Four-in-one pill prevents third of heart problems: study
bbc.com
bbc.com
This may be what more studies in the future will look like: Bundle multiple interventions together to help create statistically stronger results, at the cost of less clarity around each individual treatment.
EDIT: Someone else on HN noticed there possibly was no placebo for the control group- This worries me. Also, there's no indication in the methodology that the "field team" was blinded as to treatment groups :(
I'm probably stating the obvious, but it may also be that multiple interventions together have a larger net effect than the interventions separately would suggest. I recently read an article by a physician arguing for many of his patients, treating ADHD with a combination of a stimulant and a non-stimulant resulted in bigger benefits with less side-effects, due to being able to have a lower dosage for each individual medication[0].
[0] https://www.additudemag.com/adhd-medication-combination-ther...
Here's an excerpt from a video about double speak and it brings up statins.
It actually infuriates me that doctors try to bully people into medications that don't actually provide them a net benefit because the doctors themselves have been duped.
Why didn't the other half get a placebo? Or is this sloppy editing?
Not only do they miss the placebo effect but also the daily reminder to improve their lifestyle (pill as anchor)
1: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Related: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15604180
'The Polymeal: a more natural, safer, and probably tastier (than the Polypill) strategy to reduce cardiovascular disease by more than 75%'
You’re not supposed to chew the thing!
> They suggest a person should consume, every day: 150 mL of red wine (about one glass), 100 g of dark chocolate, 400 g of fruits and vegetables, 2.7 g of garlic, 68 g of almonds, as well as 118 g of fish per day four times each week.
This advice may make sense on the aggregate, but for a truly healthy individual with otherwise low risk factors, this has the potential to do more harm than good.
I do agree that overall this makes sense for most people though - and that a combination of both approaches sounds like really good advice.
Edit: Clarified opinion.
I won't need this pill (I don't think), but there's probably a tremendous number of people who could have extended lifetimes because of this. Yeah, they should improve their health choices, but good luck forcing that on people.
I suppose the downside is taking the pill and thinking you can eat like crap. (Like overeating on low-fat cookies - still an unhealthy choice).
If aimed at society-wide transformations to built space, values, and practices, it could prove highly useful.
We once had environments in which the advice was essentially impossible to not follow. And though there were other health complications, and the issues of cardiac, pulmonary, and malignant diseases existed, they seem to have been somewhat less prevalent, even among otherwise susceptible (largely: elderly) populations.
Everybody can't go gangbusters on healthy diet and ample exercise. But those who can benefit. An environment which makes this integral to everyday routines helps massively. An environment which makes this a stuggle (viz: virtually all modern industrialised countries and practices to some extent or another) is an immense impediment.
you keep just glossing over the costs. "if one has the time". it's an opportunity cost.
Free but very, very hard because it goes against our instincts, yet easier than "stop being poor" because you're changing yourself, not your society.
To quote the site's guidelines:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
It is snarky. It isn't thoughtful or substantive.
They do have a good point, but the discussion is obviously more nuanced than that. People generally know that exercise is good for them, yet many/most people don't engage in it to a healthy degree. So some discussion of other approaches is appropriate. Let's not make "the perfect the enemy of the good" and all that.
And we don't need to be either/or here. For individuals that have even a moderately elevated risk, doing both is probably a great idea (and of course this is already broadly recommended advice). Doing just one would still be better, and most people would choose a pill over exercise. Still a win in my book.
A practical solution would need to involve some compromise because people aren't perfect. The majority of people find it extremely hard to main a clean diet and get in 15 minutes of hard exercise a day.
If this pill can help then great, but I agree it shouldn't be viewed as the ideal solution. Diet and exercise is still the best fix in most cases.
If I had said “great development, [something about how clinical trials need to be disrupted], [summary of article]” I would be upvoted.
My own brand of mildly pessimistic realism has proved reasonably successful here. Though it's involved adaptations. And occasional "what, me worry" parries.
Never mind when I was first diagnosed I was actually underweight because the chronic lack of sleep had completely removed my appetite and that I only drink a couple of times a year.
It also assumes that this advice isn't something my doctor wouldn't have given me if it were appropriate
This isn’t about sleep apnea, but heart disease and stroke from high cholesterol and blood pressure, both of which diet and exercise are the leading cause.
Poor diet alone is linked to half of heart attacks and strokes. Poor diet and exercise has a large negative impact on health. It’s not some made up conspiracy to shame people.
Take X pill to solve Y, but side effect(s) are Z.
Your best bet in life now is to invest in your health early. It's a compounding effect. Walk regularly. Exercise. Eat healthy (mostly vegetables, fruit, reduce animal products). Sleep well.
Until then, I'll happily take my ibuprofen pill instead of wondering where my life went wrong so that I now have fever and am in pain.
It's a really hard problem, in all sorts of ways. We're still at a very preliminary phase of that research. But that'll really help with the "side effect" problem.
People have been taking medicines for mellenia, and pills are just medicine that has been measured and packaged in a convenient way. Its the difference between telling patients "Go find a willow tree and eat some of its bark" vs. "take two aspirin".
I just feel like they are a disappointing "solution" to a yet fully understood problem. I'm hopeful that we (humanity) continue to invest in real cures, rather than treatments that often come with side effects.
It's entirely possible that some diseases will be cured by pills, as they are just a delivery mechanism for medicine (and I would like to reiterate they are pretty great at that).
To your main point about treating symptoms vs. creating cures, yes its pretty unfortunate. But most likely, we will be finding cures for diseases one at a time, and there will always be conditions where we can only treat the symptoms.
Big Mac and Big Farm love you ;-)
I’m pretty sure we have a pill to stop you from worrying so much about that problem.
Your best bet in life now is to invest in your health early. It's a compounding effect. Walk regularly. Exercise. Eat healthy (mostly vegetables, fruit, reduce animal products). Sleep well.
Why not both?