Just How Dangerous Is Smoking Really?

pboy said:

yea, it seems to have multiple properties also, and it actually depends on your current state how it will make you feel. If im well nourished, have no water retention pressure and have already had bowel movement, its a pure dope enhancer, but if im heavy or retaining for some reason it seems to increase that particular feeling and want to make me pass out, or eliminate. Im fairly certain it increases testosterone, and a huge reason I like it is during the cold it can heat you up fairly fast, at least for long enough to get something to eat...its great soon after I wake up to immediately wake me up, and also helps me fall asleep nearly instantly at night. Its quite a complex herb with multiple actions that respond to your current state, which is why I think its so hard to pin it down in any way...and probably why some people like it and some dont

Click to expand...

Christopher Hitchens once said a cigarette is like a best friend - it relaxes you when you're stressed, picks you up when you're flat, wakes you up when tired, helps you calm down when fired up, is a great accompaniment after a meal, can sate your appetite when too hungry.

It's definitely complex with multiple actions, and unfortunately our modern society is so fixated on physical health that everything gets excluded. There's no room for something that can benefit the mind or relax us or help us take some time out of a hectic day to reflect and ponder, unless it also helps the body.

But where's that attitude got us? The calamitous state of people being convinced to consume low fat products, avoid fat at all costs, and indulge in sugar. On the quest for 'health'

Well, most of us on this forum greatly indulge in sugar.
I smoked a pack a day from about 14 to 31 and only quit when I started to throw up every time I took a puff on a cigarette. My body "just said no."

I'm not against smoking by any means but I think people who do smoke are wise to roll their own and avoid the additives in big tobacco smoke. I have a friend who is very clean in her tobacco smoke and she is extremely healthy and balanced.

I think what's particularly harmful about smoking is the disdain society now heaps upon smokers. Same kind of shaming that is done to diabetics who dare to eat sugar!

4peatssake said:

I think what's particularly harmful about smoking is the disdain society now heaps upon smokers. Same kind of shaming that is done to diabetics who dare to eat sugar!

Click to expand...

That's a real tragedy. Since the indoor bans, smokers have literally been killed. Smokers seem to be the one minority where it's acceptable for anyone to harass them about it, because "it's for their own good."

4peatssake said:

Well, most of us on this forum greatly indulge in sugar.
I smoked a pack a day from about 14 to 31 and only quit when I started to throw up every time I took a puff on a cigarette. My body "just said no."

I'm not against smoking by any means but I think people who do smoke are wise to roll their own and avoid the additives in big tobacco smoke. I have a friend who is very clean in her tobacco smoke and she is extremely healthy and balanced.

I think what's particularly harmful about smoking is the disdain society now heaps upon smokers. Same kind of shaming that is done to diabetics who dare to eat sugar!

Click to expand...

indeed...I smoke in a very pure way...its like the south americans who are old men with perfect skin who've smoked their whole life. Honestly though im healthier than all my friends and family and pretty much everyone ive worked with also, and I smoke a lot, my skin is fine, I never get sunburned even hours in the sun, and I haven't been to any doctor or anything like that (whole concept seems like a joke to me now) since ive been smoking, approx. 8years. Many factors involved, but I don't think its a coincidence with the smoke, native americans were considered physical specimens with beautiful skin and they smoked a lot...basically the powers that be when they enslave or indenture or domesticate native populations, they either make illegal and punish and spread lies about their power plants (coca, tobacco, marijuana, ect, any entheogen or substance that increases hormones), or they defile it into such a terrible form of itself that people don't even remember what the plant used to be...aka cigarettes and most chocolate. At the same time these plants become marked up in price to such a degree its absurd...like a pound of marijuana is iike 3000 dollars...LOL, you can buy a pound of hand rolled organic green tea for like 30 dollars, very high quality, just as a reference...and marijuana is more easily, and widely growable, and yields much more product than tea....same with tobacco, its absurdly priced...a pound is like 70-80 dollars, when it should be like 10-15 in a real free market, and im sure other stuff that has become illegal is WAY overpriced also. Its basically a way to tame and control people, always has been

RichardWhite said:

But where's that attitude got us? The calamitous state of people being convinced to consume low fat products, avoid fat at all costs, and indulge in sugar. On the quest for 'health'

Click to expand...

