Need advice about metabolism and quitting smoking
Options
Replies
-
Thanks for all the replies guys, I've got two weeks left on the patches then will be totally nicotine free hallelujah! As I said I have been weighing most things but not all so will make sure from now on I'm weighing the lot! Exercise is getting increased, up until I stopped smoking my asthma was bad, sounding like I was about 80 when I was breathing so it's been a gradual thing but honestly, even with my weight loss stalling physically I feel better than I have for years. Energy levels are crazy! I'll try 100% weighing, more walking and weights for a few weeks and see how it goes.0
-
pollypocket1021 wrote: »pollypocket1021 wrote: »
"Nicotine reduces body weight by raising the resting metabolic rate while blunting the expected increase in food intake in response to the increase in metabolic rate. Like many antiobesity drugs, nicotine is a sympathomimetic agent. Sympathomimetic drugs increase energy expenditure via action on peripheral tissue and through regulation of metabolism in the brain. Nicotine promotes the local release of norepinephrine within body tissues and systemic release of epinephrine from the adrenal glands. Nicotine increases thermogenesis in adipose tissue, partly by increasing lipolysis and subsequent recycling of fatty acids into triglycerides.16,17 Smoking increases 24-h energy expenditure by ~10%18 and increases energy expenditure more during exercise and after eating than while at rest.19 A 10% increase in metabolic rate, corresponding to an expenditure of 200 kcal per 24 h, seems small; however, assuming that there is no change in caloric intake, this increase in energy expenditure caused by nicotine can result in the loss of 10 kg in body weight over 1 year."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195407/
Nicotine is not the only chemical in cigarettes. Not by a long shot.
Who said it was? And have there been controlled studies comparing wound healing in vapers and smokers? I'm not saying it's just nicotine, I'm not an authority of any kind on smoking or nicotine, but although it's not perfectly well understood, people who are authorities seem to feel it matters, across human and animal studies.
Everything I've read about vaping suggests it's almost certainly safer than smoking cigarettes, though, agree on that.pollypocket1021 wrote: »
"Nicotine reduces body weight by raising the resting metabolic rate while blunting the expected increase in food intake in response to the increase in metabolic rate. Like many antiobesity drugs, nicotine is a sympathomimetic agent. Sympathomimetic drugs increase energy expenditure via action on peripheral tissue and through regulation of metabolism in the brain. Nicotine promotes the local release of norepinephrine within body tissues and systemic release of epinephrine from the adrenal glands. Nicotine increases thermogenesis in adipose tissue, partly by increasing lipolysis and subsequent recycling of fatty acids into triglycerides.16,17 Smoking increases 24-h energy expenditure by ~10%18 and increases energy expenditure more during exercise and after eating than while at rest.19 A 10% increase in metabolic rate, corresponding to an expenditure of 200 kcal per 24 h, seems small; however, assuming that there is no change in caloric intake, this increase in energy expenditure caused by nicotine can result in the loss of 10 kg in body weight over 1 year."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195407/
People who smoke for 20 years don't lose 10kg per year, as the author above suggests or implies.
Yeah, that doesn't usually happen, and I agree it was a weird thing to include. They said, "assuming there is no change in caloric intake" and "can result". Practically speaking, what most likely happens is there is a change in caloric intake, given bodies' general inclination towards homeostasis / energy balance. I.e. they can get away with eating more than they otherwise would have. If they continue to consume the same amount after quitting, they're going to see a gain (and they often do). Ergo they should eat less.
I have searched for nicotine replacement vs cigarette in studies for years and I think I came up with one that's over 2 decades old, and very little in humans. The problem is compliance. I don't foresee anyone doing that study in the future, either. The most practical way to test to see if someone is using cigarettes is via a urine cotinine test, which is very sensitive and will show if someone's had nicotine exposure over the six weeks prior. But it can't distinguish between nicotine from cigarette smoke and vaping.
My point was nicotine, when isolated, has less of a biochemical impact. So much so that I am willing to completely disregard any theoretical chance in metabolism that is attributed to nicotine. I think it's a red herring altogether.
Sorry - you searched for studies comparing the influence of nicotine replacement vs cigarette on what, weight gain, or some particular metabolic process?
Compliance, yeah, it's a concern. But if participants are recruited from smokers who are motivated to quit (i.e. outpatients who have voluntarily signed up for a smoking cessation program in a clinical setting, with a wait list control group), I think they're not as likely to lie as smokers whose doctors ask them how they're doing when they're not actually ready to quit. Slipping is something most motivated quitters feel pretty anxious about and actually want to address ("How do I handle slip ups? Have I screwed this up?"). Some might fib, I think more would just drop out, but I think even more would want to talk about it in their group therapy or whatever, so they could learn to deal with it, because they'd be motivated to quit.
I think the issue is separating out the influence of the various chemicals in cigarettes and their effects in humans. But I mean, the influence of nicotine, specifically, on weight (through various metabolic processes), seems to have been pretty well established in animal studies.
Anyway, I just found this study, which seems to provide some support for what you're saying (different design than what you have in mind, though)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749100/
When I was looking (this was a couple of years ago) it was to see if there was evidence that nicotine patches would disqualify someone from havin surgery.
At the big teaching hospital where I had worked prior, every doctor would say no NICOTINE before surgery because vasoconstrictive effect impair wound healing. Turns out, they're wrong. That's not been shown to be true in any study.
So while nicotine is theorized to do a whole lot to various tissues in the body, there is simply no evidence to support that hypothesis.
When people gain weight when the quit smoking, it's likely due to the stress of quitting, not a change in metabolism.0 -
You're not in a deficit. I quit cold turkey a year ago this month (smoked for 30 years) and didn't gain a pound.0
-
I want to say congratulations on the quitting smoking. I just passed my three years in May. I am now trying to get my weight under control.0
-
According to my food and fitbit though I should have mostly been in a deficit, but still not lost! Not gained either to be fair, just floating around the same two pounds for weeks.
I've been weighing all of my food today and I've been overestimating some things so far! But I'll keep at it! I'm guessing on things like chicken I could be underestimating.
And thank you about quitting, had a major personal loss recently too so it's not been easy but I don't miss it one iota, in fact I just wonder it took me so long.0 -
pollypocket1021 wrote: »pollypocket1021 wrote: »pollypocket1021 wrote: »
"Nicotine reduces body weight by raising the resting metabolic rate while blunting the expected increase in food intake in response to the increase in metabolic rate. Like many antiobesity drugs, nicotine is a sympathomimetic agent. Sympathomimetic drugs increase energy expenditure via action on peripheral tissue and through regulation of metabolism in the brain. Nicotine promotes the local release of norepinephrine within body tissues and systemic release of epinephrine from the adrenal glands. Nicotine increases thermogenesis in adipose tissue, partly by increasing lipolysis and subsequent recycling of fatty acids into triglycerides.16,17 Smoking increases 24-h energy expenditure by ~10%18 and increases energy expenditure more during exercise and after eating than while at rest.19 A 10% increase in metabolic rate, corresponding to an expenditure of 200 kcal per 24 h, seems small; however, assuming that there is no change in caloric intake, this increase in energy expenditure caused by nicotine can result in the loss of 10 kg in body weight over 1 year."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195407/
Nicotine is not the only chemical in cigarettes. Not by a long shot.
Who said it was? And have there been controlled studies comparing wound healing in vapers and smokers? I'm not saying it's just nicotine, I'm not an authority of any kind on smoking or nicotine, but although it's not perfectly well understood, people who are authorities seem to feel it matters, across human and animal studies.
Everything I've read about vaping suggests it's almost certainly safer than smoking cigarettes, though, agree on that.pollypocket1021 wrote: »
"Nicotine reduces body weight by raising the resting metabolic rate while blunting the expected increase in food intake in response to the increase in metabolic rate. Like many antiobesity drugs, nicotine is a sympathomimetic agent. Sympathomimetic drugs increase energy expenditure via action on peripheral tissue and through regulation of metabolism in the brain. Nicotine promotes the local release of norepinephrine within body tissues and systemic release of epinephrine from the adrenal glands. Nicotine increases thermogenesis in adipose tissue, partly by increasing lipolysis and subsequent recycling of fatty acids into triglycerides.16,17 Smoking increases 24-h energy expenditure by ~10%18 and increases energy expenditure more during exercise and after eating than while at rest.19 A 10% increase in metabolic rate, corresponding to an expenditure of 200 kcal per 24 h, seems small; however, assuming that there is no change in caloric intake, this increase in energy expenditure caused by nicotine can result in the loss of 10 kg in body weight over 1 year."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195407/
People who smoke for 20 years don't lose 10kg per year, as the author above suggests or implies.
