Agreed. With BP, Chol. lowering meds, we are living longer lives. What's increasing though is DALY-Disability Adjusted Living Years. Not active/healthy years into our old age.
Only 12 percent of Americans are metabolically healthy
- Thread starter RAE
- Start date
Agreed. With BP, Chol. lowering meds, we are living longer lives. What's increasing though is DALY-Disability Adjusted Living Years. Not active/healthy years into our old age.
timo2
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
If a person passes all the the tests, will it help them get a personal loan? 
Amethyst
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 12,668
I don't see any mention of the age range of the "adults" in the study.
If they weren't primarily older adults, I do find the conclusions rather shocking.
If there was a big percentage of 50+, then it's not so shocking. "Numbers" tend to go up with age, even if you do all the right things.
If they weren't primarily older adults, I do find the conclusions rather shocking.
If there was a big percentage of 50+, then it's not so shocking. "Numbers" tend to go up with age, even if you do all the right things.
flintnational
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
^^My numbers, including IQ, have all gone down with age.
Katsmeow
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 5,308
Well, a year ago I met all 5. I just had tests last week so not sure yet how I will do this year.
OP
OP
RAE
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
The subjects of the study ranged in age from 20 to over 60. Here is something I pulled from the study that shows the age groups they broke the subjects into, and how each group fared on the five factors. As you can see, the younger age group (20-39) did a little better, but the two age groups over age 40 did quite poorly, to say the least.
5/5 but the study is a bit suspect. Biggest thing is that one was automatically ruled out of being healthy if they were on any related med. The marketing power of drug companies is evident - 53% of those over 60 are on a cholesterol med and are ruled unhealthy even if they were running marathons. Not saying that Americans are a particularly healthy bunch, just that the methodology can be challenged. I was thinking I might be getting chubby but the cutoff for waist measurement for men was 40 inches - time to go on a monster binge!
ER Eddie
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,788
I meet 4 out of 5, if I assume my fasting glucose (which I don't know) is fine, which I think I can do, since I'm on a nearly zero-carb diet. My only issues (according to these criteria) are that my bp is occasionally higher than 120/80, and I'm still on 1 bp med (I've come off a second one as well as a cholesterol med).
Btw, "waist circumference" is measured around the abdomen at the point of the belly button -- it's not your pants size. I was disappointed to learn this, lol, since it adds several inches.
Teacher Terry
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 7,075
I don’t pay attention to these types of things. If you are doing the best you can health wise then that’s all you can do. Some things are lifestyle and some are genetic. As in everything balance is important. Do I never want to eat something fried again? No. Do I want to eat it everyday? No. I have known many super healthy people with cancer. Just bad luck or genetics. No guarantees no matter what you do.
NW-Bound
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 35,712
I wish. None of these indicators guarantee that you will absolutely not get cancer, a stroke, a heart attack, or drop dead from an aneurysm, etc...
But then, it does not hurt to score high in these measures. Hey, they did not include BMI. Seems to me it would make more sense than waist measurement, which does not allow for an individual's height.
If you take medication for any of the mentioned items then you automatically fail, as the article specifies "... not taking any related medication".
Ah, it doesn't add 'several' or even any inches to everyone's measurement. And I think the measurement is taken at the line defined by the top of the hip bones. Seems many belly buttons have migrated south of there.
And to be clear it is actually 8 criteria given that if you are on any diabetes, BP or cholesterol medicine you don't qualify as healthy according to the definition in this study.
mountainsoft
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Hmm... I fail 3 out of 5. Ironically, I've never felt better in my life.
My HDL has hovered around 35 for as long as I've been measuring it. Never goes up or down regardless of diet or exercise.
My BP has hovered around 135/85 for at least the last 20 years (as far back as I have records). It fluctuates up and down a bit from day to day, but the average never seems to change much.
And I've had a tummy since I was in my early 20's.
I don't take any medications, but I try to eat healthy with the occasional splurge. I don't exercise as much as I should, but I'm not a complete couch potato either.
My recent doctor visit put me in the 8% CV risk category and recommended statins. But he also said 3% would still have cardiovascular issues even with the meds. My readings have been nearly the same most of my life so I'm in no hurry to tie myself to medications for the rest of my life. Everything in life carries some risk, and we're all gonna die from something.
slowsaver
Recycles dryer sheets
Yay, I got 5 out of 5. I guess that means I have to save more for retirement...
