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
-
both are scarey. guess i wasn't quite done. sorry0
-
0
-
twinkle2356 wrote: »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.
Way back in the day when hospitals allowed smoking was visiting someone and walking through the floor saw some guy smoking out of his stoma hole.
Friend who smoked was with me. He dumped his cigs all over the parking lot when we left and never smoked again.7 -
Yes you'd have to account for other risk factors because it's really hard statistically say what kills every person, but a little correlation is that outside of the US, smoking is less regulated, healthcare in many other countries aren't as advanced, and people are thinner along with average lifespan being longer. IMO based on what I have actually seen and statistics, thinner and fit people who smoke look to outlive those who are very overweight/obese who aren't fit and don't smoke.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Not gonna try to convince you. I'm just going off the statistics. And in the US we have a much bigger issue with weight correlated deaths than lung cancer. Again, not condoning smoking, but it's odd to see that something that everyone thinks is really bad, isn't killing us off as much as weight related issues. Again, those are the stats, not my opinion.3rdof7sisters wrote: »Well, seeing both my mother (@ age 67) and my oldest sister (@ age 54) both die from lung related issues, and both being normal weight (actually sister was underweight at time of death), I will opt for smoking being more hazardous to overall health. Meanwhile, none of my sisters or father (who are/were overweight) died from being overweight. Plus smokers put those around them at risk with second hand smoke.
Plus everyone has to eat to survive, no one has to smoke.
BTW OP, my mother (lifelong smoker) emphysema.
Sister, lifelong smoker. Breast cancer @ 36. Brain, lung, adrenal cancer @ 54 died of pneumonia ultimately and no spare fat on her to help her survive longer.
No way will you convince me smoking is better for you than being over weight.
PS OP, have you ever watched a loved one die, struggling for every breath?
I have had several relatives smoke throughout their life and not die from lung cancer, my grandmother being one of them.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Is it fair to say weight correlated deaths vs lung cancer = obesity is more harmful? Lung cancer is not the only risk factor that smoking carries. Smoking and obesity raise risk of many of the same diseases.
Do statistics show that a higher percentage of obese people die prematurely than smokers, that's the statistic to look at. And then you'd have to account for other risk factors.
According to NIH, an obese person can lose up to 8-14 years of lifespan versus a smoker who loses 10. But the countries outside of the US live up to 80+ years and in the US the average death is lower than that even with better healthcare options. I haven't met or know any obese person who's lived beyond 70 years old. That's of course is an anecdote.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 0 -
I think there are a lot of variables that impact someone's mortality. Both obesity and smoking lead to an increase in significant health problems so it seems like a dumb addict argument/excuse fest rather than a debate.
According to these two fact sheets from the CDC smoking sure looks like the better chance to develop serious health problems or die early but it isn't a sure thing either way.
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/index.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/effects/index.html
I think it might be more interesting to find out what happens with former overweight people compared to smokers or former smokers.
Since A is at the gym his goal may be getting to a lower weight like many of us here.
If person A loses weight but person B keeps smoking isn't B's risk of health problems/early death higher even if they both eat a healthy diet and exercise? If person A gets to a healthy weight and person B quits smoking at the same time what does it do to their future health comparison?
1 -
I'd be curious to know where in Europe they think smoking is still prevalent in bars and restaurants? Most EU countries have a smoking ban in bars/restaurants and have done for many years now.4
-
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »I'd be curious to know where in Europe they think smoking is still prevalent in bars and restaurants? Most EU countries have a smoking ban in bars/restaurants and have done for many years now.
I keep on thinking the same thing. Makes me wonder if I live on the same continent or not... Then again... 'Europe' is a very large area covering everything from Portugal (on the far west) to Russia and everything in between. Or are we just talking the political entity which is the EU? Even then it makes little sense to say 'in Europe' as it's still a rather large amalgam of extremely different countries (or do you intend to say that Poland and Portugal are the same?)
But to get back on topic:
I'm tempted to say smokers might have the shorter end of that stick in the argument. As far as I understand (sorry, no studies to back this up, only the explanations from a doctor while we were waiting for my grandfather to die a miserable death due to COPD nearly 3 decades after he stopped smoking), the damaging effect of smoking can appear years after someone has stopped. The damaging effects of obesity can (up to a certain point) be reversed by losing the excess weight and adopting healthier habits (granted it's also a slow process and the effects may catch up with someone a long time before that stadium is reached). I'm thinking of things like NAFLD which, if the changes in lifestyle are implemented soon enough can be nearly fully cleared up (again, this from a doctor, this time talking about my own health problems).2 -
That's like asking whether it's worse to drop a 20kg plate on my big toe or burn the entire roof of my mouth with scalding pizza. Can't I just not do either?5
-
Reviewing M&M reports suggest that while both are dominant risk factors, obesity carries higher risk than smoking. What's hidden in these figures are the number of patients who are both obese and smoke (not to mention the endless additional risk factors that are not tracked).2
-
Yes you'd have to account for other risk factors because it's really hard statistically say what kills every person, but a little correlation is that outside of the US, smoking is less regulated, healthcare in many other countries aren't as advanced, and people are thinner along with average lifespan being longer. IMO based on what I have actually seen and statistics, thinner and fit people who smoke look to outlive those who are very overweight/obese who aren't fit and don't smoke.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Not gonna try to convince you. I'm just going off the statistics. And in the US we have a much bigger issue with weight correlated deaths than lung cancer. Again, not condoning smoking, but it's odd to see that something that everyone thinks is really bad, isn't killing us off as much as weight related issues. Again, those are the stats, not my opinion.3rdof7sisters wrote: »Well, seeing both my mother (@ age 67) and my oldest sister (@ age 54) both die from lung related issues, and both being normal weight (actually sister was underweight at time of death), I will opt for smoking being more hazardous to overall health. Meanwhile, none of my sisters or father (who are/were overweight) died from being overweight. Plus smokers put those around them at risk with second hand smoke.
Plus everyone has to eat to survive, no one has to smoke.
BTW OP, my mother (lifelong smoker) emphysema.
Sister, lifelong smoker. Breast cancer @ 36. Brain, lung, adrenal cancer @ 54 died of pneumonia ultimately and no spare fat on her to help her survive longer.
No way will you convince me smoking is better for you than being over weight.
PS OP, have you ever watched a loved one die, struggling for every breath?
I have had several relatives smoke throughout their life and not die from lung cancer, my grandmother being one of them.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Is it fair to say weight correlated deaths vs lung cancer = obesity is more harmful? Lung cancer is not the only risk factor that smoking carries. Smoking and obesity raise risk of many of the same diseases.
Do statistics show that a higher percentage of obese people die prematurely than smokers, that's the statistic to look at. And then you'd have to account for other risk factors.
According to NIH, an obese person can lose up to 8-14 years of lifespan versus a smoker who loses 10. But the countries outside of the US live up to 80+ years and in the US the average death is lower than that even with better healthcare options. I haven't met or know any obese person who's lived beyond 70 years old. That's of course is an anecdote.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I live in one of the more obese states (US). I've know many obese people over 70. I would agree that thin and fit would likely live longer because while smoking raises many risk factors, exercise lowers many of them. That would be a variable to be accounted for I think. I wonder about the thin smoker that doesn't exercise though. That's a more level playing field.0 -
Personally, I think smoking is worse. Because it can hurt the people around you too. And I understand the joy of food. I don't quite understand the joy of smoking. Lol.
So when speaking of mortality rates, I don't know. But area of influence is my criterion.
Also, in the OP, both the obese person and the smoker person exercise (I'm assuming that's why they're at the gym). So I wonder if the exercise changes the "who will live longer" question for those two particular individuals. You can exercise your way into a strong heart and lungs, but you can't really exercise away poison (I'm talking the very real toxins that cigarettes contain).1 -
I watched my mom suffer from lung disease for many years due to smoking. She was only 56 at her passing. I have a few obese cousins and only one has passed away from heart issues possible related to their weight. I don't know for certain since they were much older than me and I wasn't in contact. Anyway, I think both are bad.
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
You missed my points showing how your line of reasoning is off, but replied to something directed at the incorrect generalized type of statement of the sort "you don't see them obese elderly around once they get old enough, but you see smokers, smoking is healthier!", a confirmation bias due to extremely poor tiny sample (if one tends to be less mobile or home, you will not see as many out as often).
Many of those other countries also have correlating statistics which need to be addressed before you can try to make such generalizations in comparison to populations, making it extremely difficult to say this type of comparison holds any water. There are also many factors I didn't include, such as the fact that obesity + smoking is worse and we have more obese, which ups smoking related deaths (could even be 100% of the difference theoretically in some cases), our health care in comparison is poorer in that less people have access, quality and more expensive than some of the european country's you'd like to compare to, additives to cigarettes are different, etc etc. And again even if you ignore all that, the basic math of prevalence shows that you need to come up with about 4x the deaths of weight related disease as you put it, vs smoking related disease to support this, which you don't.
So besides pulling an opinion out of the blue, I'm not sure anything supports what you are saying. I'm thinking there may be some desire to smoke that is lurking around wanting to be validated? I just find it kind of unhelpful to make this kind of vague assumption since many do cling on this type of thing to say "hey, at least I'm not fat, smoking keeps me thin and I'm less likely to die than being fat", which is really no more than wishful thinking. Both are very unhealthy and will probably eventually kill you.2 -
Yes you'd have to account for other risk factors because it's really hard statistically say what kills every person, but a little correlation is that outside of the US, smoking is less regulated, healthcare in many other countries aren't as advanced, and people are thinner along with average lifespan being longer. IMO based on what I have actually seen and statistics, thinner and fit people who smoke look to outlive those who are very overweight/obese who aren't fit and don't smoke.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Not gonna try to convince you. I'm just going off the statistics. And in the US we have a much bigger issue with weight correlated deaths than lung cancer. Again, not condoning smoking, but it's odd to see that something that everyone thinks is really bad, isn't killing us off as much as weight related issues. Again, those are the stats, not my opinion.3rdof7sisters wrote: »Well, seeing both my mother (@ age 67) and my oldest sister (@ age 54) both die from lung related issues, and both being normal weight (actually sister was underweight at time of death), I will opt for smoking being more hazardous to overall health. Meanwhile, none of my sisters or father (who are/were overweight) died from being overweight. Plus smokers put those around them at risk with second hand smoke.
Plus everyone has to eat to survive, no one has to smoke.
BTW OP, my mother (lifelong smoker) emphysema.
Sister, lifelong smoker. Breast cancer @ 36. Brain, lung, adrenal cancer @ 54 died of pneumonia ultimately and no spare fat on her to help her survive longer.
No way will you convince me smoking is better for you than being over weight.
PS OP, have you ever watched a loved one die, struggling for every breath?
I have had several relatives smoke throughout their life and not die from lung cancer, my grandmother being one of them.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Is it fair to say weight correlated deaths vs lung cancer = obesity is more harmful? Lung cancer is not the only risk factor that smoking carries. Smoking and obesity raise risk of many of the same diseases.
Do statistics show that a higher percentage of obese people die prematurely than smokers, that's the statistic to look at. And then you'd have to account for other risk factors.
According to NIH, an obese person can lose up to 8-14 years of lifespan versus a smoker who loses 10. But the countries outside of the US live up to 80+ years and in the US the average death is lower than that even with better healthcare options. I haven't met or know any obese person who's lived beyond 70 years old. That's of course is an anecdote.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Sorry, but further incorrect comparisons. You can make the same strange argument and say obesity is not as bad because less people in those same countries die of obese related diseases than here because their death rate is lower...you see how that makes no sense and is comparing the wrong things just like your assumption above?1 -
Does it matter which is worse? Both are harmful. Enough said.0
-
There is also something at work here that smokers have clung to forever, which is you can find elderly 90+ year old mobile smokers that appear healthy. I joked about it as mutants, but there is a small sample of the population who's immune systems do a better job dealing with the cancerous cells, and seem to deal with the toxins from smoking much better than most. However, nobody seems to have avoided all the possible ravages of gravity and strain on every system that obesity causes over time.
So, I am going to guess you are going to find more examples of ancient smokers than ancient overweight people. But, that does not mean on average smokers do any better at all, in fact they also tend to die early. You can always gamble and hope you are that one guy who lives to 95 and smokes a pack day, but even he may have lived to 105 without smoking.
0 -
Personally, I would say smoking is worse. Zero benefit, dangerous, smelly, disgusting.
I lost my mom to lung cancer at the young age of 46. I was 11.2 -
Knowing that I was having a kid is why I quit cold turkey. Best decision I've made.3rdof7sisters wrote: »
I note your opinion. It still doesn't negate that people who smoke actually burn more calories than non smokers eating the same amount. Just speaking on statistics.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.
I don't disagree here. No one should have to endure someone's smoking habit if they don't want to be around it. As a former smoker myself, I don't like to smell it or inhale it. If people want to smoke, there should be designated areas where it doesn't disturb others.Plus you are putting others around you at risk because of your habit.
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
What about the children of smokers who don't have the choice? This is the epitome of selfishness, putting your children at risk. And yes, there are people who never smoke around their children, but there are plenty that do. In this day and age when the risks are know, and well documented, there simply is no excuse for even starting to smoke.
Agree with everything except with the STATISTICAL benefit of a higher metabolic rate. Not saying that one should smoke to increase metabolism, but it's still a fact that it does. It'd be a dumb way to do it.It is a filthy, expensive habit with no benefit at all except making tobacco companies richer.
Well not to go off course here, but people intentionally do really stupid stuff that not only endanger them, but others as well. Texting while driving, drunk driving, etc. are good examples.Think about it, you are intentionally putting smoke into your lungs. How messed up is that?
BTW, how do you feel about marijuana smoking, especially for medical reasons?
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 would smoke marijuana before I would take any man made synthetic drug. My parents think smoking weed is an atrocity that can lead to other harder drugs. But they are at the doctors office 3 times a week for all the medications they are on to make sure each med isn't counteracting the other.
2 -
Knowing that I was having a kid is why I quit cold turkey. Best decision I've made.3rdof7sisters wrote: »
I note your opinion. It still doesn't negate that people who smoke actually burn more calories than non smokers eating the same amount. Just speaking on statistics.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.
I don't disagree here. No one should have to endure someone's smoking habit if they don't want to be around it. As a former smoker myself, I don't like to smell it or inhale it. If people want to smoke, there should be designated areas where it doesn't disturb others.Plus you are putting others around you at risk because of your habit.
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
What about the children of smokers who don't have the choice? This is the epitome of selfishness, putting your children at risk. And yes, there are people who never smoke around their children, but there are plenty that do. In this day and age when the risks are know, and well documented, there simply is no excuse for even starting to smoke.
Agree with everything except with the STATISTICAL benefit of a higher metabolic rate. Not saying that one should smoke to increase metabolism, but it's still a fact that it does. It'd be a dumb way to do it.It is a filthy, expensive habit with no benefit at all except making tobacco companies richer.
Well not to go off course here, but people intentionally do really stupid stuff that not only endanger them, but others as well. Texting while driving, drunk driving, etc. are good examples.Think about it, you are intentionally putting smoke into your lungs. How messed up is that?
BTW, how do you feel about marijuana smoking, especially for medical reasons?
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 would smoke marijuana before I would take any man made synthetic drug. My parents think smoking weed is an atrocity that can lead to other harder drugs. But they are at the doctors office 3 times a week for all the medications they are on to make sure each med isn't counteracting the other.
You must be my sibling! My parents are exactly the same.1 -
Yes you'd have to account for other risk factors because it's really hard statistically say what kills every person, but a little correlation is that outside of the US, smoking is less regulated, healthcare in many other countries aren't as advanced, and people are thinner along with average lifespan being longer. IMO based on what I have actually seen and statistics, thinner and fit people who smoke look to outlive those who are very overweight/obese who aren't fit and don't smoke.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Not gonna try to convince you. I'm just going off the statistics. And in the US we have a much bigger issue with weight correlated deaths than lung cancer. Again, not condoning smoking, but it's odd to see that something that everyone thinks is really bad, isn't killing us off as much as weight related issues. Again, those are the stats, not my opinion.3rdof7sisters wrote: »Well, seeing both my mother (@ age 67) and my oldest sister (@ age 54) both die from lung related issues, and both being normal weight (actually sister was underweight at time of death), I will opt for smoking being more hazardous to overall health. Meanwhile, none of my sisters or father (who are/were overweight) died from being overweight. Plus smokers put those around them at risk with second hand smoke.
Plus everyone has to eat to survive, no one has to smoke.
