Home Test for Nicotine Blood Levels ???

[Stubby]

It is not easy to see right in front of me either. Nothing like Kate51 shows.

TB, to me, I was wondering if there was any nicotine in these devices at all when I first started. So I chose the highest MG content I could find. Chain vaped, and still had/have cravings once I tossed the analogs.

SO I can look at the results 3 ways:

1) YAY! I'm actually getting nicotine
2) Darn! I was hoping it was in a lessor amount.
3) Ignore the test and get a blood test

I will try the latter as my Doc has been trying to get me to do a fasting blood test for over 2 years now (The lab slip is at the lab, he had to renew it though LOL) I'll make a deal with him

It goes a long way to show just how little is known about e-cigs when we're forced to get our own blood work tested to try and figure out what's going on. Where are the studies from the manufactures and suppliers. Sorry, but I just had to point out the obvious.

Does anyone else see the downside to the low nicotine numbers? I can see a number of problems with it. To many people who are not able to get completely off of cigarettes.

[TropicalBob]

The problem I saw immediately, Stubby -- and it could be huge -- is that e-smoking doesn't produce numbers better than Big Pharma's NRT products. Therefore, the FDA can blow e-cigs away by saying "use an approved product. We're not sending anybody back to cigarettes. Choose from products tested for safety and efficacy."

We lose the entire argument that it's either e-cigs or real cigs. E-cigs don't cut it any better than Nicorette gum. So e-cigs would be easy to dismiss with a ban unless all trials and approvals are done.

Further, the failure rate among new e-smokers, due to inadequate nicotine uptake, would be high, perhaps approaching the dismal figures of the patch and gum, etc. How would that play if only one 1 in 10 smokers could successfully transition to e-smoking? Not good.

I wanted much higher figures on those tests. If e-smoking can't almost equal cig smoking, then it is doomed to fail many addicted smokers. They'll try, they'll fail, they'll spread the gospel of another attempt gone bad.

[hxj]

The problem I saw immediately, Stubby -- and it could be huge -- is that e-smoking doesn't produce numbers better than Big Pharma's NRT products. Therefore, the FDA can blow e-cigs away by saying "use an approved product. We're not sending anybody back to cigarettes. Choose from products tested for safety and efficacy."

We lose the entire argument that it's either e-cigs or real cigs. E-cigs don't cut it any better than Nicorette gum. So e-cigs would be easy to dismiss with a ban unless all trials and approvals are done.

Further, the failure rate among new e-smokers, due to inadequate nicotine uptake, would be high, perhaps approaching the dismal figures of the patch and gum, etc. How would that play if only one 1 in 10 smokers could successfully transition to e-smoking? Not good.

I wanted much higher figures on those tests. If e-smoking can't almost equal cig smoking, then it is doomed to fail many addicted smokers. They'll try, they'll fail, they'll spread the gospel of another attempt gone bad.

All excellent points, but I wonder if the whole hand-to-mouth/ritual/oral-fixation/"smoke"-in-the-lungs-and-in-the-air factor makes e-cigs much more effective for most smokers, despite their apparent inefficiency as a nicotine delivery mechanism.

I found it interesting that in the NZ study, 0 mg liquid and 16 mg liquid apparently were identically effective at reducing nicotine cravings for the first ten minutes after vaping. The very placebo act of going through the motions appears to have helped alleviate cravings when no actual nicotine had been ingested (although, as expected, as time goes on, the relief from the 0 mg liquid disappeared faster).

There are a lot of vapers here who seem to have been able to give up analogs practically from Day 1, and lots who have weaned themselves down to zero-nic liquid and keep on vaping; I would say that the physical addiction to nicotine was a relatively minor part of their overall smoking addiction. And then there are people like yourself who simply can't physically get all their nicotine from vaping and need to supplement with other delivery methods, and so I'd surmise that the nicotine addiction is at the forefront for you. I mean, obviously smoking is a very complex addiction with many components, and everyone has different physiological and psychological needs.

I still bet that if subjected to similar methodologies as in existing NRT studies, e-cigs would prove to be far more effective than gums, patches, inhalers, etc. already on the market. But you're certainly right that the FDA will only look at the nic levels. After all, it was the assumption that it's "all about the nicotine" that brought us such woefully unsuccessful treatments as the gums/patches/inhalers in the first place.

[happily]

All excellent points, but I wonder if the whole hand-to-mouth/ritual/oral-fixation/"smoke"-in-the-lungs-and-in-the-air factor makes e-cigs much more effective for most smokers, despite their apparent inefficiency as a nicotine delivery mechanism.

I found it interesting that in the NZ study, 0 mg liquid and 16 mg liquid apparently were identically effective at reducing nicotine cravings for the first ten minutes after vaping. The very placebo act of going through the motions appears to have helped alleviate cravings when no actual nicotine had been ingested (although, as expected, as time goes on, the relief from the 0 mg liquid disappeared faster).

There are a lot of vapers here who seem to have been able to give up analogs practically from Day 1, and lots who have weaned themselves down to zero-nic liquid and keep on vaping; I would say that the physical addiction to nicotine was a relatively minor part of their overall smoking addiction. And then there are people like yourself who simply can't physically get all their nicotine from vaping and need to supplement with other delivery methods, and so I'd surmise that the nicotine addiction is at the forefront for you. I mean, obviously smoking is a very complex addiction with many components, and everyone has different physiological and psychological needs.

I still bet that if subjected to similar methodologies as in existing NRT studies, e-cigs would prove to be far more effective than gums, patches, inhalers, etc. already on the market. But you're certainly right that the FDA will only look at the nic levels. After all, it was the assumption that it's "all about the nicotine" that brought us such woefully unsuccessful treatments as the gums/patches/inhalers in the first place.

well put...........way too many 20 to 50 year analog smokers who transitioned nicely. I think the kicker for me was starting at 18mg and I somewhat adjusted to it. Then kicked it up to 36mg and that broke the camel's back. (not the mg's..........the jump up) After a couple month's on e-cigs thinking I might need to jump again, I dropped from 36mg to 10mg for fun and didn't even notice.

Sadly for some the e-cig will not replace cigs or nic, but what are you going to do.

[Stubby]

All excellent points, but I wonder if the whole hand-to-mouth/ritual/oral-fixation/"smoke"-in-the-lungs-and-in-the-air factor makes e-cigs much more effective for most smokers, despite their apparent inefficiency as a nicotine delivery mechanism.

I found it interesting that in the NZ study, 0 mg liquid and 16 mg liquid apparently were identically effective at reducing nicotine cravings for the first ten minutes after vaping. The very placebo act of going through the motions appears to have helped alleviate cravings when no actual nicotine had been ingested (although, as expected, as time goes on, the relief from the 0 mg liquid disappeared faster).

There are a lot of vapers here who seem to have been able to give up analogs practically from Day 1, and lots who have weaned themselves down to zero-nic liquid and keep on vaping; I would say that the physical addiction to nicotine was a relatively minor part of their overall smoking addiction. And then there are people like yourself who simply can't physically get all their nicotine from vaping and need to supplement with other delivery methods, and so I'd surmise that the nicotine addiction is at the forefront for you. I mean, obviously smoking is a very complex addiction with many components, and everyone has different physiological and psychological needs.

I still bet that if subjected to similar methodologies as in existing NRT studies, e-cigs would prove to be far more effective than gums, patches, inhalers, etc. already on the market. But you're certainly right that the FDA will only look at the nic levels. After all, it was the assumption that it's "all about the nicotine" that brought us such woefully unsuccessful treatments as the gums/patches/inhalers in the first place.

There's a lot of assumptions in the above. A more realistic answer would be that some people have quit from day one, etc. The question is how many of those will still be off cigarettes a year from now. How about 2 years or 5 years.

I'm not saying they won't be, but at this point no one knows. Just as no one knows what the % is of people who actually do quit smoking using e-cigs. Basing your assumptions on this forum is about as far from any scientific method as you can get.

There are way to many unanswered questions to be so self assured.

The whole hand to mouth thing is likely a bit overblown. Many thousands have quit cigarettes using Swedish snus. Hundreds of thousands in Sweden and Norway. No throat hit. No smoke/vaper. Just a high quality relatively pure source of nicotine.

E-cigs may very well take it's place among other reduced risk nicotine products (snus, nasal snuff, dissolvables) but it's not quite there yet for the masses. It's still in the dedicated hobby stage. I think a more realistic look at where e-cigs stand would serve the whole community a whole lot better.

[TropicalBob]

A dead-on, intelligently written post, Stubby. All true.

A truer statement has not been written than this:

Basing your assumptions on this forum is about as far from any scientific method as you can get.

But we are all unique in how we quit, or fail to quit. And I do not dismiss the placebo effect. If someone hands you a cig-like device and tells you, without question, that it WILL get you off cigarettes .. well, some people will quit without pain, and swear by that cig-like device as the savior for all smokers.

Tests reveal the placebo effect for what is -- the all-powerful influence of a mind made up. It's not the device at all. It's the mindset of the device's user.

Many posts here remind me of hypnosis ... they make me very sleepy while telling me how wonderful e-smoking is. Trouble is, I always resisted hypnosis. There's the real world, and there's our fantasy world. We always need to recognize the difference.

[DaBrat]

I think what is being overlooked here are some very important points. When you smoke analogs, there is an almost immediate peak level of nicotine delivered to the brain via the lungs, followed by an almost as rapid decrease, simply due to the delivery method. This is what causes and feeds the cycle from starting with a couple of smokes to be cool in front of you buds ending with a 2 pack a day habit.

The delivery method of the ecig is different. Absorption rates are slower and peak rates are slower as well followed by a slower decline. No big rush up the hill and no donwhill racer effect. Compare it to eating oreos versus steak (or a HGI food). A couple of oreos or an energy drink gives you an immediate boost but the crash is a hard one. Proteins and fibers on the other hand are slower to digest so the boost isn't immediate and the crash not as devastating.

The nicotine from the ecig is absorbed through the musoca of the mouth and throat not only while you vape but also after vaping is done. It doesn't reach peak for about 20 mins (from what I've read which is comparable to what the nicotine inhaler does). Slower uptake, slower eleimination, no crash no big craves. Of course there ARE craves when first making the switch but not devastating mind-numbing kick the cat craves.

I find the added bonus of seeing the smoke, and getting a throat hit similar to analogs (and not looking like a COMPLETE dork while using) may just be the thing that causes this device to be more effective than the nicotrol inhaler.

What we seem to forget repeatedly in these discussions are that there are more chemicals in an analog that are addictive than just nicotine, nicotine has unfortunately been the one that has been pointed to the most. Certain chemicals in analogs act like MAOI inhibitors in the brain. The fact is you will not find those in an ecig (thank God). Studies show that most smokers are self-medicating for SOMEthing and the effects of the analog on the brain mimics lots of things. Maybe we need to find out what we were self-medicating for. What our triggers were.

Everything will not work for everybody. Anyone who is expecting an ecig to deliver everything an analogs does may as well keep puffing on analogs. Not gonna happen. Trust me I have tried everything. The accessibility and similarity of the ecig is the best selling point to getting people off analogs.

I keep reading posts of people saying that they are vaping 36mg juice and still can't overcome the nicotine craving. When I started out a former 2 pack a day smoker, I started at 18 and thought the same. I upgraded myself to 24 and still felt the crave. I was totally unaware that I was indeed getting enuff NICOTINE (vaping myself into headaches and hot flashes) it was another component that I was missing. Since going back to 18 I have not had these issues.

I hope the ecig is as successful for anyone facing issues as it seems to be for so many, however, I feel that to say the end all be all answer is more nicotine delivery is over-simplifying the situation and if done will simply lead to another form of unbreakable addiction. IMHO the very thing the FDA would need to ban it!

[Kate51]

TropicalBob have you seen any testing done with NRT's that would correlate with our feeble tests here? Can't remember seeing any, I could be wrong about that. I know the 21mg patch will supposedly give you 21mg of nic over the 24 hour wear time. But what would it read comparing cotinine levels, any idea? (I'm not going to try it, BTW!) Probably down closer to zero, considering the half life. Gum? Don't know if it would even register.
I know the level nic my body has adjusted to without smoking analogs, that's good enough for me!!!!!

[Scooter Bob]

webtaxman, you did max, I can see it barely but it is there. I have a feeling you're not happy?..sorry But as you said there are other ways to look at this. Look at what you are not getting with analogs, and really, that reading of cotinine in not very high (up to 1000). It wouldn't have covered what two or three packs a day would have been. But it is higher than I would expect at 18mg juice. Maybe you're doing bigger puffs than I do? Everyone is different.
So a person would have to really make up your mind about what you want to accomplish, first off get away from combustion of plant leaves and chemical bilge. Still the most important, my book. I'll bet at this level you feel a heck of a lot better doing what you are doing. Thanks for doing a test!
I was having trouble with my JS today, juice was too thin, eeyugh! I kept thinking no one on earth would put up with this if you didn't have a sense of purpose about it, sometimes it just isn't fun. Easy to forget why we do this, and the alternatives! And I'm only 5 3/4 months into it.

Scooter Bob, your question is fair. It would depend if they asked if I used tobacco, the answer would be no. I only use a tiny little bit of what used to be in it! I hope they don't get wise and start asking "are you using tobacco or a derivative"! Because what they are asking is if we are exposing ourselves to thousands of toxic chemicals or known carcinogens, not realatively harmless in low volumes of nicotine, that's what they really want to know, so we can tell them ~ NO MHO

Thing is in my case after retiring last August, the new health provider asked if I smoked, and I was honest, and was denied. The insurance broker told me afterwards that I'd need to be smoke free for 13 months, so with e-cigs and no actual smoke and impurities, I wondered if it was safe to still say I didn't smoke to get the lowered prems. Just how intensive is their lab tests? I find it very hard to believe that any general lab test can say I smoked in May of last year, 8 months latter. That's why I asked about E-cigs, which I will probably still use then.

To lie about it is about as good an option in today's health care situation, if you can get away with it.

[Probot]

I found this by accident, Im not sure how relevant it is by now.

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/nicotineyields.pdf