My man you need to meet with this guy: http://edwardjedmonds.com/

pboy said:

indeed...I smoke in a very pure way...its like the south americans who are old men with perfect skin who've smoked their whole life. Honestly though im healthier than all my friends and family and pretty much everyone ive worked with also, and I smoke a lot, my skin is fine, I never get sunburned even hours in the sun, and I haven't been to any doctor or anything like that (whole concept seems like a joke to me now) since ive been smoking, approx. 8years. Many factors involved, but I don't think its a coincidence with the smoke, native americans were considered physical specimens with beautiful skin and they smoked a lot...basically the powers that be when they enslave or indenture or domesticate native populations, they either make illegal and punish and spread lies about their power plants (coca, tobacco, marijuana, ect, any entheogen or substance that increases hormones), or they defile it into such a terrible form of itself that people don't even remember what the plant used to be...aka cigarettes and most chocolate. At the same time these plants become marked up in price to such a degree its absurd...like a pound of marijuana is iike 3000 dollars...LOL, you can buy a pound of hand rolled organic green tea for like 30 dollars, very high quality, just as a reference...and marijuana is more easily, and widely growable, and yields much more product than tea....same with tobacco, its absurdly priced...a pound is like 70-80 dollars, when it should be like 10-15 in a real free market, and im sure other stuff that has become illegal is WAY overpriced also. Its basically a way to tame and control people, always has been

Click to expand...

:1 Great post!

Such_Saturation said:

RichardWhite said:

But where's that attitude got us? The calamitous state of people being convinced to consume low fat products, avoid fat at all costs, and indulge in sugar. On the quest for 'health'

Click to expand...

My man you need to meet with this guy: http://edwardjedmonds.com/

Click to expand...

I recommend this guy. http://raypeat.com/

My impression of smoking is that the nicotine itself may have some effects that can improve functioning in some ways, but that smoke inhalation itself is damaging.
Smoke (as far as I know, any smoke) contains known carcinogens. Didn't Peat too mention high rates of particular cancers amongst chimney sweeps, and the link to estrogenic chemicals in soot?
Carbon monoxide binds to haemoglobin in a way that blocks its ability to carry the O2 to tissues. Hypoxia can trigger a number of unhealthy processes in cells. Possibly a healthy body can adapt (hermetic effect) to some level of carbon monoxide by increasing haemoglobin, but it is a stress, and some bodies really don't need this kind of extra stress. As to the comparison with weight lifting, I imagine dose and timing would relevant - the adaptation occurs during restorative periods between the stresses. An occasional smoke is very different from chain smoking.
I think I also read that in places where chewing tobacco is more common, mouth cancer is more common amongst people who use it - holding the wad in their mouth for long periods exposes them to something - I don't know if it is the tobacco or other additives that gives this effect.
For pregnant women, I have the impression that it is well established that babies born to mothers who smoked a lot during pregnancy have been smaller and weaker.
I think Peat has said that some elderly people may find the boost in mental acuity worth the downsides (my words because I can't remember his or where).

Whatever the risk/benefit ratio for a particular smoker, I think that passive smoking by bystanders is all downsides with no positives, so responsible smokers will not smoke in enclosed places where other people have to live with it. When I was young, my parents smoked. It was horrible - especially in the car. I still find passive smoking extremely unpleasant, and am pleased that it is now possible to got out for a meal or a dance etc and not be overwhelmed, and not come home with clothes stinking out the house. I know many other non-smokers who feel the same. And I know a number of people who go outside when they smoke.

My guess is that young people in general would be much better off supporting good brain function with good nutrition, and avoiding the down sides of smoking. I am very much in favour of measures to discourage young people from taking up smoking, and to discourage people from smoking inside and in cars, especially round children, and to provide useful support for people who want to quit.

I don't think smokers should be treated with disrespect for choosing to smoke. I'm in favour of preventing the worst additives from being added to cigarettes, just as I don't want added poison in food.

smoking cigs is way different than pure tobacco, they don't even smell the same...its calming almost like incense burning. Would you not light a fire or burn incense around people? its all about the purity of the thing. I know what youre saying tara, its honorable and I agree with regards to cigarettes

you gotta think of sweatlodges, and the many benefits they've always been known for...of course its pure tobacco

hot boxing herb is incredibly enjoyable

I remember as a kid I always loved the atmosphere and even smell of arcades and pool halls, and its that subtle tobacco smell that lingers after the cigs are burnt. It creates a warm cozy environment, now that im older and know whats up I avoid cig smoke, and turn my face to not have to breath it in, but ill gladly smoke from a pipe. The thing is...like I smoke inside all the time, used to in car, and if I come back in 5 minutes later theres no smell at all...so I really think that sticking aspect has only to do with cigs, maybe its just the amount. I usually only take a couple puffs worth at a time...and keep the air flow circulating well

and as for CO, I don't know...I definitely get arrested breath, short of breath, real bad feeling after I smoke a cig...but never pipe pure, so I dunno if the CO is mainly from the bleach, burn agents, chemicals and all that...either way, ive kind of proved to myself at least by this point its not an issue, and im not biased, ive been ready to ditch it plenty of times...but then it just keeps delivering positively. I used to be into herbalism and eventually stopped using almost all of them (probably have experimented with like 100 herbs or so), after initially thinking many were awesome...ive developed an acute sense of momentum and actions of plants, and really most aren't worth it once you realize how to stay healthy in a sweet non bitter way. Tobacco and cannabis are 2 that have stayed with me, even coffee got ditched...because they've never offended me once. Tobacco will expose and attempt to rectify imbalances so fast it can be intense, and if drunk it can give the spins, but its always seems to be moving me in the right direction...its actually an amazing barometer for what is going on in your state at the time, the effect it has

also to mention I even remove all the tiniest stems before I smoke, they have a harsh smoke and spark up sometimes. It makes a big difference...and all cigs, and most roll your own or any tobacco has a lot of stem material in it and people just smoke it out of ignorance I guess

I believe you that there is a big difference between pure tobacco and cigarettes. But I didn't like second-hand pipe smoke either (though I have no idea what the quality was like) and I find more than a tiny trace of incense unpleasant too. I'll light a fire, but I dislike it when the smoke gets out into the room, or if outside, when a gust of wind blows it towards me. But that's me - doesn't prove that everyone is the same.

I imagine sweat lodges would be an occasional special occasion thing, not daily, right? That could be really different in effect from several-times-a-day-for-years smoking. I'm not in America, and only know a little about them, but I imagine there are a whole lot of other factors involved. I think some native American tribes had a really good grasp of the importance of maintaining CO2.

If you as a smoker come back to a room 5 minutes later, your nose may not detect what is obvious to a non-smoker, because you are used to it and carry the smell with you.

