Nicotine may promote heart & blood vessel disease?

[SubGothius]

New research proposes a possible role for nicotine in promoting heart and blood vessel disease:
Invade and conquer: Nicotine's role in promoting heart and blood vessel disease

Not the sort of news we want to hear, but bear in mind these findings have yet to be confirmed by any further studies. It's good to be mindful of whatever health risks using nicotine may present, so we can make informed, rational decisions as to our continued usage, rate of use, and dosage strength; moreover, whatever the possible risks of nicotine, they are still far better than smoking or chewing actual tobacco.

[Stubby]

It gives no indication as to how they came to this conclusion, but it certainly has not been done with population studies. All population studies done on smokeless tobacco show little to no increase in heart disease.

And just so you are informed, chewing tobacco, snus, snuff, and dissolvables are dramatically less harmful then smoking, even though they are actual tobacco. Tobacco is not the problem, it's the smoke that will get you.

[yvilla]

Bill Godshall opines that the press accounts of this study misrepresent the findings of the research, and make false claims. See his post here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...ml#post5398030

I look forward to hearing a bit more of his take on this research, as has been asked for in that thread.

[YKruss]

Here is a link to Yvilla's post about Vaping and Circulation that is related - Vaping and Circulation - opinions? and Genral MS question...

Oops, Yvilla bit me a little bit...

[yvilla]

Oops, Yvilla bit me a little bit...

LOL, assuming you meant "beat" you, not really. Thanks for linking to my previous post about nicotine and circulatory and vascular health.

The research and scientific opinion I referred to in that post is pretty well documented, but as the OP here is about supposed "new" research, I think it's important to have a knowledgeable analysis and critique of its worth, especially if as Bill says, the press accounts of the research misrepresent the actual findings. We all know how that works - as with the infamous 2009 FDA press release that wildly skewed and misrepresented the lab findings in the study it conducted on a few Njoy and SE cartridges.

[SubGothius]

Much thanks for your reasonable and informative comments and links, just what I was looking for by posting this here.

[PepNYC]

And just so you are informed, chewing tobacco, snus, snuff, and dissolvables are dramatically less harmful then smoking, even though they are actual tobacco. Tobacco is not the problem, it's the smoke that will get you.

First off let me just say I am in no way disputing what you're saying here. However, I have to ask. If all the above are "not the problem" why do people get mouth cancer from some of that stuff? There has to be some kind of additives in the chewing tobacco that causes "problems". No?

[yvilla]

First off let me just say I am in no way disputing what you're saying here. However, I have to ask. If all the above are "not the problem" why do people get mouth cancer from some of that stuff? There has to be some kind of additives in the chewing tobacco that causes "problems". No?

Health risks from tobacco use can scientifically and fairly be placed on a continuum. Combusted products are at the end of the continuum with the highest risk of all, as it is the inhalation of smoke, and ALL of its toxic byproducts, that for the most part causes disease and ultimately death. At the lowest end of the risk continuum are nicotine only products, with smokeless tobacco products falling at various spots along the way.

Oral cancer risks from chewing tobacco are still much lower than from smoking, but to the extent this risk exists it stems from the levels of tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) present in the products, some of which are carcinogens. It does NOT stem from "additives"; that is a myth. Newer and modern smokeless tobacco products, such as snus and dissolvables, are produced in such a way as to have vastly lowered amounts of TSNAs as compared to either cigarettes or even chewing tobacco. And tobacco free nicotine products, such as either the pharm products like gums and patches, or e-cigarettes, have the lowest amounts of TSNAs of all, thus the lowest risks to health.

See, http://www.ihra.net/files/2011/07/13..._Reduction.pdf, and http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/...omparison.html

[Stubby]

First off let me just say I am in no way disputing what you're saying here. However, I have to ask. If all the above are "not the problem" why do people get mouth cancer from some of that stuff? There has to be some kind of additives in the chewing tobacco that causes "problems". No?

It's a common misconception that smokeless tobacco is a major cause of oral cancer. It isn't as the studies show. The three major cause of oral cancer are smoking, alcohol, and HPV. On a continuum of risk modern smokeless tobacco would not likely show up, and products like snus certainly would not.

Health risks from tobacco use can scientifically and fairly be placed on a continuum. Combusted products are at the end of the continuum with the highest risk of all, as it is the inhalation of smoke, and ALL of its toxic byproducts, that for the most part causes disease and ultimately death. At the lowest end of the risk continuum are nicotine only products, with smokeless tobacco products falling at various spots along the way.

Oral cancer risks from chewing tobacco are still much lower than from smoking, but to the extent this risk exists it stems from the levels of tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) present in the products, some of which are carcinogens. It does NOT stem from "additives"; that is a myth. Newer and modern smokeless tobacco products, such as snus and dissolvables, are produced in such a way as to have vastly lowered amounts of TSNAs as compared to either cigarettes or even chewing tobacco. And tobacco free nicotine products, such as either the pharm products like gums and patches, or e-cigarettes, have the lowest amounts of TSNAs of all, thus the lowest risks to health.

See, http://www.ihra.net/files/2011/07/13..._Reduction.pdf, and http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/...omparison.html

Chewing tobacco historically has had very low TSNA levels comparible to snus. Also note that the TSNA levels of US made snuff are a good deal lower today then in the past.

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com...ltria-and.html

The difference in risk associated with todays US made snuff and Swedish snus is very small if it exist at all. Nearly all of the studies that have shown a slight elevation in oral cancer risk are outdated by at least several decades. I know of one study that is referred to by the zealots that dates back to the 50's.

There is no evidence that the slightly higher TSNA levels in modern smokeless tobacco compared to e-cigs and nicotine gum has any meaning in the real world. It is highly unlikely that snus is any more harmful then e-liquid or nicotine gum in any meaningful way. You are assuming that a slightly higher level of TSNA equals an increase in risk, but the numerous studies on Swedish snus has shown that below a certain level TSNA levels appear to not matter. In reality it really doesn't make a difference if the levels are 2 parts per million or 0.2 as levels that low are not shown to cause disease.

We know the long term effects of low TSNA smokeless tobacco, which are minimal at worst, but we don't know the long term effects of vaping. The flavorings may well be the greatest danger. I am not in any way saying vaping is riskier then smokeless tobacco, but at this point there are still long range unknowns. If 30 years from now we have some definitive answers, it will in all likelihood be splitting hairs, which is a rather tedious and pointless. The science is not backing up your claim that modern western smokeless is more risky then vaping.

[yvilla]

Stubby, I certainly wasn't saying that smokeless tobacco products were "risky". (In referring to the oral cancer risk from chewing tobacco, I said it was "much lower" than from smoking, and I even said "to the extent this risk exists"). I also specifically said that snus and dissolvables had "vastly" lowered levels of TSNAs.

The only area where we may disagree, minimally I might add, is based on the fact that every discussion of the risk continuum that I have ever seen does place smokeless tobacco products somewhere higher up on the continuum than nicotine products, even if only very slightly.

Oh, and as far as I am aware, chewing tobacco has indeed been shown to have higher TSNA levels than snus and dissolvables. I don't see that the link you provided says any differently either, on that specific point.