Yeah, that doesn't usually happen, and I agree it was a weird thing to include. They said, "assuming there is no change in caloric intake" and "can result". Practically speaking, what most likely happens is there is a change in caloric intake, given bodies' general inclination towards homeostasis / energy balance. I.e. they can get away with eating more than they otherwise would have. If they continue to consume the same amount after quitting, they're going to see a gain (and they often do). Ergo they should eat less.
I have searched for nicotine replacement vs cigarette in studies for years and I think I came up with one that's over 2 decades old, and very little in humans. The problem is compliance. I don't foresee anyone doing that study in the future, either. The most practical way to test to see if someone is using cigarettes is via a urine cotinine test, which is very sensitive and will show if someone's had nicotine exposure over the six weeks prior. But it can't distinguish between nicotine from cigarette smoke and vaping.
My point was nicotine, when isolated, has less of a biochemical impact. So much so that I am willing to completely disregard any theoretical chance in metabolism that is attributed to nicotine. I think it's a red herring altogether.
Sorry - you searched for studies comparing the influence of nicotine replacement vs cigarette on what, weight gain, or some particular metabolic process?
Compliance, yeah, it's a concern. But if participants are recruited from smokers who are motivated to quit (i.e. outpatients who have voluntarily signed up for a smoking cessation program in a clinical setting, with a wait list control group), I think they're not as likely to lie as smokers whose doctors ask them how they're doing when they're not actually ready to quit. Slipping is something most motivated quitters feel pretty anxious about and actually want to address ("How do I handle slip ups? Have I screwed this up?"). Some might fib, I think more would just drop out, but I think even more would want to talk about it in their group therapy or whatever, so they could learn to deal with it, because they'd be motivated to quit.
I think the issue is separating out the influence of the various chemicals in cigarettes and their effects in humans. But I mean, the influence of nicotine, specifically, on weight (through various metabolic processes), seems to have been pretty well established in animal studies.
Anyway, I just found this study, which seems to provide some support for what you're saying (different design than what you have in mind, though)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749100/
When I was looking (this was a couple of years ago) it was to see if there was evidence that nicotine patches would disqualify someone from havin surgery.
At the big teaching hospital where I had worked prior, every doctor would say no NICOTINE before surgery because vasoconstrictive effect impair wound healing. Turns out, they're wrong. That's not been shown to be true in any study.
So while nicotine is theorized to do a whole lot to various tissues in the body, there is simply no evidence to support that hypothesis.
When people gain weight when the quit smoking, it's likely due to the stress of quitting, not a change in metabolism.
Ok, it would help me out a lot if you could provide just a few cites for the bolded, or something, because although it's clearly not a 100% settled question, I don't really get how you can just say a bunch of research (with findings, i.e. evidence in support of a particular idea) doesn't exist just because you say it doesn't, or how you can dismiss out of hand a reasonable biological rationale based on what's known about the pharmacokinetics / metabolism of nicotine (I'm talking now about its puted influence on weight and metabolism, not wound healing). Take a peek at a couple of the references in that first article I linked to, for example. If you think the studies are poorly designed or don't support their hypotheses, it would be interesting to hear why.
As far as nicotine's effect on wound healing, this meta-analysis does seem to support your view
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22566015
RESULTS:
Smoking decreases tissue oxygenation and aerobe metabolism temporarily. The inflammatory healing response is attenuated by a reduced inflammatory cell chemotactic responsiveness, migratory function, and oxidative bactericidal mechanisms. In addition, the release of proteolytic enzymes and inhibitors is imbalanced. The proliferative response is impaired by a reduced fibroblast migration and proliferation in addition to a downregulated collagen synthesis and deposition. Smoking cessation restores tissue oxygenation and metabolism rapidly. Inflammatory cell response is reversed in part within 4 weeks, whereas the proliferative response remains impaired. Nicotine does not affect tissue microenvironment, but appears to impair inflammation and stimulate proliferation.
CONCLUSIONS:
Smoking has a transient effect on the tissue microenvironment and a prolonged effect on inflammatory and reparative cell functions leading to delayed healing and complications. Smoking cessation restores the tissue microenvironment rapidly and the inflammatory cellular functions within 4 weeks, but the proliferative response remain impaired. Nicotine and nicotine replacement drugs seem to attenuate inflammation and enhance proliferation but the effect appears to be marginal.0 -
FionaABruce wrote: »According to my food and fitbit though I should have mostly been in a deficit, but still not lost! Not gained either to be fair, just floating around the same two pounds for weeks.
