Smokers who quit live no longer than smokers who don't

[archerships]

"In discussing statistics and research information on the more serious risks taken by large numbers of people, we will encounter many findings that may surprise at first. For instance, we all know that smoking cigarettes is associated with various diseases of heart and lungs, and thus with early death. And we know that stopping smoking reduces the likelihood of contracting these diseases. So you might expect a lower incidence of lung and heart disease amongst people who were told by their physician to quit smoking and who did quit. And your expectation would be right. These illnesses did, in fact, develop less often in this group.

However, if you also expected a lower mortality rate for this group, the facts prove you wrong. In one comparison between a group of quitters and a control group, the life-span of the quitters was found to be a little shorter![2] The difference in mortality rates between the quitters and the control group was not statistically significant, meaning that the probability of its occurrence on the basis of mere chance was greater than one in twenty. But, surely, these findings do not confirm common popular or common scientific expectation."


From:

Rose, G., Hamilton, P.J.S., Colwell, L. and Shipley, M.J. (1982). A randomised control trial of anti-smoking advice; 10 year results. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 86, 102-108.

Cited in Target Risk, by Gerald S. Wilde. First edition available online here:

http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/index.html#contents


A succinct summary of "risk homeostasis" is available here:

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=494

Comments

[brkvw.livejournal.com]

This was my basic understanding, but I came at it from a different angle.

We tend to ask rather myopic questions in most early testing.

I would like the following sample groups:

Never smoked
Don’t smoke but live or work with smokers
Do smoke and that stopped smoking (at different times)
Do Smoke (and varies amounts)

Then I want to ask a new set of questions for each group mostly what would appear to be unrelated to the first part. I want to know about their diets, stress habits, etc.

For example, non-smokers tend to get up and walk a little every hour or so.
There is some evidence for example that smoking might prevent Alzheimer's disease, or at reduce the chance or time when it finally takes.
It is an apatite suppressant. Eating less might gain you more years.
Smokers might actually be more social (I have no idea).
Smokers might actually have less stress, etc.

I think then we will get more fitting answers to everything.


My own sample groups (in passing) have some notable traits. For example, of all the smokers I have known from many countries and many backgrounds, I notice that smokers don’t tend to drink “just water” I notice this a lot…and I mean like I don’t think I have come across smokers that drink “just water.’

None smokers (never having smoked) often drink “just water” I wonder if and when someone stops smoking if they increase or decrease the drink of choice…coffee, coke, tea, etc.

As non-smoking (never smoked) water drinking (I have never even had a sip of coffee) person, my passing view of this is that “habits” have a greater impact on the collective goal, not just one metric.

[brkvw.livejournal.com]

"apatite" should have been "appetite," although who knows, perhaps it does reduce calcium fluoride.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Heh, given that smokers brush their teeth more often (to reduce smoker's breath) I would predict that they would have increased levels of calcium fluoride. But then perhaps smoking reduces fluoride absorption levels.

[brkvw.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I wonder if smokers have better Dental records...

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree with you.

[perspectivism.livejournal.com]

never even had a sip of coffee

I always notice this as strange to me; Penn Jillette often mentions such abstention, at least w/r/t alcohol.

I doubt you judged you were risking addiction from trying a few sips out of sheer curiosity about its effects/taste/etc. So why did you never even try it just for that initial curiosity?

[brkvw.livejournal.com]

For both -- the initial reason is pretty much the same; my sense of smell is so intense that I can’t get past it to do it.

But for Coffee there is the other part that (as you know about me) having me “more hyper” might not be a good move.

For Alcohol the mixture of the disturbing cleaning solvent smell, plus the reality that I have no urge to alter my perception of reality (I’m barely holding on as it is) means I see no reason to start.

Never touched cigarette or grass for about the same reasons.

Although I have no issues what-so-ever with others doing any of these. I just strongly prefer not to be around it. For smoking, I think any upside is lost to cost (first), then coloured skin and teeth, then smell-taste. If you told me Ice-cream had these side effects I would have cut it out for that reason. Instead, I cut out ice-cream because I stopped eating foods with refined sugar and there is pretty good evidence that that much butterfat will just kill me.

I could really eat “just” ice cream, that it how much I love it. So I simply removed it completely.

My plan when I get old and no longer care is Heroin and Ice cream. If you interrupt me I will hit you with my cane.

[perspectivism.livejournal.com]

Fantastic, I finally understand!

Ice cream is my current most passionate health hazard. I could tell you specific product lines to especially avoid until...

My plan when I get old and no longer care is Heroin and Ice cream. If you interrupt me I will hit you with my cane. LOL

Maybe once a week though you can be a bit social for String Out The Geek.

How to lie with statistics and without them as well

[other.livejournal.com]

Smokers who quit live no longer than smokers who don't

I'm not sure if it is saying that or not. The first paragraph makes it sound like they are leading to that, but the second is using a control group rather than a group of smokers. The way I am reading it, the article is merely saying that ex-smokers and the general population has no statistically significant difference in mortality rates. Since smokers have a shorter life-span, this is an improvement.

It is also misleading to say that it is less and there is no statistically significant difference. If it is not statistically significant, then they have no justification to claim that it is less. It wasn't "found to be a little shorter" at all as they found no difference.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re: How to lie with statistics and without them as well

[other.livejournal.com]

Or are both groups smoker patients? The difference is that one group got some advise from their doctors and the control group didn't. In that case, the advise had no statistically significant effect on their health.

Re: How to lie with statistics and without them as well

[crasch.livejournal.com]

I don't know. I haven't read the paper cited. If you read it, I hope you will report back.

[azalynn.livejournal.com]

How long does someone have to smoke to be considered a "smoker"? And how much? I'd think it would definitely depend on how long a person smoked, and how many cigarettes they smoked per day, etc.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the study yet, so I don't know how they define who is a smoker. I would imagine it's defined in terms of frequency and volume.

[(Anonymous)]

There's a huge flaw in a goodly number of the write-ups of these studies, in that they don't separate the population that quits because they have a terminal illness. Once you control for that, then yes, mortality rates substantially improve for the non-smoking group. I didn't examine the controls for this particular study, but I'm betting it's the work of journalistic incompetents. And 1982? That's the medical stone ages.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

The excerpt is from the book Target Risk, by Gerald J.S. Wilde, a psych professor at the Univsersity of Amsterdam. The cite is from the first edition which was published in 1994. An updated version was published in 2001, but isn't online.