scientific studies showing that smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease or any other significant disease. These dubious notions are, however, nothing new. 80 years ago, in 1917, the nation was going through one of its periodic bouts of anti-tobacco madness. Then, as now, the focus was on children, but in 1917, "children" were referred to as "boys". Then, as now, medical doctors were beginning to threaten smokers with dire consequences, including, but not limited to, blindness, tuberculosis, and "tobacco heart". Then, as now, surgeons were beginning to ask patients whether they smoked as a part of the preparation for surgery, and insurance companies were asking prospective clients whether they smoked. Ten years later, the madness had passed and the country was happily smoking again.

Best I can tell, smoking, especially cigars, is a minor risk, if at all. Even smoking the "bad stuff" can be minor depending on other lifestyle factors. Until someone conclusively proves otherwise, I will continue to partake. In fact I am looking forward to writing a much more technical article over my favorite health giving scotch and a Romeo and Julieta.

In the only Weston A. Price Foundation conference I have attended, I remember lighting up a cigar with Chris Masterjohn right in the hotel lounge.

Even if they do (show some definitive risk), I still might continue, though my guess is Dr. Douglass is right when he writes about the health benefits of tobacco. Nevertheless, there is nothing quite like sharing a glass of port with a tasty cigar overlooking the water on a beautiful evening with good company and good conversation.
______

Michael Miles is the editor of Nutrition and Physical Regeneration