Hej, yeah, living healthy only a decade longer is no sexy longterminst inifinite-live cause ;-)
Still. I recently stumbled over an small article in the New Scientist. As I had to make most calculations myself and ended saying, that humankind could increase their healthy lifespan by years, even by a decade - I´m happy to see, that others came to the same conclusions.
Here is the Link: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2307510-cutting-down-meat-and-dairy-could-help-you-live-up-to-a-decade-longer/
Best wishes and stay healthy!
We have someone doing some of our household-work (cleaning, some ironing, folding clothes, etc) for us. It‘s only 6 hours a month for her. We „save“ rather 10 hours - she‘s faster. Even with less money, I would still love to pay her a good wage, because it really saves some time.
Thx for commenting. I have to agree with you and disagree somewhat with my earlier comment. (#placebo). Actually placebo-effects are fine and if a placebo helps people: Great!
And yes, getting a specific treatment effect + the placebo-effect is better (and more like in real life), than getting no treatment at all.
Please don´t get me wrong. I do not like the research from strongminds for the above mentioned reasons (I am sure nobody got me wrong on this). And for some other reasons. But that does mean, that their therapy-work is bad or inefficient. Even if they overestimate their effects by a factor of 4 (it might be 20, it might be 2 - I just made those numbers up) it would still be very valuable work.
They did not have a placebo-receiving control group. For example some kind of unstructured talking-group etc. Ideally an intervention known as „useless“ but sounding plausible. So we do not know, which effects are due to regression to the middle, social desirable answers etc. This is basically enough to make their research rather useless. And proper control groups are common for quiete a while.
No „real“ evaluation of the results. Only depending on what their patients said, but not checking, if this is correct (children going to school more often…). Not even for a subgroup.
They had the impression, that patients answered in a social desirable way - and adressed that problem completely inadequate. Arguing social desirable answers would happen only at the end of the treatment, but not near the end of the treatment. ?! So they simply took near-end numbers for granted. ?!
If their depression treatment is as good as they claim, then it is magnitudes better, than ALL common treatments in high-income countries. And much cheaper. And faster. And with less specialized instuctors… ?! And did they invent something new? Nope. They took an already existing treatment - and now it works SO much better? This seems implausible to me.
As far as I know SoGive is reviewing strongminds research. They should be able to back (or reject) my comments here.
I recently looked into strongminds „research“ and their findings. I was extremely dissapointed by the low standards. It seemed like they simply wanted to make up super-good numbers. Their results are extremely unrealistic.
Are there new results from proper research?
I am writing on a post about "better/healthier diets" simply due to their effect on human health. I hope it will be out during the next weeks. - I have to wait for some feedback by experts on this topic.
this page/link below is in german, but we know, there are some german-speaking ea´s. it´s an article in an economic newspaper and it´s about the benefit of using lotteries for choosing supervisors/superiors and there seem to be quiet some benefits in some cases. (google translate does a sufficient job here). https://www.wiwo.de/erfolg/management/aleatorische-verfahren-befoerderung-per-zufall-wir-wuerfeln-einen-chef/26621916.html
my guess is: whether lotteries are great depends on the sample. if it´s tricky to make a good decision -> lotteries may be great/ better (than a complex decision scheme). if it´s easy to make a good decision: lotteries sure are a bad thing.
example: as long as high skilled workers compete for a promotion: lotteries may be a good way to decide whom to promote. but after some years/ decades of lotteries workers may realize that there is no need to excel at ones job, because promotion does not depend on it. or even low-skilled workers may aplly for a promotion. same might be true for apllying for research grants, etc.
Thanks for writing this!
Sure. Malnutrition: eating the wrong things as a voluntary choice despite having alternatives. Undernourishment: one does not get enough food, f.e. because there is not enough/because one can‘t afford it.
malnutrition seems to be a big problem in middle and high income countries. In low-income countries undernourishment would be a big problem.
My post is only about eating the wrong stuff on a „voluntary“ basis. One can afford fruits and veggies, but f.e. still eats red meat, salty chips etc.
And those 250 million DALYs they only account for eating the wrong stuff (but not because of scarcity).
At least if all those numbers are correct.
Thx for commenting. I am not sure, whether I got your point.
If you are writing about nutrition-programs - do you mean getting people specific foods or informing them? As to my experience in germany there is no powerful organization or lobby -group trying to promote better nutrition because of the impressive health effects/reduced costs etc.