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

221–230 of 501 posts

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#221

Post by tclancy »

intrasight wrote: post #217
Aurornis wrote: post #97

Going deep on biomarkers, blood tests, and debates about optimal levels is okay for some people who derive motivation from obsessing over topics, but I’m starting to notice a trend where people obsess about these things for a couple years before burning out and moving on to the next topic. The best thing you can do for yourself is to establish healthy diet and lifestyle habits that are sustainable. A lot of people wh…

> starting to notice a trend where people obsess about these things for a couple years before burning out and moving on to the next topic. Really spot on with one of my besties. He does all the tests. He has a concierge doctor. He reads extensively on the topics of fitness and nutrition. And yet he doesn't do any of it. It's just an intellectual exercise for him. And he has had two heart attacks in the last several y…

Warn him before you do. Don’t want to scare him.

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#222

Post by embedding-shape »

fwip wrote: post #173
Apes wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly suspect the truth is both are "right", but they're both optimized answers to slightly different problems. Mainstream medicine is hyper optimized for the most common 80% of cases. At a glance it makes sense: optimize for the common case. Theres some flaws in this logic though - the most common 80% also conveniently overlaps heavily with the easiest 80%. If most of the problems in that 80% solve themselves,…

Part of providing good care is not burdening the patient with tests or treatments that are very unlikely to yield benefit. Put another way, the mission of healthcare is not "health at any cost."

The mission of healthcare in the eyes of those who provide it, isn't "health at any cost".

For the people on the other side, "health at any cost" is pretty much the goal, usually limited by the "cost" side of things, especially in the parts of the world where they haven't yet figured out the whole "healthcare for the public" thing.

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#223

Post by 6510 »

embedding-shape wrote: post #219

The author says this about smoking: > If you smoke, don’t. It’s going to kill you. And then this about alcohol: > I think it’s unreasonable to tell people not to drink alcohol if they like it. Why is it unreasonable to tell people not to drink alcohol, but reasonable to tell people to stop smoking? Shouldn't the smoking section also get a "at least make sure it’s really good tobacco that you enjoy and don’t smoke too…

If you tell people they cant drink they kill you.

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#225

Post by embedding-shape »

toast0 wrote: post #167
Flere-Imsaho wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I learnt a great trick about exercise: find a podcast or audio book that you really enjoy listening to. Here's the trick: you're only allowed to listen when you're exercising. Also with food and drink: place friction between the treat and yourself. The easiest example is to not have biscuits / alcohol in the house. Bonus tip: alcohol free beer is really good these days.

If you're exercising for cardio, and you're able to follow your book or podcast, you're probably not doing good cardio. OTOH, it's not a bad way to do interval training while watching sports, go hard when they're yammering, slow down when the sports are happening (or, if you're watching soccer, you can go hard most of the time and then slow down for the replay if anything happens, which is unlikely)

> If you're exercising for cardio, and you're able to follow your book or podcast, you're probably not doing good cardio

But on the flip side, even if it isn't ideal, if that tip makes at least one person actually do any kind of cardio at all, even if it's the worst one on the planet, it's still better than nothing.

In fact, I'd probably consider your statement of preemptively shooting someone down like that (imagine being a 3rd reader of the original comment + your response), is massively more harmful to others than parent who at best tried to trick someone into doing bad cardio, which again would be better than nothing.

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#226

Post by embedding-shape »

6510 wrote: post #223
embedding-shape wrote: post #219

The author says this about smoking: > If you smoke, don’t. It’s going to kill you. And then this about alcohol: > I think it’s unreasonable to tell people not to drink alcohol if they like it. Why is it unreasonable to tell people not to drink alcohol, but reasonable to tell people to stop smoking? Shouldn't the smoking section also get a "at least make sure it’s really good tobacco that you enjoy and don’t smoke too…

If you tell people they cant drink they kill you.

I've never told anyone to stop drinking alcohol, yet drunk people keep killing sober people all the time. So what would the difference be?

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#227

Post by fcpk »

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…

one better simple indicator than large panels, if you can't get access to them or don't have them is simply your triglycerides/hdl ratio. aim to be under 2 if using mg/dl and under 0.87 if using mmol/L. it's one of the strongest correlated indicators of cardiovascular disease. way better than any classic cholesterol ratios.

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#228

Post by stavros »

dawnerd wrote: post #199
OutOfHere wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We don't really know the author. For all I know, the LLM is more accurate than the specific human, in which case I'd want the article to be written by an LLM.

Saying "LLM bad, human good" is both false and uninteresting.

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#229

Post by mrtksn »

embedding-shape wrote: post #219

The author says this about smoking: > If you smoke, don’t. It’s going to kill you. And then this about alcohol: > I think it’s unreasonable to tell people not to drink alcohol if they like it. Why is it unreasonable to tell people not to drink alcohol, but reasonable to tell people to stop smoking? Shouldn't the smoking section also get a "at least make sure it’s really good tobacco that you enjoy and don’t smoke too…

For alcohol, the default is social drinking which is why you don't have widespread alcoholism in most countries where people consume plenty of alcohol. For smoking the default is constant nicotine top up(the nicotine delivery is instant, lasts seconds to minutes and the withdrawal symptoms starts in an hour). Both harmful of course but the alcohol has much less harmful defaults.
Post reply on HN