5 ms·

In one of my favorite books, Antifragile, Nassim Taleb argues that health is largely subtractive - if you want to be healthy, remove unnatural things from your

In one of my favorite books, Antifragile, Nassim Taleb argues that health is largely subtractive - if you want to be healthy, remove unnatural things from your body (sugar, medicines, sitting too much, etc), and only undergo surgery, go to the hospital, or take medicine in very serious cases where the harm of not doing something outweighs the potential complications. Especially since hearing more about more about how the American health system is not exactly incentivized to always look out for the best interest of the patient, I'm inclined to agree with him.

hfourm 9y ago
Further, try to take only what medicine you need, maybe just a Sudafed instead of a SUDAFED DM X + PAIN
adrr 9y ago
Infant mortality and life expectancy are improving with modern medicine and diet. Most of our problems today stem from the over consumption of food and lack of physical activity. Cancer rates are at an all time low even though media makes it seem like everything(non caloric sweeteners, plastics, herbicides) around us causes cancer. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/race.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/race.htm
- mmstick 9y ago
  Except that the US, a major proponent of modern medicine, ranks very poorly compared to other nations in the infant mortality charts -- especially against countries that prefer natural non-western medicine, and life expectancy is clearly linked to financial status -- those that can afford health care. IE: where I used to live in Arkansas, the average life expectancy is 67, whereas in a rich state like Virginia, it's 87. What's the difference? Ability to afford health care.
  - adrr 9y ago
    Everything is correlated to obesity. Arkansas has the highest obesity rate in the nation. When you look into our infant mortality rate it is linked in preterm births. Preterm birth is highly linked to obesity and is trending up. http://sm.stanford.edu/archive/stanmed/2013fall/article2.html http://sm.stanford.edu/archive/stanmed/2013fall/article2.htm...
EGreg 9y ago
My grandfather used to tell me about a Chinese king who paid his doctors only when he was well, not the other way around. I used to really dislike private insurance companies but after teaching about Charles Babbage using math for "Comparative View of the Various Institutions for the Assurance of Lives" I realized something: Insurance companies are the most aligned with your wellness financially. They want as many healthy people to pay in as possible. And thus a government health insurance system with universal coverage would be even more financially aligned with increasing health. I think one of the greatest things you can do as a startup is to improve health for people, through diet and exercise apps and preventative checkups etc. and the insurance companies will PAY YOU to do it!
- fictioncircle 9y ago
  > Insurance companies are the most aligned with your wellness financially. They want as many healthy people to pay in as possible. That is only true if they are forced to accept people blindly and without screening. Otherwise, they simply create a screening process centered around removing unhealthy people and preventing unhealthy people from enrolling.
  - theseatoms 9y ago
    If an insurance company can "remove" you when you become unhealthy, then they weren't providing insurance in the first place.
    - dzdt 9y ago
      What do you think happens when insurance is provided through your employer and you develop a health problem that interferes with your ability to do that job?
      - theseatoms 9y ago
        You likely lose your job and your healthcare insurance, at least after some period of time, I'm assuming. (Fortunately I can't speak from experience.) So you did not, in fact, have insurance against a very bad situation. All the more reason to eliminate employer-based health insurance tax incentives. I don't buy anything else through my employer. Why should I be insuring against my future medical bills through them? It obscures my effective insurance premia (via a lower salary), on top of the already obscured price of healthcare, since most insurance policies cover so many incidental, non-catastrophic medical costs.
raverbashing 9y ago
Sugar is natural (though HFCS is not) The first cartoon tells everything I think about this: http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/bob-mankoff/cave-cuisine http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/bob-mankoff/cave-cuisine
- dcolgan 9y ago
  I would argue that yes, sugar is natural, but the degree that people tend to eat sugar these days is unnatural. I'd argue that is the root problem. And to respond to the first image of the comic, that nobody lives past 30, some things I've read suggest that was more due to infant mortality skewing the average, deaths from war, and deaths from what today would be preventable diseases. If an ancient person avoided those three things, they lived quite a long time, and didn't get cancer or heart disease. I have no exact sources for those last few assertions, it's just what I remember reading (I think also in the Antifragile book).
- narrowrail 9y ago
  While sugar (a really generic term usually referring to sucrose) is natural, it occurs in the highly fibrous stalks of sugar cane. Most sugars naturally occur within fiber, while modern food practices extract and/or refine leaving the fiber behind.
taeric 9y ago
While I love that and the related books, I think this is somewhat silly. At a base level where you are depriving your body of everything, food is medicinal in nature. Without it, you die. Now, I get that being cognizant of what you add to your body seems beneficial. And, to a large extent, adding extra burden to your liver and other organs is not a good idea. However, to think that you should avoid all medicine unless acutely sick seems disingenuous. And to modify that for allowing chronically sick people opens a wide door to a ton of chronic states.
Theodores 9y ago
I could not agree with you more! Today is my last day clutching a frothy latte, ever! I gave up on chocolate recently due to Cadbury's being bought by Kraft and since then I have moved to the equally sugary fruits for my treats. So now I am going to eat what I eat when I am not well - fruit, salads, fruit and more salads. No beige foods and not necessarily cooked meals. So no chips either. I also happen to be vegetarian so I really just want to fine tune what I eat rather than go on a diet, which rarely works for people who do such things. I also think there is something cool about being 'powered by fruit, nuts and vegetables' with only a bicycle for transport. I am not convinced about any medicines, particularly pain killers, I will save those and the antibiotics until I get past 8 on the A+E pain scale. https://www.fastcompany.com/3050319/how-giving-up-refined-sugar-changed-my-brain https://www.fastcompany.com/3050319/how-giving-up-refined-su...
