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.

Quote Originally Posted by OakLeaf View Post
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.