Just How Dangerous Is Smoking Really?

RichardWhite

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
22
jyb said:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=nicotine+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.

Sorry for my delayed response here, limited Internet access and migrating to a new computer has made it difficult.

As for the topic at hand it's not something I have specifically looked into. I went to Nightlight about it (the theoretical physicist mentioned within the book), who replied with the following:

"I haven't looked before into this aspect. But going over references, the usual junk science finds better outcomes in non-smokers. But these are entirely different populations, especially in recent years under intense antismoking pressures and abuses of smokers.

Of the hard science, there are couple papers (#3 and #8) fundamental research into the effects of nicotine on the bone repair pathways and these show "biphasic" effects -- at very high dose (> 1 mmol/L) negative effect, while at 100-10,000 times lower doses (0.01-10 micromol/L; human smokers have levels well below 1 micromol/L, typically 0.1 mmol/L) there is a stimulating effect on bone healing -- see paper #8: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11425648 . Similar conclusion is reached in the paper #3 (full text online): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167453/

Of hard science, there are also 3 experimental papers on rabbits, which show negative effects, albeit using very high dose of nicotine, e.g. human quantity of 10 mg applied to rabbits which are 50-100 times lighter than humans). Obviously they tuned the experiments to the high dose/negative phase to get the desired results. There is also no real tobacco smoke (with its richer and more harmonious effects and cyclic delivery) results which suggests that those experiments went the "wrong" way.

TYPO: "(0.01-10 micromol/L; human smokers have levels well below 1 micromol/L, typically 0.1 mmol/L)"

should have the last units 0.1 mmol/L as 0.1 micromol/L. See here for dosing reference: http://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/groups/ws ... ta2006.pdf"
 

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,783
Location
UK
RichardWhite said:
Of the hard science, there are couple papers (#3 and #8) fundamental research into the effects of nicotine on the bone repair pathways and these show "biphasic" effects -- at very high dose (> 1 mmol/L) negative effect, while at 100-10,000 times lower doses (0.01-10 micromol/L; human smokers have levels well below 1 micromol/L, typically 0.1 mmol/L) there is a stimulating effect on bone healing -- see paper #8: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11425648 . Similar conclusion is reached in the paper #3 (full text online): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167453/

Of hard science, there are also 3 experimental papers on rabbits, which show negative effects, albeit using very high dose of nicotine, e.g. human quantity of 10 mg applied to rabbits which are 50-100 times lighter than humans). Obviously they tuned the experiments to the high dose/negative phase to get the desired results. There is also no real tobacco smoke (with its richer and more harmonious effects and cyclic delivery) results which suggests that those experiments went the "wrong" way.

TYPO: "(0.01-10 micromol/L; human smokers have levels well below 1 micromol/L, typically 0.1 mmol/L)"

should have the last units 0.1 mmol/L as 0.1 micromol/L. See here for dosing reference: http://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/groups/ws ... ta2006.pdf"

That made me rethink. I hadn't checked that the dose they used on rabbits were legit. The no effects or positive effects at low dose seen sometimes might be comparable to nicotine from smoking. Although the population studies have their limitations...the effects seemed so significant that I couldn't discard them so quickly.
 

RichardWhite

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
22
jyb said:
RichardWhite said:
Of the hard science, there are couple papers (#3 and #8) fundamental research into the effects of nicotine on the bone repair pathways and these show "biphasic" effects -- at very high dose (> 1 mmol/L) negative effect, while at 100-10,000 times lower doses (0.01-10 micromol/L; human smokers have levels well below 1 micromol/L, typically 0.1 mmol/L) there is a stimulating effect on bone healing -- see paper #8: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11425648 . Similar conclusion is reached in the paper #3 (full text online): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167453/

Of hard science, there are also 3 experimental papers on rabbits, which show negative effects, albeit using very high dose of nicotine, e.g. human quantity of 10 mg applied to rabbits which are 50-100 times lighter than humans). Obviously they tuned the experiments to the high dose/negative phase to get the desired results. There is also no real tobacco smoke (with its richer and more harmonious effects and cyclic delivery) results which suggests that those experiments went the "wrong" way.