criley2 9y ago
>if you want to be healthy, remove unnatural things from your body (sugar, medicines, sitting too much, etc), ?? What is "natural"? How do you define "natural"? Is there a single point in human evolution that you call "done" and emulating that discrete point is natural, and anything before or after is 'unnatural'? I always struggle to understand "natural" woo because it is, at its core, an undefined and meaningless word with absolutely no scientific or medical relevance. >and only undergo surgery, go to the hospital, or take medicine in very serious cases where the harm of not doing something outweighs the potential complications. So, basic modern medicine? If your general doctor is recommending unnecessary medications or not doing cost/benefit for you, then medicine isn't broken, your doctor is. >Especially since hearing more about more about how the American health system is not exactly incentivized to always look out for the best interest of the patient, I'm inclined to agree with him. Why on earth would you conflate the profit motives of healthcare middlemen to imply that the science behind medicine isn't credible? This is a shockingly ignorant statement openly peddling ludditeism and implicitly denouncing science in favor of the pitiful naturalism fallacy. Really surprised to see such irrationalism on this forum.
- scrollbar 9y ago
  I will reflect your outrage back to you now: Why on earth would you NOT assume that institutionalized greed affects the results of medical science? Who is funding the science? What are their financial motives? Who conducts the research? What are their financial motives? Are incentives aligned to produce quality medical research with the patient's best interests in mind, or the bottom lines of medical companies (pharma, medtech, even hospitals, etc.)? I'm shocked and surprised at your shock and surprise. I don't think your arguments are irrational. I simply think they are naïve.
  - criley2 9y ago
    >Why on earth would you NOT assume that institutionalized greed affects the results of medical science? Because I studied medical science and research for many years, have family in the medical field, and write medical software for a living. Or rather, I understand very clearly how greed and the capitalist motivation affects health care, as it's literally my life. But with a realistic understanding comes the end of emotional histrionics and petty exaggeration. AKA: I'm basically informed on this subject, unlike most of the commenters here. >Who is funding the science? What are their financial motives? Who conducts the research? What are their financial motives? Are incentives aligned to produce quality medical research with the patient's best interests in mind, or the bottom lines of medical companies (pharma, medtech, even hospitals, etc.)? What is GLP? What is GMP? What is a NME? How many NME's does the FDA approve per year? >I'm shocked and surprised at your shock and surprise. I don't think your arguments are irrational. I simply think they are naïve. I'm not shocked or surprised at your response, it's a classic case of Dunning Kruger where you are so ignorant regarding medical science, the intense science based regulation of the FDA, and the business of creating drugs, biologics, devices etc, that you are inherently incapable of evaluating your or mine competency here. If you think I am naive, that is a real testament to the depth of your ignorance on this subject. Back in university, we used this book to teach people the absolute and most basic fundamentals of this industry https://www.amazon.com/Drugs-Discovery-Approval-Rick-Ng/dp/047019510X https://www.amazon.com/Drugs-Discovery-Approval-Rick-Ng/dp/0... If you'd like me to answer your questions honestly, I'd be more than happy to take some time to source and answer your question from the perspective of someone who has studied this subject academically and participates in it professionally. But the book linked will discuss I believe every one of your ethical concerns.
openasocket 9y ago
> only undergo surgery, go to the hospital, or take medicine in very serious cases where the harm of not doing something outweighs the potential complications Is there anyone, in the world, advocating for getting surgery or taking medicine when the harm of not doing so is less than the potential complications? I'm pretty sure if a doctor did that it would be malpractice.
dkural 9y ago
vaccines, antibiotics etc. are pretty big improvements upon the natural order. Brings the famous New Yorker cartoon about cavemen observing their life spans to mind.
Fnoord 9y ago
> if you want to be healthy, remove unnatural things from your body (sugar, medicines, sitting too much, etc) You should not stop using medicine without discussing this with your MD. I said medicine; you should do the same with drugs. Some drugs should not be quit cold turkey. To name one, alcohol. Furthermore, the reason you should try to not use too many medicine, is because medicine (and drugs, and herbs) have side effects. So you (and your MD) need to think critical if the good outweighs the bad, and this should be reflected throughout the lifetime of the usage of the medicine. Because before you know it, you end up using medicine B, C, and D all because of side effects related to medicine A. As for 'unnatural', criley2 touched upon that subject; how do you define that? Is synthetic counterpart always worse than natural counterpart? I find such advice downright dangerous. Following that logic, St John's Wort is always better than a synthetic anti depressant. St John's Wort has its place (if standardised!), but it has a lot of contra indications. It doesn't work well with a LOT of other medicines and drugs. For example, it is dangerous if used together with an SSRI or with MDMA. Yet, if people follow the advice by this writer, they'd prefer to resort to a herb like this (perhaps not even standardised) because "its natural". I knew people who ate raw meat regularly, and had to be administered to hospital because of food poisoning. Yet refused, because the hospital wasn't 'raw food' enough. Don't tell me this "it has to be natural" bullshit. It stems from a fear of the unknown, technology or science. It claims to argue that only Earth and nature are good. I'm not buying that (I'm not buying the 'natural is bad' either though). What is good or bad for you has to stand on its own merit. Drawing the line between 'natural' and 'unnatural' (whatever that indeed might be) is a silly oversimplification. Don't buy into it! People who use it are trying to grab your money out of your pocket to make a run for it.
- narrowrail 9y ago
  What is the difference between medicine and drugs? It seems highly relevant since there seems to be some quibbling about using the word natural and that it has no meaning (I agree, but another comment mentioned exactly what Taleb meant by natural).

