Just How Dangerous Is Smoking Really?

wiggles92

Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
68
I smoke rather casually. It might be because I simply enjoy the effects, or perhaps because I'm addicted, it's difficult to tell. Also don't think I'm *that guy*, who gets carried away with debunked theories to defend a nasty habit, like smoking is seen as. I'm naturally much more objective than most of the people I hang around- finding the real, undisputed truth about a topic is, for me, very engaging and interesting. I hate being ignorant.

I bring this topic up on the Ray Peat forum, as you guys, more than most, seem to understand that the mainstream understanding of a topic is often dumbed-down, or focusing on the wrong things, or, worst of all, simply fraudulent. For example, justifying no sat. fat./sugar/red meat, based on epi. data that is inevitably confounded by lifestyle and researcher bias. Bad research piles on bad research, very often leading to detection bias. In short, humans as a whole species can get things terribly wrong, and you guys know it.

I've recently been reading Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco. You can purchase this for Kindle pretty cheap. Even if you have little personal vested interest in the topic, I've found the book enlightening in a similar way to a lot of Peats information.

The author does a breakdown of what is actually in a cigarette, in the same way Peat actually explains what is going on when you eat certain foods. A lot of the so-called dangerous chems in cigarette smoke are found in much higher quantities near cars etc. or just from simply living. Smoking cigarettes also seem to have many anti-carcinogenic compounds. Furthermore, coffee has a great deal of chemicals, many known carcinogens, in larger quantities than in cigarettes. This is a more nuanced view than I had previously been exposed to.

He then explains that, from 60 YEARS of research on giving animals cigarette smoke, no link between smoking frequency and cancer of any kind has been found. In fact, even in rats bred to contract cancers of all kinds, the rats live longer than the non-smoking ones, stay leaner and contract common smoking caused cancers (lung cancer), less than the non-smoking ones. I'll repeat. No mechanism for causing cancer has been found in cigarette smoke.

He then looks at the epidemiological studies used to demonstrate the links between smoking and the various cancers. The China Study was used to promote some pretty shitty foods, as the data can be somewhat cherry picked. This has been essentially debunked, mainly by Denise Minger. I just bring this up as an example of the way in which epidemiological information can be highly manipulated, and is no real substitute for hard science. Anyways, in Smoke Screens, the author looks at the various studies, shows what seems like serious faults in the interpretation of the data, in a similar vein to red meat kills etc. In short, lots of detection bias and huge amounts of lifestyle confounding (smokers generally don't care too much about their health/smokers often used the habit as a way to alleviate a lifetime of constant stress, which, as we know, as a killer).

I would also bring up the topic of tribes such as the Kitavans, or the Inuits. They smoke quite a lot, it seems, and have no known incidence of the degenerative conditions associated with smoking. True, they do not have the sophisticated diagnosis understanding modern medicine does, but this still seems rather odd.

I could go into more detail, but I'll leave it there for now. I've very open minded to this topic, and I hope you will be too. At first it seems ridiculous that inhaling combusted plant matter deep into your lungs could be anything but unhealthy. After being exposed to the opposite point of view with regards to this topic I'm starting to waver a little.

This conflict with the mainstream view hurts my brain a lot more than diet did. Very confused.

Edit: found this link, gives you a bit of an idea to what I've been reading

http://www.smokescreens.org/introduction/
 

Peater

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
2,632
Location
Here
I read it a while ago and found it mostly plausible apart from a section that mentioned smoker's cough not being harmful but a beneficial act that rids the body of toxins.

