This used to be a forum called 'Peatarian' (my cultist reference to Ray Peat), it is now an archive for anyone interested, its members went ahead to find new nectar.
Only private messaging is still available, click here for the list of members (and here to login).

Famous People Who Are Photographed in Company With High Metabolism Tools?

I stumbled upon this picture by Leonhard Cohen. He holds a cigarette between his fingers and a glass of coke sits on the counter. And there is Marilyn Monroe who shares her secret to health and beauty - milk and eggs. I think I picked that up via Danny Roddy's Facebook page. Do you know of any other pictures of famous people who are depicted in company with High Metabolism Tools?

created Jun 28, 2013 by John Eels

2 Replies

replied Jun 28, 2013 by Kasra
He's caught in another affair flagrantly :)
You win That one is just awesome!
replied Jun 28, 2013 by Dewitt
Yes, I do. You and Energizer convinced me of the value of a cigarette and the thread on longecity...
That's good to know.
There are also hundreds of photos of famous intelligent people who dont smoke. That proves nothing and is unscientific arguing.

Where are the photos of the millions of people who silently succumbed to lung cancer, COPD and other smoking associated illnesses? Ah yes, they are neither famous nor intelligent, so who gives a damn.
No need to get pissed. I wasn't trying to prove anything, nor is this a scientific thread. Also, everyone on this board is an adult and should therefore be able to make his own decisions. It is not my responsibility to educate people about the possible dangers of smoking, as these dangers are generally known. But if you're worried about my function as a "role model", everyone should understand this:

I don't give a fuck if I die at age 60 of lung cancer. If you are concerned about the health dangers of smoking, don't smoke.

And last but not least, if you are interested in a scientific argument about smoking, I challenge you to present conclusive evidence about the associations between smoking and various illnesses and I will do my best to find conclusive evidence that disproves these associations. Let's not get into the habit of mindlessly shouting out claims, as this is, as you said, unscientific.
Totally agree.

Don't get me wrong, I am not pissed at you or these photos, they are actually quite fun. But I get pissed when people consciously make choices based on a distorted presentation of evidence (in this case John Eels). That goes especially in the direction of Energizer, of whom I dont feel that he looks at this issue objectively and scientifically in any way (he just attacks everyone disagreeing with him and calling him a pharmaceutical industry slave or whatever). THAT is unscientific and pisses me off.

I already have posted a part rebuttal in your other thread about smoking and feel that you have not yet gave me a full response to my points raised there.

When I have time I will try to gather the evidence that points towards the deleterious effect of smoking overall. Right now, it is not top on my agenda, as I don't plan to start smoking anytime in the future.
If you get pissed because of every person that makes an unwise health choice based on a distorted presentation of evidence, you should get ready for a whole bunch of stomach ulcers. Because right now, the majority of people are basing their health choices off of distorted evidence.

I mentioned it already in the past, but I'll say it again. I do NOT consider tobacco to be perfectly safe. Almost every substance known to man can have either positive or negative effects on the human body, depending on the circumstances and the dose administered. In my opinion, tobacco can be helpful in certain conditions and should therefore be perceived as medicine. It should only be taken when indicated. And just like every medicine, it has its unique side effects and should NEVER be toyed with.

As for the other thread, I am a student and only have limited time on my hands. To give a meaningful and detailed reply, I will have to go through at least one hundred studies and articles. This will take a while. If I don't reply within 4 weeks, just assume that I didn't find anything and do consider smoking to be undisputable linked to lung cancer.
Thanks a lot for clarifying. Defining tobacco as something medicinal indicated in certain situations, but not in others, you make a point that I can relate to much better.