That's Fit

I don't use Twitter, but I've heard it's pretty addictive. You know what else is addictive? Cigarettes. So some smart person put two and two together and created Qwitter, a Twitter-powered social networking service for people who are trying to quit smoking.

Qwitter does a few things for its users. It tracks the number of cigarettes smoked per day, and provides a place where those who are giving up smoking can turn to to track their progress and share the process with other quitters. They've also provided a few "qwit tips" for newcomers to look over before they get started.

So if micro-blogging and social networking are your thing, and you believe it's time to ditch the cigarettes for good, take a look at Qwitter and see if it could be a part of your support system.

Quite a few years ago I wrote an article regarding the concept that 3 servings of low-fat dairy a day could help you lose weight. Then it was uncovered that the sponsor of the original study had ties to the dairy industry. Hmmm... makes you pause and think about how unbiased the study was, doesn't it? It's unfortunately the case with a lot of studies. Research is time consuming and expensive, so financial backing is necessary. Often, the finances come from an organization with a vested interest in the result. Any researcher worth his or her salt will perform an unbiased and accurate study regardless of the sponsor, however. And, if the sponsor wants accurate results, they should demand nothing less. Sometimes, however, the sponsorship of a study makes people question the results.

Such is the case with a 2006 study that determined lung scans might help save smokers from cancer. Big tobacco indirectly financed the study by making sizable donations (to the tune of 3.6 million) to a foundation that was listed as a sponsor of the study. Researchers properly revealed the study sponsors, but the indirect connection to big tobacco wasn't revealed. At this point, there is no indication that the study's findings are in any way tainted.

Newsflash: smoking is bad for your health. Okay so everyone knew that already, but until now the carcinogenic effect of cigarette smoke on lungs was not completely understood. Scientists knew the smoke caused cancer due to toxins, but how?

Now they've tracked it down to hydrogen peroxide contained in the cigarettes. By exposing human lung cells to cigarette smoke and hydrogen peroxide independently, they found the same cancerous development after a couple of days. Don't worry, this was done in a lab so nobody was sucking down peroxide for test results.

At any rate, the cells which were not exposed to anything were naturally clear of all signs. The connection has been made, so now companies can start making "safer" cigarettes without the chemical which they know causes cancer. Since they figured out exactly what triggers it, this could also lead to better treatment options!

I wrote in November that The View co-host Whoopi Goldberg was kicking butts. Tired of her smoking habit, she vowed to rid herself of cigarettes by December 15. So how's she doing? I found out today while watching Whoopi and crew interview Law & Order star S. Epatha Merkerson, herself a cold-turkey quitter after 23 years of smoking.

Whoopi is smoking one cigarette a day, she reports. She didn't meet her targeted end date, but what do you think? Poor performance? Or pretty good progress?

Whoopi is still determined to kick butts once and for all. Actress Merkerson's advice to her: Drink lots of water. Whoopi, who says she is plenty dehydrated, was thankful for the words of wisdom.

During high school, I remember hearing kids say they would rather smoke marijuana than cigarettes because they considered pot "more natural." Apparently they thought a Native American peace pipe was comparable to a bong. At any rate, anyone smoking pot under this notion is in for a surprise. New studies indicate that smoking marijuana is much worse.

In fact, someone would have to smoke twenty cigarettes to get the equivalent damage that a single joint would cause. A team of researchers found out that individuals who smoke cannabis have five times the amount of carbon monoxide in their blood compared to those lighting up tobacco!

Not only that, but the concentration of carcinogens is significantly greater in weed as well. Because of this, research indicates marijuana damages the airways more than traditional cigarettes. These may come across as a bunch of reasons to ditch smoking weed as a deviant practice, but what about patients using medicinal marijuana? As we all know, pot in a controlled medical application sparks a lot of conversation. However, given these reasons, doctors may need to reconsider this treatment.

Should people be able to sue tobacco companies for unfair and deceptive advertising regarding "low tar," "ultra light" or "mild" cigarettes? That's the question Supreme Court justices will have to address soon. Three Maine residents filed suit for misleading them on cigarettes which were supposed to have lower tar and nicotine. The original case was thrown out, but the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals brought it back to life.

Now cigarette makers want the Supreme Court to put a stop to lawsuits like this. The court will have to decide whether or not claims about advertising can be used against the tobacco industry. After using these so-called light smokes for 15 years, the Maine plaintiffs allege Philip Morris and Altria Group had research showing that people smoking "low tar" cigarettes had to inhale more to get the same effect as regular cigarettes.

Of course, this isn't the first time a similar disagreement was thrown out of court. But appeals have a way of dragging on, so it will be some time before this is settled. It's hard to point fingers when someone knowingly puts toxic chemicals in their body for a decade and a half. Should tobacco companies be liable? That's something for the court to decide.

Have fitness questions? Fitz has your answer. Our ThatsFit.com fitness expert -- and now your own virtual personal trainer -- will help you get fit, increase your overall health and do it in a fun way. Drop your questions here in the Comments section below and we'll choose two per week to publish on That's Fit! Learn more about Fitz here.

Q. Ms. Fitzness, I stopped smoking five months ago and have put on about 1.5 stones (21 pounds)! When is the best time to try and diet? I don't want to try and do too many things at once. I exercise regularly as I have my own horse and am always out and about. Thanks in advance, Lisa

A. Hey Lisa. Congratulations on your success getting rid of smoking! Smoking is one of the absolute worst things one can do to themselves, and your decision to quit is one of the best. Hooray! I'm literally doing a little 'happy dance' here at my laptop for you.

Now for your question about when you should begin dieting. Easy answer. NEVER! Never diet, lady! Diets are temporary behavioral changes that only lead to temporary results. Screw that! You are in this for the long term, sister, and no diet can last forever. What to do then? Gradually become more and more deliberate about what you put in your mouth. Seek out low fat, low calorie, high nutrition type food. Before you decide on any meal or snack, ask your self which would be the healthiest choice. Trade french fries for a baked sweet potato. Choose grilled poultry or fish over hamburgers. Find some calorie free beverages you enjoy as well.

If you think smoking is dangerous, you're right. Are there safe alternatives? I know a score of folks who have shifted to smokeless tobacco (not the best alternative) and just plain chewing gum. What about some kind of smoking tobacco alternative?

Like...a hookah? This device, which looks like some kid of medieval bong of sorts, is used with flavored tobacco and water as the "in" thing among some college students. However, a downside: a new report claims that just an hour of leisure hookah smoke exposure packs as much carbon monoxide as a pack-a-day cigarette habit. Yikes.

Although the report only looked at carbon monoxide exposure, that fact alone is a reason to steer clear of hookahs if you indeed use them. Carbon monoxide is an item you really, really don't want to voluntarily expose yourself to in any form.

Global smoking bans continue to increase at what could be considered an alarming rate. Since 2007, many cities (and some states) in the U.S. have outlawed smoking in public places and many European countries have joined the globally health-conscious in banning smoking as well. Germany and France saw bans go into effect just a few days ago with the arrival of 2008.

But, it's odd to see a smoking ban come to a country that actually produces quite a bit of tobacco. Hint: Turkish Blend.

That's right -- Turkey's Parliament enacted a law this past week that extended a smoking ban to all bars, restaurants and coffeehouses by mid-2009. Well, that's 18 months away and everything, but it attests to the power of many governments to try and increase the health (and decrease cancer and emphysema deaths) of their citizens by not allowing public smoking.

Research just released out of Sweden found that babies who were exposed to secondhand smoke in early infancy were twice as likely to develop allergies (maybe even more than one).

Is this a surprise? Tobacco smoke -- and especially smoke from commercial tobacco products -- is toxic and breathing it directly (including secondhand smoke) is dangerous to human health. But exposing small children to this? Let's say it together: Abhorrent.

The research demonstrated that kids with early exposure to secondhand smoke were 50 percent more likely to be allergic to certain foods. Suggestion: don't smoke where kids can breathe in those fumes and smoke.

Are you a smoker? If so, the current crackdown on global smoking and its ban in many cities around the world may have you concerned. To those that support public smoking out of a "freedom"argument, is that really the reason behind such a rash of smoking bans from Europe to the U.S.?

Keeping smoke away from the health-conscious is the reason for smoking bans in public. Those non-smokers don't want to be near or breathe toxic fumes anywhere in public where people congregate. Think smoking bans are trampling on your rights?

Both of those perspectives are completely valid; however, the freedom from smoke in public is just as important as the freedom to smoke in public, right? Where do you stand?

What are the best ways to discourage smoking? That question sometimes invites excited conversation when I ask it, but a new study from international tobacco control researchers has an answer.

The most effective: graphic warning labels on packages, bans on cigarette advertising and increasing cigarette prices are some of the most effective ways to curb smoking.

An ineffective approach: mandating tar and nicotine levels in cigarettes, which is a weak approach to begin with since it's mostly passive.

I what could be considered a stunning move, one of the world's largest tobacco companies has said that it will no longer advertise its various brands in newspapers or magazines starting in 2008.

The cigarette industry is dying a slow death (much like it gives many of its consumers) due to a growing anti-smoking contingent worldwide among consumers and governments alike. Good riddance, I say. But for RJR to pull all newspaper and magazine ads is surprising. Power to the intense pressure Congress members and informed consumer groups!

I'm not sure how tobacco marketing executives live with themselves, but in light of this news, possible career moves may be in order for some of them. How about marketing for Budweiser?

Heh.

Here's a bit of an oxymoron: a smoker who's concerned about putting too many chemicals in their body. But apparently they are out there and they're interested in getting their cigarettes in all-natural, organic, and animal-cruelty-free style. The brand "Natural American Spirit" promises all that, and some are calling it marketing genius.

I think it sounds more like an experimental last-ditch-effort to save the dying tobacco industry, but you can't really blame them for trying. Just don't fool yourself: smoking is smoking.


Via Green Daily

A U.S. study this week found that giving smokers cigarettes with decreasing amounts of nicotine -- over time -- made it easier for them to curb their nicotine addiction.

As with all drugs, gradual declines are better for most than a "cold turkey" approach of rapid cessation.

Would you be willing to try smoking cigarettes with a gradual lowering of nicotine levels if it meant the pain of quitting was lessened quite a bit? To many smokers, that would be a welcome way to try and stop quitting.