undefined | Better HN

0 pointshnfong22d ago0 comments

I think you misunderstand. You think blue zones are "thoroughly debunked". And it might be even true that blue zones aren't real.

But I am not seeing any evidence that the general public is aware of this. And thus we need more of the articles "asking" this question so that more people are aware of the issues on it.

FYI, the article you linked basically tells the same story as the topical article. Are you too lazy to read it before commenting?

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

smt8822d ago· 2 in thread

A) I can't read the article because it's paywalled.

B) Regardless of what story it tells, the article is an opinion piece by a journalist and a cardiologist, not authorities on the topic, and has a misleading title: that "answering [the] question [of whether Blue Zones are real]" is harder than ever. It's not.

loeg22d ago

You didn't miss anything. There aren't any new facts in the article. It treats the original blue zone researchers very generously, waves its hands about drawing conclusions on whether the original blue zone research was due to pension fraud or not, and generally blathers on for dozens of paragraphs talking about various things tangentially related like that some blue zone areas no longer have many centenarians or various bullshit marketing claims using blue zone language by Buettner, etc, etc.

nkurz22d ago

You keep saying that you "can't read the article" rather than that you choose not to. Are you philosophically opposed to clicking the archive link in this thread: https://archive.ph/cgUxZ?

Which is fine, although I personally wouldn't use "can't" to describe this stance. In any case, I think the discussion might be smoother if you were willing to review the article under discussion.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse