Josh Gordon as a Colt?

[throwing BBZ]

LMAO at the idea of Gordon as a Colt. How stupid.

[Clem-Dog]

14 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Michael Jordan,  Conner McGregor,  Micheal Phelps,  Warren Sapp, Micheal Vick,  Ricky Williams,  

Randy Moss,  Kareem Abdul jabbar.    And a whole host of others.   

Usain Bolt is on there too as well as Kevin Durant and the majority of NBA players... aka the National Bubonic Association

[DougDew]

28 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Tobacco, no.  But the way people typically smoke marijuana (taking a large breath and holding it in) doesn't damage lung function.  It may actually improve it.

 

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/pot-smokers-can-maybe-breathe-a-little-easier

 

 

Obviously more research needs to be done, but now that it's legal in places, that research is happening.  

 

So yes, you're right about tobacco (cigarettes and cigars), but I don't know if Gordon smokes tobacco, so I don't know if your comments about smoke and cardio are relevant to this thread.  

It probably depends on how often you toke and hold it in.  I don't think someone who has gotten banned as much as Gordon is a person comparable to how "people" smoke pot. 

As far as research, trying to make science support an already growing emotional social movement about pot, a Harvard study is not reassuring.  I wouldn't think it would be neutral.  When I start hearing the consensus of personal trainers and nutritionists advocating smoking joints once in a while as a health benefit, I might conclude that their own eyes and judgment gave Harvard credibility on the subject.  But that's a different topic, not for this forum.  

 

My comment are relevant because Chloe mentioned that BB was disappointed with his conditioning, which is cardio function.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

It probably depends on how often you toke and hold it in.  I don't think someone who has gotten banned as much as Gordon is a person comparable to how "people" smoke pot. 

As far as research, trying to make science support an already growing emotional social movement about pot, a Harvard study is not reassuring.  I wouldn't think it would be neutral.  When I start hearing the consensus of personal trainers and nutritionists advocating smoking joints once in a while as a health benefit, I might conclude that their own eyes and judgment gave Harvard credibility on the subject.  But that's a different topic, not for this forum.  

 

My comment are relevant because Chloe mentioned that BB was disappointed with his conditioning, which is cardio function.

 

Lol, personal trainers opinions having more credibility than Harvard...  

 

Your comment on cardio was about "filling your lungs with smoke".  Josh Gordons' bad cardio is likely due to plain old laziness, which I will admit could be attributed to the kind of smoke he was inhaling.  Probably chose a bag of cheetos over working out.  

[DougDew]

16 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Lol, personal trainers opinions having more credibility than Harvard...  

 

Your comment on cardio was about "filling your lungs with smoke".  Josh Gordons' bad cardio is likely due to plain old laziness, which I will admit could be attributed to the kind of smoke he was inhaling.  Probably chose a bag of cheetos over working out.  

Actually yes, I would trust an unbiased professional who interacts with thousands of people to be a better source of information than some of our institutions.  Most of the good trainers have some sort of technical education about the human body.

 

I'd have to read the article closely, but smoke of any kind does not seem like it would be beneficial to me.  I know they'll say that sticking my head over my charcoal grill or in my wood burning fireplace once in a while would be less beneficial to my lungs than smoking pot once in a while.  That may be because the smoke is totally different, or it might just be using incomplete science to scare me into saving trees.  I can't tell where they're coming from, so I'll use my judgment.

 

But I agree with your last statement.  I have concluded that Gordon's hobby is born from basic laziness, which is a trait that would also impact a workout routine.  I'm not going to bother to read any Harvard study on the matter to confirm or not confirm that opinion.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Actually yes, I would trust an unbiased professional who interacts with thousands of people to be a better source of information than some of our institutions.

 

What if I told you I was a personal trainer that was a former athlete with a good working knowledge of the human body and nutrition, and that I have a college degree in health, and did an epidemiological study on smoke in college?

[DougDew]

13 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

What if I told you I was a personal trainer that was a former athlete with a good working knowledge of the human body and nutrition, and that I have a college degree in health, and did an epidemiological study on smoke in college?

Then I would want you to explain what the difference in the smoke is, and be focused on the effects of the smoke, not the substance within it.  

 

IMO, the substance in pot that makes it attractive is separate from the smoke, which is merely the delivery system.  The substance is contained in a plant, and the plant has to be converted into a form that can be inhaled.  The smoke is the carrier and I do not think that inhaling smoke...burnt cellulose....the same as trees...would be a health benefit in any way.  I'd be very skeptical of any person suggesting that the effects of burnt cellulose is significantly different in marijuana form over tree form.

 

To say that the inherent substance has benefits is one thing, but to deliver it by putting smoke into the lungs is a different matter.  Pills, injections, brownies, are different ways to injest the substance, but lighting it is the most common way because its probably the least expensive way.  I'm assuming there will be advancements in the delivery systems as it become a legalized industry, and I'd think the advancement would come because smoking it causes other concerns that are separate from the substance the smoke is carrying.

[jvan1973]

49 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Actually yes, I would trust an unbiased professional who interacts with thousands of people to be a better source of information than some of our institutions.  Most of the good trainers have some sort of technical education about the human body.

 

I'd have to read the article closely, but smoke of any kind does not seem like it would be beneficial to me.  I know they'll say that sticking my head over my charcoal grill or in my wood burning fireplace once in a while would be less beneficial to my lungs than smoking pot once in a while.  That may be because the smoke is totally different, or it might just be using incomplete science to scare me into saving trees.  I can't tell where they're coming from, so I'll use my judgment.

 

But I agree with your last statement.  I have concluded that Gordon's hobby is born from basic laziness, which is a trait that would also impact a workout routine.  I'm not going to bother to read any Harvard study on the matter to confirm or not confirm that opinion.

So all weed smokers are lazy?  Hilarious

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

So all weed smokers are lazy?  Hilarious

No, with 250 million people in the country, there is no absolute correlation with just about anything behavior related

 

Hilarity describes your thought process and its inability to nuance.....but then criticize.

[ColtsBlueFL]

This is Free Agent section, and going off topic.

 

Moved.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

9 hours ago, DougDew said:

I'd be very skeptical of any person suggesting that the effects of burnt cellulose is significantly different in marijuana form over tree form.

 

But you said personal trainers have more credibility on the subject than Harvard...  sounds like you're just skeptical of anyone that disagrees with your opinion.  

 

9 hours ago, DougDew said:

with 250 million people in the country

 

We're at 300+ now, and have been for over a decade.

[DougDew]

9 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

But you said personal trainers have more credibility on the subject than Harvard...  sounds like you're just skeptical of anyone that disagrees with your opinion.  

 

 

We're at 300+ now, and have been for over a decade.

Yes, you got it. 

 

A personal trainer who has determined that ingesting the smoke from a burning leaf harms lung function is more credible to me than a liberal institution who says that smoke from all environmentally unfriendly activities is harmful to the lungs, except one, which happens to be that burning a pot plant improves lung function.  Sounds more like a sermon designed to give the flock support for their activities rather than objective science.  

 

I never form opinions based upon solely comparing credentials.  I form opinion based on what they say making sense.

 

But we're deviating from Josh Gordon.  If I were HC, I'd throw all of my preconceived generalizations out the window and evaluate the individual player based upon his merits.  From my narrow window as a fan, he seems to have difficulties staying on a roster and I don't see why that would change with the Colts.