BTW OP, my mother (lifelong smoker) emphysema.
Sister, lifelong smoker. Breast cancer @ 36. Brain, lung, adrenal cancer @ 54 died of pneumonia ultimately and no spare fat on her to help her survive longer.
No way will you convince me smoking is better for you than being over weight.
PS OP, have you ever watched a loved one die, struggling for every breath?
I have had several relatives smoke throughout their life and not die from lung cancer, my grandmother being one of them.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Is it fair to say weight correlated deaths vs lung cancer = obesity is more harmful? Lung cancer is not the only risk factor that smoking carries. Smoking and obesity raise risk of many of the same diseases.
Do statistics show that a higher percentage of obese people die prematurely than smokers, that's the statistic to look at. And then you'd have to account for other risk factors.
According to NIH, an obese person can lose up to 8-14 years of lifespan versus a smoker who loses 10. But the countries outside of the US live up to 80+ years and in the US the average death is lower than that even with better healthcare options. I haven't met or know any obese person who's lived beyond 70 years old. That's of course is an anecdote.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
http://www.spottedbylocals.com/blog/is-it-allowed-to-smoke-in-europes-bars/tinkerbellang83 wrote: »I'd be curious to know where in Europe they think smoking is still prevalent in bars and restaurants? Most EU countries have a smoking ban in bars/restaurants and have done for many years now.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 0 -
Yes you'd have to account for other risk factors because it's really hard statistically say what kills every person, but a little correlation is that outside of the US, smoking is less regulated, healthcare in many other countries aren't as advanced, and people are thinner along with average lifespan being longer. IMO based on what I have actually seen and statistics, thinner and fit people who smoke look to outlive those who are very overweight/obese who aren't fit and don't smoke.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Not gonna try to convince you. I'm just going off the statistics. And in the US we have a much bigger issue with weight correlated deaths than lung cancer. Again, not condoning smoking, but it's odd to see that something that everyone thinks is really bad, isn't killing us off as much as weight related issues. Again, those are the stats, not my opinion.3rdof7sisters wrote: »Well, seeing both my mother (@ age 67) and my oldest sister (@ age 54) both die from lung related issues, and both being normal weight (actually sister was underweight at time of death), I will opt for smoking being more hazardous to overall health. Meanwhile, none of my sisters or father (who are/were overweight) died from being overweight. Plus smokers put those around them at risk with second hand smoke.
Plus everyone has to eat to survive, no one has to smoke.
BTW OP, my mother (lifelong smoker) emphysema.
Sister, lifelong smoker. Breast cancer @ 36. Brain, lung, adrenal cancer @ 54 died of pneumonia ultimately and no spare fat on her to help her survive longer.
No way will you convince me smoking is better for you than being over weight.
PS OP, have you ever watched a loved one die, struggling for every breath?
I have had several relatives smoke throughout their life and not die from lung cancer, my grandmother being one of them.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Is it fair to say weight correlated deaths vs lung cancer = obesity is more harmful? Lung cancer is not the only risk factor that smoking carries. Smoking and obesity raise risk of many of the same diseases.
Do statistics show that a higher percentage of obese people die prematurely than smokers, that's the statistic to look at. And then you'd have to account for other risk factors.
According to NIH, an obese person can lose up to 8-14 years of lifespan versus a smoker who loses 10. But the countries outside of the US live up to 80+ years and in the US the average death is lower than that even with better healthcare options. I haven't met or know any obese person who's lived beyond 70 years old. That's of course is an anecdote.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
http://www.spottedbylocals.com/blog/is-it-allowed-to-smoke-in-europes-bars/tinkerbellang83 wrote: »I'd be curious to know where in Europe they think smoking is still prevalent in bars and restaurants? Most EU countries have a smoking ban in bars/restaurants and have done for many years now.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
When I was in France, Italy and Spain, I saw only a handful of smokers. In France it was mostly young, Algerian immigrant males. I didn't see anyone smoking in public in the other two countries, but I wasn't in high-traffic touristy areas, and maybe I didn't see it because they were all hanging out in the bars smoking? I normally notice if smokers are around, since the smoke irritates my airways. It sure didn't seem like the epidemic of Euro-smokers that's being described in this thread.0 -
My BIL, MIL and DW were in Rome and doing the tourist thing (this was about 12 years ago I believe) and they went into a restaurant to eat. When the lady asked for smoking or non smoking, they asked for non smoking because non of them smoked.
Yes you'd have to account for other risk factors because it's really hard statistically say what kills every person, but a little correlation is that outside of the US, smoking is less regulated, healthcare in many other countries aren't as advanced, and people are thinner along with average lifespan being longer. IMO based on what I have actually seen and statistics, thinner and fit people who smoke look to outlive those who are very overweight/obese who aren't fit and don't smoke.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Not gonna try to convince you. I'm just going off the statistics. And in the US we have a much bigger issue with weight correlated deaths than lung cancer. Again, not condoning smoking, but it's odd to see that something that everyone thinks is really bad, isn't killing us off as much as weight related issues. Again, those are the stats, not my opinion.3rdof7sisters wrote: »Well, seeing both my mother (@ age 67) and my oldest sister (@ age 54) both die from lung related issues, and both being normal weight (actually sister was underweight at time of death), I will opt for smoking being more hazardous to overall health. Meanwhile, none of my sisters or father (who are/were overweight) died from being overweight. Plus smokers put those around them at risk with second hand smoke.
Plus everyone has to eat to survive, no one has to smoke.
BTW OP, my mother (lifelong smoker) emphysema.
Sister, lifelong smoker. Breast cancer @ 36. Brain, lung, adrenal cancer @ 54 died of pneumonia ultimately and no spare fat on her to help her survive longer.
No way will you convince me smoking is better for you than being over weight.
PS OP, have you ever watched a loved one die, struggling for every breath?
I have had several relatives smoke throughout their life and not die from lung cancer, my grandmother being one of them.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Is it fair to say weight correlated deaths vs lung cancer = obesity is more harmful? Lung cancer is not the only risk factor that smoking carries. Smoking and obesity raise risk of many of the same diseases.
Do statistics show that a higher percentage of obese people die prematurely than smokers, that's the statistic to look at. And then you'd have to account for other risk factors.
According to NIH, an obese person can lose up to 8-14 years of lifespan versus a smoker who loses 10. But the countries outside of the US live up to 80+ years and in the US the average death is lower than that even with better healthcare options. I haven't met or know any obese person who's lived beyond 70 years old. That's of course is an anecdote.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
http://www.spottedbylocals.com/blog/is-it-allowed-to-smoke-in-europes-bars/tinkerbellang83 wrote: »I'd be curious to know where in Europe they think smoking is still prevalent in bars and restaurants? Most EU countries have a smoking ban in bars/restaurants and have done for many years now.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
When I was in France, Italy and Spain, I saw only a handful of smokers. In France it was mostly young, Algerian immigrant males. I didn't see anyone smoking in public in the other two countries, but I wasn't in high-traffic touristy areas, and maybe I didn't see it because they were all hanging out in the bars smoking? I normally notice if smokers are around, since the smoke irritates my airways. It sure didn't seem like the epidemic of Euro-smokers that's being described in this thread.
She lead them to a table and there was an ashtray on it. She took the ashtray away. I still laugh about this when they tell the story to others.
They toured Italy, Spain and Portugal for a couple of months and told me that everywhere they went, they could smell smoke. I wasn't there, so I'm just going off their experience, but based on what they said it's likely changed much more since they were last there.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
This is anecdotal and obviously I'm only speaking for myself. I've always been thin and active. (I actually joined mfp to gain weight and muscle. ) I smoked - heavily- for about 28 years and stopped 15 years ago. I still suffer the effects of smoking -eg,poor lung capacity (though I'm also asthmatic ) which borders on copd. I could still develop lung cancer. Statistically my chances of dying of smoking related disease will never be as low as another thin,active person who has never smoked. I'd say that many of the effects of obesity can be reversed but the damage to a smoker's lungs is irreversible.4
-
Yes you'd have to account for other risk factors because it's really hard statistically say what kills every person, but a little correlation is that outside of the US, smoking is less regulated, healthcare in many other countries aren't as advanced, and people are thinner along with average lifespan being longer. IMO based on what I have actually seen and statistics, thinner and fit people who smoke look to outlive those who are very overweight/obese who aren't fit and don't smoke.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Not gonna try to convince you. I'm just going off the statistics. And in the US we have a much bigger issue with weight correlated deaths than lung cancer. Again, not condoning smoking, but it's odd to see that something that everyone thinks is really bad, isn't killing us off as much as weight related issues. Again, those are the stats, not my opinion.3rdof7sisters wrote: »Well, seeing both my mother (@ age 67) and my oldest sister (@ age 54) both die from lung related issues, and both being normal weight (actually sister was underweight at time of death), I will opt for smoking being more hazardous to overall health. Meanwhile, none of my sisters or father (who are/were overweight) died from being overweight. Plus smokers put those around them at risk with second hand smoke.
Plus everyone has to eat to survive, no one has to smoke.
BTW OP, my mother (lifelong smoker) emphysema.
Sister, lifelong smoker. Breast cancer @ 36. Brain, lung, adrenal cancer @ 54 died of pneumonia ultimately and no spare fat on her to help her survive longer.
No way will you convince me smoking is better for you than being over weight.
PS OP, have you ever watched a loved one die, struggling for every breath?
I have had several relatives smoke throughout their life and not die from lung cancer, my grandmother being one of them.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Is it fair to say weight correlated deaths vs lung cancer = obesity is more harmful? Lung cancer is not the only risk factor that smoking carries. Smoking and obesity raise risk of many of the same diseases.
Do statistics show that a higher percentage of obese people die prematurely than smokers, that's the statistic to look at. And then you'd have to account for other risk factors.
According to NIH, an obese person can lose up to 8-14 years of lifespan versus a smoker who loses 10. But the countries outside of the US live up to 80+ years and in the US the average death is lower than that even with better healthcare options. I haven't met or know any obese person who's lived beyond 70 years old. That's of course is an anecdote.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
http://www.spottedbylocals.com/blog/is-it-allowed-to-smoke-in-europes-bars/tinkerbellang83 wrote: »I'd be curious to know where in Europe they think smoking is still prevalent in bars and restaurants? Most EU countries have a smoking ban in bars/restaurants and have done for many years now.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Erm thanks for the link but that doesn't tell me it's prevalent. I've lived in Europe all my life and have travelled to a fair few other countries here and I've yet to travel anywhere that smoking was actively taking place in bars/restaurants since the EU started cracking down on it 10 years ago. Yes it's stricter in some places than others but compared to pre-ban in the UK/Ireland there are a lot less smokers about. The cost of cigarettes here discourages a lot of people now (around £10/€10 per packet in some places).1 -
Maybe because French women don't get fat, they don't get smoking related illness either
Seems legit.1 -
Neither are optimal for health therefore I don't smoke and strive to not be obese.2
-
It doesn't really matter which one is more worse than the other.
Being obese and being a smoker are both unhealthy states to be in.
And both groups know it.2 -
Linktinkerbellang83 wrote: »
Erm thanks for the link but that doesn't tell me it's prevalent. I've lived in Europe all my life and have travelled to a fair few other countries here and I've yet to travel anywhere that smoking was actively taking place in bars/restaurants since the EU started cracking down on it 10 years ago. Yes it's stricter in some places than others but compared to pre-ban in the UK/Ireland there are a lot less smokers about. The cost of cigarettes here discourages a lot of people now (around £10/€10 per packet in some places).
Also have to note though that Americans that do smoke more packs a day than Europeans which may be correlated with the cause of higher death for lung cancer.But that upbeat conclusion is shattered when you factor in lung cancer, which kills almost as many people as breast, colorectal and prostate cancer combined. Although lung cancer mortality rates in the U.S. have dropped over the past few decades, those rates remain higher than Europe’s. Soneji and Yang estimate that there have been 1,120,000 excess lung cancer deaths in the U.S. compared to Europe from 1982 to 2010.
During this same period, the U.S. spent $406 billion more on lung cancer care—adjusted for population size--than Europe did. Soneji and Yang calculate that for every extra $19,000 spent on a lung cancer patient in the U.S. compared to Europe, that patient loses a year of quality-adjusted life. Americans die more frequently than Europeans of lung cancer even though, according to the World Health Organization, Europeans have higher smoking rates [see comment by Soneji in Addendum].
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/cancer-spending-higher-in-u-s-than-in-europe-and-so-is-cancer-mortality/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 1 -
Linktinkerbellang83 wrote: »
Erm thanks for the link but that doesn't tell me it's prevalent. I've lived in Europe all my life and have travelled to a fair few other countries here and I've yet to travel anywhere that smoking was actively taking place in bars/restaurants since the EU started cracking down on it 10 years ago. Yes it's stricter in some places than others but compared to pre-ban in the UK/Ireland there are a lot less smokers about. The cost of cigarettes here discourages a lot of people now (around £10/€10 per packet in some places).
Also have to note though that Americans that do smoke more packs a day than Europeans which may be correlated with the cause of higher death for lung cancer.But that upbeat conclusion is shattered when you factor in lung cancer, which kills almost as many people as breast, colorectal and prostate cancer combined. Although lung cancer mortality rates in the U.S. have dropped over the past few decades, those rates remain higher than Europe’s. Soneji and Yang estimate that there have been 1,120,000 excess lung cancer deaths in the U.S. compared to Europe from 1982 to 2010.
During this same period, the U.S. spent $406 billion more on lung cancer care—adjusted for population size--than Europe did. Soneji and Yang calculate that for every extra $19,000 spent on a lung cancer patient in the U.S. compared to Europe, that patient loses a year of quality-adjusted life. Americans die more frequently than Europeans of lung cancer even though, according to the World Health Organization, Europeans have higher smoking rates [see comment by Soneji in Addendum].
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/cancer-spending-higher-in-u-s-than-in-europe-and-so-is-cancer-mortality/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Could be pollution too.0 -
Oh you see them out and about. It's just usually on a cart assist of some sort. Remember obesity is based on the BMI scale of over 30. And realistically, it's not that hard to get over 30 in the US. A female 5'4" and 175lbs is obese (unless they carrying a lot of muscle) and a male 6'0 and 221lbs is considered obese.SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »
I don't doubt it. And in prison, you need to sort of be physical fit to an extent because of the environment you live in.leanjogreen18 wrote: »Do you think folks in penitentiaries work out more because they have more time (oh a pun).
Men's obesity isn't that prevalent versus women in penitentiaries. Not sure why, but I'm thinking that men's penitentiaries may likely be that what you get for food is all you get. With only 3 squares a day and all of it being portioned, it's not hard to see why the penitentiary population doesn't have a problem with obesity. And their food is very low quality at that, which is why I don't believe eating "clean" is needed to lose weight at all.And is there a difference between men/women in penitentiaries in terms of obesity/smoking?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
So this is probably again due to needing to work out more because of the environment for men vs women. Commissary food is available in most prisons though correct?
So it seems in terms of health perhaps the added exercise it what helps smokers in penitentiaries, because you would think a poor diet would have long term effects as well.
I honestly don't think I could say which is worse.
I do know that I rarely see someone in their late 70's or early 80's that are obese, but I do see some that still smoke. Hows that for an answer:).
Not that I disagree with your previous statements or think in general obesity isn't going to shorten your life, but your last one is commonly thrown around and annoys me. You are obviously not going to see 70 and 80 yos out and about often, and any obese 70 and 80 yos you are going to see out much much less often if at all, since not being active is part of how they got obese in the first place, its much more difficult for them to go out, if they do go out its for shorter times and a good portion of them probably have assistance getting things done compared to mobile active 70-80 yos. Just using it as a "proof" is annoying since the reason is assumed to be "they are all dead", when there are extremely obvious reasons you arent going to run into them and it proves nothing.
Its more likely with this observation you may in fact have identified the "mutants", who have natural resistance and superior immune function to resist the toxins associated with smoking and clean up those errant cancer cells and are able to be out and about smoking at 70-80.
As for "mutants", there must a huge genetic pool outside of the US because a lot of countries mortality rates with lung cancer are much lower even though smoking is prevalent in their society.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Can we agree that we're really comparing morbid obesity and habitual (heavy? More than social anyway) smoking here?
As in your example, I am still classified as obese at 5'4 and 178 pounds but am far from having the issues described in this thread (limited mobility, skin infections, joint problems). Is it a healthy weight for me? No! But I'm not riding the motorized cart around Walmart either.4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNjunlWUJJI
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions