6 ms·

Since meat is seen as unhealthy nowadays, most people who still eat lots of it also tend to be part of the "don't care about health" crowd (smokers, drinkers, p

Since meat is seen as unhealthy nowadays, most people who still eat lots of it also tend to be part of the "don't care about health" crowd (smokers, drinkers, people who don't exercise...). What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy. These studies are quick to point to conclusions. Remember that time where every "scientific" study pointed at fat as the big culprit behind heart problems? When it was sugar all along? 30 years later the narrative has become: all animal products are bad for you. Stop eating eggs and meat, and eat grains, it's better for the planet too! People are getting duped, even on HN, it's depressing.

NoOneNew 6y ago
You bring up the point that really pisses me off in these studies. They treat a mcdonalds big mac as the same quality of meat as a grass fed steak or free range chicken breast. While grain free and free range is always best, even commercially produced grain fed cooked healthy is miles better than mickey d chicken nuggets. Lumping all these together as "meat consumption" is incredibly misleading. Most of these anti meat studies seem to still rely on the idea the "food pyramid" is still gospel.
- giantg2 6y ago
  If someone asked me to name a meat, chicken nuggets would not even come to mind.
  - NoOneNew 6y ago
    Agreed, but it still gets classified as one in these studies. Thats my problem with all of this. Let's try something else. A teriyaki drenched piece of chicken breast doesn't have the same healthiness level of a garlic, carrot roasted chicken breast. One is slathered in sugar, the other isnt. Does it make sense to classify someone who dumps sugary BBQ sauce, ketchup and other condiments on their meats with the same person that, well, doesn't? A salt, pepper, garlic steak salad lunch does not equal a Whooper burger. Drowning the salad in a crappy dressing will though.
- toshk 6y ago
  I've looked into a few of the studies you mention a while back because of personal interest. Most of the conclusions of large scale studies are not very solid and can often be dismissed with correlation is not causation. Your point is valid, but also very often popular health habits align with the view of what a healthy diet is in society. Therefore lower meat intake often is connected to more exercise, more sleep etc. Of course they often try to correct for it, but it still makes many of the conclusions debatable. There is however one association that seems to hold up for red meat, whether that's a steak or a shitty burger, which is the connection between heme iron and certain form of cancers: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261306/#:~:text=For%20both%20esophageal%20and%20stomach,with%20risk%20of%20these%20cancers https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261306/#:~:tex.... But at the same time the effect is still very small and not well understood.
  - NoOneNew 6y ago
    Somewhat agree on the habit assertion. I say it's more of a regional culture habit issue than health habit issue. I changed my health habits to a more MMA diet strictly because I view that "body type" as more well rounded in capabilities. Good stamina, good strength and not overly stacked in one body aspect. Like, you need good upper body, lower body and core strength all around. You cant really focus on just one part. Their diets are mostly meat and veg based. Obviously there are a few exceptions, but most are pretty big meat eaters. But eating lots of meat doesn't mean they tend to be unhealthy in other aspects of their life. The biggest problem, most people in the modern 1st world are lazy af. No change in diet is truly going to fix the lack of movement and lack of sun exposure. A 12 hour a day, everyday, call of duty gamer is equally unhealthy and useless whether herbivore, omnivore or carnivore in diet.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gruez 6y ago
  >free range is always best Source?
- jimbokun 6y ago
  I don’t think it’s worth getting pissed about, as if the researchers have an ax to grind. Getting Hugh quality data with enough power to separate out the effect of Big Macs versus lean steaks is really really hard. I imagine they are doing the best they can with the experimental techniques available to them.
  - NoOneNew 6y ago
    I would have 100% agreed with you prior to the study involving the sugar industry persuading some research to push the dietary fat, cholesterol link that's being debunked more and more. They claimed simple carbs were better to have and sugar wasn't so bad. When that study was released in the 60s, dietary changes in the US happened. That's also when you see obesity rates rise. Sure, I'm claiming a correlation as causation, but if they can do it, why cant I?
  - hntrader 6y ago
    > Getting Hugh quality data That's why we need large interventional studies instead of observational ones. Observational studies are interesting and sometimes necessary (e.g. when there's ethical concerns about running an intervention such as with smoking), but it's just way too tricky to separate out the impact of confounders especially when the treatment effects are rather weak (e.g. with coffee or meat consumption).
