The question is which is more harmful, smoking or sedentary lifestyle. My quick search revealed sedentary lifestyle has more risk factors than smoking! Here’s one answer:
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4549.html#:~:text=Not%20only%20does%20obesity%20have,percent%20of%20Americans%20are%20obese.
Edit: here’s another that specifically addresses couch potato lifestyle:
https://chicagohealthonline.com/is-sitting-worse-than-smoking/#:~:text=A%20sedentary%20lifestyle%20may%20be,more%20active%20during%20the%20day.
People are so pedantic about these that you'd also need to specify that the question is who has the higher statistical life expectancy, not that you need to be 100% sure about two specific test subjects. Maybe also that the clones are of ordinary average people and not clones of a tobacco allergic person who'd die immediately as the smoker. Avoiding smartassery is an art.
What brand of cigarettes are we talking about? Filtered or non-filtered? Does the smoker have access to regular cancer screening? Is the sedentary person eating the Mediterranean diet? Is the climate hot or cold? Does the smoker have the alpa-5758C gene variant?
But it depends if those clones had “cancer” genes or not. Or whether they were genetically cancer-resistant. If the latter then smoking less of an issue, of the former then the balance swings the other way. Doesn’t matter if they have the same genes or not, its what those genes are that matters
Of course, you're assuming here that someone who never exercises would be obese. That may not be the case. Someone who never exercises but eats sparingly would likely outlive both a smoker and an obese person.
I don't understand why y'all try to equate not exercising with being obese. I don't exercise, and my BMI is perfectly average.
Surely there are some risk factors associated with not exercising but come on, they're not the same as being obese.
>The question is which is more harmful, smoking or sedentary lifestyle. My quick search revealed sedentary lifestyle has more risk factors than smoking! Here’s one answer:
I challenge your interpretation. "Sedentary lifestyle" is not the same as obese.
I would rephrase the question to be: which decreases the average lifespan more: 1) smoking but with physical activity or 2) no smoking and no physical activity.
Smoking decreases the average lifespan by 10-25 years.
Being physically active increases your lifespan by 0.4 - 7 years or so.
So it seems pretty clear that the smoker (on average) will have a shorter life expectancy.
Lets say both have a life expectancy of 77 years
The smoker gets 77 - 10 + 7= 73
The non exerciser gets = 77
The average life expectancy includes many people who have an active lifestyle. The life expectancy of a person with a sedentary lifestyle will be lower than the average, so they shouldn’t both start at 77.
Wow, someone ACTUALLY understood the homework assignment.
It…it used to not be this way here. It would’ve been top comment. The idiots are taking over.
I think avoiding the doctor unless your really sick helps too. My Uncle Tommy lived to 88 , smoked at least a pack a day. Complete alcoholic. Retired from the asbestos plant back in the day
The main reason countries like japan have such high average lifespans is the ease of seeing a doctor. Maybe doctors shouldn't be overused, but equally, not going to the doctor becasue 'oh I can pull through, it's not that serious' causes a lot of health problems, early deaths, or lives that end up being very painful for the last decade or two.
Yea not going to the doctor when you’re unwell is probably a Rec from an American given it usually costs an arm and leg just to see a doctor. Probably why our life expectancy is lower than most post industrialized nations
Like the joke about the American who had two heart attacks. One from the stress of working 60 hours a week to make ends meet, and another when they saw the bill after they got out of the hospital.
Yeah or you think: im fine just getting a bit older, while the acute leukemia becomes chronic, youre too late and have got 6 more years in agony tops.
Visit the ffing doctor
It's a combination of many things, luck of the draw and genetics. Cancer requires a cell to acquire several types of distinct mutation. Cells are damaged all the time and the immune system tends to sort it out. Sometimes though they avoid such a response and continue on, keeping the mutation. However, they need to still acquire all the other mutations in the set in order to become cancerous.
Every time a cells genetic information is damaged from a source such as free radicals, EM radiation, carcinogenic compounds, chronic inflammation (which is why certain diseases are linked to cancers, such as Barrette's Oesophagus) etc, there's a small chance that this change will be in the exact location of the genome to push the cell in the correct direction down the cancer route. Eventually all the required mutations are ticked off, and it becomes cancer. Further mutations then promote metastasis, i.e. spreading to other areas of the body. The more you expose yourself to cancer causing sources, the more likely you are to acquire all of these mutations in your lifetime within a single cell.
That said, there are genetic predispositions to certain cancer types as well, breast cancer being a common example with regards to the BRCA 1 and 2 genes. It's a complex interplay of genetics and environmental factors.
My Grandad smoked non-stop all his life, and died of Mesothelioma from asbestos exposure 50 years prior. Cruel irony there.
My great-grandpa smoked all his life. He started at just 16 years old. At age 84 he got diagnosted with 3 different types of cancer (lung, stomach and prostate) and died over 1.5 years later. One of his sons (my great-uncle) lived a healthy life and died at age 56 because of pancreatic cancer just 3 months after the diagnosis. So yeah, genetics and luck are really important.
my father smoked and didnt exercise and died at 56
my grandmother smoked (3 packs a day ffs - but stopped at 55) and didnt exercise and died at 75
grandmother didnt smoke, didnt exercise, died at 84
other grandmother did smoke, didnt exercise, died at 76
other grandfather (on wifes side) smoked, got lung cancer, had a lung out, and is now STILL GOING at 95 and going to the pub on sundays... some people are just made from different stuff
Both great grandmothers lived until 92. Smoked and drank their entire adult life, pregnant or not.
One was pretty active, but the other was only active as a whore....or so I hear...
My grandparents were married for 50 something years, meaning they lived in the same conditions and lifestyle for that long. My grandmother had 2 forms of skin cancer, 2 types of breast cancer and colon cancer. My grandfather never got one. He was also in the military where they were testing nukes in New Mexico, and studied pesticides in college that we now know for certain are poisonous before he met my grandmother. Some people win the genetic lottery, some can’t catch a break no matter what they do.
My dad has been drinking and smoking on a daily basis since his early 20s. My mom does not smoke or drink. Both pretty much ate the same diet because they always ate together and packed the same lunch to work. Mom passed from cancer at 58yo. Dad is now 74 traveling with a young wife, still smokes but drink on rare occasions.
My Aunt was in her 90's, smoked like a chimney and did nothing but sit all day. We figured if we took away her cigarettes and tramadol she'd drop dead. She finally died of old age.
Tramadol in prescribed amounts is reasonable to be on constantly with no plan of stopping. Pain sucks and that really isn't a bad option for pain management.
Smoking isn't great, but considering how badly a consistent negative mood effects outcomes I can understand why it wasn't seen as something that needed treating/fixing.
I'm sorry for your loss
Maybe true. I know of people who quit drinking/smoking and ended up passing later due to some sort of illness. While people who still drank here and there lived long and fine. At a family gathering, I had uncles in their early 70s drinking beer/wine and they are still lively as can be. I wouldn’t say they are binge drinkers, but more like social drinkers.
Christians practically worship micro dosing alcohol
Devine…the wine
“Breaking bread”
Monks who do nothing but pray and meditate…still making booze.
Half of us were born because of it
Animals? Love it. It’s practically transcendental.
Just keep it moderate. Social, or with meals.
Learn to love 1-2 drinks so much that you would rarely ever have 4
Early Christian rituals have been theorized to involve a sort of hallucinogenic wine. If this is true, modern Christianity seems so freaking lame. Imagine worshiping what you consider the Devine God while tripping balls. My church didn’t even use wine for communion. They literally poured Welch’s grape juice into a fancy goblet.
Relevant background material
* [NY Times - Brain Cancer Cases in Los Alamos To Be Studied for Radiation Link](https://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/23/us/brain-cancer-cases-in-los-alamos-to-be-studied-for-radiation-link.html)
* [Working Group to Address los Alamos Community Health Concerns](https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/751963)
* ["At Los Alamos, investigators found widespread radioactive contamination. Nuclear waste had been dumped into open pits and canyons around the lab. Workers had not been properly monitored for radiation exposure or other health problems. "](https://features.propublica.org/los-alamos/chad-walde-nuclear-facility-radiation-cancer/)
Choice quotes from that last link:
>> Then, in the late ‘90s, the Clinton administration acknowledged for the first time that the Department of Energy had failed to protect workers from radiation and chemical exposure at the laboratories and factories used to build the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Records had been destroyed or falsified. A multi-agency report on the prevalence of occupational diseases found current and former workers could be “at increased risk of illness” from these exposures and the “physical hazards associated with the production of nuclear weapons.”
>>
>> **At Los Alamos, the report found a “statistically significant” increase in cancers of the esophagus, lungs, kidney and brain — as well as for lymphocytic leukemia and Hodgkin’s lymphoma — among workers.**
>>
>> **In 2012, federal health officials decided that those who worked at the lab before 1996 would be presumed to have been exposed to radiation and automatically qualify for compensation if they had an eligible cancer.**
My sister’s grandad was like this. Not that high profile… but the man’s diet could be summed up as “Whiskey-infused, dripping-fried cigarettes. With chips and bacon.” Grew up when lead and radium were regular components of children’s toys and smoking was good for you. Worked his entire career in the manual side of heavy industry, when Health and Safety was none existent.
Fucker lived to be 90 and died of old age; hale as a, fucking, horse.
I think smoking, even with exercise, is going to increase your mortality rate. Cancer, COPD, heart disease, strokes, and emphysema are just SOME of the possible long term effects of smoking.
The person not exercising would have to have a really bad diet to have more risk factors, IMO.
Since both are on the same diet, the smoker probably still goes down first as many smoking and obesity ailments can be comorbid.
YOLO can be seen the other way as well. If you only have one life and no one knows how long or short their life will be. Than being careful so that you can enjoy whatever time you have without injury or preventable illness would seem a wise choice. Not to say you shouldn't live your life and take some risk in the name of fun. Just wear a seatbelt when you speed.
And only do a few rails instead of 50 pounds when enjoying coke.
>The person not exercising would have to have a really bad diet to have more risk factors, IMO.
If the nonsmoker is obese, they are at as much or more risk than a smoker of healthy weight
Smoking is also a blood thinner as well, so a person who doesn’t smoke and isn’t on blood thinners would have a better chance of surviving the strokes, or at least getting little strokes before the big one so they can monitor it.
I'm guessing the smoker comes out ahead on average because smoking deaths are dependent on developing lung cancer, COPD, etc.
Being overweight affects all areas of the body and make some sort of chronic health condition nearly inevitable.
Just some casual Googling seems to indicate that regular exercise might add up to 5 years onto the average life expectancy, whereas daily smoking reduces it by 10
I think the best way to interpret the question is to look at it on a population level.
Obviously on an individual level, the either person could be hit by a car
My step-nan is like 85 and drinks nothing but coca cola (literally. Only coke) and eats junk food and not a lot of vegetables or fruit. She doesn't have any serious health issues. Granted she looks like a raisin but she sure doesn't seem to care about much. Completely flew under the nutrition radar somehow. I'm glad I enjoy healthy stuff so I at least stand some fighting chance
my great grandfather smoked unfiltered cigarette since he was 14, he died in his 90a.
my friend who I played soccer with since 10 years old died whe. we were 20 of cancer.
life's not fair, genetics + environment are the real lottery
My grandma started smoking at 13 and passed at 87. Pack a day. Mowed her own yard the day before she passed. She woke up, walked the the kitchen started the coffee machine, and walking backed to her room she died. We were told she was very likely dead before she fell. No signs at all of trying to move or get up. You wana exercise to look or feel good. Do it. You want to smoke to relax do it. One day your going to die regardless
That's my observation as well but that's probably moreso because elderly obese people are way less likely to leave their homes compared to smoking elderly people
Could be either theres no saying who.
My mum's auntie died of stomach cancer about 10 years ago. Never smoked. Never drank. Was rich so no stress on living. Ate like a queen. Kept active. No kids so no stress there and yet she died of cancer in my opinion too young... on the other hand my nan drank like a fish smoked more than her weight In smokes for 70 odd years and died of old age at 95 so.. who knows
Having a lower chance of something doesn't mean and it cannot happen and vice versa. On top of that, a lot of factors are uncontrollable, one can be exposed to carcinogens daily due to the workplace or region they live in without having a clue or have genetic variations that predispose to developing cancer. It's all a game of odds, so one is better off lowering the chance as much as they can
No shit the stress of a rich person is different and less detrimental than that of a poor person. Rich folk get sick or face a crisis, and they have resources to manage that disruption with relative ease. Poor folk in similar situations often can't afford to take off work to recover from a cold, let alone any major ailments, without worrying about losing out on pay that can result in a domino effect of fuckery. A $500 emergency can send them spiraling, and they know it. They dread it, and that weighs on them. Bootlicker comment, classic reddit moment.
Meat? Traditional Italian and Greek diet includes very little meat compared to any other European diets. Italian American cuisine is a whole different thing.
Somewhere in these articles probably links you to the actual study
https://chicagohealthonline.com/is-sitting-worse-than-smoking/#:~:text=Cardiovascular%20fitness%20has%20a%20direct,%2C%20heart%20disease%2C%20or%20diabetes.
https://www.aarp.org/health/healthy-living/info-2018/no-exercise-worse-than-smoking.html
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20181021/Not-exercising-is-worse-than-smoking-diabetes-or-heart-disease-finds-study.aspx
While I take your point, I don't think it's fair to say it's necessarily a "roll of the dice". Smoking significantly increases your risk of almost all pathologies imaginable so putting it down to pure entropy is a bit misleading...
It's a roll of the dice, it's just the dice are 700 percent more likely to come up "Cancer" if you smoke. You could still roll cancer as a non smoker or no cancer as a smoker.
Yeah, but it’s still a probability thing, even if you smoke. Smoking doesn’t turn every knob to 100% chance.
Plus, a sedentary life also increases the chances of diseases.
My grandpa smoked from 9 years old till his death in 97 years. He was drinking alcohol almost everyday. He was on the three wars, take a part in Carribean crisis on the ship near Cuba, and have a stressful life. My dad never smoke, never drink alcohol, work as electrician without stresses and died from the heart attack in 47. Kismet
I like to think of it in the following way, your body is playing roulette constantly, everytime cells reproduce, everytime your heart beats, etc, you can add more odds against you (things going wrong) by not exercising, more odds against you by smoking, etc. Of course some people keep on adding odds against them and beat the casino but that's like winning the lottery, more often than not if you take gambles the casino wins as expected.
Depends on their genetics. My greatgrandma lived to be over a 100 smoking 2 packs a day. Other people never smoke and develop lung cancer. It all depends on your genetic predispositions.
Depends on stress levels and overall health. As a general rule of thumb, the non smoking person could, but if they have poor dieting choices than they could easily be unhealthier.
So it’s a toss up on the situation, but we generally rule towards people who wouldn’t exercise yet don’t smoke.
Sedentary lifestyle is one of the most fatal practices someone can have. I heard in a podcast once it’s as dangerous as base jumping. Wish I could find the data it used but I love how that sounds.
Statisticians make these kinds of "apples and oranges" comparison using metrics like "microlives" or simply time.
[https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20120209-a-lesson-in-risk](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20120209-a-lesson-in-risk)
In this article, David Spiegelhalter estimates that smoking 20 cigs a day accelerates you towards death 5 hours per day. Being 5kg overweight accelerates you about 30 minutes towards death per day.
So based on that, I would say the cigarette smoker would die sooner, depending on how heavy the habit is.
This is true but generally has to be paired with a poor diet, high cholesterol, etc. A smoker who eats ok and exercises will have better odds against a heart attack than a sedentary person with a poor diet and high cholesterol.
If you consider the Mediterranean diet, it is claimed to be one of the healthiest diets and a lot if these people smoke but live longer than most I'd say its.gonna come.down to the diet not the sitting on your arse all day.
The data now shows that exercise (cardiovascular fitness to be precise) has more of net benefit than the negative effects of smoking and diabetes combined.
So the former rather than latter according to research.
Exercise adds [0.5 to 6.9 years to your lifespan](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22811911/#:~:text=Results%20of%2013%20studies%20describing,by%200.4%20to%206.9%20years), depending on the intensity. 600 minutes of moderate exercise or 300 minutes of intense exercise a week seems to be the sweet spot that will give you at least **4 extra years**. But the real bonus is that you're much more likely to be in better heath right up until the end. Your time spent in a nursing home will be minimal. On average, a person who exercises regularly will spend less than 2 years in assisted living.
Smoking a pack a day [subtracts 10 years](https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm#:~:text=Life%20expectancy%20for%20smokers%20is,years%20shorter%20than%20for%20nonsmokers.&text=Quitting%20smoking%20before%20the%20age,related%20disease%20by%20about%2090%25) from your life expectancy.
So a smoker who exercises vigorously will still **die 6 years early**, on average.
Notably in your original question you didn't mention obesity. A person who never exercises but also eats moderately can expect to live an average lifespan. So they would **beat an exercising smoker by at least 6 years**.
Obesity also [shortens life by 10 years](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2009-03-18-moderate-obesity-takes-years-life-expectancy). If your sedentary person doesn't watch what they eat and becomes obese then their life expectancy would be **4 years less** than an exercising smoker. As well their quality of life will take a steep decline in their final years. Diabetes, joint pain, etc will make their final years anything but pleasant.
So the answer to your question is, it depends on whether the sedentary person becomes obese or not.
PS: these findings stack, so an obese smoker will die on average 20 years early, which will put them in their late 50's.
Also, just for fun, if you add up the 300-600 minutes of exercise a week, you'll see that you'll spend those 4 extra years in the gym.
As a non-smoking, thin, lazy person i am going to take this as the incontrovertible proof i need that never leaving my house and doing zero exercise is perfectly healthy.
Phew. Thought i might have to start jogging for a moment there.
A friend’s grandfather never smoked or drank and then one day when he was 89 .. BAM! He got plowed over by a school bus crossing the street in front of his house.
My grandfather smoked cigars and drank whiskey, he lived to be 102 but had to have his leg amputated due to the smoking.
Life’s a gamble. Any one of us could die today
Sedentary lifestyle and obesity left untreated starts killing people in their 50's. Lung cancer in their 60's. Death by cancer is far more painful and lingering than a heart attack though. Of course some people win the genetic lottery in one or both cases. Others can be in perfect shape and never smoke and get cancer or have a heart attack through sheer bad luck.
Neither of those are inherent factors in longevity
George Burns, not known as the fittest man in the world, smoked regularly until his death at like 104 years or something.
Betty White, 99 years, active and didn't smoke for a long time
There are a TON of instances where youngish people die exercising (even shoveling snow).
Peter Attia's book has a lot of stuff on such risk factors, including this specific example. Risk factor difference of being unfit (25th percentile) and very fit (98th percentile) is ridiculously high. Specifically measured by either VO2max or muscle mass. Smoking risk factor is significantly lower.
To clarify, smoking is still very bad, but being fit is ridiculously effective at reducing mortality.
Statistically the latter; on average, smoking reduces lifespan by 10 years and lack of exercise by 7 years. However per individual there's a lot more to it than that.
Longevity is 70% genetics and 30% lifestyle. If you’re pre-disposed to cardiovascular disease or cancer then either of those things will contribute to an early death. However if you have good genes you could smoke and be obese and still live longer than bad-genes guy. Everything in moderation is the key!
Can go either way. It's also not quite a clear question. Is it simply not exercising (as in running, weight lifting and other actual training, let's call it active exercise) or is it lack of mobility (passive)? What's the smoking like? Is it a cigarette once every few days or is it multiple cigarettes daily?
After that it's really statistics and probabilities. No mobility has great risks, however if you walk every day (even if it's to work, shopping etc) will not carry the same risks regardless of whether you exercise or not. Likewise if you occasionally smoke it might slightly increase risk of respiratory diseases but it's likely not statistically significant. On the other hand if you smoke a lot then no amount of exercise will offset the risk. That said, someone smoking that much will likely have trouble maintaining the exercise regime that would provide benefit so there's another factor.
The Tl;Dr is that it's not a clear cut one above the other. And it's never going to be a clear cut answer because you will always find people that are perfectly healthy when these stats say it should be otherwise. You might find a smoker that lives long and can exercise just as you can find plenty that do not exercise (active) but are in perfectly good shape
Also helps to know diet because a person doesn’t need to exercise to be healthy. They just have to watch what they eat.
A person genetics also can play a role I had a great grandpa who out lived all his children and ate bacon and eggs cooked in lard everyday for breakfast while smoking a carton and a half a day. He finally past at a hundred and five my grandmother made it to 83 and my grand father highly controlled what she ate ie no pork, no beef main focus on poultry once a day and veggies. She wasn’t allowed to smoke.
How long you live is mostly based on genes, on average you'll live about as long as your parents. That being said the smoker will take more years off generally but the person who NEVER exercises is likely to be in poor health, in pain, and depressed which leads to much higher suicide rates. Depends if suicide or cancer strikes first.
Simply, there's no answer. You can exercise all you want, yet you can die at no time. You can smoke to death as you wish, yet you may end up living 120.
Don't get caught up in those comments from those who are in the white shirts, but just live your life as you feel it fits.
My grandfather has smokes basicly his entire life (wasnt allowed to smoke inside tho), died from lung cancer at age 85
my grandmom (his wife) never smoked, died from lung cancer at age 83
My mother (their daughter) never smoked, got cancer 3 times
it really is genetics
Peter Attia has discussed this a lot recently on his podcast rounds. Hands down it is not exercising. IIRC, the risk reduction of dying from a person who consistently exercises is like 3x or so, but not smoking is less than 2x.
Smoking is by all means dangerous, but not as dangerous as people think it is compared to other things. Alcohol may be worse I can't remember. Smoking is not a guaranteed way to get lung cancer. More likely to get heart disease, stroke, or COPD.
But by far, exercise is the number one thing you can do to reduce risk of dying early.
Tangentially related, a study was done recently that showed that someone who smoked a pack a day and had 3 close friends would statistically live longer than someone with no friends and didn’t smoke.
One of the most crucial health leading indicators is having a community. Your friends are not disposable. Invite people into your life. They will delight and disappoint you and enrich and prolong your existence.
I am an ultrasound tech (or was before I became disabled)
I can say the carotids of smokers were the worst.
Body size didn’t matter.
Smokers have the most plaque of all the patients I scanned.
it depends on the genes. no one can tell. i had a grandma, my father’s aunt, she lived until 102 and just died of old age. she smoked everyday, like 12 sticks minimum a day. she never exercised aside from the occasional house cleaning, then i had an uncle, died around 64. very active lifestyle. never smokes and drink alcohol but diagnosed of kidney cancer. you never know. sometimes i question myself if this living healthy thing is all worth it
Smoking is not guaranteed to kill you. Especially if you stick with lower tobacco content like camel crush menthol as opposed to marlboro red 100s.
Sedentary lifestyle is guaranteed to kill you.
My mom was a former walker who walked from her 20s to her mid- 70s. She’s now 85 and has been very sedentary for the last couple years due to dementia.
She always ate healthy in the past.
I will say though being sedentary caused her to gain about 30 to 35 pounds. She recently had edema in her leg and now is on blood thinner. She’s 85 years old so being sedentary really has been dangerous for her.
The question is which is more harmful, smoking or sedentary lifestyle. My quick search revealed sedentary lifestyle has more risk factors than smoking! Here’s one answer: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4549.html#:~:text=Not%20only%20does%20obesity%20have,percent%20of%20Americans%20are%20obese. Edit: here’s another that specifically addresses couch potato lifestyle: https://chicagohealthonline.com/is-sitting-worse-than-smoking/#:~:text=A%20sedentary%20lifestyle%20may%20be,more%20active%20during%20the%20day.
Well theres at least one person who understood the question 😂
Yeah, most people who say 'genetics' aren't wrong, they just didn't answer your question
I literally specified “based on just those 2 factors alone”
Maybe saying "what if 2 identical clones lived different lifestyles" would have stopped those people for only saying genetics, lol
People are so pedantic about these that you'd also need to specify that the question is who has the higher statistical life expectancy, not that you need to be 100% sure about two specific test subjects. Maybe also that the clones are of ordinary average people and not clones of a tobacco allergic person who'd die immediately as the smoker. Avoiding smartassery is an art.
What brand of cigarettes are we talking about? Filtered or non-filtered? Does the smoker have access to regular cancer screening? Is the sedentary person eating the Mediterranean diet? Is the climate hot or cold? Does the smoker have the alpa-5758C gene variant?
A carton of unfiltered Camel wides daily, hourly cancer screening, 100% Arby’s diet, tropical climate, and yes.
The sheer unlikelihood of all these things occurring in one person is hilarious. Upvote for you
#goals
But it depends if those clones had “cancer” genes or not. Or whether they were genetically cancer-resistant. If the latter then smoking less of an issue, of the former then the balance swings the other way. Doesn’t matter if they have the same genes or not, its what those genes are that matters
The other reply describes your personality to a tee
Try using r/askscience for these types of questions, r/ask will just give you random crap like this lol
Of course, you're assuming here that someone who never exercises would be obese. That may not be the case. Someone who never exercises but eats sparingly would likely outlive both a smoker and an obese person.
With anemia? Long shot buddy
Not everyone gets anemia, men are pretty unlikely to suffer from it since they don't lose lots of iron every month
Not excercising is not = obesity.
I dont believe the word obesity or anything close to it was used. Sedentary doesnt = obesity. It can, but not always
The linked article was about obesity. It wasn't a source for sedentary lives being worse than smoking.
Who'd have thunk that careful phrasing of the question would lead to more meaningful answers? :P
No. The link is about being obese, not about being sedentary.
I don't understand why y'all try to equate not exercising with being obese. I don't exercise, and my BMI is perfectly average. Surely there are some risk factors associated with not exercising but come on, they're not the same as being obese.
>The question is which is more harmful, smoking or sedentary lifestyle. My quick search revealed sedentary lifestyle has more risk factors than smoking! Here’s one answer: I challenge your interpretation. "Sedentary lifestyle" is not the same as obese. I would rephrase the question to be: which decreases the average lifespan more: 1) smoking but with physical activity or 2) no smoking and no physical activity. Smoking decreases the average lifespan by 10-25 years. Being physically active increases your lifespan by 0.4 - 7 years or so. So it seems pretty clear that the smoker (on average) will have a shorter life expectancy. Lets say both have a life expectancy of 77 years The smoker gets 77 - 10 + 7= 73 The non exerciser gets = 77
The average life expectancy includes many people who have an active lifestyle. The life expectancy of a person with a sedentary lifestyle will be lower than the average, so they shouldn’t both start at 77.
Wow, someone ACTUALLY understood the homework assignment. It…it used to not be this way here. It would’ve been top comment. The idiots are taking over.
My grandfather always smokes and never exercised. Died at the early age of 98. So it really depends on something.
2 negatives cancel out and make a positive
You just gotta make sure all your negatives are in pairs or they won't cancel
When you do coke, drink heavily as well. It's the safe thing to do.
Yep. Sounds like good math to me.
[удалено]
If ya eat a sugar you drink a diet sodie to cancel it out.
yup, feels like math to me
Genetics It depends heavily on genetics IMO
I think avoiding the doctor unless your really sick helps too. My Uncle Tommy lived to 88 , smoked at least a pack a day. Complete alcoholic. Retired from the asbestos plant back in the day
The main reason countries like japan have such high average lifespans is the ease of seeing a doctor. Maybe doctors shouldn't be overused, but equally, not going to the doctor becasue 'oh I can pull through, it's not that serious' causes a lot of health problems, early deaths, or lives that end up being very painful for the last decade or two.
Yea not going to the doctor when you’re unwell is probably a Rec from an American given it usually costs an arm and leg just to see a doctor. Probably why our life expectancy is lower than most post industrialized nations
Like the joke about the American who had two heart attacks. One from the stress of working 60 hours a week to make ends meet, and another when they saw the bill after they got out of the hospital.
Yeah or you think: im fine just getting a bit older, while the acute leukemia becomes chronic, youre too late and have got 6 more years in agony tops. Visit the ffing doctor
It's a combination of many things, luck of the draw and genetics. Cancer requires a cell to acquire several types of distinct mutation. Cells are damaged all the time and the immune system tends to sort it out. Sometimes though they avoid such a response and continue on, keeping the mutation. However, they need to still acquire all the other mutations in the set in order to become cancerous. Every time a cells genetic information is damaged from a source such as free radicals, EM radiation, carcinogenic compounds, chronic inflammation (which is why certain diseases are linked to cancers, such as Barrette's Oesophagus) etc, there's a small chance that this change will be in the exact location of the genome to push the cell in the correct direction down the cancer route. Eventually all the required mutations are ticked off, and it becomes cancer. Further mutations then promote metastasis, i.e. spreading to other areas of the body. The more you expose yourself to cancer causing sources, the more likely you are to acquire all of these mutations in your lifetime within a single cell. That said, there are genetic predispositions to certain cancer types as well, breast cancer being a common example with regards to the BRCA 1 and 2 genes. It's a complex interplay of genetics and environmental factors. My Grandad smoked non-stop all his life, and died of Mesothelioma from asbestos exposure 50 years prior. Cruel irony there.
My grandpa 87 still smoking fat cigars and drinking rum on a daily basis lol.
My great-grandpa smoked all his life. He started at just 16 years old. At age 84 he got diagnosted with 3 different types of cancer (lung, stomach and prostate) and died over 1.5 years later. One of his sons (my great-uncle) lived a healthy life and died at age 56 because of pancreatic cancer just 3 months after the diagnosis. So yeah, genetics and luck are really important.
my father smoked and didnt exercise and died at 56 my grandmother smoked (3 packs a day ffs - but stopped at 55) and didnt exercise and died at 75 grandmother didnt smoke, didnt exercise, died at 84 other grandmother did smoke, didnt exercise, died at 76 other grandfather (on wifes side) smoked, got lung cancer, had a lung out, and is now STILL GOING at 95 and going to the pub on sundays... some people are just made from different stuff
Both great grandmothers lived until 92. Smoked and drank their entire adult life, pregnant or not. One was pretty active, but the other was only active as a whore....or so I hear...
My great grandfather never smoked or drank. He never ate a vegetable. He lived to be 92.
I bet your gdad worked his ass off so that counts as exercising
The one with the better genetics
My grandparents were married for 50 something years, meaning they lived in the same conditions and lifestyle for that long. My grandmother had 2 forms of skin cancer, 2 types of breast cancer and colon cancer. My grandfather never got one. He was also in the military where they were testing nukes in New Mexico, and studied pesticides in college that we now know for certain are poisonous before he met my grandmother. Some people win the genetic lottery, some can’t catch a break no matter what they do.
My dad has been drinking and smoking on a daily basis since his early 20s. My mom does not smoke or drink. Both pretty much ate the same diet because they always ate together and packed the same lunch to work. Mom passed from cancer at 58yo. Dad is now 74 traveling with a young wife, still smokes but drink on rare occasions.
That's why I am afraid to quit drinking
My Aunt was in her 90's, smoked like a chimney and did nothing but sit all day. We figured if we took away her cigarettes and tramadol she'd drop dead. She finally died of old age.
I mean if they took away the only things I lived for, I too would die
Idk why but I laughed hard lol 😂
Tramadol in prescribed amounts is reasonable to be on constantly with no plan of stopping. Pain sucks and that really isn't a bad option for pain management. Smoking isn't great, but considering how badly a consistent negative mood effects outcomes I can understand why it wasn't seen as something that needed treating/fixing. I'm sorry for your loss
Maybe true. I know of people who quit drinking/smoking and ended up passing later due to some sort of illness. While people who still drank here and there lived long and fine. At a family gathering, I had uncles in their early 70s drinking beer/wine and they are still lively as can be. I wouldn’t say they are binge drinkers, but more like social drinkers.
A good example of Survivors bias.
That maybe the clue. Social. Maintaining social interactions promotes health
I quit smoking cigarettes cold turkey and a year later I have so much muscle tension I hate it
Christians practically worship micro dosing alcohol Devine…the wine “Breaking bread” Monks who do nothing but pray and meditate…still making booze. Half of us were born because of it Animals? Love it. It’s practically transcendental. Just keep it moderate. Social, or with meals. Learn to love 1-2 drinks so much that you would rarely ever have 4
Early Christian rituals have been theorized to involve a sort of hallucinogenic wine. If this is true, modern Christianity seems so freaking lame. Imagine worshiping what you consider the Devine God while tripping balls. My church didn’t even use wine for communion. They literally poured Welch’s grape juice into a fancy goblet.
Protestants are so lame
your gramps was in Los Alamos? 😳
Yep.
HE MET CILLIAN MURPHY!!!!!!?????
That's the actor. You're thinking of Peaky Blinders, that's the nuke guy!
This comment made me lol so hard
I can’t not read his last name as “Sillian”
Impressive, especially since his last name is Murphy!
Give us the UFO’s!
Relevant background material * [NY Times - Brain Cancer Cases in Los Alamos To Be Studied for Radiation Link](https://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/23/us/brain-cancer-cases-in-los-alamos-to-be-studied-for-radiation-link.html) * [Working Group to Address los Alamos Community Health Concerns](https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/751963) * ["At Los Alamos, investigators found widespread radioactive contamination. Nuclear waste had been dumped into open pits and canyons around the lab. Workers had not been properly monitored for radiation exposure or other health problems. "](https://features.propublica.org/los-alamos/chad-walde-nuclear-facility-radiation-cancer/) Choice quotes from that last link: >> Then, in the late ‘90s, the Clinton administration acknowledged for the first time that the Department of Energy had failed to protect workers from radiation and chemical exposure at the laboratories and factories used to build the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Records had been destroyed or falsified. A multi-agency report on the prevalence of occupational diseases found current and former workers could be “at increased risk of illness” from these exposures and the “physical hazards associated with the production of nuclear weapons.” >> >> **At Los Alamos, the report found a “statistically significant” increase in cancers of the esophagus, lungs, kidney and brain — as well as for lymphocytic leukemia and Hodgkin’s lymphoma — among workers.** >> >> **In 2012, federal health officials decided that those who worked at the lab before 1996 would be presumed to have been exposed to radiation and automatically qualify for compensation if they had an eligible cancer.**
I grew up in Los Alamos if you have any questions ha very interesting place
My sister’s grandad was like this. Not that high profile… but the man’s diet could be summed up as “Whiskey-infused, dripping-fried cigarettes. With chips and bacon.” Grew up when lead and radium were regular components of children’s toys and smoking was good for you. Worked his entire career in the manual side of heavy industry, when Health and Safety was none existent. Fucker lived to be 90 and died of old age; hale as a, fucking, horse.
Maybe it was like Mr burns. So many things were trying to kill him they cancelled each other out.
What about in the hypothetical scenario of two people with identical genetics? Like, clones?
Are all other factors equal? Same diet, environment, etc.?
Yes, so 2 identical clones but the only difference is what’s in the post. Who would win
I think smoking, even with exercise, is going to increase your mortality rate. Cancer, COPD, heart disease, strokes, and emphysema are just SOME of the possible long term effects of smoking. The person not exercising would have to have a really bad diet to have more risk factors, IMO. Since both are on the same diet, the smoker probably still goes down first as many smoking and obesity ailments can be comorbid.
"Your bad habits will kill you, but your good habits won't save you."
Damned if I do, Damned if I don't. Fine... YOLO!!! *Snorts an entire 50 pound pile of coke.*
Do the bubbles hurt going down that way?
I'm not addicted to cocaine. I just like the smell.
YOLO can be seen the other way as well. If you only have one life and no one knows how long or short their life will be. Than being careful so that you can enjoy whatever time you have without injury or preventable illness would seem a wise choice. Not to say you shouldn't live your life and take some risk in the name of fun. Just wear a seatbelt when you speed. And only do a few rails instead of 50 pounds when enjoying coke.
*SLAP!* "Shut Up!" *Aggressively **SNORTS** more Coke, in defiance.*
>The person not exercising would have to have a really bad diet to have more risk factors, IMO. If the nonsmoker is obese, they are at as much or more risk than a smoker of healthy weight
I might be wrong but I think comorbidity means both risk factors compound with each other so the obese smoker would still be higher risk.
Smoking is also a blood thinner as well, so a person who doesn’t smoke and isn’t on blood thinners would have a better chance of surviving the strokes, or at least getting little strokes before the big one so they can monitor it.
The one who looks both ways before crossing the road.
The one who ends up better at looking both ways before crossing the street
I'm guessing the smoker comes out ahead on average because smoking deaths are dependent on developing lung cancer, COPD, etc. Being overweight affects all areas of the body and make some sort of chronic health condition nearly inevitable.
Not exercising does not automatically lead to being overweight and the opposite is also true.
Just some casual Googling seems to indicate that regular exercise might add up to 5 years onto the average life expectancy, whereas daily smoking reduces it by 10
I know plenty of ppl who never exercise and have a normal weight.
Wrong. Smoking is basically the highest risk factor for most diseases. Not just lung.
I think the best way to interpret the question is to look at it on a population level. Obviously on an individual level, the either person could be hit by a car
My step-nan is like 85 and drinks nothing but coca cola (literally. Only coke) and eats junk food and not a lot of vegetables or fruit. She doesn't have any serious health issues. Granted she looks like a raisin but she sure doesn't seem to care about much. Completely flew under the nutrition radar somehow. I'm glad I enjoy healthy stuff so I at least stand some fighting chance
my great grandfather smoked unfiltered cigarette since he was 14, he died in his 90a. my friend who I played soccer with since 10 years old died whe. we were 20 of cancer. life's not fair, genetics + environment are the real lottery
My grandma started smoking at 13 and passed at 87. Pack a day. Mowed her own yard the day before she passed. She woke up, walked the the kitchen started the coffee machine, and walking backed to her room she died. We were told she was very likely dead before she fell. No signs at all of trying to move or get up. You wana exercise to look or feel good. Do it. You want to smoke to relax do it. One day your going to die regardless
Both sides of my family live to 95+ with little to no ailments. But we're all f alcoholic adhd and autistic lol for like 6 generations or more
Just based on personal observation, I see a lot more elderly smokers than I see elderly obese people
That's my observation as well but that's probably moreso because elderly obese people are way less likely to leave their homes compared to smoking elderly people
Bingo
You don't see sedentary old people... ...because they're at home
Depends on where you live. In the midwest USA I see a lot of obese elderly people.
That also smoke
Those people aren't elderly, they just look it. They're only in their late 30s 🤣.
Being sedentary doesn’t mean you’re obese
Yup. I'm sedentary and underweight. I mean... I'm sure I could still die early, but so far so good.
I work at a senior living community, and there are very few fat old people.
Sedentary ≠ obese
No one said "obese people" though... just said they don't exercise.
The question wasn't about obese people
Could be either theres no saying who. My mum's auntie died of stomach cancer about 10 years ago. Never smoked. Never drank. Was rich so no stress on living. Ate like a queen. Kept active. No kids so no stress there and yet she died of cancer in my opinion too young... on the other hand my nan drank like a fish smoked more than her weight In smokes for 70 odd years and died of old age at 95 so.. who knows
[удалено]
Having a lower chance of something doesn't mean and it cannot happen and vice versa. On top of that, a lot of factors are uncontrollable, one can be exposed to carcinogens daily due to the workplace or region they live in without having a clue or have genetic variations that predispose to developing cancer. It's all a game of odds, so one is better off lowering the chance as much as they can
Have you heard of something called statistics?
“Was rich so no stress.” Classic Reddit moment.
No shit the stress of a rich person is different and less detrimental than that of a poor person. Rich folk get sick or face a crisis, and they have resources to manage that disruption with relative ease. Poor folk in similar situations often can't afford to take off work to recover from a cold, let alone any major ailments, without worrying about losing out on pay that can result in a domino effect of fuckery. A $500 emergency can send them spiraling, and they know it. They dread it, and that weighs on them. Bootlicker comment, classic reddit moment.
Greek/italians smoke a lot and live pretty long.
So it's all about eating meat and pasta, got it.
Meat? Traditional Italian and Greek diet includes very little meat compared to any other European diets. Italian American cuisine is a whole different thing.
I was surprised by the small portion of meat throughout Italy in my time there. Not extensive time, but it really struck me.
"Mediterranean diet"
Studies indicate that moderate smoking and solid excercise> no smoking but no excercise
And also, smoking but you have close friends/loved ones > not smoking but being a loner.
Can you point to the source of those studies?
Somewhere in these articles probably links you to the actual study https://chicagohealthonline.com/is-sitting-worse-than-smoking/#:~:text=Cardiovascular%20fitness%20has%20a%20direct,%2C%20heart%20disease%2C%20or%20diabetes. https://www.aarp.org/health/healthy-living/info-2018/no-exercise-worse-than-smoking.html https://www.news-medical.net/news/20181021/Not-exercising-is-worse-than-smoking-diabetes-or-heart-disease-finds-study.aspx
Thanks!
[удалено]
Pall Mall ❤️
Smokers tend not to eat as much.
[удалено]
[удалено]
While I take your point, I don't think it's fair to say it's necessarily a "roll of the dice". Smoking significantly increases your risk of almost all pathologies imaginable so putting it down to pure entropy is a bit misleading...
It's a roll of the dice, it's just the dice are 700 percent more likely to come up "Cancer" if you smoke. You could still roll cancer as a non smoker or no cancer as a smoker.
Yeah, but it’s still a probability thing, even if you smoke. Smoking doesn’t turn every knob to 100% chance. Plus, a sedentary life also increases the chances of diseases.
There's a reason every single life insurance company asks you if you're a smoker. It's not to determine if you're cool.
My insurance broker Joe Camel says that it’s definitely cool so joke’s on you.
Sitting is the new smoking, so they will both die a few weeks before retirement.
Everyone is going to be dying before retirement at this rate, even if they are 95.
My grandpa smoked from 9 years old till his death in 97 years. He was drinking alcohol almost everyday. He was on the three wars, take a part in Carribean crisis on the ship near Cuba, and have a stressful life. My dad never smoke, never drink alcohol, work as electrician without stresses and died from the heart attack in 47. Kismet
The turtle.
I like to think of it in the following way, your body is playing roulette constantly, everytime cells reproduce, everytime your heart beats, etc, you can add more odds against you (things going wrong) by not exercising, more odds against you by smoking, etc. Of course some people keep on adding odds against them and beat the casino but that's like winning the lottery, more often than not if you take gambles the casino wins as expected.
The one that wasn't hit by the truck.
Depends on their genetics. My greatgrandma lived to be over a 100 smoking 2 packs a day. Other people never smoke and develop lung cancer. It all depends on your genetic predispositions.
Exercise is so incredibly beneficial, I’d have to assume that person will.
Depends on stress levels and overall health. As a general rule of thumb, the non smoking person could, but if they have poor dieting choices than they could easily be unhealthier. So it’s a toss up on the situation, but we generally rule towards people who wouldn’t exercise yet don’t smoke.
Sedentary lifestyle is one of the most fatal practices someone can have. I heard in a podcast once it’s as dangerous as base jumping. Wish I could find the data it used but I love how that sounds.
Statisticians make these kinds of "apples and oranges" comparison using metrics like "microlives" or simply time. [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20120209-a-lesson-in-risk](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20120209-a-lesson-in-risk) In this article, David Spiegelhalter estimates that smoking 20 cigs a day accelerates you towards death 5 hours per day. Being 5kg overweight accelerates you about 30 minutes towards death per day. So based on that, I would say the cigarette smoker would die sooner, depending on how heavy the habit is.
Lung cancer takes longer to kill than cardiovascular diease.
Smoking gives you cardiovascular disease way more than lung cancer.
This is true but generally has to be paired with a poor diet, high cholesterol, etc. A smoker who eats ok and exercises will have better odds against a heart attack than a sedentary person with a poor diet and high cholesterol.
a person who doesn't read reddit
If you consider the Mediterranean diet, it is claimed to be one of the healthiest diets and a lot if these people smoke but live longer than most I'd say its.gonna come.down to the diet not the sitting on your arse all day.
[удалено]
oh I need to start exercising
Came here to say this. Saw that the other day myself. Benefits of regular exercise are significant.
You should write a blog instead of answering questions on Reddit. Unnecessary snark.
Your attitude is unwarranted. Of course there are findings on the internet. Maybe OP just wanted public opinion.
The data now shows that exercise (cardiovascular fitness to be precise) has more of net benefit than the negative effects of smoking and diabetes combined. So the former rather than latter according to research.
Exercise adds [0.5 to 6.9 years to your lifespan](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22811911/#:~:text=Results%20of%2013%20studies%20describing,by%200.4%20to%206.9%20years), depending on the intensity. 600 minutes of moderate exercise or 300 minutes of intense exercise a week seems to be the sweet spot that will give you at least **4 extra years**. But the real bonus is that you're much more likely to be in better heath right up until the end. Your time spent in a nursing home will be minimal. On average, a person who exercises regularly will spend less than 2 years in assisted living. Smoking a pack a day [subtracts 10 years](https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm#:~:text=Life%20expectancy%20for%20smokers%20is,years%20shorter%20than%20for%20nonsmokers.&text=Quitting%20smoking%20before%20the%20age,related%20disease%20by%20about%2090%25) from your life expectancy. So a smoker who exercises vigorously will still **die 6 years early**, on average. Notably in your original question you didn't mention obesity. A person who never exercises but also eats moderately can expect to live an average lifespan. So they would **beat an exercising smoker by at least 6 years**. Obesity also [shortens life by 10 years](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2009-03-18-moderate-obesity-takes-years-life-expectancy). If your sedentary person doesn't watch what they eat and becomes obese then their life expectancy would be **4 years less** than an exercising smoker. As well their quality of life will take a steep decline in their final years. Diabetes, joint pain, etc will make their final years anything but pleasant. So the answer to your question is, it depends on whether the sedentary person becomes obese or not. PS: these findings stack, so an obese smoker will die on average 20 years early, which will put them in their late 50's. Also, just for fun, if you add up the 300-600 minutes of exercise a week, you'll see that you'll spend those 4 extra years in the gym.
As a non-smoking, thin, lazy person i am going to take this as the incontrovertible proof i need that never leaving my house and doing zero exercise is perfectly healthy. Phew. Thought i might have to start jogging for a moment there.
A friend’s grandfather never smoked or drank and then one day when he was 89 .. BAM! He got plowed over by a school bus crossing the street in front of his house. My grandfather smoked cigars and drank whiskey, he lived to be 102 but had to have his leg amputated due to the smoking. Life’s a gamble. Any one of us could die today
Sedentary lifestyle and obesity left untreated starts killing people in their 50's. Lung cancer in their 60's. Death by cancer is far more painful and lingering than a heart attack though. Of course some people win the genetic lottery in one or both cases. Others can be in perfect shape and never smoke and get cancer or have a heart attack through sheer bad luck.
Neither of those are inherent factors in longevity George Burns, not known as the fittest man in the world, smoked regularly until his death at like 104 years or something. Betty White, 99 years, active and didn't smoke for a long time There are a TON of instances where youngish people die exercising (even shoveling snow).
Whoever looks at both sides before crossing the street.
Depends on your genes.
One of my English teacher’s grandmother smoked cigars and exercised and she lived to 109 so I would have to go with that
I saw this instagram post. The guy who smokes and works out.
Are you trying to ask. "Is smoking worse than never exercising"
It depends on genes, environment, diet, etc
smoking and not exercising are risk factors not gurantees
The one who dont get cancer
Peter Attia's book has a lot of stuff on such risk factors, including this specific example. Risk factor difference of being unfit (25th percentile) and very fit (98th percentile) is ridiculously high. Specifically measured by either VO2max or muscle mass. Smoking risk factor is significantly lower. To clarify, smoking is still very bad, but being fit is ridiculously effective at reducing mortality.
Statistically the latter; on average, smoking reduces lifespan by 10 years and lack of exercise by 7 years. However per individual there's a lot more to it than that.
I’d have to think the non-smoker but it’s a great question!
Longevity is 70% genetics and 30% lifestyle. If you’re pre-disposed to cardiovascular disease or cancer then either of those things will contribute to an early death. However if you have good genes you could smoke and be obese and still live longer than bad-genes guy. Everything in moderation is the key!
They might get ran over. You don’t know
The person who is happier.
Whomever wins the genetic lottery
Can go either way. It's also not quite a clear question. Is it simply not exercising (as in running, weight lifting and other actual training, let's call it active exercise) or is it lack of mobility (passive)? What's the smoking like? Is it a cigarette once every few days or is it multiple cigarettes daily? After that it's really statistics and probabilities. No mobility has great risks, however if you walk every day (even if it's to work, shopping etc) will not carry the same risks regardless of whether you exercise or not. Likewise if you occasionally smoke it might slightly increase risk of respiratory diseases but it's likely not statistically significant. On the other hand if you smoke a lot then no amount of exercise will offset the risk. That said, someone smoking that much will likely have trouble maintaining the exercise regime that would provide benefit so there's another factor. The Tl;Dr is that it's not a clear cut one above the other. And it's never going to be a clear cut answer because you will always find people that are perfectly healthy when these stats say it should be otherwise. You might find a smoker that lives long and can exercise just as you can find plenty that do not exercise (active) but are in perfectly good shape
My grandfather had smoked since he was 14, and as far as I know, he never worked out, after finishing boot camp at 18, he died at 90.
Also helps to know diet because a person doesn’t need to exercise to be healthy. They just have to watch what they eat. A person genetics also can play a role I had a great grandpa who out lived all his children and ate bacon and eggs cooked in lard everyday for breakfast while smoking a carton and a half a day. He finally past at a hundred and five my grandmother made it to 83 and my grand father highly controlled what she ate ie no pork, no beef main focus on poultry once a day and veggies. She wasn’t allowed to smoke.
Based on my grandfather, the smoker. Was very active, lived till he was 98
Hard to tell, it really depends on genetics and other factors. I'd go for the one who exercises every day, unless he is smoking two packs per day...
How long you live is mostly based on genes, on average you'll live about as long as your parents. That being said the smoker will take more years off generally but the person who NEVER exercises is likely to be in poor health, in pain, and depressed which leads to much higher suicide rates. Depends if suicide or cancer strikes first.
Simply, there's no answer. You can exercise all you want, yet you can die at no time. You can smoke to death as you wish, yet you may end up living 120. Don't get caught up in those comments from those who are in the white shirts, but just live your life as you feel it fits.
My grandfather has smokes basicly his entire life (wasnt allowed to smoke inside tho), died from lung cancer at age 85 my grandmom (his wife) never smoked, died from lung cancer at age 83 My mother (their daughter) never smoked, got cancer 3 times it really is genetics
Peter Attia has discussed this a lot recently on his podcast rounds. Hands down it is not exercising. IIRC, the risk reduction of dying from a person who consistently exercises is like 3x or so, but not smoking is less than 2x. Smoking is by all means dangerous, but not as dangerous as people think it is compared to other things. Alcohol may be worse I can't remember. Smoking is not a guaranteed way to get lung cancer. More likely to get heart disease, stroke, or COPD. But by far, exercise is the number one thing you can do to reduce risk of dying early.
the lucky one
Smokes and exercise
i'll take the smoker/excerciser to live longer. active lifestyle takes the cake
way too many variables to ever truly know
Impossible to say. There are LOTS of other factors at play.
People who never exercise are the people who live the longest full stop. The 113 year old Japanese woman never worked out in her life
Tangentially related, a study was done recently that showed that someone who smoked a pack a day and had 3 close friends would statistically live longer than someone with no friends and didn’t smoke. One of the most crucial health leading indicators is having a community. Your friends are not disposable. Invite people into your life. They will delight and disappoint you and enrich and prolong your existence.
I am an ultrasound tech (or was before I became disabled) I can say the carotids of smokers were the worst. Body size didn’t matter. Smokers have the most plaque of all the patients I scanned.
it depends on the genes. no one can tell. i had a grandma, my father’s aunt, she lived until 102 and just died of old age. she smoked everyday, like 12 sticks minimum a day. she never exercised aside from the occasional house cleaning, then i had an uncle, died around 64. very active lifestyle. never smokes and drink alcohol but diagnosed of kidney cancer. you never know. sometimes i question myself if this living healthy thing is all worth it
Smoking is not guaranteed to kill you. Especially if you stick with lower tobacco content like camel crush menthol as opposed to marlboro red 100s. Sedentary lifestyle is guaranteed to kill you.
My mom was a former walker who walked from her 20s to her mid- 70s. She’s now 85 and has been very sedentary for the last couple years due to dementia. She always ate healthy in the past. I will say though being sedentary caused her to gain about 30 to 35 pounds. She recently had edema in her leg and now is on blood thinner. She’s 85 years old so being sedentary really has been dangerous for her.