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

211–220 of 233 posts

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

#211

Post by hnzix »

caymanjim wrote: post #162
abstractbarista wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is definitely a point which needs more exploring. Seems to me most damage from smoking is all the crap in smoking. The chemical nicotine - by itself - transiently raises BP, feels nice, and that's about it. It's also only a part of the addictiveness of smoking. Probably a small part, as everyone I know who has consumed nicotine in any form has no trouble without it if they vape, but often shows discomfort/restle…

I've been a long-time smoker, and at least for me, nicotine alone does absolutely nothing to alleviate cravings. Gum, patches, lozenges, vaping, etc. do zero to alleviate my craving for a cigarette. I'm not discounting that nicotine is addictive (I'm in no position to say), but there's got to be something else in tobacco that is part of the addiction.

Have you tried vaping using those e-cigs that look realistic, have a light up tip, and deliver a reasonable throat hit?

For me the addiction was partly psychological around the form factor. Using "light sabre" style vapes didn't work. However I was able to wean myself off smokes using realistic e-cigs (which I also eventually quit).

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

#212

Post by hnzix »

gfosco wrote: post #192
caymanjim wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been a long-time smoker, and at least for me, nicotine alone does absolutely nothing to alleviate cravings. Gum, patches, lozenges, vaping, etc. do zero to alleviate my craving for a cigarette. I'm not discounting that nicotine is addictive (I'm in no position to say), but there's got to be something else in tobacco that is part of the addiction.

It takes willpower. Believe in yourself, draw a line in the sand, you're no longer smoking real cigarettes. Stick with it. You're the one in control of your actions.

Telling addicts they "just need more willpower" is condescending and worthless advice.

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

#213

Post by caymanjim »

hnzix wrote: post #211
caymanjim wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been a long-time smoker, and at least for me, nicotine alone does absolutely nothing to alleviate cravings. Gum, patches, lozenges, vaping, etc. do zero to alleviate my craving for a cigarette. I'm not discounting that nicotine is addictive (I'm in no position to say), but there's got to be something else in tobacco that is part of the addiction.

Have you tried vaping using those e-cigs that look realistic, have a light up tip, and deliver a reasonable throat hit? For me the addiction was partly psychological around the form factor. Using "light sabre" style vapes didn't work. However I was able to wean myself off smokes using realistic e-cigs (which I also eventually quit).

They do nothing for me. They're also cheaply made and don't work well or consistently (and I've tried many brands).

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

#214

Post by gfosco »

hnzix wrote: post #212
gfosco wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes willpower. Believe in yourself, draw a line in the sand, you're no longer smoking real cigarettes. Stick with it. You're the one in control of your actions.

Telling addicts they "just need more willpower" is condescending and worthless advice.

We're talking about cigarettes here, not heroin. It's the only advice that matters.

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

#215

Post by MertsA »

posterboy wrote: post #140
mcguire wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jogging in place will also transiently raise your blood pressure.

Indeed, too much training can be counter productive. Vice versa, runners can't just stop and settle down, neither after a race nor after a carreer, or they'd risk heart failure. I cannot explain it but I think it's common knowledge.

Source?

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

#216

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #40
kuiper0x2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sex is pretty cost free. Meditation is cost free. Unless you are defining time usage as a cost which is absurd.

Besides conception, sex exposes you to pathogens that might cost you your ability to reproduce or have sex again, or to live, in the worst case scenario. Sex is very much of a tradeoff, unless you're oblivious to the risks.

Kinda depends on your choice of partner(s), doesn't it? They didn't say that "sex" must automatically imply that you do it with countless people you don't know well.

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

#217

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

ozzmotik wrote: post #69

sorry if this comment is against the spirit of the community (i don't think it is, but I have been blocked from posting in the past oblivious to the fact that I wasn't contributing anything meaningful), but that being said... am I the only one who isn't surprised that someone managed to find that if you introduce something into the body that isn't generally there, that there is obviously going to be an acute response…

> is obviously going to be an acute response of some sort?

That's not how science works. They don't just act on something because someone thinks "it's obvious". They need hard evidence because the body is very complex and requires specific experiments to show anything. It's not about what get who suprised or not surprised, this is about establishing a definitive scientific truth. And there can absolutely be a substance that you introduce into the body and there is no meaningful effect. (You can probably always measure some effect, but it could be so small that it doesn't affect anything of value.) (no downvote from me fyi)

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

#218

Post by DanBC »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #113
DanBC wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if non-smokers are being recruited into vaping or smoking.

Hasn’t that always been the case though? Peer pressure is going to be directed somewhere, maybe cigarettes, maybe marijuana, maybe heroin, ... are kids really expected to be better these days than when we were kids?

Kids are better today than we were as kids. They drink less, they smoke less, they take drugs less often, they have fewer unplanned pregnancies, etc etc.

At the moment we don't think vaping turns non-smokers into smokers. But it's complicated, especially if there are companies that are marketing vaping to young non-smokers.

I personally think vaping is a useful public health measure, but I recognise the very many years of terrible behaviour from tobacco companies and it feels like light-touch regulation doesn't work.

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

#219

Post by ycombinete »

ozzmotik wrote: post #134
ozzmotik wrote: post #69

sorry if this comment is against the spirit of the community (i don't think it is, but I have been blocked from posting in the past oblivious to the fact that I wasn't contributing anything meaningful), but that being said... am I the only one who isn't surprised that someone managed to find that if you introduce something into the body that isn't generally there, that there is obviously going to be an acute response…

sometimes i really wish that people would actually tell me why they downvote what I have to say, rather than just silently doing so and condemning me to the bottom of the comments. i can't really really do the revision part of performance, feedback, revision without any actual feedback of substance to inform me as to what it is that I did wrong in the first place.

If you were being heavily down-voted (flagged) here on HN you'd get steadily greyed out and then just disappear behind a [flagged] status. Looking at your comment history, this doesn't appear to be the case.

Even if the above is not true, I am guessing that your posts are simply being ignored by many people. Walls of text with no capitalization, and extremely long sentences are very unapproachable. This will naturally push you down below comments that get up-voted.

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

#220

Post by ycombinete »

ozzmotik wrote: post #155
mturmon wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvotes usually equilibrate "correctly" over time. Best response to downvotes is to re-read and see if anything said was wrong or inflammatory, and if not, just wait it out. In general, I'd say that using proper capitalization and avoiding walls of text - stripping down to your actual point - would help your comments.

oh interesting, i never seem to find mine to equilibriate over time; they generally get zero engagement. i honestly did not realize that people really put that much import into proper capitalization; i figured most people understand that, given the heavy market share of mobile users, that most of the time, all lowercase text is more often an intentional choice and not necessarily one made of intellectual laziness. as…

> given the heavy market share of mobile users, that most of the time, all lowercase text is more often an intentional choice and not necessarily one made of intellectual laziness.

This formatting works in instant messengers because people use short discrete messages, which are visually bound in little highlighted boxes. In a paragraph you don't have the same visual aid, and it makes it harder to read.

Post reply on HN