Why would one even take the chance with their health though? That’s my point.
I see these ppl puffing away on these things.
There are already reports of vaping causing serious damage to ones lungs.
There are a few preliminary reports, the majority being linked to black market THC, unregulated cartridges (butane extraction).
The matter of the fact is, in comparison to tobacco related statistics we haven’t seen a large portion of those vaping develop emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease etc. Data is still within early stages, reports take time to mount up. It would appear however that the damage incurred by vaping is a fraction in comparison to smoking.
There is no hard evidence to suggest vaping impacts cardiorespiratory function the way combustible tobacco does
Do I think vaping is stupid and pointless? Yes… highly addictive? Yes… bad for health? Yes… but it’s not comparable to smoking cigarettes.
I could say the same for 90% of guys/girls using gear.
But seriously… where is the clinical data backing this
“Studies show that the vapor generated from electronic cigarettes has variable amounts of nicotine and potential harmful toxins, albeit at levels lower than in conventional cigarettes. The long-term carcinogenic and lung function effects of electronic cigarettes are not known”
“The range of toxin levels was 9-fold to 450-fold higher in smoke from conventional cigarettes than vapor from e-cigarettes.”
“These data demonstrate that the vapor generated from e-cigarettes contains potentially harmful compounds, although in levels much lower than observed in smoke from conventional cigarettes.”
“ In a recent study of the effects of e-cigarette vapor on lung function, in 30 healthy smokers, use of e-cigarettes for 5 minutes resulted in increased total respiratory impedance, respiratory flow resistance, and overall peripheral airway resistance (46). In addition, e-cigarette use was associated with increasing oxidative stress as measured by lower levels of the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide.”
So, we are looking at measurable oxidative stress occurring in response to e-cigarette exposure, perhaps there is a long term impact on lung function. Given the lack of case reports/clinical data it’s too early to tell
“ No change was detected in FEV1 or FEV1/FVC with active or passive e-cigarette exposure. Active conventional cigarette smoke exposure was associated with an acute 7.2% reduction in FEV1/FVC ( P < 0.001”
So cigarettes reduced the amount of air one was able to expel from their lungs in one second and decreased the amount of air one was able to exhale from the lung with a full breath… no change was noted in response to e-cigarettes.
“for their check-up visits during which vital signs (blood pressure - BP, heart rate - HR, body weight) as well as measurements of lung function, respiratory symptoms, and airway inflammation (eNO and eCO levels) were recorded. Details of EC-related products purchased (i.e. ECs hardware, e-liquid nicotine strengths and flavours) were also noted. Three additional follow-up visits were scheduled yearly for up to 3.5 years; follow-up visits 1 (F/up1), 2 (F/up2) and 3 (F/up3) were carried out at 12 (±1), 24 (±2) and 42 (±2) months after baseline visits, respectively. At F/up3, EC users were offered the additional option of undergoing lung HRCT. All these tests and measurements were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. University of Catania Ethics Review Board approved the study protocol and subjects gave informed consent prior to participation.”
BP, HR,
“No significant changes from baseline were observed at any follow-up study visits in the EC group”
Lung function
“ No significant change from baseline was observed over the 3.5-years observation period in the EC group (Fig. 1, panels A–D). No significant difference was found between EC users and control subjects. None of the lung function variables showed a significant between-group (i.e., EC users/Controls) effect (Table 2; Fig. 1, panels A–D). Again, because of the small sample size, we checked all individual datasets one by one to detect signs of negative changes and found no such changes, even among those with the highest e-liquid consumption (5 ml/day) and longest vaping hx (57 months).”
Respiratory symptoms
“None of the participants in this study reported any wheezing, shortness of breath, or chest tightness. Cough was reported by one EC user at baseline and by another at F/up2. In the control group, three participants reported cough on three separate occasions. Of note, study participants reported no severe adverse reactions.”
hugh resolution CT scan of lungs
“In particular, no CT features compatible with early signs of COPD (i.e. parenchymal micronodules, ground-glass opacity, or macroscopic emphysema) or lipoid pneumonia or popcorn lung disease were present.
Of note, no early pathological signs were observed in subjects with the highest e-liquid consumption (i.e. 5 mls/day) and longest overall vaping hx (i.e. 57 months).”
Conclusion
“This small study, the first of its kind to date, found no detectable changes in lung health in never smokers who have been regularly vaping for at least 4 years.”
Yes, vaping contains carcinogens… potentially very minute trace amounts of toxic heavy metals. Humans are exposed to carcinogens on a daily basis.
Vaping isn’t good for you, vapes containing nicotine are highly addictive… but they don’t compare to tobacco cigarettes and many claims within the poster you’ve put up are either dubious in nature, entirely unfounded or flat out false.
Brain development… nicotine permenantly alters neural pathways within adolescents, predisposing one to addiction, potentially affecting attention span, working memory etc. The most vulnerable of adolescents have the potential to become nicotine dependent after the first few cigarettes/subsequent hits of nicotine. Vapes without nicotine however are very unlikely to do much of anything regarding brain development
As to impotence, mechanisms are multi-pronged. Tobacco cigarettes damage endothelium and thus impair eNOS mediated vasodialation. Tobacco cigarettes cause cardiovascular disease and hypertension, both of which lead to systemic vasoconstriction. Superoxide anions produces as metabolites from tobacco SMOKE (not vapour) have been shown within literature to decrease NO levels within various regions of the male genitalia. The jury for vaping is still out though it doesn’t appear to induce artierial stiffening/calcification To the same extent cigarettes do, nicotine mediated vasoconstriction is still apparent (very briefly for the pharmacological duration of which the acute effects of nicotine last for) but this in itself typically isn’t enough to cause ED.
Smoking also damages blood vessels (very little evidence regarding the same for vaping) preventing elastic dialation. Could vaping contribute towards developing impotence? Perhaps… but for a healthy young male to become impotent because he vapes… unlikely
Should be noted a paper came out last year linking e-cigarette use to heart disease. Said paper was retracted, with the results considered “unscientific” as a large portion of those who represented the demographic having suffered myocardial infarctions had so prior to taking up vaping.
Vaping nicotine increases blood pressure and heart rate acutely, as does all nicotine related products. Chances are it isn’t good for your lungs, heart etc. I’m not sure as to whether nicotine exerts a directly cardiotoxic effect, rather I believe this is a byproduct of oxidative stress/ROS generated from toxic chemicals present within cigarette smoke (alongside a host of other mechanisms). Swedish snus, nicotine gum etc doesn’t appear to be correlated with massive spikes in cardiovascular disease in the same manner tobacco cigarettes are.
I think my words were taken out of context. I don’t think vaping is good for you, as a matter of fact data exists to state those who start out vaping are fairly likely at some point to switch over to smoking tobacco cigarettes. As a means to cease/taper off cigarettes however I think vaping is an excellent tool.
There is no upside to vaping nicotine, and nicotine exposure during adolescence of all times is risky business given how the adolescent brain is primed towards nicotine addiction. But there is no solid evidence to validate claims of heart disease,
Lung cancer, emphysema/COPD, throat cancer etc.
If I recall correctly your kids would be around 15 now. Can’t you just stress how important it is that they stay away from nicotine… at the very least until they’re 18-21 (and preferably forever). I mean of all things it’s the least inebriating, yet carries the one of the highest penchants for addiction/dependence out of all substances known to man.
You’re still missing my point.
WHY TAKE THE CHANCE?
You’re arguing that it’s lesser risk than smoking. I’m arguing why even risk it.
Why take a chance with anabolic steroids? Why take a chance with cannabis, or alcohol… or unprotected sex?
Granted with nicotine there is very little upside/perceived instantaneously pleasure. Humans aren’t great when it comes to scaling risk from a long term perspective. We tend to look at/fixate on the short term, shelving long term implications aside.
Why do people smoke/vape aside from the fact that it “feels good”? Engrained sociocultural commodities associated with clever marketing. Smoking/vaping has been marketed as to be associated with rebellion, independence (i.e the Marlboro man). Insidiously enough (and purposefully) this resonates with teenagers.
Many initially smoke/vape due to the image/connotations associated with smoking/vaping. What’s amusing is the prospect of independence is stifled when one becomes a slave to nicotine addiction, spending a hefty sum of money yearly to feed an engrained habit of which is sinister and difficult to kick.
Ask a smoker what age they started smoking… 90% of the time you’ll hear something alongside the lines of “I was 14-18”.
You can babble and argue annoyingly all you want.
Vaping is a stupid thing to do. Period.
Dude… I’m agreeing with you, read my post above…
I think the way these products have been marketed is insidious, borderline criminal and there is clearly no benefit towards vaping.
That being said, spreading hysterical, sensationalised misinformation regarding this particular vice isn’t the way to go about making a point.
Vaping is a bad idea due to the high probability of developing an addiction through repeated use.
Data appears to indicate those who vape nicotine are far more likely than the average joe to take up smoking combustible tobacco cigarettes
very little data exists regarding potential long term risk associated with vaping (i.e decades of exposure). There may be some degree of carcinogenicity associated with the practice, we simply don’t know.
prolonged nicotine exposure during adolescence can permenantly rewire the developing brain
That’s all that needs to be said
No offense, but your posts are too long.
I doubt anyone is actually reading them in whole.
Be more succinct.
We need details. Its a good mixture in this forum.
@unreal24278 should make them as long as he wants.
Your estrogen protects the heart. On ai it will cause heart problems. The info is out there… blocking estrogen means you don’t know where it’s being blocked. Heart brain cock skin bones and etc
Estrogen is local to its point of aromatase. It doesn’t flow around in the blood . When you take an ai we don’t know where it’s lowering estrogen: the labs you take will not show the levels on your brain , heart , bones and etc etc etc
This is why we highly suggest men do not take an ai. Instead manage the dose for symptoms as needed.
That’s if you start TRT and give it 2-3 months and symptoms don’t go away. They usually do.
My opinion is that your ai is causing this. How angry guys I’ve spoken to that got off an ai and their abnormal heart rate, cholesterol , blood pressure and anxiety vanished/normalized .
I would lower that ai slowly, don’t jump off over night.
I think your current plan is healthy. It will take tile to feel better, and don’t give up, and have faith in the bodies need for T.
Happy thanks giving
You do, aromatise inhibitors don’t exactly induce a selective blockade/disintegration of the aromatise enzyme. If there’s ER at a specific site, you can expect aromatise inhibitors to induce a pharmacological effect upon said site.
SERM’s on the other hand tend to be more selective towards certain sites (i.e breast tissue)
No offence taken. My posts are long as I choose to provide detailed evidence in order to back up my opinions in attempt to avoid scrutiny. In this case it doesn’t appear to have worked.
You don’t have to read my posts if you don’t wish to. At the very least I’ve made my point and I’ve linked evidence to back my conveyed opinion.
As to expecting better from me… I don’t vape, I preach harm reduction and/or at the very least having detailed knowledge regarding potential outcomes stemming from various lifestyles. I’ve tried tobacco cigarettes before (shocker!), and I’ve taken a hit off a juul once or twice (first time being on my 18th birthday… aaaaaa the horror), I’ve also smoked a cigar once… it was terrible.
I’ve never claimed to be squeaky clean, as a matter of fact I’ve made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions that on rare instances I am quite irresponsible regarding individualistic decisions made; as are a very large portion of my demographic.
Thank you sir! How has your general health/wellbeing been? How are cardiac parameters/cardiac function and output looking?
Basically I no longer have cardiomyopathy. My EF is at 55 percent. Nothing enlarged.
Thanks for asking.
What I’ve lost in the past few months is consistent nighttime and morning erections. Its like rare to occasional now .
I do take daily cialis which am able to have successful sex.
But am not sure if a goal of mine should be to restore night and morning erections?? That would involve changing protocol. Or perhaps removing the beta blocker. I take 50 mg ER metoprolol.
I did message my cardiologist. And what I tried was switching the beta blocker to taking it in the morning and taking the ARB at night. He told me to try that but hasn’t seen it work in general. He told me to follow up with him but I’m not sure if I want him to change anything since my heart is doing well. Not sure what to do? Not sure what he would do if I tell him that it didn’t work.
Maybe I’ll try a protocol change before I do change any heart meds.
Feedback would be helpful.
Doubt it’ll make much difference given it is extended release but worth a shot
I did try already for 3 weeks. No difference.
So not sure if I should adjust protocol or see what cardiologist will suggest after I report to him my experiment.
Is getting boners at night and upon waking important health wise or just psychological?
I remember on 100 a week I getting really good boners all night. I think this was pre beta blocker.
Not sure if I should conclude it’s the beta blocker or I need to change my dosage. Am on 120 a week.
I know I was feeling good at 140 but never took a dairy on nocturnal boner situation.
Please see new thread created regarding wood
Respond there
I will say that when I started trt I am not sure if I had palps but I was having chest pain and my blood pressure was pretty high. It freaked me out a and I stopped trt for a bit and went to a cardiologist. My blood pressure went down but was still just a tad higher than before trt 120/80 which used to be considered normal but is considered like borderline these days. The cardiologist said everything was fine but wanted to put me on blood pressure meds. Maybe I am dumb but I already have dick problems (a reason for starting trt) and I didn’t want to make those worse. My GP didn’t seem phased by my blood pressure being at that. I started to just feel crappy like before trt so I started up again but instead of the 50 mils 3 times a week I gradually went up to 30 mils times a week. I also started taking a few supplements for heart related stuff and chest pain was minimal to gone and blood pressure is usually around the 120/80. Thing is though sometimes I raise my dosage a bit and notice more energy but I start to have symptoms that seem to be blood pressure related. I also notice I am excitable and more on edge almost like strung out or something. I have been going back and forth but always go back to 90 mils a week and feel best at this. I am not perfect by and stretch but started lifting weights even though I have never lifted a weight in my life. Many areas have improved including not crashing in the middle of the day. So long winded point is maybe try decreasing dosage a bit. Many advocate really high dosages or increasing but sometimes more isn’t best. Probably a culture thing here in America but I always think maybe I can squeeze in a little more and things will be that much better but as I said I always end up going back to my protocol that works great for me and seems to keep side affect to a minimum. You know your own body best.
Is this 90 mg?
