Smoking kills... but maybe not light smoking

[Anonymous No.15553279]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tc.2005.011932

Interesting table I saw from this study on light smokers. Essentially, smoking can kill you in two ways:

1. Ischemic heart disease
2. Lung cancer

It turns out that smoking 1-4 cigarettes a day increases the risk of the former, but risk of the latter is more exponential in # of cigarettes smoked (and in fact, the study didn't even find a statistically significant increase in risk).

We also know from previous research that unlike damage to the lungs, the risk of heart disease from smoking actually declines over time after one stops smoking and returns to near baseline after 10-15 years.

So essentially, if you are a light smoker and you quit while you're still in your 20s or 30s (i.e., more than 15 years before heart disease becomes a real concern), it doesn't really affect your life expectancy. Of course, easier said than done... most light smokers in the study started smoking more over time

[Anonymous No.15553283]

>>15553279
What about vaping exclusively? In light and heavy amounts

[Anonymous No.15553286]

>>15553283
Well, this study was conducted over a 30 year period from the 1970s to the 2000s. Probably it will take another 20 years for good data on vaping lol

[Anonymous No.15553291]

Life expectancy of people who quit smoking before age 40 is the same as that of people who never smoked
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Doctors_Study

[Anonymous No.15553301]

>>15553291
Yeah, other studies have confirmed this finding:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2797597

These studies don't even factor in the light smoker effect, they take data for all smokers (although those who quit earlier are probably likely to have been lighter smokers).

[Anonymous No.15553328]

>>15553301
None have ever been nearly as large, comprehensive or long term as the British Doctors Study. A publication from the replication crisis era of rampant fraud and politicization of scientific publications isn't worth paying much attention to compared to the British Doctors Study.

[Anonymous No.15553350]

>>15553279
any retards in sci figure out how tobacco causes lung cancer?

[Anonymous No.15553360]

>>15553279
>that last paragraph
kind of the opposite of the propaganda they have hit us with since the 90s. I remember when I was younger this belief people had that if they smoked a bit when they were 18, or even sometimes only ever had one cigarette, there was this magical chance they would get lung cancer in old age from it.
I remember starting out at 1-4 cigs a day for a year or two, felt pretty healthy. It was after 10 or more a day that I started to feel a difference.
>>15553350
cigarettes contain a small amount of radiation because of the growing process. This micro dosing of rads over a long life can cause cancer.

[Anonymous No.15553400]

>>15553279
Maybe the type of people who quit smoking make other healthy choices in their life. Real smokers obviously don't give a fuck.

[Anonymous No.15554007]

>>15553279
What if you smoke cigars not cigarettes?

[Anonymous No.15554014]

>>15553279
*slaps cigarette out of your hand*
smoking is bad for you

[Anonymous No.15554024]

I smoked for a few years, in increasing amounts, finally reaching over 10 a day. Reading Allen Carr's easyway made me quit. Highly recommended for any smoking anons. There's even an anon made version for porn watching.

[Anonymous No.15554212]

>>15553350
Pretty sure most of it is caused by the hundreds of cancer causing chemicals they wash tobacco with

[Anonymous No.15554325]

>>15553350
>>15553360
>>15554212
So, taking all of this together, an occasional cigar/cigarillo isn't that bad for you? Especially considering how the tobacco doesn't get any excessive treatment other than drying and fermenting.

[Anonymous No.15554832]

>>15553279
Nicotine is still a carcinogen, still fucks with fat distribution (relatively more visceral fat than subcutaneous) by some magical mechanism and increases t and free test (might be cons, might be pro), but yes, just like the rest of stimulants is relatively beneficial in low doses

[Anonymous No.15555046]

>>15553360
how does radiation cause cancer?

[Anonymous No.15555048]

>>15554212
which chemicals and what mechanism do they use to cause cancer?

[Anonymous No.15555049]

>>15555046
It strikes DNA strands, damaging them.

[Anonymous No.15555052]

>>15555048
Cytotoxic formaldehyde is one of the most common ones.

[Anonymous No.15555058]

>>15553279
what's the mechanism for smoking caused heart disease? is the build up of plaque related to higher blood pressure that smoking gives you? i.e., can it be offset somewhat by a good diet and exercise which would promote lower blood pressure.

[Anonymous No.15555061]

>>15555058
Nicotine causes increased blood pressure and other cardiovascular complications just my itself. If you were only chewing nicotine gum then maybe you could offset it with exercise, but a smoker's lungs won't be capable of the cardio required to break even.

[Anonymous No.15555062]

>>15555061
by itself*

[Anonymous No.15555069]

>>15555061
thanks. i just ask because i run about 15-20km a week (was doing more earlier this year during marathon training, but going to focus more on lifting now). i enjoy smoking maybe 5-10 cigarettes if i head out for beers with the fellas on the weekend, but don't smoke other than that.