New research shows that those in their late 60s now are sicker than those in their late 80s were at the same point in their lives. Why isn't prosperity delivering wellness, and what can we do about it?
The audio version is here:
This is the transctpt:
____________________________________________________
Why are the old getting more sick? It's a pretty personal question, as far as I'm concerned, because I have been looking at a study in the Journal of Gerontology, which may not be part of your usual reading material, and if I am honest, nor is it mine, but a series of authors in that journal, led by somebody called, and I'm going to check, Laura Gimeno, and I may have said her name incorrectly, and if so, I apologise, have produced an article published in July this year, but which is now getting some publicity, and it talks about the fact that people of literally my age appear to be much sicker at my age than were those who were 20 years older than us, i. e. those born between 1935 and 1939.
So, the study looks at people born between those two years in the 1930s and people born between 1955 and 1959 in the 1950s. And I was born in 1958. So you can see that I have a certain degree of personal interest in this study.
And their finding is quite extraordinary. Particularly in the UK and the USA, but also in part in the rest of Europe, what they have found is that the prevalence of major chronic illness, is about 1.5 times higher amongst those who are now in their later 60s, which is the group who are born between 1955 and 1959 than was the prevalence of those same diseases in that earlier group.
The diseases in question include things like cancer and heart problems, diabetes, lung disease, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol.
And they also looked at some of the consequences of these things, including mobility limitations, mild disability, moderate disability, and severe disability.
And they found that all of those things are much more commonplace as well, again in broadly the same ratio.
People are therefore much more sick between the ages of 65 and 70 now than they were if they hit those ages 20 years ago.
The baby boomers, in other words, are not as fit as those who were born before the Second World War. And that is inherently odd to those of us who think that surely somebody born at the peak of the baby-boom era must be in a better health position as a consequence of their improved lifestyle than those who were born just before the Second World War and had to go through all that rationing and everything else in their early lives, but apparently not.
So what is going on here? They genuinely don't know, and I have bothered to read most of the paper. They did not try to answer the question as to why, but they do note that obesity does appear to be a significant factor in this.
They do also note that the lack of exercise appears to be a significant factor in this.
And they do appear to think that there is a major contribution from higher levels of uncertainty for some people in society over this period so that those who have lived in societies where there is more stress about unemployment or income security appear to have worse health outcomes.
Now none of that I guess surprises us, but even so we still have to ask the question, why is it, if we are so much richer 20 years after the pre-war cohort were born, that we are physically worse off?
Why in fact might our life expectancy be lower if we've reached this point of time than was the case for those who were born just before the Second World War? They don't provide definitive answers, and therefore I stress what I'm saying here is my guesswork guided in part by their comments.
And certainly they do seem to think that diet is a part of this. We have, of course, lived diets which are ultra processed, which have been heavily manufactured, which was not what that earlier generation was brought up on.
But the other factor is, of course, that those who are of literally my generation have lived through the period when security in old age has begun to disappear. So, for example, the guarantee which was so commonplace at one time of a good pension linked to your salary has gone. The guarantee of a job for life, which was the effective offer of the post war consensus, disappeared, of course, 20 to 30 years ago. And a great many people who are now approaching retirement have lived through years of insecurity from their fifties onwards as finding a job has become so much harder.
It appears that all of this has had a heavy price on our well-being. We are not living less, is the conclusion of this paper, so far. But we are living for much longer. with chronic illness. Now that's really important because chronic illness costs us a great deal. The question to be asked, of course, is how do we manage that chronic illness and whether we can do something about it now?
So, for example, in the UK and the US, there is significant evidence of people of my age, 66 and above, simply being physically weaker. than those who are 20 years older than us when they were our age.
Our grip is weaker. A grip is a massive indicator of muscle strength, and muscle strength is a massive indicator of when we are going to need to basically enjoy residential support to carry on living because when we run out of muscle strength, we fall over, and that's the biggest reason why people end up in care homes.
So, there are things that are simply wrong. We aren't walking enough, we're not exercising enough, we're not doing enough weights.
Our diets aren't good enough. As a consequence, we're ending up with dementia earlier. And there are many doctors, who I'm well aware now, think that dementia is heavily related to a high sugar, ultra processed food diet.
This is a wake-up call. Our increased prosperity is not delivering well-being for most people.
Firstly, we should ask, therefore, what is this prosperity all about if it isn't delivering this most fundamental of goods?
But secondly, we should be asking how we need to change the diets, the lifestyles, and the exercise patterns of those who are younger. Because if this trend has happened, and seriously happened, over a period of just 20 years, then what's going to happen to those who are following us?
Is this going to get much worse? I don't know the answer, but reasonably we can expect that this trend will continue. And because we can reasonably expect that, we should be changing a great deal. We're not getting old gracefully, and that really worries me.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Modern Illnesses are caused by two factors:
1. Nutrition
2. Modern Medicine
See:
1. Big Fat Nutrition Policy | Nina Teicholz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzQAHITIUhg
2. First Do No Pharm, Dr Aseem Malhotra
https://nopharmfilm.com/
Thanks
To which we must add https://substack.com/@amidwesterndoctor real eye-opening, life-enhancing stuff.
Is neo-liberalism to blame?
Yes
Neoliberalism puts profit before people.
Worldwide, sugar is cheap and addictive and bad for your health.
In the USA, if you can’t afford the healthcare treatment, then you die.
QED
I remember a conversation I had with someone I knew about 30 or so years ago, ironically he died of alcohol abuse in his mid 40’s but thats another story.
We were discussing the vigour of two men we knew who were in there 80’s
As he pointed out neither had ever owned a car, despite this one was still volunteering on a vintage ship as the electrician and quite capable of scaring me witless in a shower of sparks.
The other had described a trip on ‘PS Devonia’ in the 1930’s.
In those days she sailed from Swansea and he lived in Newport, so he had cycled from Newport to Swansea and back, 50 miles each way. I didnt ask about the bike but it would have been at best a heavy 3 speed I would imagine and he may well have been wearing a woollen suit, not Lycra.
No wonder he was still in demand as a shipyard estimator into his 90’s.
My mother who was born in the mid 20’s described walking from home in Horfield Bristol to the Tennis Courts at the bottom of the Avon Gorge for a game of Tennis & back again – 4 miles each way including climbing out of the Gorge or as a child walking to Blaise Castle with her friend to play, 3 miles each way.
In the same way imagine having to heave the amount of coal burnt in an average home pre 1960 or so every day, that alone would keep you active.
So its not surprising perhaps that they got to 60 in reasonable shape
If they made it, of course
We did well on childhood diseases for a long time
Ultra-processed food is rapidly changing that now
As someone in my mid 40’s, I’ve finally started going to a personal trainer to lift weights. Since about 2017, I’ve suffered with strained groin, Achilles and of late a chronic nagging pain in my knee. It’s taken years of physio to work through the groin, Achilles injury and just as I was getting over them I do my knee in (from home bodyweight exercises)
Currently I have almost no knee pain anymore and I have not aggravated or made worse any other areas I have anxiety about from repeated injury (hello lower back)
Where possible I think 2 sessions a week of resistance training should be available on the NHS including a huge recruitment drive to get the personnel to administer that training. The multiplier effect would be huge for society.
Just walk and do some gentle weight work
Resistance training is also good
Running is not, said as someone who gave it up in his late 30s, to when I was a team runner. Most runners seem to spend most of life injured. Walkers don’t, and it’s as good for you.
Running is not for everyone but it does achieve anything walking does but in a shorter time period, which may be better for people with limited time. It also gets the heart rate higher. But I accept it can cause injuries so is higher risk. Cycling and swimming are good, low-impact alternatives. Move more is the basic motto, though.
Interesting about the grip point. I suspect that is partly due to the changing nature of occupations too. Fingers dancing across a keyboard does not improve grip and, of course, more sedentary jobs goes hand in hand with lower fitness.
Grip is a much broader indicator than you suggest and unlikely to be work related
As for running – I don[‘t have the time to do so as gettign ready for it and warming down takes time
Walking can be done between anything
Grip will be improved by carrying kettlebells around, another sound reason for doing it.
Agreed
I got my blood pressure down enough to surprise the Doctor just by picking up a kettlebell and trotting round the flats with it now and then. Takes about a minute and a half. Doctors ought to be prescribing weights, yoga, walking and kettlebells for all manner of ailments but there’s no money for Big Pharma in that approach so it doesn’t happen.
The generation above us are probably in better nick as they had access to stuff like DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide) in their younger days as a matter of routine. Those with any sense would have kept on using it even after it fell (was pushed?) out of fashion. I’m using it now with a view to helping with the arthritis in my left hand and while it hasn’t done a great deal for that the pain in my lower back (which has been getting worse and worse over the years) is now receding. I really wasn’t expecting that; it’s a boon!
Isometric exercises seem to offer the best benefits, especially for blood pressure control, and they need no special equipment, just basic training that could be offered online.
I am told that is correct
I am married to a retuired GP ho has studied these things and got very fit after major illness doing such things
Interesting article and thanks for sharing it.
It rather shows how the word ‘research’ has been devalued over time, as the study author has effectively gathered and presented data.
Research would involve a hypothesis why the data shows this – demographics, socialism, incentives to present as ill, central heating, private motor car use, diet and then going out and trying prove your own hypothesis wrong. Those theories left standing can then form public policy.
Isn’t this the best kind of research? The kind that identifies data that shows an unexpected result and which then encourages debate and further research about the causes. This is not generating a theory, it is identifying an area which needs more research than an individual team can do, in the hope that there will be several research teams interested in the data analysis and prepared to take the matter further.
In my day all research papaers seemed to end with ‘Areas for Further research’.
I see a lot of people locally using cars to drive around on small errands in my rural area.
I will continue to ride my bike for as long as possible up and down dale and do 20 minutes rowing 5 days a week at my local rugby club for as long as I can.
But what is worrying is the mental toll of insecurity and chaos, of waiting to have health concerns dealt with etc. That can grind you down.
Exercise also therefore makes you mentally a bit more stronger, making a mental test of completing 20 minutes of something arduous – keeping going – gives a sense of personal accomplishment against the tide of issues beyond one’s control. It really does help to keep you going.
I walk for the sake of my mental health
I would struggle if I did not do so
For me, exercise (of any sort) is as much about mental as physical fitness.
A walk this morning (crisp and sunny) is clearly life enhancing…… but 10mins on my rowing machine in a windowless “gym” at home when it’s grim outside still does the trick…. but I can’t say I enjoy it very much.
I hate rowing machines….
All I can say is that I’ve been rowing since 50, and it has improved by musculature and cardo vascular no end which might help as my knees become increasingly unreliable – more power in my arms and shoulders might help me with my crutches one day too. I row in an open windowed gym surrounded by rugby pitches boarded by trees and farmland hills – I am lucky.
Cycling is also a good cardo-vascular workout, but I have learnt to do so with charcoal face masks to try to keep the particulates at bay. And Richard and others are right – it is other vehicles that make cycling unattractive and dangerous as well as the state of the roads – you have to be lit up like a Xmas tree. My brother in law has spent his whole life cycling in London and has ended up with asthma. I have a nasal drip, yet have never smoked in my whole life. So the other risk with cycling is the pollution you breath in.
This is all serious stuff – we have been poisoning ourselves by trying to keep fit and reduce our carbon footprint and only made an enemy of our futures.
Can anything else signifying how badly we have messed things up?
I would love to use my bike more, but I don’t trust vehicles on some roads (too narrow).
Unlike the Netherlands, there is no will in this country to make the country more cycle friendly.
Vehicles come first as they make money for the petrochemical industry.
Profits before people again.
Bikes are very dangerous on country roads
> “Bikes are very dangerous on country roads”
Statistically, cycling is a safe activity.
The benefits to mental and physical health, especially in terms of reducing rates of early diagnoses in both cardiac and obesity related diseases massively outweigh the risks of death and serious injury.
Those who cycle regularly are reducing their risks of premature death and improving their later life mobility.
Cycling makes good economic sense.
Bad driving is a problem and it does need to be addressed. This applies as much on country roads as it does on urban roads.
Irrespective of the risks, inconsiderate drivers introduce friction that discourages active travel.
I am not disputing it can be safe
But on very bendy and narrow country roads it does not feel that way
Firstly Richard, thank goodness you donlool beyond the numbers.
Although I don’t doubt that modern medicine, environmental pollution and the food industry are all factors, a casual observation I can’t help bit draw on is that many people in their eighties would have been raised in a family without access to a car. At least for the early parts of their childhood.
The situation is reversed for people in their sixties.
Cara have got to stop being the default mode of transport for short journeys. We need to gear society around that.
My local community centre, shop and local post office both have ample parking, but nowhere to lock up a bicycle.
We have to address motonormativity.
Read Prof. Robert Lustig book “Metabolical” and his earlier one about how a mind gets manipulated through dietary regimes. Also the Dr Jason Fung books on obesity and diabetics. Both are thorough researchers and among other similar medicos are very clear about how the change happened.
At 72 I am in the generation you mention and also went through the dietary and lifestyle changes influenced, insisted upon, prescribed and recommended over the 1970s to 2020 much to my health and well being detriment.
Turning it all around with real food and better life style choices is possible, and certainly better in my case to a degree. It is not easy and is easy all at once when you have the information on how the whole generations lifestyle and dietary choices in the period have been manipulated consciously on unconsciously in the pursuit of corporate and personal “for profit” at any cost mandates of the economic model we have been sold by both left and right ideologies.
Perhaps the solution lays in the concept of a model that encompasses balanced choices over a social, environmental and economic model that cares about and supports all those aspects.
There are existing economic management models (yours is one) that encourage that but are way well beyond the ken of the likes of the Blair, Thatcher, Trump, Bush, or other popularist leaders only interested in short term personal gain and gratification for their lives alone
The world is changing and the economic dinosaurs are thankfully dead or dying miserably in their ignorance, so perhaps continuing to encourage a more balanced model is still the best way forward.
Popularist guff like the current U.K. economic drivel from our pollies and media certainly isn’t.
An interesting blog. I agree that those of us (now technically retired!), have had to face quite a lot of uncertainty both in the labour market and as you point out with changes to the non-state pension that people can get. I was in the position of getting into the job market at the time when Mrs Thatchers policies began to impact on employment, so found myself struggling to find employment despite being reasonably well qualified. As we know unemployment at that stage has a scarring effect on future job opportunities and income. I do find it very annoying when commentators and others harp on about ‘baby boomers’ all having secure jobs and incomes and having done very nicely. Some did and some did not – including a number of close friends. I
I try to get as much exercise as I can – through work and walk as much as I can. I also try to have a good diet.
As to how to improve health outcomes for younger people – tricky. Many young people I know take to the car as soon as they can and as for diet – lots of fast food and takeaways are too common. Not sure how we overcome this.
“Many young people I know take to the car as soon as they can and as for diet – lots of fast food and takeaways are too common. Not sure how we overcome this.”
In defence of young people, the age people get their driving licence and buy their first car has been increasing steadily for nearly 20 years now. It’s mostly to do with the rising housing costs. They also don’t eat more fast food and takeaways than people who are now in their 60’s.
At the risk of playing Devil’s Advocate, and I don’t dispute there is a huge boom in “lifestyle diseases”, but I wonder how much Survivorship Bias has affected the available data.
This study appears to be comparing people who are currently in their late 60’s with people who are currently in their late 80’s. While this second group were indeed in their late 60’s 20 years ago, they are by no means a representative sample of that generation at that time.
Is it not possible that a significant number of people who were in their late 60’s 20 years ago and were chronically ill then, have since departed and are not available for inclusion?
It compares 60 year olds with 60 year olds, twenty years apart
It does not compare 80 year olds with 60 year olds
Yes, I understand that. I’m saying that not all those who were 60 20 years ago have made it through, and it’s fair to assume that those who did were the healthier ones. Does the data include those who have since died, or is it only those who are alive today?
You are making the mistake of assuming current 80+ year olds are being comapred with current 60+ year olds
That is not what is happening
Data on 60+ year olds from 20 years ago is being compared with data on 60+ year olds now.
OK, that wasn’t clear. Thanks for clarifying.
I tried searching for the article but couldn’t find it.
Yes, but how many of the now 80 year old cohort, ie all those born in base years of the 30’s made it to 60 compared to to how many of the more recent cohort born in the 50’s made it to 60? According to Statista UK life expectancy for someone born in 1935 was around 61, while for someone born in 1955 it was 65. So you would expect fewer of the 30’s cohort to have survived to 60 than the more recent cohort.
If that is correct then those of the older cohort surviving to 60 might have been a “healthier” group than the later group due to advances in medicine enabling those to survive who might have died had they been born in the 30’s. Maybe this is discussed in the paper.
Maybe
I do not think that this was considered – because the change in expected age has not been big enough to require it
I imagine the toxic chemical environment contributes in no small part, from the poor air quality to the plethora of chemicals used in the home for cleaning, air freshener (!!!) etc mostly entirely unnecessary, also pesticides – all produced for the profit of massive corporations.
Life expectancy is actually falling for some groups.
Mostly males in lower income groups, since 2010.
But ‘healthy’ life is flatlining for everyone, and about ten years lower than life expectancy.
Sedentary jobs, low pay, poor diet, too much sugar, deuhs and alcohol dependency, poor housing, less active recreation, inadequate preventative care and then primary care, just take your pick…
Agreed
I agree with your comments but I’d also add the modern worlds effect on sleep. Check out Matthew Walker’s, Why We Sleep. Truly frightening and a life altering read. I’d also suggest the very digestible Outlive by Dr Peter Attia for clear understanding of the points you mention above.
As someone just below the age this article looks at, I think stress has a big part to play. Since starting work 40 years ago the way we work has changed dramatically. When I started working roles were clearly defined with a clear hierarchy of responsibility and no expectation that you would check emails etc out of work hours. Now even for quite junior roles so much more is expected and the line between work and out of work is much more blurred. Most women now juggle work and childcare etc. And many jobs are much less secure resulting in a less secure income.
Whilst the over 70s worked hard, it was largely for one employer with much more clearly defined roles and without the constant change present in the modern world of work. Whilst many eat processed food, many in my age group are health conscious and eat less red meat etc. and eat a better diet than those in the healthier older group. I am not convinced diet is the major factor in this. It will be interesting to see further analysis on what is going to be a big problem, less healthy older people expected to work for longer whilst already experiencing the illnesses of old age.
Thanks
Richard,
As you have studied the paper, can you clarify the data sources for these two groups? How comparable would data from 20 years ago be with data from today, given that methods of recording sickness must have evolved over time.
I am assuming they did not compare data collected from those now in their late 60s with those now in their late 80s (thus excluding those who had died, more likely to have been sicker in the 60s).
Medical record keeping 20 years ago was pretty good
Sure, things have changed, bit over this period most records have been placed on fairly standardised medical databases for general things like this
The cohort from 20 years ago grew up with a lower standard of living so the weakest would have died early. Given that, it is perhaps unsurprising that the survivors are tough.
See this BBC story about some incredibly fit very old people:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceq55l2gdxxo
The Tsimanes have very high levels of child mortality and very high levels of physical exercise, which combine to produce almost superhuman OAPs.
This is not about the survivors – unless being 60 was being a survivor
Back in the late 1990s, the then Pension Annuity Friendly Society (PAFS) launched underwritten annuities in the UK. Up until that time, anyone buying a pension annuity at retirement was only offered a ‘standard’ rate. PAFS produced a set of criteria whereby those with medical or lifestyle conditions were offered a higher rate of income from their annuity to reflect reduced life expectancy. I just so happened to arrange a very early PAFS annuity for a publican with an awful health history and a 100 cigarettes a day habit and she was rather too fond of vodka, too. I recall she was offered a rate of about 34% on the fund, five times standard the ten standard rates. She managed to live for 9 years, so the underwriting by PAFS was, ahem, inaccurate!
In the late 90s, around 15% of people applying for pension annuities qualified for “enhanced rates” and PAFS was soon joined by competitors, including the long gone Reliance Mutual which offered “smoker rates”. Nowadays, all of the providers of pension annuities offer enhanced terms for those with certain health conditions – such as diabetes, which I live with – and/or ‘lifestyle’ issues. It’s a competitive market, but its very disappointing that only about 30% of potential annuity buyers bother to shop around and potentially benefit from a higher lifetime income.
Whilst it is true that the underwriting of enhanced annuities has developed since the 90s, the reason I mention then is that rather than 15% of people qualifying for one, the figure today is as high as 40%.
So, the life offices in this market know that getting on for half of people in the UK between the ages of 55 and 75 are in poor condition either from sheer bad luck or personal irresponsibility.
A huge retirement age national crisis is upon us.
Wow
My problem is I am fit….
That’s good news from a personal point of view, but not necessarily from an income one!
I know…
No annuity for me yet, mind you…
There is only a huge retirement age national crisis if we believe that taxes pay for government funding.
It doesn’t, so there is no crisis.
Government can pay bigger pensions if it chooses, and it is only a political decision.
Other European countries provide much larger pensions.
At least 5 European countries give double the UK pension.
Source: https://www.almondfinancial.co.uk/pension-breakeven-index-how-does-the-uk-state-pension-compare-to-the-rest-of-europe/
I think a lot of the bad health outcomes are directly correlated to the good economic outcomes. The vast majority of people I know in their 60s and 70s drink far too much. Growing up my grandmother might have one bottle of wine a month but parents, in laws, aunts, uncles all seem to be drinking half a bottle a day. On top of that you mention the ultra-processed foods and that is part of it but again most older people that I know are eating too much meat and too much dairy whether it’s ultra-processed or not. They’re also the second to last generation where smoking was a common habit (Gen X being the last) and again probably on a worse scale than the generations before them.
All this is because they can afford it. My grandmother did not have the money to go on a week long cruise holiday every other month so she also didn’t have the chance to eat poor quality ultra-processed buffet food non-stop almost 24 hours a day.
Then there’s exercise. My grandmother did her own garden, cleaned her own house, didn’t run a car so walked everywhere. All my older relatives have gardeners, cleaners and drive 4x4s.
So I think they’ve all become victims of their own consumption. I think the poor always had lower life expectancy that hasn’t improved. But now it’s the rich succumbing to the devastating effects of sloth and greed. I don’t think anyone who moderates their consumption and exercises will have different outcomes to their grandparents.
“too much meat and too much dairy” – do have a look at Iain Tressman’s reply above at 7:37am to this post with a couple of links. I’ve just had a thought provoking time watching the first link to video Big Fat Nutrition Policy by Nina Teicholz. It rang true to me in that accepted wisdom promoted by ‘experts’ is later found to be based on weak and biased data – remember drink eight glasses of water a day? anybody?
And all that nonsense about fat?
Can we trust the peer review process for reliable, sound info? At present, that seems moot at best
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2824834
“Payments by Drug and Medical Device Manufacturers to US Peer Reviewers of Major Medical Journals
David-Dan Nguyen, MDCM, MPH1,2; Anju Muramaya3,4; Anna-Lisa Nguyen, BHSc5; et alAlan Cheng, BHSc6; Liam Murad7; Raj Satkunasivam, MD, MS8; Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD1,9
Author Affiliations Article Information
JAMA. Published online October 10, 2024. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.17681
Although conflicts of interest of journal editors and authors have been investigated,1,2 the traditionally opaque nature of peer review has hindered their evaluation among peer reviewers, despite their crucial role in academic publishing. While most journals have established conflict of interest policies for authors, fewer extend these policies to peer reviewers.3 In many cases, journals or editors may inquire about reviewer conflicts of interest and consider these while managing the peer review process, although publicly available reviewer conflict of interest disclosures are rare. Reviewers of leading medical journals may have industry ties due to their academic expertise.
We sought to characterize payments by drug and medical device manufacturers to US peer reviewers of major medical journals.”
“Reviewers received $1.06 billion in industry payments between 2020 and 2022, including $1.00 billion (94.0%) to individuals or their institutions and $64.18 million (6.0%) in general payments. Consulting fees and speaking compensation unrelated to continuing medical education programs accounted for $34.31 million and $11.80 million, respectively. Over the 3 years, the median general payment was $7614 (IQR, $495-$43 069) and the median research payment was $153 173 (IQR, $29 307-$835 637) among reviewers receiving such payments.”
The peer review process is, I can assure you, shallow.
And I have been peer reviewed, of course, and have been peer reviewed, quite a lot.
I was born in 1939, so I was brought up with rationing, National bread, no car. I suggest that these early years, up to, say, 7, are very important as foundation of lifetime health. If so, there’s not much we can do about it now without major changes, in our diet and in exercise.
We have medical systems designed for keeping people alive but not necessarily by keeping people well. Seven million of us on the waiting list for operations with many in ongoing chronic pain isn’t going to help either.
I’m 61 and have suffered bad mental health my entire life due to various family issues. It’s only in the last 2-3 years I’ve been able to get the ‘oompf’, via some therapy and three supportive children, to get my life to relatively normal state. At the risk of boasting I’ve lost over a stone in wieght and can now get up stairs without huffing the entire way, among many other benefits of this change.
I’ve also realised along the way that a lot of the bad things I ate/drank/did were for ‘comfort’ reasons. Sugary/fatty foods do give a buzz, as do cigarettes. Sedentary entertainment [TV/Video/music] is also a quick fix and comfort.
I do wonder how much of the current crisis is due to mental health problems caused by Neoliberalist ideas, which act like a virus to human existence, sucking out the joy of life. I would guess that they are, at least, one of the root causes if not THE root cause.
We get our dompamine hits from short term fixes now e.g. sugar, alcohol etc.
We need to find better ways to do so
It sounds like you are. Good one!
Sorry – what I meant to say was ‘Can anything else signifying how badly we have messed things up other than by those of us who have kept physically active who seem to have made ourselves more unhealthy in long term?’ – thinking about vehicle emissions in particular.
The recent Highway Code changes covering bikes and pedestrians I can tell are frequently flouted by drivers who still do not stop where they should do so.
Drivers enter and exit roundabouts too fast and do not indicate or indicate wrongly.
You are safer on cycle routes which my town has, but now the latest craze is for bored inner-city youth is to smash bottles on them so that you get flat tyres (just think about the mentality of that – it screams ‘abuse society’). You also have the emergence of electric bikes and scooters which are too fast and seldom lit at night. Loads of people now ride on the pavement – and where is the local Bobby to tell you not too these days?
Awareness of the new Highway Code seems to be inceredibly low. I am often yelled at by motorists telling me to get out of the way when I have the right of way as a pedestrian at a junction.
It is interesting how many people have come up with explanations for the observation. I have to say my first thought was the same as Linda, I would want to check it isn’t related to the very particular feature of the 1935-39 cohort of growing up in wartime with food rationed and other altered circumstances. I think there have been previous studies suggesting that people’s diet in childhood (and rationing went on to the early 1950s) affects their health in later life.
The other thing to rule out is survivor bias (mentioned by someone above). A greater proportion of the 1935-39 cohort will have died before reaching their sixties so those sampled may have been the more fit of their generation.
Nutrition and exercise are obvious possible explanations. My impression as someone who lived through the period (a bit too old for the 1955-59 cohort) is that widespread use of ultraprocessed foods, and the culture of taking the car when you could walk or cycle, didn’t become established until the 1980s. Perhaps the adverse effects of low exercise and unhealthy eating take over 20 years to be reflected in diagnosed chronic illnesses.
I was surprised by Bill Kruse’s explanation in terms of use of DMSO. To be honest I hadn’t heard of that being used medically at all; it seems it was licensed as a prescription medication in 1964 but its uses and the need for a prescription mean it will only have been taken by a tiny minority.
Anyway I hope Dr Ginemo and her colleagues are busy collecting actual data that might shed light on this observation.
In case anyone wants to read the paper https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology/article/79/8/gbae113/7696399?login=false#476152267
It isn’t original research but is based on data collected, for example, by the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing and similar. The samples are “representative” of the population rather than random, and they admit there are issues with the samples, such as “attrition”.
Personally having looked quickly at the methodology I have some reservations, but whatever, it reinforces things that are becoming more well known, eg many of us are living longer but less well, with chronic conditions that reduce quality of life, and that some (many?) of these are due to personal choices about what we eat, drink, the air we breathe and how much exercise we do among other things already mentioned.
Choosing a healthier lifestyle, although no guarantee of good health, might also reduce the pressure on the health services.
I’m 73, born in 1951. The ‘Golden Decades’ into the mid 1970s meant I earned well despite being in lower paid jobs. I have a final salary pension. From 1980 onwards, with intermittent relapses, I have run and strength trained. My only health issue is mildly elevated blood pressure after COVID last year. In contrast, many of my contemporaries who strove for riches are ailing or dead. As much as I like nice food and alcohol, largely eschewing these, I suspect, helps a lot. On Sunday, I’m going to run about 5 miles SLOWLY on trails with my dog. The other stressor is sleep, you’ve got to average about 7.5 hours nightly to function.
I much agree with the last
No one has mentioned that a log of is baby boomers took a lot of recreational drugs. This was a new thing. Has there been any research about this?
Interesting
This one didn’t
Most I knew didn’t
I think it much more common now
But, I have no idea if this is factored in