Allen Carr's easy way to stop smoking

[Ginger Rogers]

I just bought this book.
I'm not sure what I think, but I do think it might work! Has anyone else heard of it/ read it/ attended a clinic?

It reminds me of Paul Mckenna stuff.

[Jocky]

Yes, I've read it - it was a long time ago I gave up smoking (15 years now), but I bought the book and I remember finding it quite helpful at the time. I didn't go to any of his clinics or anything though.

IIRC, he had a refreshingly straightforward style. I don't remember it as feeling like hypnosis - but then I wasn't at all into critical thinking at the time and there may well be nuances in it which I missed.

The bit which has stayed with me ever since is his thesis that you mustn't think of it as "giving up" - there is nothing worth having in smoking to give up, only something undesirable to stop and then lots of things to gain. He also gave an effective layman's explanation of what addiction is all about, which certainly struck a chord in me.

He also suggested stashing the money you would have spent of fags each week, and buying yourself other treats with it. I did this, and remember being very impressed with the amount of money which I accumulated over the course of a few months!

I wouldn't give Allen Carr sole credit for my personal victory over tobacco, though. At the time I was trying to impress a young lady who was a non-smoker (successfully as it turned out 8) ), so I had a powerful incentive of the kind you can't buy from Waterstone's.

So, it helped me. OTOH, I passed the book on to my sister, but it did nothing for her. All these years later, and she's still on about 30 a day

Ginger - very best wishes if you decide to try and quit smoking. It is soooo worth it! :)

IMNSHO, if a person doesn't really, really want to stop, deep in their heart of hearts, then no book in the world is going to convince them to do so. If you do really want to stop, then this book might help to get you through the bad times. Encouragement from friends is important too

[Zendal Darkman]

I gave up smoking while reading the book. Quite a few people at my work claimed it helped them give up, but not one was able to say how!!!!

I read that Mr Carr is in quite a bad way while fighting lung cancer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5229048.stm

[kath23]

I read it and tried it- the books' very long :o

I think you just have to remember 'don't give up giving up' eventually one of your attempts to give up will succeed. Most people try many times before their successful attempt.

I just used the patches and gum at the same time when I finally give up almost 3 years ago :)

What a shame he's poorly despite having given up for decades

[Mongrel]

I gave up smoking while reading the book. Quite a few people at my work claimed it helped them give up, but not one was able to say how!!!!

I read that Mr Carr is in quite a bad way while fighting lung cancer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5229048.stm

Given how low the success rates for Smoking Cessation (Zyban runs about 18% after one year) the primary method of giving up is still willpower. Different people will find different things that can motivate them to give up; whether it's a book, kid on the way or even magic water drops (in a magic feather way and as long as they don't charge 500 quid for the pleasure). This is one of the few areas where I'm happier with saying - if it works for you, do it.

[Admin]

I've never smoked nor read this book.

My concern with this type of thing, like Paul McKenna's claims, is that people are placing faith in the person (guru figure) to make you quit smoking (or whatever). If you don't manage to give up even with the help of the wonder guru it could quite easily convince the addict that they can never give up. I think that's a real danger - they could actually weaken people's resolve if they fail.

I see these things as the psychological equivalent of medical placebos. They may appear to help some people but are they really any more effective than will power/determination?

I don't know whether any quality research has been done on this type of 'help' but there's bound to be a large dose of confirmation bias in the non-scientific anecdotal accounts.

I used a similar, hypothetical, example to explain confirmation bias.

[Jocky]

I see these things as the psychological equivalent of medical placebos. They may appear to help some people but are they really any more effective than will power/determination?

I'm not sure that there is an exact parallel. In many cases, such placebos are effectively the same thing as "will power/determination".

As you say, determination to stop smoking is the vital ingredient - without that personal commitment, you are unlikely to escape successfully from nicotine (or any other addiction). The vital ingredient is the motivation which engenders and maintains that determination during the cold turkey period (which in the case of nicotine is a very long time :( ).

Everyone has their own recipe for determination. In my case Allen Carr helped, but the most important factors were probably lust and greed I was young then!

I certainly would rather see people being motivated by reading a book which discusses nicotine addiction in a realistic and straightforward manner (as Allen Carr does) than derive it from "magic water drops", or whatever woo source. However, stopping smoking could literally be a matter of life or death, so if magic water drops or regular use of pixie dust does the trick then so be it. I take the point that people could mistakenly derive confirmation bias for pixies from such an experience, but I'm inclined to regard that as the lesser evil in this instance.

I do not recollect Allen Carr claiming anything resembling woo power, nor any kind of guru status (although this is based only on reading the book, I never attended any seminars or anything). IIRC, all he claimed was personal experience of giving up smoking, a useful level of knowledge on the subject of addiction, and good communication skills.

The main tools he used were engendering a positive attitude towards the task, through things like constructive use of language. For instance, while he would certainly agree that determination is required to stop smoking, he would not approve of the phrase 'willpower'. This is because of the implication that smoking is nice and you're forcing yourself to 'give up' a pleasure - if you try to stop with that mindset, you are bound to 'crack' sooner or later. You have to go into it thinking that smoking is revolting, and that you're doing yourself a favour :)

The placebo analogy may hold water if there existed a plausible alternative, say a scientifically verified method of aquiring and maintaining the kind of serious personal commitment required to stop smoking. However given that there is no such method as far as I am aware, psychological crutches of some kind are probably going to be required to help most people in the perilous position of being addicted to smoking. And given the critical thinking pitfalls inherent in magic water and pixie dust, Allen Carr seems to me like a relatively safe alternative.

[Jocky]

STOP PRESS: Allen Carr has died today, losing a long battle with lung cancer.

[kath23]

STOP PRESS: Allen Carr has died today, losing a long battle with lung cancer.

Such a shame

[Atavis]

My concern with this type of thing, like Paul McKenna's claims, is that people are placing faith in the person (guru figure) to make you quit smoking (or whatever).

I have to disagree. Slightly.....

Within reason, we have to value our liberal free-market democratic freedoms. (Well, at least I do - but this isn't a political or philosophical post.)

McKenna and Carr's right to market their name and branded "method" to stop smoking should not be infringed just because many people might become enamoured with the guru's charisma and then feel let down if they fail to quit smoking.

I'm unaware of whether or not Carr identified his techniques as basically a modification of CBT/Reframing (perhaps he was uneducated in these things and just used layman's terms), which seems to be what they are, but McKenna certainly doesn't shy away from promoting 'hypnotherapy' alongside promoting 'Paul McKenna'.

The question is have either of these two ever actually said they're better than other therapists (hypnotherapist or not)? Since I don't think they have I don't see any reason to worry too much about them marketing themselves.

Atavis

[Jocky]

I'm unaware of whether or not Carr identified his techniques as basically a modification of CBT/Reframing (perhaps he was uneducated in these things and just used layman's terms), which seems to be what they are, but McKenna certainly doesn't shy away from promoting 'hypnotherapy' alongside promoting 'Paul McKenna'.

The question is have either of these two ever actually said they're better than other therapists (hypnotherapist or not)? Since I don't think they have I don't see any reason to worry too much about them marketing themselves.

Hi Atavis, and welcome to UKS.

My feeling about Allen Carr (I repeat, based only on reading his book, not on extensive study or personal contact) was that he was uneducated in any existing technique - he was just saying it as he saw it, and in a way which he found to be effective. I do not recall him making any claims for his technique which contradicted known medical science - as I said above, I understood it to be a way of motivating oneself to deal with addiction, and nothing more.

I have no knowledge of McKenna beyond stage hypnotist acts. Were he to be using his fame to make medical claims for hypnotherapy which are not borne out by the evidence, then IMO that would be an abuse of the trust which his audience places in him. I don't know him to have done any such thing, though.

As you say, like it or loathe it we do live in a society where people have the freedom to market themselves and their techniques. If you market your own approach to something, there is bound to be an implicit claim that your way is better than other ways, at least for you and for a significant number of punters. The trick is to distinguish between cases where were that claim is merely a matter of personal opinioon, and where it is a matter of hard science.