As there was a news report this week which stated as its headline that "vaping could be as bad for your heart as smoking".... We ask how true is this? Should we be questioning more how the data is collected?

A rather damning report appeared on the ITN News website this week following the publication of a new study which was carried out at the University of Athens Medical School. The report which was also published to in the Daily Telegraph warns that "vaping could be as bad for your heart as smoking".

Twenty four adults with a median age of 30 took part in the Greek study whose aim was to look into the immediate effects on the body of vaping compared to smoking. 

Im all for research and knowing the facts. Im all for vaping being made a safe as it can be. And I know it is early days. There may well be some surprises one day.

What science tells us may not change our behaviour. We know that. After all as a smoker we became addicts and we kept doing what was harmful to us and those around us despite all of evidence we have of the damage it can do to us

In this experiment, a 'typical' vaping session was set at 30 minutes as opposed to only 5 minutes of smoking traditional tobacco. The 25 minute difference in exposure explained as being due to the fact that using an eCig nicotine is delivered much more than when smoking a cigarette. 

This information providing one with an understanding that the study used blood nicotine saturation as the baseline the study and measured results only when each subject had attained the same (or similar) blood nicotine levels.

Using the collected evidence the study lead by Prof. Charalambos Vlachopoulos concluded that "vaping can cause a similar amount of damage to the main artery in the heart as does the smoking of traditional cigarettes" with Prof. Vlachopoulos stating that "while the long-term effects of vaping were still unknown" he would "not recommend the use of electronic cigarettes" This was accompanied in the news article with a warning that the UK had "rushed into" championing vaping as a method to help give up smoking".

On the flip side however, the article balances these dire warnings with the news that the U.K is continuing to back vaping as a healthier alternative to smoking with Rosanna O'Connor who is Director of Alcohol, Drugs & Tobacco within the Health and Wellbeing Directorate of Public Health England reported as saying that "vaping carries a fraction of the risk of smoking" adding that "many smokers are still not aware [of this] which could be keeping people smoking rather than switching to a much less harmful alternative."

These are wildly opposing views. Who are we to believe?

I must confess I've been thinking (perhaps a little too deeply) about this study since reading those articles this week. In particular I keep coming back to that 30 minutes of vaping that was set for participants of the study.  I understand that this is science and one must ensure that the data is as correct and scientifically collated as possible. 

I can appreciate that the study used blood nicotine content as the point as which data was collected and effects observed, though I am not sure why since we know it is not a harmful substance. But perhaps the scientists decided that the vaper would stop vaping when they had attained the same blood nicotine level as they would have if they had continued to smoke? I kind of get their logic. I fear they have never been smokers and are not vapers.

As I think about how I vape, I cant help but wonder how realistic was that vaping session time? 

If  the study had used a different base line - how might that affect or alter its conclusions?

Let's drill it down here....does the average vaper vape for 30 minutes until they achieve the same or similar nicotine levels as when they were smoking a traditional cigarette? Is this the way most people vape?

I think that this study made a fundamental error and an incorrect assumption because I simply don't think we do vape in the same way we used to smoke. 

If the study was based on and produced data using how we actually vape and compared that to data of how we smoked the data results and the findings warning of the affects on our bodies would be different I think and a whole lot more accurate (and the headline would not be so dramatic!)

Compare how you vape now to how you smoked.... can you begin to see where Im going with this?

To make certain my thoughts were meaningful, I've been keeping notes for the last two days and actually I've learned some amazing insights about myself! 

Of course I cannot say for certain that other vapers share my behaviour or vape exactly as I do but my notes have made me even more sceptical both about the way the vaping times were set up in the study and if blood nicotine levels were the right base from where to take data. 

It turns our that though my eCig is my constant companion, always in my hand or at my side, even in my sleep, rather like a pacifier! It would be at the desk, tucked into the side of the chair as I watched TV and would even come to the bathroom with me (hashtag who knew that candles and vaping in the bath is a thing!) 

But here's what I'm getting at; though my eCig was never far away, surprisingly I did very little actual vaping! 

Inhaling would occur once, or perhaps twice during any vaping session. Then my eCig would go back to my side and I carried on about my day. This was shocking to me. I thought I vaped a lot more puffs than that.

So how long did those one or two inhales take? Only a few seconds and certainly not 30 minutes!

Making the study subjects vape for 30 minutes per session in order to attain the same blood nicotine levels as the 5 minute smoker is I think creating false data. 

OK so you might take more puffs than me in a session but come on, we're not vaping for 30 minutes sessions are we? 

That means then that we aren't vaping to achieve the same blood nicotine content as a smoker or as we did when we smoked.

Think about that in tandem with the way the study was set up.

If we all are satisfied within a few puffs and we take what we already know about nicotine delivery being so much slower using an eCig this tells us that what the subjects in the experiment were being made to do and the measurements and data collected was not realistic or true to life. 

How we vape and how we smoked is very different. 

Any research and information we are given has to be based on how we use these devices and to falsify that use can only lead to false information.

The cigarette smoker: Having lit up the smoker will fully smoke that cigarette, dragging and inhaling right down to the butt.

They will do this even though their nicotine cravings were satisfied after the first one or two puffs. But a smoker will finish that entire cigarette.

Why? Well that cigarette cost the smoker a lot of money and we're taught not to waste money from a very young age. We may not have enough as it is so we will make the most of that entire smoke and will not allow our hard earned to go to waste.

And as they do this they are extending their exposure to damaging tobacco smoke and yes, it is usually around 6 minutes per smoking session.

The vaper on the other hand has no such compulsion nor the need to keep going in order to avoid waste because their device is always ready, wont turn to ash and is not disposed of.

The vaper quickly learns to stop vaping when they are satisfied.Thus when the nicotine hit required is achieved (in one or two puffs) it is put aside for use again later. 

There is so much less risk from eliquid vapour from the outset. 

But also the exposure to any harmful substances or affects of inhalation that might be there are are also minimised because the vaper uses their eCig so much less and does not keep going when he/she does not need to.

With these thoughts in mind if the vaping population does tend to vape in a similar way to me, then not only were the study subjects made to vape more than was/is normal and any data that is then drawn from these subjects is not realistic to how we use these devices.

I am not suggesting the science itself is incorrect only the way the experiment was carried out.

I wonder had the study used natural user data how different the conclusions and headlines have been?