Tobacco increases work capacity (2011) | Hacker News Reader

Tobacco increases work capacity (2011)

dengulenegl.dk

31 pointsswah68 comments

Nicotine is great. I find it very useful. The claims about its stimulant effects are perfectly plausible.

But there is zero need to consume/use tobacco to get nicotine.

What methods do you recommend?

From his Nictotine article, gum or patch. But e-cig might be fine too if the parts don't have lead or other hazardous substances in them, modulo maybe higher risk of addiction.

Patches and gum are really expensive.

Compared to e-cigs, sure. Compared to food, or conventional cigarettes ... they're really really cheap. 96 x2mg gums for $22 comes out to 45¢/mg. I use maybe 0-2 (edit: gums (90¢-$1.80)) a day (I probably save at least that much by making sandwiches for lunch / not eating out -- I work from home).

Use an electronic cigarette (vaporizer) or use the OTC nicotine replacement therapies (gum, lozenges, sprays).

Any good ones? I researched a year or so ago and all the brands seemed a little bit..sketchy.

eGo-T is amazingly close to actual smoking. Get a tank upgrade like the Vivi-Nova and boom, you get a hit so strong you might cough at first.

For non-smokers, less is more... nicotine is a pretty powerful stimulant, you don't necessarily want strong hits. My 2¢.

(I am a non-smoker; have tried 2mg and 4mg gum, and find 4mg similar in some ways to having a 'bad trip'. (Light-headedness, freaking out, nausea, time-dilation.))

I also gave lozenges a try after reading an article here, and found 2mg to be too much, at first. You get used to it, though.

true, as a smoker trying to ween myself to something a bit safer that lack of hit is what annoyed me with other e-cig solutions I tried. The nova tank though is a very tolerable substitute to actual smoking.

If I was a non-smoker though I would not start a nicotine habit at all. I wish I had never started smoking, it's a very difficult habit to reverse.

Anecdotal, but as a non-smoker, I don't find any withdrawal or cravings symptoms at all when I stop consuming nicotine. It's milder than stopping caffeine.

I have an EVO-D battery with a vivi nova atomizer tank. This works pretty well for me. You can switch out the vaporizer coils to make sure you get a nice fresh one, and the replacement coils are really cheap. You're going to want 2 batteries so that you can charge one while using the other. They charge with USB.

Running an Ego C Twist + Vivi Nova right now. Two batteries, a charger, and the vivi nova came about to about $40. Plus some juice, ended up at about $60 ( I got a lot of juice though).

/r/electronic_cigarettes has a pretty good FAQ on these types of things, ignore their ridiculous $200 setups though, a bit overkill IMO.

Over the long run, oral nicotine delivery is thought to increase chances of oral cancers.

Best to stick to patches.

Do you have sources? I'd be interested to see the data.

It's been years since I did this research and can't find my listing of sources.

After a quick deep dive on the topic, I found this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18852035 In short, cells from oral tissues experienced relatively more DNA damage. In absolute terms, it's not much, but reason enough to default to patches, versus oral routes, IMO.

Also, oral nicotine causes all kinds of gingival recession. This is pretty widely known (halfway decent source for this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2388141).

What patches can you use that are fairly low dose and not a 24 hour time release?

Despite oft printed warnings to the otherwise, you can just cut up the patches to customize the dose.

Duration of release? I believe you should leave it on 24/7. IIRC, it's not that nicotine improves sleep quality, but rather that nicotine withdrawal impairs sleep quality rather profoundly, and as such keeping the patch on at night allows for better sleep. I could be wrong here, though. Been a while since I've researched this.

Not the parent, but Swedish snus is a great option.

I'm curious to know who hates snus enough to downvote me:) But snus is fantastic, well-studied and well-regulated, has objectively contributed to a large reduction of cancer rates in Sweden, and is cheap and easily importable.

Smoked for 18 years, snused for 2, and tobacco free for 2.

edit, for good measure:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=swedish+snus

-----

Oral use of Swedish moist snuff (snus) and risk for cancer of the mouth, lung, and pancreas in male construction workers: a retrospective cohort study http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...

Is Swedish snus associated with smoking initiation or smoking cessation? http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/6/422.short

Swedish Match Company, Swedish snus and public health: a harm reduction experiment in progress? http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/10/3/253.short

Steady-State Nicotine Plasma Levels Following Use of Four Different Types of Swedish Snus Compared with 2-Mg Nicorette Chewing Gum: A Crossover Study http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/3/397.short

Should the Health Community Promote Smokeless Tobacco (Snus) as a Harm Reduction Measure? http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fj...

A long-term follow-up study on the natural course of snus-induced lesions among Swedish snus users http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.21841/full

-----

Those were all on the first page of the search. Between snus and an imported unregulated mystery liquid that comes out of a bottle with a skull on it, or super expensive and annoying patches and gums, snus is really a gift to smokers.

Didn't downvote, but someone else probably did because the person you were responding to was looking for non-tobacco alternatives.

Makes sense. Though IMO it's not the tobacco you should be trying to avoid, but the cancer and the coughing.

Breaking form and upvoting and commenting saying that this should be upvoted.

But seriously, I remember when the last e-cig article submitted to HN. Comments were a complete shit show of conflation of of tobacco, smoking and nicotine. It was absolutely completely cringeworthy.

Mind you the article does just fine conflating the two as well. For example, the first big evidence it produces, the meta-analysis on effect of nicotine. The article leads in with "which summarizes the last 40 years of knowledge about tobacco and nicotine effects on the brain", but the actual study is directly about nicotine only, only dealing with tobacco tangentially.

This is absolute hurtful to the discussion.

And honestly, anytime we have a discussion about non-medicinal (as in using chemicals to treat a condition that a doctor would consider not normal) use of drugs, its probably really useful to take a moment and think "how about our societal addiction to caffeine?".

There really need to be more studies on the effects of nicotine in isolation from all the other chemicals in cigarettes. There have been studies that have shown that the MAOIs in tobacco interact with nicotine pretty strongly in creating addiction. I wouldn't be surprised if the MAOIs are also related to why people with mental and mood disorders often self-regulate with tobacco.

You don't hear about the benefits of smoking because of the obvious downsides... I will contribute to the benefits. "Although tobacco smoke decreases life expectancy and quality of life, it may reduce the risk of PD by a third when compared to non-smokers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_disease

I've smoked on and off for about 6 years, with the past year being about 98% off. I can tell you that I do FEEL more focused and clear after a cigarette, but that all the negative side-effects that come with them are totally not worth it. If you really want a stimulant, stick with caffeine.

I've actualy been meaning to write a blogpost about it. Some of the things I've noticed from being on and off cigarettes:

Cigarettes (edit: nicotine, actually) are a depressant (EDIT: and a stimulant), they make the world feel less colourful (LITERALLY), less "noisy".

EDIT: I realize I'm being psuedosciency and imprecise with the previous statement. I'm not sure about the precise distinctions between stimulant/upper/downer, etc. What I CAN tell you is that cigarettes have the following effects for me and my smoker peers, as far as I've known ->

When I'm on cigarettes, my field of vision narrows, colours become duller, I'm marginally more focused on specific tasks, better able to "tune out 'random noise'". Whenever I go off cigarettes, the world feels a little overwhelming and chaotic for a while- my skin is more sensitive to the wind, my eyes are more sensitive to the light, the whole nervous system just gets overwhelmed (because the cigarettes kinda suppess them, in my opinion.)

The short-term gain in focus is nothing great. You can get it by sitting in silence for a minute, breathing deeply, psyching yourself up with a youtube video. Not worth the damage you do to your eyes, nose, gums, teeth, not worth the cough, not worth the smell, the taste... all of that is underreported because there's a "frog in boiling water" effect- the damage is so cumulative that it feels tolerable.

Yes, I remember when cigarettes helped focus my thoughts as a writer, or over conversations with friends... but honestly, taking a walk achieves superior returns, on both counts.

Commander Shepard: "What's your opinion of this? The drugs, I mean."

Legion: "These substances enhance short-term performance at the expense of long-term platform survivability. It is fundamentally similar to "over-clocking" geth hardware. We do so whenever necessary. However, should our platform be damaged by overclocking, we can be repaired. Why an organic would choose this is puzzling."

>Cigarettes are a depressant

You mean something different here than what most people mean when they say depressant. Are you saying that smoking makes you feel bad?

>A depressant, or central depressant, is a drug or endogenous compound that lowers neurotransmission levels, which is to depress or reduce arousal or stimulation, in various areas of the brain. Depressants are also occasionally referred to as "downers" as they lower the level of arousal when taken. Stimulants or "uppers" increase mental and/or physical function are the functional opposites of depressants.

I mean cigarettes (nicotine, actually) are a "downer", the opposite of how LSD is an "upper" (which makes the world more colourful, makes you feel more "connected", etc)

EDIT: I can't reply to your next comment for some reason, but I've been doing some googling and I realize that I'm unclear and mistaken about my drugs and their effects. Making necessary adjustments, thanks.

Hence the reason for my comment. Cigarettes objectively do the opposite of this, which is why they contribute to heart attacks. And when you say LSD is an "upper", you're definitely using it in a different way than most people use it.

He is using the regular medical meaning of the term.

To correct him, though, nicotine acts both as a stimulant and depressant.

You are correct. I was being careless with my terms.

"Why an organic would choose this is puzzling."

He must be fun at gestalt parties...

Thanks for sharing and glad you've been almost off cigarettes entirely.

That said, nicotine is a mild stimulant, not a depressant, afaik. It's alcohol that's a depressant.

Both. Novelly, enough.

How it acts depends on how much is administered.

Thanks!

More anecdotal nonsense: I think almost everybody starts smoking (apart from the social factors) for the stimulant bit- for the 'kick'. It gets you more buzzy when you take shorter, quicker drags. It relaxes you when you take long, slow drags.

I think the net effect of smoking over an extended period of time has a "net depressant effect" (using term loosely), punctuated by the daily/regular stimulation. Very loosely, the opposite effect of exercising and eating healthily over an extended period of time.

That's just my experience, no science involved there. Curious if others relate to this.

>The brain works better when it gets nicotine - almost like an optimized computer. Nicotine is a "work-drug" that enables its consumers to focus better and think faster. The brain also becomes more enduring, especially in smokers: Nicotine experiments show that smokers in prolonged working situations are able to maintain concentration for many hours longer than non-smokers.

the same can be said about meth or other ADHD drugs. "Magic comes with a price" :) (i was a smoker of cigarettes for a decade and quit more than a decade ago)

There's a functional and chemical different between the amphetamine salts in popular ADD drugs and methamphetamine (namely, a methyl group.)

But perhaps more importantly, not a big subjective difference ;-).

This isn't what the original commenter said!

Reread and realize he's talking about the subjective difference.

It isn't now. It has been edited from the original.

Meth is only prescribed for ADHD in the US. Is it prescribed for ... nevermind, you edited your post. (Original said something to the effect of "meth is prescribed for drowsiness in pilots," which is inaccurate for the US.)

Dexedrine.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/02/57434

Dexedrine is dextroamphetamine (commonly prescribed for ADD and other things, like staying awake). Methamphetamine is a different chemical with an important legal distinction (if subjectively and objectively very similar).

Meth is quite hard to get, via prescription, unfortunately. Its bad rep in pop media has resulted in it becoming overcontrolled by the FDA. It's quite a useful - but little explored and used - therapy for AD(H)D.

You'll nearly universally get straight d-amphetamine at the doctor's office.

Really? I thought adderall (contains 1/4 dextro-) or vyvense (don't know which amphetamines it contains) were pretty common.

Adderall is a mix of d- and l-amphetamine.

Vyvanse is d-amphetmine bound to lysine, turning it into a prodrug (which means your gut chemically cleaves off the lysine and, conveniently, you're left with d-amp sitting in your gut).

The more you know. Thanks :).

Vyvanse was a wonder drug for me. Not only helped me concentrate it made me more outgoing and confident. Left me with horrible dry mouth though.

When the poster said pilots, I think he was referring to military pilots. The use of stimulants in combat situations is apparently quite common for pilots.

Which is why I think the moral panic about ADHD overdiagnosis in the USA is nonsense. The US is a country founded on stimulants; I hypothesize that behavioral norms and benchmarks for success in the United States have been influenced by heavy nicotine use from upward of 40% of adult Americans prior to the tobacco control movement, and that the increased diagnosis of ADHD in teens and young adults now may be due to lower nicotine use.

I've been looking for a while for any scholarly (peer reviewed) papers that explore this idea; if anyone knows of any, I'd love to read them!

Cigarettes are a nasty filthy habit...

But I find a good cigar or pipe useful for clearing the mind when working on hard problems.

Red Bulls are a nasty filthy habit...

But I find a good espresso or americano to be useful for helping the mind stay alert.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cigar-smoking/AN01515

I'm not sure the relevance of the link.. I never said cigars were healthier.. certainly there are risks involved. But there's a huge gulf between a pack a day habit and a couple day a month indulgence.

If there's anyone on HN who actually believes this scientific study, please explain why. Right now I think this is complete garbage that I hope never reaches the eyes of young & impressionable people. Smoking is bad for you any benefit it may or may not have is completely eclipsed by the mountains upon mountains of evidence showing the damage to the human body.

EDIT: Removing quotes per comments below.

EDIT2: Ok, I guess even if there are 99 bad things that are caused by smoking it doesn't mean there can't be 1 or 2 things good from it.

nicotine is a stimulant. That's been known forever. People when tired prop themselves up with coffee and cigarettes. So it seems totally believable.

The study doesn't say the cancer and heart problems don't exist, or are outweighed in any way. It just says nicotine has some positive effects. Most drugs do ... that's why people take them.

I smoke. I don't want to die. So that's why I am trying to switch to a vapouriser. Every time I give up smoking, I get hit by a crushing amount of work at some point and then I start smoking again, because it makes me more effecient and stay awake longer. If I could have the productivity without the cancer that would be brilliant.

Yep, I remember that I always smoked more when tired, sleep deprived, etc.

I'm not sure that your scare quotes around "scientific study" are an interesting enough argument to tempt people to put much of an effort into responding to you.

Just because something can kill you doesn't mean it doesn't also have benefits. Ultimately, one can decide for him or herself what's better: living longer, or getting more work done at work.

Not necessarily a trade-off with non-tobacco nicotine.

I fully agree. From what I've read, nicotine itself is not as addictive as smoking, and it's not the part of tobacco smoke that causes cancer. Also, the withdrawal symptoms are typically more mild than caffeine withdrawal.

>If there's anyone on HN who actually believes this "scientific study", please explain why.

Please explain why you use quotes around "scientific study". What's unscientific about it?

Saying that various drugs, such as nicotine, have effects on our brain (concentration, focus, relax, depression etc etc)? That's a scientific given, and has been formally studied for centuries.

>* I think this is complete garbage that I hope never reaches the eyes of young & impressionable people*

Young and impressionable people? Sounds like some Southern bigot in 1955, talking about this "devil's music".

>Smoking is bad for you any benefit it may or may not have is completely eclipsed by the mountains upon mountains of evidence showing the damage to the human body.

Which is totally beside the point. They are not suggesting you start smoking.

Despite the post's title, the study was about nicotine specifically, not tobacco. There are ways these days to consume nicotine without smoking tobacco.

Beautiful post, I know smoking always helps me!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com