I tolerated the Offroad Coffee Vanilla. It was the best Offroad. The new CatchDry Vanilla Mint isn't bad. I hope the reference was to that one.
Snus just as bad as chews?
- Thread starter deeptrout
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I like the Vanilla Mint minis myself. I also have made a small change on my list of SNUS I REFUSE TO PURCHASE. I have changed the Offroad entry to exclude purchases of portions, but not loose. The Offroad los comes highly recommended in many quarters.
They say snus is healthier because of the manufacturing process. But it has been said that american tobacco contains lower tsna's now then it did in the past.
I think the biggest concern for any smokeless tobacco is risks of heart disease. There was a very large study, the biggest to date done on swedish snus users on something like 100 thousand construction workers. They concluded that snus gave users a 40 percent increase in cardiovascular disease and death than non tobacco users. I could be wrong, but the risk seemed to be higher for snus users then cigarette users within a certain age range.
Now later studies, that were much smaller have contradicted this, and said that there is no real risk between CVD and snus. Some claim the figures found in the large negative study dealt with a snus that had higher tsnas than they did today. who really knows. I just know that the study that said Snus gave you a 40 percent risk, was the largest study ever done. And I believe it holds some weight or at least some consideration. More modern studies have been funded partially or entirely by swedish match, so take those with a grain of salt.
what i get from it is this. Overall the risks of snus are probably lower than american tobacco, especially cigarettes, but dont have the snus in your mouth all day long all the time, because there might be some cardiovascular risks with over use.
I think the biggest concern for any smokeless tobacco is risks of heart disease. There was a very large study, the biggest to date done on swedish snus users on something like 100 thousand construction workers. They concluded that snus gave users a 40 percent increase in cardiovascular disease and death than non tobacco users. I could be wrong, but the risk seemed to be higher for snus users then cigarette users within a certain age range.
Now later studies, that were much smaller have contradicted this, and said that there is no real risk between CVD and snus. Some claim the figures found in the large negative study dealt with a snus that had higher tsnas than they did today. who really knows. I just know that the study that said Snus gave you a 40 percent risk, was the largest study ever done. And I believe it holds some weight or at least some consideration. More modern studies have been funded partially or entirely by swedish match, so take those with a grain of salt.
what i get from it is this. Overall the risks of snus are probably lower than american tobacco, especially cigarettes, but dont have the snus in your mouth all day long all the time, because there might be some cardiovascular risks with over use.
Check this summary of several studies in pdf format, which addresses cardiovascular risk. It notes other studies undertaken since the one you cited, which claim the opposite:
"However, two subsequent case-control studies by Huhtasarri and others (footnotes 40-41) did not find a significantly increased risk of myocardial infarction among snus users as compared to as compared to non-tobacco users. Both of these studies were based on data collected in Northern Sweden as part of the World Heatlth Organization MONICA (multinational monitoring of trends and determinants in cardiovascular diseases ) project.....
....In multivariate anaylses smoking remained significatnly associated with MI, whereas snus use was not.....
........Huhtasarri subsequently conducted a larger study than the one reported in 1992...this study found.....that cigarette smoking significantly increased risk of an MI (statistics cited) whereas snus use significantly REDUCED the risk (statistics cited) compared with men who never became regular tobacco users." (Check page 4 of the link and read paragraphs 5-7 under the 'Cardiovascular Disease" section to read the above quote in full with statistics.)
Good stuff, both of you. In the past two years, since I quit cigarettes, I've read almost daily on nicotine. I want studies on nicotine consumption, apart from smoking. Hard to find and many are new. But what is evolving is the notion that nicotine has dangers and benefits. If that's so, we need to know where the line is drawn. At what blood level does it become a detriment to health, particularly cardiovascular health; how much might help keep us mentally alert into old age, etc.
And if it has benefits, then the best way to obtain those benefits for us is with snus or nasal snuff -- centuries old methods of tobacco use, without serious consequences for users. In the future, I bet Big Pharma will identify that optimal dose of nicotine and sell us all pills at $10 a pop. Leading up to that will be further restrictions and banning of products containing natural nicotine.
Keep posting your findings. Many could benefit from this collective knowledge.
And if it has benefits, then the best way to obtain those benefits for us is with snus or nasal snuff -- centuries old methods of tobacco use, without serious consequences for users. In the future, I bet Big Pharma will identify that optimal dose of nicotine and sell us all pills at $10 a pop. Leading up to that will be further restrictions and banning of products containing natural nicotine.
Keep posting your findings. Many could benefit from this collective knowledge.
Last edited:
Hi TropicalBob,I consider you to be a great source of information about all things nicotene,so I thank you for the info you gave me
I am going to check out snuson.com,is that where you get your snuss at? I am more into minty,sweet flavors,so I have no idea why I picked extra sterk! Don't even know what sterk means...LOL! Haven't been brave enough to try it yet
The reason i picked the snus I did was trying for high nicotene content,and your right,more nic isn't going to make it better if I can't use it. So,as always I'm open to ideas and suggestions! P.S. I used my vanilla mint snus at work today,no one knew and it is better than the slimy commit lozenges that I have been using with my ecigsI agree 100%, because T-Bob sticks with FACTS instead of suppositions.
Snuson is to snus as these forums are to e-cigs.
Sterk means 'strong,' as in a higher level of nicotine. I don't claim to have any ability or right to speak for T-Bob, but to me, I hear him advocating for moderation in the use of nicotine, although I could be wrong.
Thanx for you input Werkit! I take it you also use snuss? If so what do you enjoy? Also what ecigs are you using? I have janty stick, and I really like the ecigars for lots of vape and throat hit
You are welcome. I don't know everything, but do the best I can.
Snus is now my primary form of nicotine, although I originally quit analogs with e-cigs.
White mini portions are my preferred snus, primarily because they only contain 4 mg of nicotine (except for Mocca, which has 5 mg) and white portions have a slower release and therefore, softer nic hit. I require low levels of nicotine, which was true even when I smoked analogs. I am experimenting with loose, aka 'los' presently, although I only have two tins of it. I am growing my own tobacco to make snus, so will need to learn to work with los.
I have a RN4081 which has a dead atomizer. The joy306A set still puts out. Now, I only hit the e-cig late at night before bed, so as not to waste a snus portion. I mix my own e-liquids using glycerine and Fairie's Finest Creme De Cafe extract, which is kahlua flavored, which I mix down to 4 mg or less, from a 24 mg tasteless commercial e-liquid.
WerkIt and I are so alike ...
Ladybug, taste is such an individual matter that it's really difficult to say what you might like among the ones that I dislike. Fortunately, snus is not prohibitively expensive, so a failure is not like, say, regretting that Screwdriver e-cig purchase.
The bottom line is that nicotine, like caffeine, is bitter. Its natural purpose is to drive away insects that threaten its host. Tobacco is full of the bitter stuff, so tobacconists go to some lengths to modify their products so they taste better. (Notice how many coffee flavors there are today?). The more a snus tastes like tobacco, the more bitter it will be. And bitter is an acquired taste (we have sweet, salty, sour and bitter tastes on this earth). I like sweet and/or salty, so the sweeter snus is right up my alley.
No matter which you like, you're better off than smoking cigarettes, of course. The snus history is a great one, free of alarming spikes in cancer, emphysema, etc. among users. And e-cigs remain an unknown, with far too few tests done and none of them peer-reviewed and approved. So I want to continue to encourage you towards snus use. If you must have nicotine -- and I must -- then find the safest known source that satisfies you.
Ladybug, taste is such an individual matter that it's really difficult to say what you might like among the ones that I dislike. Fortunately, snus is not prohibitively expensive, so a failure is not like, say, regretting that Screwdriver e-cig purchase.
The bottom line is that nicotine, like caffeine, is bitter. Its natural purpose is to drive away insects that threaten its host. Tobacco is full of the bitter stuff, so tobacconists go to some lengths to modify their products so they taste better. (Notice how many coffee flavors there are today?). The more a snus tastes like tobacco, the more bitter it will be. And bitter is an acquired taste (we have sweet, salty, sour and bitter tastes on this earth). I like sweet and/or salty, so the sweeter snus is right up my alley.
No matter which you like, you're better off than smoking cigarettes, of course. The snus history is a great one, free of alarming spikes in cancer, emphysema, etc. among users. And e-cigs remain an unknown, with far too few tests done and none of them peer-reviewed and approved. So I want to continue to encourage you towards snus use. If you must have nicotine -- and I must -- then find the safest known source that satisfies you.
Last edited:
Snus is not as bad as american snuff because it is steam cured and not cured with fire (flue cured... I'm pretty sure). The Swedish government has studied it thoroughly for many years, and has found no reason to believe that the risk for cancer in a snus user is any higher than that of a non-snuser. Furthermore, Sweden has the lowest tobacco-caused fatality rate in the EU.
EDIT:
Be careful when using it that you don't overuse it: My snus habit (at least a tin a day) caused my gums to recede on my 'snusing side' about 1mm****
EDIT:
Be careful when using it that you don't overuse it: My snus habit (at least a tin a day) caused my gums to recede on my 'snusing side' about 1mm****
The los is DEFINITELY better than the portions by Offroad. I did pick up a sampler package of 7 different portions by Offroad that used to be on getsnus. They're ok, but a little low on the flavor scale. I do like the coffee vanilla, and the cranberry is ok, but not quite as much flavor as the Skruf cranberry portions. I also surprisingly liked the Classic Blue portions, which taste like Goat Rape but milder. So sometimes a little less flavor can actually be a good thing ;-) I think another you should put on the "do not buy" list is Grand Prix. Very low in flavor and what flavor there is isn't very good. If it's all I had I'd probably use them, but luckily I have enough cans now to avoid that one tin ;-)
I really, really don't like Offroad. It may be cheaper than most other brands... but I just thought it was disgusting.
If you want a more affordable snus that is better quality, I'd suggest skruff snus. It's pretty darn good and comes in some tantalizing flavors.
If you want a more affordable snus that is better quality, I'd suggest skruff snus. It's pretty darn good and comes in some tantalizing flavors.
After using a lot of it, I'm with Ziro on Offroad. No more. But Grand Prix is dreadful, I also agree. The problem is that it is now becoming widely available, while our favorites have to be ordered from Sweden. That is going to bite us hard if PACT becomes law.
With the whopping passing of the "Marlboro Bill", I'm sure the PACT won't have much problem getting passed either. Sure will suck when it does...
That one is on my do-not-buy list, except I call it 'Ghetto' Prix.
Are you speaking of portions, los or both?
Did you try it in portion, los or both?
There is a long thread on the coffin nails forums, in which a poster discusses growing tobacco indoors. He rigged up fluorescent lighting, but laid white sheets of paper (cardboard?) underneath and around the plants to reflect the light. He grew the plants in 5 gallon buckets. I was AMAZED at the size he was able to achieve with his indoor growing method. For me, it represents another possibility of snus growing in the event the FDA goes batsh*t crazy with baccy regs.
to werkit. sorry i have not responded to you sooner. Thanks for the info. I have read some of the studies done on cardiovascular risk. As I have said in my first post. A lot of later studies contradicted the big study done on construction workers. and again, these studies were smaller, and swedish match had an interest to partially or fully fund many of the newer studies.
Check out the interested parties in the report you showed.
The cohort study that said snus gave you a risk was kind of valuable in my opinion because it sampled the same population sample with very similar variables such as education, lifestyle, physical fitness etc. It should not be overlooked!
in the end, what I am trying to say is this, You cannot deny the results of the huge study. there might have been other over looked variables, but it was a very large study done on a particular population of people. I dont care if the risk is 40, 20, 10. But I would use a little common sense and conclude that there is a risk. I would not believe the newer studies 100 percent and feel there is 0 risk. I would combine both the studies together and say well maybe the risks right now might not be as high as 40 percent, But there might be a risk. I think with everything else, moderation is key. If you have one snus in your ..., one in each gum all day everyday, it would be nieve to say you are not facing any risks. I think the goal for everyone in the end should be limiting or reducing their nicotine intake to more appropriate levels.
Check out the interested parties in the report you showed.
The cohort study that said snus gave you a risk was kind of valuable in my opinion because it sampled the same population sample with very similar variables such as education, lifestyle, physical fitness etc. It should not be overlooked!
in the end, what I am trying to say is this, You cannot deny the results of the huge study. there might have been other over looked variables, but it was a very large study done on a particular population of people. I dont care if the risk is 40, 20, 10. But I would use a little common sense and conclude that there is a risk. I would not believe the newer studies 100 percent and feel there is 0 risk. I would combine both the studies together and say well maybe the risks right now might not be as high as 40 percent, But there might be a risk. I think with everything else, moderation is key. If you have one snus in your ..., one in each gum all day everyday, it would be nieve to say you are not facing any risks. I think the goal for everyone in the end should be limiting or reducing their nicotine intake to more appropriate levels.
Last edited:
Werkit: Strictly personal preference, but I would never use loose, from any maker. I always reference portions. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
P.S. I've joined all the grow-your-own forums I can find. I just might ...
P.S. I've joined all the grow-your-own forums I can find. I just might ...
That's exactly how science is done. New information comes to light which often invalidates what we knew, or thought we knew.
What evidence do you have to demonstrate a smaller study is less valuable than a larger one?
That doesn't necessarily matter, particularly in cases where later studies, NOT funded by Swedish Match, have the same findings. Any study can be sound science, regardless of who backed the study financially.
You most certainly can. At one point in time, our available scientific data and studies led us to believe the earth was flat. We DENY the results of those studies on a daily basis now. New facts coming to light often overturn what we once thought we knew.
It was done using snus users who were Swedish construction workers. Are you a Swedish construction worker? Are you exposed to the same chemicals in your work that Swedish construction workers are?
Do you deny newer studies which demonstrate the earth has a spherical shape instead of flat? If not, why not? Generally, this is how science is done. Newer studies shed new light on what we thought we knew, particularly in cases where other studies confirm the results.
Since this is the preferred format. I shall do the same.
"What evidence do you have to demonstrate a smaller study is less valuable than a larger one?"
In statistics there is such a thing as being statistically strong. Its pretty obvious that the larger the sample, the more statistically powerful something becomes and the more trends can be spotted.
"that doesn't necessarily matter, particularly in cases where later studies, NOT funded by Swedish Match, have the same findings. Any study can be sound science, regardless of who backed the study financially. "
Again with statistics it is VERY important to understand the parties interested in the study. Statistics is more of an art form than a science. There is many ways to retrieve and look for data, And those being paid are paid to gather and form that data into a convincing argument. Swedish Match is not going to take part or fund a study that will hurt them. Just a little common sense there.
"It was done using snus users who were Swedish construction workers. Are you a Swedish construction worker? Are you exposed to the same chemicals in your work that Swedish construction workers are?"
No thats not the point whether i suffer from what they suffer from. The point is, They studied the same group of people all of which were subjected to similar variables. That is the point. It makes a study stronger when you are comparing apples to apples, and not oranges to bannannas.
"Do you deny newer studies which demonstrate the earth has a spherical shape instead of flat? If not, why not? Generally, this is how science is done. Newer studies shed new light on what we thought we knew, particularly in cases where other studies confirm the results."
lol. I dont even know what to say to that. we are not comparing advances in technology that are centuries apart. The scientists who did that study were not apes or cavemen. They found a correlation after looking at a very large, particular sample of people. They saw a connection and I would not go as far as to say they didnt see anything at all. That it was a figment of their imagination. They saw a connection. And I am sure the connection still exists to degrees I am not sure of. I am not saying the study was perfect, or their figures were perfect. What I am saying is that they DID see a connection, and I believe anyone who has a little common sense will at the very least take that into some consideration.
"What evidence do you have to demonstrate a smaller study is less valuable than a larger one?"
In statistics there is such a thing as being statistically strong. Its pretty obvious that the larger the sample, the more statistically powerful something becomes and the more trends can be spotted.
"that doesn't necessarily matter, particularly in cases where later studies, NOT funded by Swedish Match, have the same findings. Any study can be sound science, regardless of who backed the study financially. "
Again with statistics it is VERY important to understand the parties interested in the study. Statistics is more of an art form than a science. There is many ways to retrieve and look for data, And those being paid are paid to gather and form that data into a convincing argument. Swedish Match is not going to take part or fund a study that will hurt them. Just a little common sense there.
"It was done using snus users who were Swedish construction workers. Are you a Swedish construction worker? Are you exposed to the same chemicals in your work that Swedish construction workers are?"
No thats not the point whether i suffer from what they suffer from. The point is, They studied the same group of people all of which were subjected to similar variables. That is the point. It makes a study stronger when you are comparing apples to apples, and not oranges to bannannas.
"Do you deny newer studies which demonstrate the earth has a spherical shape instead of flat? If not, why not? Generally, this is how science is done. Newer studies shed new light on what we thought we knew, particularly in cases where other studies confirm the results."
lol. I dont even know what to say to that. we are not comparing advances in technology that are centuries apart. The scientists who did that study were not apes or cavemen. They found a correlation after looking at a very large, particular sample of people. They saw a connection and I would not go as far as to say they didnt see anything at all. That it was a figment of their imagination. They saw a connection. And I am sure the connection still exists to degrees I am not sure of. I am not saying the study was perfect, or their figures were perfect. What I am saying is that they DID see a connection, and I believe anyone who has a little common sense will at the very least take that into some consideration.
- Status
Similar threads