I've met enough old smokers to know that's just bunk. (That said - they were old, at least! In their 70's)
 

pboy

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
1,681
wiggles, I don't have the science to share but I think you can still find my experience valuable. Ive been smoking since like...18? maybe 8 years or so, so I think I can offer some insight. Ive been highly dedicated to health, life, wisdom, history, culture...a lot of stuff, full on for the past while, so naturally ive had to question smoking and do a lot of research and experimenting. At first when id party of just hang with friends, id smoke everything...cigs, hookah, cigars...whatever. After a few years, when I started caring about health, I noticed immediately that the cigs were a major lung offender, throat moreso. Same thing with joints or blunts. So I stopped smoking tobacco, thinking it was just its nature...still having a hint of mainstream dogma in me. I kept smoking bud though, just from a pipe. So maybe a year later after no tobacco, id really elevated my health and understanding of the body, spirit, nature...to such a profound degree I was almost a new person, really just the real version of me. Id always been fascinated with native American culture, and I was really into herbalism at the time. You'll find that tobacco was one of the most, if not most, prized herbs of all the natives from south to north America, and they never attributed any illness to it, and never got ill themselves. Id been using some pretty powerful and exotic herbs, and knew a lot about herbalism...the essence of it, so it really surprised me, considering how knowledgeable and cultured the native americans were, that theyd rank and value tobacco so highly. It struck me immediately, because at the time id realized how tainted the normal food supply, water supply, was, all the chemicals, and had been living clean and preparing all organic fresh food. So I thought, well...they were smoking non fermented, pure, organic, sun dried tobacco...and not with a butane lighter, and not out of chemical bleached paper, and not with burn agents, articial flavors and colors, and reconstituted tobacco stems with glue. At first I bought a decent central American cigar, assuming it cleaner, at least its pure tobacco, than what id been smoking. I crushed some of it up and smoked it out of a pipe...and realized how much different and cleaner it was than a cigarette...but I was still concerned it might not be entirely pure. Id wake up consistently normal without any throat or lung irritation. My friends would sometimes come by and still be smoking joints and blunts, id occasionally partake, and would notice the next day, even that night, a charred scratchy throat feeling. So it was obvious to me that the tobacco itself wasnt the problem, but all the other ***t that comes with it. After a time, I just started buying organic sun dried tobacco in a pouch, which is what I still use today, and only smoke it out of a pipe...just a little at once. Even if I smoke every hour all day, its still total the amount in maybe 2 cigarettes. And I never wake up with any throat of lung anything...like in some ways, im pretty certain, it actually clears mucus from the whole lung/nasal passage. I breath extremely deep and easy these days, and ive been using tobacco and cannabis for 4-5 years now nearly every day, at least one of them. In the old literature, and even in native American culture, tobacco was used as a major cleanser, for many bodily areas, and was used in many ways. Its a known expectorant, which is why it used to be prescribed for asthma. A few years ago I ditched the butane lighter also...it actually makes a noticeable cleaner difference, and butane burns at like 800+ degrees. I use hemp twine wick that I lightly coat in oil, usually just purified white palm oil cause its mostly saturated and doesn't have any odor or go bad or anything. Oil burns only at like 400 degrees max so its also not as hot when you take in the smoke. I consider both of these smoking herbs major health and spiritual tools. You just have to respect them and use properly like you would any other food or anything youre intaking. This is even a shortened down version, I could speak hours, days, on this subject!
 

Zachs

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
593
I hand roll organic tobacco with hemp papers, only smoke a few grams a day at most. I also believe that it is healthy, especially for keeping the airways clean and it seems kind of antibacterial/viral in that nature. It also has some positive hormonal properties i believe. Overall i feel good, its a major dopamine release, helps with digestion and does not cause any issues with cardio health.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
Apparently the radioactive elements can "be removed by acid-washing the plants". There are one too many variables to answer the question in the title.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
201
Pboy, I would love to get more info on the brand of tobacco you use, what you smoke it out of, and how to set up/ aquired things needed for a oil burning hemp wick.

I used american dip for years and smoked cigs when drinking. In a way they made my health better and i enjoyed tobacco greatly. However i think the nasty stuff in the general tobacco products i used were making me feel sick. I quit 2.5 years ago and i still crave tobacco. It was hard as hell to quit but honestly i think i do better using it. Im thinking about giving the organic, pure tobacco a try.

Has anyone thought about using swedish snus? Some brands don't hardly have any ingredients and in sweden, snus is treated like a food product. The ingredients also have to be food grade. It has significantly less carcinogens than both cigarettes and american dip because of the way snus is cured.
 

Curt :-)

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2013
Messages
185
Very interesting topic. I was just about to start a thread asking this question.

I've been smoking a little bit lately. Half a cigarette at a time. It's a pleasant little ritual, and feels as though it's a good thing for my body (at least at this point, and in these small amounts).

I wish we could get clearer answers on topics such as this. Financial interests do the word such a disservice.
 

BingDing

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
976
Location
Tennessee, USA
No, smoking cigarettes isn't dangerous at all. :roll: In fact, it's healthy. :roll: It's a hormesis thing, dealing with the low oxygen supply to the brain from the CO, the toxic NO, the many carcinogens, mutagens, excitotoxins, as well as the precusrsors to those, will make you stronger. :roll:

Dump out an ashtray and rub your thumb across the black ***t on the bottom of it. That's what is coating your lungs when you smoke cigarettes.

COPD used to be called emphysema, they call it when your lungs can't transfer enough oxygen to your blood to sustain life. My grandpa died of it when he was 72. He smoked his whole adult life, you think that is a coincidence?

So smoke a pack a day for forty years, and you will be as healthy as if you were 18 YO again. :roll:
 

RichardWhite

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
22
Hi all, I'm the author of this book and found this discussion through the referrals part of the website. This is, so far (!), probably the most civilised discussion around smoking I have seen on a forum - sadly, they invariably involve lots of accusations that anyone who is questioning or not believing the full extent of the media accusations must be working for "Big Tobacco". My disclaimer on the site and in the book that I have never received any money from a tobacco company still remains true, if that has any impact on how people view my content.

I'm new to this forum and thought I would say hi and that I'm happy to answer any questions you guys may have. Since I released the book there has been lots more information, and this report was passed my way last week - A Critique of Nicotine Addiction http://books.google.nl/books?id=xaU2bon ... &q&f=false

I'd also like to address a couple of points raised here:

Peater said:
I read it a while ago and found it mostly plausible apart from a section that mentioned smoker's cough not being harmful but a beneficial act that rids the body of toxins.

I've met enough old smokers to know that's just bunk. (That said - they were old, at least! In their 70's)

"Harmful" should be defined, I think. Is the cough itself causing harm? Probably not. Is it symptomatic of a problem? Perhaps. I'm of the opinion that we tend to view coughing as bad because it accompanies illness, but the statement I made in the book was that the mucous layer promoted by smoking adds a layer of protection against invading carcinogens that we inhale. Many smokers testify to suffering fewer colds than their non-smoking friends, or that they themselves suffered before they smoked. That doesn't mean a person can't point out that the smoking initiated the coughing, which could indicate it being an irritant - there is room for both points.

As has been mentioned by pboy and Zachs, tobacco has been revered for millennia for its various medicinal properties, including it being anti-bacterial.

BingDing said:
No, smoking cigarettes isn't dangerous at all. :roll: In fact, it's healthy. :roll: It's a hormesis thing, dealing with the low oxygen supply to the brain from the CO, the toxic NO, the many carcinogens, mutagens, excitotoxins, as well as the precusrsors to those, will make you stronger. :roll:

Dump out an ashtray and rub your thumb across the black s*** on the bottom of it. That's what is coating your lungs when you smoke cigarettes.

COPD used to be called emphysema, they call it when your lungs can't transfer enough oxygen to your blood to sustain life. My grandpa died of it when he was 72. He smoked his whole adult life, you think that is a coincidence?

So smoke a pack a day for forty years, and you will be as healthy as if you were 18 YO again. :roll:

The particulate matter in the ashtray is not the same as what is inhaled - hence the quotes in my book from surgeons performing autopsies that they cannot tell by looking at the lungs whether the deceased smoked or not. Remember, the photos we so often see of a black, smoker's lung are invariably of the outside - where smoke never reaches anyway. Past efforts to convince people of smoking turning lungs black have been debunked as coal miners' lungs or pig lungs, and cancerous lungs are also frequently used because the disease has discoloured and ravaged them.

COPD is an umbrella term for emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Whether your grandpa's unfortunate suffering of the disease is a coincidence or not cannot be conclusively answered for an individual case, but I did dedicate an entire chapter to emphysema in the book and you may be interested in the following:

1) at the time of writing the book, emphysema rates were increasing - but smoking rates have been in decline for decades
2) Many people with emphysema lack the gene that controls the liver's production of alpha-1 antitrypsin (A1AT), a protein. This protein controls or degrades the enzyme that destroys alveolar tissue - and the destruction of alveolar tissue is the problem with emphysema. There is more about A1AT, but I'm trying to keep this reply short. Suffice it to say, if you research emphysema you will find studies on A1AT deficiency, and you will find things written about smoking causing emphysema, but you're unlikely to find a study showing a causative link between smoking and the disease.


I've just noticed how long this post has become, so I will just add this link for anyone that is interested in it; it's from my blog, and is an extract from Michael McFadden's 'Dissecting Antismokers' Brains', explaining the chemical composition of secondhand smoke: http://www.smokescreens.org/220808-the- ... and-smoke/

Richard
 

charlie

Admin
The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
14,359
Location
USA
Richard, welcome to the forum. :welcome

I appreciate you joining and sharing your insight. :hattip

Here is another thread we had a while back about smoking. It's definitely an interesting subject even for me as a non smoker.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1291
 

RichardWhite

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
22
Charlie said:
Richard, welcome to the forum. :welcome

I appreciate you joining and sharing your insight. :hattip

Here is another thread we had a while back about smoking. It's definitely an interesting subject even for me as a non smoker.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1291

Thanks Charlie :hattip

That does look like an interesting discussion. I've not had the time to read the whole thing but the topic of cravings and what smoking does to the body is a fascinating one - unfortunately it is often viewed as mere nicotine addiction, but it is actually far more than that. Smoking has some profound effects on the body (in a good way), which I tried to put across in the 'health benefits of smoking' chapter. If anyone here is interested I'll paste a few excerpts on some of them.

I should caveat that by stating that doesn't mean I am endorsing smoking as an activity that is overall good for you - that's a decision each individual needs to make for themselves. But rather, just as we accept that many things can be positive and negative to our health, smoking can be both also. Whether or not the good outweighs the bad, again, that's a personal decision.
 

Peater

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
2,632
Location
Here
RichardWhite said:
Peater said:
I read it a while ago and found it mostly plausible apart from a section that mentioned smoker's cough not being harmful but a beneficial act that rids the body of toxins.

I've met enough old smokers to know that's just bunk. (That said - they were old, at least! In their 70's)

"Harmful" should be defined, I think. Is the cough itself causing harm? Probably not. Is it symptomatic of a problem? Perhaps. I'm of the opinion that we tend to view coughing as bad because it accompanies illness, but the statement I made in the book was that the mucous layer promoted by smoking adds a layer of protection against invading carcinogens that we inhale. Many smokers testify to suffering fewer colds than their non-smoking friends, or that they themselves suffered before they smoked. That doesn't mean a person can't point out that the smoking initiated the coughing, which could indicate it being an irritant - there is room for both points.

As has been mentioned by pboy and Zachs, tobacco has been revered for millennia for its various medicinal properties, including it being anti-bacterial.

Hi Richard, thanks for replying - always good to speak straight to the author of a book. I did find the rest of it to be plausible. I still have the odd Cuban cigar or scrounge a cigarette from a friend, but have switched over to a vaper for day to day use. (Leaves breath and hands smelling fine, don't have to stand outside in the cold!)

It's been a while since I read my copy - what are your thoughts on lung capacity/sports performance and smoking?
 

RichardWhite

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
22
Peater said:
RichardWhite said:
Peater said:
I read it a while ago and found it mostly plausible apart from a section that mentioned smoker's cough not being harmful but a beneficial act that rids the body of toxins.

I've met enough old smokers to know that's just bunk. (That said - they were old, at least! In their 70's)

"Harmful" should be defined, I think. Is the cough itself causing harm? Probably not. Is it symptomatic of a problem? Perhaps. I'm of the opinion that we tend to view coughing as bad because it accompanies illness, but the statement I made in the book was that the mucous layer promoted by smoking adds a layer of protection against invading carcinogens that we inhale. Many smokers testify to suffering fewer colds than their non-smoking friends, or that they themselves suffered before they smoked. That doesn't mean a person can't point out that the smoking initiated the coughing, which could indicate it being an irritant - there is room for both points.

As has been mentioned by pboy and Zachs, tobacco has been revered for millennia for its various medicinal properties, including it being anti-bacterial.

Hi Richard, thanks for replying - always good to speak straight to the author of a book. I did find the rest of it to be plausible. I still have the odd Cuban cigar or scrounge a cigarette from a friend, but have switched over to a vaper for day to day use. (Leaves breath and hands smelling fine, don't have to stand outside in the cold!)

It's been a while since I read my copy - what are your thoughts on lung capacity/sports performance and smoking?

I've heard many good things about electronic devices and I see them very frequently now. It's really a shame that the anti-smoking groups are targeting them, on the basis of "re-normalising smoking". I wouldn't be surprised to see indoor use banned in the near future - it's already happened on many planes and trains.

Regarding your question, it's a difficult one to answer because I think it requires the testimony of an actual smoking athletes. On that basis, the most I could comfortably say is that a lot of athletes and other performers smoke or have smoked - from our past and present football stars, to Olympic athletes. I am fairly sure Wayne Rooney smokes, or has done, and Olympic cyclist Chris Hoy was spotted drinking and smoking after the Games.

From a scientific research point of view, there is research showing that the effect smoking has on respiratory performance can be seen as similar to lifting weights for muscles. Nicotine has repeatedly been shown to stimulate vascular growth, and in controlled studies has produced new blood vessel growth. Most of the conversation on this topic is anecdotal though, so we can objectively observe that many athletes/active people smoke/have smoked. There's a rather famous photo of a cycling team (perhaps something like the Tour de France but I am not sure), with the front two riders lighting cigarettes. It seems in the past it was not seen as detrimental to performance, but these days smoking is almost the cause of every ill and people expect to have some degree of harm from it. I've even seen people in their 20s honestly believe smoking makes them run out of breath when climbing the stairs. Whether that's true or not I don't know, but I do know that the power of suggestion and the nocebo effect are both very strong. Still, if it could be so powerful in reducing performance I would be surprised that others can smoke and rise to be the very best in their chosen sport.

There was an article in Reuters during the Beijing Olympics of 2008 discussing how smoking was not permitted there. It said: 'Athletes too can be spotted smoking around venues. "I'd say 70 out of 100 athletes in the Olympic village smoke," said Italian weightlifter Giorgio de Luca, perhaps exaggerating a little, as he wound down with a cigarette.'
 

Peater

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
2,632
Location
Here
That's interesting about Hoy and De Luca, thank you. They look like fantastic athletes. (Rooney is known for his 'lack of pace' but maybe that's just his little legs ;) :D)
 

RichardWhite

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
22
Peater said:
That's interesting about Hoy and De Luca, thank you. They look like fantastic athletes. (Rooney is known for his 'lack of pace' but maybe that's just his little legs ;) :D)

:lol:
 

Blossom

Moderator
Forum Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
11,031
Location
Indiana USA
Thanks Richard for the information and welcome to the forum. I had to go through training to teach smoking cessation for my old job and to be perfectly honest with you I just couldn't do it. There's so much anti-smoking propaganda out there and I just really don't care if someone chooses to smoke or not. I'm sure there are positives and negatives to smoking like with all things and ultimately a person's context will be the determining factor on how their body responds. I appreciate you bringing a different perspective forward and sharing it here on the forum.
 

messtafarian

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
814
The thing I really don't understand is why cigarettes are so reviled in our society when trans fats and hydrogenated vegetable oil, and SOY EVERYTHING and carcinogenic food additives are stuffed into mostly every mouthful of food at the grocery store. I also don't understand why GMO plant foods are essentially untested in epidemiological populations but they're supposedly GRAS. Since mostly everyone has quit smoking by now it seems odd that the populations that immediately preceded us were healthier and hardier. Now why is that, is what I wonder.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
Remember Ray Peat is not sympathetic towards anything which enhances acetylcholine. That said, smokers have half the risk of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.
 

pboy

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
1,681
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
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom