
Lungs heal damage from smoking - daegloe
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51279355
======
sigmaprimus
I quit 8 years ago after 25 years of a pack a day, yes my lungs are better, so
is my sense of smell and taste. Unfortunately my heart and teeth won't
magically repair themselves, neither will the scars on my legs from poor
circulation due to my hardened arteries.

Worst of all might be the fact that my bank account will never be what it
could gave been if only I didn't start, get addicted then squander the
thousands of dollars a year on something that was killing me for over two
decades.

Aint life funny that way? Nope, nothing funny about it, just regret, remorse
and sadness.

If you don't smoke, please don't start it truly is self imposed misery.

~~~
grecy
My Mum smoked a pack a day for 30 years, quit when she was about 50, and
passed away a year ago from Lung Cancer at the age of 67.

The kicker with lung cancer is that it doesn't really have any symptoms, and
most people don't know they've got it until the cancer has metastasized and
shows up somewhere else. That's more-or-less a death sentence.

Please do yourself a favor and get tested every ~6 months. (I know there are a
lot of people that say false positives do more harm than good, and I still
believe you're better to get tested if you smoked a pack a day for >10 years)

~~~
Engineering-MD
What is the basis of this recommendation? I appreciate the desire to catch
lung cancer early, but I dont think your suggestion is particularly based on
evidence.

I am by no means a lung cancer expert, but currently there is contention about
whether lung cancer screening in smokers is worthwhile, and I doubt at 6
monthly intervals. Some studies have shown benefits from screening for
smokers, but I dont think any high quality evidence exist which shows a clear
benefit of screening. There are options for screening, chest xray, CT chest. A
CT chest is more sensitive than a chest xray but doing it every 6 months is
going to cause much more harm than good.

My more general point is that these are recommendations which need to be
evidence based, and doing more harm than good through false positives, excess
radiation exposure, etc is a real risk. I dont think its helpful to make
suggestions that are not based on evidence.

~~~
edejong
Frequent screening reduces mortality due to lung cancer by 24%:
[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1911793](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1911793)

~~~
Engineering-MD
Interesting find! I have had a quick skim. Couple of quick points:

a) it was published yesterday, which means there is insufficient time to have
a good critical appraisal.

b) looking at the confidence intervals, although there is significance in men,
there is not one in men, and the confidence interval is quite wide

c) all cause mortality is similar in both groups despite screening

d) the follow up is only 10 years after first CT. the effect of radiation from
these multiple CTs is unlikely to have reached maximum effect in damage to
tissues/new neoplasms. This may also explain the increased non lung cancer
mortality.

e) no mention is made of morbidity (although I might have missed it) which is
a huge importance.

Overall, it’s unsurprising that in a group screened regularly for lung cancer
that lung cancer incidence increases but mortality drops. The problem is the
other effects of screening which this paper doesn’t seem to focus on. I don’t
think this actually shows screening is particularly worth it especially given
it’s caveats.

~~~
edejong
Thanks! I really like this critical analysis. Tbh, I didn’t read the article
but it was on the Dutch news this morning.

------
thought_alarm
I started smoking on the day of my 16th birthday, which, at the time and
place, was the legal smoking age. It was irresistible for a high school kid
with a job. By the end of that first pack I was completely hooked and smoking
would be a permanent part of daily life.

I only smoked for about a year before deciding to quit. Unfortunately, I took
me 12 years to finish quitting.

During that period of my physical prime (ages 18 to 26), I couldn't climb a
flight of stairs or ride a bike without getting completely winded. Any sort of
physical exertion would result in gasping, coughing up phlegm, and seeing
stars. A pick-up game of basketball or street hockey was out of the question.

I finally kicked it at age 30, 14 years after I had started. Although it took
a while, by age 35 I could physically do things my 20-year-old self could only
dream of. Like riding a bike up a hill, or exerting oneself at the gym.

I'm now in my mid-40s, and while the rest of body is now deteriorating at an
alarming rate, my lungs are quite literally the only part of my body I never
think about. I'm physically stronger and healthier in my mid-40s than I was at
age 20.

So if you smoke, quit. Your lungs will recover.

~~~
jimmaswell
>couldn't climb a flight of stairs or ride a bike without getting completely
winded. Any sort of physical exertion would result in gasping, coughing up
phlegm, and seeing stars

How did society get on just fine when almost everybody smoked? Is this
reaction an outlier?

~~~
dmurray
Even serious athletes used to smoke. Here's a famous photo [0] from the Tour
de France of the cyclists smoking in the 1920s. The accepted wisdom was it
"opened up your lungs", which might even be correct if you're already a
habitual smoker. And there are plenty more anecdotes of elite footballers,
tennis players etc being heavy smokers up until the 80s or later.

[0] [https://twistedsifter.com/2011/12/picture-of-the-day-
vintage...](https://twistedsifter.com/2011/12/picture-of-the-day-vintage-tour-
de-france-shot-from-the-1920s/)

~~~
vic-traill
Guy Lafleur - the Hockey Hall of Fame former Montreal Canadiens forward - was
a notorious smoker in the 70s through to the 80s.

You wouldn't believe it watching him skate, he was a speedster. Technique
overcoming the respiratory system, I suppose.

He admits smoking in intermissions between periods in this interview [0]

[0] [http://oilersnation.com/2013/10/16/guy-lafleur-shares-
some-s...](http://oilersnation.com/2013/10/16/guy-lafleur-shares-some-
stories/)

~~~
kyuudou
One of my roommates is a triathlete and while he's not amazingly successful,
his body is clearly naturally athletic and simply completing a triathlon is in
my mind quite an accomplishment. In his mid-30s, serious alcoholic and smokes
a few Newports a day along with some CBD blunts a few days a week.

I told him he wasn't going to be invincible for ever, though. But like me he
probably won't listen until he gets some kind of diagnosis or coughs up blood
or something.

------
52-6F-62
This reflects what my doctor told me several years ago (four and a half?) when
I quit.

He didn’t use the word magic. He did say that after four or five years or so
my lungs would be in the same condition they would have been if I had never
smoked—but only if I quit then. I’d smoked in the vicinity of a pack a day for
close to ten years if I were to give it a rough average.

That said, I was very active in my youth, and worked physical jobs and played
live music beside any sedentary work I’ve done. I continue to do so as well.

YMMV.

Edit: I thought I should add that I don’t want this to sound like an
endorsement of the body’s ability to endure punishment.

If I could go back I wouldn’t pick up regular smoking as I did. And I wouldn’t
start again. I return regularly to the feeling of relief that I’m not so bound
to it anymore.

I don’t hate it, and I’d have a cigar, and maybe when I’m an old withered man
I’ll pick up pipe tobacco. Who knows. For those who can manage it without
getting too regular, good for you—life is short. I wouldn’t tempt myself that
way again. Anyway, whisky’s a finer poison in my books—and similar cautions
apply. ;)

~~~
gruez
>He did say that after four or five years or so my lungs would be in the same
condition they would have been if I had never smoked—but only if I quit then.

I hear statements like this repeatedly and always wondered: if given 5-10
years your lungs can really heal themselves so it's like you never smoked,
does that mean you can smoke with no health consequences by stopping when
you're middle aged? (before there's any real risk of contracting lung cancer)

~~~
klyrs
My dad smoked a pack a day from his teens until age 36. Quit drinking alcohol
(another risk factor) around the same time. Took up long-distance cycling at
45. At 55, his doctor was gobsmacked: his lungs were absolutely clear. At 60,
healthier than most people half his age, he was diagnosed with esophageal
cancer. Died less than a year later.

Smoking increases risk of cancer in the mouth and throat, not just the lungs.
Your lungs aren't the whole story.

~~~
bitexploder
This is sobering, lung cancer risk:

— The risk was as follows:

5 years after quitting: 12.12 times that of a never smoker 5 to 10 years after
quitting: 11.77 times 10 to 15 years after quitting: 7.81 times 15 to 25 years
after quitting: 5.88 Over 25 years since quitting: 3.85 —
[https://www.verywellhealth.com/risk-of-lung-cancer-in-
former...](https://www.verywellhealth.com/risk-of-lung-cancer-in-former-
smokers-3971884)

------
tawbah
I want to add some additional commentary on this post, because it relates to
an experiment I did during one of my college science courses.

I will summarize for convenience. Essentially, what we did for the experiment
was to observe the effect of tobacco "juice" (i.e. the loose trimmings from a
Marlboro Red cigarette which were soaked in water) on a cell culture where the
cells were taken from the inside of our mouths(cheeks) via cotton swabs.

The experiment was to observe the effects of this tobacco juice on the cells
over time.

Within 2 weeks of exposure, the cells mutated and were "cancerous" and
appeared disfigured and damaged.

This was terrifying to see up close.

~~~
leoh
Did you have a control with plant juice from other arbitrary plant leaves?

~~~
tawbah
Our professor was the one leading the experiment, so she may have had one, but
I can't be certain.

------
taneq
> In people who quit, up to 40% of their cells looked just like those from
> people who had never smoked.

That's a nice way to say "smoking destroys 60% of your lungs."

~~~
Rury
It's not clear from the article what this really means.

Up to 40% after what time frame? By the end of the study? Was the study a few
months? 5 years? Does it continue to get better or just stop at 40%?

~~~
tsukurimashou
I agree with you, the numbers doesn't mean anything without a context of time

------
jessriedel
This title is pure clickbait. Any reason to not replace this BBC article with
the "Nature News and Views" article? More informative, less dumbed down, but
still accessible.

[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00165-7](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00165-7)

The original journal article:

[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-1961-1](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-1961-1)

~~~
jason0597
The BBC has really gone down in quality in recent years, and the latest cuts
it's going to face aren't going to help at all. It is a shame.

------
9dev
I stopped smoking almost a year ago, having smoked heavily (~25/D) from 16-25.
Quitting was the best decision of my life so far: I run up stairs without
thinking, my senses are sharpened and I generally feel way better than before.
But most importantly, I don't have the ffing urge to smoke a cigarette
whenever I have five minutes of time, and especially when I don't have those
five minutes. I get up in the morning and just drink an espresso, I barely use
my balcony anymore. I work in concentrated periods of 2-4 hours, because you
know what? That smoking break you need to stay creative, it's of course just a
convenient lie to yourself. I go to parties and can stay inside for as long as
I want to, and I still get to talk to people.

I like to say i woke up and the urge was gone, but that isn't the full truth.
The days before I quit I had extreme anxiousness and couldn't sleep, thinking
about how much I love life and what plans I have and how I want to have
children - and how stupid it is to inhale smoke that kills you and doesn't
even taste that good in exchange. I didn't want to die. Next day, halfway
through the second one, I noticed they really don't taste good and decided to
quit.

------
est31
Note that this study only focuses on lung cancer. It studies genetic damage to
the bronchial epithelial cells. It does not study other diseases caused by
smoking, like COPD which involves lung performance getting gradually worse
until you die from suffocation.

COPD is actually cause of more deaths [1] than lung cancer and it does NOT get
better if you stop smoking. It can only be slowed down, e.g. if you stop
smoking.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate)

~~~
randcraw
Not lung cancer per se; the paper focuses only on reversal of tumor mutation
burden of the cells that line the lungs and airways. Alas the popular press
summary implies concomittant reversal the carcinogenic damage of smoking --
which 60+ years of clinical experience refutes, and the research paper itself
also refines:

" The higher risk of lung cancer in ex-smokers compared with non-smokers is
reflected in their high mutation burden and the signature of smoking-
associated mutations in most of their lung cells (similar to the cellular
profile of current smokers). Although ex-smokers have a high risk of
developing lung cancer, their risk is reduced compared with that of current
smokers, and this lowering depends on the length of time of smoking
cessation1. Why this is the case has been hard to explain. However, perhaps
the most surprising result of Yoshida and colleagues’ work might offer a clue:
in 5 out of 6 ex-smokers, 20–50% of the cells had a low mutation burden that
was similar to the profile of non-smokers of the same age range. "

~~~
est31
> Not lung cancer per se; the paper focuses only on reversal of tumor mutation
> burden of the cells that line the lungs and airways.

The main cause of lung cancer is precisely that mutation burden that the paper
studies. From what I read, most lung cancers stem from mutations of bronchial
epithelial cells instead of mutations in the alveoles or other parts of the
lung.

The mutation burden is both the cause of lung cancer and can advance the
disease by further mutations leading to accelerated growth/metasthazing
behaviour/etc.

------
d--b
My in-law is an uncologist, and told me this 10 years ago:

If you smoke 1 pack a day for 15 years (what they call "15 pack.years"), your
lungs will completely heal, and you have no more risk than the next guy to get
lung cancer.

After 15 pack.years, then the risk starts to increase significantly.

~~~
superpermutat0r
There must be some hormesis from smoking. Young human body can adapt and work
around stress, be it from smoking or exercise or alcohol.

It is definitely a huge problem to maintain these physiologically stressful
habits into old age when body no longer has the work capacity or ability to
adapt.

------
ArcMex
I smoked for 8 years before quitting three years ago.

I breathe easier, got my appetite back and my social life improved. I can
smell things. I can taste food again. I can talk to people without worrying
about offensive breath.

Smoking takes away more than you may know. I'm 29 and wish I had quit much,
much earlier. Lots of damaged relationships in my past. Those, unlike my
lungs, have sadly not started to heal.

~~~
dasKrokodil
How did smoking damage your relationships?

------
Gatsky
Well this is interesting, but of course lots of smokers never quit and you
only need one cell to turn into a cancer and kill you.

On a related note, I think the demonstration that lung cells and lung cancers
bear the stigmata of tobacco related mutagenesis has some significance to the
legal liability of Big Tobacco. With this data one can show that a particular
cancer in a particular person began from a single cell which was mutated by
tobacco exposure. This is one level up from saying tobacco merely increases
the risk of cancer on average, which is always open to the counter-argument
that some other factor could have caused the particular cancer in the
particular person. Whole genome sequencing of tumour and germline DNA can be
had for about $5k these days plus analysis costs, so a class action suit or
even individual suits are very feasible. There will be no shortage of
oncologists and genomics people happy to help out with this.

------
irjustin
Wow that's fantastic! Especially the part about it helping motivate people to
quit. The 'not all hope is lost' if you simply stop now (simply =/= easy).

As someone who lost their grandfather to smoking/cancer, I'll take any reason
for someone to quit.

------
KozmoNau7
My dad had heart surgery ~16 years ago, due to the effects of smoking. He quit
from one day to the next, and didn't touch tobacco at all after that, started
working out, cooking and eating healthier food, started playing the drums
again, he got a new lease on life.

He passed away a couple of weeks ago at the age of 62, due to heart issues, a
delayed consequence of smoking and a traditional diet heavy in saturated fat.
Living clean(-ish) for 16 years doesn't completely absolve you of your
unhealthy habits earlier in life.

Don't start smoking, don't let your diet get shitty and full of saturated fat
and sugar. Otherwise it _will_ suck later in life, and sometimes sooner than
you think.

------
adreamingsoul
A lot of people smoke in Portland, Oregon and Oslo, Norway. At least that is
my impression as I don’t have any facts or figures. But of the people I do see
smoking, a significant portion of them are young. Another interesting to me
observation is the way cigarettes smoke smells in Portland vs. Oslo. I don’t
smoke, and don’t enjoy the smell and damage it does to the environment. If
only people could properly dispose of their cigarette butts and snooze
packets.

------
agumonkey
Still curious about the research about THC induced apoptosis in lung alveolas.

I've been thinking of making a tiny bowl-vaporizer to inhale THC in small
doses just to cleanse my lungs.

------
scythe
> In people who quit, up to 40% of their cells looked just like those from
> people who had never smoked.

It looks like magic relative to the current theory, but it’s still not exactly
good

~~~
seanmcdirmid
It means quitting has health benefits, never starting at all has more health
benefits.

------
lysp
Just saw these graphs quoted.

[https://twitter.com/Clive_Bates/status/1222799694453264385](https://twitter.com/Clive_Bates/status/1222799694453264385)

> The Doll et al 50 year study of doctors nailed this in 2004 (see charts).
> Smokers avoid almost all premature mortality risk if they quit by age 40 and
> benefit at any age.

------
meerita
I quit 9 years ago. I am a new person. If you can read spanish (Google
Translate will work well), I've described how i've quit smoking.
[http://minid.net/2012/12/10/como-realmente-pude-dejar-de-
fum...](http://minid.net/2012/12/10/como-realmente-pude-dejar-de-fumar/)

------
operatorius
I have attempted numerous times quitting smoking with no success. During the
withdrawls I wasn't able to function properly: blurred vision, couldnt
concentrate, mood swings and sleepless nights.

Smoking has a negative impact on my both physical and mental health. I have
been smoking for almost 10 years, a pack a day

Could anyone who have successfully quit smoking share your stories and tips?

~~~
tcj_phx
Niacinamide (a form of Vitamin B3) is supposed to be somewhat similar to
nicotine, and supposedly helps with nicotine withdrawal.

I think someone here at HN informed me that tobacco also has MAOI properties.
Searching now turned up this link: "The results suggest that the inhibition of
MAO activity by compounds present in tobacco smoke may combine with nicotine
to produce the intense reinforcing properties of cigarette smoking that lead
to addiction."
-[https://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/38/8593](https://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/38/8593)

You may find a MAOI helpful with getting your tobacco use under control:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_inhibitor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_inhibitor)
(a reversible MAOI would be preferable)

------
dghughes
It's strange how lungs can recover most of the time from smoking but not from
particles. COPD is a terrible disease my father has it along with IPF (scars
on lungs). He smoked early in his life but quit around age 30. Smoking is one
of the causes of COPD but so is inhaling small particles like dust and fumes.

------
type-2
I pick up smoking a few in a gap of a few months. Then I feel guilty and stop
for a few months. I have been smoking about 50 cigs year. Truth is I don't
think I can really quit. Forget addiction, I just like it that much. It is so
much fun. I remember my first cig. It was so much fun. That's all it took

------
apta
It's absurd and unbelievable that smoking is not categorically banned.
Cigarette companies should be shut down point blank. Absolutely nothing good
comes out of smoking, other than making some people rich at the expense of the
health of the population, the tax payers' money, and the environment.

------
eecc
Possible that the mutations have some sort of selective advantage while
smoking which ceases to matter once quit. The non-mutated ones become again
the one that express the more favorable genome for the current environment and
take over from there.

------
onetimemanytime
Lungs heal damage from smoking...or better late than never. Even according to
article they never heal 100% (just 40%) and smoking also screws up about
everything else in the body. But, as soon as you stop smoking things
"better"...

------
wazoox
Two of my friends had a close call last month. One had an emergency quadruple
bypass. The other one has COPD and fell down to 15% of normal lung capacity,
and is now under 24/24h oxygen, hoping for a pair of new lungs...

------
throw3356112
To quit smoking, there is something like a 'miracle' book, judging by reviews
- 'Allen Carr's Easy Way to Stop Smoking'.

Has anyone here read it? I don't smoke btw.

------
yalogin
One thing the article doesn’t mention is what stopping means. I can guess the
more time passes the better the healing but if they said after x years after
stopping the effect is profound.

------
diob
I guess this is good news for me, since I grew up with parents who chainsmoked
indoors.

I wish there was some way to make such a thing illegal, other children
shouldn't have to grow up how I did.

------
strangescript
My grandmother smoked for 40 years, stopped in her early 60s. Sill died from
COPD and lung cancer in her early 80s and was miserable for the last 5 years
of her life.

Don't smoke kids.

------
tus88
I didn't think BBC did sponsored articles?

------
sb057
But what about the neurotoxins present in tobacco? Does damage caused by that
'magically' heal?

------
eganist
Wow, this is a _magically_ irresponsible headline by BBC, especially
considering the rest of the article. Without a quantifier, the implication is
that _all_ damage is healed, which further down is refuted by the buried lede:

> In people who quit, up to 40% of their cells looked just like those from
> people who had never smoked.

Or, at least 60% of the lungs still resembled the lungs of a current smoker.

------
balladeer
Most of the people, especially early smokers, who wouldn't be bothered to read
the article and just go by the title and think - "I knew that, smoking is
actually fine!" \- and would puff away to glory like never before.

While this is the first sentence in the article:

> Your lungs have an almost "magical" ability to repair the cancerous
> mutations caused by smoking - but only if you stop, say scientists.

I really think BBC should have changed the title.

