Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

pubs.rsna.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 233 posts

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#121

Post by mikelyons »

mzs wrote: post #65
dumbfoundded wrote: post #27

If you believe E-Cigs are harmless, there's an easy experiment you can do for yourself. Go on a run, time yourself. The next day, vape for 30 min and then go on the same run. This is what got me to personally switch away from E-Cigs. Vaping would add an additional 30-sec to 1-min per mile on my runs. I try to only use patches or gum now. Still not great but it's a lot better if you're trying to stay in shape. That be…

Careful, in addition to constricting/hardening blood vessels that is thought to lead to heart disease nicotine has other long term effects as seen in in this study of angiogenesis: >In a series of experiments, the researchers found that nicotine could enhance new blood vessel growth in mice whose hind limbs were artificially starved of oxygen. They also found that lung cancer cells implanted into mice grew more quick…

Nicotine is also, itself, a known carcinogen.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#122

Post by draw_down »

tryitnow wrote: post #84
filoleg wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"attacks on vaping are for the purpose of driving smokers back to cigarettes" I don't think it is intentionally on purpose, but it sure does seem this way sometimes. A specific example that comes to mind: city of San Francisco banning sale of e-cigs completely, while keeping regular cigarettes just as legal as before [0]. 0. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/06/25/7357140...

Good point. I don't see any of the politicians addressing why the didn't also ban cigarettes. My guess is that banning cigarettes would go too far. It's unrealistic to expect cigarette smokers to quit over night and start using patches and lozenges. It's a little more realistic to expect that people who vape to do so.

> I don't see any of the politicians addressing why the didn't also ban cigarettes.

It's because tobacco is regulated by the FDA but ecigs aren't.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#123

Post by bobwaycott »

ceejayoz wrote: post #3
bobwaycott wrote: post #2

> ... on healthy non-smokers ... That’s unlikely to be surprising. Would really love to know what the impact is in smokers versus an actual cigarette. Isn’t nicotine already known to have this effect?

It seems clear that e-cigs are better than smoking. It also seems clear that e-cig manufacturers are hoping to hook young non-smokers to expand their market. Both are valuable bits of info, but "e-cigs do confirmed damage" is extremely important info from a public health perspective.

> It also seems clear that e-cig manufacturers are hoping to hook young non-smokers to expand their market.

This is mentioned a lot, but I find it questionable. I’ve never seen an ad that made me feel like Joe Camel or the Marlboro Man did when I was a kid. My teenagers haven’t ever thought vaping was cool based on ads or plenty of people doing it. This sounds too much like a general truism of capitalist enterprise—always find ways to expand your markets—while combining it with a direct accusation that it’s being done perniciously to “hook” them. Everyone who is selling anything is trying to hook people on their product, if that’s the terminology we’re using—new clothes, new cars, new TVs, the latest deals ... every company is using advertising to hook people on their products. People go into financial ruin for cars and homes and stupid stuff. Maybe we should just ban advertising to people so no company can try to hook young people on their products to expand their markets.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#124

Post by JamesBarney »

nabnob wrote: post #108
JamesBarney wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smoking is one of the leading risk factors for cardiovascular disease: agreed It starts earlier than a lot of people thought: agreed The primary contributor to smoking's detrimental effects on the cardiovascular system is nicotine: disagree Mind linking to something that shows this? That doesn't agree with the results from the UK study on effects of nicotine versus smoking which puts nicotine's effects at about 5% of…

Could you link the study you're talking about? I found this - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/28/vaping-is-95... But the only "study" referenced comparing smoking and nicotine was a video experiment that didn't even use humans.

https://www.nhs.uk/smokefree/help-and-advice/e-cigarettes

Click on "how safe are e-cigarettes" which link to two studies, one by the royal physicians and one by public health England.

The one by the PHE is 118 pages and is a summary of all the available evidence as of 2015.

And the RCP does something similar in 189 pages.

They do not exclusively focus on comparing the relative harm, but that is a large section in each.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#125

Post by dade_ »

dumbfoundded wrote: post #27

If you believe E-Cigs are harmless, there's an easy experiment you can do for yourself. Go on a run, time yourself. The next day, vape for 30 min and then go on the same run. This is what got me to personally switch away from E-Cigs. Vaping would add an additional 30-sec to 1-min per mile on my runs. I try to only use patches or gum now. Still not great but it's a lot better if you're trying to stay in shape. That be…

Water vapour has a similar effect.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#126

Post by ceejayoz »

bobwaycott wrote: post #123
ceejayoz wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems clear that e-cigs are better than smoking. It also seems clear that e-cig manufacturers are hoping to hook young non-smokers to expand their market. Both are valuable bits of info, but "e-cigs do confirmed damage" is extremely important info from a public health perspective.

> It also seems clear that e-cig manufacturers are hoping to hook young non-smokers to expand their market. This is mentioned a lot, but I find it questionable. I’ve never seen an ad that made me feel like Joe Camel or the Marlboro Man did when I was a kid. My teenagers haven’t ever thought vaping was cool based on ads or plenty of people doing it. This sounds too much like a general truism of capitalist enterprise—a…

Do you think Juul’s school curriculum - which they paid schools to accept - was genuinely well-intentioned?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/health/juul-teens-vaping....

> In April 2017, a Juul representative visited the Dwight School in New York City to meet with students — with no teachers present — and told them the company’s e-cigarettes were “totally safe.”

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#127

Post by thom »

kryogen1c wrote: post #70
Medicalidiot wrote: post #39

The number one controllable risk factor for stroke and heart attack is smoking. By far. Not diet, not exercise, smoking. A significant part of that is because nicotine will constrict blood vessels leading to hypertension[1], this leads to destruction of the surface of an artery, leading to atherosclerosis formation. One day the atherosclerotic plaque ruptures and then you see me. We once thought that atherosclerosis…

I smoked for ~3 years and one of my favorite smoking memories was with a doctor in San Diego. He was going down the standard visit questionnaire and asked if i smoked, so I said yes. He put down his pen, looked me in the eye, and loudly said "STOP". He looked back at the form, picked up his pen, and we carried on.

I don't know if your doctor or anyone in this thread is aware of the classic Bob Newhart sketch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow0lr63y4Mw

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#128

Post by sl1ck731 »

lowdose wrote: post #106
slau wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m in the same case as you. I switched to vaping 2 years ago (August 14th). Started out at 9mg of nicotine, and now at 1mg. Switch to 0.5mg is planned for early September. Every time I lower my dosage, I notice I vape 2-3 times more than usual, and after a week, I stabilise again (at around 15-20ml per day). I exclusively vape on an RDA. Over the weekend, I was invited to go to a shisha bar. After 3-4 tokes, I was h…

Don't worry about the negative effects of vaping. And your experience without backup and not sweating it is a clear sign of progress. I remember a time I couldn't go to sleep if I didn't have any cigarettes left for the next day. After the third vapor broke I decided not to buy a new one. Good luck!

My quit signal seems to be getting the flu or similar. I've heard from others as well. After a few days of being miserable and not wanting to smoke because of the flu you come out the other end not needing it.

I quit chewing tobacco this way. Picked up vaping a while later for no apparent reason. Will probably quit this the same way.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#129

Post by EpicEng »

ceejayoz wrote: post #116
EpicEng wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"So back in reality" GRAS does not mean what you think it means. I know exactly what GRAS means. Why do you assume otherwise? I never claimed that vaping is safe; you'd have to be an idiot to make that argument. That doesn't mean you ban it. I could have sworn it was on the list... but either way, it doesn't change the fact that nicotine is, by itself, not significantly harmful. What argument are you trying to make…

You claimed nicotine and caffeine are "in the same drug class", then clarified you meant GRAS, but that makes the statement false, as nicotine isn't GRAS. I "assume otherwise" because trying to bring GRAS into the discussion about vaping at all indicates a lack of understanding of what GRAS applies to. Contrary to your assertions, nicotine isn't "not significantly harmful": https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/…

Did you link to an abstract of a pay-walled article? Where are the conclusions?

>In this paper we review these implications of nicotine use and also examine the role of nicotine in the development of several cardiovascular diseases.

That would be nice to read. I can't find anything conclusive that would suggest it is a significant risk factor such that should be outlawed in the name of protecting adults from themselves.

>As linked up-thread, e-cigs appear to have slowed or halted the progress of smoking cessation efforts, and are seeing substantial uptick in teens. They're a major public health danger.

Yep, they have, and it's a shame. That doesn't mean the correct course of action is to take it away from adults. I am all for further regulation of companies who make the liquid. I am not for banning them, scheduling them, or outlawing flavors that don't taste like crap.

I started smoking when I was very young. E-cigs are the only thing that helped me to quit. You take them away and, guess what? People go back to smoking cigarettes. Some of us just like to smoke and will always do it.

>Beef isn't addictive

You sure about that? Perhaps not chemically, but there are many examples of food addiction. Why not ban everything that is potentially harmful?

I understand that food and nicotine aren't on the same level, just as you knew heroin and nicotine aren't. It's not "whataboutism" to hold the opinion that freedoms shouldn't be handed over at the first sign of a negative affect Your argument seems to boil down to "but think of the children!".

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#130

Post by jforman »

ceejayoz wrote: post #52
jforman wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems clear that e-cigs are better than smoking. How can this be clear without long-term usage data?

Well, that's the seems part. It certainly stands to reason that inhaling vaporized nicotine will be better than inhaling vaporized nicotine plus ash and tar and pesticides and whatnot.

Fair enough. Although I think a researcher would say our bags of meat often surprise us.
Post reply on HN