I suppose its a sensitive thing no doubt...its one of those things that id have a hard time recommending to someone else unless I knew the person and they would benefit from it. Like id never recommend it to an average 9 to 5 American or woman whod never used anything before, or doesn't really exhibit any desire for consciousness or spiritual growth...cause I know it can be intense. It takes a profound sense of respect and understanding of your body, and really for tobacco you kind of already have to be healthy to get the benefits from it, but its a teacher...hard to describe. I could liken it to like a hardass coach who comes in and points out and exaggerates everything wrong about your situation, and lights a fire under your **** to make it pure and optimum. I think its no coincidence that native americans had an immaculate environmental and record of harmony amongst each other, and were very kind to any new comers...if they regularly used tobacco it sort of forces you in time to become a better more humble yet strong and courageous in conviction person. Its taken me a long time of use to even really understand what the herb is exactly doing...even to this day people in mexico and south America still rever it like they always have...its the herb that directly connects the people to the great spirit (nature) and allows insight and prayers to be heard. Unlike cannabis though, tobacco is benvolant but fierce and exposing to weaknesses and flaws, which makes you a better person over time...and sometimes the feelings are pretty intense which is why I wouldn't recommend it to most people...I really think people should be commited and understand it and already be open minded...its kind of a shame how most people these days wouldn't even be able to understand step one. The thing is, if you aren't willing to admit faults or non optimal things youre doing, then you would not be able to benefit from tobacco, most people are like this...they carry ***t for years and never apologize or look at themselves...its always theyre fault, or this, or that, or DOCTOR, AUTHOR, TELL ME WHAT TO DO! GIVE ME A MAGIC PILL. If youre actually willing to accept that you can completely balance yourself, and its actually, for a large part, been you...that has been causing all the pain or imbalance, then you can start benefitting from tobacco. Its like that. I think having a good coach to help along the journey would be vitally helpful and important...I basically went at it alone but im a rare breed when it comes to things like this. Usually there was always elders, wise people, medicine men around who could dialog with people and expedite, help them hone in on things that are going on within them

4peatssake said:

Such_Saturation said:

RichardWhite said:

But where's that attitude got us? The calamitous state of people being convinced to consume low fat products, avoid fat at all costs, and indulge in sugar. On the quest for 'health'

Click to expand...

My man you need to meet with this guy: http://edwardjedmonds.com/

Click to expand...

I recommend this guy. http://raypeat.com/

Click to expand...

But Ray Peat doesn't smoke and high-fat

Such_Saturation said:

4peatssake said:

Such_Saturation said:

RichardWhite said:

But where's that attitude got us? The calamitous state of people being convinced to consume low fat products, avoid fat at all costs, and indulge in sugar. On the quest for 'health'

Click to expand...

My man you need to meet with this guy: http://edwardjedmonds.com/

Click to expand...

I recommend this guy. http://raypeat.com/

Click to expand...

But Ray Peat doesn't smoke and high-fat

Click to expand...

Ah but he sure does love sugar. :P

Great thread! Does anyone know what effect smoking has on blood sugar??

tara said:

My impression of smoking is that the nicotine itself may have some effects that can improve functioning in some ways, but that smoke inhalation itself is damaging.
Smoke (as far as I know, any smoke) contains known carcinogens.

Click to expand...

Hi Tara, interesting post and I'll try to address each point.

Nicotine has powerful effects on concentration and cognitive ability, so much so that smokers are not only able to perform better after a smoke, but better than non-smokers overall (individual exceptions occur, no doubt). The downside is when they are smokers but are deprived of a smoke, their cognitive ability becomes worse than a non-smoker.

Smoke does contain carcinogens, you're right. But it also contains anti-carcinogens. And, of course, the poison is the dose. What people are often surprised at is firstly that pretty much everything in cigarette smoke is already in our food and water, and also at just how minuscule the quantities are. I think the following extract from my book is particularly useful here:

"For example, water is also added as is, in certain brands, sugar and certain oils such as coriander. Secondly, whilst there are chemical additives, they make up a minute amount of the cigarette: most artificial chemicals and additives constitute 0.0001% of the cigarette. Given the size and weight of a cigarette, it is very obvious that 0.0001% amounts to practically nothing. To give a more accurate example, in the brand Marlboro Red there are 0.035 milligrams of flavourings – both natural and artificial – per cigarette. Smoking twenty cigarettes a day still only produces 0.7 mg, not even one thousandth of a gram. To put this into context, the Queen’s nose on a British coin weighs a gram, yet it is over a thousand times more than the natural and artificial flavourings present in a cigarette. Furthermore, there is not a single ingredient in tobacco products that is not approved for use, nor is there a single chemical or additive that we do not get from other sources including food and water. Ammonia, for example, is present in fertilisers"

The chapter also looks at specific chemicals - I did not cherry-pick these. Shortly before I wrote the book Cancer Research UK had a campaign looking at the five 'worst' ingredients in cigarettes, so I went with those. The first one was formaldehyde: "A cigarette, on average, delivers 20-90 micrograms in mainstream smoke and up to 700 micrograms in side stream smoke. However, space heaters and gas ranges release 20,000–40,000 micrograms per hour. Formaldehyde is also used extensively in wood finish, glue, fabric coating, insulation, and many other places. In mobile homes, concentrations have been measured in excess of 5,000 micrograms per cubic metre."

The main 'evil' we are told about smoking is that it causes lung cancer. Yet only around 10-15% of smokers contract lung cancer. Nowadays, with fewer smokers than before, non-smokers are contracting the disease more than smokers are - for decades the mantra of preventing and curing lung cancer is to stop smoking, and now swathes of people have been let down by the medical establishment because they've got a deadly disease and no idea how it happened.

tara said:

Carbon monoxide binds to haemoglobin in a way that blocks its ability to carry the O2 to tissues. Hypoxia can trigger a number of unhealthy processes in cells. Possibly a healthy body can adapt (hermetic effect) to some level of carbon monoxide by increasing haemoglobin, but it is a stress, and some bodies really don't need this kind of extra stress. As to the comparison with weight lifting, I imagine dose and timing would relevant - the adaptation occurs during restorative periods between the stresses. An occasional smoke is very different from chain smoking.

Click to expand...

Indeed it is, and the rule that moderation is key is no different with smoking. No one will deny, i'm sure, that water is not only good but utterly essential for us. It can still kill us if we consume too much. We know that nicotine has some wonderful properties, but it's still possible to overdose and experience nicotine poisoning. Chain smoking is excessive, and anything excessive is invariably bad.

CO and haemoglobin, you are not wrong in what you say. But does it immediately follow that it causes a problem? Not necessarily. Again, quantity is key. Firstly let's not forget that we can be exposed to CO without even knowing it, and it can be detected in people who simply live in polluted areas.

You mentioned going out before the smoking ban and being around smokers. We've all been there so we can relate to this. Did you ever see anyone die as a result of it? I never did. If you sat in a garage with a car running and the door shut you wouldn't take too long to die, yet hundreds of smokers can sit in an unventilated pub and remain alive. Maybe it stands to reason then that we're having more CO exposure by walking alongside a road than from tobacco? (Did you ever notice that a baby's pushchair puts their face almost perfectly level with exhaust pipes?)

We also have research showing beneficial properties of small amounts of CO. If I can again post an excerpt from my book:

"Researchers have recently discovered that small amounts of carbon monoxide appear to have a beneficial effect on the body which may help prevent brain damage following a stroke. The Bio-Medicine website states:
The Hopkins team found that low amounts of inhaled carbon monoxide reduced brain damage by as much as 62.2 percent in mice with strokes induced by briefly blocking an artery to one side of the brain. The researchers believe that CO can protect nerve cells from damage"

I think that CO is more of a theoretical harm from smoking - by which I mean, we know that CO can be lethal, and we know it's in cigarette smoke, ergo we can suffer ill effects from CO as a result of smoking. But I've not seen anything credible to support this. Given people have been known to smoke 100 cigarettes a day and not suffer anything close to carbon monoxide poisoning, I do wonder whether there's cause for concern for someone smoking 10 a day.

tara said:

I think I also read that in places where chewing tobacco is more common, mouth cancer is more common amongst people who use it - holding the wad in their mouth for long periods exposes them to something - I don't know if it is the tobacco or other additives that gives this effect.

Click to expand...

This is where anti-smokers want it all their own way - smoking is bad because of the heat and smoke, apparently. Yet chewing tobacco is also dangerous...

Personally, I don't know, I've not studied chewing tobacco. I know to be sceptical though, because we live in a time where smoking and anything that looks like smoking is to be banned. For many of the people behind that agenda, it's better to demonise the entire plant.

tara said:

For pregnant women, I have the impression that it is well established that babies born to mothers who smoked a lot during pregnancy have been smaller and weaker.

Click to expand...

Ah, this is a very popular argument! The quickest way to debunk it is to mention that in the 1950s, a huge portion of the population smoked. What happened? A baby boom! And it is that generation that is expected to live longer than any preceding generation.

I dedicated an entire chapter to the low birth weight argument. My conclusion was simply this: "It is a commonly held view that pregnant women should not smoke because smoking is a cause of low birth weight. Once again, though, this is based on statistics and the idea that correlation means causation. As has already been established, the majority of smokers are from the lower social classes and those groups of people tend to be unhealthy, largely as a result of eating food of poor nutritional value. It is also an established fact that poor nutrition can lead to underweight babies."

The correlation is also not as established as you may think:

"The NHS paper on low birth weight devotes a large section to smoking and its effects on birth weight. One of the first things it says is that 'Babies born to women who smoke weigh on average 200g less than babies born to non-smokers. The incidence of low birth weight is twice as high among smokers as non-smokers'"

"Counselling provided by trained counsellors, self-help manual and literature targeted for pregnant women. All studies measured smoking status by salivary or blood thiocyanate, cotinine validation or exhaled carbon monoxide. In other words, the researchers did not ask the participants how much they smoked, but they measured the amounts of carbon monoxide and cotinine in their body and then worked out the chance of low birth weight compared to how high the figures of the chemicals were. The problem here is that the levels may be there from another source; for example carbon monoxide may be there as a result of living in a built-up area with pollution, such as a town or city.... Furthermore, we are not told any other factors. For instance, we are ignorant to the diet of the participant, the lifestyle, stress levels, workload, genetic history etc., and all these things could well play a part."

Then the same paper supports my argument about socio-economic status (which I will come back to shortly):

"Smoking cessation in pregnancy is highly differentiated by socio-economic status, with women of lower education, income and employment status far more likely to continue smoking than women from higher SES groups (Graham and Der, 1999). Smoking in pregnancy is four times more prevalent among women in households in social class V than those in social class I."

"In 2001 Wanda Hamilton wrote an article about the evidence regarding maternal smoking and problems, such as premature birth and low birth weight. The results of two Annie E. Casey Foundation reports showed that between 1990 and 1998 the rates of premature birth, low birth weight and prenatal care were all rising, whilst the rates of smoking were decreasing. Somehow, all over America these results were used on the news to explain how smoking during pregnancy was a big risk factor and needed to be avoided. None of the newsreaders questioned the fact there was an inverse relationship between smoking and pregnancy complications. But that is just what the evidence shows: an inverse relationship: as smoking rates decline, pregnancy complications increase."

The chapter ended with this: "Whilst on the topic of smoking and pregnancy, the final word should come from Dr Richard L. Naeye, a leading obstetrical researcher who studied more than 58,000 pregnancies:
We recently found no significant association between maternal smoking and either stillbirths or neonatal deaths when information about the underlying disorders, obtained from placental examinations, was incorporated into the analyses. Similar analyses found no correlation between maternal smoking and preterm birth. The most frequent initiating causes of preterm birth, stillbirth, and neonatal death are acute chorioamnionitis, disorders that produce chronic low blood flow from the uterus to the placenta, and major congenital malformations. There is no credible evidence that cigarette smoking has a role in the genesis of any of these disorders."

Now, going back to socio-economic class. It is true to say that the lower classes have the highest rates of cigarette smokers (the higher classes have more pipe and cigar smokers), and there's an association with certain health issues. But, the lower social classes have higher rates of mortality from different places. Take this as an example:

"As expected, smokers appear worse off than non-smokers. A much higher proportion of non-smokers have a score of zero on the relative material hardship index, while smokers are more prevalent among those households with a score of three or more. The pattern for scores of one and two is more mixed. Approximately a third of all smoking lone parents are in severe hardship, nearly twice the figure for non-smokers."