I've been weighing all of my food today and I've been overestimating some things so far! But I'll keep at it! I'm guessing on things like chicken I could be underestimating.
And thank you about quitting, had a major personal loss recently too so it's not been easy but I don't miss it one iota, in fact I just wonder it took me so long.
First, congratulations on quitting! It's tough. I know.
I noticed you saying things like this in a lot of your replies. "Should have mostly been in a deficit," should have and being in a deficit is a huge difference. The bottom line is if you are not losing weight you are not in a deficit. Period. There is no other explanation. Quitting smoking does not in and of itself "cause" weight gain. If it did there would be a lot more obese ex-smokers, myself included. I quit, never gained an ounce. I also was eating in a deficit when I quit. Had I not been, I'm absolutely sure I would have gained weight because I would have replaced the habit of smoking with eating, I'm sure of it. Any metabolism affect that smoking has one way or the other is going to minimal at best. The bottom line is, you quit smoking, that's great! But it has no relevance on what you do now as far as weight loss is concerned.
0 -
Should mostly, meaning not every single day. But the majority of them. But yes, I should be weighing everything..I only asked as previous times I've lost weight doing exactly what I'm doing now I've lost stones (then I seem to let it slip back on but that's another matter), whereas this time, since stopping, nothing. I'll just keep at it and hope for the best...if it's still not moving in a few weeks I'll be back to ask for more advice.
0 -
pollypocket1021 wrote: »pollypocket1021 wrote: »pollypocket1021 wrote: »
"Nicotine reduces body weight by raising the resting metabolic rate while blunting the expected increase in food intake in response to the increase in metabolic rate. Like many antiobesity drugs, nicotine is a sympathomimetic agent. Sympathomimetic drugs increase energy expenditure via action on peripheral tissue and through regulation of metabolism in the brain. Nicotine promotes the local release of norepinephrine within body tissues and systemic release of epinephrine from the adrenal glands. Nicotine increases thermogenesis in adipose tissue, partly by increasing lipolysis and subsequent recycling of fatty acids into triglycerides.16,17 Smoking increases 24-h energy expenditure by ~10%18 and increases energy expenditure more during exercise and after eating than while at rest.19 A 10% increase in metabolic rate, corresponding to an expenditure of 200 kcal per 24 h, seems small; however, assuming that there is no change in caloric intake, this increase in energy expenditure caused by nicotine can result in the loss of 10 kg in body weight over 1 year."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195407/
Nicotine is not the only chemical in cigarettes. Not by a long shot.
Who said it was? And have there been controlled studies comparing wound healing in vapers and smokers? I'm not saying it's just nicotine, I'm not an authority of any kind on smoking or nicotine, but although it's not perfectly well understood, people who are authorities seem to feel it matters, across human and animal studies.
Everything I've read about vaping suggests it's almost certainly safer than smoking cigarettes, though, agree on that.pollypocket1021 wrote: »
"Nicotine reduces body weight by raising the resting metabolic rate while blunting the expected increase in food intake in response to the increase in metabolic rate. Like many antiobesity drugs, nicotine is a sympathomimetic agent. Sympathomimetic drugs increase energy expenditure via action on peripheral tissue and through regulation of metabolism in the brain. Nicotine promotes the local release of norepinephrine within body tissues and systemic release of epinephrine from the adrenal glands. Nicotine increases thermogenesis in adipose tissue, partly by increasing lipolysis and subsequent recycling of fatty acids into triglycerides.16,17 Smoking increases 24-h energy expenditure by ~10%18 and increases energy expenditure more during exercise and after eating than while at rest.19 A 10% increase in metabolic rate, corresponding to an expenditure of 200 kcal per 24 h, seems small; however, assuming that there is no change in caloric intake, this increase in energy expenditure caused by nicotine can result in the loss of 10 kg in body weight over 1 year."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195407/
People who smoke for 20 years don't lose 10kg per year, as the author above suggests or implies.
Yeah, that doesn't usually happen, and I agree it was a weird thing to include. They said, "assuming there is no change in caloric intake" and "can result". Practically speaking, what most likely happens is there is a change in caloric intake, given bodies' general inclination towards homeostasis / energy balance. I.e. they can get away with eating more than they otherwise would have. If they continue to consume the same amount after quitting, they're going to see a gain (and they often do). Ergo they should eat less.
I have searched for nicotine replacement vs cigarette in studies for years and I think I came up with one that's over 2 decades old, and very little in humans. The problem is compliance. I don't foresee anyone doing that study in the future, either. The most practical way to test to see if someone is using cigarettes is via a urine cotinine test, which is very sensitive and will show if someone's had nicotine exposure over the six weeks prior. But it can't distinguish between nicotine from cigarette smoke and vaping.
My point was nicotine, when isolated, has less of a biochemical impact. So much so that I am willing to completely disregard any theoretical chance in metabolism that is attributed to nicotine. I think it's a red herring altogether.
Sorry - you searched for studies comparing the influence of nicotine replacement vs cigarette on what, weight gain, or some particular metabolic process?
Compliance, yeah, it's a concern. But if participants are recruited from smokers who are motivated to quit (i.e. outpatients who have voluntarily signed up for a smoking cessation program in a clinical setting, with a wait list control group), I think they're not as likely to lie as smokers whose doctors ask them how they're doing when they're not actually ready to quit. Slipping is something most motivated quitters feel pretty anxious about and actually want to address ("How do I handle slip ups? Have I screwed this up?"). Some might fib, I think more would just drop out, but I think even more would want to talk about it in their group therapy or whatever, so they could learn to deal with it, because they'd be motivated to quit.
I think the issue is separating out the influence of the various chemicals in cigarettes and their effects in humans. But I mean, the influence of nicotine, specifically, on weight (through various metabolic processes), seems to have been pretty well established in animal studies.
Anyway, I just found this study, which seems to provide some support for what you're saying (different design than what you have in mind, though)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749100/
When I was looking (this was a couple of years ago) it was to see if there was evidence that nicotine patches would disqualify someone from havin surgery.
At the big teaching hospital where I had worked prior, every doctor would say no NICOTINE before surgery because vasoconstrictive effect impair wound healing. Turns out, they're wrong. That's not been shown to be true in any study.
So while nicotine is theorized to do a whole lot to various tissues in the body, there is simply no evidence to support that hypothesis.
When people gain weight when the quit smoking, it's likely due to the stress of quitting, not a change in metabolism.
Ok, it would help me out a lot if you could provide just a few cites for the bolded, or something, because although it's clearly not a 100% settled question, I don't really get how you can just say a bunch of research (with findings, i.e. evidence in support of a particular idea) doesn't exist just because you say it doesn't, or how you can dismiss out of hand a reasonable biological rationale based on what's known about the pharmacokinetics / metabolism of nicotine (I'm talking now about its puted influence on weight and metabolism, not wound healing). Take a peek at a couple of the references in that first article I linked to, for example. If you think the studies are poorly designed or don't support their hypotheses, it would be interesting to hear why.
As far as nicotine's effect on wound healing, this meta-analysis does seem to support your view
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22566015
RESULTS:
Smoking decreases tissue oxygenation and aerobe metabolism temporarily. The inflammatory healing response is attenuated by a reduced inflammatory cell chemotactic responsiveness, migratory function, and oxidative bactericidal mechanisms. In addition, the release of proteolytic enzymes and inhibitors is imbalanced. The proliferative response is impaired by a reduced fibroblast migration and proliferation in addition to a downregulated collagen synthesis and deposition. Smoking cessation restores tissue oxygenation and metabolism rapidly. Inflammatory cell response is reversed in part within 4 weeks, whereas the proliferative response remains impaired. Nicotine does not affect tissue microenvironment, but appears to impair inflammation and stimulate proliferation.
CONCLUSIONS:
Smoking has a transient effect on the tissue microenvironment and a prolonged effect on inflammatory and reparative cell functions leading to delayed healing and complications. Smoking cessation restores the tissue microenvironment rapidly and the inflammatory cellular functions within 4 weeks, but the proliferative response remain impaired. Nicotine and nicotine replacement drugs seem to attenuate inflammation and enhance proliferation but the effect appears to be marginal.
I guess I should rephrase: when I looked a few years ago, I could not find a single study comparing cigarettes to nicotine in humans. I appreciate the citation you provided.
ANECDOTALLY: nicotine being the assumed culprit in issues related to smokers is a sacred cow that most healthcare providers with whom I have worked seem to take for granted. Things that are widely accepted are not frequently studied.
The original post you made, which I responded to, makes a lot of claims about nicotine specifically having a substantial impact on metabolism. This is consistent with my personal experience of the effects of nicotine being highly overstated.
