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?
Options
Replies
-
Yes you'd have to account for other risk factors because it's really hard statistically say what kills every person, but a little correlation is that outside of the US, smoking is less regulated, healthcare in many other countries aren't as advanced, and people are thinner along with average lifespan being longer. IMO based on what I have actually seen and statistics, thinner and fit people who smoke look to outlive those who are very overweight/obese who aren't fit and don't smoke.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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
Is it fair to say weight correlated deaths vs lung cancer = obesity is more harmful? Lung cancer is not the only risk factor that smoking carries. Smoking and obesity raise risk of many of the same diseases.
Do statistics show that a higher percentage of obese people die prematurely than smokers, that's the statistic to look at. And then you'd have to account for other risk factors.
According to NIH, an obese person can lose up to 8-14 years of lifespan versus a smoker who loses 10. But the countries outside of the US live up to 80+ years and in the US the average death is lower than that even with better healthcare options. I haven't met or know any obese person who's lived beyond 70 years old. That's of course is an anecdote.
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
http://www.spottedbylocals.com/blog/is-it-allowed-to-smoke-in-europes-bars/tinkerbellang83 wrote: »I'd be curious to know where in Europe they think smoking is still prevalent in bars and restaurants? Most EU countries have a smoking ban in bars/restaurants and have done for many years now.
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
When I was in France, Italy and Spain, I saw only a handful of smokers. In France it was mostly young, Algerian immigrant males. I didn't see anyone smoking in public in the other two countries, but I wasn't in high-traffic touristy areas, and maybe I didn't see it because they were all hanging out in the bars smoking? I normally notice if smokers are around, since the smoke irritates my airways. It sure didn't seem like the epidemic of Euro-smokers that's being described in this thread.0 -
My BIL, MIL and DW were in Rome and doing the tourist thing (this was about 12 years ago I believe) and they went into a restaurant to eat. When the lady asked for smoking or non smoking, they asked for non smoking because non of them smoked.
Yes you'd have to account for other risk factors because it's really hard statistically say what kills every person, but a little correlation is that outside of the US, smoking is less regulated, healthcare in many other countries aren't as advanced, and people are thinner along with average lifespan being longer. IMO based on what I have actually seen and statistics, thinner and fit people who smoke look to outlive those who are very overweight/obese who aren't fit and don't smoke.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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
Is it fair to say weight correlated deaths vs lung cancer = obesity is more harmful? Lung cancer is not the only risk factor that smoking carries. Smoking and obesity raise risk of many of the same diseases.
Do statistics show that a higher percentage of obese people die prematurely than smokers, that's the statistic to look at. And then you'd have to account for other risk factors.
According to NIH, an obese person can lose up to 8-14 years of lifespan versus a smoker who loses 10. But the countries outside of the US live up to 80+ years and in the US the average death is lower than that even with better healthcare options. I haven't met or know any obese person who's lived beyond 70 years old. That's of course is an anecdote.
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
http://www.spottedbylocals.com/blog/is-it-allowed-to-smoke-in-europes-bars/tinkerbellang83 wrote: »I'd be curious to know where in Europe they think smoking is still prevalent in bars and restaurants? Most EU countries have a smoking ban in bars/restaurants and have done for many years now.
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
When I was in France, Italy and Spain, I saw only a handful of smokers. In France it was mostly young, Algerian immigrant males. I didn't see anyone smoking in public in the other two countries, but I wasn't in high-traffic touristy areas, and maybe I didn't see it because they were all hanging out in the bars smoking? I normally notice if smokers are around, since the smoke irritates my airways. It sure didn't seem like the epidemic of Euro-smokers that's being described in this thread.
She lead them to a table and there was an ashtray on it. She took the ashtray away. I still laugh about this when they tell the story to others.
They toured Italy, Spain and Portugal for a couple of months and told me that everywhere they went, they could smell smoke. I wasn't there, so I'm just going off their experience, but based on what they said it's likely changed much more since they were last there.
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 -
This is anecdotal and obviously I'm only speaking for myself. I've always been thin and active. (I actually joined mfp to gain weight and muscle. ) I smoked - heavily- for about 28 years and stopped 15 years ago. I still suffer the effects of smoking -eg,poor lung capacity (though I'm also asthmatic ) which borders on copd. I could still develop lung cancer. Statistically my chances of dying of smoking related disease will never be as low as another thin,active person who has never smoked. I'd say that many of the effects of obesity can be reversed but the damage to a smoker's lungs is irreversible.4
-
Yes you'd have to account for other risk factors because it's really hard statistically say what kills every person, but a little correlation is that outside of the US, smoking is less regulated, healthcare in many other countries aren't as advanced, and people are thinner along with average lifespan being longer. IMO based on what I have actually seen and statistics, thinner and fit people who smoke look to outlive those who are very overweight/obese who aren't fit and don't smoke.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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
Is it fair to say weight correlated deaths vs lung cancer = obesity is more harmful? Lung cancer is not the only risk factor that smoking carries. Smoking and obesity raise risk of many of the same diseases.
