Posted in: Health

Smoking Alcohol: Dr. Oz Reveals Dangerous New Weight Loss Trend


With the Jessica Simpson’s of the world having achieved dramatic weight loss through healthy dieting programs such as Weight Watchers, Dr. Oz took to his show on Thursday March 6th to warn viewers of a dangerous new weight loss trend that could lead to serious consequences.

Dubbed “Smoking Alcohol,” this new weight loss trend is a way for women to get drunk without consuming the same amount of calories one would by imbibing alcohol the old fashion way. The dangerous trend also claims zero nasty hangover the next day, another enticing feature.

“You don’t drink the booze — you inhale it, and the vapors give you an instant high,” Dr. Oz said as he introduced the topic on his show. “‘Smoking Alcohol’ promises that you can drink and still lose weight. But experts warn the results could prove deadly.”

Dr. Oz then described how the dangerous trend has gone viral and is even being sold legally in bars across the country, targeted specifically to women as a means for weight loss while still consuming alcohol. “Smoking Alcohol” has lead to several cases of alcohol poisoning as a result and Dr. Oz warns his viewers not use this method to help lose weight.

Dangerous and dramatic weight loss that has been in the news a lot as of late, both for positive and negative reasons. On the one hand you have pop super star Jessica Simpson who achieved her weight loss goal of 70lbs following the birth of her second son Ace last year. As previously reported by Inquisitr, Simpson, now a spokeswoman for Weight Watchers, turned to the dieting program to help shed the unwanted pounds packed on after pregnancy:

“I’m taking it week by week so I don’t get frustrated with myself,” she told ABC News while on the diet program. “If I had a long-term goal, and that’s all I thought about it, I think it would set me back more. So I really, every week, try to make sure I stick with my points and get four workouts in. That’s my goal this week, and I hope that I can lose from that. If not, I’m going to keep on going and try it the next week. So far, so good.”

And from the looks of her latest selfies posted recently online, it appears she has succeeded. But while Jessica took the long, safe road to weight loss, there are many women go the other route as was the case with Biggest Loser winner Rachel Frederickson whose dramatic weight loss caused a shock amongst viewers and on the internet. She too has now regained some of the weight that she lost, but the initial shock of seeing the dramatic difference raised concerns that she took weight loss to a dangerous level, much the way Dr. Oz feels that “Smoking Alcohol” may also cause.

Articles And Offers From The Web


3 Responses to “Smoking Alcohol: Dr. Oz Reveals Dangerous New Weight Loss Trend”

  1. John Davidson

    This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

    Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

    By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

    Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

    What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

    “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

    Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

    The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

    Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.


    A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

    Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

  2. John Davidson

    Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

    This sorta says it all

    These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

    So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''


    All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

    "For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

    "Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    "For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.

    Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

Around The Web