If You Have to Walk Outside to Smoke, Does the Exercise Benefit Counteract the Smoking?

A reader named Aras Gaure, who identifies himself as a trainee with the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Pretoria, South Africa, writes to us:

At my workplace, smoking is prohibited –- as in a substantial number of other indoor workplaces. In order for me to have a smoke, I have to walk about 10 meters, get down 2 flights of stairs (a total of nineteen steps), and then walk 15 meters to the nearest terrace. In one workday, I have about 4-5 cigarettes, which means I cover a distance of about 200-250 meters and between 144 and 180 steps every day with regard to my smoking. Many people obviously smoke more and have to cover an even greater distance in order to have a cigarette. As a result of continuous bans on smoking around the world, people (who don’t quit) in many cases have to go through physical exertion numerous times a day to have a smoke. My question is whether or not this (in any sense or form) can be considered beneficial (especially for people who otherwise wouldn’t get this exercise)?

An interesting question but my sense is that the amount of exercise Aras describes — or even 5x that amount — is so minimal that it wouldn’t come close to offsetting the downsides of smoking. There are certain reported “health benefits of smoking,” including weight loss, but even for someone who likes finding counterintuitive trends, I have a hard time buying Aras’s wishful thinking. Am I wrong?


Nanno

There is one benefit you gain, 4-5 times a day an extra 5 minute break.
Recent surveys have shown that non-smoking employees actually resent their smoking colleagues for those breaks.
furthermore, there are several (especially telemarketing) companies who have calculated the extra costs of a smoking employee. I think it was about € 11,000 a year per smoker.

Nanno

For all dutch people (although a South-African might understand it), herewith a program by the public broadcasting (Publieke Omroep, KRO) which calculates the cost and benefits of smokers in the Netherlands.

http://www.derekenkamer.kro.nl/seizoenen/2011/afleveringen/04-03-2011/

Bill

This question illustrates The power of rationalization at its finest I think. Maybe the extra walking required after a DUI that an alcoholic may get will help offset the liver failure/cancer that will likely occur if they don't stop drinking.

Maybe the extra energy and therefore activity you get from abusing amphetamines will offset the need for a new nose, ruined teeth, and heart problems an abuser will get.

Maybe the fact that people who abuse depressants (other than alcohol) don't leave the basement as much means they are less likely to break their leg in a skiing accident or get hit by a car crossing the street.

Jim

As long as "rationalization", as you've used the term, means the idea of coming up with a hypothesis, testing it, and reporting the results for peer review.

"[N]on-smokers live longer than smokers, and thus ... the health care costs of non-smokers during the 'extra' years of their lives (compared to smokers) balance, at least to some extent, the higher costs smokers experience during each of their (fewer) years of life… "

[S]tudies ... indicate that the net costs of smoking—the costs of treating smoking related illness minus the additional expenditures on non-smokers because they live longer—are small or non-existent."

Journal of Tobacco Control, 2000
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1748316/pdf/v009p00078.pdf

Enter your name

With kids, if you have them run around a lot as part of a sports program, they balance it by moving less the rest of the day. The same might be true with adult smokers, especially if they are consciously aware of this "extra" exercise.

Ahmed Zghari

Walking as exercise is only beneficial if you up the rate to get the heart moving faster and for a sustained period of time. Plenty of research on this and the Healthy People 2020 guidelines (healthypeople.gov) recommend walking as an obtainable goal to better health.

If you walked briskly for 20 minutes, at least three times a week, and smoked you may become physically healthier, but the lungs would become congested with smoke particles - you would have to walk briskly for 30 minutes, five to 10 times a week to counter the effects of this problem.

I would suggest drawing an exercise track, in chalk, around the buildings you frequently use to smoke around. Create some sort of routine to associate smoking with brisk walking to get into the habit (no pun intended) and smoke the cigarette over a 30 minute period (this may require two cigarettes) as a marker for when time is up to stop walking.

Three cigarette breaks a day during working hours, 30 minutes each interval, may require some downward renegotiations of pay and benefits.

The downside is that smoking will likely cause cancer at any rate, but the heart may suffer less than a typical smoker.

Best of luck.

Read more...

Eric M. Jones

I have to respect an old CEO I knew who published a policy of not hiring a smoker if a non-smoker is available to fill the job. Then they hired a sociopath, then fired him and hired a crackhead. But neither smoked cigarettes.

Nicotine by itself in the bloodstream is indistinguishable from cocaine. One experienced user in a study said that nicotine felt like cocaine injected by very dirty works. It works on the same brain receptors too. Ref (to get you started): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/270575.stm

Health benefits? I am in favor of making drug addictions (like smoking) a medical, not a legal issue. I am in favor of legalizing Marijuana.

But I wouldn't hire a tobacco smoker if I could avoid it--or any other drug addict.

Nanno

The study you referred to compared nicotine and cocaine in the same doses. But I think you'd agree that smoking a (or even a couple a day) cigarette and snorting cocaine isn't nearly the same.

Andreas Moser

He could walk the same distance to eat an apple outside of his office.

Dan

One thing that I've always wondered is if people who smoke actually get more out of a smaller amount of cardiovascular exercise. For example, right now I don't smoke, and consider my lungs to be in pretty decent shape. I get a good workout from running 4-6 miles. However, when I did smoke, I would get completely winded after 2-3 miles, and would actually "feel" the workout more than I do now. Is this another sort of perverse benefit of smoking? Namely, are the returns to exercise are greater for smokers than for non-smokers?

Nanno

You should make a tell-sell commercial: Do you also hate having to run for 5 miles before you get tired?

Then we have the solution for YOU!! If you smoke one of our amazing packs a day you will be exhausted before you know it!

Dan

Haha, the funny thing is that if there's any truth to what I suggested (and even if there isn't), it would have been a plausible advertising strategy for cigarettes 30-40 years ago. I wonder what industries/products were hit hardest by the ban on cigarette advertising? I think the ban went into effect in the early 70s, but not sure.

KevinM

Aside from being a massive exercise in rationalization, this takes too far what can be a useful form of reductionism in statistical analysis First, it aggregates incommensurable quantities under the general heading of "good for you." It's nearly as valid to ask whether the danger of reading while driving is offset by the learning experience. This is not really a meaningful question unless walking inhibits lung cancer and emphysema. Second, this is not really a meaningful question unless you wouldn't or couldn't take a walk without having a smoke as well. As they used to say on college exams: if not, why not?

Joshua Northey

You are burning very very little extra. Lets say you are actually in the process of going up or down the stairs, 4 minutes a day?

That is probably 30 calories +/-
The walking is probably around another 30 calories +/-

So that is about 4 minutes of hard pedaling on a bike, or maybe one 45 second shift of ice hockey.

Do you think 4 minutes of hard pedaling on a bike a day is going to make up for the damage you are doing to your lungs? Didn't think so.

Smoking is terrible for you. Chew on toothpicks and live an extra 5 or 10 years.

James

You know, I would find it almost inconceivable that anyone could describe walking 200-250 meters a day (broken into short segments at that!) as exercise, if I didn't see the same mentality, and the same "exercise" levels, at work in most of the studies that purport to show that exercise doesn't reduce weight.

MaryB

Most exercise/health studies seem to conclude that you live about a minute longer for every minute you exercise. Smoking generally costs you about 7 years.

Thomas doyle

Another question,as an non smoker at what age should I take up smoking as at some stage the advantage of weight loss and appitite suppression overcomes the cancer risks which do take a few decades or so?

Henry Lahore

Also, a potential huge health benefit by getting Vitamin D
http://www.vitamindwiki.com

Shane

Or just put the toilets in another building!

Eric M. Jones.

Nanno says:

"The study you referred to compared nicotine and cocaine in the same doses. But I think you’d agree that smoking a (or even a couple a day) cigarette and snorting cocaine isn’t nearly the same."

No, I would not agree. Dosages of either are highly variable. Who do you know who smokes two cigarettes a day? The point I was trying to make (and the study made well) is that nicotine is not an inconsequential drug.

Ulysses

I don't see how smokers cost companies anything in terms of productivity. No company I know of allows people to perform at a lower level due to leisurely addictions. If you're an exempt/salaried employee, you're simply measured on getting your work done, and in the course of doing that you may not be working every moment of the day, whether you smoke or not. Sometimes you're late getting in, sometimes late to leave, the workload may vary quite a bit throughout the year, etc.

And for every hourly job I've ever had, I was given an amount of time to use on lunch or portion out in breaks howsoever I chose. Those who didn't smoke usually took hour-long lunches. Those of us who did smoke took a mid-morning and mid-afternoon break for 15 minutes a piece, and took a shorter lunch.

kervens

I mean since they said smoking is bad for the liver i think it's a good excercise for them.. Most of the smokers o have known so far don't even workout..

http://investmentyour.com

paul o.

In U.S., average telemarketing salary is $33,000 per year. So that means a telemarketing smoker doesn't cost their company $11,000 euro or approx $20k per year. Telemarketing companies are modern day sweatshops and they know how much their employees work daily to the second. Employees who smoke still have to meet their minimum requirements for manning the phones or they are disciplined and fired.

This isn't to say that other industries don't lose productivity due to employees who smoke.

Nathan Whitehead

There could be something to it, because of the bad effects of sitting versus standing. If you're standing smoking you're not sitting on your butt. Reducing the time spent sitting has a surprisingly big effect on health based on a bunch of studies.

Dave

The health benefits of such a small amount of exercise are minute - but the impact of a single cigarette is pretty damn small too. Parity? Possibly.

manixter

Unfortunately, short bursts do not "count" as cardiovascular exercise. Even looking at meter readers and postmen, who walk all day (but only in short bursts). It seems that one needs to "get the blood moving". Short answer: probably not. Even taking the smoking part out of the equation.
Now, if they had to walk up 10 flights of stairs to the roof, that might be another question.