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

Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

myticker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 501 posts

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#191

Post by lateforwork »

m_a_g wrote: post #161
lateforwork wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of statin skeptics and for good reasons; see prior discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45430939

> and for good reasons That prior discussion gives no good reasons. The linked medium posts are, to be frank, trash. Statins are well-tolerated drugs with little to no noticeable side effects. You might have to try a few. You may need to combine ezetimibe to maintain a moderate statin dosage level, and that's it. (Like the author of this article) Source: Leading cardiologists worldwide, and doctors of the rich and fa…

> Statins are well-tolerated drugs with little to no noticeable side effects.

Sorry, that's nonsense. It is a dangerous drug with plenty of side effects. If it had no side effects it would be sold over the counter. The brain needs cholesterol to function. If you artificially remove cholesterol this is what happens: https://www.health.harvard.edu/cholesterol/new-findings-on-s...

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#192

Post by gbacon »

jorvi wrote: post #100

The "be an advocate" thing is both true but also incredibly selfish and egotistical. If everyone did that, the whole system would grind to a halt. Doctors aren't in a rush because they enjoy so, they are because they're already overworked. 1 out of every 25 patients (their family) demanding extra attention is possible although still a burden. 21 out of every 25 is not possible.

Behaving like docile, compliant cattle benefits only the farmer.

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#193

Post by swat535 »

dust42 wrote: post #63

Long story short care about your health. If you don't do already, maybe now is a good time to start. What you put into your body: no processed food, cook yourself, lots of variety of veggies and fruits, little meat, little alcohol. What you do with your body: regular exercise, low stress, enough sleep. What you do with your mind: good social environment, good relationships. And an apple a day keeps the doctor away!

Everyone knows the recipe for healthy living, it's the same as for similar issues such as personal finance (spend less than you earn, save, etc.).

They seem simple on the surface but hard part is execution for most people, due to life circumstances and other factors. Unhealthy choices persist because society isn't built around healthy lifestyles.

So while the comment seems helpful on the surface, it misses the forest for the trees.

I think that there needs to be a bigger discussion here, regarding why have we engineered a society that inflicts suffering and illness on so many?

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#194

Post by MPSimmons »

logifail wrote: post #183
Buttons840 wrote: post #58

I am not a statin skeptic--or rather, I don't want to be a statin skeptic. I've done the research and it makes sense to me, but I still feel some social and psychological pressures to reject statins. When I see that it is widely accepted that ApoB is better to measure than LDL-C, but the industry continues to measure LDL-C, but not ApoB, I wonder why. It makes me skeptical. When I see that the purpose of statins is t…

> When I see that the purpose of statins is to reduce plaque buildup in the arteries, and that we have the ability to measure these plaque buildups with scans, but the scans are rarely done, I wonder why. I'd love to know where to get the right advice on this topic. I have high LDL-C, had a heart CT in hospital last week, yet the hospital's cardiologist phoned me yesterday to cancel a scheduled appointment to discuss…

How old are you? I was told that they're not considered diagnostic until somewhat later in life (>50) because the plaque may not have calcified yet, which could cause a false negative.

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#195

Post by adammarples »

Waterluvian wrote: post #155

I’m sensing a potentially significant misallocation of resources. My mental model is that there’s a hypothetical quantification of not just your time and money, but your anxiety, attention bandwidth, mental energy, etc. I think, in some ways, the trick is being able to short circuit the entire journey represented by this website in favour of some form of, “I’m 40. I should be more mindful of heart disease. I should a…

I think the article makes a valid point: stop worrying about 90% of the other stuff and focus on the thing that will almost certainly kill you - heart disease - for which there are easy diagnostic and preventative measures. I think they're arguing for a better allocation of resources, if anything.

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#196

Post by jimmydddd »

Buttons840 wrote: post #58

I am not a statin skeptic--or rather, I don't want to be a statin skeptic. I've done the research and it makes sense to me, but I still feel some social and psychological pressures to reject statins. When I see that it is widely accepted that ApoB is better to measure than LDL-C, but the industry continues to measure LDL-C, but not ApoB, I wonder why. It makes me skeptical. When I see that the purpose of statins is t…

My wife had high cholesterol numbers, so her doctor wanted to give her statins. She asked about a scan, he begrudgingly said well, I guess you could do that. Her scan showed 0 plaque.

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#197

Post by [deleted] »

carbocation wrote: post #56

Key Takeaway: Get a CT or CTA scan, and if you can afford it go for the CTA with Cleerly. There is a reason that we don't recommend getting imaging for everyone, and that reason is uncertainty about the benefit vs the risks (cost, incidentalomas, radiation, etc, all generally minor). Most guidance recommends calcium scoring for people with intermediate risk who prefer to avoid taking statins. This is not a normative…

[deleted]

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#198

Post by OutOfHere »

dawnerd wrote: post #25

Was this written via LLM? There’s a link early on to some ai search tool which kinda made me question the validity of everything mentioned.

Please strictly cease and desist from accusing material of being written by an LLM, whether on this site or on any other site. If you want to criticize the material, do so under the good faith assumption that it is written by a human.

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#199

Post by dawnerd »

OutOfHere wrote: post #198
dawnerd wrote: post #25

Was this written via LLM? There’s a link early on to some ai search tool which kinda made me question the validity of everything mentioned.

Please strictly cease and desist from accusing material of being written by an LLM, whether on this site or on any other site. If you want to criticize the material, do so under the good faith assumption that it is written by a human.

I think it’s absolutely fair to criticize something for potentially being generated via an llm or heavily utilized by such especially when it comes to medial claims.

Reading it I couldn’t help but feel the author relied on ai research tools and is now passing that along to everyone reading as if it’s proven fact. When they link out to an ai search engine that’s not helpful when trying to cite sources.

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#200

Post by in_cahoots »

kqr wrote: post #158
kingofmen wrote: post #99

There's something I deeply don't understand about this. > I shared these results with a leading lipidologist who proclaimed: “Not sure if the lab or the primary care doc said an LDL-C of 116 mg/dL was fine but that concentration is the 50th percentile population cut point in the MESA study and should never ever be considered as normal. > It’s also important to note that, according to a lipidologist friend, an ApoB of…

I had assumed "the MESA study population" was a particularly unhealthy bunch in terms of this measurement, meaning the 50th percentile puts one in the worst half of an already bad off group.

I don't know the exact details, but I thought the Framingham survey was just a cross-section of the population. So getting upset about a 50th percentile score makes no sense at a population level.

A quick Google says that the Mesa study was actually of people without cardiovascular disease at the beginning of the study. So again, these conclusions don't make any sense to me.

Post reply on HN