4 ms·

This is in no way to defend smoking. I've never smoked, and good riddance to it. However: Amidst all the talk about the causes of obesity, surely "not smoking

This is in no way to defend smoking. I've never smoked, and good riddance to it. However: Amidst all the talk about the causes of obesity, surely "not smoking anymore" is in there somewhere?

paduc 2y ago
Meth addicts are often very thin as well. /s
- consteval 2y ago
  Personally I would argue that the addiction simply shifted for most Americans. It was cigarettes, now it is food, particularly ultra-processed food. There's a large subset of people, the majority in my opinion, who are somewhat prone to addiction. Most are just a wee bit prone. They certainly won't peruse the streets for drugs. But, if something is readily available and socially accepted, they'll do it. Before this was smoking, now its ultra-processed foods. Fast food, junk food, sweets type stuff. It's probably still a boon, I'd say. I mean, I think being obese is probably healthier than smoking. But we didn't really "solve" anything, we just moved the problem.
  - willy_k 2y ago
    Not very surprising, considering it’s the same companies using the same playbook. I’m not so sure that being obese is healthier than smoking, being obese might not give you cancer but it will certainly mess with your heart, and I would not be surprised if someone who smoked for the same amount of time someone else was obese ends up having a better prognosis after quitting.
    - fortran77 2y ago
      Obesity is associated with many forms of cancer. See https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/obesity/obesity-fact-sheet https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/o...
    - consteval 2y ago
      To be fair, the real risk of smoking is not actually lung cancer. Most smokers don't get lung cancer. It's heart and lung damage. Congestive heart failure, heart attacks, COPD, etc. A lot of these are slow, painful, and terminal.
  - cycomanic 2y ago
    The connection is even closer. Tobacco company extensively invested in the highly processed food industry and brought their advertisement experts in. The obesity crisis (and addiction to sugary and fatty processed foods) is not an accident, it's the result of a sophisticated advertisement campaign directed by the brains behind tobacco and alcohol campaigns.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    This seems ideologically rather than evidence-driven. Smokers used to claim that it suppressed their appetites. Not being a smoker, or obese, I wouldn't know. But it seems plausible as a (partial) cause.
    - consteval 2y ago
      I mean, of course I have no evidence because nobody is really looking into it. In my opinion, despite the fact we have many tens if not hundreds of millions of people eating themselves to death, we (socially) are incredibly hesitant to consider overconsumption an addiction. But when people are dying slowly, and painfully, by their own hand and they can't stop, I personally consider that an addiction. In addition, we know ultra-processed foods are designed to invoke as much pleasure in the user as possible. In many ways, they suffer the same hyper-optimization that modern cigarettes do. There's also some* evidence that part of the Tobacco industry shifted to food as Tobacco in the US died off. This is more circumstantial evidence. I think the "hard" evidence is that everyone smoked and was thin, now nobody smokes, and everyone is obese. Regardless, I think we need harder and more proven solutions to the obesity epidemic. I think "willpower!" isn't working out for us, on a large scale. I'm rooting for Ozempic. And, fun fact, Ozempic also curbs nicotine and alcohol addiction.
TeaBrain 2y ago
They aren't defending smoking. They're referring to the industry and its ethos when it originally grew. While smoking was established as being bad for health in the mid-20th century, this wasn't as clear in the late 19th and early 20th, when the tobacco industry boomed and brought many jobs to the southern US economy.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  Who's "they"?
  - TeaBrain 2y ago
    I take it you're being purposefully obtuse, but I was referring to the person you responded to.
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      > I take it you're being purposefully obtuse No, but you're being purposefully hyper-sensitive. If you're replying to someone higher, you should hit Reply on that comment. Not on someone lower down.
      - TeaBrain 2y ago
        No, that was honestly how I interpreted your comment. That may have been the wrong interpretation, but your two word reply didn't leave me with much. I possibly misinterpreted your first comment also, but I wasn't really sure how you were leaning there, whether it be just an absurdity or a question honestly pondered.
        AlbertCory 2y ago
        OK. All you see when you hit Threads is what YOU said. Not what the person above you said.

This is in no way to defend smoking. I've never smoked, and good riddance to it. However: Amidst all the talk about the causes of obesity, surely "not smoking anymore" is in there somewhere?

paduc 2y ago

Meth addicts are often very thin as well. /s

consteval 2y ago
Personally I would argue that the addiction simply shifted for most Americans. It was cigarettes, now it is food, particularly ultra-processed food. There's a large subset of people, the majority in my opinion, who are somewhat prone to addiction. Most are just a wee bit prone. They certainly won't peruse the streets for drugs. But, if something is readily available and socially accepted, they'll do it. Before this was smoking, now its ultra-processed foods. Fast food, junk food, sweets type stuff. It's probably still a boon, I'd say. I mean, I think being obese is probably healthier than smoking. But we didn't really "solve" anything, we just moved the problem.
- willy_k 2y ago
  Not very surprising, considering it’s the same companies using the same playbook. I’m not so sure that being obese is healthier than smoking, being obese might not give you cancer but it will certainly mess with your heart, and I would not be surprised if someone who smoked for the same amount of time someone else was obese ends up having a better prognosis after quitting.
  - fortran77 2y ago
    Obesity is associated with many forms of cancer. See https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/obesity/obesity-fact-sheet https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/o...
  - consteval 2y ago
    To be fair, the real risk of smoking is not actually lung cancer. Most smokers don't get lung cancer. It's heart and lung damage. Congestive heart failure, heart attacks, COPD, etc. A lot of these are slow, painful, and terminal.
- cycomanic 2y ago
  The connection is even closer. Tobacco company extensively invested in the highly processed food industry and brought their advertisement experts in. The obesity crisis (and addiction to sugary and fatty processed foods) is not an accident, it's the result of a sophisticated advertisement campaign directed by the brains behind tobacco and alcohol campaigns.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  This seems ideologically rather than evidence-driven. Smokers used to claim that it suppressed their appetites. Not being a smoker, or obese, I wouldn't know. But it seems plausible as a (partial) cause.
  - consteval 2y ago
    I mean, of course I have no evidence because nobody is really looking into it. In my opinion, despite the fact we have many tens if not hundreds of millions of people eating themselves to death, we (socially) are incredibly hesitant to consider overconsumption an addiction. But when people are dying slowly, and painfully, by their own hand and they can't stop, I personally consider that an addiction. In addition, we know ultra-processed foods are designed to invoke as much pleasure in the user as possible. In many ways, they suffer the same hyper-optimization that modern cigarettes do. There's also some* evidence that part of the Tobacco industry shifted to food as Tobacco in the US died off. This is more circumstantial evidence. I think the "hard" evidence is that everyone smoked and was thin, now nobody smokes, and everyone is obese. Regardless, I think we need harder and more proven solutions to the obesity epidemic. I think "willpower!" isn't working out for us, on a large scale. I'm rooting for Ozempic. And, fun fact, Ozempic also curbs nicotine and alcohol addiction.

TeaBrain 2y ago

They aren't defending smoking. They're referring to the industry and its ethos when it originally grew. While smoking was established as being bad for health in the mid-20th century, this wasn't as clear in the late 19th and early 20th, when the tobacco industry boomed and brought many jobs to the southern US economy.

AlbertCory 2y ago
Who's "they"?
- TeaBrain 2y ago
  I take it you're being purposefully obtuse, but I was referring to the person you responded to.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    > I take it you're being purposefully obtuse No, but you're being purposefully hyper-sensitive. If you're replying to someone higher, you should hit Reply on that comment. Not on someone lower down.
    - TeaBrain 2y ago
      No, that was honestly how I interpreted your comment. That may have been the wrong interpretation, but your two word reply didn't leave me with much. I possibly misinterpreted your first comment also, but I wasn't really sure how you were leaning there, whether it be just an absurdity or a question honestly pondered.
      - AlbertCory 2y ago
        OK. All you see when you hit Threads is what YOU said. Not what the person above you said.