Skip to comments.
Smokers paradox puzzles doctors
NineMSN ^
| 2 Sep 2003
| Judy Skatssoon
Posted on 09/04/2003 6:17:51 AM PDT by CSM
Smoking might give you a heart attack but smokers have better chances of surviving a heart attack than non-smokers, according to a puzzling phenomenon dubbed "smokers paradox".
The apparently "protective" effect of smoking in heart attack patients was highlighted in a study confirming smoker's paradox among older patients, released at an international cardiology conference.
Cardiologist Hector Bueno, of the Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Maranon in Madrid, told the European Society of Cardiology congress in Vienna that in the past the paradox had been attributed to smokers being likely to experience heart attack at a younger age than non-smokers.
To see if the paradox also applied in an older age group, Dr Bueno studied 677 patients aged 75 and over who had been admitted to hospital with their first heart attack between 1988-1997.
He found that smokers tended to arrive at hospital earlier after a heart attack than non-smokers and while in hospital showed a lower incidence of complications.
Meanwhile, smokers were less likely to die in hospital after a heart attack, with 22 per cent of smokers dying compared to 33 per cent of non-smokers.
In a statistical analysis, smokers had a massive 75 per cent better chance of surviving heart attack than non-smokers, the study showed.
"The smoker's paradox can also be observed in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarct (heart attack)," Dr Bueno concluded.
Professor Garry Jennings, director of Melbourne's Baker Heart Research Institute, said there were a number of explanations for smoker's paradox.
"Smoker's paradox has been talked about a fair bit," he said.
"It's the notion that although smoking's bad for you ... smokers who have cardiac events tend to do better."
Smokers tended to have "stiffer" lungs, making them less prone to pulmonary congestion, or fluid on the lungs, and often had lower blood pressure than non-smokers, he said.
They also had higher levels of carbon monoxide in their blood, which helped them retain oxygen.
"In a sense they've been in training for things to get bad and get into a low oxygen state as can happen after an heart attack," he said.
Smokers were also more likely to die of sudden cardiac death, which meant most of them probably never made it to hospital in the first place.
The paradox should by no means be interpreted as an endorsement of smoking, Prof Baker said.
"There's nothing in this that says people with heart disease should take up smoking," he said.
Dr Bueno added the results of his study were likely influenced by the non-smoking group having a lower risk profile than the non-smoking group, as they were slightly younger than the non-smokers and had a lower incidence of diabetes and high blood pressure among their group.
* Judy Skatssoon was a guest of Servier Australia at the ESC congress.
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: health; smoking
"Smoking might give you a heart attack but smokers have better chances of surviving a heart attack than non-smokers, according to a puzzling phenomenon dubbed "smokers paradox"."
Doctors aren't sure if heart attacks can be caused by smoking, but they are sure that the survival rate is higher. Kinda endorses it......
1
posted on
09/04/2003 6:17:51 AM PDT
by
CSM
To: Flurry; Gabz; SheLion; Just another Joe
One more to start the day!
2
posted on
09/04/2003 6:18:22 AM PDT
by
CSM
("We have been assigned to the hall of Freep. No other work is allowed" - Equality 7-2521)
To: CSM
Well, I guess the smart approach is to not smoke, but start chain smoking if you have a heart attack...
3
posted on
09/04/2003 6:20:07 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(www.ArmorforCongress.com - because lawyers with a clue are rarer than truth-telling Democrats)
To: CSM
Beer, red wine, dark chocolate, and now cigars. Who knew all my vices would eventually turn out to be so healthy!
4
posted on
09/04/2003 6:22:25 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: CSM
Doctors aren't sure if heart attacks can be caused by smoking, but they are sure that the survival rate is higher. Kinda endorses it......
Smokers were also more likely to die of sudden cardiac death, which meant most of them probably never made it to hospital in the first place... "There's nothing in this that says people with heart disease should take up smoking," he said.
Nah! Wishful thinking.
5
posted on
09/04/2003 6:25:13 AM PDT
by
VadeRetro
To: VadeRetro
"Smoking might give you a heart attack ....."
"probably never made it to hospital in the first place..."
When "facts" can't be shown use vague language then state that individuals should not partake in the terrible behavior.
6
posted on
09/04/2003 6:30:44 AM PDT
by
CSM
("We have been assigned to the hall of Freep. No other work is allowed" - Equality 7-2521)
To: CSM
WHen my folks smoked, they never seemed to catch a cold. When they quit, they seemed to catch them all the time. Dad took up smoking again and no colds again. Mom still gets them.
7
posted on
09/04/2003 6:33:03 AM PDT
by
theDentist
(Liberals can sugarcoat sh** all they want. I'm not biting.)
To: CSM
I'm speechless. I come from a long line of male smokers. Not one of us has ever had a heart attack or lung cancer. Most live well into their 80's and even 90's. We are tall, slim, and spend more time doing things than worrying about things. So do non-smokers have a higher incidence of diabetes? Are non-smokers a higher risk group than smokers?
8
posted on
09/04/2003 6:36:43 AM PDT
by
Conspiracy Guy
(Of course I like it here. I just may not like you.)
