Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
So what's worse: being a smoker or being overweight/obese?
Replies
-
Oh you see them out and about. It's just usually on a cart assist of some sort. Remember obesity is based on the BMI scale of over 30. And realistically, it's not that hard to get over 30 in the US. A female 5'4" and 175lbs is obese (unless they carrying a lot of muscle) and a male 6'0 and 221lbs is considered obese.SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »
I don't doubt it. And in prison, you need to sort of be physical fit to an extent because of the environment you live in.leanjogreen18 wrote: »Do you think folks in penitentiaries work out more because they have more time (oh a pun).
Men's obesity isn't that prevalent versus women in penitentiaries. Not sure why, but I'm thinking that men's penitentiaries may likely be that what you get for food is all you get. With only 3 squares a day and all of it being portioned, it's not hard to see why the penitentiary population doesn't have a problem with obesity. And their food is very low quality at that, which is why I don't believe eating "clean" is needed to lose weight at all.And is there a difference between men/women in penitentiaries in terms of obesity/smoking?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
So this is probably again due to needing to work out more because of the environment for men vs women. Commissary food is available in most prisons though correct?
So it seems in terms of health perhaps the added exercise it what helps smokers in penitentiaries, because you would think a poor diet would have long term effects as well.
I honestly don't think I could say which is worse.
I do know that I rarely see someone in their late 70's or early 80's that are obese, but I do see some that still smoke. Hows that for an answer:).
Not that I disagree with your previous statements or think in general obesity isn't going to shorten your life, but your last one is commonly thrown around and annoys me. You are obviously not going to see 70 and 80 yos out and about often, and any obese 70 and 80 yos you are going to see out much much less often if at all, since not being active is part of how they got obese in the first place, its much more difficult for them to go out, if they do go out its for shorter times and a good portion of them probably have assistance getting things done compared to mobile active 70-80 yos. Just using it as a "proof" is annoying since the reason is assumed to be "they are all dead", when there are extremely obvious reasons you arent going to run into them and it proves nothing.
Its more likely with this observation you may in fact have identified the "mutants", who have natural resistance and superior immune function to resist the toxins associated with smoking and clean up those errant cancer cells and are able to be out and about smoking at 70-80.
As for "mutants", there must a huge genetic pool outside of the US because a lot of countries mortality rates with lung cancer are much lower even though smoking is prevalent in their society.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Can we agree that we're really comparing morbid obesity and habitual (heavy? More than social anyway) smoking here?
As in your example, I am still classified as obese at 5'4 and 178 pounds but am far from having the issues described in this thread (limited mobility, skin infections, joint problems). Is it a healthy weight for me? No! But I'm not riding the motorized cart around Walmart either.
Iirc, he was referring to people over 70 who are also obese.
If you already knew that, ignore me.
0 -
Oh you see them out and about. It's just usually on a cart assist of some sort. Remember obesity is based on the BMI scale of over 30. And realistically, it's not that hard to get over 30 in the US. A female 5'4" and 175lbs is obese (unless they carrying a lot of muscle) and a male 6'0 and 221lbs is considered obese.SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »
I don't doubt it. And in prison, you need to sort of be physical fit to an extent because of the environment you live in.leanjogreen18 wrote: »Do you think folks in penitentiaries work out more because they have more time (oh a pun).
Men's obesity isn't that prevalent versus women in penitentiaries. Not sure why, but I'm thinking that men's penitentiaries may likely be that what you get for food is all you get. With only 3 squares a day and all of it being portioned, it's not hard to see why the penitentiary population doesn't have a problem with obesity. And their food is very low quality at that, which is why I don't believe eating "clean" is needed to lose weight at all.And is there a difference between men/women in penitentiaries in terms of obesity/smoking?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
So this is probably again due to needing to work out more because of the environment for men vs women. Commissary food is available in most prisons though correct?
So it seems in terms of health perhaps the added exercise it what helps smokers in penitentiaries, because you would think a poor diet would have long term effects as well.
I honestly don't think I could say which is worse.
I do know that I rarely see someone in their late 70's or early 80's that are obese, but I do see some that still smoke. Hows that for an answer:).
