/sci/ - Science & Math

They heal themselves. But how do you expect them to heal in 2 years after 15 years of abuse?

I'm sure it'll take around 3-4.

Lung and brain tissues don't repair themselves. Actual damage is permanent. But your lungs will clean themselves.

Second year medfag here. Your lungs will not get back to normal. However, stopping smoking slows the rate of FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in one second) decline, as far as COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) is concerned.

As we age, we normally have a steady decrease in FEV1 over time - appx 20-40 CCs per year starting between ages 25 - 35. A susceptible smoker can lose up to 80CCs per year - becoming severely impaired by the age of 55-65 years.
That being said, smoking cessation slows the rate of FEV1 decline to that of a non-smoker. Hence, your lung function won't deteriorate at a much greater rate.

tldr: stopping smoking is never too late.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3001541/

Did you exercise during smoking time, and during quitting? Ex smokers are in the unique position to have the greatest lung capacities, and the highest hemoglobin levels.

Other than a slight increased risk of lung cancer over lifelong non-smokers, your lungs will not only heal fully, but will be better than your pre-smoking lungs.

Please note, scarring cannot be healed. If there is scar damage to your lungs it will remain.

>>3778084
>exercise during smoking and quitting
what is exercise?
>ex-smokers largest lung capacity
is it too late to get good lung capacity?

>>3778084
It's so cool to see one's philosophical principles vindicated in practical reality.

And here I thought I was just making up bullshit excuses to justify my addiction.

>>3778084
>>3778084
>>3778084

yeah whatever, the world will be better when your dead...

>>3778084
>>3778084
>Results from other studies show that the same benefits can be derived from cigarette smoking as part of a syndrome known as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).14,15 These changes are not universal in smoking, however. Even with lifetime smoking, there is only a 50% chance of developing COPD.

I'm not sure the author was serious about advocating smoking. It seems he may have been exemplifying how existing literature can be used to argue any point.

>>3778109
As I understand it is, that by impairing your lungs, they are required to work more fully. So that once you stop smoking they will be in better shape than before you started smoking. Since you quit 2 years ago, and most of your lung damage will have healed, I do not think you would have the ability to improve them past the normal limits of humans, unless you started smoking again,

That being said, the normal human limits are still fantastic, and anyone should be happy to train themselves to such a level.

>>3778084
First I wondered how the hell that got published

Then I realized
>Canadian Medical Association Journal
>Canadian

and suddenly everything became clear.

You have stopped damaging your lungs, so they will heal. But healing doesn't mean they will become like you never smoked. If you cut your finger, it heals, but there is still a scar.

>>3778158
>>3778158
>>3778158
>>3778158
>>3778158
>>3778158
>>3778158
>>3778158
LOL I was right. Read the abstract

The review paper is a staple of medical literature and, when well executed by an expert in the field, can provide a summary of literature that generates useful recommendations and new conceptualizations of a topic. However, if research results are selectively chosen, a review has the potential to create a convincing argument for a faulty hypothesis. Improper correlation or extrapolation of data can result in dangerously flawed conclusions. The following paper seeks to illustrate this point, using existing research to argue the hypothesis that cigarette smoking enhances endurance performance and should be incorporated into high-level training programs.

From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21149532

>>3778148
The links talk about increase pulmonary distensibility and increased lung size. I have no idea what pulmonary distensibility is though.

Also, just because something isn't practical, risk of death/cancer etc. doesn't mean it isn't true.

>>3778173
Thats what I get for reading cool studies, not bookmarking them, and then taking the first google result.

I stand by exsmokers having the opportunity for better lungs than nonsmokers though. It has come up often enough over the last decade.

>>3778226
>>3778226
It may be plausible, but I don't believe there's any research around to support it right now.

>>3778226
Are the lungs analogous to a normal muscle, such that exercising them makes them stronger?

>>3778256
Yes.

>>3778256
>>3778256
Lungs are not muscles. There is a single muscle underneath the lungs which expands when you exhale. The diaphragm. And yes, it can be exercised.

Smoking --> less oxygenation --> increase in erythropoietin --> increase in Hemoglobin. similar effect happens at high altitudes.

Smoking leads to COPD/emphysema which are "obstructive" pulmonary diseases. Often they lead to air trapping due to reduced ability to exhale the air from the lungs. Total Lung Capacity increases as a result.

Such increase in Hemoglobin and lung capacity is hardly an advantage. Have fun with that shit.

>>3778281

Partially correct. Lungs also have bronchial smooth muscle, which is different from skeletal muscle (diaphragm). Bronchial smooth muscle can become hypertrophied in various disease states. Chronic asthma is one of those states. Hypertrophy of bronchial smooth muscle also happens in acute allergic reactions....that's why you can't breathe and need inhaled corticosteroids and beta agonists to counteract bronchial smooth muscle contraction.

>>3777897
try aerobic running, swimming, biking and walking. only aerobic stress will make them heal in time. if you don't exercise then they won't heal.

>>3778084
>>3778084
>>3778084
>The following paper seeks to illustrate this point, using existing research to argue the hypothesis that cigarette smoking enhances endurance performance and should be incorporated into high-level training programs.

I heard that being a passive smoker is actually more dangerous than a primary smoker, is this true? My entire family except me smokes and I'm tired of this bullshit.

>>3778381
If you are asthmatic, then I would say yes.

>>3778381
Passive smoking thing is a myth.

Passive smoking only harms people with asthma.