Studies on Pipe and Cigar smokers - Inconsistent!?

[churchlady]

Given the positive impact on mental health that nicotine can have I wouldn't say that pipe smoking is flat out unhealthy. Thinking about ADHD (which I have) - smoking a pipe gives me access to a stimulant/dopamine regulator in a form that basically forces me to do all the ADHD smart things like paying attention to my breathing, getting outside, having something to occupy my hands, providing an outlet for novelty and curiosity, etc. So I could take a medication the relies on a doctor's prescription and is subject to shortages, or I could buy 10lbs of bulk tobacco and be set for a very long time.

No one would bat an eye if I said I planned to take AHDH meds for the rest of my life (actually...my MIL is very crunchy and would bat both eyes repeatedly). Still, long term usage of meds to regulate mood and behaviour are completely fine so long as you get it monthly. And, if you want to do that, more power to you. I just prefer to pursue more traditional solutions in this case.

Also, my husband has been researching nicotine. Not tobacco usage but straight up nicotine. Very interesting. It's starting to feel suspect that nicotine and tobacco are being repressed. Nicotine can do some cool stuff - admittedly healthier when non combusted..

 

[fishmansf]

Given the positive impact on mental health that nicotine can have I wouldn't say that pipe smoking is flat out unhealthy. Thinking about ADHD (which I have) - smoking a pipe gives me access to a stimulant/dopamine regulator in a form that basically forces me to do all the ADHD smart things like paying attention to my breathing, getting outside, having something to occupy my hands, providing an outlet for novelty and curiosity, etc. So I could take a medication the relies on a doctor's prescription and is subject to shortages, or I could buy 10lbs of bulk tobacco and be set for a very long time.

No one would bat an eye if I said I planned to take AHDH meds for the rest of my life (actually...my MIL is very crunchy and would bat both eyes repeatedly). Still, long term usage of meds to regulate mood and behaviour are completely fine so long as you get it monthly. And, if you want to do that, more power to you. I just prefer to pursue more traditional solutions in this case.

Also, my husband has been researching nicotine. Not tobacco usage but straight up nicotine. Very interesting. It's starting to feel suspect that nicotine and tobacco are being repressed. Nicotine can do some cool stuff - admittedly healthier when non combusted..

I agree that nicotine is good for conditions like ADHD however, there are plenty of safer ways to take nicotine like nicotine patches, gum, pouches, snus, snuff, etc. Pipe smoking is harmful because of the TSNA's released from tobacco leaf when burned. Nicotine in itself is not harmful at all, in fact, it has been shown time and time again to be a helpful stimulant, to increase neuroplacicity, and promote neurological longevity, though there aren't always the best ways to take nicotine. I would disagree and would say that smoking is harmful but again, no more harmful than having two beers or two glasses of wine every night like the average person does.

 

[sardonicus87]

TL;DR of what I've said before and of what's below:
Studies are inconsistent because doing them properly is hard, many are firsts and not reproducibility studies and each uses different methodologies, different metrics, different tolerances, different dimensional focuses, different times, different subjects, difference scales, different degrees of variable control, and has different researchers with different biases.

This is true of studying most anything, not just tobacco.

-----------

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to deduce that inhaling smoke into the lungs, regardless of the source of that smoke, isn't healthy.

Anyone that argues inhaling one kind of smoke is not unhealthy is participating in some delusional thinking. Degrees of unhealthy can be argued to no end, but all combusted organic materials release carcinogens, and it's not even necessary to inhale into the lungs. Even eating barbecue smoked meat exposes and increases your risks.

It's easier to control for and test compounds found in all smoke, at least in lab rats or something. But those don't always translate to humans, yada yada. And even then, that still won't tell you the real risk or increased risk.

----------

If you start looking into medicines or any kind of study, all any of them show is a CORRELATION and how strong that correlation is, assuming a properly conducted study and proper interpretation of the data, but not causation. I mentioned medicine specifically because any one of them, how they work is theoretical mostly, especially for psychiatric medications. They know how various medicines are metabolized and where some of them have some affinities, but it's a lot of guessing not dissimilar to Einstein's Constant that was used for relativity. Even he didn't know why that number, he just knew that number worked consistently, if I am remembering correctly. Anyway, most medicines that work, they don't know causally why, they have theories about why.

Anyway, that's another sort of problem is the reporting on studies. "Study shows link between X and Y" is problematic. People think that means X causes Y... but the study never said that. Most say "there appears to be a strong enough correlation to warrant further study", or something to that effect. So it could be the reporting itself misinterpreting the studies and their findings as opposed to flaws in the actual studies.

 

[OzPiper]

So many variables, most of which have already been touched on succinctly by others.

Firstly - Who is funding the study ?
Anti-smoking lobby or tobacco lobby or an independent with no vested interest?

Secondly - Is it a proper double-blind study ?
How large is the cohort ?

Thirdly - How rigorous are the inclusion criteria ? Smokers of pipes alone vs smokers of pipes and other tobacco products ?

Fourthly - Are the results tabulated according to consumption ie light (<5 bowls/week), moderate (5-14 bowls/week), heavy (>15-30 bowls/week) or @JimInks level (>5 bowls/day)

Since other variables eg genetic factors, other pre-existing or latent health issues are difficult to factor in, the results can only indicate an association rather than a causal link

 

[irishearl]

Mark Twain famously said that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Never smoked cigarettes but have smoked pipes for almost 50 years and smoked them often. Thus far, no notable health effects Kind of reminds me of my great aunt who, when she was 91, said she just gave up cigarettes because it was getting expensive. Yeah, so many factors go into the mix as to health difficulties, not the least of which is probably genetics.

 

[Cracklin' Tobaccy]

As much as people may disagree with me on this I'm gonna throw in on it. Smoking has not been proven to cause cancer. It's the difference between correlation and causation.
Every time a doctor gives a diagnosis of cancer they chalk it up to smoking if the answer to the question 'Do you smoke?' is yes. The 400lbs. man stuck to a wheelchair who has a diet of DingDongs and Pepsi smokes and so smoking caused his cancer will be the conclusion. If you take time to actually read the Surgeon General's warning labels you will note that they are very carefully worded with indeterminate language. Has been linked to, has been associated with, may cause, may be linked with and other such nebulous assertions are in every single one of them. No study that I've seen takes into account other major overlying or underlying factors concerning the health or health history of individuals involved, the type of smoking they do or the type and sources of the tobacco they smoke.
Corporate medicine has an agenda and it is profit. The U.S. Government has an agenda and it is to take in as much money as possible. One way the government does it is through sin taxes on both corporations and on individuals. The anti-tobacco campaign is an industry that bolsters its profits through inflating the perceived threat of tobacco as a health emergency and they are all over the place with it... most of it makes no sense. Most of us know or are people who have smoked for a lifetime cancer free. Most of us also know people who have never smoked a day in their life and died of cancer. Cancer is not 'a' disease. There are many types and categories of cancer which are wholly unrelated to each other but still brought under the same umbrella as a singular phenomenon.
Correlation is not causation. I'm not saying smoking is the healthiest thing to do. I am saying that my opinion is that smoking is not as harmful to health as the agenda driven campaign makes it out to be. While there may be a correlation between smoking tobacco and cancer, causation has not been established in any way whatsoever.

 

[ssjones]

Has there been a recent study on pipe smokers? If so, where can this be found?

 

[Pipeoff]

Churchill Quote: Stats you can trust are those you falsified yourself

 

[ssjones]

Has there been a recent study on pipe smokers? If so, where can this be found?

I found this one, from 20 years ago:

Association Between Exclusive Pipe Smoking and Mortality From Cancer and Other Diseases

Abstract. Background: Although many studies have examined the adverse health effects of pipe smoking combined with other forms of tobacco use, few have inc

academic.oup.com

Herein lies the challenge. They used examples of 1-3 pipes daily and 11 pipes daily. I'm a once or twice a week smoker, so I suspect my cancer risks are higher from other contributors.

Clinical reports as early as 1795 linked pipe smoking with carcinoma of the lip and tongue, as noted by Doll (1). However, the risks associated with the exclusive use of pipes have been difficult to study because pipes are the least commonly used tobacco product in the United States (2), and relatively few smokers use pipes exclusively. Traditionally, men in the United States have either switched from cigarettes to pipes or smoked pipes in combination with cigarettes or cigars (3).

 

[sardonicus87]

Well, there's a definite difference between getting like, rectal cancer vs throat cancer, and there's plenty enough evidence to suggest smoking does increase the risks of certain types of cancers (like oral, throat, lung) because there's a statistically significant increase in these in tobacco users relative to what kinds of cancer they get (more lung for cigarettes, more oral for dip, etc) and relative to the non-smoking population.

The main thing to be wary of is total deaths attributed to smoking.

But beyond that, warnings being carefully worded like that is nothing new, not just for cigarettes, but for everything. In science the minute you claim something is a real and true fact like the sun revolving around the earth, a Copernicus comes along with evidence to the contrary and then is later proved right. Most things in math and science that are taken as fact, are understood to just be "the best explanation possible". Euclid made a set of postulates in 300 BCE that took 2,000 years to "prove" some of them. That's just how all of math and science works.

And if you're into philosophy, it's arguable that "truth" isn't even knowable, or can't be known to be known, and may not even exist at all, and arguably no truth or fact can ever be actually justified (infinite regress, tautology, etc—see also Pyrrhonism, Agrippa's Trilemma, Hume's Fork and Hume's Guillotine, Karl Popper...).

Almost all warnings on all things use that "maybe" language. If you say something DOES or DOES NOT happen, you're liable when the opposite occurs, but you're fine if you say MAY. I don't think that's some kind of insidious conspiracy, nor proof of malicious intent for profit.