Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
So what's worse: being a smoker or being overweight/obese?
Replies
-
NorthCascades wrote: »...Apparently obesity related illnesses have been more expensive for our health care system than smoking related ones for many years...
This may be because smoking rates are down and obesity rates are up...
3 -
I would weigh in and say being overweight (obese) IMO, would be potentially more dangerous to your life expectancy than smoking. (Of course, there are several things which factor in..genetics, work, lifestyle, etc.)
I was both..morbidly obese and a smoker. I quit the smokes Sept 28th 2014 Cold Turkey.
March 1st 2016 I began my weight loss journey and am down 75+ pounds to date.
Of course, you can be the perfect weight and a non smoker..and get cancer, or have a heart attack as well...
No need to add more risk to your health, life is short enough as it is..
5 -
NorthCascades wrote: »...Apparently obesity related illnesses have been more expensive for our health care system than smoking related ones for many years...
This may be because smoking rates are down and obesity rates are up...
Other factors include the need for new buildings, rooms, equipment, ambulances, beds etc to accomodate bariatric and super bariatric patients.
Obesity related complications increase length of stay for larger patients. Massive cost.
Labour wise, two nurses can turn a healthy sized person in bed, no problem. An obese patient might be a four person assist.
Etc etc. it goes on ...
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »Instead of smoking, switch to vaping
Hubby and I switched 2 years ago and haven't had a cigarette since. The health gains have been amazing, we both have the lung function of non-smokers now and don't wheeze when we do physical exercise anymore. Nor have we had a cold in 2 years. Vaping is also fully endorsed by 2 surgeons we've spoken to and our GP. Honestly, easiest thing we've ever done.
No self respecting medical professional would endorse vaping, unless as a very poor alternative to actually smoking cigs. Vaping carries with it health risks: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/health-risks-e-cigarettes-emerge
Lol, that's not science. That's a pretty ignorant article. Have a look at some actual research from the UK before you comment on something you don't understand. I, on the other hand, have chosen to educate myself over the last 2 years - not just do a quick google. But good on you for trying.
1 -
The Canadian Medical Association has come out against all inhalants. Dusting your lungs with anything more than air comes with inherent risks.5
-
I would imagine it would be difficult to get a very accurate picture of which is more 'risky.' Not all smokers smoke the same amount, inhale, etc., the same way. Similarly, there's a bunch of ways to become overweight too much fried food, cake, lack of exercise, etc. At best you could compare death rates to prevalence within the population.
Aside from death, I'd also consider quality of life. Either one has a stigma, it can be difficult to play with your kids, etc.
At the end of the day, it almost doesn't matter. For me, smoking would be worse, but I'd want to get rid of either vice.3 -
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
I think the problem here is a common one, you are drawing erroneous conclusions from non equivalent stats. Not everybody smokes, and the percentage is dropping. A much larger proportion are overweight or obese, and the percentage was climbing. Obesity is about 35%, overweight another 33% or thereabouts, while smoking is at about 17.8%. Therefore, off the bat, if they are both equally as dangerous, you should expect the prevalence of diseases "from being overweight" reported to be about 4x as much just by populations affected. You really can't realistically try to insist its only 2x if you only count obesity, since you cant realistically exclude overweight from obese diseases since they are the same diseases, and weight related disease is not always distinguished by amount overweight. So first, it should appear that "weight related" disease is at least 4x more prevalent than smoking related, just by population numbers, if equivalent. So I'm not sure how you come up with that.
Deaths per 100k smoking site you noted is interesting, however again skewed since a huge component here is life expectancy. Since most cancers show up later in life, the lower the life expectancy, the lower the death rate from smoking will be first off, while diabetes is onsetting earlier and earlier, factors like these should distribute diseases showing up from obesity more frequently and smoking diseases less frequently in lower life expectancy countries. Next, there is the issue of correct identification of cause and recording of manner of death, which is less standardized in countries with lower income. Even we have large problems with that here, many are noted to die of "old age" still, when there was some underlying health condition probably or even definitely causing the death. Go to Africa and is there even a doctor around before they are buried? And, if you die from alcoholism, war, malnutrition or something else AND you smoked and had a cancer from it, its going to be the other thing that killed you showing up, not the smoking that was starting to kill you.
