Smoking in Kung Fu

[jobo]

A few random thoughts on smoking and martial arts:

Young people, especially teens can smoke and not really show the negative affects that much. Then by the time you get a little older, say your late twenties and you can't deny the adverse affects, you are really hooked and have done a lot more damage to your body than you realize.

When I was a teen in the late 60's and early 70's, I smoked ...it seemed like everybody smoked. At least all of us young people. Fortunately, I got involved in crazy things like kung-fu, yoga, running, and biking and quit smoking after a few years ...before I was really hooked. Nearly 50 years later, I still occasionally crave a cigarette. But I don't give in.

When I was in my early fifties, I got really into fitness. I did some serious hill-hiking in the local mountain parks several times a week, even when it got really hot. Like 110°. Did it till finally, some years later my knees and ankles made me cut back. I'll never be that strong again. So anyway, back then when I was really fit, I went hiking up Humphrey's Peak (12, 637') with my brother and his chain smoking son, who was about 18 at the time. At about 11,000' feet, he lit up a smoke and ran full bore all the way to the summit, while I slogged on, lagging far behind. You can get away with a lot when you are 18.

Grandmaster Yip Man smoked his whole life. Did opium for a while too. He died of throat cancer in 1972 at age 79. ....That sounds pretty old to an 18-year-old. But GM Yip Man's eldest son, Ip Chun, who physically resembles his dad quite strongly and doesn't smoke, is alive and still doing kung fu at 96.

I'm not sure you've used the strongest logic to reach that conclusion

I've now reached the age were I'm attending a lot more funerals than weddings,

to put it bluntly people of my generation are dropping like flies, be it the more famous or friends or friends of friends, lung or throat cancer doesnt seem to be the major cause death, yet dead at 55 or 65 is still dead.

obesity does however seem a recurring theme, would they still be alive if they had smoked but kept their weight under control, quite possibly, we will never know

I've had people who are so fat they cant get out of a door lecturing me on the Ill health effects of smoking, really!!!!!! I can cycle 30 miles, you cant walk to the shop, who got this the most wrong, in another couple of months il be cycling 50 miles, you still cant get to the shop

of course your allowed to hate on smokers, if you point out that some of the more virulent critics in this thread appear to be somewhat rotund, the body posertivty lot will get you.

I went in the park with my dog, minding my own business, when a passing bloke, decided to lecture me on smoking,, " bad for you that mate" he remarked, "so is being grotesquely fat", I retorted, went off in a huff, whats wrong with these people

 

[Deleted member 39746]

It makes a massive difference for anything athletically related. If you smoke you have no cardio.

After years of hard smoking, and then there is no gurnatee you will get XYZ conditions after years of hard smoking. Plus when you start getting up there your age is inhibitor, so i would only support that if you are in there, or devolope soemthing then it will really matter. Just by the fact there have been some pretty good boxers etc who smoked and drank heavily, i dont think you will really beat them in a match with that as a sole factor. Health and fitness are just sliders to me with skill. Skill can balance out diffrences in health and fitness, and health and fitness can skill.

and im pretty sure i made my point clear i dont endorse it if you longentivity and health is important to you.

And do i really need to point out Iron body training though? Last i recall that can have a long term negative impact on some of your bodily functions. Kind of cherry picking the bad here come on. I just remmebered that video jesse enkamp did on the best karate for self defence, when he got to conditoning, the words he used were semi oxy moronic, it was basically "destroying your bodies long term ability for self defence".

 

[Deleted member 39746]

It will be too late when you have developed something. The pleasure of smoking cannot replace the joy of having clean air to go through your lung. Your lung is too important to be destroyed.

The day that you have lung cancer, and your doctor tells you that you only have 6 months to live, you will regret that you had your first cigarette.

Pointing out i have advised against it, granted i just realised i wrote "if you are concerned with longentivity" twice when it should be health and longentivity. So the quote is below.

Would not advise it if you dont want anything connected with smoking or you want to live longer or are concerned about longentivity though.

Now onto the points issued.

Your crtieria is reliant on you devoloping that condtion, that condtion first and that being the thing that kills you off. If we do a risk assessment if you decided to do combat sports proffesionally, smoking and related things from it are probbly the lowest chance thing you need to be worried about. Id be more worried about having my head knocked about on a common occurance, bones being broken, tendons being torn in a way they cant heal properly etc. Granted your careers probbly done before someone who doesnt as its not all that common for them to smoke anymore. Id consier it semi oxymoronic to persue combat sports proffessionally and your health be important to you, now i understand the socio economic reasons for doing so, but id imagine if it was all your money from it would be going to re specilising yourself in a diffrent career.



There seems to be many things consumed (if not everything) that apparntly has some connection with something bad long term if consumed in exess. (i use apparntly as i have personally not read any of the studies so im taking their word the scentific method is being used)

 

[geezer]

I'm not sure you've used the strongest logic to reach that conclusion...

...er ... those were "a few random comments". I made no claim on logic.

...However, now that you (and that misguided Rat) have brought the issue up, it might be worth pointing out that the science on the hazards of smoking tobacco is about as settled and accepted as is the spheroidal form of the earth. Now if you smoke occasionally and stay fit, your odds of staying healthy are better, but not as good as they would be if you didn't smoke at all.

Now obesity is another killer, like you said. And you know what really endangers your health? Being obese and smoking.


QUOTE="jobo, post: 2035917, member: 36477"]...I went in the park with my dog, minding my own business, when a passing bloke, decided to lecture me on smoking,, " bad for you that mate" he remarked, "so is being grotesquely fat", I retorted, went off in a huff, whats wrong with these people. [/QUOTE]
How rude. ...and how very funny!

 

[jobo]

...er ... those were "a few random comments". I made no claim on logic.

...However, now that you (and that misguided Rat) have brought the issue up, it might be worth pointing out that the science on the hazards of smoking tobacco is about as settled and accepted as is the spheroidal form of the earth. Now if you smoke occasionally and stay fit, your odds of staying healthy are better, but not as good as they would be if you didn't smoke at all.

Now obesity is another killer, like you said. And you know what really endangers your health? Being obese and smoking.


QUOTE="jobo, post: 2035917, member: 36477"]...I went in the park with my dog, minding my own business, when a passing bloke, decided to lecture me on smoking,, " bad for you that mate" he remarked, "so is being grotesquely fat", I retorted, went off in a huff, whats wrong with these people.

How rude. ...and how very funny! [/QUOTE]
I know the science says it's bad for you and I'm not disputing that, what I am saying is it's no worse for general wellbeing and longevity than lots of other life style choices

when I was out on my ride yesterday day, I stopped for a coffee at a petrol station, which had a greggs bakery in it, now greggs is a chain notorious for its unhealthy food, to find that they had a drive through bakery, I watch a procession of people arrive ,order and collect their heart attack food that were to lazy to walk 20 foot to get it themselves, and it took multiple times longer

mean while I smoked 4 cigs and got on with me journey, I felt morally superior, I'm certainly not less "healthy "than these people most of whom were considerably younger than I am

on average, apparently, smoking takes 5 years off your life, I'm good with that,its the five years at end were your loosing your mind and bowl control, I'm not appalled by the prospect of missingout

I've smoked heavily for 40 odd years, yesterday I did 15 miles cycling at a reasonable pace, with a dog on my back, walked 5 miles to give the dog a walk, then 12 miles cycle home with out my heart rate going above 70bpm, I wasnt at all struggling for oxygen, by the end I was strugling for glucose, and my coordination went a bit wonky and had a sore bum, but I could have done another 10 miles if I had to, maybe next week

 

[Deleted member 39746]

(and that misguided Rat)

Wouldnt say im misguided, you dont really get two sides often in school and you should seperate my argument from belief. ie just because i write this doesnt mean its in my belief system. I touched on the source point earlier so, wont repeat it. But consumption in life is a risk assesment, the long term effects of drugs are normally near the ned of that to most people, got bigger things to worry about. Its not like because you smoked once you WILL devolope lung disease, mouth disease, and 6 diffrent cancers when you hit 40, you might and have a increased chance of.

Im pretty anti drug use personally, its just the anti drug programes are closer to fear mongering usually, dont let you explore pro and con studies etc and want you to have blind trust in it. Now i do give benfit of the doubt that the studies are correct and have been subject to the method, but they dont seem to be read as much as they should. Like im not going to give up beef if its a staple because it may lead to some horrible cancer in 30 years from a study i havent read thats not been subject to scrunity yet. And even then, probbly not, eating comes before some maybe about some cancer 30 years from then.

And i did make it clear i dont condone consumption of tobacco if health and longentivity are important to you.

 

[jobo]

Wouldnt say im misguided, you dont really get two sides often in school and you should seperate my argument from belief. ie just because i write this doesnt mean its in my belief system. I touched on the source point earlier so, wont repeat it. But consumption in life is a risk assesment, the long term effects of drugs are normally near the ned of that to most people, got bigger things to worry about. Its not like because you smoked once you WILL devolope lung disease, mouth disease, and 6 diffrent cancers when you hit 40, you might and have a increased chance of.

Im pretty anti drug use personally, its just the anti drug programes are closer to fear mongering usually, dont let you explore pro and con studies etc and want you to have blind trust in it. Now i do give benfit of the doubt that the studies are correct and have been subject to the method, but they dont seem to be read as much as they should. Like im not going to give up beef if its a staple because it may lead to some horrible cancer in 30 years from a study i havent read thats not been subject to scrunity yet. And even then, probbly not, eating comes before some maybe about some cancer 30 years from then.

And i did make it clear i dont condone consumption of tobacco if health and longentivity are important to you.

I agree rat, there seems a tendency in our society for unhealthy people to tell healthy people not to do things as its unhealth

what they are saying may have truth in it, but unless they themselves are non smoking , non drinking, non cafine adicted, non meat eating health nuts with 12% body fat, they are hypocrites to the enth degree

the rolling stones appear sprightly for their age, cant accuse them of the above ,

 

[Martial D]

After years of hard smoking, and then there is no gurnatee you will get XYZ conditions after years of hard smoking. Plus when you start getting up there your age is inhibitor, so i would only support that if you are in there, or devolope soemthing then it will really matter. Just by the fact there have been some pretty good boxers etc who smoked and drank heavily, i dont think you will really beat them in a match with that as a sole factor. Health and fitness are just sliders to me with skill. Skill can balance out diffrences in health and fitness, and health and fitness can skill.

and im pretty sure i made my point clear i dont endorse it if you longentivity and health is important to you.

And do i really need to point out Iron body training though? Last i recall that can have a long term negative impact on some of your bodily functions. Kind of cherry picking the bad here come on. I just remmebered that video jesse enkamp did on the best karate for self defence, when he got to conditoning, the words he used were semi oxy moronic, it was basically "destroying your bodies long term ability for self defence".

I'm thinking you either don't smoke, don't engage in heavy athletics, or both.

There is no arguing this otherwise. Once you reach that point where you are gasping for air and feel like you are going to hack up a lung, you need to choose one or the other. Been there.

When you stop your wind increases exponentially.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree rat, there seems a tendency in our society for unhealthy people to tell healthy people not to do things as its unhealth

what they are saying may have truth in it, but unless they themselves are non smoking , non drinking, non cafine adicted, non meat eating health nuts with 12% body fat, they are hypocrites to the enth degree

the rolling stones appear sprightly for their age, cant accuse them of the above ,

I disagree. That's a bit of whataboutism, actually. Someone who doesn't smoke isn't a hypocrite if they say folks shouldn't smoke. And someone need not be a tee-totaler in any of those categories to make a statement about other categories. I'd consider it hypocritical if someone doesn't exercise at all and eats a poor diet, then talks about the dangers of smoking. But someone who gets some measure of reasonable exercise and eats a reasonable diet...

And looking for exceptions to the rule is just reaching for bias confirmation. Which we all do a bit of - just a good idea to recognize when we do. I certainly do it with coffee - I only want to hear about the studies that show some positive effects from coffee drinking.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm thinking you either don't smoke, don't engage in heavy athletics, or both.

There is no arguing this otherwise. Once you reach that point where you are gasping for air and feel like you are going to hack up a lung, you need to choose one or the other. Been there.

When you stop your wind increases exponentially.

There have been some folks who apparently were exceptions to this, as there are exceptions to almost anything with humans. Unfortunately, exceptions tend to be seen as what's possible for others.

But generally, yeah.

 

[jobo]

I disagree. That's a bit of whataboutism, actually. Someone who doesn't smoke isn't a hypocrite if they say folks shouldn't smoke. And someone need not be a tee-totaler in any of those categories to make a statement about other categories. I'd consider it hypocritical if someone doesn't exercise at all and eats a poor diet, then talks about the dangers of smoking. But someone who gets some measure of reasonable exercise and eats a reasonable diet...

And looking for exceptions to the rule is just reaching for bias confirmation. Which we all do a bit of - just a good idea to recognize when we do. I certainly do it with coffee - I only want to hear about the studies that show some positive effects from coffee drinking.

well yes they are if they say it to a smoker as unsolicited advice,

what if they drink a reasonable amount, exercise a reasonable amount and eat a reasonable amount and say it to a smoker who smokes a reasonable amount, these are subjective measures, lots of people think there life style choices are " reasonable" it's just other peoples that are not.

I'm more accepting of life style advice from someone who walks the walk, if I actually ask them which I dont generally,

 

[Deleted member 39746]

I disagree. That's a bit of whataboutism, actually. Someone who doesn't smoke isn't a hypocrite if they say folks shouldn't smoke. And someone need not be a tee-totaler in any of those categories to make a statement about other categories. I'd consider it hypocritical if someone doesn't exercise at all and eats a poor diet, then talks about the dangers of smoking. But someone who gets some measure of reasonable exercise and eats a reasonable diet...

And looking for exceptions to the rule is just reaching for bias confirmation. Which we all do a bit of - just a good idea to recognize when we do. I certainly do it with coffee - I only want to hear about the studies that show some positive effects from coffee drinking.

i still dont really get those points. I have been told both sides, dont do what you dont want people to do. ie dont smoke an dtell people not to. and the reverse of correcting from your mistakes. Still confuses the hell out of me to this day. Its like saying, dont shoot yourself in the foot, it will hurt, like you have had to shot yourself in the foot with a .357 magnum to know it will hurt, or seen someone get shot. Id blame some baises you end up being broguht up with.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well yes they are if they say it to a smoker as unsolicited advice,

what if they drink a reasonable amount, exercise a reasonable amount and eat a reasonable amount and say it to a smoker who smokes a reasonable amount, these are subjective measures, lots of people think there life style choices are " reasonable" it's just other peoples that are not.

I'm more accepting of life style advice from someone who walks the walk, if I actually ask them which I dont generally,

The difference is what we subjectively see as "walking the walk". Not smoking is, in fact, "walking the walk" if you think smoking is a poor health activity. Being reasonably healthy is also "walking the walk" when discussing health - and an entirely subjective thing. I'd argue those two combined - regardless of what else is going on - rather preclude hypocricy. If someone is fit but fat (which, yes, can happen), then they have a right to call me out on my fitness level in an appropriate setting.

Mind you, a stranger approaching in a park isn't IMO an appropriate setting for discussing your smoking habits (or someone's weight, eating habits, or whatnot).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

i still dont really get those points. I have been told both sides, dont do what you dont want people to do. ie dont smoke an dtell people not to. and the reverse of correcting from your mistakes. Still confuses the hell out of me to this day. Its like saying, dont shoot yourself in the foot, it will hurt, like you have had to shot yourself in the foot with a .357 magnum to know it will hurt, or seen someone get shot. Id blame some baises you end up being broguht up with.

Not sure I understand this post - were you disagreeing with my statement or agreeing with it?

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Not sure I understand this post - were you disagreeing with my statement or agreeing with it?

Agreement in part. The topic is just confusing from personal viewing of it. Bascially the vein of, you cant know whats unhealthy or have opinion of it if you are unhealthy or doing it, but the reverse is true. Seen both sides of it, hence the confusion.

Addendum: Its similar to how you teach your child not to do XYZ, yet you do XYZ and when they become a adult/grow older you let them do XYZ.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Agreement in part. The topic is just confusing from personal viewing of it. Bascially the vein of, you cant know whats unhealthy or have opinion of it if you are unhealthy or doing it, but the reverse is true. Seen both sides of it, hence the confusion.

Addendum: Its similar to how you teach your child not to do XYZ, yet you do XYZ and when they become a adult/grow older you let them do XYZ.

Gotcha. I will say that sometimes it's not hypocricy if someone warns you about something they personally still do. A smoker saying, "Don't ever start smoking - it'll kill you and it's damned hard to quit" isn't being a hypocrite.

 

[jobo]

The difference is what we subjectively see as "walking the walk". Not smoking is, in fact, "walking the walk" if you think smoking is a poor health activity. Being reasonably healthy is also "walking the walk" when discussing health - and an entirely subjective thing. I'd argue those two combined - regardless of what else is going on - rather preclude hypocricy. If someone is fit but fat (which, yes, can happen), then they have a right to call me out on my fitness level in an appropriate setting.

Mind you, a stranger approaching in a park isn't IMO an appropriate setting for discussing your smoking habits (or someone's weight, eating habits, or whatnot).

they dont have a right to call you out at all, unless they are your mother, a non smoking mother or your dr most of which seem to drink heavily judging by social events I've been to, but let that slide, it's their job

there is no such think as being " reasonably" healthy, what does that even mean and how do you measure it, it just what people tell themselves to gloss over what ever their addiction is", I know I drink a bottle of wine a night, but I'm reasonably healthy"????? so not actually healthy ! then, which does seem to be a binary thing , liver damage does not equate to being healthy and neither does palpitations from caffeine

fitness of course is measurable and saying I'm reasonably fit for my age can be measured as can fatness, you can of course be fit and fat, but it's really hard to have good fitness when you pulling a,100 lb of fat with you, nearly any measure is likely to go against you when compared with a slimmer person of similar fitness levels, all you can really say iis I'm readonable fit for a fat bloke and you cant be fat fit and healthy, coz tour likely at best to end up with an enlarged heart, which is not healthy

 

[MetalBoar]

As a strength trainer I've had clients who smoke. I've never told any of them they should quit. I have had a client tell me that he really appreciated, unlike past fitness coaches, that I didn't preach at him about it. I was (probably naively) surprised by this. It had never occurred to me to talk to him about it. I wasn't his doctor, I didn't share an enclosed space with him when he smoked and he'd never asked for my advice on the topic. As I said to him, I knew he was a smart, literate fellow - I know he had already been told everything I could tell him about the health consequences of smoking - I didn't feel it was any of my business.

If a client who smoked asked me how to improve their athletic performance I'd suggest they quit or cut back, just as I'd suggest they drop their beer habit or their pastry and ice cream habit if they over indulged in those things. My experience is that most people don't ask those questions and if they do they usually don't listen to the answers, probably because they already know what you're going to say. The area where they do sometimes find that sort of info useful is when you give them something that isn't pop culture, general knowledge, like, "I know you don't drink soda pop because of the sugar content, but there's still an awful lot of sugar in coffee syrups and I know you have 3-4 mocha's every day, that much will add up."

 

[Steve]

Might not make their kung fu better... but it does make their kung fu cooler.

 

[ShortBridge]

Smoking makes all athletes better.

Also Tour de France cyclists are not taking advantage of having metal water bottles mounted to their handlebars and wearing replacement tires like a Dora the Explorer backpack.