How much expert advice do you ignore?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Do you avoid using your mobile phone (even if hands-free) while driving?

Do you eat a balanced diet with at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day?

Do you get at least 30 minutes moderate exercise per day (or the equivalent per week)?

Do you drink no more than the recommended maximum amount of alcohol per week and have no binge-drinking sessions?

If not, what are your reasons or excuses?

For example, do you think experts have got it wrong, or are they just wrong with respect to you?

Please feel free to add any more expert advice you don't follow/believe, along with the reason(s) you don't, except about vaccination or global warming.

[skeptigirl]

For one those things you list are typically unsolicited recommendations. Were I to be looking into whether or not I should do [xyz], the above advice might spark an interest to check into something, but otherwise why would I assume those particular experts were the authority on anything? Who are "they" in the first place?

[TheAnachronism]

1. Yes

2. No

3. Yes

4. Yes

The reasons are that I am slowly trying to kill myself by not eating the recommended amount of vegetables and fruits per day.

[JoeEllison]

Should I even ask?

[blutoski]

I think you're asking a leading question. There are actually three reasons people don't comply with expert advice:

1. believe the publishers of the advice are qualified, but wrong
2. believe the publishers of the advice are unqualified, and wrong
3. believe the publishers of the advice are qualified and correct *but* find adherence difficult for any of a million reasons.

eg: my parents did not smoke because they thought it was safe: they smoked because they were addicted. People may not eat enough vegetables because of habit, even though they think they should. &c.

I sometimes find myself in the fourth category: following advice where the publishers turn out to be unqualified but absolutely correct, and the data shows it.

[Ivor the Engineer]

For one those things you list are typically unsolicited recommendations. Were I to be looking into whether or not I should do [xyz], the above advice might spark an interest to check into something, but otherwise why would I assume those particular experts were the authority on anything? Who are "they" in the first place?

"They" are recognised medical and/or health and safety authorities (at least in the UK).

[casebro]

So much of that advice is based on 'significant' study results that don't amount to a hill of beans in the real world.

So I take it all with a grain of salt... oops. that's bad for my blood pressure. Nuts, now I'm stressing out over...oops, the nuts are salted too. maybe I'll go for a walk in the sun...oops, UV.

I'd go back to bed, but most of us do die in bed...

Maybe I'll go lie on the couch- How long do I have to spend each day as a couch potato for it to count as five servings of veggies?

Maybe I'll go have a drink. How much wine counts as one fruit serving?

Damn global warming is interfering with my vaccination schedule. Too hot to go out and get the flu shot. Which won't help my heart disease anyhow...

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think you're asking a leading question.

<snip>

I thought that was the idea on a forum such as this.

:)

[David Wong]

There is a key variable they have left out of their studies: my own personal pleasure.

None of their advice accounts for my own personal happiness and pleasure derived from doing things differently than they recommend, pleasure that I consider necessary for a balanced and healthy outlook on life.

Their research seems focused only on the length of lifespan, and not the quality of it.

[Ivor the Engineer]

There is a key variable they have left out of their studies: my own personal pleasure.

None of their advice accounts for my own personal happiness and pleasure derived from doing things differently than they recommend, pleasure that I consider necessary for a balanced and healthy outlook on life.

Their research seems focused only on the length of lifespan, and not the quality of it.

I'd agree with that to a certain extent, but much of the advice in the OP is to avoid acute and chronic health problems, which can and do significantly reduce the quality (i.e. pleasure) of your life over the long term.

[Soapy Sam]

I ignore it all.
If I listened, the stress would kill me.

I'm going to die anyway.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I ignore it all.
If I listened, the stress would kill me.

I'm going to die anyway.

So you listened to the expert advice about stress?

:)

[Arkayik]

I'm not convinced that the experts really understand the linkage between lifestyle and health. :crowded:

From an evolutionary point of view, if you have already, or never will reproduce(d), you're just wasting space and resources. So there is little long-term impact on what you do subsequently. :boxedin:

No one gets out alive. So why stress over how you're gonna end... In the face of stupefying ignorance I say Hedonism wins. :)

cheers.

[DmKrispin]

Do you avoid using your mobile phone (even if hands-free) while driving?
Yes. I also wear my seatbelt, drive close to the speed limit, use my signals and headlights, and carry auto insurance. Duh.
Do you eat a balanced diet with at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day?
I usually do ... unless I'm PMSing real bad! For the "daily five", it's mostly frozen veggies and canned fruit. I keep my soda intake down to 8 oz (or less) a day, I eat a good breakfast every morning, and I usually opt for healthier substitutions like whole wheat pasta, super-lean meat, and skim milk. When dining out, I always get "iced water w/lemon" -- I find that I don't really miss the soda, I save a buttload (literally) of calories, and I also save $$$. I do occasionally indulge in fast food and pizza. When I started making these changes in my diet 9 years ago, I noticed that I felt better, slept better, healed better, hardly got sick anymore, and had much more energy.
Do you get at least 30 minutes moderate exercise per day (or the equivalent per week)?
Not any more. I have spinal issues which prevent me from doing anything other than mild PT. Before my back became an issue, I used to do 3 miles on my elliptical thingy, 45 minutes of hatha yoga, and about 20 minutes of light weights six days a week. Now, I can't even do freakin' water aerobics.
Do you drink no more than the recommended maximum amount of alcohol per week and have no binge-drinking sessions?
I rarely drink -- like probably one drink a year. I also don't smoke or abuse drugs. I don't abstain for philosophical reasons, I just never really enjoyed those things.


In my 40 years on this planet, I've had exciting times and I've had "boring" times. Guess which one I prefer.

:)

[blutoski]

There is a key variable they have left out of their studies: my own personal pleasure.

That's intentional. They cannot provide that part of the equation. They only want to quantify the cost of certain actions: you quantify the benefit. They just don't want people to say "Why didn't anybody tell me?"




Their research seems focused only on the length of lifespan, and not the quality of it.

That's not true. Avoidable or premature death is pretty high on the list of undesireable outcomes, both for the deceased and his survivors, but the majority of the increase in overall lifespan has been gained by virtually eliminating infant death, not by extending adult life. Antivaxxers may have the wrong motives when they point this out, but they're factually correct.

Secondly: most studies examine outcomes other than lifespan. eg: studies that show how reducing excess fat percentage reduces the incidence of diabetes. Diabetes is a whackload of quality of life negatives: blindness, loss of limbs, daily needles, fatique, coma... medical researchers are quite aware that lifespan is not the only outcome to study.

So, getting back to the first point about average lifespan improvement being a product of reduced infant mortality: there is actually a standard called 'quality years' and it's important to recognize that this is the factor that researchers are trying to extend.

Just as a example, my great-grandmother had congenital conditions that left her blind and deaf at about 33 in 1903. She passed away at the age of 90 in 1960, never having seen or heard her grandchildren or great grandchildren. My grandmother had the same condition, but it was treatable when she was a girl in the early 1900s. She died at 93, with the relatively minor inconvenience of glasses and hearing aids. 3 more years of life, but 60 more years of 'living'. My dad has the same condition and is totally unaffected at 70.

The key problem is not new: postponement of gratification is an entire focus of psychological study. Shermer explores it in a couple of his books, and it's the focus of quite a few game theory exercises: humans appear to consistently overvalue proximal benefits and undervalue distal consequences. To some degree, there is a layer of rationalization that is fascinating, if frustrating.

An example of this rationalization is a friend of my dad's who was a type II diabetic back in the '70s when I was a kid. They just shook their heads as he sucked down 2L bottles of Coke saying that "no extension of life was worth reducing [note: reducing, not eliminating] his Coke intake". He was blind at 26, and had lost both feet by 35.

I don't think he valued soft drinks as much as he thought he did, and I'm pretty sure he regrets his decision today.

[Sickly Crypsis]

I exercise a fair amount running most mornings and doing weight and boxing training of an afternoon.

I eat well, but don't follow the 'check list' nutritional pyramid that are on cereal boxes. Convenience would be the No.1 reason that and it would probably result in me eating more!

I'll drink of a weekend and maybe one of an evening if I have any. Drinking on a weekend is both
a) Part of being in my age bracket and
b) Heavily influenced by my country's culture (Australia)

I also occasionally indulge in other chemical substances, but these will be special occasions and not a regular event.

I try to avoid using the phone while driving but it's hard when you're driving about for your job.

It's a good question really, I've never thought about why I don't listen to them. I figure the Immersion in Drinking and drugs is a phase I'm going through and to not have the amount of fun my situation allows and my body can handle in a safe level now, means I'll regret it later and look back and think I avoided doing things I like doing.

Deliberately avoiding things you like doing seems to me like that thing controls your life as much as if you were doing it. Moderation is key.

[tkingdoll]

Do you avoid using your mobile phone (even if hands-free) while driving?

- I don't drive anywhere, but if I did, I would happily use the bluetooth headset. Anything else is illegal.

Do you eat a balanced diet with at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day?

- Not 5 every day, but I have a very good diet. I'd say I get at least 3 of my 5 a day though.

Do you get at least 30 minutes moderate exercise per day (or the equivalent per week)?

I used to (30 mins walking a day and the gym twice a week), then I got ill, then I got post-viral fatigue which wiped out my exercise routine entirely. The only cure is exercise, but I'm on a strict regime prescribed by my doctor. Currently back up to 30 minutes walking a day, yay me!

Do you drink no more than the recommended maximum amount of alcohol per week and have no binge-drinking sessions?

I don't drink any alcohol and I never have.

Man, I'm good :D

I ignore plenty of other general advice though. I eat meat raw! Yeah baby. I go through phases with environmental stuff. Some days I get paper guilt and take stuff to the recycler, other days I think of the energy Las Vegas uses in an hour and laugh.

[Piscivore]

I don't own a cell phone, I eat as much fruit and veggies as I can stand, I'm working up to 30 minutes a day but evolution and 40 years of a sedentary gluttonous lifestyle are fighting me, and I never drink more than two drinks in one day because I am a sociopathic paranoid a[rule X]hole when I'm drunk.

I eat meat raw!
Oh, hell yeah.

[CapelDodger]

Do you drink no more than the recommended maximum amount of alcohol per week and have no binge-drinking sessions?

I've never been a binge-drinker because I like what I drink, and I only have a limited capacity. I won't drink crap for the sake of drinking or getting drunk. That said, I drink a lot more than is recommended. Mostly beer.

Why? It's a trade-off. I'm prepared to drink myself to death at a measured pace. I could no doubt live longer, but not better overall.

I take exercise and I eat well (I like my food, so I don't eat crap).

I always put the knife back in the block when I'm finished with it, I turn off appliances at the socket before I go to bed, I test my smoke-alarms regularly, I clean up spills when they happen not after I've slipped on them ... That's all down to the principle of not setting traps for yourself. I don't want to die prematurely from simple negligence. I intend to die according to plan. My plan.

[CapelDodger]

... and I never drink more than two drinks in one day because I am a sociopathic paranoid a[rule X]hole when I'm drunk.

I'm good drunk, but before my morning coffee? Best not go there :mad:.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Do you avoid using your mobile phone (even if hands-free) while driving?

Do you eat a balanced diet with at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day?

Do you get at least 30 minutes moderate exercise per day (or the equivalent per week)?

Do you drink no more than the recommended maximum amount of alcohol per week and have no binge-drinking sessions?

If not, what are your reasons or excuses?

For example, do you think experts have got it wrong, or are they just wrong with respect to you?

Please feel free to add any more expert advice you don't follow/believe, along with the reason(s) you don't, except about vaccination or global warming.



I don't think anyone in this world follows all epert advice there is around (And plus you'd need the criteria to know when is it reliable and when it is not). Everyone has degrees of irresponsability and usually when we meet someone who always brushes his teeth thrice a day and always eats healthy and is always too right about everything, we usually tell him to lilghten up and be more adventurous. At least, I would. What's the use of living in this life if you can't get a little bit corrupted every once in a while?

[CapelDodger]

The key problem is not new: postponement of gratification is an entire focus of psychological study. Shermer explores it in a couple of his books, and it's the focus of quite a few game theory exercises: humans appear to consistently overvalue proximal benefits and undervalue distal consequences. To some degree, there is a layer of rationalization that is fascinating, if frustrating.

"The proper study of man is Man" :). The doctorate is in "Know Thyself".

An example of this rationalization is a friend of my dad's who was a type II diabetic back in the '70s when I was a kid. They just shook their heads as he sucked down 2L bottles of Coke saying that "no extension of life was worth reducing [note: reducing, not eliminating] his Coke intake". He was blind at 26, and had lost both feet by 35.

I have a younger cousin going down that exact same route, and I really don't care. I never could abide him, nor his mother. Frankly, he's an embarrassment to the bloodline. At least it's a dead-end, so it can be air-brushed out of history.

[Badger]

I like to think of myself as "the outlier".

[CapelDodger]

Everyone has degrees of irresponsability and usually when we meet someone who always brushes his teeth thrice a day and always eats healthy and is always too right about everything, we usually tell him to lilghten up and be more adventurous.

I generally sidle away down the bench and stop making eye-contact. The only way I hear about someone's flossing habit is when they volunteer it, and right there we have a problem.

[CapelDodger]

I like to think of myself as "the outlier".

No doubt, but ask yourself, does anyone want to hear about it?

Just some friendly advice.

[bigred]

I think you're asking a leading question. There are actually three reasons people don't comply with expert advice:

1. believe the publishers of the advice are qualified, but wrong
2. believe the publishers of the advice are unqualified, and wrong
3. believe the publishers of the advice are qualified and correct *but* find adherence difficult for any of a million reasons.

eg: my parents did not smoke because they thought it was safe: they smoked because they were addicted. People may not eat enough vegetables because of habit, even though they think they should. &c.

I sometimes find myself in the fourth category: following advice where the publishers turn out to be unqualified but absolutely correct, and the data shows it.
Well summed up.

I take anything any "expert" says with a grain of salt and judge it based on my own judgement/understanding/impressions/research/etc of the given topic.

I am also often amazed how many people, including intelligent ones, will buy into what so-called experts say with great regularity, and just because of their alleged claims as an expert. I have heard "experts" say things which ranged anywhere from questionable to outrageously absurd.

And if nothing else, experts have later been proven quite wrong more than a few times, and in fact it's not rare for other experts to disagree with those experts even at the time, so....

[skeptigirl]

"They" are recognised medical and/or health and safety authorities (at least in the UK).Recognized by whom?

I know what you meant. I just don't think you can lump all such recommendations together as some sort of gospel.

I think following the guidelines of the American Cancer Society's recommendations for routing cancer screenings for example is a reasonable thing to do. Following the nutrition council or whoever it is you are citing on what we should be eating is a more complicated matter. Those decisions involve complex risk and benefit decisions that are not as easily applied to all individuals.

So what you have posted requires individual responses.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Recognized by whom?

The Chief Medical Officer and professional medical and governmental organizations in the UK.

<snip>

Those decisions involve complex risk and benefit decisions that are not as easily applied to all individuals.

So what you have posted requires individual responses.

Interesting reasoning.

What's complex about decisions regarding the behaviours in the OP? On the whole I find them pretty easy to follow.

[Professor Yaffle]

You can get 4 of your 5 a day from a full cooked breakfast if you have a glass of OJ with it: beans, fried tomatoes and mushrooms!

[Dr. Imago]

I'm an expert and sometimes I don't follow my own advice.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I'm reconciled in that.

IMHO, you are free to ignore whatever advice you're given, and that's okay, provided:

1) Your actions don't directly affect someone else,
2) You don't expect someone else to pay (in whichever definition of that word is applicable) for the consequences of your actions,
3) No one mandates that you must follow that advice or somehow be penalized. One's choices, good or bad, are one's own.

I deal with patients everyday who simply won't change their habits. My only job is to inform them of the risks they are taking and advise them how to change. If they don't listen, no sweat off my back. I have a fiduciary responsibility to my patients to provide them the best information possible, but I'm not emotionally invested in their decisions.

-Dr. Imago

[quarky]

I'm an expert on ignoring expert advice, yet I have no advice.

[Phytotherapist]

1. Yes

2. Yes. Although I am an MD and a qualified Nutritionist I went to another expert to work the most appropriate diet for me (I did it the same for him). What is a balanced diet for one may be unbalanced for other people. We are not all the same and also fruit and vegetables are not the same. One of the most importan factors is taste: the best diet in the world is no good if it doesn't taste good (to me).

3. Yes - 30 minutes a day is OK for men bet not for women which should increase it to at least 60 minutes. 120 min is my personal average.

4. Yes - I don't drink at all although I have one of the best wine collections. The exception (not always) are Easter, Christmas and New Year.

On the other hand, sometimes I dont follow expert advice, e.g. I like to drive well beyond the speed limits. Once I was caught driving at 324 Km/h and i got away with it because I'm a doctor and I convinced the officers that I was in a hurry for an emergency.
I have a friend doctor that prefers to drive his own car than to come along with me because (when we go away from home for courses, conferences etc.) he feels he may lose his life. By the way, he smokes 2 packs of cigarettes a day. Who is going to live longer?

By the way, what do experts in your country say about sex (how many times?).

[Whack01]

I ignore it all.
If I listened, the stress would kill me.

I'm going to die anyway.

almost THIS. I think there are times in life where it's good to let yourself go. However, it's a bad idea not to pay any attention at all. There's a time and a place to eat right, but it's not before finals in college.

This reminds me I once watched a documentary a few years back on the discovery channel. It was talking about obese people and I think a very fat nurse summed up her problem after complaining she couldn't lose weight, "If somebody tells you you can't have that snickers bar cause you're too fat, are you gonna listen? No". At that point I think I lost about a pound laughing my ass off.

/looking around the net for that clip
//eta: never mind googling for fat snickers was a bad idea

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

By the way, what do experts in your country say about sex (how many times?).

I don't know the expert opinion (or even if there is one) in the UK with respect to the 'correct' frequency for having sex, but based on several adjoining neighbours' grunts, moans, laughs, giggles and 'Oh yes! Oh yes!''s, anything from a few times a month to a few times per night are normal.

Radio 4 has a series entitled ‘Am I normal?’. One of the episodes was on what range of sexual behaviour is considered normal, including frequency. Here’s the link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/am_i_normal_sex.shtml

[Dancing David]

I listen to the recomendations an dtry to understand them based upon thier merits.

I don't drink because with depression and sleep apnea it just puts me to sleep. I have a tendency to overeat, so I do try to moderate my diet. Right now I am making an effort to get at least twenty minutes of cardio five days a week, although i shoot for fifty (sometimes I do, sometimes I don't). I don't eat enough fruit and vegtables, I do in the summer, but not right now. I try not to do anything when I am driving, although i have been known to drink coffee and drive a manual transmission, well I know that if I don't use sun block I can increase my risk of basal cell carcinoma, i just had a melanoma removed, so I might actually try to wear sun block.

I try to listen to my doctor, I take my medicine every day. I try to be be moderate.

[skeptigirl]

Everyone should wear seatbelts and have a working smoke alarm in their home. Those are no brainers for risk/cost/effort--benefit.

From there, however, the risk benefit decision gets more individual. It is easy to take that walk every day, it is not easy for 95% of the world's overweight people to lose weight. Try holding your breath. You can do it but only for so long and I believe that is what the evidence suggests dieting is like for most overweight people.

So just making some blanket statement that everyone should do [xyz] is unrealistic.

[skeptigirl]

More specifically:

Do you avoid using your mobile phone (even if hands-free) while driving?No, I have taught myself to concentrate while on the phone and I don't drift all over the road or change speeds. I prefer the benefit of multitasking, life's short. I wouldn't do it if I didn't think specific concentration compensated, I don't think the Mythbuster's test had a large enough sample size.

Do you eat a balanced diet with at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day?I don't eat 5 meals a day! I also don't eat the usual meal. I might have fruit and nothing else and call it a meal and I might have steak and nothing else and call it a meal. I call it the eat when and what you want diet. I believe I get enough variety to come out reasonably balanced in the final tally, but I don't waste time worrying about it.

Do you get at least 30 minutes moderate exercise per day (or the equivalent per week)?I walk my dogs between 40-60 minutes a day and they like to walk fast.

Do you drink no more than the recommended maximum amount of alcohol per week and have no binge-drinking sessions? I used to not drink at all but now I have 1-2 glasses of red wine/most evenings since the research seems to be pointing toward that being a good thing.

[ErkDemon]

Do you eat a balanced diet with at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day?

Dunno. What's a portion?
Do they count cereals as vegetables? Is a chocolate crispie a portion of veg, because it's wheat-based? How about chocolate, it's made form cocoa beans, does that make it a portion of "fruit"? Does a glass of V8 veggie juice count as a portion of veg? How about potatoes? Is a monster plate of mashed potato one portion of "veg", or four? How about the bits of pineapple on a Hawaiian pizza? How many slices of pizza count as one portion of fruit? Does the tomatoey topping mean that pizza counts as two portions of fruit and veg? Do they have to be different fruit and veg? If you cut a baked potato in half and eat one half at lunch and the other at tea, is that then two portions? Would someone who eats ten bags of crisps a day be classed as meeting their fruit and veg requirement? Is a large banana one portion or two?

There's not really enough information here, is there?

[Professor Yaffle]

Dunno. What's a portion?
Do they count cereals as vegetables? Is a chocolate crispie a portion of veg, because it's wheat-based? How about chocolate, it's made form cocoa beans, does that make it a portion of "fruit"? Does a glass of V8 veggie juice count as a portion of veg? How about potatoes? Is a monster plate of mashed potato one portion of "veg", or four? How about the bits of pineapple on a Hawaiian pizza? How many slices of pizza count as one portion of fruit? Does the tomatoey topping mean that pizza counts as two portions of fruit and veg? Do they have to be different fruit and veg? If you cut a baked potato in half and eat one half at lunch and the other at tea, is that then two portions? Would someone who eats ten bags of crisps a day be classed as meeting their fruit and veg requirement? Is a large banana one portion or two?

There's not really enough information here, is there?

Potatoes and cereals don't count. Fruit juice only counts as one portion no matter how many glasses you drink and you should aim to have 5 different fruits and vegetables. Portion size guide is in this link:

http://www.5aday.nhs.uk/WhatCounts/PortionSizes.aspx

[Ivor the Engineer]

Dunno. What's a portion?
Do they count cereals as vegetables? Is a chocolate crispie a portion of veg, because it's wheat-based? How about chocolate, it's made form cocoa beans, does that make it a portion of "fruit"? Does a glass of V8 veggie juice count as a portion of veg? How about potatoes? Is a monster plate of mashed potato one portion of "veg", or four? How about the bits of pineapple on a Hawaiian pizza? How many slices of pizza count as one portion of fruit? Does the tomatoey topping mean that pizza counts as two portions of fruit and veg? Do they have to be different fruit and veg? If you cut a baked potato in half and eat one half at lunch and the other at tea, is that then two portions? Would someone who eats ten bags of crisps a day be classed as meeting their fruit and veg requirement? Is a large banana one portion or two?

There's not really enough information here, is there?

Here you go!

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Healthimprovement/FiveADay/FiveADaygeneralinformation/DH_4001494

Canadian experts recommend 7-10 portions of fruit and vegetables per day.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/pubs/fnim-pnim/index_e.html

ETA: Thanks Prof.

[Ivor the Engineer]

More specifically:

No, I have taught myself to concentrate while on the phone and I don't drift all over the road or change speeds. I prefer the benefit of multitasking, life's short. I wouldn't do it if I didn't think specific concentration compensated, I don't think the Mythbuster's test had a large enough sample size.

Generally that isn't the problem caused by mobile phone use in the car. It is the reduction in reaction time caused by the driver's attention being divided. For example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18065072?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

As some states allow motorists to use hands-free cell phones only while driving, this study was done to examine some braking responses to see if conversing on these two types of cell phones affects quick responding. College-age drivers (n=25) completed reaction time trials in go/no-go situations under three conditions: control (no cell phone or conversation), and conversing on hands-free and hand-held cell phones. Their task involved moving the right foot from one pedal to another as quickly as possible in response to a visual signal in a lab setting. Significantly slower reaction times, movement times, and total response times were found for both cell phone conditions than for the control but no differences between hands-free and hand-held phone conditions. These findings provide additional support that talking on cell phones, regardless if it is hands-free or hand-held, reduces speed of information processing.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16854702?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA

OBJECTIVE: The research literature on drivers' use of cell phones was reviewed to identify trends in drivers' phone use and to determine the state of knowledge about the safety consequences of such use. METHODS: Approximately 125 studies were reviewed with regard to the research questions, type and rigor of the methods, and findings. Reviewed studies included surveys of drivers, experiments, naturalistic studies (continuous recording of everyday driving by drivers in instrumented vehicles), studies of crash risk, and evaluations of laws limiting drivers' phone use. RESULTS: Observational surveys indicate drivers commonly use cell phones and that such use is increasing. Drivers report they usually use hand-held phones. Experimental studies have found that simulated or instrumented driving tasks, or driving while being observed, are compromised by tasks intended to replicate phone conversations, whether using hand-held or hands-free phones, and may be further compromised by the physical distraction of handling phones. Effects of phone use on driving performance when drivers are in their own vehicles are unknown. With representative samples of adequate size, naturalistic studies in the future may provide the means to document the patterns and circumstances of drivers' phone use and their effects on real-world driving. Currently, the best studies of crash risk used cell phone company billing records to verify phone use by crash-involved drivers. Two such studies found a fourfold increase in the risk of a property-damage-only crash and the risk of an injury crash associated with phone use; increased risk was similar for males and females, younger and older drivers, and hands-free and hand-held phones. A number of jurisdictions in the United States and around the world have made it illegal for drivers to use hand-held phones. Studies of these laws show only limited compliance and unclear effects on safety.CONCLUSIONS: Even if total compliance with bans on drivers' hand-held cell phone use can be achieved, crash risk will remain to the extent that drivers continue to use or switch to hands-free phones. Although the enactment of laws limiting drivers' use of all phones is consistent with research findings, it is unclear how such laws could be enforced. At least in the short term, it appears that drivers' phone use will continue to increase, despite the growing evidence of the risk it creates. More effective countermeasures are needed but are not known at this time.

I don't eat 5 meals a day! I also don't eat the usual meal. I might have fruit and nothing else and call it a meal and I might have steak and nothing else and call it a meal. I call it the eat when and what you want diet. I believe I get enough variety to come out reasonably balanced in the final tally, but I don't waste time worrying about it.

As Prof. Yaffle pointed out, 5 a day is easy! If you're busy, eating nuts or dried fruit is a simple way to get an extra portion in.

I walk my dogs between 40-60 minutes a day and they like to walk fast.

That counts.

I used to not drink at all but now I have 1-2 glasses of red wine/most evenings since the research seems to be pointing toward that being a good thing.

How big is the glass? The 1-2 glasses of red wine being good for you is based on a 125ml measure. When filled up, most wine glasses hold well over 200ml. IIRC, the benefits of a glass of red wine per day are somewhat on a knife-edge. I.e., having not much more than 1-2 glasses cancels out the benefit.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Everyone should wear seatbelts and have a working smoke alarm in their home. Those are no brainers for risk/cost/effort--benefit.

From there, however, the risk benefit decision gets more individual. It is easy to take that walk every day, it is not easy for 95% of the world's overweight people to lose weight. Try holding your breath. You can do it but only for so long and I believe that is what the evidence suggests dieting is like for most overweight people.

So just making some blanket statement that everyone should do [xyz] is unrealistic.

IMO, the whole idea of 'going on a diet' is ridiculous. The phrase implies it is a temporary state, when in reality the only diet which stands a chance of working for any significant length of time is one you find acceptable to stick to for the rest of your life. The same goes for exercise.

[skeptigirl]

One's body has no mechanism that prevents overeating though there is nothing that necessarily makes one overeat except opportunity and stimulation.

OTOH, the body does have a mechanism which prevents weight loss. So the thought is there is a gas pedal and maybe a break but there is no reverse.

So dieting or changing eating habits or any other of the myriad of means of losing weight still so far only work for about 5-10% of the population at most. That is what the evidence is. All the typical things that are supposed to be the right way to lose weight, yadda yadda yadda are not, in practice, more successful than everything else. The people who are successful and keep the weight off do have a couple things in common. Exercise and weighing themselves often were 2 of the key features I recall from the data but I'll have to keep looking for the study. The data was self reported weight loss maintained for > 1 year and asked people who were successful to describe their weight loss activities. The source has been collecting data on successful weight loss for years.

The bottom line, advice is cheap but not always evidence based.


As for the cell phone, I choose the risk over the loss of time. Regardless of reaction time in the study, I make a specific effort to concentrate on driving while on the phone. Not everyone can or does do that. Sometimes I take advantage of cruise control so I have one less task (maintaining speed) to do. I just don't buy the argument that because a study determines the average person cannot safely drive and use the phone that no one can safely drive and use the phone. It's my assessment and my choice. You asked why we don't follow all the advice that is out there. I have made a special effort to concentrate on driving while on the phone and it works for me.

[Complexity]

Ignore? None.

Worry about incessantly but do nothing about? That's a different kettle of fish.

I'd say that my three biggest bugaboos are my health, my finances, and planning for retirement.

Now, the good news is that I think I've done badly enough on Bugaboo #1 to ensure that I won't be around to be affected by Bugaboo #3 and, if I happen to linger unwisely, I'm certainly able to stop doing so when I think it appropriate.

#2... That sucks, and will continue to do so for several years. I've actually given this one a great deal of thought (and worry, of course).

Don't have a cell phone and just disconnected my home phone. I find being less reachable strangely liberating. Don't think I'll get a phone in the future if I can help it.

[Dancing David]

Dunno. What's a portion?
Do they count cereals as vegetables?

No.

Is a chocolate crispie a portion of veg, because it's wheat-based?

No.

How about chocolate, it's made form cocoa beans, does that make it a portion of "fruit"?

No.

Does a glass of V8 veggie juice count as a portion of veg?

maybe.

How about potatoes?

No.

Is a monster plate of mashed potato one portion of "veg", or four?

It depends if a serving is 1/4 cup or a half cup as a cereal/carbohydrate.

How about the bits of pineapple on a Hawaiian pizza?

No might come close to an 1/8 of a cup but not a 1/4 of 1/2 cup.

How many slices of pizza count as one portion of fruit?

Depends on the tomato sauce.

Does the tomatoey topping mean that pizza counts as two portions of fruit and veg?

No.

Do they have to be different fruit and veg?

tomoato is a fruit.

If you cut a baked potato in half and eat one half at lunch and the other at tea, is that then two portions?

Depends on the size of the potato, some a half would be one serving, others two to three.

Would someone who eats ten bags of crisps a day be classed as meeting their fruit and veg requirement?

Vegetable and fruit crisps, what proportion to starch?

Is a large banana one portion or two?

how big is large, most likely two, a really large apple can even be three.


There's not really enough information here, is there?

No one said that there was.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Some more popular and apparently sensible advice from experts:

Do you avoid getting sunburn and use a minimum of factor 30 sun block?

(I'm aware of the recent modification to this recommendation with respect to Vitamin D.)

[quarky]

I don't smoke crack or shoot heroin.

[Fnord]

How much expert advice do you ignore?

A lot. Especially those commercials and advertisements that direct me to try feminine hygeine products.

Do you avoid using your mobile phone (even if hands-free) while driving?

Yes, so stop calling me.

Do you eat a balanced diet with at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day?

Catsup / Ketchup is a fruit, right?

Do you get at least 30 minutes moderate exercise per day (or the equivalent per week)?

My building has no elevators - only stairs.

Do you drink no more than the recommended maximum amount of alcohol per week and have no binge-drinking sessions?

I do not drink ... alcohol.

If not, what are your reasons or excuses?

Both alcohol and alcoholics are icky.

For example, do you think experts have got it wrong, or are they just wrong with respect to you?

If an expert is trying to sell me something, then he/she probably has it wrong.


Please feel free to add any more expert advice you don't follow/believe, along with the reason(s) you don't, except about vaccination or global warming.

How about vaccinations against global warming? Or how global warming influences the efficacy of vaccinations?

Hmm?