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

What Doesn’t Kill Me Makes Me Stronger

joshmitteldorf.scienceblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 69 posts

Re: What Doesn’t Kill Me Makes Me Stronger

#31

Post by raverbashing »

heleph wrote: post #20
Tossrock wrote: post #3

There are some questionable assertions in this article. eg, "Survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings had lower cancer rates later in life than people of similar age who had not been exposed to radiation " has the ref http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/095530006010859... which a) has nothing to do with Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and b) found that low dose radiation in fact increased cancer risk (shock!)…

Also if you look at the skin of older people from a sunny place compared to the skin of people from an overcast place, it's noticeably tougher and more wrinkled. I'm an Australian who has lived the last ten years in the UK and my older Australian relatives definitely have older looking skin than my husband's UK-based family. Plus the rate of skin cancer is definitely higher in Australia. It is a real public health is…

You are correct, however remember that nice thing called the Ozone Layer Hole which affects the southern hemisphere

And actually, most "older people from a sunny place" you mention did not have their evolutionary roots there.

And yes, tougher and more wrinkled, but less incidence of malignant cancers (but might be because of that first item I mentioned)

Re: What Doesn’t Kill Me Makes Me Stronger

#32

Post by fasteo »

Madmallard wrote: post #2

Yeah... what about bacteriocidal antibiotics that cause mitochondrial DNA damage? The people affected by that stuff don't seem to just like recover and get stronger.

Mitochondrial damaged human speaking (genetic cause, not antibiotics)

Hormesis is about dose. In these cases, the dose is just too high and our body is unable to cope with it.

In my case the damage is just below this threshold and my body has created a powerful antioxidant machinery [1] that is keeping me alive. In other cases of my disease, the burden - % of mutant mitochondria - is just too high [2] and sadly, the kids die when they are 3-4 years old.

[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096719203...

[2] http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/leigh-syndrome

Re: What Doesn’t Kill Me Makes Me Stronger

#33

Post by stiff »

Tossrock wrote: post #3

There are some questionable assertions in this article. eg, "Survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings had lower cancer rates later in life than people of similar age who had not been exposed to radiation " has the ref http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/095530006010859... which a) has nothing to do with Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and b) found that low dose radiation in fact increased cancer risk (shock!)…

Even if this was true it's ridiculous when taken as evidence for radiation lowering cancer risk:

Survivorship bias (or survivor bias) is a statistical artifact in applications outside finance, where studies on the remaining population are fallaciously compared with the historic average despite the survivors having unusual properties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias#As_a_general_...

Re: What Doesn’t Kill Me Makes Me Stronger

#34

Post by george_ciobanu »

I'm sure your sources are correct but the view and sample data are biased. Cancer rates, as you note, go up with radiation and also withUV exposure. You make a dangerous point that some people who don't read carefully might buy into fast and make poor decision. A warning at the top of the post or another analysis of the effects of these exposures, on a large sample that also presents the downsides would be more balanced.

Re: What Doesn’t Kill Me Makes Me Stronger

#35

Post by Qwertious »

deepakjc wrote: post #7

If this is true... then I need to rethink a lot of my life choices... what is actually good for me? Would love to hear the opinion of doctors/scientists on this...

I would be very, VERY sceptical - the moment he brought in evolution, he argued a theory based on (and nigh-identical to) group selectionism. Except group selectionism has been thoroughly debunked, to the point where he might as well have been spouting Lamarckism - read "The Selfish Gene", by Richard Dawkins.

Put simply, you can't just jump from looking at individual survival to looking at a group's survival, because any individual could just be a free-rider. More importantly, what's actually been observed is that group selectionism simply doesn't happen in the real world.

So while anything I said about the rest would be mere opinion, there is at least one multi-paragraph section of his argument that is a GIANT heap of shit.

Re: What Doesn’t Kill Me Makes Me Stronger

#36

Post by mitteldorf »

Tossrock wrote: post #3

There are some questionable assertions in this article. eg, "Survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings had lower cancer rates later in life than people of similar age who had not been exposed to radiation " has the ref http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/095530006010859... which a) has nothing to do with Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and b) found that low dose radiation in fact increased cancer risk (shock!)…

Yes, thank you. Breast and thyroid cancer studies on Hiroshima survivors show HIGHER rates. This was a blunder on my part. I've removed the paragraph on Hiroshima.

Re: What Doesn’t Kill Me Makes Me Stronger

#37

Post by zecg »

jmnicolas wrote: post #25
deepakjc wrote: post #7

If this is true... then I need to rethink a lot of my life choices... what is actually good for me? Would love to hear the opinion of doctors/scientists on this...

I would be very suspicious before exposing myself to some things considered harmful just after reading a random article on the web.

Well, the main advice is eating less and exercising more, the author stops short of recommending a radiation source in the home. So, it's not really controversial and is not considered harmful.

Re: What Doesn’t Kill Me Makes Me Stronger

#38

Post by ak39 »

thret wrote: post #28
dvanduzer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you translate that for someone who skimmed to "weight on belly versus weight in backpack" ?

Natural selection only molds us up to the point where we procreate and ensure the survival of our offspring. After that (say age 50), we're winging it. Mild stressors that would occur naturally - physical exertion, exposure, hunger; it is perfectly logical that natural selection would favour those who handle these circumstances well.

I like that ... "winging it" after 50. :-) Made me chuckle. I agree with it.

I have a (an emotional) problem with that number though, being acutely aware and sensitive to ageism or age-related relegation of human functions and roles in society. I have a problem with any number for that matter. 50 is too low, and any number will always be too low, the way I see it if you incorporate Dawkins' idea of the Selfish Gene into the mix. I would argue that sticking around "to ensure the survival of our offspring" (as you put it) for the human species is significantly more important than any other species on the planet.

Turtles don't need this survival strategy. Lay eggs (procreate) and chuck - that form of hormesis aggressively weeds out the weak members of the species from the ones laying eggs for the next generation. While chimps, elephants and whales may also need to "stick around longer" for their young - relatively, the human is by far an incredible outlier in this regard. Not only do adults have to stick around for their kids well into the young's teen years, but elders too have to stick around for the group or for the clan. This last point is important to understand the relationship between the survival success of the species and an imagined age cutoff for "usefulness" (that contributes to the success of the species) of any one member of the species. The individual has extended roles beyond just his/her offspring. His/her role in the clan's survival success mattered too.

Recent discoveries of hominid fossils suggest that as early as Erectus, "humans" have been keeping their elders alive! :-) Evidence of a toothless skulls suggest that able members of the group may have been keeping the elder alive by chewing for her. But for what?? Could it be to access knowledge of poisoned berries to avoid, or hunting methods to teach or ... stay at home creche for the kids while able-bodied adults went out for hunting??

Again, I don't think I needed to respond to your point necessarily ... you're right for the most part.

Re: What Doesn’t Kill Me Makes Me Stronger

#40

Post by ytturbed »

>If animals eat all the food that is available to them and reproduce as fast is they are physically capable, then the environment will be denuded, the next generation will starve, and the species will face extinction. All animal species are evolved to avoid this

Isn't this a Tragedy of the Commons? Won't genes that cause individuals to eat more and reproduce more quickly than fellow members of their species confer a relative advantage causing those genes to spread through the gene pool?

Post reply on HN