13 surprising signs that you will live long

[arielmoon]

That's why there's fizzy water! My current favorite is fizzy mineral water with a wedge of lime.

Mine too!

I havent had 'soda' in over 15 years

[malkin]

How do they establish a "30% lower risk of death?" Ever? or only during the housework hour? What were the other subjects doing? Riding motorcycles drunk and without helmets? or nibbling blueberries?

And they figured this out by studying people in their 70s and 80s...Does the result apply to anyone older or younger?

Still, pretty interesting things to think about.

[OakLeaf]

How do they establish a "30% lower risk of death?"

+1

I hate stuff like that... especially when it's applied to medical procedures. Last I checked we all have a 100% risk of death.

[pardes]

I LOVE cheeseburgers.....I just don't eat them more than once a month. That may cost me a few microseconds off my life, but it's worth it.

[kelownagirl]

It's vague because it's a mainstream recap of a scientific study. Usually, when they say 30% lower risk of death, they mean a lower chance of dying prematurely. The mainstream media tends to simplify too much in my opinion. I would assume that the people who didn't do housework likely had a cleaning service and were less active. Naturally, if you have a house cleaner and you spend your free time riding or working out, the data wouldn't apply to you. The main point here is that being activity reduces your chance of dying prematurely from things such a heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, and even cancer.

If you want to see another presentation with very similar information in a more 'scientific' format, check out this link.

Why Fitness Matters

The http://fitnessrocks.org website itself is also very good and you can subscribe to the podcast to hear weekly reviews of scientific studies about longevity.

How do they establish a "30% lower risk of death?" Ever? or only during the housework hour? What were the other subjects doing? Riding motorcycles drunk and without helmets? or nibbling blueberries?

And they figured this out by studying people in their 70s and 80s...Does the result apply to anyone older or younger?

Still, pretty interesting things to think about.

[OakLeaf]

Usually, when they say 30% lower risk of death, they mean a lower chance of dying prematurely. The mainstream media tends to simplify too much in my opinion. I would assume that the people who didn't do housework likely had a cleaning service and were less active.

Considering that life expectancy at birth in the USA is 77.8 years, what constitutes a 30% lower risk of dying "prematurely" for people in their 80s?

I think this is pretty clearly one of those things where a marker is not a cause but an effect. People in their 70s and 80s who are still able to do their own housework are obviously healthier than those who can't.

I spent most of the months of July and August looking at mortality statistics and believe me, when you look at what treatments and tests "they" are using those statistics to support, let's just say it was an eye-opener. Morbidity statistics are much harder to come by, and there's a reason for that.

Sorry for the thread drift - it just illustrates why I don't put a lot of stock in this stuff, either the media version or most of the medical journal versions. Show me (1) a biochemical reason why the alleged "cause" is actually a cause, and (2) a real improvement in the quality of life of human subjects, then I'll give it some credence.

[kelownagirl]

Again, because we can't see the actual study, we can't really speculate but... I'm thinking that the study was probably not so much about what the 70-80 years old were currently able to do, but rather a comment on how much they'd done over a period time, such as their adult lives. I agree with you that 80 year olds who can do their own housework are healthier than those who can't and you definitely cannot prove a causal relationship in any way. However, if we could see the whole study, we might find out that in general, people who had been doing their own housework over their adult lives (ie an example of being physically active), were healthier than people who can been sitting on their butts all their adult lives and therefor lived longer and/or had fewer chronic diseases caused by a sedentary lifestyle.

Take a look at the links I posted. The data there is much clearer and gives more reasons for an actual causal relationship between living a healthy lifestyle through diet, exercise, and maintaining a healthy weight and not dying prematurely from heart disease, type 2 diabetes, or cancer. I find it very clear and compelling and even if it's not completely correct, I'm not going to use it as an excuse to sit on the couch all day and eat crap.

Considering that life expectancy at birth in the USA is 77.8 years, what constitutes a 30% lower risk of dying "prematurely" for people in their 80s?

I think this is pretty clearly one of those things where a marker is not a cause but an effect. People in their 70s and 80s who are still able to do their own housework are obviously healthier than those who can't.

I spent most of the months of July and August looking at mortality statistics and believe me, when you look at what treatments and tests "they" are using those statistics to support, let's just say it was an eye-opener. Morbidity statistics are much harder to come by, and there's a reason for that.

Sorry for the thread drift - it just illustrates why I don't put a lot of stock in this stuff, either the media version or most of the medical journal versions. Show me (1) a biochemical reason why the alleged "cause" is actually a cause, and (2) a real improvement in the quality of life of human subjects, then I'll give it some credence.

[kelownagirl]

I was just watching the slideshow again (the one I posted) and wanted to point out that the World Health Organization estimates that 80% of coronary heart disease, 80-90% of type 2 diabetes, and 35% of cancer could be prevented if people followed a healthy lifestyle (don't smoke, maintain a healthy weight, exercise 30 minutes a day, and eat a healthy diet - more veg/fruit, less meat etc). These three chronic diseases have been shown to be the top three causes of premature death in Americans, as well as putting a tremendous strain on the health care system.

[Crankin]

Well, I think that our medical providers have become so used to people who are in the 80% category that when they actually have to deal with someone who is fit, like my husband, they don't know what to do. Sorry for the thread drift, but it seems pertinent to our situation right now.
He has a terrible family history on both sides. Heart disease and strokes galore. He started exercising and eating better at age 42 or 43. Almost five years ago (he's 52 now) he started getting the classic jaw and neck pain when we were running. Tests showed nothing, but he did have high cholesterol and BP. He started on meds, got those down promptly. The next year, the pain returned when cycling. It got worse and worse, but still the stress test showed nothing. After we insisted, he had an angiogram, and of course, there were 2 80% blockages, so they put stents in.
All was fine until a year later, again when riding, he had pain. We went to the ER, and they sent him for another angiogram. Nothing had changed and they couldn't figure out why he was having the pain. Now, all of a sudden, after 3 years, he is having it again, but only when his HR is above 140, and at the beginning of rides. Guess what? The cardiologist says, "So, just don't ride that hard." They just don't get it.
Because he is so fit, it's easy for him to keep his HR low. If he keeps it low for awhile, then he can let it get up with no pain.
I insisted he get a second opinion at Brigham and Women's. We are going there in 2 weeks, with the hope that there might be a cardiologist that has actually met a fit person.