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

251–260 of 501 posts

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#251

Post by hshdhdhj4444 »

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 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

Because this is a recent understanding and healthcare tends to be a conservative industry that moves slowly. Sometimes too slowly.

And also because LDL remains an excellent measure. The risk with LDL isn’t false positives. If someone has high LDL they likely have an elevated risk of heart disease. The problem with LDL testing is that someone with low LDL may still have a high risk of heart disease which may be captured in APoB testing.

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#252

Post by Fire-Dragon-DoL »

ericmcer wrote: post #246
adammarples wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't the global population like 50% obese? What is your actual risk of dying from it if you are relatively in shape and in your 40s?

We don't know how to treat obesity 100% though

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#253

Post by hshdhdhj4444 »

mac-mc wrote: post #82
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…

If you fix it without statins through better lifestyle and diet, that is the preferrable route. As to why medicine is like this, it's because it's conservative, usually about 17 years behind university research[0], and doctors are shackled to guidelines in most health systems or risk losing their licenses. It isn't a coincidence that the article author had his out-of-pocket concierge doctor tell him the more up-to-da…

Licensing but also insurance.

I think only recently have insurance companies started covering APoB testing in your annual exams (or that may just be my insurance…).

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#254

Post by giardini »

guzik wrote: post #64

> It's not sexy, and as a result an overwhelming majority of the population is unaware about how to avoid succumbing to it When I started building an ECG Holter in my early 20s, I tried to get some friends to use it and kept hearing "yeah, but it’s not exactly sexy to wear that thing." That’s when it hit me how little people care about prevention until something goes wrong. We still have a huge awareness gap to close…

I asked a heart doctor for a calcium scan. He said I didn't need that, but he wanted me to wear a Holter monitor for a few days (reasons unknown). I did not.

That was years ago. I have different doctors now but still no calcium scan. Time to ask again possibly.

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#255

Post by phainopepla2 »

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)

Maybe our brains work differently, but I have absolutely no problem following a podcast while running, and my race times indicate that I'm doing good cardio.

I do have a hard time with mind muscle connection during weight training if I'm listening to something other than music, though.

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#256

Post by OutOfHere »

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.

No. It is false criticism. It is like calling one a witch in historical times. Anyone gets accused of it without hard evidence. For all I know, your comment was AI generated. You relied on AI and are now passing that along. It's not helpful.

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#257

Post by pstuart »

lisbbb wrote: post #59
pstuart wrote: post #21

A key takeaway is: don't be afraid of taking statins if you need them. I fell for the "statins are bad" BS for years and have paid the price.

My dad would disagree--he's 84, was on statins for years and they did terrible things to his body. I'm sure the drugs kept him alive, but the side effects, as he describes them, particularly to his legs and kidneys, were pretty severe. He only got better when he stopped taking them.

Obviously we all differ in how we respond to medications -- apparently it's 10% - 15% that have issues with statins.

I think a pragmatic approach would be to try them if warranted by testing and be prepared to stop or change them if it has issues.

We're learning more and more about the mechanisms of cholesterol and there's a variety of medications out there: https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol/preventio...

And that doesn't address the role that fiber plays in managing it (and the virtues of fiber for health in general that are coming to light at a rapid clip)

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#258

Post by hermanzegerman »

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 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.

That's pretty simple to explain. No conspiracy.

LDL-C is much much cheaper to measure. ApoB costs 36x times as much, so Insurance Companies don't like to pay for it

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#259

Post by giardini »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #43
tonymet wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walking and eating sensibly is free. Even a balance oatmeal, rice & beans with infrequent meat servings would defend against heart disease better than expensive medicine, at less than $1 / day.

Lentils/legumes are cheap. There is probably no better bang for the buck. Yogurt is also cheap.

Funny you should use the word "bang". My last experiment with lentils years ago began one evening with 3 excellent bowls of very tasty lentil soup and ended slowly with 2 days' worth of "bangs", quickly followed by ostracism by my house buddies. So bad!

Re: Ticker: Don't die of heart disease

#260

Post by Fire-Dragon-DoL »

Flere-Imsaho wrote: post #139
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…

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.

I push hard enough during cardio that I can't really follow a podcast properly. On the upside, it's only 30 minutes.

While lifting weight I do that since I rest for 90 seconds in between sets, which is actually very boring. I started reading books during that time and that has been a big improvement.

Post reply on HN