What's new

Doubts about cuban cigars

Can anyone here refer me to any scientific study on the health risks of fewer than ten premium hand-made cigars per month? I haven't seen one.
 
I smoke premium cigars. I drink fine single malt scotch, bourbon, wine, and beer. I cook with pork fat and real butter, and I prefer my meat with char marks on it. With any luck, when I die, I'll choke on something that tastes good.

Something is gonna kill me. Might as well be on good terms with it.
 
A lot of people have gotten confused and frustrated with the multitude of often conflicting studies on the dangers of various substances and behaviors. The resulting reaction is sometimes what I see on this forum, that is, the "life is fatal" response.

However, instead of reacting to every report released on coffee preventing cancer/causing cancer, it might be better to look at the big picture, meaning what makes sense for the vast majority of the population.

The medical establishment is pretty much in agreement that if you avoid tobacco, moderate your alcohol intake, get a certain level of exercise and stay out of the obese range, plus reduce your intake of red meat and increase your intake of whole grains and fruits/veggies, then you will most likely reduce your chances of a premature involvement with the health care system. You're greatly reducing your chances of contracting a number of cancers, cardiac problems and diabetes.

You won't be immortal. And it's not a guarantee. Grandpa Joe smoked two packs a day and lived to 100; Grandma Jane was a skinny diabetic; Aunt Sue never smoked a day and died of lung cancer. But we're talking odds here. If you smoke, you greatly increase your chances of developing a number of (duh) smoking-related illnesses.

But for me one of the most convincing arguments is not when you'll die but the quality of life issue. By following a few guidelines you can increase the chances that your senior years will be more comfortable. You'll have to spend less time at the doctor. While your peers may be feeble, you'll be more active, less prone to injury.

I have two bosses who are in their low 80s. They are more active and have less medical problems than people I know in their mid-60s. They still drive themselves around and in fact have very busy international travel schedules.

It's like people who still refuse to wear a seat belt, because they think they can cause injury or trap you in a burning wreck. Sure, that's possible, but is it likely? Isn't it more likely that the seat belt will prevent you from smacking into something hard?
 
Ohh! They've opened a cuban cigar recycling and disposal plant in Tennessee? I had no idea! What a useful service! Does the plant prefer to get the cigars disposed at the same time as a glass of good old bourbon or does the plant's policy give preference to a gin & tonic disposal?

Yep. Facility has been operating about 57 years now. No cigar is disposed without the requisite two fingers of Old Weller Antique or some Pappy Van Winkle Family Reserve. On occasion there might be a wee dram of of Islay and even on occasion a good Oloroso. All depends on the mood of the CEO.:c2:
 
Or you could follow the "Maximum Leader", Fidel Castro himself, who allegedly swore off Cuban cigars for health reason many years ago. But it is obviously ok to sell to rich capitalist imperialist swine.:biggrin:
 
Dana Reeve, Christopher Reeve's wife died of lung cancer yet she never smoked. I was diagnosed almost 3 years ago with bladder cancer which is linked to tobacco usage. I smoke at most 2-3 cigars a month. Sometimes none for several weeks. I had smoked cigarettes yet had quit in 1980. I think cancer is a bit of a crapshoot.

As grandma once said; "Everything in moderation".

+1 on "cancer is a crapshoot."

My father died of lung cancer, yet he had quit smoking 30 years priors. His mother and sister both died of lung cancer, yet they never smoked.

My maternal grandfather lived to be 85, and started smoking 2 packs a day of the original, unfiltered Camels when he was a very young man. He was always very small and slight in stature (about 5'0 x 100#) yet he was strong as an ox and able to lift and carry almost anything, and he carried himself and projected a presence as if he were 10 feet tall.

He wound up in the hospital with stomach ulcers ... he had to give up smoking while he was hospitalized, of course. He died less than 3 months later. I'm convinced that if he had been allowed to continue smoking, he would still be alive today.
 
The medical establishment is pretty much in agreement that if you avoid tobacco, moderate your alcohol intake, get a certain level of exercise and stay out of the obese range, plus reduce your intake of red meat and increase your intake of whole grains and fruits/veggies, then you will most likely reduce your chances of a premature involvement with the health care system. You're greatly reducing your chances of contracting a number of cancers, cardiac problems and diabetes.

This is undeniable and a solid way to live.

Now, personally, some of those I follow and some are not things I'll sacrifice for their slight decreases in risk. A responsible person reads the studies, then makes an educated decision.

If you smoke, you greatly increase your chances of developing a number of (duh) smoking-related illnesses.

This, however, is too broad a statement. In my case, it's actually quite false. Your statement is true of smoking many cigarettes a day, only. For pipes and cigars, which one doesn't inhale and tends to smoke less frequently (once or twice a day or even less), the data is far less certain. For people who smoke cigarettes even, but not much, the data is less certain.

In fact, it's hard to find reliable research on anything other than chain-smoking cigarettes. The few studies that have been done indicate, most frequently, that there is no statistically significant increase in risk for smoking pipes and cigars in moderation. The few that do indicate risk, indicate risk far smaller than the normal studies -- certainly less than the blanket statement above.

That was a long response to what was probably just a casual slip into hyperbole. It's the "greatly" that irks me. Many people's smoking habits are moderated enough that any increase in risk is far away from "greatly" increased, and often statistically within margin of error.
 
This, however, is too broad a statement. In my case, it's actually quite false. Your statement is true of smoking many cigarettes a day, only. For pipes and cigars, which one doesn't inhale and tends to smoke less frequently (once or twice a day or even less), the data is far less certain. For people who smoke cigarettes even, but not much, the data is less certain.

In fact, it's hard to find reliable research on anything other than chain-smoking cigarettes.

Good point...moderate pipe/cigar smoking (without inhallation) is NOT the same as chain smoking cigarettes, yet folks tend to lump them together. A lot like lumping marijuana use and crack smoking together...completely different...both may be "bad ummmkay"...but to say they are the same is simply false.
 
When you are weighing the risks/enjoyment of cigar smoking, there a few concepts to think about. Chemical carcinogens can either be an "initiator" or a "promoter". The initiator causes the initial mutation that could lead to cancer if there is a proper supply of the promoter.

Tobacco smoke is generally accepted as being a promoter. Tumor development depends on regular repeated stimulus by the promoter. If the intervals between applications of the promoter are too long, tumor development fails.

What makes this theory important for the occasional cigar smoker, is that allowing ample time between smoking (application of the promoter) will SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the risk of cancer development. The initial mutation in a lung, throat, mouth cell caused by other factors (random), needs a constant stimulus by the promotor for tumor formation. If you withdraw this promotor, no tumor. If you put large time intervals between application of the promotor, no tumor. Here's an image to explain.

So, what's the point? If you're smoking cigarettes regularly and in high number (supplying the promotor), you are considered high risk. If you only smoke a cigar once a week, it's unlikely to be supplying a regular enough dose of the promotor to encourage carcinogenesis. If you have been smoking cigarettes for several years, then quit, you have significantly reduced your risk of cancer. Your lungs will clear up, and you will no longer be high risk for cancer.

1. Tobacco is a carcinogen and there is no SAFE level
2. Tobacco smoke does not cause first mutation in cancer development, it only promotes the progression of the cancer process
3. Tobacco is only effective as a promoter if there is regular and repeated doses
4. Without ample stimulus from the promoter (tobacco), the cancer will not develop
5. Extending time intervals between application of the promoter (tobacco), will greatly reduce the risk of cancer
6. It is impossible and impractical to discover exactly how certain time intervals between smoking correlate to cancer risk

What I would tell my patients is something generic like: Do your best to reduce your usage of tobacco products.

My personal opinion, though? Don't smoke cigarettes at all, especially don't inhale them. If you like cigars, have a cigar on occasion. Just keep in mind, that there is no SAFE level, but the more time you can put in between smokes can SIGNIFICANTLY reduce cancer risk.

If I smoke a cigar once a month will I get cancer? Not from tobacco

If I smoke a cigar once a week will I get cancer? Not likely, but there's a slim possibility

If I smoke a cigar once a day will I get cancer? Probably not, but chances are significant

If I smoke five cigars a day will I get cancer? Pending you live long enough, probability is highly likely

If I smoked five cigars a day, then I quit for 10 years, will I get cancer. Probably not

Remember, constant/repeated exposure to a cancer promotor is required for tumor progression. Tobacco smoke is a promoter, so fixed limited doses, with long intervals are not likely to cause significant damage. Check out Group 6 on the chart. Repeated doses, just at long intervals results in NO TUMOR.

***These explanations were all based on medical theory from the gold standard in Pathology, Robbin's Pathologic Basis of Disease
 
I've known people who have lived well into their nineties and smoked 2 packs a day, drank and ate whatever they wanted. I have known people who never smoked, didn't drink and ate healthy and died of cancer when they were 28. In the scheme of things, you're only here for the blink of an eye. Enjoy life while you can. Worrying causes cancer. :)
 
That is excellent and interesting. Is it available somewhere online? I'd love to be able to reference it in a more formal way than this post...
 
That is excellent and interesting. Is it available somewhere online? I'd love to be able to reference it in a more formal way than this post...

I'm not sure that it is available online, but it is from Robbin and Coltran's Pathologic Basis of Disease, which is THE pathology textbook. It's so popular, no one actually refers to it by its name. It is known simply as "Robbin's"
 
I smoke the occasional cigar (including Cuban Cohibas when in the Caymans) and I am of the theory that almost anything can cause cancer. I have even seen that some artificial sweeteners are known to cause cancer in California. Thankfully I live in Texas.
 
Top Bottom