hfourm 9y ago

Further, try to take only what medicine you need, maybe just a Sudafed instead of a SUDAFED DM X + PAIN

adrr 9y ago

Infant mortality and life expectancy are improving with modern medicine and diet. Most of our problems today stem from the over consumption of food and lack of physical activity. Cancer rates are at an all time low even though media makes it seem like everything(non caloric sweeteners, plastics, herbicides) around us causes cancer. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/race.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/race.htm

mmstick 9y ago
Except that the US, a major proponent of modern medicine, ranks very poorly compared to other nations in the infant mortality charts -- especially against countries that prefer natural non-western medicine, and life expectancy is clearly linked to financial status -- those that can afford health care. IE: where I used to live in Arkansas, the average life expectancy is 67, whereas in a rich state like Virginia, it's 87. What's the difference? Ability to afford health care.
- adrr 9y ago
  Everything is correlated to obesity. Arkansas has the highest obesity rate in the nation. When you look into our infant mortality rate it is linked in preterm births. Preterm birth is highly linked to obesity and is trending up. http://sm.stanford.edu/archive/stanmed/2013fall/article2.html http://sm.stanford.edu/archive/stanmed/2013fall/article2.htm...

EGreg 9y ago

My grandfather used to tell me about a Chinese king who paid his doctors only when he was well, not the other way around. I used to really dislike private insurance companies but after teaching about Charles Babbage using math for "Comparative View of the Various Institutions for the Assurance of Lives" I realized something: Insurance companies are the most aligned with your wellness financially. They want as many healthy people to pay in as possible. And thus a government health insurance system with universal coverage would be even more financially aligned with increasing health. I think one of the greatest things you can do as a startup is to improve health for people, through diet and exercise apps and preventative checkups etc. and the insurance companies will PAY YOU to do it!

fictioncircle 9y ago
> Insurance companies are the most aligned with your wellness financially. They want as many healthy people to pay in as possible. That is only true if they are forced to accept people blindly and without screening. Otherwise, they simply create a screening process centered around removing unhealthy people and preventing unhealthy people from enrolling.
- theseatoms 9y ago
  If an insurance company can "remove" you when you become unhealthy, then they weren't providing insurance in the first place.
  - dzdt 9y ago
    What do you think happens when insurance is provided through your employer and you develop a health problem that interferes with your ability to do that job?
    - theseatoms 9y ago
      You likely lose your job and your healthcare insurance, at least after some period of time, I'm assuming. (Fortunately I can't speak from experience.) So you did not, in fact, have insurance against a very bad situation. All the more reason to eliminate employer-based health insurance tax incentives. I don't buy anything else through my employer. Why should I be insuring against my future medical bills through them? It obscures my effective insurance premia (via a lower salary), on top of the already obscured price of healthcare, since most insurance policies cover so many incidental, non-catastrophic medical costs.

raverbashing 9y ago

Sugar is natural (though HFCS is not) The first cartoon tells everything I think about this: http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/bob-mankoff/cave-cuisine http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/bob-mankoff/cave-cuisine

dcolgan 9y ago
I would argue that yes, sugar is natural, but the degree that people tend to eat sugar these days is unnatural. I'd argue that is the root problem. And to respond to the first image of the comic, that nobody lives past 30, some things I've read suggest that was more due to infant mortality skewing the average, deaths from war, and deaths from what today would be preventable diseases. If an ancient person avoided those three things, they lived quite a long time, and didn't get cancer or heart disease. I have no exact sources for those last few assertions, it's just what I remember reading (I think also in the Antifragile book).
narrowrail 9y ago
While sugar (a really generic term usually referring to sucrose) is natural, it occurs in the highly fibrous stalks of sugar cane. Most sugars naturally occur within fiber, while modern food practices extract and/or refine leaving the fiber behind.

taeric 9y ago

While I love that and the related books, I think this is somewhat silly. At a base level where you are depriving your body of everything, food is medicinal in nature. Without it, you die. Now, I get that being cognizant of what you add to your body seems beneficial. And, to a large extent, adding extra burden to your liver and other organs is not a good idea. However, to think that you should avoid all medicine unless acutely sick seems disingenuous. And to modify that for allowing chronically sick people opens a wide door to a ton of chronic states.

Theodores 9y ago

I could not agree with you more! Today is my last day clutching a frothy latte, ever! I gave up on chocolate recently due to Cadbury's being bought by Kraft and since then I have moved to the equally sugary fruits for my treats. So now I am going to eat what I eat when I am not well - fruit, salads, fruit and more salads. No beige foods and not necessarily cooked meals. So no chips either. I also happen to be vegetarian so I really just want to fine tune what I eat rather than go on a diet, which rarely works for people who do such things. I also think there is something cool about being 'powered by fruit, nuts and vegetables' with only a bicycle for transport. I am not convinced about any medicines, particularly pain killers, I will save those and the antibiotics until I get past 8 on the A+E pain scale. https://www.fastcompany.com/3050319/how-giving-up-refined-sugar-changed-my-brain https://www.fastcompany.com/3050319/how-giving-up-refined-su...

criley2 9y ago

>if you want to be healthy, remove unnatural things from your body (sugar, medicines, sitting too much, etc), ?? What is "natural"? How do you define "natural"? Is there a single point in human evolution that you call "done" and emulating that discrete point is natural, and anything before or after is 'unnatural'? I always struggle to understand "natural" woo because it is, at its core, an undefined and meaningless word with absolutely no scientific or medical relevance. >and only undergo surgery, go to the hospital, or take medicine in very serious cases where the harm of not doing something outweighs the potential complications. So, basic modern medicine? If your general doctor is recommending unnecessary medications or not doing cost/benefit for you, then medicine isn't broken, your doctor is. >Especially since hearing more about more about how the American health system is not exactly incentivized to always look out for the best interest of the patient, I'm inclined to agree with him. Why on earth would you conflate the profit motives of healthcare middlemen to imply that the science behind medicine isn't credible? This is a shockingly ignorant statement openly peddling ludditeism and implicitly denouncing science in favor of the pitiful naturalism fallacy. Really surprised to see such irrationalism on this forum.

scrollbar 9y ago
I will reflect your outrage back to you now: Why on earth would you NOT assume that institutionalized greed affects the results of medical science? Who is funding the science? What are their financial motives? Who conducts the research? What are their financial motives? Are incentives aligned to produce quality medical research with the patient's best interests in mind, or the bottom lines of medical companies (pharma, medtech, even hospitals, etc.)? I'm shocked and surprised at your shock and surprise. I don't think your arguments are irrational. I simply think they are naïve.
- criley2 9y ago
  >Why on earth would you NOT assume that institutionalized greed affects the results of medical science? Because I studied medical science and research for many years, have family in the medical field, and write medical software for a living. Or rather, I understand very clearly how greed and the capitalist motivation affects health care, as it's literally my life. But with a realistic understanding comes the end of emotional histrionics and petty exaggeration. AKA: I'm basically informed on this subject, unlike most of the commenters here. >Who is funding the science? What are their financial motives? Who conducts the research? What are their financial motives? Are incentives aligned to produce quality medical research with the patient's best interests in mind, or the bottom lines of medical companies (pharma, medtech, even hospitals, etc.)? What is GLP? What is GMP? What is a NME? How many NME's does the FDA approve per year? >I'm shocked and surprised at your shock and surprise. I don't think your arguments are irrational. I simply think they are naïve. I'm not shocked or surprised at your response, it's a classic case of Dunning Kruger where you are so ignorant regarding medical science, the intense science based regulation of the FDA, and the business of creating drugs, biologics, devices etc, that you are inherently incapable of evaluating your or mine competency here. If you think I am naive, that is a real testament to the depth of your ignorance on this subject. Back in university, we used this book to teach people the absolute and most basic fundamentals of this industry https://www.amazon.com/Drugs-Discovery-Approval-Rick-Ng/dp/047019510X https://www.amazon.com/Drugs-Discovery-Approval-Rick-Ng/dp/0... If you'd like me to answer your questions honestly, I'd be more than happy to take some time to source and answer your question from the perspective of someone who has studied this subject academically and participates in it professionally. But the book linked will discuss I believe every one of your ethical concerns.

openasocket 9y ago

> only undergo surgery, go to the hospital, or take medicine in very serious cases where the harm of not doing something outweighs the potential complications Is there anyone, in the world, advocating for getting surgery or taking medicine when the harm of not doing so is less than the potential complications? I'm pretty sure if a doctor did that it would be malpractice.

dkural 9y ago

vaccines, antibiotics etc. are pretty big improvements upon the natural order. Brings the famous New Yorker cartoon about cavemen observing their life spans to mind.

Fnoord 9y ago

> if you want to be healthy, remove unnatural things from your body (sugar, medicines, sitting too much, etc) You should not stop using medicine without discussing this with your MD. I said medicine; you should do the same with drugs. Some drugs should not be quit cold turkey. To name one, alcohol. Furthermore, the reason you should try to not use too many medicine, is because medicine (and drugs, and herbs) have side effects. So you (and your MD) need to think critical if the good outweighs the bad, and this should be reflected throughout the lifetime of the usage of the medicine. Because before you know it, you end up using medicine B, C, and D all because of side effects related to medicine A. As for 'unnatural', criley2 touched upon that subject; how do you define that? Is synthetic counterpart always worse than natural counterpart? I find such advice downright dangerous. Following that logic, St John's Wort is always better than a synthetic anti depressant. St John's Wort has its place (if standardised!), but it has a lot of contra indications. It doesn't work well with a LOT of other medicines and drugs. For example, it is dangerous if used together with an SSRI or with MDMA. Yet, if people follow the advice by this writer, they'd prefer to resort to a herb like this (perhaps not even standardised) because "its natural". I knew people who ate raw meat regularly, and had to be administered to hospital because of food poisoning. Yet refused, because the hospital wasn't 'raw food' enough. Don't tell me this "it has to be natural" bullshit. It stems from a fear of the unknown, technology or science. It claims to argue that only Earth and nature are good. I'm not buying that (I'm not buying the 'natural is bad' either though). What is good or bad for you has to stand on its own merit. Drawing the line between 'natural' and 'unnatural' (whatever that indeed might be) is a silly oversimplification. Don't buy into it! People who use it are trying to grab your money out of your pocket to make a run for it.

narrowrail 9y ago
What is the difference between medicine and drugs? It seems highly relevant since there seems to be some quibbling about using the word natural and that it has no meaning (I agree, but another comment mentioned exactly what Taleb meant by natural).