Hacker News Reader

I had assumed "the MESA study population" was a particularly unhealthy bunch in terms of this measurement, meaning the 50th percentile puts one in the worst half of an already bad off group.

View on HN

I don't know the exact details, but I thought the Framingham survey was just a cross-section of the population. So getting upset about a 50th percentile score makes no sense at a population level.

A quick Google says that the Mesa study was actually of people without cardiovascular disease at the beginning of the study. So again, these conclusions don't make any sense to me.

Of course it makes sense. 30% of this population will die of heart disease. You don’t want to be at the median of that population if you can avoid it. And as a society we need to move the median, not just accept it. Which means giving people better advice based on better data.

I mean, how many people have cardiovascular events? I don't actually know, but 50% sounds right.

That would make sense, but again, should be mentioned as context for why the number is bad. It's not as though we're skimping on wordcount here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com