If you live alone, have no kids, and a fixed income, trust me, you'd probably prefer enjoying fewer years eating and drinking, not lengthening your lifespan to live in constant fear of homelessness or debilitation.
3
Nothing new - or surprising-here. These are basically common sense actions that we have been counseled to take for years. Along with these actions, the other very important factor in longevity, especially for living into the "oldest old" (85+) is probably linked to genetics - which none of us can control. There also needs to be consideration for quality of life issues. Living a long life is really only desirable if there is some some enjoyment to living that length of time. I have no desire to live to be 95 if the last 10 years are spend fight dementia and being institutionalized. On the other hand, my Great grandmother lived in her own home until she was 96 and died at 98- mainly because she decided she had lived long enough, took to her bed and was dead in 2 weeks. If I could be so lucky, living to a very advanced age might be something to aspire to.
2
The studies never state the the quality of life these people have or their "comorbity" in the last five or ten years of life. I know of plenty of people who lived into their late 80s and mid 90s with a low quality of life, Many with dementia or chronic disabilities.
There is more to life than a pulse and heartbeat. Life is a disease without a cure.
4
This is just one person's experience but I am constantly puzzled by these longevity discussions when I consider that my grandmother lived to 105 without exercise or eating an especially healthy diet, while being subjected to many adverse conditions. My mother is 93, drinks immoderately, and has always been sedentary. Does anybody study the super agers who don't have healthy habits?
8
Interesting . . . .but, as others have pointed out . . . largely common sense.
2
what is a healthy diet? what is regular physical activity? what is moderate alcohol consumption? the definition of moderation varies from study to study and worse from person to person. this makes this a very vague study and likely not worth reporting. Some studies are done just for publication kinda like junk studies.
2
Notice that this article DOES NOT advise “moderate tobacco consumption”. This is because tobacco is a known carcinogen. However, it DOES advise moderate alcohol consumption. News Flash: Alcohol is a proven carcinogen. It’s TOXIC! You can thank the copious amounts of industry-funded research for this lovely little advertising plug in the NYTimes.
https://m.motherjones.com/politics/2018/04/did-drinking-give-me-breast-c...
2
Not sure why so many comments are poo-pooing this article. Why would anyone doubt that leading a healthy lifestyle helps you live longer? We know that smoking, excessive drinking, and obesity all lead to chronic health problems and disease that can end your life sooner, or at least diminish your quality of life. Getting regular physical activity helps maintain a normal weight and can help with mood, mobility, and brain activity.
Any of these things that you can do are going to help you in the long run. What is the issue here, folks? If you want to continue unhealthy habits, fine, but at least you can't say that no one told you they were unhealthy.
4
I figured the "low alcohol consumption" meant no-more-than not an invitation to start drinking if you don’t already.
1
This study is ridiculous and the conclusion is common sense: "Adopting a healthy lifestyle could substantially reduce premature mortality and prolong life expectancy in US adults." I now have more questions than answers. Ha.
Yeah but.... if you are on some medications, moderate alcohol consumption might end your life pretty quickly.
Was this study sponsored by the alcohol industry? Choosing not to drink inhibits a lot of life-shortening behaviors. To recommend moderate drinking seems specious.
2
They're charlatans because they ignore CMV and other infections. Heart disease is the leading cause of death. Cytomegalovirus causes a large proportion of heart disease, especially among less-wealthy people, who are also more likely to smoke, etc.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/3/775.full
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/3/787.long
So this junk is really just glorification of the lifestyle preferences of the privileged.
1
Using seat belts is a behavior. Using sunscreen is a behavior. But how is having abnormal weight or a physical addiction a "behavior?"
“The question is how to improve behavior...” No wonder the author is confounded by this - he is asking a false question.
Let's start by recognizing that physical addiction or one's body weight are not behaviors. Both are the RESULT of environment, behaviors, genetics, economics, and more.
This article should have simply suggested we adopt the "behavior" of living 12 to 14 years longer. It would have been just as helpful yet far more honest and credible.
4
In my humble belief a spiritual life free of rancour full of love and a firm belief in a God gives us purpose in life !
The body is healthy if your mind is healthy.
Quality of life is not a function of food but an indicator of a long useful life!
6
Sadly, everyone has come up with biases and means to refute hard stat facts. Why they do it beats the heck out of me but I think that most of us really do not want to accept what our lives or deaths is saying to us. We want to eat what we have come to like, we like sitting on that couch so much better than out walking (heaven forbid someone will suggest running), we want to guzzle down that last 5 beers as we watch the best game of the weekend or have that 3rd martini with the girls and say, a little extra weight don't hurt nobody, it is not like I am obese. All just excuses that are going to rob us of years and a good Life!
Weight problems are fast surpassing other leading premature killers of all people in advanced cultures.
7
At 50, my mother lacked all 5 of these factors. She still does, and will be 89 on October. I blame her genes.
6
@Ann Would you say that her quality of life is good, though? Just curious how she spends her time.
No kidding? This is new?
2
Too we put too many rules on what it takes to live a long life. Simple common sense should prevail. Just enjoy life and live in the moment. It’s all any of us can do.
9
I'm a scientist and I find this incredibly humorous considering that alcohol is a verified class one carcinogen. It's too bad that the majority of the world's population is completely ignorant to the fact - although unsurprising given that the NIH accepts funding from alcohol companies. A sad and unfortunate reality.
8
The carcinogenic effect of alcohol, like most things, is dose dependent. Moderate drinking is fine.
2
I'm 4 for 5, as I don't drink any alcohol. Is the point "not to drink too much, or at all" or "to be sure to drink a little"? In other words, is it important to have that glass of wine, or am I just as healthy without it?
2
The point is to drink moderately OR LESS. Every study I've ever seen has stressed that if you don't drink, don't start drinking because of the study. Heavy drinking leads to a multitude of complications, including but not limited to diabetes, brain damage, liver damage, injuries and osteoporosis.
Rule number 6 was left out. Have a genetic endowment from parents characterized by longevity and good health. Smoking and diabetes excluded, good genes account for the majority of long lives in most subjects.
16
It’s not about lifespan, it’s about health span. Will you be healthy for the last 10 yr of your life or chronically Ill ? Go WFPB!!!
9
Health span is everything! And to get that, one needs lowered stress and good long nighttime sleep. Overworking, stressing out and sleeping badly almost assuredly turns that last 20 years into a nightmare.
5
This is really a poor-quality article. I am surprised that a reputable journal would publish such a flawed study, except that it presumably supports a narrative that the editor and reviewers liked.
4
The article tries (poorly) to summarize a publication descibing the study. Just because this article is bad, it doesn't necessarily mean the study was bad.
Even with diabetes 2 and high LDL cholesterol?? (You know not all people with these conditions are "sinners" -- and often follow the rest of the rules!!)
Would rather live fast and die 12 years before my cohort!
4
That's not how it usually works out: A healthier lifestyle does not only lead to a longer life (statistically), it also leads to less chronic diseases. And the other way around: If you want to live "fast", you end up dying earlier, and long before you die, you can't enjoy your life much because of chronic illness ...
5
I think the flashing, swirling ad for Oreos in the middle of the article was an interesting choice. (By the way, many do not know that Oreos are vegan. But still...)
1
Oreos might be 'vegan' but they've got powdered sugar and fake lard in the middles. Ugh!
3
This really seems like a flawed study. The researchers estimated the risk factors using their own data sets on nurses and health professionals who self-report their own data. These data sets are largely white and differ considerably from the US population. Then they match their results into a national US survey of the civilian non-institutionalized population, which by definition excludes people in hospitals and nursing homes, and which doesn't measure the risk factors in the same way. Then they use national mortality data, which of course includes many people who die in hospitals and nursing homes, to get in a overall estimate. This is like apples, oranges and kumquats all mashed together. These estimates are highly questionable at best. But they do fit a narrative that many find palatable, which is probably how such a poor quality article could get published..
1
“Health” (and its cousin “wellness”) are terms with a different meaning to each of us.
As a physician, I have learned to think in terms of “toxic” instead. It allows us to be somewhat more specific.
In addition, life expectancy is a group statistic, and doesn’t accurately predict an individual’s outcome. More importantly, it doesn’t deal with quality of that life.
I have the luxury of retirement with a wonderful wife, in a nice town and have the freedom and capability to do interesting and fun things. That is what I consider healthy.
On the disease prevention side, I choose to follow a vegan diet, get some exercise generally two or three times a week and don’t smoke or do much alcohol.
So hopefully I will enjoy my life until my body decides its time to close down and stop.
5
The last paragraph "The question is how to improve behavior"
The point of this tiny article is dramatic changes in food, physical activity and so on. The 5 healthy habits have been around for quite some time. It's time to focus on how to get there in a way that sticks around. Not trends but honest to goodness change.
5
Well, it will make your BODY live longer. But what about your brain? I visited a dear family friend yesterday -- she's 94 and will be 95 in September. She was just forcibly moved from her Assisted Living home, where she'd been for 6 years, to a dementia unit. She was "punished" for going outdoors for a short walk on a beautiful warm spring day vs. staying indoors 24/7. She and her family were give no choices. Now she's in a lockdown unit, in a smaller worse suite at 50% higher costs, and getting in and out of the building is like getting through Homeland Security at an airport. Yes, she has dementia but is still mostly functional -- just forgetful. But her memories are going, and that's so sad. All her friends, colleagues from a terrific career, most of her family are deceased now. Her beloved home had to be sold, and her pets given away. Her hobbies of gardening and travel, all gone. In moving her to the dementia unit, about 60% of her possessions were removed -- I have no idea if they were thrown out or stored somewhere -- her paintings, collectibles, jewelry, memorabilia. For some reason, they discourage possession there and want the residents to live minimally. Easier to clean, I guess. There's no getting out, so this is forever for her -- fading away, with a remarkably healthy body but a failing brain. She always ate right, exercised, was slender. Fat lot of good it did.
25
Yeah, I'm in my fifties and already worried about my memory.
5
I occasionally talk with this man who visits his wife in the Nursing Home I work at. He is 94 and he has ALL his natural teeth. I am going on 58 and I have already lost 6 teeth. His mind is quite sharp, I cannot detect any dementia at all. People in Okinawa traditionally lived much longer lives when they ate their traditional diet and had a lot less Heart Disease and Cancer.
2
I was worried too. Got a brain scan that (they said) looks good, so I'm limiting sugar and simple carbs and eating more fish and almost no other meat. I'm hoping that will help...
1
The 5 Healthy Habits are:
1) Never smoking
2) Body mass index of 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m2
3) 30 min/d of moderate to vigorous physical activity
4) Moderate alcohol intake
5) High diet quality score (upper 40%),
8
Why couldn't this article say that? Thanks for taking the time the reporter apparently didn't want to take to provide some details.
This is about behavior modification. For instance, it's really OK if you don't eat bacon in your meals 3 times a day. Eventually your loved ones will catch on and, hopefully, adapt too. Don't be embarrassed to mow your lawn, wash the windows and any manner of physical activity around your home. Walk to your neighbors'. Then, walk together around the neighborhood. Leave your phone at home. Just for starters. It is all about common sense.
7
Walk fast everywhere.
4
I'm curious about the behavior 'moderate alcohol consumption'. If one does not drink alcohol should he start drinking a moderate amount? Is a moderate amount of alcohol better than no alcohol at all?
4
Moderate drinking means getting moderately inebriated on three or four days per week. hth
2
No, a moderate amount of alcohol is not better than none. Don't start drinking now for health reasons.
4
The usual answer is "NO"-- do not start if you aren't already having your nightly sedative!!
The actual answer may well not be out BTW. as in we don't know.
1
Yeah, that’s really interesting, Doc. So, is there any truth to orgone therapy?
1
Shouldn't this be titled "Neglect these 5 Healthy Habits, Die 12 to 14 Years Earlier"? Since when are exercising, eating well, moderating your drinking, not smoking, and maintaining a normal weight surprising things to help longevity?
9
Good role models would help a lot to change behavior, starting with the current President who fails on three of these behaviors: he is overweight, obviously follows an unhealthy diet, and does not get regular physical activity. The same is true for many nurses, doctors, schoolteachers, professors, administrators, and numerous others who just on the basis of outward appearance ignore the bountiful evidence that attention to these behaviors would make a huge difference in longevity, quality of life, healthcare costs, and the general welfare.
7
"Conclusions—Adopting a healthy lifestyle could substantially reduce premature mortality and prolong life expectancy in US adults."
Wow ... never could have figured that out.
8
That one sentence should have been the whole article
And there are groups of professionals being paid to "find out" this stuff.
Do what you are going to do: do stuff in moderation, use common sense. If you are going to not get off the couch you are going to stagnate. Stay away from all foods and drinks that are processed and full of sugar. Good DNA helps but even if you don't come from a background of warriors you should last until 85. Otherwise prepare to accept the turn of the roulette with the 5 factors and your own personal DNA. Good Luck.
2
The US Medical Industrial Complex is vastly overrated. As people had better nutrition and sanitation, life spans increased. Later increases are due to the decrease in smoking.
Medicine is good at keeping people in failed health (barely) alive. And at manufacturing life in IVF centers. Are such objectives worthy of the billions spent/taxed via medical insurance premiums?
If America implemented a low-tech medical model, society would be so much better off. We could spend these resources on preserving what's left of our environment. But Big Pharma/Big Hospital/Big Med Supply won't allow that.
18
Don't forget Big Ag!
2
Moderate Alcohol consumption! So the researchers are advising me to drink alcohol? Is this what they preach to their loved ones/kids? Who is funding this so-called research? What are their vested interests. Shame on NYT for letting such sham advise get published over and over again. Look at all the ads on TV targeting young women to drink. Soon they will tell you to "Pot responsibly - and boost your mental health" ...and their bank balance. What have we become as a nation and as people!
4
I think they mean "if you drink, moderate your alcohol consumption," not "everyone should drink a moderate amount of alcohol."
19
While there is some evidence that consuming alcohol has benefits, there's lots more evidence that OVER-consuming alcohol is bad for you. The researchers are advising you to not OVER-consume. They are assuming that the average person does, in fact, drink alcohol, and in addressing that average, they want people to not overdo. (Speaking as the child of an alcoholic, while not drinking myself for medical reasons.)
4
Live healthy, die anyway.
18
All common sense stuff that we already know. The devil sits on one shoulder and an angel sits on the other.....
9
It wasn't common sense 50 years ago.
Physicians are like auto mechanics (and most Americans take better care of their cars than their bodies and minds). some of them are competent and some are not. the main difference is that as a group, or profession, they have successfully elevated their social status beyond their actual skill and knowledge. expecting a doctor to solve your problems is immature. expecting them to operate within the context of the health care system we have in this country is reasonable, and understanding the limitations of that system is essential for an adult. generally, physicians are well-intentioned but not perfect human beings. Some of them went into medicine mostly for the money and status, and some went into it mostly to help people.
this article makes clear that the five behaviors are up to the individual. if they could be incorporated into the broader society that would be good, but this is not an easy task to accomplish, especially in the current Know-Nothing cultural environment.
3
While Times' articles are often long, this one didn't go into sufficient depth on the five key behaviors. I don't smoke and I exercise regularly but how much exercise is enough? For those who smoke, is the threshold for smoking a pack a day?
I am sure moderation goes a long way but the fact that only two percent of the population meets all five criteria suggests the bar to attaining a better lifestyle is high
10
Did they look to genetics for the average age of death in the family? I just went to the funeral of an 85 year old man who had none of these habits, and he was very healthy until age 84. His parents lived into their mid 80s, as did his healthy lifestyle brother. Anecdotal, yes, but as I age and the funerals become more frequent, I notice this connection more and more. Maybe length of life is set at birth, barring catastrophic lifestyle fails.
4
That's not how science works.
One of the biggest difficulties in science is to create a research question that is precise enough to be answered in a scientific way, and for which an experiment can be build that allows us to find an answer.
In this case, scientists studied the effects of five lifestyle factors. That means, by definition, that all other known factors were being kept equal, because if not, you're not studying those five factors in a scientific way.
Moreover, this kind of studies delivers a very specific kind of results: statistical results. So these are averages. An average means that many people adopting this kind of lifestyle live longer than the 12 to 14 years mentioned here, but many also live less longer.
And an average also means that you can have people who don't adopt such a lifestyle at all but who still manage to live quite a lot of years.
All these facts don't refute the validity of the study, as these are averages.
As to genetics: as far as I'm aware, there are no scientific studies about the influence between genetics and average death in general, because that's too large a question to be able to be studied in a controllable way (knowing that genes can express themselves or rather hide themselves our entire lives, in response to our lifestyle for instance).
All that is known for the moment is that there are statistical correlations between certain genes and certain illnesses, and that aging is influenced by lifestyle too.
11
You expressed my question better than I did - was the age of their parents and grandparents at the time of natural death one of the other known factors that controlled the study? If that data is not included, I suggest they missed interesting information that would have been very easy to add.
1
@ bhs (second comment)
In that case, you're presuming that in order to learn something about a potential link between genes and life expectancy, you have to study the age of someone's parents and grandparents at the time of natural death.
That's not scientifically valid though, because how will you define "natural death", knowing that we're talking about a moment in the past where medicine and healthcare (including prevention) wasn't what it is today?
And if you want to study a statistically relevant link between age and genes, you have to select only those parents and grandparents that (1) are already dead, and that (2) can nevertheless tell us what their lifestyle was and who then tell us that they respected those 5 factors mentioned here.
If you don't select such a people, then you're not keeping the factor "lifestyle" equal, during your study, you see? That means that data about age of death, for those parents or grandparents, could easily be "contaminated" by lifestyle influences, which we can't measure (as they're already dead). And in that case, you cannot conclude anything scientifically valid out of those data.
So contrary to what you seem to believe, studying a potential link between genes and life expectancy is EXTREMELY difficult. That's why it hasn't been done yet, rather than because nobody would have been curious about this question ever before.
1
Hopefully if one lives an extra 12 to 14 years, many of them will be healthy and rewarding. In this connection, the study missed the most important negative life-style: throw out your TV and get out and about.
18
There are many people who greatly enjoy watching TV. One recently told me that regularly watching TV talk shows was like friends coming over for a visit.
Why should you or I impose our standards on her?
That's easy for you to say, and that's easy for me to do. I don't like TV either. But have you visited elderly loved ones who's only happiness is from TV? I'm not about to about to tell them to throw away their TV and get out and about.
1
Of course it's a cultural problem.
When certain regions adopting a Western lifestyle have a much healthier and longer living population than others (with HC more or less equal), then it becomes clear that there is some truth to what Aristotle 2,500 years ago already wrote (and Darwin, by the way, confirmed - contrary to the popular interpretation of the "survival of the fittest", the "fittest" here isn't an individual, but an entire species ...): human beings are "social animals".
We need each other to survive, and the more we manage to collaborate AND create healthy cultures, the more each individual participating in such a culture thrives.
Let's take the comments below for instance. Many people admit that although they know they have to exercise and refrain from smoking and drinking, when life becomes too stressful, they start doing the opposite.
Why? Because in our current society, we're NOT good at stress management AT ALL. Our children don't learn it at school, and our popular tv series and movies and songs etc. don't integrate those techniques either. At the same time, an absurd idea of social justice, where we're constantly in a competition mode, creates permanent high stress levels.
And we all know that smoking and drinking and fast food temporarily lower stress, so without any awareness of proven stress reduction tools, it's the only option left.
Meditate regularly, for instance, and stress does down significantly. But that's not part of our culture (yet)...
2
This article is too vague. It needs to define terms such as "moderate drinking" and even "healthy diet". Of course we all know we should eat more fruits and vegetables, but there is a lot of conflicting and confusing nutritional information out there. Paleo is good vs. avoid animal fat; mushrooms are good vs. molds are bad, fruit is good vs. the sugar even in fruit is bad, etc etc.
10
That's what the link to the study is for.
I do agree though that in general, if MSM don't start regularly defining those terms, many people will continue to ignore what exactly they mean. Or as professor Hu stated: it's a cultural problem.
But the problem here with MSM is the same problem as with Trump voters: media are supposed to report the news, they're not supposed to provide the necessary context for its readers to be able to understand what new events actually mean.
Trump supporters for instance may read the NYT and see an article that informs us of the fact that Trump wants to cut Medicare by hundreds of millions of dollars, and then the article interviews a Republican adding that Democrats shouldn't denounce such a decisions as Obamacare cuts it by $600 million too.
Reporting on how both Democrats and Republicans react to such a Trump proposal is supposed to be politically "neutral" reporting.
But if you don't add context, and don't explain that Obamacare cuts $600 billion in WASTE out of the program, AND then reinvests those $600 billion into healthcare, then Trump supporters will believe that Obamacare cut Medicare, whereas it actually expands it.
So the same NYT article may confirm Dem voters in their opposition to Trump and the GOP ... and confirm Trump voters in their false belief that Democrats cut Medicare too and that it HAS to be cut because there's no money to pay for it and Dems know it ...
The same goes for an article like this one, unfortunately.
2
Correction of my previous reply to you: thanks to Bucky's comment below, I just found out that the study itself actually does NOT give more information about the questions you're asking than the NYT article here.
I should have done some fact-checking myself before assuming that I could give advise to others ... my apologies.
Nothing new but it is good to hear what we all know in terms of assuring the five behaviors are addressed. A sixth should also include genetics, as of course individual traits also make a huge difference in longevity.
3
"Nothing new", you say, but where are the studies showing that these five factors taken together prolong a woman's life by FOURTEEN years (and not twelve, in the case of a man, for instance) ... ?
They don't exist. So yes, this scientific study discovered something new and provides new information, and that's why it deserves to be called "news".
You have to omit all the new info here and then conclude that here's yet another study showing that each those five factors separately makes you healthier, before you can turn it into a "nothing new" study. But that's not how science works.
As to the idea that genetics and individual traits make a "huge difference in longevity": do you mean that you've read tons of very specific scientific studies proving that idea, or is your "of course" only meant to reflect your own personal beliefs ... ?
2
ANA: I have and they do.
Well, I'd like to feel as good as I can, but I certainly do not want my body to outlive my mind.
19
I too was thinking about quality of life in those extra years. And the financial implications. Rent, utilities, food prices etc keep going up.
2
AMY: My parents outlived their health and their health issues were not related to their lifestyles.
I do moderately four out of five, except drinking. I don't drink but now I need to start drinking a "moderate" amount. Not easy.
10
Although there is much controversy around what is considered a "safe" level of drinking, there is no study that recommends that someone currently not drinking should start.
5
Yes, @Ladyontop, you must start drinking. Better hurry up to make up for lost time.
6
All one needs is cancer or pneumonia to bust your five habits to live longer deal. And the cancer could be caused by the environment, or something else. I know plenty of people who fit the lifestyle and got cancer of some type and died early. Then there are alto accidents.
5
Life is a dangerous endeavor indeed ... :-)
That being said, what this study shows is not that IF you live healthy, then you'll live 12 years longer, even when tomorrow your hit by a big truck.
What it shows is that, all other things being kept equal, a healthy life leads to 12 years more compared to not respecting one of the five factors mentioned here.
In that case, not adopting a lifestyle that integrates all five of them because tomorrow a car might hit you is as irrational as refusing to eat today because tomorrow a car might hit you...
3
It is another study trying to figure out the formula of my equality of life theory ie everybody has an equal amount of good and bad in life.
The good and bad is not defined by the human but by God and nature.
Some day some genius like Einstein or Newtown will figure out the equation, ie discover what nature/God considers good and bad, analysis the persons life and predict within a second how long the person will live assuming they continue the way they are living.
We are doing it now with these rudimentary studies.
2
I believe that being able to cope successfully with life's issues as we grow older is very important. We all encounter anxiety and physical issues eventually. They may not even involve us personally but those we care about. Try to take it one day at a time.
20
The other huge advantage is that the quality of life is much better. One not only increases their life span by about 15 %, one is able to enjoy the physical functionality of a 50 year old at age 75.
30
The problem is that doctors are paid virtually nothing in aiding patients in adopting these behaviors while they can be paid tens of thousands of dollars to treat the consequences of their not doing so.
Until we give doctors much more incentive to keep their patients healthy than to have them become sick, little will change. That, Dr. Hu, is the answer for you.
63
The individual is responsible for living a healthy lifestyle. Doctors don't live with them on a daily basis. I'm pretty sure doctors would be 100% happier with fewer obese patients with multiple problems.
9
To P Grey,
Outwardly doctors may express what you say but remember that doctors make their money from their patients being sick. The best paid doctors are those who do procedures. You aren't going to do surgery on people who don't have anything wrong with them.
And, yes it is the individual's responsibility but in an ideal world it would be the doctor's job to aid them in attaining that healthy lifestyle. If you go to see a doctor and he or she only give lip service to such a lifestyle, you would get the feeling it isn't so important.
2
Exactly. I recently visited my internist for just an annual review. From the physician's assistant to the doctor herself, my overall good health and lack of complaints or symptoms was treated as a sort of irritant. I finally remarked to them, "You know, being healthy is a good thing. Why does that seem to upset you?" I'm currently looking for another internist.
6
drink Red wine, lots of it. eat a handful of walnuts everyday, exercise and avoid fast food & smoking. Simple... And avoid Red meat too!
6
Nah! Red wine is a myth... especially 'lots off!'....
13
The heart of the issue here is not the individual's will or need to change. The focus needs to be on the 'social environment' the Dr. Hu refers to. Our culture does not encourage four out of the five healthy behaviors referenced in the article.
Eating a healthy diet - almost ALL of the food accessible to the average household is NOT healthy. Even food marketed as healthy is usually filled with unneeded preservatives, food dyes, and other additives that are harmful. The remedy? Eat whole organic foods. Why do we not? It's terribly expensive (inaccessible to most households) and not the 'norm'.
Not smoking - I'll give this one a pass. Most people KNOW smoking isn't good for you.. but it continues nonetheless...
Regular exercise - A lot of people are able to exercise frequently. I used to every day. But then life got hard and stressful so I don't anymore. Part of that is my fault, however. I went to college to get a degree, had three kids, and choose to live a mostly healthy lifestyle (buying all the expensive organic foods). So I'm busy, stressed, and the main provider for the household... so exercise is not on my mind. *Overall, our culture promotes 'more work', 'do more', 'buy more', 'bigger is better'... Not PROMOTING exercise.
Moderate alcohol - Our culture promotes drinking. You see it in movies, TV, talked about at work, etc etc.
Maintaining a normal weight - Difficult because of the 'eating a healthy diet'.
Our CULTURE has to change.
26
I get what you're saying, but one can make healthy choices in the current culture. Plenty of people exercise daily, eat fruits and veggies, have careers, family responsibilities, an occasional drink or two, and live happy lives. There is choice in life and social pressure should not be strong enough to alter choices for a healthy life.
35
Well, apparently, according to this study only about 2% manage to pull all of that off. I would not consider that plenty of people. I think it is a pretty dismal success rate . Rather than blaming 98% of Americans for their failure, we would do better to take steps as a society to change the structure of our lifestyles and options to support people in their efforts. Of course there will always be people who make poor choices but 98% failure rate seems like more than can be explained that way.
9
"Our CULTURE has to change." Thanks for helping other think, Chris. This change will never come from outside, from the culture at large. Change must therefore come from within as each alters his/her view of and relationship to that culture - the obscene 24/7 Church of Corn Syrup - to establish personal habits beneficial to oneself though bankrupting those profiting at expense of our early demise. Message has to come from within, you'll never see such a billboard on your commute.
1
As my teenager would say, "Duh."
14
Yes they do cut to the chase don't they!
3
Every time I went to my acupuncturist he would ask all the usual questions, I will answer with whatever was ailing me at the moment and in the end he would ask: Are you having any fun?? Add that to the 5 healthy habits list.
50
It's possible, but I certainly wouldn't rely on an acupuncturist for insights into medicine. Every clinical test of acupuncture shows it has no effect on any condition beyond a simple placebo effect (i.e. the perception on the part of the recipient that their condition has improved). But to your point, I think being happy is still a good thing even if it has no effect on your life span.
8
Marc,
As a physician acupuncturist I can tell you that you are absolutely wrong. In fact, a recently released report sponsored by a coalition of academic medical center put acupuncture at the top of non-pharmacologic treatments for pain and, you might like to know, there is far more support for its use for chronic pain than there is for the use of opioids.
43
Are these 5 habits compatible with a fun life. I think so-you just a ton of motivation. I think a long life is overrated, but if you have to live long, you'd better be healthy. Its a terrible predicament to be middle aged and be ill with multiple illness that compromise your quality of life.
22
This is all too nebulous: So does this mean that I should only eat six bags of pork rinds a day and drink one quart of Jack Daniels at dinner? "Normal weight" for an American male or female in 2018 is not the same as "Normal Weight" in 1970. This all needs to be spelled out to be helpful.
9
Look these up. They are easy to find.
4
Normal weight is not the same as average weight - common sense used to be a great deal more common in 1970 as well.
8
@SteveRR:
Population rates of obesity have a sharp inflection point around the late 1970s-early 80s. Do we suppose there was a sudden, nation-wide failure of common sense and moral character? A simpler explanation is that something(s) changed in the food supply and official dietary advice around this time.
The trick is that we now have many competing versions of what is or isn't a healthful diet, and no single version will be generalizable to everybody.
Hu, Willett, and the rest of the HSPH crowd have muddied the waters by depending on self-reported food surveys, inventing a fictional "Mediterranean diet", demonizing saturated fat while going easy on sugar, and uncritically promoting every weak correlation as if it were causation.
6
I don't think we need to get too pedantic about it. Most people have some idea of what a balanced diet is. The fact that Americans get excited about new extreme gimmicky diets all the time shouldn't distract us too much from the fact that we basically know what a healthy diet is. Let's see... fries or a salad? Burger or salmon? Sugary yogurt or less sugary yogurt? Soda or water? Something with a bunch of preservatives and artificial flavors and colors, or something made with simple ingredients? Fruit or candy? White sandwich bread or whole grain bread? Mac n cheese or a sweet potato? Queso or hummus? (I love queso, but still, I know what I'm eating). The low fat diet wasn't the worst idea (as long as you're still getting some good fats), but the problem was people replaced fattening foods not with more vegetables and fruits and beans and such, but with Snackwells cookies. At the time, my physician father who followed a low fat diet, always reminded us that that stuff was junk food no matter how much fat or calories it had. We grew up eating whole, home cooked foods with lean means and plenty of vegetables and fruits, and very few sweets. That's pretty much a healthy diet.
33
I think any reasonable person can identify the major components of a healthy diet - only the pedantic want to fight over whether that means 10 grams of red meat per week or 12 grams
3
@SteveRR:
We have had decades of doctors, dietitians, and health agencies pronouncing that "red meat, butter, and eggs are deadly, everybody should eat loads of bread, pasta, cereal, and margarine." We are now slowly turning the ship around on decades of terrible nutrition advice.
I can forgive any reasonable person for being confused about the safety, accuracy, and effectiveness of official diet recommendations.
A fine bottle of wine with a good dinner is one of life's small pleasures. Surely that must count on the plus side of a longer life...in which case there is hope for me. ;)
34
I just followed the helpful link in this article to the original study published by Circulation (it's freely available). Three takeaways: First, the study was actually motivated by the fact that Americans have a shorter life expectancy than residents of other major industrial countries. So, in a sense, the results are an indictment of American lifestyles. Second, the original article is just as vague as this piece in the Times about the virtues of "moderate alcohol consumption." Are they saying that you *should* drink a little, or that you should drink as little as possible, and preferably not at all? I still can't tell. Third, most of the benefits of these five healthy habits are expressed as reductions in deaths caused by cancer and cardiovascular disease. So -- to everyone who was interested enough to read the comments, I recommend checking out the original study -- and eating more vegetables and no junk food at all!
69
As a population study, it cannot make claim as specific as how much one "should" because an individual's reaction to alcohol would vary in too many ways to make an assertion in a study like this. I believe, when, for example, women out on party would want to 'drink for drink' with boys, then it becomes a problem, as it would on the size of that person within same sex. It's an interesting longitudinal study to glean effect of healthy behaviors, period.
1
Totally agree about the alcohol comment. I looked at study for that info as well. Can't tell if they are saying "if you are going to drink, do it moderately" or "the less alcohol (even better if none) is better."
2
A small pizza once a week isn't going to kill you. The idea is moderation. So mostly you eat unprocessed food. Lots of vegies & fruit, nuts,little red meat - a glass or two of wine with food as per the Mediterranean diet - but once a week you can cut yourself some slack and order in.
6
Genes has 10% effect but emotion and stress has 30% effect. Sleep has 20% effect and whole foods has 30%.
In care homes where seniors live 100 years old, most of them are happy, eats well, walks a lot and sleep well.
4
That sounds very believable.
Is "moderate" here a verb or a noun? Am I supposed to drink less or drink a moderate amount?
5
The CDC’s guidelines are clear and strict. The quantity of alcohol one should consume (if at all) is as follows:
A standard drink is equal to 14.0 grams (0.6 ounces) of pure alcohol. Generally, this amount of pure alcohol is found in
• 12 ounces of beer (5% alcohol content).
• 8 ounces of malt liquor (7% alcohol content).
• 5 ounces of wine (12% alcohol content).
• 1.5 ounces or a “shot” of 80-proof (40% alcohol content) distilled spirits or liquor (e.g., gin, rum, vodka, whiskey).
According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, moderate* alcohol consumption is defined as having up to 1 drink per day for women and up to 2 drinks per day for men. This definition refers to the amount consumed on any single day and is not intended as an average over several days. However, the Dietary Guidelines do not recommend that people who do not drink alcohol start drinking for any reason.
* Moderate, Adjective (Dictionary.com)
1. kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense:
14
This isn't about living longer, it's about not dying prematurely.
84
It's also about feeling good while you're alive.
12
Living longer is empirically calculated, with a number that counts how long you lived: but how do you define end of a life as prematurely or maturely?
Science is about language that is clearer, measurable and replicable.
1
Excellent post Stan if I read you right ie you are touching on a maxim of my equality of life theory ie if you do the things mentioned in the study, you get close to the Jack LaLanne end of my theory ie you live technically a long life but you "die" prematurely re having bad fun.
Ok, let's here from all the bait and switchers. I am not making any editorial comments on whether it is better to die at age 27 like Jimi Hendrix or Jack LaLanne at 95.
It is called the equality of life theory. Jimi used the fun"bad" part liberally, Jack did not.
1
I'm 58; diagnosed with diabetes at 57 (a minor "pest"):
Light (if not "smoke") 20 Dunhill 1mgs per day ("equivalent" tar of 1.5 Marlboro Reds) - check; two martinis an evening - check; heavy weightlifting routine 5 x per week, with special emphasis on leg exercises - check; kick 18-year blood pressure medication habit as BP is completely stabilized with aforementioned workout routine - check; and blood sugar is maintaining at around 100 - check; eat "right" to lose the unneeded 17 pounds around tummy by January 1 2018 - check; 5'11, 190lbs on January 1; 5'11 190lbs on May 1, but waistline three inches smaller - check.
See challenge; face it with a smile; live life with happiness - "bad" habits and all! - and live it without fear! (Special emphasis on enjoying life, not worrying about death). CHECK!
8
Is drinking required, or is the risk factor abusive drinking?
13
Same question here. But you asked it most succinctly!
No, drinking is not required. In fact, a recent study suggest that there may be no level of alcohol consumption that can be considered "safe." https://www.vox.com/2018/4/24/17242720/alcohol-health-risks-facts
3
I would like to know who funded this study, to find out who would waste their money on a a study like this.
5
Or who funded the study and would benefit from the conclusions.
I've long had 4 out of 5. Sad or funny or something to think that I don't drink enough alcohol at a few glasses of wine a year to qualify for the longest life...
7
Anne-Marie, this particular shortcoming ought to be quite easy to remedy.
3
Based on recent studies, I think you may be 5 out of 5! https://www.vox.com/2018/4/24/17242720/alcohol-health-risks-facts
2
These are all pretty basic common sense recommendations, a few of which I don't follow scrupulously. But lifespan is subject to random factors, too, that are out of control of the individual. While their sample size is very large, and no doubt statistically representative to a fairly high confidence level, I'd be interested to know how many deaths were not really related to a lack of healthy living.
Old man: "I have never smoked, drank, done drugs or run around with women and tomorrow I am celebrating my 100th birthday!"
Friend: "How?"
9
once again, correlation does not equal causation.
These changes all make good sense, don't get me wrong. But studies like this can prove nothing, they can just say that A is associated with B and then make the leap without evidence that A *causes* B. It's entirely possible the causality runs the exact opposite way! For example those who are healthy may feel like taking part in physical activity, while those who are ill do not.
10
That is never how science works - it follows a hypothetico-deductive model - how else do you think we 'know' about the Higgs Boson.
You don't accept the model - propose an alternative and test it or simply reject all scientific research - one day you might be president.
1
@SteveRR:
Nutritional epidemiology has a specific and terrible track record of relying on observational studies with self-reported food surveys, and then reporting all correlations as if they were known causations. A little skepticism is an appropriate part of how science works.
2
Who wants to live longer?? I'm 54 and I'd go tomorrow if I could.
9
I'm sorry you feel that way, John.
28
OK. Certainly living just to post comments on a newspaper website isn't much of a life. But it's good to have the choice, right?
7
John, not knowing your circumstances makes me hesitant to comment fully but I would suggest to you that this is not a normal nor healthy outlook. Perhaps it would help to talk to someone.
28
Another one of those studies to try to help prove and quantify what should be obvious. I guess some people just need hard and quantifiable data for everything. Anyone who practices these 5 healthy lifestyle choices already knows it improves their daily life. And I say practice, because it is life long endeavour.
26