Now prison populations by circumstance are going to be on average exercising smokers, which does drop disease rate. Also, you cant always smoke as much as you'd like to in prison, so amounts of tobacco use are probably smaller. In any case, your statement that "Death rates are higher from old age and other illnesses than lung cancer." is true of any general population, so it really can't be construed as any support of your idea either.2 -
.0
-
Of course I only have situational evidence, but from that I truly believe a general body with similar levels of stress and other surroundings, one 70+ lbs overweight who never smoked and the other a chronic smoker who exercises regularly and eats very healthy, the person who is overweight will die of their complications with obesity related disease before the smoker dies of cancer.
I had this happen in my own family with two grandmothers. The pack-a-day smoker lived to be almost 90 (with no other lung related diseases, great quality of life until being diagnosed with lung cancer), the obese grandmother didn't live much past 78. The obese grandmother's husband was thin & exercised daily though (also a non smoker), and he lived to 92.
It becomes a lot more murky when you take into consideration that most people are 40 lbs-ish overweight, and many people are "casual" smokers - like less than 6 cigarettes a week. When you compare those two camps, it's probably more likely they'll both die of other causes, not of obesity or lung related diseases simply because they're not overweight "enough" and they don't smoke "enough" for it to be detrimental.2 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »@ninerbuff re: medical marijuana ...
I appreciate the anecdotal evidence regarding benefits for some patient cohorts.
I support research into canabinoids and medicine such as looking further into anti epileptic properties, analgesia ect
However, there is proven links between first episode psychosis, schizophrenia and other mental disorders and that in my opinion should not be brushed over.
I think many people need to Google 'marijuana and schizophrenia' as well as 'medical marijuana' for a balanced picture.
Canabis use has continued to increase (doubled actually) however schizophrenia has not increased, it's stayed around 1%.
If you look at common triggers for onset of symptoms in the literature you will find marijuana is considered I high risk for people predisposed to this kind of illness.
Obviously not everyone who had a joint will go mad, but in some people it can be catastrophic.
What is the percentage risk for those predisposed?
If you are really interested I suggest you access the psychiatric journals and look at specific studies (something I'm not going to do on your behalf lol) ...
This is from the UK royal college of psychiatrists though:
There is now sufficient evidence to show that those who use cannabis particularly at a younger age, such as around the age of 15, have a higher than average risk of developing a psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
These studies also show that the risk is dose-related. In other words, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop a psychotic illness. Furthermore, a study in Australia recently showed that those who used cannabis could develop the illness about 2.70 years earlier than those who did not.
Why should teenagers be particularly vulnerable to the use of cannabis? It is thought that this has something to do with brain development. The brain is still developing in the teenage years – up to the age of around 20, in fact. A massive process of ‘neural pruning’ is going on. This is rather like streamlining a tangled jumble of circuits so they can work more effectively. Any experience, or substance, that affects this process has the potential to produce long-term psychological effects.
It is also known that not everyone who uses cannabis, even at a young age, develops a psychotic illness. The available research shows that those who have a family history of a psychotic illness, or those who have certain characteristics such as schizotypal personality, or possibly have certain types of genes, may increase the risk of developing a psychotic illness following the regular use of strong cannabis.
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/cannabis.aspx?theme=mobile
......
1 -
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. 0 -
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.
Sorry it annoyed you:( I'm not using it as proof of anything, notice my smiley:).
I see 70 & 80 year olds in the nursing home I visit.
0 -
I think those two need to get their own health in order and not argue over which is healthier, because the answer is none of the above. As for which is worse on the whole I'm going with the smoker. Second hand obesity is usually an inconvenience, second hand smoke can cause all sorts of health problems. The idea that a smoker can isolate their smoke from others in not a thing. Smoke leaks in from smoking areas. It can go right through walls and floors in apartment buildings. Even having smoke on clothes can cause asthma and allergic reactions in others. If you want to eat yourself to death, fine, that's your business. But smoking effects everyone in the vicinity of that person.4
-
leanjogreen18 wrote: »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.
Sorry it annoyed you:( I'm not using it as proof of anything, notice my smiley:).
I see 70 & 80 year olds in the nursing home I visit.
Ah OK, so you are coming from different direction entirely than those I have heard this in the past that annoyed me. I have heard several use this as an excuse to smoke. But, I see similar conditions apply even in facilities: obese elderly are more likely to be in a full care facility not with the other elderly, more likely to have injuries from falls, knee and joint injuries/pain preventing mobility, or just staying in their rooms even if they can still get up, since obesity also increases the incidence of depression and dementia. While smoking on the other hand tends to encourage being social, is done by more social seeking people and is going to increase baseline metabolism (energy) making it more likely they will seek social interaction more. Of course both smoking and obesity are horrible for you and are likely going to lead to disease and earlier end than without them.
I visited a number of facilities as well, when those people I were visited were more mobile, what you said about the demographics there was true. But when their conditions worsened and they could not care for themselves, they had to be moved to different facilities, and there the demographics were turned upside down. Average age was increased, there were far more obese and affected elderly in wheelchairs, those that needed assistance to move. Much fewer smokers were around in these facilities, and though I know a few facility observations mean nothing, but one could make the opposite observation here: that many of the smokers never made it to older age, in the higher care facility. Some obese and/or immobile elderly I never saw leave their rooms, they stayed in beds with their doors ajar.
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
0 -
EbonyDahlia wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »Instead of smoking, switch to vaping Hubby and I switched 2 years ago and haven't had a cigarette since. The health gains have been amazing, we both have the lung function of non-smokers now and don't wheeze when we do physical exercise anymore. Nor have we had a cold in 2 years. Vaping is also fully endorsed by 2 surgeons we've spoken to and our GP. Honestly, easiest thing we've ever done.
No self respecting medical professional would endorse vaping, unless as a very poor alternative to actually smoking cigs. Vaping carries with it health risks: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/health-risks-e-cigarettes-emerge
Lol, that's not science. That's a pretty ignorant article. Have a look at some actual research from the UK before you comment on something you don't understand. I, on the other hand, have chosen to educate myself over the last 2 years - not just do a quick google. But good on you for trying.
So you don't think vaping has any negative impact on health?0 -
healthwise, both have their own kind of dangers. Personal preference, well, I'd rather have someone overweight than a smoker.2
-
As a former smoker, I agree.healthwise, both have their own kind of dangers. Personal preference, well, I'd rather have someone overweight than a smoker.
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 -
Interesting that everyone seems to be talking as though smoking only causes lung cancer. Lung cancer is just one of many conditions (including other cancers) associated with smoking.3
-
I really couldn't put one over the other. Both are a very dangerous gamble and food and tobacco are both highly addictive.. I was a pack a day smoker for over 30 years. Finally gave up the coffin nails last year.. Also dropped 90 pounds to boot...
I watched my uncle die from lung cancer, and it wasn't pretty. I did not want to end up 75 pounds on my death bed... So I stopped.. I actually vape now but I breathe better have endurance and taste food much better..
All you smokers out there.... Cut that stuff out!! If I can do it so can you!!4 -
Both of my parents began smoking at around age eleven (had to interview them for a project in grade school; one of the questions was if they smoke and when they started). Dad has smoked unfiltered cigarettes for the last 50 years, but never more than perhaps 20 pounds overweight. Had a quadruple bypass at 43, COPD for the last 5-7 years, probably the start of emphysema, and is now left with a heart that functions at about 25-35% of the capacity it should for his age.
Mom has smoked for the last 45 years or so. Has one of the worst coughs I've ever heard, and refuses to go to the doctor (she's afraid she'll get bad news related to her smoking). No official medical diagnoses yet, but she had to get a full set of dentures when she was young because of her smoking.
One sister smokes, started when she was around 19, I think. A decade later, she has partial dentures.
Grandma smoked for about 30 years, and quit in her early 50s (the Thanksgiving after I was born). She had to have heart surgery about a decade after she quit smoking, but she had gained weight after quitting. So maybe the smoking and her weight both contributed.
Grandpa: smoked, was slightly overweight the last years of his life but somewhat active; died of a heart attack.
Other grandpa: smoked almost his whole life. Got sick (not sure if a heart attack or not; I was 11 at the time and nobody wanted to be open about what was wrong). While in the hospital, he developed pneumonia (not entirely uncommon; many people get infections in hospitals) and his lungs couldn't cope well enough and he died.
This is all anecdotal evidence, of course, so it won't settle any debate. Every instance I have of a smoker dying/being sick could easily be met with someone else's story of an obese non-smoker dying/being sick.
But the top three behaviors that lead to early death are tobacco use, excessive alcohol consumption, and obesity/lack of physical activity/poor diet (according to the textbook from my phys ed class anyway, lol). Meaning, although obesity CAN contribute to an early death/disease, what's more important is if you're active or sedentary. A nonsmoking obese person who eats well and exercises 150 minutes or more a week would likely be healthier than a sedentary smoker who eats a poor diet.
If these two really want to settle their debate, they ought to get examined by the same physician and compare a blood panel, blood pressure, resting heart rate, etc. and have a little fitness competition ;P0 -
As a former smoker, I agree.healthwise, both have their own kind of dangers. Personal preference, well, I'd rather have someone overweight than a smoker.
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
Good idea. I'll bring it up the next time I see both of them.KaylenaJean wrote: »Both of my parents began smoking at around age eleven (had to interview them for a project in grade school; one of the questions was if they smoke and when they started). Dad has smoked unfiltered cigarettes for the last 50 years, but never more than perhaps 20 pounds overweight. Had a quadruple bypass at 43, COPD for the last 5-7 years, probably the start of emphysema, and is now left with a heart that functions at about 25-35% of the capacity it should for his age.
Mom has smoked for the last 45 years or so. Has one of the worst coughs I've ever heard, and refuses to go to the doctor (she's afraid she'll get bad news related to her smoking). No official medical diagnoses yet, but she had to get a full set of dentures when she was young because of her smoking.
One sister smokes, started when she was around 19, I think. A decade later, she has partial dentures.
Grandma smoked for about 30 years, and quit in her early 50s (the Thanksgiving after I was born). She had to have heart surgery about a decade after she quit smoking, but she had gained weight after quitting. So maybe the smoking and her weight both contributed.
Grandpa: smoked, was slightly overweight the last years of his life but somewhat active; died of a heart attack.
Other grandpa: smoked almost his whole life. Got sick (not sure if a heart attack or not; I was 11 at the time and nobody wanted to be open about what was wrong). While in the hospital, he developed pneumonia (not entirely uncommon; many people get infections in hospitals) and his lungs couldn't cope well enough and he died.
This is all anecdotal evidence, of course, so it won't settle any debate. Every instance I have of a smoker dying/being sick could easily be met with someone else's story of an obese non-smoker dying/being sick.
But the top three behaviors that lead to early death are tobacco use, excessive alcohol consumption, and obesity/lack of physical activity/poor diet (according to the textbook from my phys ed class anyway, lol). Meaning, although obesity CAN contribute to an early death/disease, what's more important is if you're active or sedentary. A nonsmoking obese person who eats well and exercises 150 minutes or more a week would likely be healthier than a sedentary smoker who eats a poor diet.
If these two really want to settle their debate, they ought to get examined by the same physician and compare a blood panel, blood pressure, resting heart rate, etc. and have a little fitness competition ;P
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 -
EbonyDahlia wrote: »Instead of smoking, switch to vaping Hubby and I switched 2 years ago and haven't had a cigarette since. The health gains have been amazing, we both have the lung function of non-smokers now and don't wheeze when we do physical exercise anymore. Nor have we had a cold in 2 years. Vaping is also fully endorsed by 2 surgeons we've spoken to and our GP. Honestly, easiest thing we've ever done.
My experience of vaping is quite different. I stopped smoking 16 years ago after 28 years of heavy smoking. 2 years ago I stupidly tried vaping and now I'm hooked -I'm finding it more addictive than smoking - and have had more serious chest infections since I started vaping than I ever did as a smoker.
There is no evidence to support the suggestion that it is safe (whether or not it's safer than smoking is a separate issue). It's also unregulated- in the uk anyway - so you have no idea what you're putting into your lungs. Because it looks glamorous (pretty pink vaping accessories etc)it could encourage more young women to start vaping.
If it helps with quitting smoking then fine but I think you're kidding yourself if you think it's safer because we just don't know.3 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: ».
I love it when people delete what they wrote after someone has responded. Makes for fluid conversation.
You could have simply chosen not to reply rather than editing out your comment, which incidentally had already been quoted in my reply to your question.
0 -
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.
Smoking has a benefit for those with ulcerative colitis because it has a tendency to put them in remission and when people stop they go into major flares but obviously I don't recommend smoking lol2 -
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.1 -
singingflutelady 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.
Smoking has a benefit for those with ulcerative colitis because it has a tendency to put them in remission and when people stop they go into major flares but obviously I don't recommend smoking lol
My uc started when I gave up smoking. I figure it's better than lung cancer though 1 -
Being a nurse, I have seen struggles with both. lots of discussion on lung issues r/t smoking. Now a look at obesity: decreased mobility making it extremely hard for the pt. but also the caretakers. Easily to get open areas in folds of body r/t sweat and rubbing of the folds against each other. Lots of times you also see diabetics being overweight, which puts them at risk for difficulty healing( all the excess sugar in system) and decreased circulation. Multiple issues can ensue. Smoking- nothing worse than watching someone gasp for air and trying( like all get out) to ease their struggle. trach can be eventual. Some people still smoke even with a trach. exercise and diet can benefit overweight and diabetes. ok done.1
-
sorry: addendum: I would say neither is worse than the other!!!1
-
both can be either a slow painful death or a fast painful death0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions