4 ms·

It is. Everyone knows that the real solution to all these health problems is “eat right and exercise”, but there’s clearly a huge market of people looking for a

by orev 7y ago

It is. Everyone knows that the real solution to all these health problems is “eat right and exercise”, but there’s clearly a huge market of people looking for a “magic pill” to solve their problems instead of doing that. Snake oil has been around as long as humanity itself, so you might as well do some studies on it since so many people will be using it.

meroes 7y ago
That is true for so many diseases, like anything related to obesity, diet, exercise and smoking. Doctors are too ready to prescribe pills instead of an exercise regimen or diet. I wonder if doing studies on specific exercise regimes and diets would give doctors more confidence to prescribe them as cures. The problem is there is so much less money to be made for a certain industry.
- orev 7y ago
  Doctors (in the US) run a business, and you’re not likely to get repeat customers if you tell them they need to lose weight, because they will take it personally and go find someone else who will prescribe a magic pill. Many doctors might mention it offhand, but if they really harp on it they will lose the patient to someone else. It’s not a good situation, but it is the reality.
- blacksmith_tb 7y ago
  There's that, and there's also compliance - if your doctor tells you you should become a vegan ultramarathoner, chances are you will probably not comply; if they tell you to take two pills every morning, you may still not, but the chances are at least better (even if the improvement is also less significant).
lostmsu 7y ago
Exercise part of that solution is much more expensive than almost any pills (if they'd exist). 2h exercise a week at Valley tech salaries ($150/h) might cost you ~$15000 in time per year. Another way to look at it is in 40 years it will consume two entire years of working full-time. And that does not include cost to go to gym like transportation time, change of clothes, etc
- anthonypasq 7y ago
  this is all positively ridiculous. Do you calculate all your other hobbies like this? You probably have "spent" millions playing video games
  - hnick 7y ago
    This one easy trick will save you $150! Just stay up an hour after bedtime ;) I got in the habit of doing this kind of calculation early in my career before realising it is a) pointless unless someone will actually pay you that money if you instead do work, and b) still not a healthy way to think anyway in many cases where a) is true, due to life's necessities. It might be "cheaper" to pay a kid to mow the lawn but sometimes I find it relaxing.
  - lostmsu 7y ago
    Perhaps to some people it might be ridiculous. This, however, is not applicable to hobbies. Hobbies are what one tries to save time for. If for you gym is a hobby, you should not be doing the above calculation.
- orev 7y ago
  There are so many things wrong with this perspective I’m not sure where to start. Overall it sounds very much like the climate change deniers’ arguments — who cares if we all die, as long as we make some money beforehand. You can not compare Si Valley salaries to anything, since they are irrelevant. The salary may be high, but so is the cost of living there, so it’s basically a wash. And Si Valley is not the center of the world, so comparisons to the relatively few people who live there are meaningless. Who cares if it consumes 2 years working time if you die 10 years earlier than you would have. Also exercise gives you many health benefits, including cognitive function, so you will be more healthy and more productive when you actually are working. Cost to go to the gym?! You can exercise at literally 0 cost. Do some push ups, go outside for a run, etc.
  - lostmsu 7y ago
    > Who cares if it consumes 2 years working time if you die 10 years earlier than you would have. Your 10 years number is significantly overblown. First result in Google is: > they found that those who did 75 minutes of moderate-intensity activity weekly lived 1.8 years longer, on average, compared with people who did no physical activity If you believe that, it puts it into 1.25 (no exercise) vs 1.8 years, which still does not include any preparations.

by orev 7y ago

meroes 7y ago

That is true for so many diseases, like anything related to obesity, diet, exercise and smoking. Doctors are too ready to prescribe pills instead of an exercise regimen or diet. I wonder if doing studies on specific exercise regimes and diets would give doctors more confidence to prescribe them as cures. The problem is there is so much less money to be made for a certain industry.

orev 7y ago
Doctors (in the US) run a business, and you’re not likely to get repeat customers if you tell them they need to lose weight, because they will take it personally and go find someone else who will prescribe a magic pill. Many doctors might mention it offhand, but if they really harp on it they will lose the patient to someone else. It’s not a good situation, but it is the reality.
blacksmith_tb 7y ago
There's that, and there's also compliance - if your doctor tells you you should become a vegan ultramarathoner, chances are you will probably not comply; if they tell you to take two pills every morning, you may still not, but the chances are at least better (even if the improvement is also less significant).

lostmsu 7y ago

Exercise part of that solution is much more expensive than almost any pills (if they'd exist). 2h exercise a week at Valley tech salaries ($150/h) might cost you ~$15000 in time per year. Another way to look at it is in 40 years it will consume two entire years of working full-time. And that does not include cost to go to gym like transportation time, change of clothes, etc

anthonypasq 7y ago
this is all positively ridiculous. Do you calculate all your other hobbies like this? You probably have "spent" millions playing video games
- hnick 7y ago
  This one easy trick will save you $150! Just stay up an hour after bedtime ;) I got in the habit of doing this kind of calculation early in my career before realising it is a) pointless unless someone will actually pay you that money if you instead do work, and b) still not a healthy way to think anyway in many cases where a) is true, due to life's necessities. It might be "cheaper" to pay a kid to mow the lawn but sometimes I find it relaxing.
- lostmsu 7y ago
  Perhaps to some people it might be ridiculous. This, however, is not applicable to hobbies. Hobbies are what one tries to save time for. If for you gym is a hobby, you should not be doing the above calculation.
orev 7y ago
There are so many things wrong with this perspective I’m not sure where to start. Overall it sounds very much like the climate change deniers’ arguments — who cares if we all die, as long as we make some money beforehand. You can not compare Si Valley salaries to anything, since they are irrelevant. The salary may be high, but so is the cost of living there, so it’s basically a wash. And Si Valley is not the center of the world, so comparisons to the relatively few people who live there are meaningless. Who cares if it consumes 2 years working time if you die 10 years earlier than you would have. Also exercise gives you many health benefits, including cognitive function, so you will be more healthy and more productive when you actually are working. Cost to go to the gym?! You can exercise at literally 0 cost. Do some push ups, go outside for a run, etc.
- lostmsu 7y ago
  > Who cares if it consumes 2 years working time if you die 10 years earlier than you would have. Your 10 years number is significantly overblown. First result in Google is: > they found that those who did 75 minutes of moderate-intensity activity weekly lived 1.8 years longer, on average, compared with people who did no physical activity If you believe that, it puts it into 1.25 (no exercise) vs 1.8 years, which still does not include any preparations.