5 ms·

This is survivorship bias at its finest. What his father is experiencing is luck mixed with good genetics. Plus, additional support of good diet and exercise.

by avgDev 4y ago

This is survivorship bias at its finest. What his father is experiencing is luck mixed with good genetics. Plus, additional support of good diet and exercise. Yes, we all can control our diets and exercise. However, we cannot control the medication that we take, which carry side effects. We cannot control what is in our food, we cannot control the air we breath, we cannot control cancer and hundreds other diseases. There are so MANY other factors. If his father grew up somewhere where lead is a problem, I have a feeling the outcome might have been different. The whole article is useless. My grandfather was an awful person, smoked all his life, drank most of it, and ate whatever he could. Lived to 78 and was healthy, at that point he committed suicide as he could not live without his wife, which passed away few months earlier. Ironically he was an awful husband. This is all anecdotal and useless.

methehack 4y ago
Nonsense. No one is trying to establish a causal link here. Still, a concrete example of what's possible is useful and inspirational. If you do this, will you get this outcome? Probably not. Does it help me imagine a possible path? Yes, definitely.
- avgDev 4y ago
  So, if the article mentioned {insert product name}, doing mushrooms, drinking and smoking, should I look at it as a possible path for me to achieve great health? Even though all it is, is just some survivorship bias? Should I think about doing those things? Am I wrong for not doing those things?
  - ericmcer 4y ago
    Yeah it’s anecdotal but there are statistics backing up most of what is said here. We know diet and exercise play a positive role, we know drinking and smoking play a negative one and we know there are outliers. It’s probably best to assume you aren’t one.
mandeepj 4y ago
> However, we cannot control the medication that we take, which carry side effects. >We cannot control what is in our food, we cannot control the air we breath, we cannot control cancer and hundreds other diseases. Seriously? The answer to all of the above - Yes, we can!
- cma 4y ago
  I assume what he means with medications is if the benefits outweigh the side effects, that person is stuck with the side effects.
  - mandeepj 4y ago
    One can at least "try" to find a similar ayurvedic medicine. It has no side effects
- avgDev 4y ago
  You can control the side effects you may get from a medication you take? If you get an infection you are taking meds. If you get kidney stones, you are very likely getting meds, if you injure yourself and need surgery you are getting meds. These carry risks, therefore, every time your chances of "perfect health" are decreasing. I get that most people on HN, can control the air they breath as they have the means to decide where they want to live, this isn't the case for most of the people. Cancer is literally just a numbers game, people in perfect health at their PEAK get diagnosed with cancer. A top club soccer player is now going through testicular cancer treatment. I am not sure how general person can control any of this.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Many cancers are lifestyle affected. For example, smoking and lung cancer. Excessive sun exposure and skin cancer. Alcohol consumption and throat cancer.
- Broken_Hippo 4y ago
  No, it really isn't. "Control your medication" might leave you dead if you are diabetic or leave you hearing voices if your meds control a psychiatric condition. In the same vein, you don't really get a choice in most cancers. Sure, you can do things like never smoke tobacco, but you might just be an 8-year-old with bone cancer. And lots of other afflictions and diseases are similar in this manner, much like you probably won't be able to avoid whatever cold is circulating in your workplace. And I've not seen any proof otherwise.
jl6 4y ago
Perhaps chance is a major factor, but perhaps there are things you can do to increase your odds.
- avgDev 4y ago
  This I definitely agree with, but things are always changing. There is always new research coming out. Some of the research is bogus, just look at earlier days of smoking, the opiate scandal. We are constantly adding new factors to the mix, like microplastics. The environment is changing.
dekhn 4y ago
There is ample evidence in medical research that diet (to the extent that people have control over what they eat) has huge impacts on quality of life at high ages. All of this is about taking actions that reduce risk statistically. None of this is about a magic action that will prevent all disease.
- huijzer 4y ago
  Probably "diet is correlated with quality of life at high ages".
nradov 4y ago
We can control much of the medication that we take. Sometimes medications are absolutely necessary, and we have to accept the negative side effects in order to prevent death or serious symptoms. But too often medications are used as a "patch" to treat chronic conditions that would be better addressed over the long term with lifestyle changes. For example, some fraction of chronic depression cases can be treated effectively with frequent exercise and sunlight exposure instead of SSRIs. I am not trying to discourage anyone from seeking allopathic medical treatment but it's worth investigating all the options.
paulpauper 4y ago
We cannot control what is in our food, Of all the things you listed, I think this is controllable. But I agree genes play a huge role. Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger do no exercise and have famously bad diets, yet both are fully productive and healthy at 91.
- BossingAround 4y ago
  I'd say what's in your food is controllable if you live on a farm. Outside of that, it gets very difficult without scanning barcodes, looking up specific items in a database, and periodically doing lab analyses. There's the "control your food" as in "don't eat fast food" and there's the "control your food" as in "does this fish have high mercury in it?"
  - outworlder 4y ago
    Sure, some food may have contaminants. Fish is a good example. You might have to choose, for instance, farmed salmon instead of wild. Pesticides may be a factor. Microplastics are going to make this a more annoying problem. But far more important is to control _what_ you eat. A tomato is a tomato. But ketchup is not a tomato. You may get health issues from contaminants, maybe. But you _will_ have health issues due to bad diet.
    - BossingAround 4y ago
      Absolutely. I was more thinking about "was this tomato grown with pesticides? If so, which ones? What health impacts does it have?" And if you think pesticides is a small issue, "was this chicken/cow/turkey/... loaded with antibiotics?" Of course, as I said, eating less processed food is a very simple yet effective choice, but beyond that, it sadly seems to get very murky very fast.
yuan43 4y ago
> However, we cannot control the medication that we take, which carry side effects. What makes you say that? The medications one takes are due in part to decisions made earlier in life, which result in conditions experience later for which the drugs are prescribed. Also, drugs aren't the only solution to certain medical problems. For example, you can take weight loss pills, or you can actually cut your caloric intake.
- BossingAround 4y ago
  > The medications one takes are due in part to decisions made earlier in life, which result in conditions experience later for which the drugs are prescribed. This seems like a naive take. While it is technically correct, you most likely cannot significantly influence a number of significant illnesses, such as mental illnesses (e.g. Alzheimers), cancers, blindness, etc. You might slow down the onset at best with some of those. If one doesn't smoke, drink, and walks at least ±2h a week, what else is there to do that has significant benefits..? > Also, drugs aren't the only solution to certain medical problems. For example, you can take weight loss pills, or you can actually cut your caloric intake. Drugs and medical procedures tend to be the only feasible solution to a number of significant illnesses (such as cancer).
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    > what else is there to do that has significant benefits..? Screening.
xwdv 4y ago
“Genetics” is the ultimate excuse people love to use nowadays, and I say this as a person with somewhat eugenic views. The fact is, genetics has a much smaller role than what people think it does. If you make good life choices and stay consistent with optimizing your health your genetics won’t have much relevance. Even if your bloodline is prone to cancers or other diseases you can mitigate dying to those conditions if you have awareness to catch problems early.
Bellamy 4y ago
You should definitely Google "lifestyle medicine".
1e-9 4y ago
I agree that the father appears lucky to have avoided issues such as debilitating disease due to random genetic mutation. Even the father acknowledges that "lots of good luck" was involved. The article does not appear to overstate the significance of this single example. Anecdotes are not useless. They can be inspirational and they can help illuminate possibilities and methods that are otherwise opaque in large-sample statistics. Anecdotes that are consistent with our best scientific understanding are powerful ways of communicating knowledge and providing inspiration for change to those who don't have the ability or inclination to evaluate the studies. In this case, the father is doing several things that large studies tell us are beneficial to health. These unmentioned studies suggest that the father has probably improved his quality of life. Most people I know are far more motivated by such anecdotes than they are by credible statistical analysis. I disagree with your list of uncontrollable variables. All of them are largely controllable. Much of the medication consumed today is either outright unnecessary or can be reduced with lifestyle changes. You can control the air you breath by controlling where you live and when/where you are most active. You can lower your risk of cancer and many other diseases by lifestyle and environmental changes. The fact that complete control and certainty are impossible is no reason for inaction.
- avgDev 4y ago
  I addressed some of this in another comment: "You can control the side effects you may get from a medication you take? If you get an infection you are taking meds. If you get kidney stones, you are very likely getting meds, if you injure yourself and need surgery you are getting meds. These carry risks, therefore, every time your chances of "perfect health" are decreasing. I get that most people on HN, can control the air they breath as they have the means to decide where they want to live, this isn't the case for most of the people. Cancer is literally just a numbers game, people in perfect health at their PEAK get diagnosed with cancer. A top club soccer player is now going through testicular cancer treatment. I am not sure how general person can control any of this." I don't disagree that exercise and healthy habits can be great for your health. But the post seemed like it ignored all the other factors.
  - 1e-9 4y ago

by avgDev 4y ago

methehack 4y ago

Nonsense. No one is trying to establish a causal link here. Still, a concrete example of what's possible is useful and inspirational. If you do this, will you get this outcome? Probably not. Does it help me imagine a possible path? Yes, definitely.

avgDev 4y ago
So, if the article mentioned {insert product name}, doing mushrooms, drinking and smoking, should I look at it as a possible path for me to achieve great health? Even though all it is, is just some survivorship bias? Should I think about doing those things? Am I wrong for not doing those things?
- ericmcer 4y ago
  Yeah it’s anecdotal but there are statistics backing up most of what is said here. We know diet and exercise play a positive role, we know drinking and smoking play a negative one and we know there are outliers. It’s probably best to assume you aren’t one.

mandeepj 4y ago

> However, we cannot control the medication that we take, which carry side effects. >We cannot control what is in our food, we cannot control the air we breath, we cannot control cancer and hundreds other diseases. Seriously? The answer to all of the above - Yes, we can!

cma 4y ago
I assume what he means with medications is if the benefits outweigh the side effects, that person is stuck with the side effects.
- mandeepj 4y ago
  One can at least "try" to find a similar ayurvedic medicine. It has no side effects
avgDev 4y ago
You can control the side effects you may get from a medication you take? If you get an infection you are taking meds. If you get kidney stones, you are very likely getting meds, if you injure yourself and need surgery you are getting meds. These carry risks, therefore, every time your chances of "perfect health" are decreasing. I get that most people on HN, can control the air they breath as they have the means to decide where they want to live, this isn't the case for most of the people. Cancer is literally just a numbers game, people in perfect health at their PEAK get diagnosed with cancer. A top club soccer player is now going through testicular cancer treatment. I am not sure how general person can control any of this.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Many cancers are lifestyle affected. For example, smoking and lung cancer. Excessive sun exposure and skin cancer. Alcohol consumption and throat cancer.
Broken_Hippo 4y ago
No, it really isn't. "Control your medication" might leave you dead if you are diabetic or leave you hearing voices if your meds control a psychiatric condition. In the same vein, you don't really get a choice in most cancers. Sure, you can do things like never smoke tobacco, but you might just be an 8-year-old with bone cancer. And lots of other afflictions and diseases are similar in this manner, much like you probably won't be able to avoid whatever cold is circulating in your workplace. And I've not seen any proof otherwise.

jl6 4y ago

Perhaps chance is a major factor, but perhaps there are things you can do to increase your odds.

avgDev 4y ago
This I definitely agree with, but things are always changing. There is always new research coming out. Some of the research is bogus, just look at earlier days of smoking, the opiate scandal. We are constantly adding new factors to the mix, like microplastics. The environment is changing.

dekhn 4y ago

There is ample evidence in medical research that diet (to the extent that people have control over what they eat) has huge impacts on quality of life at high ages. All of this is about taking actions that reduce risk statistically. None of this is about a magic action that will prevent all disease.

huijzer 4y ago
Probably "diet is correlated with quality of life at high ages".

nradov 4y ago

We can control much of the medication that we take. Sometimes medications are absolutely necessary, and we have to accept the negative side effects in order to prevent death or serious symptoms. But too often medications are used as a "patch" to treat chronic conditions that would be better addressed over the long term with lifestyle changes. For example, some fraction of chronic depression cases can be treated effectively with frequent exercise and sunlight exposure instead of SSRIs. I am not trying to discourage anyone from seeking allopathic medical treatment but it's worth investigating all the options.

paulpauper 4y ago

We cannot control what is in our food, Of all the things you listed, I think this is controllable. But I agree genes play a huge role. Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger do no exercise and have famously bad diets, yet both are fully productive and healthy at 91.

BossingAround 4y ago
I'd say what's in your food is controllable if you live on a farm. Outside of that, it gets very difficult without scanning barcodes, looking up specific items in a database, and periodically doing lab analyses. There's the "control your food" as in "don't eat fast food" and there's the "control your food" as in "does this fish have high mercury in it?"
- outworlder 4y ago
  Sure, some food may have contaminants. Fish is a good example. You might have to choose, for instance, farmed salmon instead of wild. Pesticides may be a factor. Microplastics are going to make this a more annoying problem. But far more important is to control _what_ you eat. A tomato is a tomato. But ketchup is not a tomato. You may get health issues from contaminants, maybe. But you _will_ have health issues due to bad diet.
  - BossingAround 4y ago
    Absolutely. I was more thinking about "was this tomato grown with pesticides? If so, which ones? What health impacts does it have?" And if you think pesticides is a small issue, "was this chicken/cow/turkey/... loaded with antibiotics?" Of course, as I said, eating less processed food is a very simple yet effective choice, but beyond that, it sadly seems to get very murky very fast.

yuan43 4y ago

> However, we cannot control the medication that we take, which carry side effects. What makes you say that? The medications one takes are due in part to decisions made earlier in life, which result in conditions experience later for which the drugs are prescribed. Also, drugs aren't the only solution to certain medical problems. For example, you can take weight loss pills, or you can actually cut your caloric intake.

BossingAround 4y ago
> The medications one takes are due in part to decisions made earlier in life, which result in conditions experience later for which the drugs are prescribed. This seems like a naive take. While it is technically correct, you most likely cannot significantly influence a number of significant illnesses, such as mental illnesses (e.g. Alzheimers), cancers, blindness, etc. You might slow down the onset at best with some of those. If one doesn't smoke, drink, and walks at least ±2h a week, what else is there to do that has significant benefits..? > Also, drugs aren't the only solution to certain medical problems. For example, you can take weight loss pills, or you can actually cut your caloric intake. Drugs and medical procedures tend to be the only feasible solution to a number of significant illnesses (such as cancer).
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  > what else is there to do that has significant benefits..? Screening.

xwdv 4y ago

“Genetics” is the ultimate excuse people love to use nowadays, and I say this as a person with somewhat eugenic views. The fact is, genetics has a much smaller role than what people think it does. If you make good life choices and stay consistent with optimizing your health your genetics won’t have much relevance. Even if your bloodline is prone to cancers or other diseases you can mitigate dying to those conditions if you have awareness to catch problems early.

Bellamy 4y ago

You should definitely Google "lifestyle medicine".

1e-9 4y ago

I agree that the father appears lucky to have avoided issues such as debilitating disease due to random genetic mutation. Even the father acknowledges that "lots of good luck" was involved. The article does not appear to overstate the significance of this single example. Anecdotes are not useless. They can be inspirational and they can help illuminate possibilities and methods that are otherwise opaque in large-sample statistics. Anecdotes that are consistent with our best scientific understanding are powerful ways of communicating knowledge and providing inspiration for change to those who don't have the ability or inclination to evaluate the studies. In this case, the father is doing several things that large studies tell us are beneficial to health. These unmentioned studies suggest that the father has probably improved his quality of life. Most people I know are far more motivated by such anecdotes than they are by credible statistical analysis. I disagree with your list of uncontrollable variables. All of them are largely controllable. Much of the medication consumed today is either outright unnecessary or can be reduced with lifestyle changes. You can control the air you breath by controlling where you live and when/where you are most active. You can lower your risk of cancer and many other diseases by lifestyle and environmental changes. The fact that complete control and certainty are impossible is no reason for inaction.

avgDev 4y ago
I addressed some of this in another comment: "You can control the side effects you may get from a medication you take? If you get an infection you are taking meds. If you get kidney stones, you are very likely getting meds, if you injure yourself and need surgery you are getting meds. These carry risks, therefore, every time your chances of "perfect health" are decreasing. I get that most people on HN, can control the air they breath as they have the means to decide where they want to live, this isn't the case for most of the people. Cancer is literally just a numbers game, people in perfect health at their PEAK get diagnosed with cancer. A top club soccer player is now going through testicular cancer treatment. I am not sure how general person can control any of this." I don't disagree that exercise and healthy habits can be great for your health. But the post seemed like it ignored all the other factors.
- 1e-9 4y ago