Hacker News Reader

Comment by RobertRoberts | Hacker News Reader

>What a rollercoaster.

Decades ago everyone _knew_ smoking caused cigarettes. As a middle schooler I could intuitively see that overeating sugar would lead to diabetic issues that are just now being "proven" by science.

Is it possible that the UK health system has figured out something that is obvious through their experiences with so many people? If you are overweight and unhealthy in general, that in general you will have more instances of every disease?

But until there are actual concerted scientific studies, not intimidated by social/political bullying, to consider behavior as a risk factor for disease, what can be done?

We can only rely on common sense, simplistic views, spreadsheets of private data we aren't legally allowed to share, etc... People in health care are stuck between a rock and a hard-place. (scientific studies vs what is obvious in front of them)

View on HN

>Decades ago everyone _knew_ smoking caused cigarettes.

Surrealists, dadaists and fans of retrocausality tried in vain to warn us that smoking caused cigarettes

> Surrealists, dadaists and fans of retrocausality tried in vain to warn us that smoking caused cigarettes

At risk of taking this typo-launched tangent far too seriously, smoking absolutely caused cigarettes, and without retrocausality; cigarettes weren't the first vehicle for smoking, and were developed as a result of the popularity of the practice.

lol, wow, I have a slight issue with transposing information... it caught me this time. Watch out you may catch lung cigarettes...

You might be interested to learn that one of the fathers of modern statistics believed this too

https://priceonomics.com/why-the-father-of-modern-statistics...

While it can often seem that way, that lack of scientific studies is 'holding us back'... consider the alternative. Leaded gasoline. Thalidomide. Eugenics. Slipshod scientific rigor and a willingness to cut corners because things "seemed right" has a horrendous body count.

>... cut corners because things "seemed right" has a horrendous body count.

I don't disagree, but I would emphasize your phrase "cut corners". I think there's an diametrically opposite approach to health between "guessing for a cure" and "guessing for a cause".

People who used leeches to suck their blood out were "guessing it helped", where people who sought out clean air and clean water for say tuberculosis for example, weren't "guessing a cure", they knew clean air and water were good for you, even if it didn't cure the disease, it should at least help.

I think this same logic applies in the issue of obesity/[cancer|any health issue]. Maybe it's not a cure, but it can't hurt until we know more.

”If you are overweight and unhealthy in general, that in general you will have more instances of every disease?”

I don’t think there’s an agreed upon testable definition of “healthy” that’s substantially different from “free of disease”. That makes that statement trivially true. That’s part of the reason these experts are so careful in the conclusions they draw.

And smoking doesn’t _cause_ cigarettes, it destroys them ;-)

>I don’t think there’s an agreed upon testable definition of “healthy”...

I think it's a universal absolute that every individual has a healthy and non-healthy state. Regardless of our ability to classify that state accurately with labels or tests.

I know I had stupid transposed bit of wording... har.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com