I maintain the OPINION that nicotine has a negligible (if any) effect of metabolism.
On the other hand, smoking cessation is stressful, and overeating is a common response to stressful situations. If you hear hooves, think horses.0 -
pollypocket1021 wrote: »pollypocket1021 wrote: »pollypocket1021 wrote: »pollypocket1021 wrote: »
"Nicotine reduces body weight by raising the resting metabolic rate while blunting the expected increase in food intake in response to the increase in metabolic rate. Like many antiobesity drugs, nicotine is a sympathomimetic agent. Sympathomimetic drugs increase energy expenditure via action on peripheral tissue and through regulation of metabolism in the brain. Nicotine promotes the local release of norepinephrine within body tissues and systemic release of epinephrine from the adrenal glands. Nicotine increases thermogenesis in adipose tissue, partly by increasing lipolysis and subsequent recycling of fatty acids into triglycerides.16,17 Smoking increases 24-h energy expenditure by ~10%18 and increases energy expenditure more during exercise and after eating than while at rest.19 A 10% increase in metabolic rate, corresponding to an expenditure of 200 kcal per 24 h, seems small; however, assuming that there is no change in caloric intake, this increase in energy expenditure caused by nicotine can result in the loss of 10 kg in body weight over 1 year."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195407/
Nicotine is not the only chemical in cigarettes. Not by a long shot.
Who said it was? And have there been controlled studies comparing wound healing in vapers and smokers? I'm not saying it's just nicotine, I'm not an authority of any kind on smoking or nicotine, but although it's not perfectly well understood, people who are authorities seem to feel it matters, across human and animal studies.
Everything I've read about vaping suggests it's almost certainly safer than smoking cigarettes, though, agree on that.pollypocket1021 wrote: »
"Nicotine reduces body weight by raising the resting metabolic rate while blunting the expected increase in food intake in response to the increase in metabolic rate. Like many antiobesity drugs, nicotine is a sympathomimetic agent. Sympathomimetic drugs increase energy expenditure via action on peripheral tissue and through regulation of metabolism in the brain. Nicotine promotes the local release of norepinephrine within body tissues and systemic release of epinephrine from the adrenal glands. Nicotine increases thermogenesis in adipose tissue, partly by increasing lipolysis and subsequent recycling of fatty acids into triglycerides.16,17 Smoking increases 24-h energy expenditure by ~10%18 and increases energy expenditure more during exercise and after eating than while at rest.19 A 10% increase in metabolic rate, corresponding to an expenditure of 200 kcal per 24 h, seems small; however, assuming that there is no change in caloric intake, this increase in energy expenditure caused by nicotine can result in the loss of 10 kg in body weight over 1 year."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195407/
People who smoke for 20 years don't lose 10kg per year, as the author above suggests or implies.
Yeah, that doesn't usually happen, and I agree it was a weird thing to include. They said, "assuming there is no change in caloric intake" and "can result". Practically speaking, what most likely happens is there is a change in caloric intake, given bodies' general inclination towards homeostasis / energy balance. I.e. they can get away with eating more than they otherwise would have. If they continue to consume the same amount after quitting, they're going to see a gain (and they often do). Ergo they should eat less.
I have searched for nicotine replacement vs cigarette in studies for years and I think I came up with one that's over 2 decades old, and very little in humans. The problem is compliance. I don't foresee anyone doing that study in the future, either. The most practical way to test to see if someone is using cigarettes is via a urine cotinine test, which is very sensitive and will show if someone's had nicotine exposure over the six weeks prior. But it can't distinguish between nicotine from cigarette smoke and vaping.
My point was nicotine, when isolated, has less of a biochemical impact. So much so that I am willing to completely disregard any theoretical chance in metabolism that is attributed to nicotine. I think it's a red herring altogether.
Sorry - you searched for studies comparing the influence of nicotine replacement vs cigarette on what, weight gain, or some particular metabolic process?
Compliance, yeah, it's a concern. But if participants are recruited from smokers who are motivated to quit (i.e. outpatients who have voluntarily signed up for a smoking cessation program in a clinical setting, with a wait list control group), I think they're not as likely to lie as smokers whose doctors ask them how they're doing when they're not actually ready to quit. Slipping is something most motivated quitters feel pretty anxious about and actually want to address ("How do I handle slip ups? Have I screwed this up?"). Some might fib, I think more would just drop out, but I think even more would want to talk about it in their group therapy or whatever, so they could learn to deal with it, because they'd be motivated to quit.
