Only 12 percent of Americans are metabolically healthy

[RAE]

Pretty sobering numbers, when you think about it. They measured five factors as good indicators of metabolic health: blood glucose, triglycerides, HDL-C, blood pressure, and waist circumference. Only about one in eight Americans meet the minimum standard for all five factors.

Here is a link to the short article (there is another link to the full study near the end of the article, for those interested):

https://www.studyfinds.org/12-percen...cally-healthy/

[REWahoo]

Looks like 12% rather than 8% to me - but then you know what I've always said about numbers.

[RAE]

Yep, 12%, you are correct REWahoo. My mistake. Still pretty low.

[braumeister]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAE five factors as good indicators of metabolic health: blood glucose, triglycerides, HDL-C, blood pressure, and waist circumference.

Woo-hoo!
I have all five of those things.

[RAE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by braumeister Woo-hoo! I have all five of those things.

The study shows the cutoff numbers for all five indicators. Here they are:

Methods: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009–2016 were analyzed (n = 8721). Using the most recent guidelines, metabolic health was defined as having optimal levels of waist circumference (WC <102/88 cm for men/women), glucose (fasting glucose <100 mg/dL and hemoglobin A1c <5.7%), blood pressure (systolic <120 and diastolic <80 mmHg), triglycerides (<150 mg/dL), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (≥40/50 mg/dL for men/women), and not taking any related medication.

[brett]

No surprise.

You only have to look at how many fast food outlets there are and how busy they are. And most appear to advertise that they will supersize your portions of their very unhealthy food for a minimum amount. You only have to look at how much processed food is sold in grocery stores and how much shelf space is devoted to it.

Then you only have to look at the obesity rates in the county.

No wonder health care costs are rising at a much faster rate than inflation.

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAE The study shows the cutoff numbers for all five indicators. Here they are: Methods: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009–2016 were analyzed (n = 8721). Using the most recent guidelines, metabolic health was defined as having optimal levels of waist circumference (WC <102/88 cm for men/women), glucose (fasting glucose <100 mg/dL and hemoglobin A1c <5.7%), blood pressure (systolic <120 and diastolic <80 mmHg), triglycerides (<150 mg/dL), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (≥40/50 mg/dL for men/women), and not taking any related medication.

I fail the BP criterion (130/90 instead of 120/80).

Oh well, 4 out of 5 is not bad.

[haha]

I would say that this study if it proves anything, proves that the metabolic markers that they chose, or the numbers they picked as being OK are pretty much beside the point of good health. Other than dope related deaths, we seem to live a very long time.

Ha

[SumDay]

I recently had a procedure that requires fasting and drinking yucky stuff the day before (get the picture?) and when the anesthesiologist came for the 'interview' to determine if I had any of the various problematic health issues, and I answered NO to every one of them, he and the nurse were shocked. He said they see maybe 1 in 20 like this nowadays, with obesity, HBP and diabetes being the most common. So they took the opportunity to lecture me on keeping it that way. Off to the gym I go!

[flintnational]

Interesting. This study, and others I have seen, have dropped total cholesterol as a key health marker and substituted HDL or a ratio of HDL.

[street]

NW-Bound >>> you are going to live forever. LOL Good for you!

I'm going to go in soon and get my blood work done which I do every Dec.. In the past I have would make the grade on all 5 except one. So, I'm in the 88% somewhere and I blame it on my genes. LOL

[RAE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha I would say that this study if it proves anything, proves that the metabolic markers that they chose, or the numbers they picked as being OK are pretty much beside the point of good health. Other than dope related deaths, we seem to live a very long time. Ha

I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion, Ha. Yes, lifespan is still fairly long (though it has decreased a bit lately), but you can be unhealthy for quite a few years, and still live a long time. In fact, I would argue that this is the situation for a whole lot of people these days. My goal is to live most of my life in reasonably good health, right up until the end (or very near the end).

[Dtail]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound I fail the BP criterion (130/90 instead of 120/80). Oh well, 4 out of 5 is not bad.

Only 3 out of 5 for me, but all close relatives in the last generation have made it past 80 including parents currently. Will be interesting.

[karen1972]

I don't buy into these studies at all because they often neglect tons of outside factors so you have no idea what the cause/effect truly is.

And of course, the whole cholesterol thing is a joke. 20 years they told me I needed to be on meds now they have a "new" calculator and guess what, I don't need meds... never took them, never will.. I call it a hoax.

[ncbill]

BP criteria is ridiculously low for anyone over 40.

[braumeister]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncbill BP criteria is ridiculously low for anyone over 40.

I question that too. Until a year or two ago, the AMA guideline was no treatment for BP in people over 60 unless it was above 150/90. Then they dropped it down, I suppose because big pharma wasn't selling enough BP drugs.

And then I read of new guidelines saying that even toddlers might benefit from statins.

As so many have said, it's always wise to do your own research and draw your own conclusions. Doctors are an important and valuable source of advice, but they're not the only source.

[Philliefan33]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncbill BP criteria is ridiculously low for anyone over 40.

I must be an outlier. At age 53, my systolic BP rarely approaches 120 (usually between 110-115) and diastolic runs under 70.

Sometimes (usually due to dehydration) my diastolic falls below 105 and I get a little dizzy as I stand up. That’s my cue to go drink a big glass again water.

[aaronc879]

My BP is often over 120 so I guess I fail the BP part but the other 4 I am all good. I'll take it.

[Cobra9777]

Just had my annual wellness exam with blood work, so I know my numbers. I basically pass all 5. My BP averages 122/76 but that's with medication. So I guess I technically fail that one.

All my numbers have steadily improved since retiring 5 years ago. My GP shows me the trends on his laptop. I attribute most of the improvement to changing to a low-carb diet, losing 40 pounds, and getting a bit more exercise than when I was working. I thought the BP might come down naturally without the stress of Megacorp madness, but I still need meds to get there.

[athena53]

Doesn't surprise me- I consider myself in excellent health but I failed one (blood glucose). I'm fine on the rest. I'd be more interested in the percent who fail two or three, which might be a better indicator of risk of serious health issues.