TYPO: "(0.01-10 micromol/L; human smokers have levels well below 1 micromol/L, typically 0.1 mmol/L)"

should have the last units 0.1 mmol/L as 0.1 micromol/L. See here for dosing reference: http://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/groups/ws ... ta2006.pdf"

That made me rethink. I hadn't checked that the dose they used on rabbits were legit. The no effects or positive effects at low dose seen sometimes might be comparable to nicotine from smoking. Although the population studies have their limitations...the effects seemed so significant that I couldn't discard them so quickly.

A lot of the studies look quite good at first glance. They had to get quite clever with animal studies though, because for decades they consistently showed beneficial effects of smoking (this has been conceded in court cases too - not necessarily benefits, but certainly that incidence of harm has failed to be shown). Non-smoking animals lived longer, had improved cognitive function and were trimmer as well. In more recent years studies have shown cancer in animals in smoking studies, but the finer details tell us that these are animals specifically bred to be prone to cancers, so the incidence of it is not unusual. And even in these studies, the smoking ones often outlive the non-smoking ones.

In the past they have 'extracted' tar, then painted it onto the skin of mice. When they developed cancer that apparently showed smoking is dangerous - despite, of course, smoke not being involved.
 

Zachs

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
593
Richard, thanks for stopping by and chatting with us! Its great when an auther is not to busy to discuss his work with the common folk.

I have not yet read your book but plan to soon as it is something i have thought about for a few years and have read anecdotal stories of medicinal properties, from oldtime strongmen/olympic weightlifters swearing to tobacco upping testosterone to doctors using it to ward off the plague to the Native Americans and their robustness. Its a very interesting topic!

I read in your about page that you have been interested in many areas of health. I have to ask, have you heard of Ray Peat and read an of his work? Do you follow a certain style of eating?
 

mt_dreams

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
620
This is one of my favorite debate topics, I just love the supplemental info provided by the author. A couple of negatives would be that inhaling through the mouth does not give the body a chance to do what it was meant to do through the nose. Tobacco is one of the most heavily sprayed crops, if not the most. Why inhale the pesticide residue along with the minute amounts of poisons, when a better alternative would be to just inhale organic tobacco? Even though these poisons are present everywhere in modern life, if your breathing properly, you will not be inhaling them life you would be at high temp through your mouth.

that being said, things like indoor air/ conditioned air, exhaust, aluminum falling from the sky, high concentrations of iron and arsenic front things grown in China, chlorine vapor from showers, etc, are all doing much more damage to your respatory health than smoking a couple of cigarettes to an otherwise healthy lifestyle.

I started smoking in university, and have enjoyed an evening tobacco hit ever since. Back when I first started the habit, it was not in situations like clubs or bars as many females were turned off by the smell of my mouth & hands, rather I would smoke in relaxed situations with friends or when I was in contemplation mode. Pipe and hookah are my preferred choices do to the fact that it makes the smoke an event rather than a break.

seeing as productivity is king in this world, it's no surprise that caffeine is the preferred choice of stimulant for our society when compared to the break inducing effects of
meeting up to smoke a cigarette
 

RichardWhite

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
22
Zachs said:
Richard, thanks for stopping by and chatting with us! Its great when an auther is not to busy to discuss his work with the common folk.

I have not yet read your book but plan to soon as it is something i have thought about for a few years and have read anecdotal stories of medicinal properties, from oldtime strongmen/olympic weightlifters swearing to tobacco upping testosterone to doctors using it to ward off the plague to the Native Americans and their robustness. Its a very interesting topic!

I read in your about page that you have been interested in many areas of health. I have to ask, have you heard of Ray Peat and read an of his work? Do you follow a certain style of eating?

Thanks Zachs.

Ray Peat is new to me, I found this forum as it appeared in my website analytics as a referral. Do you recommend a starting point for his work?