To: CSM
When "facts" can't be shown use vague language then state that individuals should not partake in the terrible behavior. We're talking about whether thoroughly dusting your lungs with ash particles multiple times daily is good or bad. I could just about guess "bad" without doing much of a study.
Unless, perhaps, non-smokers suffer from too much oxygen. I tend to doubt that because if such an environmental pressure existed we'd simply have evolved less efficient lungs. There would have been no need to invent them with cigarettes.
9
posted on
09/04/2003 6:40:19 AM PDT
by
VadeRetro
To: theDentist
WHen my folks smoked, they never seemed to catch a cold. Stinking up the air around you makes people keep their distance.
To: VadeRetro
Actually, smokers are found to have less incidents of stress related diseases. They tend to be more easy going and less apt to be stressed. Smoking a cig is relaxing and enjoyable, so these stress related diseases are less likely to hit a smoker.
In addition, as the rate of smoking has decreased the rate of children with asthma and alergies has increased. This would suggest that the lack of exposure to ETS, hasn't allowed the lungs to strengthen themselves and learn to "fight" impurities in the air. It would be similar to giving vaccinations, inject a small amount of the disease to allow your body to build a tolerance.
It must be regulated that all parents smoke a cig a day in front of their kids, that way they will be less likely to develop allergies. It is for the chilrun don't ya know!
11
posted on
09/04/2003 6:55:48 AM PDT
by
CSM
("We have been assigned to the hall of Freep. No other work is allowed" - Equality 7-2521)
To: CSM
FWIW it's the sugar in and coating tobacco artificially causing the myriad health problems, not the tobacco per se. Read Sugar Blues by William Duffy for more info.
12
posted on
09/04/2003 7:01:09 AM PDT
by
Ff--150
(we have been fed with milk, not meat)
To: cinFLA
In addition, as the rate of smoking has decreased the rate of children with asthma and alergies has increased. This would suggest that the lack of exposure to ETS, hasn't allowed the lungs to strengthen themselves and learn to "fight" impurities in the air. It would be similar to giving vaccinations, inject a small amount of the disease to allow your body to build a tolerance. Thoughts?
13
posted on
09/04/2003 7:07:44 AM PDT
by
jmc813
(Check out the FR Big Brother 4 thread! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/943368/posts)
To: Ff--150
"FWIW it's the sugar in and coating tobacco artificially causing the myriad health problems, not the tobacco per se. Read Sugar Blues by William Duffy for more info."
I have never heard this before. Do you have some links for research or is the info in this book only? I am interested in this theory......
BTW, have you seen the new F150? Look for the KO of the add campaign tonight!
14
posted on
09/04/2003 7:20:33 AM PDT
by
CSM
("We have been assigned to the hall of Freep. No other work is allowed" - Equality 7-2521)
To: CSM
Can't link you, but this book can be found at Amazon.com, and google "Sugar Blues--tobacco" is where I'm going to check later.
From memory the tobacco companies have hybridized or coated the tobacco making the sugar itself addicting, with the health problems caused by the reaction to glucose not the nicotine. Top of my head recall.
In Spain, in the seventies, I smoked a couple Turkish cigarettes, I believe, which must have been different tobacco. The taste was remarkable, and though I smoked 2 or 3 packs then, after that first one it was hours before I forced myself to smoke the second.
Those new 150's might be worth a look, but have no complaints with the one I have now.
15
posted on
09/04/2003 7:45:01 AM PDT
by
Ff--150
(we have been fed with milk, not meat)
To: Ff--150
In Spain, in the seventies, I smoked a couple Turkish cigarettes, I believe, which must have been different tobacco. The taste was remarkable, and though I smoked 2 or 3 packs then, after that first one it was hours before I forced myself to smoke the second. I have found the same thing with RYO cigarettes. I smoke no where near what I smoke when smoking regulars. there are also less burn additives, so they go out if left unattended, unlike regular ones.
16
posted on
09/04/2003 8:01:15 AM PDT
by
Gabz
(anti-smokers - personification of everything wrong in this country.)
To: Gabz
I have found the same thing with RYO cigarettes. I smoke no where near what I smoke when smoking regulars. there are also less burn additives, so they go out if left unattended, unlike regular ones. that's right--"no where near." I wonder though if the sugar makes the regular cigarettes burn as you mentioned, for our bodies use sugar for fuel. Remember, the Indians regarded tobacco as sacred.
17
posted on
09/04/2003 9:08:46 AM PDT
by
Ff--150
(we have been fed with milk, not meat)
To: CSM
http://www.lsc.org/tobacco/farming/growing/curing.html Sorry the best I can do. The tobacco made for cigarettes is flue-cured which makes its sugar content high (addictive, my statement), making its nicotine level in the mid to high range...
18
posted on
09/04/2003 11:38:50 AM PDT
by
Ff--150
(we have been fed with milk, not meat)
To: Ff--150
Good information. Thanks. Currently I smoke cigs made by Indians and not sold on the open market. I started because it represents a major cost advantage, now I think I am getting past this issue as well. I will have to research it to verify my thoughts.
19
posted on
09/04/2003 1:28:29 PM PDT
by
CSM
("We have been assigned to the hall of Freep. No other work is allowed" - Equality 7-2521)
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson