Cigar Effects Research- Any unbiased data out there?

[LouisMazzini]

I concur.. This man has tremendous self confidence. He's gonna win, while lugging that awesomely heavy and intricate crucifix around, no matter what. Big up to this dude. Uzbekistan in the house?!!! Oh yeah!!! heh heh.

[LouisMazzini]

What? Bottled water and cigar smoking? If it is because of that ignoramus Sheryl Crow and her campaign against bishpenol a, she doesn't understand the toxicity level of bpa in ppm (or even ppb, I can't remember right now).

I

Nobody has ever said "hey, I have an ironman race coming up in an hour, let me smoke a cigar to help me get through it..."

A cigar can work some magic. It can calm the nerves and focus an individual (not unlike propanolol). It could work as a vasoconstrictor as well of course, and that's not of much help, but the Olympics these days is a science project any which way you look at it.

Your point about BPAs is well taken. That is indeed a serious issue IMHO. There are a ton of xenoestrogens floating around and reeking havoc on a young man's endocrine system as we speak. That significantly tilts the balance of healthy testosterone level and estrogen/estradiol levels.....which inevitably impact DHT and then the prostate to some degree. Then it's time to make the choice...let it go and take saw palmetto ect., or keep your hair and take finasteride (Proscar) and Dutasteride...but play pool with a rope so to speak.

[LouisMazzini]

Wrong bro, this guy has....

In all seriousness...you gotta give this amigo some credit! I remember watching a coach in football push a young guy into a bench press competition.....he was a decently jacked dude at 175 or so and 5'8" and the bar was set at 225....so standard 2 plates on each side......big dudes knocked out 30 or so reps which was impressive. This little dude knocked out about 34-36 I think and won the day. This is a typical story, and if you google such a thing, there will likely be a flood of such stories, but the point is that teh human body is a remarkable machine. When told that there was no way that little dude could rep out 34 or whatever it was, reps....the coach said he agreed....BUT....the little dude doesn't know that. Same thing with the 4 minute mile....no one thought a human could run a sub 4 min mile...but once it was done...the flood gates opened and the mental barrier was crushed. So back to cigars....what a dicey topic and too hard to quantify in any meaningful way IMHO. Cigarettes are laden with ridiculous chemicals and in significant quantity. The mental benefits of a relaxing cigar here and there may increase one's health and quality of life. But the emotion and hype is what sells and not the reasoning, again, IMHO. On my way to work, I'm not exactly stepping over dead bodies who kicked the bucket from 2nd hand smoke. Myself and others are probably more likely to suffer post - post office traumatic syndrome disorder. Credit - Modern Family.

[Bclass1]

If you look at www.cancer.gov you may read:

"Cigar smoke is possibly more toxic than cigarette smoke (3). Cigar smoke has: A higher level of cancer-causing substances [...] More tar [...] A higher level of toxins." "There is no safe level of tobacco use."

http://www.cancer.go.../Tobacco/cigars

All seems to be based on one giant study:

http://www.cancercon...hs/9/index.html

But look at page 6 of this study!

Mortality ratios

Non-Smokers.............. 1,0

1-2 cigars per day........1,02

Compared to cigarettes:

<1 pack................1.46

1 pack..................1.69

>1 pack................1.88

Mortality ratio is only plus 2% for non-inhalative cigar smoking if you smoke 1-2 cigars per day?

Seems random and not significant to me, but I am not an expert.

If you look at coronary heart disease the mortality ratios are:

Non-Smokers.............. 1,0

1-2 cigars per day........0,98

Also 2% but this time in the other direction!

I don't think cigar smoking makes you more healthy.

Again: The 2% seem random and not significant to me, but I am not an expert.

To me this often cited statistic does not seem to prove the danger of moderate cigar smoking at all!

Perhaps an expert can shed light on the matter.

I don't mean to bash this thread, but why are we all doing this? Who wants to see mortality rates and percentages relating to cigarette and cigar smokers? I sure don't...I know I can just not read the thread but I mean this is ridiculous. We all smoke cigars because we enjoy them. I would have to assume everyone is well aware of the health risks involved.

I don't know, just seems odd to me that there's a discussion/debate on an issue that is generally common sense among smokers. Maybe I'm wrong..

[PaulP]

The Surgeon General’s 1964 (US Public Health Service) report “The death rates for men smoking less than 5 cigars a day are about the same as for non-smokers. For men smoking more than 5 cigars daily, death rates are slightly higher.”

[Fosgate]

Now that's interesting PaulP!

[DrunkenMonkey]

Thing is, I doubt there will ever be a good study done of health risks among cigar smokers, just because it's not really a public health issue. I mean, how many of us are there? It would be like funding a study of gambling addicts that only focuses on cribbage players. There just aren't enough to matter.

[Cisco]

Have you read the 1998 "A Response to the NCI Report - Cigars: Health Effects and Trends"? Search for it and have a read.

I view finding "unbiased" data as impossible. Those who want to rid the world of tobacco will find data that highlights the negative effects of cigar smoking and those who advocate for cigars will highlight stats that downplay the risks. The truth is probably somewhere between the two positions...As Mark Twain put it "Lies, damn lies, and statistics".

[Voltusfive]

More healthy? I dont think so. There was a study in the 90s based on daily cigar use that indicated negative results. I think Guybrush is using that data.

For me I like cigars, I don't care if my once a week nicotine slide into paradise hurts me. I work hard, 70 hours a week hard which is far more likely to kill me.

I've only started cigars in my 30s and my only regret is not starting sooner. People seem to know how to have fun, not me all ive done since 17 is work. I've always had a pretty strong temper, I've finally discovered something that calms me down instantly and is a fun inexpensive hobby.

[Guybrush]

More healthy? I dont think so. There was a study in the 90s based on daily cigar use that indicated negative results. I think Guybrush is using that data.

My point is:

It does not seem to indicate negative results.

[Jeremy Festa]

inexpensive hobby?

Haha Fabulous!

On a more serious note, as far as research goes, there isn't any unbiased data when it comes to nicotine. People will always find what they are looking for, unfortunately.

The way I look at it, is, life without cigars is not really living, it's just not dying a little bit better than life with cigars. If that makes sense?

[Voltusfive]

The way I look at it, is, life without cigars is not really living, it's just not dying a little bit better than life with cigars. If that makes sense?

Absolutely!

[PapaDisco]

I think the surgeon general's report would have to be considered unbiased or even negatively biased and yet it indicated greater longevity for light to moderate cigar smokers. No one knows why, as it hasn't been researched in greater detail, but you can't consider the source to be a friendly one.

[LouisMazzini]

I like what Cisco is saying personally.

www.cancer.gov

The .gov should give you pause on occasion when it comes to....ehhh....even friggen science unfortunately. People looking for certain results will tend to find them even in "scientific studies" will all the fancy controls, samplings, etc. One of the wisest quotes for sure..."lies, damned lies, and statistics." I can make most any study sound great or terrible. Depends on the pitch. As we (cigar smoking population) are certainly a dying breed and being phased out (or even shamed out) from what I gather...the "scientific" results will always be skewed to favor a political agenda (if that substance/issue is on a political agenda which tobacco most certainly is). I was joking to my buddy that when I smoke in the local B&M on occasion I feel like myself and other smokers are on a display of sorts. Like in a museum. People stare through the glass windows and think...wow...real live cigar smokers...didn't think they did that anymore. heh heh.

[CaptainQuintero]

Genes are I think, like others have said, massive. My uncle has smoked fags since he was 13, now he's 60 and smokes over 120 a day. He has purple hands but never had anything cancer related or infact anything serious health wise (apart from said aesthetic issue with purple hands).

Other people can develop issues after just a few years.

Everyone is dying, in the grand scheme of things doing something you enjoy which also relaxes you and makes you happy I couldn't put as a health issue. The extreme is those people who live on half starvation diets to give themselves an extra 15 years or so of life:

1-why live to 110 if your quality of life is crap

2-what promises do these people have that they won't get hit by a bus or get ill from car exhaust fumes, GM foods, radiation etc etc etc etc

When I go on a bike ride with my sister and get husband I smoke a cigar while cycling, they think it's bad for me, yet they cycle to work in a city everyday standing and cycling in traffic fume. It's all perspective.

In short id pick a cigar over a salad everyday, I don't enjoy salad so I'm not going to waste my tune on it when I could have something I do enjoy!

[Cigar Surgeon]

I'm sorry that I missed the start of this discussion. I've been a part of similar discussion such as this many times in the past on Reddit.

Here is a really great study that specifically focused on cigar smokers:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199906103402301#t=articleResults

The TL;DR is: If you smoke less than 5 cigars a day, don't inhale your risk factors are very small. The key things to pay attention to are watching your weight and limit alcohol consumption when smoking cigars. (Alcohol has a multiplying effect on cancers of the esophagus when paired with smoking.)

Here is a study that says there is no clear link between second hand smoke and cancer:

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365

[bogglor]

I'm sorry that I missed the start of this discussion. I've been a part of similar discussion such as this many times in the past on Reddit.

Here is a really great study that specifically focused on cigar smokers:

http://www.nejm.org/...=articleResults

The TL;DR is: If you smoke less than 5 cigars a day, don't inhale your risk factors are very small. The key things to pay attention to are watching your weight and limit alcohol consumption when smoking cigars. (Alcohol has a multiplying effect on cancers of the esophagus when paired with smoking.)

Thanks for linking this study, Avrus - I've read it before and it's probably the only current study with good methodology in a highly prestigious journal I've seen. I typically only smoke 2-3 cigars a week (less so in the winter) and although I think everyone understands that cigar smoking isn't a no-risk proposition, it's good to have some hard data to show our significant others that we aren't damaging ourselves to the same degree that most generally assume.

[PapaDisco]

Below is a cut and paste of the relevant page from the Surgeon General's report. It's an interesting read, and remarkable how widely the mortality rates vary based on when you start, what you smoke and how much of it you smoke. Start before the age of 15 with cigarettes and you get nearly double the mortality of a non-smoker. Start smoking later in life (even cigarettes!) and it's a 20% bump in mortality. Smoke cigars and you live as long as a non-smoker, and maybe even longer. Some of this is counter-intuitive, but like Fosberg says: you've got to follow the data.

Here's a link to the report for those wanting more: http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBBMW.pdf

[tjohn7]

I've been nervous about increased morbidity ever since I began smoking cigars. Ten years later, I still have the same conclusion which will never be supported by science: smoking 2-3 premium cigars per week puts you at no higher risk of morbidity or death than a non-smoker. I'm most interested in hearing if premium cigars contain the same levels of tar and carcinogenic factors that cigarettes and other tobaccos do. That would be the best indicator of the long-term effects of cigars on your health. But I don't imagine reliable data will ever be released because:

1. Science doesn't care to research things that only affect a small number of people already doing something it deems to be unhealthy

2. Vendors wouldn't want to release data that would potentially skew consumers' perception of their product. So it's best to just ignore the issue and assume it is unhealthy

If anyone has information on the chemical composition of CCs, I'd love to see it. That would be very interesting.

Tom

[HarveyBoulevard]

The Surgeon General’s 1964 (US Public Health Service) report “The death rates for men smoking less than 5 cigars a day are about the same as for non-smokers. For men smoking more than 5 cigars daily, death rates are slightly higher.”

I think they still thought the earth was flat back in 1964 too!

[tjohn7]

I think they still thought the earth was flat back in 1964 too!

Yeah, just a tad out of date.

[PapaDisco]

Yeah, just a tad out of date.

And just what effect does that have on the data and the outcomes?

[Maplepie]

And just what effect does that have on the data and the outcomes?

really depends on a lot of things

For one: generic secondhand smoke is lower in 1964 with less automobiles in the city centres.

For two: cigarettes contained similar tobacco to cigars back then. No delivery system of nicotine - just mainly tobacco. People liked to taste it.

I have a more recent article that i'll copy and paste over tomorrow... It's somewhere here.

[PapaDisco]

lol. Even you guys have drunk the Kool-Aid of political correctness. And you know I luv y'all!

Here's the thing, and I wouldn't try to over think it or slice and dice the data too finely: the original Surgeon General's report was unique for its massive sample size, and its remarkable (compared to today) neutrality.

And the useful thing for us stogie lovers that came out of that research is this: if you compare 100,000 non-smokers with 100,000 cigar smokers (smoking less than five cigars a day) what you find is that both groups live equally long.

Might that result change over time or because of environmental, usage or other effects over time? Sure it's possible, but given the very large sample size between the groups the correlation will continue to be a durable one.

It is without doubt a common courtesy that I not impose my second hand smoke on others; but the argument that all tobacco smoke is equally detrimental is just not supported by the objective data.

[Maplepie]

Man.... screw political correctness. You don't have the right to be not offended. All laws that are created under the prose of 'not offending someone' always ALWAYS has an ulterior motive.

It is without doubt a common courtesy that I not impose my second hand smoke on others; but the argument that all tobacco smoke is equally detrimental is just not supported by the objective data.

Bear in mind, Papa DeeDee, that cigarette smoke IS NOT and CAN NOT be classified as tobacco smoke.

If i can recall, the deStalinising Soviets found that cigarette smoke is a drain on their health system after pipe smokers started to decline with the death of Stalin (my presumption as there was a surge in pipe smoking during the Great Purges). What they tried to do was to make cigarettes taste as horrid as possible using things like wet paper or highly branched natural oils that were not too toxic but when burned smell like Durians in the Desert.

The people didn't stop smoking but became equated to the taste and the world knew Soviet cigarettes to not be bad but just taste awful. Word on this spread to America where the cigarettes of today taste absolutely horrendous compared to the mostly tobacco cigarettes of yesteryear.

Why did the Western cigarettes (specifically American ones) evolve into tasting so bad? Because they had no standards to go by. Look at the popularity of cigars and pipes to the popularity of cigarettes. Decline during the 60s, 70s for fresh tobacco and plateau for cigarettes. People were just learning of the addictive nature and the companies needed to take ahold of that.

They placed chemicals in there like a frog in boiling water in order to allow the nicotine to become more readily absorbed through the lung membranes. these chemicals started to slowly overtake the cigarettes until they just stop caring about what goes in there due to 'trace' properties.

Europe is has strayed decently far from that by smoking roll ups. I have yet to see good data on roll-ups because they're considered cigarettes anyways... But by definition, they shouldn't be.

Anyway, back on topic. Cigar and pipes have NONE of those - baring some terrible aromatic pipes.