As for eating, a few years before I wrote the book I discovered the work of Drs Otto Warburg and Johanna Ludwig. That prompted me to essentially eliminate sugary drinks (excluding a splash of coke with a spirit of course!) and processed foods from my diet for a while, but that didn't last forever. I still try to limit that as much as I can though, but recently have been trying Paleo for evening meals.
 

RichardWhite

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
22
mt_dreams said:
This is one of my favorite debate topics, I just love the supplemental info provided by the author. A couple of negatives would be that inhaling through the mouth does not give the body a chance to do what it was meant to do through the nose. Tobacco is one of the most heavily sprayed crops, if not the most. Why inhale the pesticide residue along with the minute amounts of poisons, when a better alternative would be to just inhale organic tobacco? Even though these poisons are present everywhere in modern life, if your breathing properly, you will not be inhaling them life you would be at high temp through your mouth.

that being said, things like indoor air/ conditioned air, exhaust, aluminum falling from the sky, high concentrations of iron and arsenic front things grown in China, chlorine vapor from showers, etc, are all doing much more damage to your respatory health than smoking a couple of cigarettes to an otherwise healthy lifestyle.

I started smoking in university, and have enjoyed an evening tobacco hit ever since. Back when I first started the habit, it was not in situations like clubs or bars as many females were turned off by the smell of my mouth & hands, rather I would smoke in relaxed situations with friends or when I was in contemplation mode. Pipe and hookah are my preferred choices do to the fact that it makes the smoke an event rather than a break.

seeing as productivity is king in this world, it's no surprise that caffeine is the preferred choice of stimulant for our society when compared to the break inducing effects of
meeting up to smoke a cigarette

A smoke being an event rather than a break is an excellent description. This is how tobacco has been traditionally enjoyed too. I find cigarette smokers are infinitely more affected by anti-smoking messages and so quickly state that they know it's not good for them but they're addicted, whereas pipe and cigar (and indeed hookah and cannabis) smokers tend to appreciate the fullness of it, the ritual. Occasionally I read pipe smoking blogs and it's mentioned frequently on there how smoking provides time to reflect, contemplate, have some peace away from the hectic pace of life (which is more so now than ever).
 

Zachs

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
593
RichardWhite said:
Zachs said:
Richard, thanks for stopping by and chatting with us! Its great when an auther is not to busy to discuss his work with the common folk.

I have not yet read your book but plan to soon as it is something i have thought about for a few years and have read anecdotal stories of medicinal properties, from oldtime strongmen/olympic weightlifters swearing to tobacco upping testosterone to doctors using it to ward off the plague to the Native Americans and their robustness. Its a very interesting topic!

I read in your about page that you have been interested in many areas of health. I have to ask, have you heard of Ray Peat and read an of his work? Do you follow a certain style of eating?

Thanks Zachs.

Ray Peat is new to me, I found this forum as it appeared in my website analytics as a referral. Do you recommend a starting point for his work?

As for eating, a few years before I wrote the book I discovered the work of Drs Otto Warburg and Johanna Ludwig. That prompted me to essentially eliminate sugary drinks (excluding a splash of coke with a spirit of course!) and processed foods from my diet for a while, but that didn't last forever. I still try to limit that as much as I can though, but recently have been trying Paleo for evening meals.

The best place to start is his website. Raypeat.com

A few of his most popular articles...
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/un ... fats.shtml
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/caffeine.shtml
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/vegetables.shtml

His work is really fascinating and goes against the grain of most conventional wisdom. He focuses primarily on health through youth hormones and optimizing metabolism. A lot of work on estrogen, co2, thyroid, pufa, sugar, calcium, progesterone, etc. also he is prettyanti government and thought policing so i think you will like his style.
 

NotSoAlpha

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
30
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.

Hi RichardWhite.

This is interesting that you say this - I've noticed myself, as a non-smoker, that I get very focused after a few of puffs of tobacco. More than a few puffs makes me a bit spun out though.

What do you think of E-Cigs? You get the nicotine without all the other ***t. Surely this is the superior way to get the nicotine fix rather than inhaling burnt plant matter?
 

answersfound

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Messages
991
Age
31
smoking organic tobacco makes me feel great. however, i don't do it often because i don't want a hoarse, raspy voice....i've been thinking about getting one of these vaporizers:

https://www.ploom.com/pax
 

RichardWhite

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
22
NotSoAlpha 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.

Hi RichardWhite.

This is interesting that you say this - I've noticed myself, as a non-smoker, that I get very focused after a few of puffs of tobacco. More than a few puffs makes me a bit spun out though.

What do you think of E-Cigs? You get the nicotine without all the other s***. Surely this is the superior way to get the nicotine fix rather than inhaling burnt plant matter?

That would certainly be a logical assumption, but the research has consistently shown that nicotine is not the key aspect of smoke. That's confused researchers for a long time, because it was a case of finding out what was causing the benefits. Tobacco smoke has a number of properties, including anti-carcinogens and MAOI B inhibitors, which is also present in Parkinson's drugs. Something in smoke helps schizophrenics self medicate. The pH helps to soothe a sore throat (in some/many instances). There's a long list of net benefits of tobacco smoke, and the pharmaceutical industry is investing a *lot* of money trying to mimic this in drugs. So while I see a definite benefit of e-cigarettes for anyone trying to stop smoking, I disagree that have the good things of smoke while eliminating the bad.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
What about heating tobacco extract in a cigarette-shaped vaporizer?
 

RichardWhite

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
22
Such_Saturation said:

This 'article' (IFLS is becoming increasingly irritating) appeared in my Facebook feed the other day. I read the headline and decided it wasn't worth opening the link - after a while you start to already know what's going to be said.

But I've just read it now, and I don't think it's convincing. I'll try to read the actual study at some point, but on the article itself, why include 48 year olds with 93 year olds? That's an old trick the anti-smokers have used, lumping one group in with another to muddy the results. It's been used time and again to show smoking bans have no effect on bars (by including restaurants in the data), and it was how they said smokers die in middle age - they took middle age right up to mid-late 60s! So in this instance, if you're studying chromosomes, it's pretty obvious from the outset that a 93 year old man isn't going to be comparable to a 50 year old man, or a 40, 30, or 20 year old man. But if you lump them all together, the degenerative effects of age will impact on the younger participants.

I'm also reminded of a point I made in the chapter about heart disease - researchers are already biased in deciding which risk factors to study. This one looked at the usual suspects of exercise, smoking, alcohol and diabetes, but what about other things? If smoking is a risk, so too is pollution. How about stress? Genetics? Hormone levels? In this study, it only happened in smokers over the age of 70!

When I was researching the book, I found a paper showing a chart of lung cancer incidence for different smokers based on how much they smoked. Those who smoked 10 or fewer a day had lower incidence than non-smokers. The rates then increased with the amount smoked. This was in one of the Surgeon General reports. Isn't it funny that after that, smokers of 10 a day stopped appearing in tables? These days it's generally 'light' 'medium' and 'heavy'. Lump 'em all in, and the details are erased...
 

RichardWhite

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
22
Such_Saturation said:
What about heating tobacco extract in a cigarette-shaped vaporizer?

Heating rather than burning is an interesting topic, and is how smoking shisha differs to cigarettes. I don't know a great deal about it, but you may want to check out jredheadgirl blog, Juliette knows a ton about harm-reduction including vaporisers etc.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
RichardWhite said:
Such_Saturation said:

This 'article' (IFLS is becoming increasingly irritating) appeared in my Facebook feed the other day. I read the headline and decided it wasn't worth opening the link - after a while you start to already know what's going to be said.

But I've just read it now, and I don't think it's convincing. I'll try to read the actual study at some point, but on the article itself, why include 48 year olds with 93 year olds? That's an old trick the anti-smokers have used, lumping one group in with another to muddy the results. It's been used time and again to show smoking bans have no effect on bars (by including restaurants in the data), and it was how they said smokers die in middle age - they took middle age right up to mid-late 60s! So in this instance, if you're studying chromosomes, it's pretty obvious from the outset that a 93 year old man isn't going to be comparable to a 50 year old man, or a 40, 30, or 20 year old man. But if you lump them all together, the degenerative effects of age will impact on the younger participants.