Not that I disagree with your previous statements or think in general obesity isn't going to shorten your life, but your last one is commonly thrown around and annoys me. You are obviously not going to see 70 and 80 yos out and about often, and any obese 70 and 80 yos you are going to see out much much less often if at all, since not being active is part of how they got obese in the first place, its much more difficult for them to go out, if they do go out its for shorter times and a good portion of them probably have assistance getting things done compared to mobile active 70-80 yos. Just using it as a "proof" is annoying since the reason is assumed to be "they are all dead", when there are extremely obvious reasons you arent going to run into them and it proves nothing.
Its more likely with this observation you may in fact have identified the "mutants", who have natural resistance and superior immune function to resist the toxins associated with smoking and clean up those errant cancer cells and are able to be out and about smoking at 70-80.
As for "mutants", there must a huge genetic pool outside of the US because a lot of countries mortality rates with lung cancer are much lower even though smoking is prevalent in their society.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Can we agree that we're really comparing morbid obesity and habitual (heavy? More than social anyway) smoking here?
As in your example, I am still classified as obese at 5'4 and 178 pounds but am far from having the issues described in this thread (limited mobility, skin infections, joint problems). Is it a healthy weight for me? No! But I'm not riding the motorized cart around Walmart either.
Iirc, he was referring to people over 70 who are also obese.
If you already knew that, ignore me.
Quite possibly I missed that! Definitely not 70 yet 1 -
3rdof7sisters wrote: »
Agreed. I don't see any benefit at all from smoking with the exception of possibly having a slightly higher metabolic rate (due to increasing your heart rate).Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Depends if you want to die of heart disease or airway disease (not just lung cancer ... copd, emphesma etc).
Not to mention BOTH are risk factors for a bunch of stuff.
It's kinda like asking which is worse, swimming with sharks or cocodiles?
I agree with this. Both raise risk factors for a number of chronic or fatal illnesses. And a lot of it comes down to genetics or luck. I personally know of many examples that would argue for either side.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Seriously? There is no benefit to smoking. NONE.
Plus you are putting others around you at risk because of your habit.
I'm sorry but this is simply not true. You don't have to look far to find studies showing that there are several benefits to smoking, mainly related to mental health issues and weight control, it's just that consensus is that these benefits are outstripped by the risks. More risky than beneficial does not mean completely unbeneficial.
FWIW, I am not a smoker so, no, I'm not just defending my bad habit.
4 -
You're one of the fortunate ones. There have been lots and lots of clients I've consultated who were considered obese on the BMI scale that have dealt with joint issues, mobility issues, sleep apnea issues, osteoarthritis, etc.
Oh you see them out and about. It's just usually on a cart assist of some sort. Remember obesity is based on the BMI scale of over 30. And realistically, it's not that hard to get over 30 in the US. A female 5'4" and 175lbs is obese (unless they carrying a lot of muscle) and a male 6'0 and 221lbs is considered obese.SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »
I don't doubt it. And in prison, you need to sort of be physical fit to an extent because of the environment you live in.leanjogreen18 wrote: »Do you think folks in penitentiaries work out more because they have more time (oh a pun).
Men's obesity isn't that prevalent versus women in penitentiaries. Not sure why, but I'm thinking that men's penitentiaries may likely be that what you get for food is all you get. With only 3 squares a day and all of it being portioned, it's not hard to see why the penitentiary population doesn't have a problem with obesity. And their food is very low quality at that, which is why I don't believe eating "clean" is needed to lose weight at all.And is there a difference between men/women in penitentiaries in terms of obesity/smoking?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
So this is probably again due to needing to work out more because of the environment for men vs women. Commissary food is available in most prisons though correct?
So it seems in terms of health perhaps the added exercise it what helps smokers in penitentiaries, because you would think a poor diet would have long term effects as well.
I honestly don't think I could say which is worse.
I do know that I rarely see someone in their late 70's or early 80's that are obese, but I do see some that still smoke. Hows that for an answer:).
