5 ms·

Proper diet, exercise, and avoiding smoking also prevents more than a third of heart problems. It’s safer than blood-pressure or cholesterol medications.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Why not both?
- switchbak 7y ago
  Because many drugs have side effects, especially when taken in the long term. Aspirin alone isn't without its issues (ulcers, etc), not to mention the statins, etc. This advice may make sense on the aggregate, but for a truly healthy individual with otherwise low risk factors, this has the potential to do more harm than good. I do agree that overall this makes sense for most people though - and that a combination of both approaches sounds like really good advice. Edit: Clarified opinion.
nobleach 7y ago
I'm awfully confused why anyone would downvote this response. It seems like completely sane advice. Is it the smoking thing?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  I didn't downvote, but IMO if anything, it's the "dieting and exercise" part. You may as well ask water to flow uphill, for how productive that is on society-wide scale.
  - Dirlewanger 7y ago
    Why? In the context of this article, it's perfectly valid advice. Why should we instead further put our wellbeing in the hands of a morally bankrupt and maliciously negligent pharmaceuticals industry?
    - switchbak 7y ago
      Because it could save a whole bunch of lives? I won't need this pill (I don't think), but there's probably a tremendous number of people who could have extended lifetimes because of this. Yeah, they should improve their health choices, but good luck forcing that on people. I suppose the downside is taking the pill and thinking you can eat like crap. (Like overeating on low-fat cookies - still an unhealthy choice).
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    If intended at a personal volition / willpower basis, yes. If aimed at society-wide transformations to built space, values, and practices, it could prove highly useful. We once had environments in which the advice was essentially impossible to not follow. And though there were other health complications, and the issues of cardiac, pulmonary, and malignant diseases existed, they seem to have been somewhat less prevalent, even among otherwise susceptible (largely: elderly) populations. Everybody can't go gangbusters on healthy diet and ample exercise. But those who can benefit. An environment which makes this integral to everyday routines helps massively. An environment which makes this a stuggle (viz: virtually all modern industrialised countries and practices to some extent or another) is an immense impediment.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      I meant the willpower aspect in my comment and I agree with your analysis, with a caveat that out of two societal problems, obesity is better than starvation, which was the reality for most people until recently.
      - dredmorbius 7y ago
        Understood, and true.
- TheSoftwareGuy 7y ago
  It feels a lot like telling poor people to "just work harder"
  - nobleach 7y ago
    That's interesting. Taking a walk a few times a week can cost nothing (if one has the time). Choosing not to eat a diet of sugar and fat can be cheaper... So while I get the whole "telling someone who is unhealthy to 'be more healthy'" thing is not a good approach. it's also PROVEN that diet and exercise _do_ have an effect. So I can't imagine why encouraging folks warrants a downvote. But, here I am on this train now too!
    - notJim 7y ago
      Because if just telling people this was the solution, we wouldn't have this problem. It comes across as snarky because it treats a difficult and complex problem as a simple one.
      - dredmorbius 7y ago
        I see your point. But treating this as if it is only a "try harder" or "you've got what you had coming to you" isn't a very interesting conversation either.
    - sigstoat 7y ago
      > That's interesting. Taking a walk a few times a week can cost nothing (if one has the time). you keep just glossing over the costs. "if one has the time". it's an opportunity cost.
  - ASalazarMX 7y ago
    Flawed analogy. If sweat was money you bet we would exercise for hours. Getting out of the vicious circle of poverty can be almost impossible, while improving your health is free. Free but very, very hard because it goes against our instincts, yet easier than "stop being poor" because you're changing yourself, not your society.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  It is snark. It isn't meant to be constructive or add value to the thread, it is meant to condescend by saying something true but using that truism in order to imply it is also easy (in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary). To quote the site's guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. It is snarky. It isn't thoughtful or substantive.
  - nobleach 7y ago
    I see. I would NEVER encourage someone to exercise from some ivory tower. It's hard. I get it. Given the choice, I'd rather hang out on my couch. I've also had a heck of a health scare this year, so I advocate quite heavily: If you can get out and walk, do it! If you can make better choices in your diet, do it! No snark at all... more of a plea.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - switchbak 7y ago
    It is rather knee-jerk dismissive, true. Snarky? I'm not sure I have the evidence to claim that. They do have a good point, but the discussion is obviously more nuanced than that. People generally know that exercise is good for them, yet many/most people don't engage in it to a healthy degree. So some discussion of other approaches is appropriate. Let's not make "the perfect the enemy of the good" and all that. And we don't need to be either/or here. For individuals that have even a moderately elevated risk, doing both is probably a great idea (and of course this is already broadly recommended advice). Doing just one would still be better, and most people would choose a pill over exercise. Still a win in my book.
- kypro 7y ago
  There's a lot of sensible things we should do but don't. Just because it's sane advice doesn't mean it will help reduce heart disease at a population level. A practical solution would need to involve some compromise because people aren't perfect. The majority of people find it extremely hard to main a clean diet and get in 15 minutes of hard exercise a day. If this pill can help then great, but I agree it shouldn't be viewed as the ideal solution. Diet and exercise is still the best fix in most cases.
- simplecomplex 7y ago
  Because on HN stating anything obvious that might offend someone is against the rules. HN prefers mindless optimism over snark. If I had said “great development, [something about how clinical trials need to be disrupted], [summary of article]” I would be upvoted.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    That's not entirely true, though engaging with doses of realism is a bit of an uphill battle. My own brand of mildly pessimistic realism has proved reasonably successful here. Though it's involved adaptations. And occasional "what, me worry" parries.
jeffnv 7y ago
Guess what: fit people die too. Every day. As an athletic clean eater with heart problems, ignorant comments like this raise my BP even higher. All bodies have issues. We're complicated. You'll develop your own set of troubles at some point. When you do I'm sure you'll cherish the advice of ignorant strangers on the internet suggesting you just exercise, eat healthier, drink more water, etc as though that will literally prevent all health issues.
- dragonsngoblins 7y ago
  This a hundred times. I've had people suggest that I could help my sleep apnoea by losing weight or quitting drinking on the internet after I've mentioned it. Never mind when I was first diagnosed I was actually underweight because the chronic lack of sleep had completely removed my appetite and that I only drink a couple of times a year. It also assumes that this advice isn't something my doctor wouldn't have given me if it were appropriate
  - simplecomplex 7y ago
    In adults, the most common cause of obstructive sleep apnea is excess weight and obesity. That is a fact. If you’re very overweight and have sleep apnea, losing weight isn’t a crazy suggestion. If you’re skinny it obviously doesn’t make sense. This isn’t about sleep apnea, but heart disease and stroke from high cholesterol and blood pressure, both of which diet and exercise are the leading cause. Poor diet alone is linked to half of heart attacks and strokes. Poor diet and exercise has a large negative impact on health. It’s not some made up conspiracy to shame people.
    - dragonsngoblins 7y ago
      I'm aware that losing weight would be good advice were I overweight. My comment was more trying to illustrate that people make assumptions and then give out advice based on them as if they are universally true

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Why not both?

switchbak 7y ago
Because many drugs have side effects, especially when taken in the long term. Aspirin alone isn't without its issues (ulcers, etc), not to mention the statins, etc. This advice may make sense on the aggregate, but for a truly healthy individual with otherwise low risk factors, this has the potential to do more harm than good. I do agree that overall this makes sense for most people though - and that a combination of both approaches sounds like really good advice. Edit: Clarified opinion.

nobleach 7y ago

I'm awfully confused why anyone would downvote this response. It seems like completely sane advice. Is it the smoking thing?

TeMPOraL 7y ago
I didn't downvote, but IMO if anything, it's the "dieting and exercise" part. You may as well ask water to flow uphill, for how productive that is on society-wide scale.
- Dirlewanger 7y ago
  Why? In the context of this article, it's perfectly valid advice. Why should we instead further put our wellbeing in the hands of a morally bankrupt and maliciously negligent pharmaceuticals industry?
  - switchbak 7y ago
    Because it could save a whole bunch of lives? I won't need this pill (I don't think), but there's probably a tremendous number of people who could have extended lifetimes because of this. Yeah, they should improve their health choices, but good luck forcing that on people. I suppose the downside is taking the pill and thinking you can eat like crap. (Like overeating on low-fat cookies - still an unhealthy choice).
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  If intended at a personal volition / willpower basis, yes. If aimed at society-wide transformations to built space, values, and practices, it could prove highly useful. We once had environments in which the advice was essentially impossible to not follow. And though there were other health complications, and the issues of cardiac, pulmonary, and malignant diseases existed, they seem to have been somewhat less prevalent, even among otherwise susceptible (largely: elderly) populations. Everybody can't go gangbusters on healthy diet and ample exercise. But those who can benefit. An environment which makes this integral to everyday routines helps massively. An environment which makes this a stuggle (viz: virtually all modern industrialised countries and practices to some extent or another) is an immense impediment.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    I meant the willpower aspect in my comment and I agree with your analysis, with a caveat that out of two societal problems, obesity is better than starvation, which was the reality for most people until recently.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Understood, and true.
TheSoftwareGuy 7y ago
It feels a lot like telling poor people to "just work harder"
- nobleach 7y ago
  That's interesting. Taking a walk a few times a week can cost nothing (if one has the time). Choosing not to eat a diet of sugar and fat can be cheaper... So while I get the whole "telling someone who is unhealthy to 'be more healthy'" thing is not a good approach. it's also PROVEN that diet and exercise _do_ have an effect. So I can't imagine why encouraging folks warrants a downvote. But, here I am on this train now too!
  - notJim 7y ago
    Because if just telling people this was the solution, we wouldn't have this problem. It comes across as snarky because it treats a difficult and complex problem as a simple one.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      I see your point. But treating this as if it is only a "try harder" or "you've got what you had coming to you" isn't a very interesting conversation either.
  - sigstoat 7y ago
    > That's interesting. Taking a walk a few times a week can cost nothing (if one has the time). you keep just glossing over the costs. "if one has the time". it's an opportunity cost.
- ASalazarMX 7y ago
  Flawed analogy. If sweat was money you bet we would exercise for hours. Getting out of the vicious circle of poverty can be almost impossible, while improving your health is free. Free but very, very hard because it goes against our instincts, yet easier than "stop being poor" because you're changing yourself, not your society.
Someone1234 7y ago
It is snark. It isn't meant to be constructive or add value to the thread, it is meant to condescend by saying something true but using that truism in order to imply it is also easy (in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary). To quote the site's guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. It is snarky. It isn't thoughtful or substantive.
- nobleach 7y ago
  I see. I would NEVER encourage someone to exercise from some ivory tower. It's hard. I get it. Given the choice, I'd rather hang out on my couch. I've also had a heck of a health scare this year, so I advocate quite heavily: If you can get out and walk, do it! If you can make better choices in your diet, do it! No snark at all... more of a plea.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- switchbak 7y ago
  It is rather knee-jerk dismissive, true. Snarky? I'm not sure I have the evidence to claim that. They do have a good point, but the discussion is obviously more nuanced than that. People generally know that exercise is good for them, yet many/most people don't engage in it to a healthy degree. So some discussion of other approaches is appropriate. Let's not make "the perfect the enemy of the good" and all that. And we don't need to be either/or here. For individuals that have even a moderately elevated risk, doing both is probably a great idea (and of course this is already broadly recommended advice). Doing just one would still be better, and most people would choose a pill over exercise. Still a win in my book.
kypro 7y ago
There's a lot of sensible things we should do but don't. Just because it's sane advice doesn't mean it will help reduce heart disease at a population level. A practical solution would need to involve some compromise because people aren't perfect. The majority of people find it extremely hard to main a clean diet and get in 15 minutes of hard exercise a day. If this pill can help then great, but I agree it shouldn't be viewed as the ideal solution. Diet and exercise is still the best fix in most cases.
simplecomplex 7y ago
Because on HN stating anything obvious that might offend someone is against the rules. HN prefers mindless optimism over snark. If I had said “great development, [something about how clinical trials need to be disrupted], [summary of article]” I would be upvoted.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  That's not entirely true, though engaging with doses of realism is a bit of an uphill battle. My own brand of mildly pessimistic realism has proved reasonably successful here. Though it's involved adaptations. And occasional "what, me worry" parries.

jeffnv 7y ago

Guess what: fit people die too. Every day. As an athletic clean eater with heart problems, ignorant comments like this raise my BP even higher. All bodies have issues. We're complicated. You'll develop your own set of troubles at some point. When you do I'm sure you'll cherish the advice of ignorant strangers on the internet suggesting you just exercise, eat healthier, drink more water, etc as though that will literally prevent all health issues.

dragonsngoblins 7y ago
This a hundred times. I've had people suggest that I could help my sleep apnoea by losing weight or quitting drinking on the internet after I've mentioned it. Never mind when I was first diagnosed I was actually underweight because the chronic lack of sleep had completely removed my appetite and that I only drink a couple of times a year. It also assumes that this advice isn't something my doctor wouldn't have given me if it were appropriate
- simplecomplex 7y ago
  In adults, the most common cause of obstructive sleep apnea is excess weight and obesity. That is a fact. If you’re very overweight and have sleep apnea, losing weight isn’t a crazy suggestion. If you’re skinny it obviously doesn’t make sense. This isn’t about sleep apnea, but heart disease and stroke from high cholesterol and blood pressure, both of which diet and exercise are the leading cause. Poor diet alone is linked to half of heart attacks and strokes. Poor diet and exercise has a large negative impact on health. It’s not some made up conspiracy to shame people.
  - dragonsngoblins 7y ago
    I'm aware that losing weight would be good advice were I overweight. My comment was more trying to illustrate that people make assumptions and then give out advice based on them as if they are universally true