11–20 of 50 posts
The reason for this is that I like eating unhealthy food. It tastes great and gives me joy. I don't mind not growing as old as I could when eating more healthy. This is because I wouldn't enjoy my life as much when I would.
Keep in mind, this is a tech community - people that want better living & health advice will seek it out.
TL;DR: guy gets a comment downvoted on HN and responds by accusing the downvoters of having an unhealthy lifestyle. Is there any evidence that the average geek is less healthy than the average person? Here's a link to the comment in question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7763106
So on that assumption, which we grant temporarily, why then should we not expect these smarter people to make smarter lifestyle choices? Should we not expect geeks, in other words, to do better, not just the same as?
Or at the very least, to be armed with the correct information so that, when the time comes to make those choices, he at least recognizes when he is choosing poorly? Of course the real question is: how do we get people (smart people included) to choose wisely? This is the sixty-four thousand dollar questions.
Just to pick on a tiny part of that post, consuming anti-oxidants hasn't been reliably shown to have any health benefits. If consuming anti-oxidants has any effect, it's not necessarily a positive one, since the body uses oxidation for various processes, for example the immune system. You might be consuming anti-oxidants aiming to benefit your health, yet be negatively impacting your immune system's ability to fight…
I hope you're being ironic, because this attitude is exactly what the article is declaiming.
But if your aim is to increase people's health, you're going to do a better job using accurate information.
The initial studies showing anti-oxidants have health benefits have struggled to be replicated, and new studies have shown anti-oxidants may be having negative health impact.
Edit: since a couple of people have asked, here's one fairly good source, there are others if you search. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22419320
Just to pick on a tiny part of that post, consuming anti-oxidants hasn't been reliably shown to have any health benefits. If consuming anti-oxidants has any effect, it's not necessarily a positive one, since the body uses oxidation for various processes, for example the immune system. You might be consuming anti-oxidants aiming to benefit your health, yet be negatively impacting your immune system's ability to fight…
I hope you're being ironic, because this attitude is exactly what the article is declaiming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope you're being ironic, because this attitude is exactly what the article is declaiming.
Nope, not ironic. But if your aim is to increase people's health, you're going to do a better job using accurate information. The initial studies showing anti-oxidants have health benefits have struggled to be replicated, and new studies have shown anti-oxidants may be having negative health impact. Edit: since a couple of people have asked, here's one fairly good source, there are others if you search. http://www.nc…
It's gotten where I don't even click on the comments of any nutrition-related story I see on HN, because the volume of misinformation makes me sad.