![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by jonh kimble on September 20, 2003, at 13:03:17
ive read that smoking, no matter when you quit, causes some form of permanent lung damage. Im 19, started at 16, and have always smoked about 7 a day. what would be the permantent damage at this rate if i was to quit now thanks.
Posted by dave1 on September 20, 2003, at 15:04:53
In reply to Tobacco and permanent lung damage, posted by jonh kimble on September 20, 2003, at 13:03:17
I've heard that your lung cells regenerate and after a number of years your lungs can be the same as if you never smoked.
Dave
Posted by stjames on September 21, 2003, at 16:46:27
In reply to Re: Tobacco and permanent lung damage » jonh kimble, posted by dave1 on September 20, 2003, at 15:04:53
> I've heard that your lung cells regenerate and after a number of years your lungs can be the same as if you never smoked.
>
> DaveThats too general a statement to be true, of course.
It's more a pipe dream. Common sense would indicate it has to do with the years one has smoked.Lungs are good at exchanging gasses and not too good at moving solid particles out of the lungs.
Our lungs were ment for gasses not smoke !
If there is damage, it is permanent if you have smoked for a while. If one is really worried about this, keep in mind that damage is relative to function. It is not that something is damaged, it is how well it function as damaged. Lungs are huge.<James lites up another cig>
There are some very simple tests for lung function. remember the clip thing the nurse
put on your finger to measure your pulse ?
It also tests oxygen saturation, the % of oxygen
in your tissues, a function of the lungs.
Non-smokers will register 99% (without lung problems), smokers 95 and below. If you quit, measure this. Most HMO's let you come in for free BP checks. It will take 3 months at least for your lungs to recover. How much is the question. One cig a day for 5-10 years and there will always be permanent damage but the real question is how does it improve function. Can you now do physical activity without getting winded ? Does your pulse shoot through the roof when you exercise, or is it
more controled ? (improved cardio-vascular fitness). Smokers will identify with these issues.
If they quit, these will improve, despite any
permanent lung damage.I have mentioned else where I hate the word "damage". Many ask about it and to me ask the wrong question. There is always damage. Aging is damage, cells die, everyone has less function in many areas past age 30. All from damage, as the body is less able to repair. We all seem to do just fine with this increasing level of damage.
So the imformed question is to ask if the damage is causing problems with day to day functions.
Posted by jonh kimble on September 21, 2003, at 22:31:25
In reply to Re: Tobacco and permanent lung damage, posted by stjames on September 21, 2003, at 16:46:27
Thanks. Ya what I mean by permanent lung damage is primarely incresed lung cancer susceptibility.
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 22, 2003, at 8:37:25
In reply to Re: Tobacco and permanent lung damage, posted by jonh kimble on September 21, 2003, at 22:31:25
> Thanks. Ya what I mean by permanent lung damage is primarely incresed lung cancer susceptibility.
That's best interpreted in the context of genes. If you've got lung cancer in your extended family, you yourself may be at an increased risk. Also, genes are not the only issue to consider; genes interact with the environment, and the environment includes not only the outside world, but the tissue and cell environment in your body. DNA damage underlies tobacco-induced lung cancer. DNA repair is an ongoing process. It relies, however, to a significant degree, on vitamin status. Bruce Ames, the geneticist that developed the most-used tests for assessing chemicals causing DNA damage, has published review articles which strongly correlate cancer susceptibility with nutrient intake. And, it's the very same nutrients that I promote for mood disorders that are protective against cancer.
Lar
Am J Clin Nutr 2002 Apr;75(4):616-58
High-dose vitamin therapy stimulates variant enzymes with decreased coenzyme binding affinity (increased K(m)): relevance to genetic disease and polymorphisms.
Ames BN, Elson-Schwab I, Silver EA.
Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of California, Berkeley, USA. bames@chori.org
As many as one-third of mutations in a gene result in the corresponding enzyme having an increased Michaelis constant, or K(m), (decreased binding affinity) for a coenzyme, resulting in a lower rate of reaction. About 50 human genetic diseases due to defective enzymes can be remedied or ameliorated by the administration of high doses of the vitamin component of the corresponding coenzyme, which at least partially restores enzymatic activity. Several single-nucleotide polymorphisms, in which the variant amino acid reduces coenzyme binding and thus enzymatic activity, are likely to be remediable by raising cellular concentrations of the cofactor through high-dose vitamin therapy. Some examples include the alanine-to-valine substitution at codon 222 (Ala222-->Val) [DNA: C-to-T substitution at nucleo-tide 677 (677C-->T)] in methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (NADPH) and the cofactor FAD (in relation to cardiovascular disease, migraines, and rages), the Pro187-->Ser (DNA: 609C-->T) mutation in NAD(P):quinone oxidoreductase 1 [NAD(P)H dehy-drogenase (quinone)] and FAD (in relation to cancer), the Ala44-->Gly (DNA: 131C-->G) mutation in glucose-6-phosphate 1-dehydrogenase and NADP (in relation to favism and hemolytic anemia), and the Glu487-->Lys mutation (present in one-half of Asians) in aldehyde dehydrogenase (NAD + ) and NAD (in relation to alcohol intolerance, Alzheimer disease, and cancer).