I think the issue is separating out the influence of the various chemicals in cigarettes and their effects in humans. But I mean, the influence of nicotine, specifically, on weight (through various metabolic processes), seems to have been pretty well established in animal studies.
Anyway, I just found this study, which seems to provide some support for what you're saying (different design than what you have in mind, though)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749100/
When I was looking (this was a couple of years ago) it was to see if there was evidence that nicotine patches would disqualify someone from havin surgery.
At the big teaching hospital where I had worked prior, every doctor would say no NICOTINE before surgery because vasoconstrictive effect impair wound healing. Turns out, they're wrong. That's not been shown to be true in any study.
So while nicotine is theorized to do a whole lot to various tissues in the body, there is simply no evidence to support that hypothesis.
When people gain weight when the quit smoking, it's likely due to the stress of quitting, not a change in metabolism.
Ok, it would help me out a lot if you could provide just a few cites for the bolded, or something, because although it's clearly not a 100% settled question, I don't really get how you can just say a bunch of research (with findings, i.e. evidence in support of a particular idea) doesn't exist just because you say it doesn't, or how you can dismiss out of hand a reasonable biological rationale based on what's known about the pharmacokinetics / metabolism of nicotine (I'm talking now about its puted influence on weight and metabolism, not wound healing). Take a peek at a couple of the references in that first article I linked to, for example. If you think the studies are poorly designed or don't support their hypotheses, it would be interesting to hear why.
As far as nicotine's effect on wound healing, this meta-analysis does seem to support your view
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22566015
RESULTS:
Smoking decreases tissue oxygenation and aerobe metabolism temporarily. The inflammatory healing response is attenuated by a reduced inflammatory cell chemotactic responsiveness, migratory function, and oxidative bactericidal mechanisms. In addition, the release of proteolytic enzymes and inhibitors is imbalanced. The proliferative response is impaired by a reduced fibroblast migration and proliferation in addition to a downregulated collagen synthesis and deposition. Smoking cessation restores tissue oxygenation and metabolism rapidly. Inflammatory cell response is reversed in part within 4 weeks, whereas the proliferative response remains impaired. Nicotine does not affect tissue microenvironment, but appears to impair inflammation and stimulate proliferation.
CONCLUSIONS:
Smoking has a transient effect on the tissue microenvironment and a prolonged effect on inflammatory and reparative cell functions leading to delayed healing and complications. Smoking cessation restores the tissue microenvironment rapidly and the inflammatory cellular functions within 4 weeks, but the proliferative response remain impaired. Nicotine and nicotine replacement drugs seem to attenuate inflammation and enhance proliferation but the effect appears to be marginal.
I guess I should rephrase: when I looked a few years ago, I could not find a single study comparing cigarettes to nicotine in humans. I appreciate the citation you provided.
ANECDOTALLY: nicotine being the assumed culprit in issues related to smokers is a sacred cow that most healthcare providers with whom I have worked seem to take for granted. Things that are widely accepted are not frequently studied.
The original post you made, which I responded to, makes a lot of claims about nicotine specifically having a substantial impact on metabolism. This is consistent with my personal experience of the effects of nicotine being highly overstated.
I maintain the OPINION that nicotine has a negligible (if any) effect of metabolism.
On the other hand, smoking cessation is stressful, and overeating is a common response to stressful situations. If you hear hooves, think horses.
I don't know what kind of response I can have to an opinion, really, without discussing the reasons/evidence for it, other than simply agreeing or disagreeing. But, it's ok to have different opinions, and if we're doing that, I'm sure stress contributes to gain/regain after smoking cessation, but I don't think it's the whole story. It does seem to me (based on what I've read) that there are metabolic effects. Sometimes zebras are zebras.
The bottom line is still that OP should eat less.0 -
When I quit smoking, my weight went out of control even though my calories were reduced as I stopped eating out to avoid cigarette smoke and stopped drinking wine. I read that there were a couple of reasons for this: (1) your body burns about 10% more calories just fighting the damage cigarette smoking causes, and (2) no longer is your meal signified by the lighting up of a cigarette; so you tend to keep eating. After eleven years of ups and downs with my weight, mostly downs (or would that be ups?) I have accepted that I am going to have to exercise hard and watch my caloric intake, something I never had to do the entire 35 years that I smoked.
I guess everyone is different.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
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions