4 ms·

Did you know that stress and anxiety increase your risk of heart disease significantly? 1 - http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthyLiving/StressManagement/HowDoe

• nate_meurer 9y ago
  Hmmm, I'm sensing a subtext here :) Honestly, stress and anxiety are things I don't struggle with, at least not according to my vitals. My resting heart rate is typically in the high fifties (but I recorded 47 bpm at my last checkup). I actually struggle a bit with low blood pressure, often getting light headed when I stand up. I don't have insomnia, I'm on no medication whatsoever, I've never had stomach ulcers, I have a full head of hair, and people routinely guess my age about 10 years too young. I think you might just be struggling a bit with the idea of someone who evaluates long term risk differently than you do. You might end up on the other side of that at some point. For example, I know a guy from Cambodia who thinks you're an idiot for insisting on wearing shoes when you leave the house. He'd say you're destroying your feet's physiological function by cramming them into shoes, and that your only problem is that you've refused to allow them to toughen up to the level they naturally would to match their environment. Now are you going to start motorbiking barefoot around town? I'm guessing not. I get it from the other direction too. Some people think I'm stupid for allowing my kids to ride their bikes in the park without helmets. I can explain that my kids are much more enthusiastic about riding because I don't load them down with a bunch of uncomfortable safety gear. I can also explain that my kids are far more likely to get a head injury riding inside a car, and we don't wear helmets in cars do we? These arguments sometimes work, but for the most part, people are pretty stuck on what they know from their own narrow experiences.
  • creep 9y ago
    This is a good point, and I'm glad you explained it so well because it's something I haven't given much thought to. I do yoga and exercise to maintain my muscular system and ligaments, and eat well to maintain my bones and organ function, and etc., but I suppose I've never been raised to, or been given reason to, add extra physical barriers for my own safety. For example, to protect my eyes I have blue light filter on my devices, but I don't see the risk of gouging my eyes out as being very high. Mostly, in the physical world my life is pretty "safe". But perhaps when I start driving and running through thorny underbrush I will wear protective goggles and such :)
    • nate_meurer 9y ago
      > "I don't see the risk of gouging my eyes out as being very high" You're absolutely right about this. The risk is very low. But the stakes are extremely high. It's the insurance problem: how much are you willing to pay to prevent a rare but extremely hazardous even in the future? To a lot of people (maybe most) wearing glasses if they don't need correction seems silly. I can't argue with that, but in my case, my sunglasses saved me from an expensive, painful surgery and possible disability. The experience made me feel that the "insurance" of wearing glasses habitually was an acceptable cost to bear if it could keep that from happening again. I'm no actuary; it really is just a feeling. And feelings are what all of us rely on most when we evaluate risk, whether we like it or not. My feeling is not likely any more valid than yours, because it's based on my values and experiences, and your's may be entirely different. Now, its totally possible for these extra barriers to interfere with one's life. Again I think about how many kids are discouraged from riding bikes because of the oppressive safety gear. Or suppose I miss a plane because I can't find my fake glasses. When that happens it'll be time to question whether my reliance on my protective barriers is healthy. I think that's the issue your comments anticipate, and you're right about that too.
  • melq 9y ago
    Wait... do you seriously wear eye and ear protection around the clock, and not have any issue with your children not wearing helmets? I'm not sure how you've determined that your kids are more likely to suffer head injuries in a car, but even if that were true that's a dubious line of reasoning to say the least.
    • nate_meurer 9y ago
      Yeah see, you're the kind of person I'm talking about. Why do you suppose the Dutch and Danish never wear bike helmets? Do you think it's because Dutch streets are that much safer than the little park across the street from me? I might need you to actually read my comments and do a modicum of research before I take you seriously. This is about evaluation of risk and reward. There is no black and white here. Regarding specifics like helmets and comparative rates of head injuries, I'm sure you're capable of googling for the data. It's interesting stuff. Assuming you're actually interested.
      • melq 9y ago
        > Why do you suppose the Dutch and Danish never wear bike helmets? I don't. This is, like all your other justifications, irrelevant to our point of contention and, like all your other assertions, uncited and unsupported. >I might need you to actually read my comments and do a modicum of research before I take you seriously. No reason to be obnoxious. > This is about evaluation of risk and reward. Care to explain what the reward is here? > Regarding specifics like helmets and comparative rates of head injuries, I'm sure you're capable of googling for the data. It's interesting stuff. Assuming you're actually interested. Again, _what_ data? You're telling me there's a data set showing people's relative risk of head injury in a car compared to the same persons risk of head injury on a bike without a helmet? You're making dubious statistical claims for the sake of argument without ever explicitly stating your actual assertion, or anyone else's. > It's interesting stuff. Assuming you're actually interested. Show it to me. And stop being a prick just because someone challenges a viewpoint of yours that you posted on a public forum meant for a debate.
        • 9y ago