REWahoo
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give
He initially posted 8%, then corrected it.
iloveyoga
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Wow, I met all the guidelines. Waist measurement just barely, but I met it.
ER Eddie
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,788
It does add a couple inches to my measurement (and I imagine many others'), if you measure at the belly button level rather than at above hip bone, belt level, or pants size (which are the same thing, at least for me). I don't have a completely flat stomach.
Last edited:
donheff
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I am OK on all five factors but I am not sure I buy the conclusion that 88% of the country is metabolically unhealthy.
ER Eddie
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,788
I wouldn't be surprised if the results were 50% or even 60%, but yeah, 88% is awfully high. Then again, their criteria seem rather perfectionistic to me. It's like, either you meet this rather high standard, or else you're declared "metabolically unhealthy." It seems rather black and white.
Dang, I'm still taking one medication. I'm going to stop taking it, so then I'll be healthy.
Last edited:
OP
OP
RAE
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I don't have any trouble believing that 88% of adults don't pass on all 5 of these factors, when you consider the diet that the average American is eating, and the lack of exercise by most people. And actually, if you look at the bar chart in the study and consider only adults over 40, it is WAY higher than 88%, since only 9% of those in the 30-49 group pass, and only 2.3% of those in the 60+ group pass. So if you are over age 60 like I am, and you passed on all 5, you are among just 2.3% of adults your age in the country.
happy2bretired
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I’m impressed with that entire website. It’s worth exploring.
NW-Bound
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 35,712
+1
I think the reason people even live as long as they do is due to all the medication and the healthcare they get. Without it, people would drop like flies.
PS. I am on a med for my high BP, which is diagnosed as "essential". I have always had a high BP of more than 130/90 my life, even when young and even skinnier than I am now.
timo2
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
+1
I think the reason people even live as long as they do is due to all the medication and the healthcare they get. Without it, people would drop like flies.
PS. I am on a med for my high BP, which is diagnosed as "essential". I have always had a high BP of more than 130/90 my life, even when young and even skinnier than I am now.
+1
ABSOLUTELY
I'm an example of that. Both my paternal grandparents died of heart attacks in their age 40s/50s. My father was in some of the early cholesterol studies in the 1970's, and that's what saved him (his heart finally gave out at 84, a miracle of modern medicine that it lasted that long . I had a severe heart attack at age 51, but modern medicine saved me from dying right then and there.
One of the biggest factors is genes.+1
I think the reason people even live as long as they do is due to all the medication and the healthcare they get. Without it, people would drop like flies.
PS. I am on a med for my high BP, which is diagnosed as "essential". I have always had a high BP of more than 130/90 my life, even when young and even skinnier than I am now.
I take a few pills a day but I don't eat healthy, not even close.
Last week I had blood work done and the results shocked me.
Blood sugar was 90 Not a diabetic
Blood pressure 115/62 I am on one 10 mg B/P pill
Cholesterol 155 I take no meds for that.
Age 71
I just keep moving and work everyday of the week. I am just not made to retire. It was boring and I felt useless . I now fell great
NW-Bound
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 35,712
Well, some people smoke like a chimney, yet live to an old age. There's a lot of randomness in one's longevity, probably mostly from genes.
But as science has not been able to identify all the risk factors in our genes, the only thing one can do is to play safe, and reduce as many of the risk factors as possible.
I used to smoke cigarettes, but have quit for 15 years now. When I was quitting, I wished there could be a DNA test to see if I was one of the impervious smokers so that I could keep on smoking. At this point, I no longer have the crave, and cigarette smoke bothers me now. And smoking has other bad effects, not just a cause for lung cancer, so I do not wish to be able to smoke anymore.
But as science has not been able to identify all the risk factors in our genes, the only thing one can do is to play safe, and reduce as many of the risk factors as possible.
I used to smoke cigarettes, but have quit for 15 years now. When I was quitting, I wished there could be a DNA test to see if I was one of the impervious smokers so that I could keep on smoking. At this point, I no longer have the crave, and cigarette smoke bothers me now. And smoking has other bad effects, not just a cause for lung cancer, so I do not wish to be able to smoke anymore.
Similar threads