Mutat Res 2001 Apr 18;475(1-2):7-20
DNA damage from micronutrient deficiencies is likely to be a major cause of cancer.
Ames BN.
University of California, 94720-3202, Berkeley, CA, USA. bnames@uclink4.berkeley.edu
A deficiency of any of the micronutrients: folic acid, Vitamin B12, Vitamin B6, niacin, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, iron, or zinc, mimics radiation in damaging DNA by causing single- and double-strand breaks, oxidative lesions, or both. For example, the percentage of the US population that has a low intake (<50% of the RDA) for each of these eight micronutrients ranges from 2 to >20%. A level of folate deficiency causing chromosome breaks was present in approximately 10% of the US population, and in a much higher percentage of the poor. Folate deficiency causes extensive incorporation of uracil into human DNA (4 million/cell), leading to chromosomal breaks. This mechanism is the likely cause of the increased colon cancer risk associated with low folate intake. Some evidence, and mechanistic considerations, suggest that Vitamin B12 (14% US elderly) and B6 (10% of US) deficiencies also cause high uracil and chromosome breaks. Micronutrient deficiency may explain, in good part, why the quarter of the population that eats the fewest fruits and vegetables (five portions a day is advised) has about double the cancer rate for most types of cancer when compared to the quarter with the highest intake. For example, 80% of American children and adolescents and 68% of adults do not eat five portions a day. Common micronutrient deficiencies are likely to damage DNA by the same mechanism as radiation and many chemicals, appear to be orders of magnitude more important, and should be compared for perspective. Remedying micronutrient deficiencies should lead to a major improvement in health and an increase in longevity at low cost.
Posted by dave1 on September 22, 2003, at 21:32:27
In reply to Re: Tobacco and permanent lung damage » jonh kimble, posted by Larry Hoover on September 22, 2003, at 8:37:25
You guys make me feel dumb. Ha Ha.
Bye,
Dave
Posted by stjames on September 23, 2003, at 13:01:57
In reply to Re: Tobacco and permanent lung damage, posted by jonh kimble on September 21, 2003, at 22:31:25
> Thanks. Ya what I mean by permanent lung damage is primarely incresed lung cancer susceptibility.
Dah !!!!!!!
Posted by jonh kimble on September 23, 2003, at 22:17:15
In reply to Re: Tobacco and permanent lung damage, posted by stjames on September 23, 2003, at 13:01:57
Ok, Theres a difference between reduced lung function (difficulty breathing, etc..) and an increased lung cancer susceptibility. You were talking about lung function.
Posted by Sebastian on September 24, 2003, at 12:20:40
In reply to Tobacco and permanent lung damage, posted by jonh kimble on September 20, 2003, at 13:03:17
I heard it takes 7 years for your lungs to heal. I also heard that 5 a day is not bad for your lungs. I even read a study where men can smoke, I can't remember the number but think it was 3-5 a day with no health risk. For women its less; something like 1-3.
Seb
Posted by stjames on September 25, 2003, at 13:05:58
In reply to Re: Tobacco and permanent lung damage » jonh kimble, posted by Sebastian on September 24, 2003, at 12:20:40
> I heard it takes 7 years for your lungs to heal. I also heard that 5 a day is not bad for your lungs. I even read a study where men can smoke, I can't remember the number but think it was 3-5 a day with no health risk. For women its less; something like 1-3.
>
> Seb
A recient study says even one cig a day is a health risk. Really, there is no logic is thinking inhaling smoke and hoping there is no down side.
In the study, reduction of number is cigs/day did not yield very sig. healt improvements.If you smoke, you increase cancer risks, too.
Posted by Phil on October 2, 2003, at 15:30:19
In reply to Tobacco and permanent lung damage, posted by jonh kimble on September 20, 2003, at 13:03:17
If you were to get emphysema, it's irreversible and continues to get worse whether you continue to smoke or not. Christy Turlington was diagnosed with it at a young age. Quitting would still, obviously, be the thing to do.
Phil borrows cig from James.
Lung cancer risks are measured in pack years and I don't read the stats because I'm probably there.
1 pack a day for 20 years=20 pack years
2 packs a day for 20 years=40 pack yearsIt's hard to quit even at 7 a day but it gets worse. I don't think you have anything to worry about(if you quit now) but if you keep smoking and follow the majority of smokers, You'll increase your intake and talk about quitting but won't.
If you continue smoking, drink lots of water to help flush your system and walk or jog..it helps in coughing up what lives in your lungs. Don't kid yourself though, these things can help but won't stop cancer.
A lung cancer diagnosis is bleak, very bleak. No matter what modern medicine can do, you'd be very lucky to have 5 more years. Sometimes by the time it's diagnosed, you're 6 months away from dying.
I think the worst part is just losing resilience to a point that easy things to do start getting difficult.
With the amount I've smoked and family history figured in, I'll be lucky to see 60. On the other hand, my aunt that smoked 2 packs a day of Taryton's just died at 90.
Probably more than you wanted to hear but I'll add one more, do not smoke menthol ciggies, they're worse.
Good luck.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Substance Use | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.