Anyone have any info or articles about lung capacity of former smokers. I'm wondering if there is a point where a former smoker no longer would get winded faster than a non-smoker in otherwise similar health/conditioning. I'm getting suspicious that as a former smoker I've got diminished lung capacity that might never heal. I haven't smoked for about 3 years now, and I've been working out pretty consistantly for that time (an occassional break to recover... or to get over being sick) and I've always made a point of doing fairly intense cardio... and while I'm definitely in a lot better shape than when I started I still feel like I shouldn't get winded as easily as I do. I'm also floating between 243 and 250 lbs and I'm not very lean yet so that might be my only real problem but I'd still like to know if there is any information out there about lung capacity of ex smokers.
-
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
Former Smoker lungs
- Thread starter DanK
- Start date
as long as there is no lung cancer present (anaplasia)...you should be able to get back close to full function of your lungs (since metaplasia is reversible)
of course it will take some time....and also be sure that your cardio is not TOO intense...if your hear rate gets too high you are no longer functioning aerobically (now you are anerobic..."without oxygen")...and this will do little to improve your lung capacity and collateral circulation.
as a general rule if you can carry on a conversation during cardio you are still aerobic...not always the case but a good estimator (a heart monitor is the best way to keep track of this)
of course it will take some time....and also be sure that your cardio is not TOO intense...if your hear rate gets too high you are no longer functioning aerobically (now you are anerobic..."without oxygen")...and this will do little to improve your lung capacity and collateral circulation.
as a general rule if you can carry on a conversation during cardio you are still aerobic...not always the case but a good estimator (a heart monitor is the best way to keep track of this)
No one really knows (and I'll tell you why later) but the general consensus is that lung capacity declines with age more rapidly in smokers than in non smokers. Quitting smoking does little to restore lost lung function ( so this depends on how much and how long you have smoked) however, after quitting, the decline in lung function tend to parallel that of non smokers. In other words, quitting prevents the faster decline in lung function but you probably won't return to pre smoking days just by virtue of the inherent decline in lung function with age.
The reason why noone knows is that no studies have ever looked at a presmoker's lungs and measured their (FEV1) (functional expiratory volume) and let him smoke and then measured them after quittting. This is not an ethical study. The only studies compare smokers with non -smokers (who never smoked) and ex- smokers.
Here is a link to a sample study which looked at that type of breakdown among exsmokers, those actively smoking and those who never smoked. http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/161/4/1264
The surprising thing was that the smokers that continued smoking and exsmokers had similar rates in decline of FEV1 after a five year followup. I take this study with a grain of salt since it was a small study and they did state that the "exsmokers" may have had greater underlying lung disease which prompted them to quite smoking in the first place. Thus, there may have been what's called selection bias by the clinical participants. Other studies show that the rate of decline in FEV1 is slower in ex smokers vs. persistent smokers.
I suspect the answer is how much did you smoke, underlying genetic susceptibility (those with alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiencies develop emphysema with little to no smoking) and your natural lung capacity before smoking.
If there is any reassurance, I see CAT1 bike racers (near pro level) who used to smoke and are more competative than those who never smoked.
.
The reason why noone knows is that no studies have ever looked at a presmoker's lungs and measured their (FEV1) (functional expiratory volume) and let him smoke and then measured them after quittting. This is not an ethical study. The only studies compare smokers with non -smokers (who never smoked) and ex- smokers.
Here is a link to a sample study which looked at that type of breakdown among exsmokers, those actively smoking and those who never smoked. http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/161/4/1264
The surprising thing was that the smokers that continued smoking and exsmokers had similar rates in decline of FEV1 after a five year followup. I take this study with a grain of salt since it was a small study and they did state that the "exsmokers" may have had greater underlying lung disease which prompted them to quite smoking in the first place. Thus, there may have been what's called selection bias by the clinical participants. Other studies show that the rate of decline in FEV1 is slower in ex smokers vs. persistent smokers.
I suspect the answer is how much did you smoke, underlying genetic susceptibility (those with alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiencies develop emphysema with little to no smoking) and your natural lung capacity before smoking.
If there is any reassurance, I see CAT1 bike racers (near pro level) who used to smoke and are more competative than those who never smoked.
.
