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
-
I wouldn't bank my money on that. People are also determined by BMI. So a thin person who does no exercise and doesn't eat within nutritional values needed, versus a fit muscular person who exercises regularly and eats nutritionally, but is well past the BMI for their height and weight, will PAY MORE even if they aren't a higher risk for health issues.mburgess458 wrote: »Smoking is worse from an actuarial and inetensivist perspective.
This is the answer. Ask a life insurance actuary, or just look at the life insurance rates for a fit smoker versus an obese non-smoker. They have all of the data and crunch it so that they make the most money. If they charge smokers more it's because they are more likely to die younger. Rely on large amounts of data like that, not on "I know more old smokers than old obese people" arguments.
I got a quick online quote for a $750K 10 year term policy for a 50 year old in my state. 5' 9" and 160 lbs and current smoker (excellent health) gave a cheapest quote of $3,125, next best of $3,600. 5' 9" and 240 lbs and never smoked (average health) gave a best quote of $1,530 and next best of $2,222. Life insurance companies have all of the data available and they say it is twice as bad to be a fit smoker than a obese person who is only of average fitness.
The experts have spoken. Smoking is WAAAAAAY worse.
Insurance companies aren't "experts". They just look for the most "cost effective" way to limit their losses.
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 -
It's a debate. Of course neither is desirable. Kinda like the candidates for this past presidential election.Wrong question. The real question is how do I get the most fun and enjoyment out of my life, the length of which none of us can predict. The answer is quit smoking, lose some weight, get active, surround yourself with good people. Much easier to focus on those than the negative rationalizations
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 -
Umm I'm going to say both are not good. The smoker who smokes before and after working out (Who in the world does that??) Is at risk for many of the same issues as the overweight one. In fact when you look up many health issues like heart disease, heart attack, stroke, high blood pressure, cancer...both are often risk factors. I'd say that they are locked in a lose-lose battle. Thin people are not always more healthy, and overweight people are not always unhealthy, but this is a crazy debate that they were even entertaining...0
-
People have been lumping overweight, obese, and morbidly obese together or just saying "obesity" (perhaps because studies lump them together), and I think the distinction probably matters. If they were compared separately, in general, I would say smoking is worse than being overweight, about equal to being obese, and being morbidly obese is worse than smoking.
If we're comparing anecdotes, two of my husband's grandparents are overweight or obese. They are in their 80s and they don't smoke. I also have two grandparents no longer with us who were overweight, did not smoke, and lived into their 80s and 90s. I have one living grandma, likely obese and non-smoker, who is turning 91 this year. They were all fairly mobile throughout their 80s too.0 -
I don't think either are good, but I have family members who have beat the odds. Husband's grandmother is bone thin and has smoked a pack a day every day for over 70 yrs. She's now 90 and her dr says other than her mild emphysema, she's healthy as can be. My grandmother lived to be 97. She was from the south, cooked with lard, was obese her entire life and still made it to almost 100 yrs old.0
-
I haven't read all of the comments but I don't think it's really comparable. In order to actually know, all the other factors in their lives would have to be the same. They would need to have the same blood work, the same genetics, the same environmental factors, etc. This isn't really controllable so you can't have an accurate study.
For instance, what about obese/overweight people who have good blood work, who are active, but who just eat a lot? What if they eat varied, nutritionally sound food? Since that isn't the case for most people, obesity is only one factor in the possibility of poor health (poor diet, lack of activity, etc. would be other factors). It's a symptom, rather than a cause in this case where the cause is a sedentary lifestyle with little exercise, overeating, and possibly a poor diet. However, smoking might be the only factor affecting poor health. That would severely skew the data on whether or not obesity - on its own - or smoking - on its own - correlates with more health risks.
Basically, you're missing lifestyle, and genetic factors that mess with data.0 -
I did it for almost 20 years. Except for endurance issues (and I still taught a cardio class), I continued to be very fit with no health issues.The smoker who smokes before and after working out (Who in the world does that??)
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 wouldn't bank my money on that. People are also determined by BMI. So a thin person who does no exercise and doesn't eat within nutritional values needed, versus a fit muscular person who exercises regularly and eats nutritionally, but is well past the BMI for their height and weight, will PAY MORE even if they aren't a higher risk for health issues.mburgess458 wrote: »Smoking is worse from an actuarial and inetensivist perspective.
This is the answer. Ask a life insurance actuary, or just look at the life insurance rates for a fit smoker versus an obese non-smoker. They have all of the data and crunch it so that they make the most money. If they charge smokers more it's because they are more likely to die younger. Rely on large amounts of data like that, not on "I know more old smokers than old obese people" arguments.
I got a quick online quote for a $750K 10 year term policy for a 50 year old in my state. 5' 9" and 160 lbs and current smoker (excellent health) gave a cheapest quote of $3,125, next best of $3,600. 5' 9" and 240 lbs and never smoked (average health) gave a best quote of $1,530 and next best of $2,222. Life insurance companies have all of the data available and they say it is twice as bad to be a fit smoker than a obese person who is only of average fitness.
The experts have spoken. Smoking is WAAAAAAY worse.
Insurance companies aren't "experts". They just look for the most "cost effective" way to limit their losses.
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
Your argument makes no sense at all. So weight isn't perfectly accounted for by life insurance rating. So what? Smoking doubles your cost whether you weigh more or not. They have the data from thousands and thousands of people's lives and deaths and they know that smoking makes you twice as expensive from a life insurance perspective.
The argument here isn't whether it makes sense to charge more for a heavier person. The question of this thread was smoking versus fat. Smoking is worse, much worse. The data proves that. If it didn't some insurance company would offer cheaper insurance for smokers and make money.
The way life insurance companies sort of take into account your "BMI is stupid" type of argument (which I agree with by the way) is by testing your blood/blood pressure... in general the heavier but fitter guy will have better blood test results. Also, the life insurance pricing isn't that sensitive to weight. It is very sensitive to smoking versus not.2 -
indigoblue9572 wrote: »I don't think either are good, but I have family members who have beat the odds. Husband's grandmother is bone thin and has smoked a pack a day every day for over 70 yrs. She's now 90 and her dr says other than her mild emphysema, she's healthy as can be. My grandmother lived to be 97. She was from the south, cooked with lard, was obese her entire life and still made it to almost 100 yrs old.
The bolded seems an odd statement. Other than your chronic progressive lung disease, you are quite healthy??3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »indigoblue9572 wrote: »I don't think either are good, but I have family members who have beat the odds. Husband's grandmother is bone thin and has smoked a pack a day every day for over 70 yrs. She's now 90 and her dr says other than her mild emphysema, she's healthy as can be. My grandmother lived to be 97. She was from the south, cooked with lard, was obese her entire life and still made it to almost 100 yrs old.
The bolded seems an odd statement. Other than your chronic progressive lung disease, you are quite healthy??
Yes, she is quite healthy. She has a chronic, progressive lung disease but she's also NINETY years old and has nothing else wrong with her. She doesn't cough, doesn't have the "smoker's voice" and still smokes a pack a day. I'm not advocating that type of lifestyle, trust me, I HATE cigarette smoke and how inconsiderate some smokers can be, but well, she's 90 yrs old and her emphysema is mild and doesn't cause her much trouble at all.0 -
indigoblue9572 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »indigoblue9572 wrote: »I don't think either are good, but I have family members who have beat the odds. Husband's grandmother is bone thin and has smoked a pack a day every day for over 70 yrs. She's now 90 and her dr says other than her mild emphysema, she's healthy as can be. My grandmother lived to be 97. She was from the south, cooked with lard, was obese her entire life and still made it to almost 100 yrs old.
The bolded seems an odd statement. Other than your chronic progressive lung disease, you are quite healthy??
Yes, she is quite healthy. She has a chronic, progressive lung disease but she's also NINETY years old and has nothing else wrong with her. She doesn't cough, doesn't have the "smoker's voice" and still smokes a pack a day. I'm not advocating that type of lifestyle, trust me, I HATE cigarette smoke and how inconsiderate some smokers can be, but well, she's 90 yrs old and her emphysema is mild and doesn't cause her much trouble at all.
Healthy with chronic lung disease is an oxymoron.2 -
I haven't read all the responses here, but smoking does not only cause lung cancer and that's it. My father, who was a lifelong smoker and not overweight a day in his life, died at 50 of a heart attack. His final cigarette killed him, because it constricted blood vessels when the plaque caused the blockage. So saying "obesity causes this, smoking causes that" is very restrictive. There are many other factors.1
-
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/10033/20140711/warning-obesity-is-more-dangerous-than-smoking-cuts-life-span-by-14-years.htm No direct citation but it makes sense because as bad as smoking is, its effects are relatively concentrated on one system of the body. As another commenter pointed out, there can be related complications, but it's not like obesity where every part of your body is negatively affected by it. If you're in good shape and otherwise healthy, your body is in a better condition to fight something that harms it. If you're obese, your body is busy fighting itself.0
-
To put it simple without writing 6 paragraphs. It depends on genetics and family history.
Person 1 - COPD, smoker etc
Person 2 - OBESE , overweight
Objective - Run a mile.
*No Time Limit
*First to finish wins0 -
There is an answer..The obese guy is in the gym loosing the weight. Will the lean smoker guy loose the cigars?0
-
I'll second the family history observation. I have asthma so for me smoking was definitely worse than being overweight. On the occasions that I fell off the wagon it would take a full 1:30 off my miles times during my morning jogs. Being overweight never bugged me at all (at least physically - mentally I hated looking in the mirror)1
-
Ok I believe that being overweight is better than smoking and here is why (based on my experience and my experience only - no science behind that) :
Because it was "easier" to loose all my weight than it was to stop smoking. It took me obviously way longer to loose the extra weight (9 months) but it was easier to eat healthier and start training again (just a better organization and the more you do it, the more motivated you are). Smoking was a different story, I went cold turkey but it was eating me up for a while (crazy mood, crazy cravings, crazy crazy - training pretty much saved me), I always visualize smoking as a monster inside me... now it's hidding. 7 years later, I don't care anymore, never think about it and I can be around smokers without a problem, I love being a non smoker BUT I know that I can never smoke one again otherwise it will eat me up again (and I cannot as I started to have some serious health issues because of my smoking - without being overweight then). So ultimately they are both terrible but I found it less bad to be overweight.4
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
- 392 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 929 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions