Shaving is good for your health - literally

Gentlemen,
I saw a post on B&B today that had a link to an article (written in 2003) that I found interesting. It's a prospective study laying down claims that men who shaved less than dailyhad a 52% higher risk of cardiovasculardisease (CVD) than those shaving on a daily basis. The cohort in this study was comprised of ~2,400...so, it is probably safe to assume that the results are statistically significant (although I have not carefully checked this).

PS: Beard growth has long been considered to be useful bioassay marker for androgenactivity in men.

Here's the link: Beard growth, Shaving and CVD

So guys...I wish you many fabulous shaves on a daily basis. Your heart will thank you for it.

Thoughts?

Well, I could shave every day... but my girly skin can't take it. That makes me good... right? right?:rofl2:

Seriuosly though, thanks for the link. Boy, I'm glad I need to shave everyday...

In one study, there is shown to be a link.
There is no proof, however, of cause and effect.

I don't remember where I first heard the story, but...

A researcher is working with grasshoppers.
When he claps his hands, the noise causes the grasshoppers to jump off the table.
The researcher then removes the back legs from the grasshoppers. Now when he claps his hands they stay on the table, in spite of the loud noise.
The researcher concludes that removing a grasshopper's back legs makes them deaf.

I always remember that story when I look at research. There is a link. A link is not causation. There is a possibility (and in my opinion a likelihood) that there is at least one lurking variable here.
Possibly people who don't shave daily are more likely to live a generally unhealthy lifestyle.

I don't think anyone should look at this and assume that daily shaving reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease.
I am too lazy to look for a link right now, but there has also been shown to be a relationship between brushing one's teeth and the risk of cardiovascular disease. I don't think that's a direct cause and effect either.

Edit: I actually read the article now. I am baffled by the statement: that the increased risk was "probably due to confounding by smoking and social class" then a paragraph later they start into sex hormones, even though that paragraph also includes the statement, "Ebrahim et al. did not find a relation between hormone levels and shaving frequency, they suggested that hormones might play a role." Two paragraphs later, we are back into smoking as a factor.
This line says a lot: "Because the studies of sex hormone levels in smokers were not randomized and prospective, they did not determine which came first, the smoking or the hormonal alteration...."
So... It is an interesting link, but it is inconclusive.

That's a good story, I'll have to remember it. Deaf grasshoppers... who ever woulda thought? So what made them deaf? And how often did they shave?
Are you trying to say that deaf grasshoppers get heart disease? Or lose their legs.
Wait, what about the shaving part? HTH do grasshoppers shave? AGT or only WTG?:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:



(sorry):D

Oh I get it now.... I can keep up my smoking, heavy drinking and womanizing, but as long as I shave everyday I'm good?
I better stock up on soap... i need to start shaving twice a day!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HNSB

In one study, there is shown to be a link.
There is no proof, however, of cause and effect.

I don't remember where I first heard the story, but...

A researcher is working with grasshoppers.
When he claps his hands, the noise causes the grasshoppers to jump off the table.
The researcher then removes the back legs from the grasshoppers. Now when he claps his hands they stay on the table, in spite of the loud noise.
The researcher concludes that removing a grasshopper's back legs makes them deaf.

I always remember that story when I look at research. There is a link. A link is not causation. There is a possibility (and in my opinion a likelihood) that there is at least one lurking variable here.
Possibly people who don't shave daily are more likely to live a generally unhealthy lifestyle.

I don't think anyone should look at this and assume that daily shaving reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease.
I am too lazy to look for a link right now, but there has also been shown to be a relationship between brushing one's teeth and the risk of cardiovascular disease. I don't think that's a direct cause and effect either.

Edit: I actually read the article now. I am baffled by the statement: that the increased risk was "probably due to confounding by smoking and social class" then a paragraph later they start into sex hormones, even though that paragraph also includes the statement, "Ebrahim et al. did not find a relation between hormone levels and shaving frequency, they suggested that hormones might play a role." Two paragraphs later, we are back into smoking as a factor.
This line says a lot: "Because the studies of sex hormone levels in smokers were not randomized and prospective, they did not determine which came first, the smoking or the hormonal alteration...."
So... It is an interesting link, but it is inconclusive.

---

As with most studies such as this...One day, something is good for you only to have another study find the opposite to be true. How many times have we heard this with coffee/caffeine.

Anyways, this only speaks volumes to the complexity of biology. "One gene, one disease" no longer seems to be the rule, but almost the exception...throw in the environmental variables, and you have a mess on your hands to tease out.

Nevertheless, I found it rather interesting.

I bet it's one of those things like the study showing people who floss live longer. It's not the flossing/shaving, it's that people who do things daily to take care of themselves tend to take better care of themselves in general. The flossing/shaving and living longer are related, but there is no causal link.

Well, the title of the article is just marketing. The authors acknowledge that the relation between shaving frequency and heart disease is correlation, not causation, and then look into causal relations with other correlating factors.

Then if you read the article in full you find out that after they take into account many of the other correlating factors (once you're past the garbage dealing with their first poor attempt to do so), the residual unaccounted correlation is 'small' (I didn't find the number in the paper, so I use their qualitative description). And they acknowledge that at this point any of their hypotheses for the unaccounted part are speculative and impossible to prove.

BTW the link in the first post is NOT the actual article, it is a response to it. Here is the original article in question. In my opinion it is a rather poorly written paper with improper emphasis on a part of their research that was rendered obsolete by their subsequent analysis.