Not that I disagree with your previous statements or think in general obesity isn't going to shorten your life, but your last one is commonly thrown around and annoys me. You are obviously not going to see 70 and 80 yos out and about often, and any obese 70 and 80 yos you are going to see out much much less often if at all, since not being active is part of how they got obese in the first place, its much more difficult for them to go out, if they do go out its for shorter times and a good portion of them probably have assistance getting things done compared to mobile active 70-80 yos. Just using it as a "proof" is annoying since the reason is assumed to be "they are all dead", when there are extremely obvious reasons you arent going to run into them and it proves nothing.
Its more likely with this observation you may in fact have identified the "mutants", who have natural resistance and superior immune function to resist the toxins associated with smoking and clean up those errant cancer cells and are able to be out and about smoking at 70-80.
As for "mutants", there must a huge genetic pool outside of the US because a lot of countries mortality rates with lung cancer are much lower even though smoking is prevalent in their society.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Can we agree that we're really comparing morbid obesity and habitual (heavy? More than social anyway) smoking here?
As in your example, I am still classified as obese at 5'4 and 178 pounds but am far from having the issues described in this thread (limited mobility, skin infections, joint problems). Is it a healthy weight for me? No! But I'm not riding the motorized cart around Walmart either.
One doesn't have to be 100lbs overweight to sit on a motorized cart. Nor do they to not have the ability to climb stairs without difficulty.
It will vary from person to person, what issues they deal with when obese.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
I guess the value would depend on whom it affects. People dying close to you suffering from one or the other may have them leaning more to that side.NorthCascades wrote: »An interesting debate two members of my gym. One who doesn't smoke and is very overweight and who smokes before and after the gym, but is pretty lean and fit (even though he smokes). The smoker claimed that he would likely out live the non smoker.
I got hit - very hard - by a car while I was riding my bike, doing hill repeats. There are too many variables to predict when people are going to die. Smoking shortens lifespan, so does obesity, both of those interact whit other things like exercise (you're in a gym after all) which probably mitigates a some of the harm both of these things do to people.
"What's worse" is a value call, it's subjective, everybody has their own answer. My grandparents smoked like chimneys when I was a kid, I still don't like the smell of it in a confined space like somebody's car.
Apparently obesity related illnesses have been more expensive for our health care system than smoking related ones for many years.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yep to this. I'd say obesity is the bigger threat, but that's because I've lost one (obese) grandfather from complications to type 2 diabetes, which was caused by his weight, and I'm currently watching my (obese) grandmother slowly and painfully lose her own battle with type 2 (she's had cancer three times, but it's her obesity caused diabetes that will kill her). However, I don't know anyone who's died from complications to smoking.0 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »3rdof7sisters wrote: »
Agreed. I don't see any benefit at all from smoking with the exception of possibly having a slightly higher metabolic rate (due to increasing your heart rate).Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Depends if you want to die of heart disease or airway disease (not just lung cancer ... copd, emphesma etc).
Not to mention BOTH are risk factors for a bunch of stuff.
It's kinda like asking which is worse, swimming with sharks or cocodiles?
I agree with this. Both raise risk factors for a number of chronic or fatal illnesses. And a lot of it comes down to genetics or luck. I personally know of many examples that would argue for either side.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Seriously? There is no benefit to smoking. NONE.
Plus you are putting others around you at risk because of your habit.
I'm sorry but this is simply not true. You don't have to look far to find studies showing that there are several benefits to smoking, mainly related to mental health issues and weight control, it's just that consensus is that these benefits are outstripped by the risks. More risky than beneficial does not mean completely unbeneficial.
FWIW, I am not a smoker so, no, I'm not just defending my bad habit.
And, as mentioned earlier in this thread, smoking does offer protection against ulcerative colitis which is an autoimmune inflammatory bowel disorder. I developed it when I stopped smoking and the medications I have to take to control it are pretty damaging (though not as damaging as smoking,as far as I'm aware)1 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »3rdof7sisters wrote: »
Agreed. I don't see any benefit at all from smoking with the exception of possibly having a slightly higher metabolic rate (due to increasing your heart rate).Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Depends if you want to die of heart disease or airway disease (not just lung cancer ... copd, emphesma etc).
Not to mention BOTH are risk factors for a bunch of stuff.
It's kinda like asking which is worse, swimming with sharks or cocodiles?
I agree with this. Both raise risk factors for a number of chronic or fatal illnesses. And a lot of it comes down to genetics or luck. I personally know of many examples that would argue for either side.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Seriously? There is no benefit to smoking. NONE.
Plus you are putting others around you at risk because of your habit.
I'm sorry but this is simply not true. You don't have to look far to find studies showing that there are several benefits to smoking, mainly related to mental health issues and weight control, it's just that consensus is that these benefits are outstripped by the risks. More risky than beneficial does not mean completely unbeneficial.
FWIW, I am not a smoker so, no, I'm not just defending my bad habit.
You don't have to look far to find tons of industry-sponsored research on just about anything on the Internet. If it has the potential to sell something, it has research sponsors. Follow the money. Just sayin'.0 -
But I don't think what they are saying is incorrect.born_of_fire74 wrote: »3rdof7sisters wrote: »
Agreed. I don't see any benefit at all from smoking with the exception of possibly having a slightly higher metabolic rate (due to increasing your heart rate).Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Depends if you want to die of heart disease or airway disease (not just lung cancer ... copd, emphesma etc).
Not to mention BOTH are risk factors for a bunch of stuff.
It's kinda like asking which is worse, swimming with sharks or cocodiles?
I agree with this. Both raise risk factors for a number of chronic or fatal illnesses. And a lot of it comes down to genetics or luck. I personally know of many examples that would argue for either side.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Seriously? There is no benefit to smoking. NONE.
Plus you are putting others around you at risk because of your habit.
I'm sorry but this is simply not true. You don't have to look far to find studies showing that there are several benefits to smoking, mainly related to mental health issues and weight control, it's just that consensus is that these benefits are outstripped by the risks. More risky than beneficial does not mean completely unbeneficial.
FWIW, I am not a smoker so, no, I'm not just defending my bad habit.
You don't have to look far to find tons of industry-sponsored research on just about anything on the Internet. If it has the potential to sell something, it has research sponsors. Follow the money. Just sayin'.
Amphetamines help to speed up your metabolism, heart rate and help to reduce hunger, all benefits to weight loss desired. That's not disputed by hardly any organization of science. But as stated the benefits don't outweigh the risks of what it can do to harm someone.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
Clearly, the answer is that aspartame is worst.10
-
Quit smoking first. Then, deal with the overweight.0
-
Your use of statistics is flawed. If smoking deaths fall below obesity deaths, it's not because smoking is less dangerous but fewer people are smoking in the modern era than are fat in the modern era. You have to look at smoking morbidity/#smokers and obesity morbidity/#obese if you want to compare morbidity or mortality rates between smokers and obese people.
You can't look at smoking morbidity/total population vs. obesity morbidity/total population because the prevalence of each condition in the population differs.
As others have observed, smokers behavior impacts not only their own health but of everyone around them (I hate the way they linger in doorways where smoking indoors is prohibited; when I exit a building I can get blindsided by their leavings and have an asthma attack).2 -
Is this an actual debate?! Like 'would you rather die from...'??!!
I'd say consider both of those things depends on ourselves, one should focus on avoiding both. (Coming from an ex-obese, ex-smoker who plans on living forever!) 3 -
Allterrain_Lady wrote: »Is this an actual debate?! Like 'would you rather die from...'??!!
I'd say consider both of those things depends on ourselves, one should focus on avoiding both. (Coming from an ex-obese, ex-smoker who plans on living forever!)
This is good advice because on a personal level either may kill you, whether or not one kills more or less won't matter then.
But this is the debate forum.
I don't know the statistics but on a personal level I know far more people who have died prematurely from smoking related illness than obesity. I have 5 living aunts who are all in their 70's or 80's and all have been obese for as long as I can remember. Tomorrow one of them will bury her granddaughter who at age 38 died from cancer that began in her lungs. She was a smoker.0 -
Allterrain_Lady wrote: »Is this an actual debate?! Like 'would you rather die from...'??!!
I'd say consider both of those things depends on ourselves, one should focus on avoiding both. (Coming from an ex-obese, ex-smoker who plans on living forever!)
I don't think it's a debate in terms of should you do one or the other...it's an interesting statistical discussion of what is worse for your health, though I think the statistics are a bit skewed because we're comparing total population and the statistics don't seem to take into account that smoking is on the decline and obesity is on the rise....still, it's interesting and nobody is suggesting that either is healthy for you.3 -
Well, there's not a blanket answer as time spent / how much smoking , and time spent/ how much obese are going to affect the outcomes of either. If both are even (smoking for a lifetime or obesity for a lifetime) I think smoking is more likely to have concrete negative outcome (COPD, cardiac disease) than obesity.0
-
Not gonna try to convince you. I'm just going off the statistics. And in the US we have a much bigger issue with weight correlated deaths than lung cancer. Again, not condoning smoking, but it's odd to see that something that everyone thinks is really bad, isn't killing us off as much as weight related issues. Again, those are the stats, not my opinion.3rdof7sisters wrote: »Well, seeing both my mother (@ age 67) and my oldest sister (@ age 54) both die from lung related issues, and both being normal weight (actually sister was underweight at time of death), I will opt for smoking being more hazardous to overall health. Meanwhile, none of my sisters or father (who are/were overweight) died from being overweight. Plus smokers put those around them at risk with second hand smoke.
Plus everyone has to eat to survive, no one has to smoke.
BTW OP, my mother (lifelong smoker) emphysema.
Sister, lifelong smoker. Breast cancer @ 36. Brain, lung, adrenal cancer @ 54 died of pneumonia ultimately and no spare fat on her to help her survive longer.
No way will you convince me smoking is better for you than being over weight.
PS OP, have you ever watched a loved one die, struggling for every breath?
I have had several relatives smoke throughout their life and not die from lung cancer, my grandmother being one of them.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
True, true. However the % of Obese Americans is sharply higher than the % of smokers (in today's society) and have to take that into account. It takes years of smoking for it to kill you, and in that time the obesity rate has skyrocketed, while the % of Americans who smoke is going in the opposite direction.1 -
@ninerbuff re: medical marijuana ...
I appreciate the anecdotal evidence regarding benefits for some patient cohorts.
I support research into canabinoids and medicine such as looking further into anti epileptic properties, analgesia ect
However, there is proven links between first episode psychosis, schizophrenia and other mental disorders and that in my opinion should not be brushed over.
I think many people need to Google 'marijuana and schizophrenia' as well as 'medical marijuana' for a balanced picture.
Can you provide a source for these links? Just right off the top of my head my immediate thought is that of course there's some correlation between marijuana use and onset of Schizophrenia...first symptoms of schizophrenia are typical in the late teens early 20's, which is the same typical time of first or heavy marijuana use...0 -
mommarnurse wrote: »@ninerbuff re: medical marijuana ...
I appreciate the anecdotal evidence regarding benefits for some patient cohorts.
I support research into canabinoids and medicine such as looking further into anti epileptic properties, analgesia ect
However, there is proven links between first episode psychosis, schizophrenia and other mental disorders and that in my opinion should not be brushed over.
I think many people need to Google 'marijuana and schizophrenia' as well as 'medical marijuana' for a balanced picture.
Can you provide a source for these links? Just right off the top of my head my immediate thought is that of course there's some correlation between marijuana use and onset of Schizophrenia...first symptoms of schizophrenia are typical in the late teens early 20's, which is the same typical time of first or heavy marijuana use...
I did provide a link in one of my previous posts if you scroll back to the UK college of psychiatry stance on this issue,
ETA: here is the link I posted a few pages back
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/cannabis.aspx?theme=mobile
If you are interested in further research on this topic I suggest access psychiatric journal articles directly though, which may be more easily accessible via a hospital or univesity research library.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Smoking smoking smoking - is orse, I wasn't overweight at all and quite fit but a smoker.... after few years I started to have some serious health issues due to my smoking ... I stopped it and became soooo healthier and happier (and richer and you smell nicer too) ... I have been smoke free for 7 years and I d rather put on weight than smoking again...
That guy is cocky and if he does not watched out he might learnt the hard way....0 -
CarShelley wrote: »Smoking smoking smoking - is orse, I wasn't overweight at all and quite fit but a smoker.... after few years I started to have some serious health issues due to my smoking ... I stopped it and became soooo healthier and happier (and richer and you smell nicer too) ... I have been smoke free for 7 years and I d rather put on weight than smoking again...
That guy is cocky and if he does not watched out he might learnt the hard way....
Has anyone disputed that smoking is worse than not smoking or that obesity is worse than maintaining a healthy BMI? The question is whether smoking is the same, better or worse than obesity; you have not addressed that at all in your comment. You suppose it is worse to smoke than to be obese and likely receive a fair bit of reinforcement in your environment for this position because smoking is so demonized that many believe there is utterly no benefit to it whatsoever but there's no way you can really be certain based on your anecdotal experience, having never been obese. Who's to say how your health would have compared if you had been obese instead of a smoker or, worst case scenario, obese and a smoker? This discussion was intended to be based on science not feelings, opinions and suppositions.
Good for you for quitting smoking though. It's not my intent to diminish that in any way and you are most certainly better off for having done so 0 -
I saw two different people in my family (my dad and mother-in-law) die from lung cancer both smoked and one was overweight and the other was not.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Some more anecdotal evidence here, I went to my GP as I was being treated for another condition. At the time i was obese and smoking around 10-20 cigarettes per day. In order to help my other condition he told me i needed to lose weight but that as smoking is ultimately more harmful to me at that time, i should quit smoking first then tackle my weight problem. If I were morbidly obese or SUPER-morbidly obese he might have said otherwise i dont know? Dont forget cigarettes increase cholesterol as well, so smoking will be much more harmful to an obese person.0
-
So both sets of my grandparents smoked from the time they were probably 13 until their deaths. They all died from old age or diseases not related to their smoking. They all rolled their own cigarettes. I firmly believe it's the chemicals in the filters that make them worse for you rather than just smoking the tobacco. As someone that smoked for a while and has been smoke free for almost two years now ( yay!) I think they are both bad for you, but that obesity will probably get you sooner rather than later like lung cancer, emphysema , etc.1
-
VictoriaHazelwood wrote: »So both sets of my grandparents smoked from the time they were probably 13 until their deaths. They all died from old age or diseases not related to their smoking. They all rolled their own cigarettes. I firmly believe it's the chemicals in the filters that make them worse for you rather than just smoking the tobacco. As someone that smoked for a while and has been smoke free for almost two years now ( yay!) I think they are both bad for you, but that obesity will probably get you sooner rather than later like lung cancer, emphysema , etc.
If you read the journals of Lewis and Clark you will discover that even during their time, the bad health effects of tobacco were common knowledge, and the addictive nature of tobacco openly known, but the enjoyment of the habit outweighed all logic for many.2 -
My dad has adult onset diabetes and COPD. He got his diet under control and quit smoking years ago. The COPD will kill him.
When I lost significant weight I re-ran my risk factors in to a mortality algorithm and my improved weight added a decade to my life expectancy; a pleasant surprise. I'm a lifetime non-smoker and at this late date I don't intend to turn myself in to an n=1 trial. I'll skip the smoking.
I think another worthwhile question is whether quitting smoking, losing significant weight, or good dental hygiene improves your quality of life more.
Smokers take more regular work breaks.
Too much weight takes a toll on all the joints. Losing mobility is truly miserable.
Bad teeth, well, can be a one way ticket to a heart attack.
Apparently the bad teeth = heart attack thing has been disproven.0 -
I don't really know which is worse but I do know that the weight loss clinic I go to - the eventual goal of which is bariatric surgery - will not take anyone who smokes. Period.1
-
This content has been removed.
-
Both are bad. I work in a vascular surgeon's office and see the effects of smoking on a daily basis. Lots of people having strokes due to carotid artery stenosis and can barely walk due to blockage in their legs which can also lead to amputation.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions