Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Health Wellness  > IMO, really interesting health link      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 dragonbytes
Joined: 12/25/2014
Msg: 1
IMO, really interesting health linkPage 1 of 2    (1, 2)
This link compares death from many causes, like stoke, lung cancer, Alzheimers/Dementia, Diabetes Mellitus etc, etc.

Japan lead the world in total life expectancy, with SWITZERLAND as number 2. The USA is number 37.

I think it's interesting info and link.

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/world-rankings-total-deaths.
 HFX_RGB2
Joined: 4/14/2015
Msg: 2
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 5/31/2015 7:35:57 AM

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/world-rankings-total-deaths.


Page Not Found

You reached a page that is not currently available.
You may be able to find what you are looking for by using the navigation at the top of the page or by using our Site Map


That said, click bait sites that provide useless information are mostly just there for the clicks.
 dragonbytes
Joined: 12/25/2014
Msg: 3
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 5/31/2015 2:22:53 PM
Sorry, if you remove the period at the end of the link, then it goes to the correct site.

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/world-rankings-total-deaths

Even the site that does link the URL I gave with a period, it brings you to a "page not found" with a headline , worldlifeExpectancy, if you click on that it will bring you to the site I was talking about.
 dragonbytes
Joined: 12/25/2014
Msg: 4
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/1/2015 6:41:42 PM
Alzheimers/Dementia

I thought it was odd that the second leading cause of death in the USA is Alzheimers/Dementia, while in the world it's listed at the 22 leading cause of death. But some of the countries with the lowest rate of death from Alzheimers/Dementia likely don't detect those type of problems or report well on those problems.

The countries with the highest death rate from Alzheimers/Dementia are as follows.


1. Finland 34.9
2. Iceland 25.1
3. United States 24.8
4. Sweden 21.5
5. Netherlands 21.4
6. Switzerland 20.0
7. Cuba 19.6
8. Chile 19.6
9. Andorra 19.4
10. Spain 18.7
11. Norway 18.6

While the countries with the lowest rate of death from Alzheimers/Dementia are mostly southern or island countries.
155. Ecuador 1.6
156. Suriname 1.5
157. Paraguay 1.5
158. Philippines 1.4
159. Turkmenistan 1.4
160. Sri Lanka 1.2
161. Guatemala 1.2
162. Nicaragua 1.1
163. Seychelles 1.1
164. Bulgaria 1.0
165. Nauru 1.0
166. Belize 0.9
167. Bolivia 0.9
168. Honduras 0.8
169. El Salvador 0.8
170. Jamaica 0.8
171. Bahrain 0.8
172. Maldives 0.8
173. Colombia 0.7
174. San Marino 0.6
175. Macedonia 0.5
176. Qatar 0.5
177. Peru 0.5
178. Kyrgyzstan 0.4
179. Brunei 0.4
180. Tajikistan 0.4
181. Kuwait 0.3
182. Saudi Arabia 0.2
183. Oman 0.2
184. Azerbaijan 0.2
185. Malaysia 0.2
186. Bosnia/Herzeg. 0.2
187. Uzbekistan 0.2
188. Arab Emirates 0.0
189. Singapore 0.0
190. Fiji 0.0
191. Georgia 0.0
192. Monaco 0.0
 HFX_RGB2
Joined: 4/14/2015
Msg: 5
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/2/2015 6:13:21 AM
I find it odd that people seem to be thinking these numbers are more than fuzzy math.

Looking at a ranking of a country and then trying to extrapolate reasons behind them is like using BMI to study one person.

For the most part these numbers are estimates and for many of the countries they are guesses as they do not publish or even collect this data.

Which is why these types of sites are referred to as "click bait".
 satx78218
Joined: 10/30/2007
Msg: 6
view profile
History
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/2/2015 6:16:16 AM
It's been clear for decades that "western diet" is pathogenic
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/2/2015 2:08:53 PM
^^^^^^^^Very clear.

Sugar /flour/grains cause us to ROT.
Its not news

Good fats are good for you and your brain
Olive oil and other fats like coconut oil, flax, hemp /seeds and nuts should be used liberally in the everyday diet.
Know which are your omega 3' s ( anti inflammatory )and omega 6's ( inflammatory)
Herbs and spices are good for you.
 HFX_RGB2
Joined: 4/14/2015
Msg: 8
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/2/2015 4:56:25 PM

Sugar /flour/grains cause us to ROT.


That is an exaggeration, as it is not the products that do that, but the over consumption of synthetic versions of those foods that might* cause damage.


*Not advocating a sh*tty diet, but want to state the fact that;

If you eat X you will not automatically get Y, as eating something only increases your chances of being adversely affected by it and that increase is a very small % of a very small %.

Which is why not everyone that smokes gets cancer, because you 1st would have to be genetically predisposed to be affected.
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/3/2015 1:15:02 PM

Maybe you dont like the word rot?




it is not the products that do that, but the over consumption of synthetic versions of those foods that might* cause damage


Might my azz
We are talking about a typical western diet, not someone who has a slice of pie or pizza once a week and eats clean the rest of the week.
Sugar/grains will affect your deterioration and now they know the brain is affected as much as the body negatively.
Often called type 3 diabetes and that is NOT a genetic issue, its a lifestyle issue.




Fats heal
Sugars rot

My remarks were regarding Alzheimer's/Dementia and not cancer, so dont know why that came up
But" Hello" to you too .
 HFX_RGB2
Joined: 4/14/2015
Msg: 10
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/3/2015 2:49:29 PM

Fats heal
Sugars rot


So if someone eats junk all the time and they keep eating the same amount of junk but also add "fats" to their diet will their state of health be affected?




Might my azz
We are talking about a typical western diet, not someone who has a slice of pie or pizza once a week and eats clean the rest of the week.


So, is it your contention that if a person eats a mostly junk based diet they will die prematurely as a result of that?

If so, can you show any proof that this happens 100% of the time?
 Peppermint_Petunias
Joined: 3/30/2012
Msg: 11
view profile
History
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/4/2015 3:56:48 AM

So if someone eats junk all the time and they keep eating the same amount of junk but also add "fats" to their diet will their state of health be affected?

You know I didn't mean that and certainly didn't say that, but flattered you want to engage in debate with me.
Adding some fats to sugars are worse than no fat ( animal fat, to many omega 6's & sugar/grains together).




So, is it your contention that if a person eats a mostly junk based diet they will die prematurely as a result of that?

Again we are not even talking about dying, but Alzheimers right now and you still want to derail the op onto other things.
BUT
Possibly to probably, but more likely they will live with many problems that they will take drugs for or have organs they destroy and not living life as we would want to in their later years


If so, can you show any proof that this happens 100% of the time?

Please..who likes to exaggerate. 100%?
 Skyr
Joined: 3/30/2008
Msg: 12
view profile
History
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/16/2015 6:10:21 AM

Sugar /flour/grains cause us to ROT.
Its not news


No, but there is a lot of crackpot 'science' out there masquerading as news.

There is little evidence to suggest that grains or carbs cause adverse health outcomes, but excessive refined sugars/carbohydrates certainly do. Same can be said for overly processed anything- fats/oil equally so.


Know which are your omega 3' s ( anti inflammatory )and omega 6's ( inflammatory)


The hs-CRP is not a particularly sensitive or specific marker of cardiovascular disease, and is not in widespread clinical use. It's a secondary biomarker, and doesn't tell you whether a dietary intervention is going to reduce cardiovascular disease.
 dragonbytes
Joined: 12/25/2014
Msg: 13
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/16/2015 9:08:20 AM

The hs-CRP is not a particularly sensitive or specific marker of cardiovascular disease, and is not in widespread clinical use. It's a secondary biomarker, and doesn't tell you whether a dietary intervention is going to reduce cardiovascular disease.



For example, a guideline from the American College of Cardiology Foundations and the American Heart Association says that hs-CRP testing may be useful when men 50 years old or younger and women 60 years old or younger have intermediate risk. It also may be useful for treatment decisions when men and women are older than these respective ages and have LDL-C less than 130 mg/L and meet several other criteria, such as no existing heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, or inflammatory conditions.



The American Heart Association and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have defined risk groups as follows:
•Low risk: less than 1.0 mg/L
•Average risk: 1.0 to 3.0 mg/L
•High risk: above 3.0 mg/L


Do you disagree with the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology Foundations and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?

The fact that this isn't in widespread clinical use isn't a statement that it wouldn't be useful if it was included. Perhaps it will be in the future. You aren't suggesting that only tests that are in widespread clinical use are useless?

I dare say every new test in the past was at one time not in widespread clinical use.
 Skyr
Joined: 3/30/2008
Msg: 14
view profile
History
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/16/2015 2:46:53 PM

Do you disagree with the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology Foundations and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?

The fact that this isn't in widespread clinical use isn't a statement that it wouldn't be useful if it was included. Perhaps it will be in the future. You aren't suggesting that only tests that are in widespread clinical use are useless?


I don't disagree, but if you take what I said in context- it is not a particularly sensitive or specific marker. Note their wording "may be useful".

In practice, it rarely changes clinical management, and that is why it is not in widespread use for that reason. There are plenty of other risk markers- apoB/A1 ratios, Lp(a), homocysteine etc....none of which are used routinely.


I dare say every new test in the past was at one time not in widespread clinical use.


Except this has been talked about for at least the last 10-20yrs. It doesn't change most peoples cardiovascular risk calculations to any great extent.
 dragonbytes
Joined: 12/25/2014
Msg: 15
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/16/2015 4:08:55 PM

I don't disagree, but if you take what I said in context- it is not a particularly sensitive or specific marker.


Skyr, so what in your opinion is a very sensitive marker / test for cardiovascular disease?
 Skyr
Joined: 3/30/2008
Msg: 16
view profile
History
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/16/2015 5:07:10 PM

Skyr, so what in your opinion is a very sensitive marker / test for cardiovascular disease?


The hs-CRP is not a test for cardiovascular disease, it is a risk marker. Sensitivity and specificity is low because there are a range of conditions that can elevate CRP levels, and some people are also genetically predisposed to higher CRP levels (but not increased cardiovascular risk).

The gold standard "test" for diagnosing coronary or arterial disease is an angiogram.

As far as risk markers go, some are better than others, some are good but of little value (because they don't alter management). Most risk calculators are based on Framingham data, and it's not all based on lab tests. Age, sex, smoking status, diabetes status, blood pressure, family history are equally important inputs.
 dragonbytes
Joined: 12/25/2014
Msg: 17
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/17/2015 7:26:47 AM


The hs-CRP is not a test for cardiovascular disease, it is a risk marker. Sensitivity and specificity is low because there are a range of conditions that can elevate CRP levels, and some people are also genetically predisposed to higher CRP levels (but not increased cardiovascular risk).


Some people have genetically higher HDL, but that does not seem to be a mitigating factor in reducing atherosclerosis or CHD.

Drugs have been designed to artificially raise HDL. Overall, the drugs did not reduce the number of deaths from any cause or deaths from heart disease before or after statins became common.

The simple idea that a drug that raises HDL levels should also decrease the number of heart attacks and strokes may not be correct.

Yet HDL is an important part of the Framingham risk score. Should it be include?

Or is something else more complicated going on, meaning HDL is still important but artificially raising HLD isn't the way to go?

This talk of hs-crp is really under emerging risk factors not currently included in routine clinical practice.

NCEP ATP III now recommends testing some patients for emerging cardiovascular risk factors, such as levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), fibrinogen, coronary artery calcification (CAC), homocysteine, lipoprotein(a), and small, dense LDL.

http://formularyjournal.modernmedicine.com/formulary-journal/news/clinical/clinical-pharmacology/emerging-risk-factors-and-risk-markers-cardiov?page=full

Yes, there are a number of disease conditions that might cause a higher CRP. Wouldn't it be good to measure CRP and then determine what was causing a higher level?

Do you agree with the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP)- Adult Treatment Panel (ATP III)?
 satx78218
Joined: 10/30/2007
Msg: 18
view profile
History
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/17/2015 11:43:28 AM
Why People in these 5 Countries Live Longer

http://naturalsociety.com/why-people-in-these-5-countries-live-longer/#ixzz3dLXKL1co

"locavore" plant-dominated diet, including beans, pulses, exercise as part of daily life, socially connected, sufficient sleep.

Another study I saw said "boiled coffee" (not drip, not espresso) was a factor isolated as contributing to long life.
 HFX_RGB2
Joined: 4/14/2015
Msg: 19
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/17/2015 11:48:55 AM
http://naturalsociety.com/why-people-in-these-5-countries-live-longer/#ixzz3dLXKL1co

There is no question that diet plays the biggest part in determining not only longevity, but also the quality of life, especially during the later years.


There is also no question that a site who sells 100% USDA Organic storeable food for $269.99 would probably draw that conclusions.

As not taking into account genetics is either a fail or a deception as it related to how long you will live.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 20
view profile
History
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/17/2015 12:04:01 PM
hfx rgb2:
I find it odd that people seem to be thinking these numbers are more than fuzzy math.

Looking at a ranking of a country and then trying to extrapolate reasons behind them is like using BMI to study one person.

For the most part these numbers are estimates and for many of the countries they are guesses as they do not publish or even collect this data.

Which is why these types of sites are referred to as "click bait".


I think this is basically correct. While eating healthy is always a good idea, and trusting people who put additives in food in order to allow them to sell it to you long after it should have been discarded is a bad idea...

it is also unwise to take lists like this as simple face value.

Another reason why some nations will rank higher for some diseases than others, is that they are better at recognizing that that disease is present. Or, their medical people or insurance companies pay off on that disease, and not on others, so their doctors will SAY that's what killed them more often.

And then there's the complication that results from people living longer in some places than in others. Someone who lives to 95, is more likely to be said to have died from complications arising from dementia, than someone who dies at 55.

But again, I say "point taken," for the most part. We COULD do much better here, however there are a lot of people who get rich because we do things wrong instead, and getting rich IS still favored by our government, over every other measure of human achievement.
 satx78218
Joined: 10/30/2007
Msg: 21
view profile
History
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/17/2015 1:39:09 PM
"As not taking into account genetics is either a fail or a deception as it related to how long you will live."

epigenetics can reduce the negatives of "bad" genetics.

epigenetics can preserve the positives of "good" genetics.
 Skyr
Joined: 3/30/2008
Msg: 22
view profile
History
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/18/2015 3:42:11 AM

Drugs have been designed to artificially raise HDL. Overall, the drugs did not reduce the number of deaths from any cause or deaths from heart disease before or after statins became common.

The simple idea that a drug that raises HDL levels should also decrease the number of heart attacks and strokes may not be correct.



No, that is a conclusion by secondary extrapolation. How do you know the drug does not adversely affect another metabolic pathway?

Statins have been shown to decrease cardiovascular events, whereas fibrates- not really. They both affect cholesterol, but we are not interested in the cholesterol (except for risk stratification). We are interested in the therapeutic outcome (heart attacks/strokes/mortality).


This talk of hs-crp is really under emerging risk factors not currently included in routine clinical practice.


It has been 'emerging' for a long time, and we still don't find it particularly useful in real practice. Likewise all the other risk factors you mention- it doesn't change what we do. For instance, we know folate reduces homocysteine levels, but reducing homocysteine with folate supplementation has not been shown to improve cardiovascular outcomes. We don't have enough information to know whether using them in risk stratification will affect what we do with other interventions (eg statins).


Yes, there are a number of disease conditions that might cause a higher CRP. Wouldn't it be good to measure CRP and then determine what was causing a higher level?


A number? Just about anything that causes inflammation will raise CRP. Good luck.
 Skyr
Joined: 3/30/2008
Msg: 23
view profile
History
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/18/2015 4:10:15 AM

"As not taking into account genetics is either a fail or a deception as it related to how long you will live."

epigenetics can reduce the negatives of "bad" genetics.

epigenetics can preserve the positives of "good" genetics.


It's a long time since I worked in a proteome lab, but I find the abuse of epigenetics rather cringe worthy.

The quack industry love to claim that one can simply 'reprogramme' their DNA with whatever snake oil and pop-diet they sell you.
 dragonbytes
Joined: 12/25/2014
Msg: 24
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/18/2015 7:48:34 AM

No, that is a conclusion by secondary extrapolation. How do you know the drug does not adversely affect another metabolic pathway?

Statins have been shown to decrease cardiovascular events, whereas fibrates- not really. They both affect cholesterol, but we are not interested in the cholesterol (except for risk stratification). We are interested in the therapeutic outcome (heart attacks/strokes/mortality).


That was my counter point when you posted the following.


The hs-CRP is not a test for cardiovascular disease, it is a risk marker. Sensitivity and specificity is low because there are a range of conditions that can elevate CRP levels, and some people are also genetically predisposed to higher CRP levels (but not increased cardiovascular risk).
.


Then you agree that your statement "some people are also genetically predisposed to higher CRP levels (but not increased cardiovascular risk) is meaningless and to draw any conclusion from that would be a "conclusion by secondary extrapolation" ??

I may never get a heart attack, but may suffer from vascular dementia caused from atherosclerosis and reduced blood flow to the brain. So then a doctor would say, see, the higher than normal inflammation didn't cause a cardiac event. Then another doctor will say it's just expected from someone over XX number of years. Then another professional would say, it's pointless to measure hs-CRP because many other doctors don't routinely measure it.


A number? Just about anything that causes inflammation will raise CRP. Good luck.


So let's just ignore your chronic inflammation because it's hard to figure out the cause and likely won't cause a future cardiovascular event? Obviously (I hope it obvious), I wasn't talking about a one time spike in CRP.

BTW, I don't argue against statins, I would keep in mind they can have negative side effects for some people. I don't see the point of statins for those age 90 or above.
 dragonbytes
Joined: 12/25/2014
Msg: 25
IMO, really interesting health link
Posted: 6/18/2015 8:13:08 AM

Another reason why some nations will rank higher for some diseases than others, is that they are better at recognizing that that disease is present. Or, their medical people or insurance companies pay off on that disease, and not on others, so their doctors will SAY that's what killed them more often.


What incentive do doctors have for lying about the actual cause of death? Health insurance stops paying after you are dead. They don't pay more retroactively depending on cause of death.


And then there's the complication that results from people living longer in some places than in others. Someone who lives to 95, is more likely to be said to have died from complications arising from dementia, than someone who dies at 55.


True for those countries like Somalia or Chad where one is more likely to die from Diarrhoeal diseases, Influenza & Pneumonia, War or Malaria.

You would take into consideration their very low life expectancy and not look at Alzheimers/Dementia as having any meaning for those countries as people aren't going to live that long.

One should compare Japan, which has the longest life expectancy and compare it to the USA.

When you do that, you see that Alzheimers/Dementia is ranked as the number #2 killer in the USA but at #18 in Japan, and then you really have to wonder why. Why despite living longer than people in the USA does Japan have a much lower rate of Alzheimers/Dementia?
Show ALL Forums  > Health Wellness  > IMO, really interesting health link