"So, there is no denying that smokers are most prevalent in the lower classes, and it is no secret; nor is there a shortage of evidence to show that those in the lower classes have worse health than those in higher classes. For instance, a 1991 Canadian study showed that people with a high social status had a 1.9% chance of suffering a major psychological depression; people in a medium social class had a 4.5% chance, and people in the lowest social classes had a 12.4% chance. Furthermore, a 1990 study found relationships between smoking and levels of education in America" [with lesser educated people smoking more cigarettes]

Therein lies the problem with almost all conclusions about smoking: they look at statistics and draw the conclusion they want to. The reality is there are numerous other factors that play a part.

tara said:

Whatever the risk/benefit ratio for a particular smoker, I think that passive smoking by bystanders is all downsides with no positives, so responsible smokers will not smoke in enclosed places where other people have to live with it. When I was young, my parents smoked. It was horrible - especially in the car. I still find passive smoking extremely unpleasant, and am pleased that it is now possible to got out for a meal or a dance etc and not be overwhelmed, and not come home with clothes stinking out the house. I know many other non-smokers who feel the same. And I know a number of people who go outside when they smoke.

Click to expand...

I don't think I know anyone who smokes indoors now. In their car, yes, but not their house. Many would agree with you that secondhand smoke can be unpleasant, especially in a confined place like a car with no windows open.

And you are right that there aren't any positives from secondhand smoke. But that does not mean people should worry about it - around 85% of studies on it have found it to have no statistically significant impact on health, and the remaining 15% showed a low or inconclusive risk. In case you didn't see it, I posted this link earlier in the thread about what SHS actually is: http://www.smokescreens.org/220808-the- ... and-smoke/

tara said:

My guess is that young people in general would be much better off supporting good brain function with good nutrition, and avoiding the down sides of smoking. I am very much in favour of measures to discourage young people from taking up smoking, and to discourage people from smoking inside and in cars, especially round children, and to provide useful support for people who want to quit.

Click to expand...

Good nutrition is essential, but there are undeniable elements of smoking. Smoking is the single biggest factor in reducing the risk of Parkinson's and Alzheimers. A large number of schizophrenics smoke because it's a form of self-medication. There have also been studies showing protection against lung cancer, with the consensus being what I mentioned before about the cough, where the mucous layer helps protect against carcinogenic particles penetrating the lung. (This has been borne out in deliberate and accidental studies with mice and dogs.)

"Another interesting benefit of smoking appears to be that osteoarthritis is reduced threefold in smokers. A study conducted by A. Samanta et al, published in the Oxford Journals, looked at whether osteoarthritis in women is affected by hormone levels or smoking and concluded that the “study demonstrates no association between oestrogen-related hormonal events and OA, but a negative association between smoking and LJOA” (LJOA being large joint osteoarthritis).
Yet another apparent benefit is the internal antioxidant SOD (superoxide dismutase) is doubled in smokers, and a recent article labels the higher SOD “the elixir of eternal life” based on animal experiments. Apparently SODs mop up free radicals which are linked with ageing."

I'm sure you're already aware of MAOI B, which is used in the treatment of Parkinson's and Alzheimers. There is research showing smokers in their sixties having MAOI B enzyme levels the same as people in their twenties.

There's also glutathione, the body's metal detoxifier and antioxidant. A study found that cigarette smokers had 80% higher levels than non-smokers.

"It is also known that smoking doubles the levels of the vital detox enzyme catalyse which neutralises alcohol, cyanide, formaldehyde and toxic metals. The study examined the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalyse (CAT), and glutathione peroxidase (GSHPx), in alveolar macrophages (AM) from cigarette smokers and from smoke-exposed hamsters. They found that 'the activities of SOD and CAT from AM of smokers and smoke-exposed hamsters were twice that found in control subjects (p less than 0.01).'"

Numerous animal studies have also shown that the smoking groups outlive the non-smoking groups (even when genetically bred to develop cancer), do not gain weight so much, and are more cognitively alert.

The point here is that net positives from smoking far exceed nicotine improving concentration, and the vast disproportion between smokers and non-smokers goes a long way to suggest that the gap can't be closed just by eating better.

Tobacco has been revered as a medical plant for millennia - maybe there's good reason for that.

RichardWhite said:

Nicotine has powerful effects on concentration and cognitive ability, so much so that smokers are not only able to perform better after a smoke, but better than non-smokers overall (individual exceptions occur, no doubt). The downside is when they are smokers but are deprived of a smoke, their cognitive ability becomes worse than a non-smoker.

Click to expand...

Hi Richard, do you have an opinion on the other alleged side effects of smoking/nicotine such as skin wrinkling and poor bone healing (due to nicotine)? I don't think skin promoting wrinkling occurs for everyone, from what I see around me, however it seems to do it for some. The bone healing side effects seems to point to something fundamentally bad.

jyb said:

RichardWhite said:

Nicotine has powerful effects on concentration and cognitive ability, so much so that smokers are not only able to perform better after a smoke, but better than non-smokers overall (individual exceptions occur, no doubt). The downside is when they are smokers but are deprived of a smoke, their cognitive ability becomes worse than a non-smoker.

Click to expand...

Hi Richard, do you have an opinion on the other alleged side effects of smoking/nicotine such as skin wrinkling and poor bone healing (due to nicotine)? I don't think skin promoting wrinkling occurs for everyone, from what I see around me, however it seems to do it for some. The bone healing side effects seems to point to something fundamentally bad.

Click to expand...

Some of the most youthful looking people I have ever seen have been smokers. One of the consistent points in my book is that cigarette smokers are much more prevalent in the lower classes, which is a group of people that is not financially well off, and tends to have poorer lifestyle choices and overall higher rates of illness (including depression and suicide), worse nutrition and lower age of death. Rate of aging has been linked in particular to things like how well we are hydrated and the food we eat. So if we eat a good diet rich in nutrients, and drink water, our skin is much more likely to look better. If we live off grease and fast food, caffeinated or carbonated drinks and are stressed, we are likely to age much faster.

I have not seen anything about bone healing, although suspect the above factors would play a significant role. What does spring to mind though is how we are also told smokers recover from cuts and surgeries slower than non-smokers. Actually, studies repeatedly show smokers often heal quicker - not just quicker than non-smokers, but quicker than the average recovery time in general. So just because you've heard that smokers' bones heal slower, doesn't mean they actually do

RichardWhite said:

I have not seen anything about bone healing, although suspect the above factors would play a significant role. What does spring to mind though is how we are also told smokers recover from cuts and surgeries slower than non-smokers. Actually, studies repeatedly show smokers often heal quicker - not just quicker than non-smokers, but quicker than the average recovery time in general. So just because you've heard that smokers' bones heal slower, doesn't mean they actually do

Click to expand...

No, on the point of bone healing I've read studies and not just population studies. There is work specifically trying to understand on why nicotine interfere with healing. It seems to damage the cells required for the healing. So I take your point on the limitations of population studies in general especially for smoking for the reasons you mentioned, but in this case I believe you're overlooking if you dismiss it for the same reasons.

jyb said:

RichardWhite said:

I have not seen anything about bone healing, although suspect the above factors would play a significant role. What does spring to mind though is how we are also told smokers recover from cuts and surgeries slower than non-smokers. Actually, studies repeatedly show smokers often heal quicker - not just quicker than non-smokers, but quicker than the average recovery time in general. So just because you've heard that smokers' bones heal slower, doesn't mean they actually do

Click to expand...

No, on the point of bone healing I've read studies and not just population studies. There is work specifically trying to understand on why nicotine interfere with healing. It seems to damage the cells required for the healing. So I take your point on the limitations of population studies in general especially for smoking for the reasons you mentioned, but in this case I believe you're overlooking if you dismiss it for the same reasons.

Click to expand...

That's interesting, do you have links to the studies? If they are true it would be surprising because it has been well documented that nicotine aids in the growth of new blood cells, aiding recovery.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?ter ... e+nonunion

Growth of new blood cells or vessels can be very ominous. Ray has written about this in the contexts of ageing, oestrogen and heavy metals.