Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Working over 55 hours a week associated with higher risk of stroke, heart attack

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–179 of 179 posts

Re: Working over 55 hours a week associated with higher risk of stroke, heart attack

#171

Post by onion2k »

tekknik wrote: post #167
onion2k wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe that had an impact, but maybe it didn't. We don't know. Taking a single data point and extrapolating from it ("Carpentry is safer than desk work because look at my grandfather") isn't useful.

Maybe? Most likely. Easily, heat is problematic for heart health. then there’s enjoyment. perhaps his grandfather enjoyed working in a woodshop. someone laying siding is likely just making ends meet.

The problem lies in the assumption that work you enjoy is better for your health than work you don't enjoy. I question that assumption. They're both work, they both take the same toll on your body, but one releases a neurotransmitter to tell you it's fun. Why would that difference make it healthier?

Re: Working over 55 hours a week associated with higher risk of stroke, heart attack

#172

Post by cableshaft »

leipert wrote: post #17

The Japanese even have a word for it: Karoshi. > which can be translated literally as "overwork death", […] The most common medical causes of karoshi deaths are heart attacks or strokes due to stress and a starvation diet. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoshi

There's even games about the concept: https://www.karoshigame.com/

Re: Working over 55 hours a week associated with higher risk of stroke, heart attack

#173

Post by pintxo »

marvin wrote: post #146
lmarcos wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. A bit off topic: living in a foreign country allows you to progressively discover those little differences in comparison to your own country: the way people say good morning, the way people wait (or not) for the light to turn green, paper bags or plastic ones for grocery shopping?... I find those popular places (e.g., Yosemite, Eiffel tower, etc.) to be the less interesting parts of foreign countries. But sure…

Not to mention cultural differences that are so ingrained that it’s hard to imagine people could consider things differently. It’s become clear to me after visiting other (Western!) cultures that many things, e.g. political views that are as obvious as gravity here, are considered both incorrect and weird elsewhere. It makes it easier to consider problems with impartial eyes once you’ve seen immovable truths challeng…

For me this is a prime reason why we need to solve air travels climate problem. To develop our societies forward we need to engage with each other in person, for prolonged times. To be able to better understand the world we live in and to learn from each other.

Re: Working over 55 hours a week associated with higher risk of stroke, heart attack

#174

Post by meheleventyone »

alphabetatheta wrote: post #170
meheleventyone wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, the heart attack itself was caused by a thrombosis that fully blocked the left coronary artery. It actually came on whilst I was doing my morning swim. Results wise I got lucky and got fixed with a stent early enough that there doesn’t seem to be any (noticeable) damage to the heart. Right now the doctors don’t know precisely why I got this clot. Other than having it I’m in good health with no signs of chronic…

Your father having a mini stroke at a very young age does sound to be like a pretty important risk factor. Family history is super important in these situations.

Definitely my point was rather that after investigation there is still no clear answer as to what caused the clot and/or what that familial problem would be. After all familial risk is going to be inherited or through a shared environmental hazard.

Re: Working over 55 hours a week associated with higher risk of stroke, heart attack

#175

Post by freddie_mercury »

dcolkitt wrote: post #84
freddie_mercury wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the good old "my anecdote trumps science" post on Hacker News. If this happens on Hacker News, no wonder the rest of the world is even worse. "Two systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the latest evidence were conducted for this study. Data from 37 studies on ischemic heart disease covering more than 768 000 participants and 22 studies on stroke covering more than 839 000 participants were synthesized. The…

I think you’re confusing the map for the territory. The study pooled all workers together, but that doesn’t invalidate the hypothesis that certain types of workers were more affected. Unless the study explicitly broke out the purported subdivision, we can’t say for sure. For example imagine 50% of workers are office workers. And say heart attack risk is twice as high for overworked office workers but 10% less for non…

I'm not sure what's the point of coming up with farfetched theoreticals disconnected from the actual study when it is transparently obvious the OP was just reacting to a headline with a preconceived notion.

They found the biggest effects in Southeast Asia. I live in Southeast Asia. If you think office workers make up a significant part of workers in Southeast Asia....That's just not a "let's assume" I'm going to join you with.

If you think office workers are the cause then do the hard work of actually looking at the data and use that to make your case.

Re: Working over 55 hours a week associated with higher risk of stroke, heart attack

#176

Post by agumonkey »

marcosdumay wrote: post #143
onion2k wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if that's true. A good job is still a job. If you enjoy it and that leads to you spending more time working because it's "fun", it's not hard to imagine that good job could actually lead you to die younger than a job you dislike and only work the minimum amount possible at. That's not to mention the fact that you might also sacrifice more time commuting, lower salary, and less benefits for the sake of a "goo…

Job or not, humans spend all of their waken hours doing something. It may be that the name we give to those things is enough to make them harmful, but I do find that very unlikely. If it's not calling it a "job" that makes it stressful, then it must be some properties, and it's pretty much possible that some jobs lack those properties.

I also wonder a lot how daily life (aka what 'modern' society call work) felt like in a group. It seems that in smaller places (villages, tribes) you're linked to everybody, your efforts are giving visible benefits to people you know, it's to make the group thrive. Maybe more motivating than an abstract duty for some big corp in a large field.

Re: Working over 55 hours a week associated with higher risk of stroke, heart attack

#177

Post by tekknik »

onion2k wrote: post #171
tekknik wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe? Most likely. Easily, heat is problematic for heart health. then there’s enjoyment. perhaps his grandfather enjoyed working in a woodshop. someone laying siding is likely just making ends meet.

The problem lies in the assumption that work you enjoy is better for your health than work you don't enjoy. I question that assumption. They're both work, they both take the same toll on your body, but one releases a neurotransmitter to tell you it's fun. Why would that difference make it healthier?

For the same reason laughing helps you live longer. Walking around constantly miserable does take a toll on your body.

Re: Working over 55 hours a week associated with higher risk of stroke, heart attack

#178

Post by lmarcos »

JohnPrine wrote: post #87
lmarcos wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. A bit off topic: living in a foreign country allows you to progressively discover those little differences in comparison to your own country: the way people say good morning, the way people wait (or not) for the light to turn green, paper bags or plastic ones for grocery shopping?... I find those popular places (e.g., Yosemite, Eiffel tower, etc.) to be the less interesting parts of foreign countries. But sure…

I find it hard to believe that anyone could visit Yosemite and not find it to be one of the best parts of the USA

It's indeed beautiful... But that sensation only lasts a few hours (in my limited experience), whereas living the mundane lasts a few years.

Re: Working over 55 hours a week associated with higher risk of stroke, heart attack

#179

Post by WhompingWindows »

throwaway8581 wrote: post #149
WhompingWindows wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent comment shoots from the hip, though. He has one anecdotal case of a more active career living to 92, then he postulates his inactive career will lead him to an extremely early death (60 is young in modern economies). That's just not the depth of discussion HN is designed for, does this ignite curiosity or push the discussion further?

Yes, it does. This is exactly how you pick holes at research. What factors didn't it look at? That helps us understand the limits of what we can deduce from the data. Can we think of an intuitive story about why those factors might have a causal relationship to the thing being measured? If so, we have especially good reason to be skeptical of any conclusions from the study that don't address that possible explanation…

Science works that way in the minds of scientists, whose vast experience gives them dozens of actual data studies they've read to speculate from. Researchers have read about thousands of cases, they're the ones with the refined intuition, not forum readers.

Specifically: Is it productive for HN users to have anecdotal evidence rise to the top, or actual peer-reviewed evidence from studies with N=100 or N=10,000? I'd argue if layman HN users have time to read only one comment, we should upvote the N>1 comments, not N=1.

From the guidelines: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

We went from an international article (N=745k) to anecdata, which is a downgrade of substance in my view.

Post reply on HN