I'm also reminded of a point I made in the chapter about heart disease - researchers are already biased in deciding which risk factors to study. This one looked at the usual suspects of exercise, smoking, alcohol and diabetes, but what about other things? If smoking is a risk, so too is pollution. How about stress? Genetics? Hormone levels? In this study, it only happened in smokers over the age of 70!

When I was researching the book, I found a paper showing a chart of lung cancer incidence for different smokers based on how much they smoked. Those who smoked 10 or fewer a day had lower incidence than non-smokers. The rates then increased with the amount smoked. This was in one of the Surgeon General reports. Isn't it funny that after that, smokers of 10 a day stopped appearing in tables? These days it's generally 'light' 'medium' and 'heavy'. Lump 'em all in, and the details are erased...

I agree that website really tries your patience!
 

RichardWhite

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
22
Such_Saturation said:
RichardWhite said:
Such_Saturation said:

This 'article' (IFLS is becoming increasingly irritating) appeared in my Facebook feed the other day. I read the headline and decided it wasn't worth opening the link - after a while you start to already know what's going to be said.

But I've just read it now, and I don't think it's convincing. I'll try to read the actual study at some point, but on the article itself, why include 48 year olds with 93 year olds? That's an old trick the anti-smokers have used, lumping one group in with another to muddy the results. It's been used time and again to show smoking bans have no effect on bars (by including restaurants in the data), and it was how they said smokers die in middle age - they took middle age right up to mid-late 60s! So in this instance, if you're studying chromosomes, it's pretty obvious from the outset that a 93 year old man isn't going to be comparable to a 50 year old man, or a 40, 30, or 20 year old man. But if you lump them all together, the degenerative effects of age will impact on the younger participants.

I'm also reminded of a point I made in the chapter about heart disease - researchers are already biased in deciding which risk factors to study. This one looked at the usual suspects of exercise, smoking, alcohol and diabetes, but what about other things? If smoking is a risk, so too is pollution. How about stress? Genetics? Hormone levels? In this study, it only happened in smokers over the age of 70!

When I was researching the book, I found a paper showing a chart of lung cancer incidence for different smokers based on how much they smoked. Those who smoked 10 or fewer a day had lower incidence than non-smokers. The rates then increased with the amount smoked. This was in one of the Surgeon General reports. Isn't it funny that after that, smokers of 10 a day stopped appearing in tables? These days it's generally 'light' 'medium' and 'heavy'. Lump 'em all in, and the details are erased...



I agree that website really tries your patience!

:lol:

I've just read their write-up of the guy that tried to get eaten by an anaconda. Apparently non-venomous snakes have fangs now :roll:

I have found them to be not so much scientific, as someone/people who share any new paper. They never seem to post studies, or their own interpretations of them. And they're never objective - they're evidently anti-smoking and extremely anti-anti-vaccinators. I think people that run a science page should be somewhat more objective, personally.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
The problem is, they exploit this newfound fascination with science (something many have died to achieve) to get clicks and to promote the corporate views by pushing catchy stuff on genetics, etc. that journals like Nature so often feature.
 

RichardWhite

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
22
Spokey said:
RichardWhite said:
Such_Saturation said:
(IFLS is becoming increasingly irritating)

I'm glad it's not just me who thinks so. Popsci in general can get pretty grating, but IFLS has taken it to an all new level. It's tone is so shrill now, reading their headlines is like taking a slug of vinegar.


Such_Saturation said:
The problem is, they exploit this newfound fascination with science (something many have died to achieve) to get clicks and to promote the corporate views by pushing catchy stuff on genetics, etc. that journals like Nature so often feature.

I agree entirely. Just another preachy page, and the problem these days is that people often have a view that 'science' is always correct. When a page like IFLS posts something, many people immediately believe it, without giving a consideration to reading the original study before making a judgement. That's why I find it so frustrating when they post these articles about how e-cigs are "worse than smoking" or other clickbait nonsense.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom