I used to smoke about 1.5 packs of cigs a day
About two months ago I decided to quit smoking and I weened myself down to one or two cigs a day last week.
I decided to say fuck it and try dropping it completely this week.
It's been four days since I had a cig, how long do the cravings stay this bad?
>inb4 just have better willpower
Never said I'm thinking about caving in, but I'm literally shaking from what I assume is nicotine withdrawal.
Also if anyone can post some literature or tips on how to do this better it would be much appreciated.
>inb4 this is no longer health&fitness, just fitness now
>Implying smoking and lung health don't directly affect your performance in /fit/ related activities.
I've been smoking a pack a day for 3.5 years. My mom got diagnosed with COPD a few months ago and now I just feel horrible because I need to quit for my mom's health but I can't be assed to, am I in the right for trying to manage my habit or should I have quit already?
The intense cravings only last about 2 weeks. It's much easier to deal with after that. If you ever feel like your about to give up chug a glass of water and/or go for a walk. I'm 4 months into no tobacco. I feel so much better already, stay strong.
I quit smoking 3 days before christmas and it was the fucking worst. After the initial three days my sense of smell started coming back. On top of that, the money I save now is incredible. You can do it OP. Its not easy, but water and walks do help considerably. We're gonna make it bros.
>how long do the cravings stay this bad?
4th day is usually the worst.
After a week, you're over most of the physiological addiction.
After a month, you're over most of the psychological addiction.
You'll still get a pang once in a while, in situations that are hard-wired to smoking in your brain.
Then comes the hardest part, which most people fail: To never smoke a cigarette again, despite the fact that you don't feel addicted to it anymore.
I love you anon
I lost my mom to lung cancer anon, she didn't even smoke.
I'm stopping because she asked me to on her death bed.
To this day I feel somewhat responsible,
thinking that it may have been my second hand smoke that got her sick in the first place.
Thanks anon, I appreciate it
It's shitty for the first week. Gets easier after that but shit you associate with smoking will always be a trigger. I quit in early 2009 after smoking a pack a day for about a decade.
Cravings are hard breh.
You want to use some kind of positive method of coping. Something systematic. Self grooming routine, stretching routine, dissembling and reassembling a gun, doing your laundry, etc. Every time you beat the cravings with that method, the method itself becomes stronger at dealing with cravings, because brains are stupid.
So interestingly. Despite there being less and less smokers, and less and less second hand smoke exposure, lung cancer rates are spiking in the never smoked population.
Its almost like a portion of lung cancers were miss-attributed to being caused by smoking.
Yeah, I dun goofed. They jewed me good.
Thanks anon, that's what I'm trying to stop being
Yeah, I've noticed that my lungs feel a bit better even though its only been four days, but I started to smell smoke on my breath even though I haven't smoked. Is that just from my lungs being full of the shit for so long?
What do you suggest to avoid relapse at that point?
Sorry anon, didn't mean to bum you out
Perhaps, but i don't think that matters to this case.
1. lung cancer is rare for anyone under 50. It is also fairly uncommon for anyone over 50 to reproduce. As such a drastic increase in lung cancer is not likely to be cancer mutated dna passed to children. Additionally lung cancer has a 75% fatality rate, so unless people get pregnant while cancerous, it is even less likely for them to reproduce.
2. total incidents of lung cancer are going down. If I implied that smoking does not increase the risks of cancer, I apologize. The science is pretty clear. However nowadays over a third of lung cancer is not associated with smoking at all. And second hand smoke cancer is linked to a very small fraction of lung cancers anyways.
What I propose is that the link between smoking and lung cancer is overstated. If a third of lung cancers are not linked to smoking. (And nowadays 20% occurs to nonsmokers) Then it is likely that a percentage of lung cancers linked to smoking are done so falsely. Causes could be laziness "oh he was a smoker, that probably did it." bad record keeping "We never detected asbestos in the apartment that was torn down 10 years ago, but it is too late too double check, it was probably his smoking that did it then." Faulty equipment "our radon meter was broken, but we don't know when it broke, so we can't go back and retest for all the dead people marked as smoking related, it was probably the cigarettes that did it anyways." Or as you pointed out hereditary, or mutated hereditary cancer, "Both his parent had lung cancer, but it was probably the smoking."
The actual amount of over stating is hard to measure. I once heard a statistician claim that upwards of 20-50% of lung cancers attributed to smoking were wrongly done so; but i don't remember his exact methodology, so it could be incorrect. However if 33% of all lung cancers are none smoking related, then the 3% attributed to second hand smoke could well be false attributions.
i was smoking half a pack a day this semester due to school stresses and the fact that i really liked smoking while studying. I came home from break and dropped it overnight, now cigs make me sick. wtf?
Whoops got distracted, never finished point 2 before going off on a tangent. My point is that if dna changes was increasing hereditary cancer, then total incidences would do up. Which they are not. The fact that they are going down, along with smoking, while none smoking lung cancer is increasing shows that it is being misdiagnosed.