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

 

[Kate51]

Hi Probot, welcome! Anything that looks like that report I would say is extremely relevant...very interesting....it's enough to make your eyes glaze, and also makes one wonder what else was manipulated by the BIG T co's. Remember people saying how they must have raised the nicotine level, and how they denied that, it was never used to increase sales....well, that could have been true while they were raising the level. What about when they lowered it..that would have been after the congressional hearings, if I'm not mistaken, after the establishment of the funding for tobacco cessasion and advertising. If you don't mind I copied it and saved it, that's one I want to flesh out a bit more. There's another story there behind it. I want to check some more dates and dollars.
Maybe that this forum is a better representation of cause/effect, because it is so un-scientific. I don't think anyone goes into this with any pre-conceived notions, does anyone really know what they expected? My goal was to replace the cigarettes with lower-risk lower-dollar device. I think that was pretty well merited, but it couldn't have been pre-determined because nothing was a known. Whereas wearing a patch or using gum or inhalers would be pre-determined, since it was socially and supposedly medically acceptable?? Any one make sense of that??

 

[KevinD872]

I know there is some debate over the importance or accuracy of this whole thread, but I *do* have a valid interest. Having had a lumbar fusion recently every doctor I have talked to and every article I have read online says you MUST quit smoking because nicotine can interfere with the fusion process. This is of course based on years of study of nicotine users getting their nicotine from cigarettes, cigars, pipes, chew, nic gum and nic lozenges. NOT e-cigs (which apparently give much less nicotine).

I really would like to use at least a very mild nic mix (say 5 or 6 MG) but I don't know if I can and I am afraid to try.

I do wish there was more information on this sort of thing. From reading this thread, it almost sounds like I *might* get away with a very very low dose in my e-cig, but the downside is if it causes a failure, I get to have another fusion surgery.

The whole problem is, nicotine narrows arteries (or something) and bones (particularly in the back where fusion is?) get very little blood supply in order to facilitate repair. Nicotine compounds this problem. Which is why they say QUIT smoking. No gum, no patches. QUIT. As most of us here know, it is easier said than done. I have now been nic-free for about 5 days (ok... a puff here and there from my wife's 11mg e-cig) and I am going nuts.

I do plan to bring this up to my doctor at my two week follow up. I just don't know if there is enough education amongst doctors about these things. I don't want these banned (FDA) or anything like that, but in cases like this, I WOULD appreciate more official research. This could actually be a SOLUTION for smokers with fusions to use while healing. I would experiment myself, but this is my 3rd surgery on the same disc (1st fusion) and I want it to be my last.

I wish it were just the smoking that caused fusions problems, and not the nicotine. Curses!

 

[Kate51]

I really think there's a lot to be said about ALL the chemicals present in tobacco cigarettes. I believe the nicotine is the least offensive of the whole list! Yes, it supposedly constricts blood vessels, but I couldn't tell you the amount (density of nicotine) you would have to vape for that to be a problem. No more than drinking a cup of coffee. I'm not a doctor, but this is something I've maintained in my own mind for a long time. I would say to be safe stay as low as possible with the nicotine and still maintain minimal withdrawal symptoms, and just don't over do it. Thing is, doctors are not schooled in the particulars of vaping any more than we all are by doing it! Knowledge rules. Just my humble opinion here. Keep up with deep-breathing exercises, in through the mouth, out through pursed lips, several times a day to keep yourself well-oxygenated. Good idea for everyone to increase lung function and capacity. Will help tighten up core muscles as well, they help support your spine!

 

[KevinD872]

I do know that there were some studies with rabbits, where some got steady doses of nicotine and some had none. Then they performed single-level spinal fusions. The non-nic group did do better.

However, there have been advances in fusion surgeries..... techniques, technology - bone growth stimulators, even a bone growth hormone - BMP - that they use instead of taking doner bone from the patient's hip. Anyway, the point of all of this is that with the latest technologies, smokers now have much better chances of fusions. And these studies were of patients SMOKING, as far as I know. Basically some groups quit 1 month before the fusion, another group quit the day of the fusion, another group quit for 3 months after the fusion, and yet another quit until it was fused. The non-smokers still did better, but the smokers still had a decent success rate compared to years ago.

This does give me hope, in what you just said..... that there ARE other factors in smoking other than nicotine that most definitely affect the outcome of a fusion. I have been vaping nic-free like a junkie since I got out of the hospital, and I do occasionally load up with some 11mg and drip for 3 or 4 drops to chill me out, but only once or twice a day. I would guess the equivalent of maybe 2-3 cigs worth of nicotine per day (considering the apparently lower absorption rate from vaping), if that.

As a side note: When we first got these and before the surgery I was hitting this thing ALL day with 18mg juice. I kept telling my wife that I "had to put this crack pipe down". haha. Of course if I had still been smoking analogs, it wouldn't have been a whole lot different. Just stinkier.

 

[justme4112]

I have been following this thread with curiousity. So curious, in fact, that I bought a couple of Tobac-Alert tests and tried one. 30 year 1 pack a day habit. Analogue free for 62 days, currently vaping 5.5-6 mg/ml liquid (bumped down to this level 7 days ago as my hope is to get to 0 nic soon). Chain vape when I'm not at work - love the flavors! Test results indicate a level of 5.

Hoped for a lower reading, especially at this low nic. level, as I hate nicotine withdrawl! However, am glad to know, and now instead of stepping down to 0 nic. in 3 weeks as originally planned, I'll cut the level in half again one more time for a while, before going to 0.

Thanks for being curious people, I love information.

 

[StephenJP]

For god's sake it's just a question. Either answer it or leave it alone.
If some one did answer it I'll probably never know because of all the bicker.
To much ridicules stuff to read to get to an honest answer.
Every one I have talked to at any length about the e-cig has asked that question, I too am wondering. I like that I am doing something better for my self. I would never have been able to do it without the E-Cig. I have been a
2-1/2 to 3-1/2 pack a day smoker for many years BUT! I would like to know how much nicotine am I getting.I'm not worried but I do believe in education
(knowledge).
P.S. I haven't heard an answer yet or where to go to get one.
StephenJP

 

[Kate51]

For god's sake it's just a question. Either answer it or leave it alone.
If some one did answer it I'll probably never know because of all the bicker.
To much ridicules stuff to read to get to an honest answer.
Every one I have talked to at any length about the e-cig has asked that question, I too am wondering. I like that I am doing something better for my self. I would never have been able to do it without the E-Cig. I have been a
2-1/2 to 3-1/2 pack a day smoker for many years BUT! I would like to know how much nicotine am I getting.I'm not worried but I do believe in education
(knowledge).
P.S. I haven't heard an answer yet or where to go to get one.
StephenJP

StephenJP, sorry, did we miss a question from you about nicotine??
Please, ask again, I don't see anything from you previously. If you are asking about the TobacAlert tests, there is one for urine and one for saliva as well, you'll have to Google that one, below is a place for the urine test strips. I have lost my saliva link.

http://www.drugstore.com/products/prod.asp?pid=85647&aid=336064&aparam=tobacalert&scinit1=tobacalert

Kate

 

[Kate51]

I have been following this thread with curiousity. So curious, in fact, that I bought a couple of Tobac-Alert tests and tried one. 30 year 1 pack a day habit. Analogue free for 62 days, currently vaping 5.5-6 mg/ml liquid (bumped down to this level 7 days ago as my hope is to get to 0 nic soon). Chain vape when I'm not at work - love the flavors! Test results indicate a level of 5.

Hoped for a lower reading, especially at this low nic. level, as I hate nicotine withdrawl! However, am glad to know, and now instead of stepping down to 0 nic. in 3 weeks as originally planned, I'll cut the level in half again one more time for a while, before going to 0.

Thanks for being curious people, I love information.

Congratulations on your test, I have to tell you it may seem high to you, but the cotinine level you're at is about half what it was when you were smoking! Not to mention a few thousand less chemicals you're ingesting, that's the really good news. Good luck to you, and welcome to ECF!
I'm at about a level 3 right now, no pressure to go lower unless I feel a personal urge to just do it. I have already cut 25%, from 24mg/ml to 18 mg. I can handle this! Will do another cut when I get the urge. I don't feel as if I'm hurting myself or anyone else with my PV.
Kate

 

[justme4112]

Thanks for your support Katie51. I'm envious that you are at 3 vaping 18 mg, I'm obviously vaping 2-3 times more than you of the lower nic juice (I do have 4 pv's full at a time with 4 different flavors, tee, hee!).

Or, here's where reading these test results show to be tricky. It certainly would only be a guess what factors all influence the results - ie., I am exposed to second hand smoke as my husband still smokes some, as well as vaping - also, do different people metabolize nicotine at different rates, as they do with alcohol, and so on.

Still,it's very interesting to follow this thread. I do feel much better about not smoking regular ciggies, and might even stay on the pv's indefinitely, but frankly I don't really like all the futzing about with juice, equipment, etc. that comes with them. I'm also curious what it would be like to be nicotine free after 30 yrs (that is if the new "normal" would be nice and not cranky and tense all of the time).

Good luck to you as well!

 

[Kurt]

Bumping this up because I think there are still questions.

Anyone interested in doing this test with 2 or 4 mg lozenges? If you have not used these, you just stick them up high between cheek and gum and leave them. All nic is orally absorbed, or throat absorbed. No lung.

I am interested in this because it would tell us whether orally absorbed nic is converted to cot or remains as nic. And if you've finished a 4 mg lozenge, you've taken in 4 mg of nicotine. Depending on how much you decide to actively suck on the lozenge, it may last in the mouth for a few hours.

Seems this would be a good oral-only calibrated measurement. I suspect the majority of nic from vaping is orally metabolized quickly to cotinine.

Blood test would of course be good too, but more of a hassle.