- Shivetya 6y ago
  Its not just the meat, people eating fast food tend to eat some of the other foods and worse the sugar laden drinks. We really need to focus on how much sugar is in our foods both naturally occurring but most importantly in processed foods that are everywhere. I have always operated under the idea that if you only use the produce, meat, and dairy, departments of a grocery store you can do a lot to improve your health. The largess of our society is that we have so many food options that are very easily consumed that many tend towards over consumption; as in no preparation required
- ragnese 6y ago
  > While grain free and free range is always best, even commercially produced grain fed cooked healthy is miles better than mickey d chicken nuggets. Since you're upset about the weakness of these studies, can you point to any that rigorously show any of the claims here? In particular that free range animals are somehow healthier to eat? Grain free next. Followed by the claim that fast food meat is inherently less healthy than meat I can obtain elsewhere. None of the claims would surprise me if true, but there's a lot of commentary in this post about how flawed these studies are while making very strong claims about what is healthy (no carbs, free range meat, etc).
pachico 6y ago
> What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy I think the documentary "the game changers" addresses precisely that.
- theNJR 6y ago
  That film was one big inaccurate extrapolation after another. One of the authors of a cited study did a rebuttal here - https://ketogenic.com/debunking-the-game-changers/ https://ketogenic.com/debunking-the-game-changers/
  - tashoecraft 6y ago
    Just as the documentary dramatized things, that rebuttal does the same. Taking small points in the movie, ie, the roman gladiator thing, and hype it up as if the movie made some grandiose claim about gladiators being the pinnacle of achievement. The main argument that game changers proposes is a rebuttal to a long history of meat eaters and the meat industry claiming you need meat and dairy to be an athlete. That's false, and that's what the movie shows. There's also lots of benefits to eating a vegan diet and it showcases that as well. The reason there aren't a lot of studies showcasing people who only eat grass fed beef that they killed themselves with cows they love is there simply isn't enough people doing that. Meat consumption leans drastically towards processed meats or bulk beef and chicken output. So naturally that's what these studies are targeting. I believe you can make most diets healthy when adhering to rules of freshness, nutrient density, and a wide array of nutrients. Just like how you can have an awful diet as a meat eater, you can have a awful diet as a vegan. It's not hard, just have white pasta with no vegetables and you have a carb dense vegan meal. We don't need everyone to go vegan, but I think society would be better off if almost everyone (in America at least) believe they needed meat in the meal to feel full. We have an obsession with meat, but not in how it actually arrived to our plate, but in a don't ask don't tell philosophy. The general advice of "eat a lot of everything, mostly plants" is a good one and doesn't exclude meat and dairy, but it probably means to reduce your consumption. If you're someone who gets milk from your local farmer who also raises cows they have named and care for then you're probably fine, otherwise, don't think vegans are just crazy idiots, they may have a point.
loceng 6y ago
It's the ideologues referencing terrible observation studies, along with the health food industrial complex tapping into that arguably relatively irrational demand. One problem is there isn't enough high quality meat available - high fat red meat in particular - however there are trends developing including ketogenic, carnivore diets, etc - as well as people buying half or full cows (much much cheaper) and then freezing it; plus then you can actually meat [freudian slip pun, I'm leaving it] the cow and see how it's cared for, etc - tying into the benefits, value of local.
smcl 6y ago
Don’t researchers generally try to control for such factors when making a study like this? I am at work so I’m a little too busy to pick through this one right now, but it sounds like you’re concerned about this, so it’s worth checking before drawing any conclusions
- loceng 6y ago
  It should but no, the opposite is true with most large observational studies - they don't refine the questions or give enough options to account for nuance.
- dagorenouf 6y ago
  They seldom do. When you go down that rabbit hole you realize "science" is an industry like every other, subject to the same forces (wanting to be published, to get media coverage, etc). Reminds me of https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
dwighttk 6y ago
I wonder what is a good way to love sedentary obese smokers who eat poorly.
cageface 6y ago
When it was sugar all along? Er no, people were told to stop eating fat but of course they didn't and average calorie intake went up in all categories. Sugar intake in the US peaked years ago but Americans are fatter than ever. Chicken and cheese consumption is through the roof. Like the article says, being overweight is very unhealthy and almost any diet that keeps you from gaining weight is going to reduce your risks of a lot of illness. The advantage of a plant based diet is that it's a lot kinder to the earth and to our animal cousins while also helping you avoid obesity.
- dagorenouf 6y ago
  Just replying to your last point: sugar and carbohydrates make you fat more than anything else. To fix that, most successful diets rely on increasing the ratio of protein you eat (wether it's fish, meat or poultry). It gets you to the same satiety but eating less carbs, and you lose weight. Now enter plant based / animal free diets, how are people gonna get to satiety without all that dense meat / fish / chicken? If you're some amazing diet expert, I have no doubt you can figure out a way to get to satiety without relying on carbs. But most people, what are they gonna do? Just get two more slices of bread, or 50% more pasta. If you strictly oppose a meat only diet VS a plant only diet, people will be leaner on the first one.
  - onebot 6y ago
    Eating more calories than you burn make you overweight. Not the type of calorie. This has been proven (wish I could find the research paper) and was funded by Gary Taubes' research group. Refined sugar and carbs are high in calories and low in nutrients. If you eat 2000 (or appropriate for you expenditure) calories of brocoli, you ain't getting overweight. Additionally, most people are addicted to sugar and refined carbs. Half the problem with diets is getting over that. It is likely the problem defined as satiety--but really just cravings. We are just starting to get more Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials on diets and such. Will never be perfect, but there is just not enough highly controlled research as it is very hard to implement. But I think with keto, carnivore, vegan, paleo, all fighting to claim to be most healthiest diet, there are folks starting to put money into researching them on equal footing. So we will see. I think to summarize Michael Pollan, eat whole food, not too much and mostly plants is probably a good bet on healthy diet.
uxcolumbo 6y ago
I don't think that's the narrative. The narrative is factory farmed meat & dairy is not good for you, not good for the people working in that industry and it's not good for our biosphere, e.g. deforestation, pollution etc. And of course it's absolutely bad for the animals involved, but most people don't care about animal welfare or don't even think about it. If people must eat meat for whatever reason then the healthiest option would be to hunt or raise & kill your animals or buy from people who do, but it also comes with the associated price tag.
onebot 6y ago
>> These studies are quick to point to conclusions. Remember that time where every "scientific" study pointed at fat as the big culprit behind heart problems? When it was sugar all along? I mean there is just insurmountable evidence that fat is correlated to heart disease. What is so ironic is that some journalists with no medical backgrounds write a book about "The Big Fat Lie" and now it is sugar that is the cause with not much scientific research to back it up. Sugar is bad and inflammatory for sure, but mountains and mountains of research on fat and heart disease are somehow all wrong now?
- dagorenouf 6y ago
  Fat stored in the body is the cause of heart disease, not fat consumption. Sugar is how you tell your body to store fat.
  - onebot 6y ago
    Sugar doesn't give you cholesterol. So how is cholesterol correlated to heart disease? Fat storage, is for sure related to becoming overweight and the cause of many ailments.
    - phonypc 6y ago
      Sugar does not contain cholesterol, but consuming an inappropriate amount of it will most certainly have a negative impact on your blood lipid profile.
      - onebot 6y ago
        Do you have a reference by chance? Would love to dig in a bit. I know that high sugar consumption raises triglycerides. But haven't seen anything yet on cholesterol.
        PoachedSausage 6y ago
        A good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid#Biosynthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid#Biosynthesis
Broken_Hippo 6y ago
What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy. If this is the case, you are also more likely to be financially comfortable as this is an expensive diet. It just isn't possible if you are poor enough, but plenty of vegetarian meals based on beans, rice/grain, and vegetables are.
- wincy 6y ago
  Why does that matter? If it turns out the worlds healthiest diet is eating the heart of a pure bred Wagyu cow and nothing else, it would still be scientifically useful to know that.
dennis_jeeves 6y ago
>People are getting duped, even on HN, it's depressing. Welcome to my world!. ( Not just HN really, it extends to most people on this planet)

NoOneNew 6y ago

You bring up the point that really pisses me off in these studies. They treat a mcdonalds big mac as the same quality of meat as a grass fed steak or free range chicken breast. While grain free and free range is always best, even commercially produced grain fed cooked healthy is miles better than mickey d chicken nuggets. Lumping all these together as "meat consumption" is incredibly misleading. Most of these anti meat studies seem to still rely on the idea the "food pyramid" is still gospel.

giantg2 6y ago
If someone asked me to name a meat, chicken nuggets would not even come to mind.
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  Agreed, but it still gets classified as one in these studies. Thats my problem with all of this. Let's try something else. A teriyaki drenched piece of chicken breast doesn't have the same healthiness level of a garlic, carrot roasted chicken breast. One is slathered in sugar, the other isnt. Does it make sense to classify someone who dumps sugary BBQ sauce, ketchup and other condiments on their meats with the same person that, well, doesn't? A salt, pepper, garlic steak salad lunch does not equal a Whooper burger. Drowning the salad in a crappy dressing will though.
toshk 6y ago
I've looked into a few of the studies you mention a while back because of personal interest. Most of the conclusions of large scale studies are not very solid and can often be dismissed with correlation is not causation. Your point is valid, but also very often popular health habits align with the view of what a healthy diet is in society. Therefore lower meat intake often is connected to more exercise, more sleep etc. Of course they often try to correct for it, but it still makes many of the conclusions debatable. There is however one association that seems to hold up for red meat, whether that's a steak or a shitty burger, which is the connection between heme iron and certain form of cancers: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261306/#:~:text=For%20both%20esophageal%20and%20stomach,with%20risk%20of%20these%20cancers https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261306/#:~:tex.... But at the same time the effect is still very small and not well understood.
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  Somewhat agree on the habit assertion. I say it's more of a regional culture habit issue than health habit issue. I changed my health habits to a more MMA diet strictly because I view that "body type" as more well rounded in capabilities. Good stamina, good strength and not overly stacked in one body aspect. Like, you need good upper body, lower body and core strength all around. You cant really focus on just one part. Their diets are mostly meat and veg based. Obviously there are a few exceptions, but most are pretty big meat eaters. But eating lots of meat doesn't mean they tend to be unhealthy in other aspects of their life. The biggest problem, most people in the modern 1st world are lazy af. No change in diet is truly going to fix the lack of movement and lack of sun exposure. A 12 hour a day, everyday, call of duty gamer is equally unhealthy and useless whether herbivore, omnivore or carnivore in diet.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gruez 6y ago
>free range is always best Source?
jimbokun 6y ago
I don’t think it’s worth getting pissed about, as if the researchers have an ax to grind. Getting Hugh quality data with enough power to separate out the effect of Big Macs versus lean steaks is really really hard. I imagine they are doing the best they can with the experimental techniques available to them.
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  I would have 100% agreed with you prior to the study involving the sugar industry persuading some research to push the dietary fat, cholesterol link that's being debunked more and more. They claimed simple carbs were better to have and sugar wasn't so bad. When that study was released in the 60s, dietary changes in the US happened. That's also when you see obesity rates rise. Sure, I'm claiming a correlation as causation, but if they can do it, why cant I?
- hntrader 6y ago
  > Getting Hugh quality data That's why we need large interventional studies instead of observational ones. Observational studies are interesting and sometimes necessary (e.g. when there's ethical concerns about running an intervention such as with smoking), but it's just way too tricky to separate out the impact of confounders especially when the treatment effects are rather weak (e.g. with coffee or meat consumption).
Shivetya 6y ago
Its not just the meat, people eating fast food tend to eat some of the other foods and worse the sugar laden drinks. We really need to focus on how much sugar is in our foods both naturally occurring but most importantly in processed foods that are everywhere. I have always operated under the idea that if you only use the produce, meat, and dairy, departments of a grocery store you can do a lot to improve your health. The largess of our society is that we have so many food options that are very easily consumed that many tend towards over consumption; as in no preparation required
ragnese 6y ago
> While grain free and free range is always best, even commercially produced grain fed cooked healthy is miles better than mickey d chicken nuggets. Since you're upset about the weakness of these studies, can you point to any that rigorously show any of the claims here? In particular that free range animals are somehow healthier to eat? Grain free next. Followed by the claim that fast food meat is inherently less healthy than meat I can obtain elsewhere. None of the claims would surprise me if true, but there's a lot of commentary in this post about how flawed these studies are while making very strong claims about what is healthy (no carbs, free range meat, etc).

pachico 6y ago

> What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy I think the documentary "the game changers" addresses precisely that.

theNJR 6y ago
That film was one big inaccurate extrapolation after another. One of the authors of a cited study did a rebuttal here - https://ketogenic.com/debunking-the-game-changers/ https://ketogenic.com/debunking-the-game-changers/
- tashoecraft 6y ago
  Just as the documentary dramatized things, that rebuttal does the same. Taking small points in the movie, ie, the roman gladiator thing, and hype it up as if the movie made some grandiose claim about gladiators being the pinnacle of achievement. The main argument that game changers proposes is a rebuttal to a long history of meat eaters and the meat industry claiming you need meat and dairy to be an athlete. That's false, and that's what the movie shows. There's also lots of benefits to eating a vegan diet and it showcases that as well. The reason there aren't a lot of studies showcasing people who only eat grass fed beef that they killed themselves with cows they love is there simply isn't enough people doing that. Meat consumption leans drastically towards processed meats or bulk beef and chicken output. So naturally that's what these studies are targeting. I believe you can make most diets healthy when adhering to rules of freshness, nutrient density, and a wide array of nutrients. Just like how you can have an awful diet as a meat eater, you can have a awful diet as a vegan. It's not hard, just have white pasta with no vegetables and you have a carb dense vegan meal. We don't need everyone to go vegan, but I think society would be better off if almost everyone (in America at least) believe they needed meat in the meal to feel full. We have an obsession with meat, but not in how it actually arrived to our plate, but in a don't ask don't tell philosophy. The general advice of "eat a lot of everything, mostly plants" is a good one and doesn't exclude meat and dairy, but it probably means to reduce your consumption. If you're someone who gets milk from your local farmer who also raises cows they have named and care for then you're probably fine, otherwise, don't think vegans are just crazy idiots, they may have a point.

loceng 6y ago

It's the ideologues referencing terrible observation studies, along with the health food industrial complex tapping into that arguably relatively irrational demand. One problem is there isn't enough high quality meat available - high fat red meat in particular - however there are trends developing including ketogenic, carnivore diets, etc - as well as people buying half or full cows (much much cheaper) and then freezing it; plus then you can actually meat [freudian slip pun, I'm leaving it] the cow and see how it's cared for, etc - tying into the benefits, value of local.

smcl 6y ago

Don’t researchers generally try to control for such factors when making a study like this? I am at work so I’m a little too busy to pick through this one right now, but it sounds like you’re concerned about this, so it’s worth checking before drawing any conclusions

loceng 6y ago
It should but no, the opposite is true with most large observational studies - they don't refine the questions or give enough options to account for nuance.
dagorenouf 6y ago
They seldom do. When you go down that rabbit hole you realize "science" is an industry like every other, subject to the same forces (wanting to be published, to get media coverage, etc). Reminds me of https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

dwighttk 6y ago

I wonder what is a good way to love sedentary obese smokers who eat poorly.

cageface 6y ago

When it was sugar all along? Er no, people were told to stop eating fat but of course they didn't and average calorie intake went up in all categories. Sugar intake in the US peaked years ago but Americans are fatter than ever. Chicken and cheese consumption is through the roof. Like the article says, being overweight is very unhealthy and almost any diet that keeps you from gaining weight is going to reduce your risks of a lot of illness. The advantage of a plant based diet is that it's a lot kinder to the earth and to our animal cousins while also helping you avoid obesity.

dagorenouf 6y ago
Just replying to your last point: sugar and carbohydrates make you fat more than anything else. To fix that, most successful diets rely on increasing the ratio of protein you eat (wether it's fish, meat or poultry). It gets you to the same satiety but eating less carbs, and you lose weight. Now enter plant based / animal free diets, how are people gonna get to satiety without all that dense meat / fish / chicken? If you're some amazing diet expert, I have no doubt you can figure out a way to get to satiety without relying on carbs. But most people, what are they gonna do? Just get two more slices of bread, or 50% more pasta. If you strictly oppose a meat only diet VS a plant only diet, people will be leaner on the first one.
- onebot 6y ago
  Eating more calories than you burn make you overweight. Not the type of calorie. This has been proven (wish I could find the research paper) and was funded by Gary Taubes' research group. Refined sugar and carbs are high in calories and low in nutrients. If you eat 2000 (or appropriate for you expenditure) calories of brocoli, you ain't getting overweight. Additionally, most people are addicted to sugar and refined carbs. Half the problem with diets is getting over that. It is likely the problem defined as satiety--but really just cravings. We are just starting to get more Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials on diets and such. Will never be perfect, but there is just not enough highly controlled research as it is very hard to implement. But I think with keto, carnivore, vegan, paleo, all fighting to claim to be most healthiest diet, there are folks starting to put money into researching them on equal footing. So we will see. I think to summarize Michael Pollan, eat whole food, not too much and mostly plants is probably a good bet on healthy diet.

uxcolumbo 6y ago

I don't think that's the narrative. The narrative is factory farmed meat & dairy is not good for you, not good for the people working in that industry and it's not good for our biosphere, e.g. deforestation, pollution etc. And of course it's absolutely bad for the animals involved, but most people don't care about animal welfare or don't even think about it. If people must eat meat for whatever reason then the healthiest option would be to hunt or raise & kill your animals or buy from people who do, but it also comes with the associated price tag.

onebot 6y ago

>> These studies are quick to point to conclusions. Remember that time where every "scientific" study pointed at fat as the big culprit behind heart problems? When it was sugar all along? I mean there is just insurmountable evidence that fat is correlated to heart disease. What is so ironic is that some journalists with no medical backgrounds write a book about "The Big Fat Lie" and now it is sugar that is the cause with not much scientific research to back it up. Sugar is bad and inflammatory for sure, but mountains and mountains of research on fat and heart disease are somehow all wrong now?

dagorenouf 6y ago
Fat stored in the body is the cause of heart disease, not fat consumption. Sugar is how you tell your body to store fat.
- onebot 6y ago
  Sugar doesn't give you cholesterol. So how is cholesterol correlated to heart disease? Fat storage, is for sure related to becoming overweight and the cause of many ailments.
  - phonypc 6y ago
    Sugar does not contain cholesterol, but consuming an inappropriate amount of it will most certainly have a negative impact on your blood lipid profile.
    - onebot 6y ago
      Do you have a reference by chance? Would love to dig in a bit. I know that high sugar consumption raises triglycerides. But haven't seen anything yet on cholesterol.
      - PoachedSausage 6y ago
        A good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid#Biosynthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid#Biosynthesis

Broken_Hippo 6y ago

What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy. If this is the case, you are also more likely to be financially comfortable as this is an expensive diet. It just isn't possible if you are poor enough, but plenty of vegetarian meals based on beans, rice/grain, and vegetables are.

wincy 6y ago
Why does that matter? If it turns out the worlds healthiest diet is eating the heart of a pure bred Wagyu cow and nothing else, it would still be scientifically useful to know that.

dennis_jeeves 6y ago

>People are getting duped, even on HN, it's depressing. Welcome to my world!. ( Not just HN really, it extends to most people on this planet)