Posted on 05/22/2004 8:02:55 AM PDT by qam1
Dipartimento di Scienze dell'Invecchiamento, Universita La Sapienza, Roma.
Cigarette smoking has been clearly linked to the most common causes of death in the elderly and contributes to the higher death rate and disability rate associated with many chronic illnesses that are common in this age group. The combination of smoking along with other risk factors like hypertension and diabetes increase high frequency disease, and disability as well as adding to an increase in mortality rate. In order to verify if a healthy lifestyle really favours longevity and how much smoking is incompatible with extreme longevity, we investigated the prevalence of smokers and the total smoking exposure of a sample of centenarians as regards residual survival and health conditions. Our sample consists of 157 centenarians selected among the registered residents of Rome: 39 males and 118 females (ratio = 1:3), mean age being 101.59 years (sd = 1.8). 83.8% of the centenarians have never smoked, 13.5% are former smokers, and 2.7% are active smokers. The average starting age of smoking was 21.2 years while the average age of quitting in former smokers was 65.7 years with an average of 44.7 smoking years (sd = 17.1). The average number of smoked cigarettes per day is quite low, less than 10 cigarettes. There seemed to be a significant difference (p < 0.001) in gender results in smokers: male centenarians were 46%, while female reached only 8.1%. Statistically significant higher prevalence of diseases illnesses were noted among centenarian smokers over the age of 65 (p < 0.02). Moreover Cox's regression has shown in centenarians a lower survival rate (p < 0.05) in smokers than in non-smokers.
In conclusion, our study is evidence that smoking is for all, but some exceptional subjects, incompatible with successful aging and compromises life expectancy even in extreme longevity.
PMID: 15147062 [PubMed - in process]
I would really like to know what the smoking rates of this generation was to begin with. Being that they lived through World War I torn Italy I am sure it's quite low.
"What this country needs is a good five cent cigar."
U.S. Vice President Thomas Riley Marshall in 1917.
"Monica, hand me that cigar would ya?"
Bill Clinton 1996
Who the hell wants to live that long? I know I don't.
That generation would be my parents' generation and more men smoked than women.I had 2 aunts that smoked and they both lived to the mid eighties.
I detest even second hand smoke. But I'm not a fool. My father is 90 and smoked most of life, though not for the last 10 years. I see little wrong with him that be pinned on smoking.
He didn't smoke just cigarettes. Much (most?) of it was cigars and pipes.
My grandmother smoked three packs of non-filtered Camels a day and died of old age - 86.
HUH?
Well according to the Antis, His death and when these centenarians die are all premature deaths due to smoking.
If I was an invalid, no. But if I was healthy and active like some people are at that age, you bet I want to live that long, or longer.
This means nothing.. it is junk science...
Some people see this as contradictory. I don't because there's a world of difference between cigars and cigarettes; in purpose, in health consequences, and addictiveness.
Statistically significant higher prevalence of diseases illnesses were noted among centenarian smokers over the age of 65 (p < 0.02).
Centenarian smokers are by definition over 65. HELLO? Department of Redundancy Department callling.
Moreover Cox's regression has shown in centenarians a lower survival rate (p < 0.05) in smokers than in non-smokers.
OK, who cares how much longer you live after one hundred anyway? Not that the above is bad science, but the extra longevity can't be significant, nor of a particularly high quality. It's not like these people have been cheated out of a couple of years of night clubbing, tom-catting around, and doing wheelies through parking lots on Ducati sport bikes.
In conclusion, our study is evidence that smoking is for all, but some exceptional subjects, incompatible with successful aging and compromises life expectancy even in extreme longevity.
See my comments above. This study was a waste of money. They're looking at life on the fringes. It's almost like saying, "Infants have a lower level of job satisfaction than college graduates". Duh.
Heheh!
The "scientists" presenting this study failed (miserably) to address the one fly in their "useful idiots" ointment:
Of the 10 confirmed longest-lived people in history, nine of them smoked until age 100.
Does this prove that smoking is good for you? Not at all. I am just amused that facts embarrassing to the "researchers" are conveniently ignored or deemed inconsequential. I am not at all surprised.
Eubie Blake on his 100th birthday: "If I'd known I was going to live this long, I would of taken better care of myself."
Satchmo, in response to question about "what was wrong with" a bandmember who died suddenly, "Man, when you dead, everything's wrong with you."
My Great Uncle John smoked until the day he died at 107, same for my maternal Grand Father, and he was gassed in WW1, 87. I think allot of longevity is genetic.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.