Do statistics show that a higher percentage of obese people die prematurely than smokers, that's the statistic to look at. And then you'd have to account for other risk factors.
According to NIH, an obese person can lose up to 8-14 years of lifespan versus a smoker who loses 10. But the countries outside of the US live up to 80+ years and in the US the average death is lower than that even with better healthcare options. I haven't met or know any obese person who's lived beyond 70 years old. That's of course is an anecdote.
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
http://www.spottedbylocals.com/blog/is-it-allowed-to-smoke-in-europes-bars/tinkerbellang83 wrote: »I'd be curious to know where in Europe they think smoking is still prevalent in bars and restaurants? Most EU countries have a smoking ban in bars/restaurants and have done for many years now.
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
Erm thanks for the link but that doesn't tell me it's prevalent. I've lived in Europe all my life and have travelled to a fair few other countries here and I've yet to travel anywhere that smoking was actively taking place in bars/restaurants since the EU started cracking down on it 10 years ago. Yes it's stricter in some places than others but compared to pre-ban in the UK/Ireland there are a lot less smokers about. The cost of cigarettes here discourages a lot of people now (around £10/€10 per packet in some places).1 -
Maybe because French women don't get fat, they don't get smoking related illness either
Seems legit.1 -
Neither are optimal for health therefore I don't smoke and strive to not be obese.2
-
It doesn't really matter which one is more worse than the other.
Being obese and being a smoker are both unhealthy states to be in.
And both groups know it.2 -
Linktinkerbellang83 wrote: »
Erm thanks for the link but that doesn't tell me it's prevalent. I've lived in Europe all my life and have travelled to a fair few other countries here and I've yet to travel anywhere that smoking was actively taking place in bars/restaurants since the EU started cracking down on it 10 years ago. Yes it's stricter in some places than others but compared to pre-ban in the UK/Ireland there are a lot less smokers about. The cost of cigarettes here discourages a lot of people now (around £10/€10 per packet in some places).
Also have to note though that Americans that do smoke more packs a day than Europeans which may be correlated with the cause of higher death for lung cancer.But that upbeat conclusion is shattered when you factor in lung cancer, which kills almost as many people as breast, colorectal and prostate cancer combined. Although lung cancer mortality rates in the U.S. have dropped over the past few decades, those rates remain higher than Europe’s. Soneji and Yang estimate that there have been 1,120,000 excess lung cancer deaths in the U.S. compared to Europe from 1982 to 2010.
During this same period, the U.S. spent $406 billion more on lung cancer care—adjusted for population size--than Europe did. Soneji and Yang calculate that for every extra $19,000 spent on a lung cancer patient in the U.S. compared to Europe, that patient loses a year of quality-adjusted life. Americans die more frequently than Europeans of lung cancer even though, according to the World Health Organization, Europeans have higher smoking rates [see comment by Soneji in Addendum].
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/cancer-spending-higher-in-u-s-than-in-europe-and-so-is-cancer-mortality/
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 1 -
Linktinkerbellang83 wrote: »
Erm thanks for the link but that doesn't tell me it's prevalent. I've lived in Europe all my life and have travelled to a fair few other countries here and I've yet to travel anywhere that smoking was actively taking place in bars/restaurants since the EU started cracking down on it 10 years ago. Yes it's stricter in some places than others but compared to pre-ban in the UK/Ireland there are a lot less smokers about. The cost of cigarettes here discourages a lot of people now (around £10/€10 per packet in some places).
Also have to note though that Americans that do smoke more packs a day than Europeans which may be correlated with the cause of higher death for lung cancer.But that upbeat conclusion is shattered when you factor in lung cancer, which kills almost as many people as breast, colorectal and prostate cancer combined. Although lung cancer mortality rates in the U.S. have dropped over the past few decades, those rates remain higher than Europe’s. Soneji and Yang estimate that there have been 1,120,000 excess lung cancer deaths in the U.S. compared to Europe from 1982 to 2010.
During this same period, the U.S. spent $406 billion more on lung cancer care—adjusted for population size--than Europe did. Soneji and Yang calculate that for every extra $19,000 spent on a lung cancer patient in the U.S. compared to Europe, that patient loses a year of quality-adjusted life. Americans die more frequently than Europeans of lung cancer even though, according to the World Health Organization, Europeans have higher smoking rates [see comment by Soneji in Addendum].
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/cancer-spending-higher-in-u-s-than-in-europe-and-so-is-cancer-mortality/
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
Could be pollution too.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.4 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions