5 ms·

> So does fasting, and it don't cost as much. If a "rich old white dude" could get the health benefits of fasting for a bit of cash, a lot of them are going to

> So does fasting, and it don't cost as much. If a "rich old white dude" could get the health benefits of fasting for a bit of cash, a lot of them are going to pay it. Lifestyle changes are hard, while cash is 'easy' for a significant part of what I imagine to be the target market. EDIT: Apparently I should clarify the "old white dude" part of this. The study in question consisted entirely of "9 white men between 51 and 65 years of age", and I consider it entirely possible that this particular cocktail only works for that demographic.

tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago
or simply put: time is the real currency here, money isn't. Lifestyle changes require a significant time investment.
zarkov99 7y ago
why white and dude? aren't there other kinds of rich people? and wouldn't they also pay?
- shrimp_emoji 7y ago
  Statistics
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mindslight 7y ago
    Plus ça change. I wouldn't have thought racism would become popular again, but here we are.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      Or, well, victorian tiptoeing around language becoming popular again, to avoid saying the obvious: most rich people in our society are white...
      - mindslight 7y ago
        But the obvious doesn't need to be continually restated. Rather, it is usually stated in furtherance of some motive - contrast someone expressing frustration at the police saying "everyone in that town is white", with a loan officer saying "everyone in that town is white". There are certainly medical reasons why race is relevant for the results of the study, but the original comment seemed to be dismissing the research as only relevant to a caricatured outgroup. And a justification of "statistics" sounds impartial, but it's from the exact same vein as "_______ people are more likely to default on loans".
      - orange-juice 7y ago
        Hey guys, just wanted to let you know how happy I am to have had the chance to read this riveting discussion on my favorite science forum. I learned so much.
      - zarkov99 7y ago
        Yes, and that is what one would expect when most people are white in the first place.
        coldtea 7y ago
        That would be relevant if the distribution was in any way proportional to the general population...
      - rjf72 7y ago
        And 63% of all people in the country are white. In 2000 that was 69%, in 1980 it was 80%. In other words white people should still make up the clear majority of every single demographic, lacking any biases. In terms of wealth they should be disproportionately ahead because of the fact that migrants are very rarely rich. So e.g. imagine you had 80% white and then you add enough migrants to bring that down to 70%. The number of rich individuals, as a whole, will probably not change much, meaning it'd be about the same as when whites made up 80% of the population, yet now whites would only make up 70% of the population. So this creates a relative over representation among the wealthy without any sort of bias other than in the socioeconomic composition of migrants. Where things get really bad though is fertility. In modern times wealth and fertility are sharply inversely correlated. This [1] is a graph of fertility in families ranging from those earning $200k+ per year to those earning < $10k per year. There's a disconcertingly, practically linear, drop in fertility as people earn more money. Those earning less than $10k a year show a 50% higher fertility than those earning $200k+ per year. As a result of this, poverty also multiplies much more quickly than wealth. Due to the nature of fertility (2.x = baseline for sustainability, not 0), this also results in a much larger than 50% effect on relative population sizes. E.g. a group that has 1.5 children on average will gradually approach a population of 0, while a group that has 2.5 children on average will gradually approach a population of infinity. This creates quite a difficult problem to solve. You can't solve poverty when people becoming wealthy means they stop reproducing in sufficient numbers while, at the same time, those who are at the very bottom of society are pumping out far more children than they could ever independently afford to support. It's like you take one step forward and two steps backwards. And while this is happening you also then start to see increasing social instability and divisions. No idea where all of this will play out but there's no doubt we live in one of the most interesting times in our species long existence. [1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...
- DuskStar 7y ago
  From the article: > The Thymus Regeneration, Immunorestoration and Insulin Mitigation (TRIIM) trial tested 9 white men between 51 and 65 years of age. Who knows if this set of treatments will work for other demographics? I'd certainly bet it'd work differently for women, given the differences in hormonal balances. (And IIRC there are different recommended steroids for women - since at least one of the drugs in this cocktail was a steroid, I'd think that would come into play)
jjoonathan 7y ago
> rich old white dude Why attach race, age, gender, and class to the idea that lifestyle changes are hard? I'm pretty sure everyone finds them hard.
- issa 7y ago
  I believe the point wasn't about who finds lifestyle changes to be hard, but who has the disposable cash to pay for medicine instead.
  - seph-reed 7y ago
    rich people
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Well, "old white dude" comes from the study participants. "rich" comes from people you want to sell to and/or people who have the resources to pay you.

tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago

or simply put: time is the real currency here, money isn't. Lifestyle changes require a significant time investment.

zarkov99 7y ago

why white and dude? aren't there other kinds of rich people? and wouldn't they also pay?

shrimp_emoji 7y ago
Statistics
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mindslight 7y ago
  Plus ça change. I wouldn't have thought racism would become popular again, but here we are.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Or, well, victorian tiptoeing around language becoming popular again, to avoid saying the obvious: most rich people in our society are white...
    - mindslight 7y ago
      But the obvious doesn't need to be continually restated. Rather, it is usually stated in furtherance of some motive - contrast someone expressing frustration at the police saying "everyone in that town is white", with a loan officer saying "everyone in that town is white". There are certainly medical reasons why race is relevant for the results of the study, but the original comment seemed to be dismissing the research as only relevant to a caricatured outgroup. And a justification of "statistics" sounds impartial, but it's from the exact same vein as "_______ people are more likely to default on loans".
    - orange-juice 7y ago
      Hey guys, just wanted to let you know how happy I am to have had the chance to read this riveting discussion on my favorite science forum. I learned so much.
    - zarkov99 7y ago
      Yes, and that is what one would expect when most people are white in the first place.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        That would be relevant if the distribution was in any way proportional to the general population...
    - rjf72 7y ago
      And 63% of all people in the country are white. In 2000 that was 69%, in 1980 it was 80%. In other words white people should still make up the clear majority of every single demographic, lacking any biases. In terms of wealth they should be disproportionately ahead because of the fact that migrants are very rarely rich. So e.g. imagine you had 80% white and then you add enough migrants to bring that down to 70%. The number of rich individuals, as a whole, will probably not change much, meaning it'd be about the same as when whites made up 80% of the population, yet now whites would only make up 70% of the population. So this creates a relative over representation among the wealthy without any sort of bias other than in the socioeconomic composition of migrants. Where things get really bad though is fertility. In modern times wealth and fertility are sharply inversely correlated. This [1] is a graph of fertility in families ranging from those earning $200k+ per year to those earning < $10k per year. There's a disconcertingly, practically linear, drop in fertility as people earn more money. Those earning less than $10k a year show a 50% higher fertility than those earning $200k+ per year. As a result of this, poverty also multiplies much more quickly than wealth. Due to the nature of fertility (2.x = baseline for sustainability, not 0), this also results in a much larger than 50% effect on relative population sizes. E.g. a group that has 1.5 children on average will gradually approach a population of 0, while a group that has 2.5 children on average will gradually approach a population of infinity. This creates quite a difficult problem to solve. You can't solve poverty when people becoming wealthy means they stop reproducing in sufficient numbers while, at the same time, those who are at the very bottom of society are pumping out far more children than they could ever independently afford to support. It's like you take one step forward and two steps backwards. And while this is happening you also then start to see increasing social instability and divisions. No idea where all of this will play out but there's no doubt we live in one of the most interesting times in our species long existence. [1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...
DuskStar 7y ago
From the article: > The Thymus Regeneration, Immunorestoration and Insulin Mitigation (TRIIM) trial tested 9 white men between 51 and 65 years of age. Who knows if this set of treatments will work for other demographics? I'd certainly bet it'd work differently for women, given the differences in hormonal balances. (And IIRC there are different recommended steroids for women - since at least one of the drugs in this cocktail was a steroid, I'd think that would come into play)

jjoonathan 7y ago

> rich old white dude Why attach race, age, gender, and class to the idea that lifestyle changes are hard? I'm pretty sure everyone finds them hard.

issa 7y ago
I believe the point wasn't about who finds lifestyle changes to be hard, but who has the disposable cash to pay for medicine instead.
- seph-reed 7y ago
  rich people
DuskStar 7y ago
Well, "old white dude" comes from the study participants. "rich" comes from people you want to sell to and/or people who have the resources to pay you.