I’m sensing a potentially significant misallocation of resources. My mental model is that there’s a hypothetical quantification of not just your time and money, but your anxiety, attention bandwidth, mental energy, etc.
I think, in some ways, the trick is being able to short circuit the entire journey represented by this website in favour of some form of, “I’m 40. I should be more mindful of heart disease. I should add a 30 min walk to my mornings.” And then move on with your life.
I think many cultures, but especially American healthcare culture, foment a growing background noise of constant anxieties and stressors. Life is sufficiently complex but there’s always a peddler eager to throw you a new ball to juggle (and pay for).
I think the article makes a valid point: stop worrying about 90% of the other stuff and focus on the thing that will almost certainly kill you - heart disease - for which there are easy diagnostic and preventative measures. I think they're arguing for a better allocation of resources, if anything.
Thanks for posting this. I was able to plug in all the required values from my last checkup and blood work. Even EGFR was there, I've never paid attention to that before.
The bar for obesity is lower than a lot of people think. I have known many people who look good, have decent bodies, and are obese. Your fat distribution can be very misleading. Some people happen to hold fat very well.
It depends. Overall, lowest all-cause death indexed on BMI seems to be around 27 plus or minus [0]. Interestingly, for all subjects (not just healthy non-smokers), BMI 30-32 isn't really associated with a dramatic increase in all cause mortality.
Obviously life is more complicated than just one measure. I figure this is just another data point saying BMI is useful for population studies and not great for individual diagnosis.
I'm not sure that's true? Insurance is hesitant to cover their expense for less extreme cases, and they're very expensive. But I haven't heard of prescribing being a real bottleneck. They're not controlled substances and the side effect profile is pretty mild (other than price).
I think people should be mindful of it since they were 18 - it's something that progresses over decades. You can have a lot bigger impact making changes when you're young rather than at 40
But yeah I agree with your message. Focus on the big impact macro level things. Hyper-optimizing it is a waste of energy
If I'm not wrong, it takes 20 years to revert the damage of smoking.
I don't think you need to care at 18, but the effects will be seen over the course of 20 years
Lots of the damage done can't be undone when it comes to heart diseaese.
Notably risk goes up with the time spent with bad numbers, so the most leverage you have on affecting your lifetime risk is caring as early as possible.
It's an area under the curve situation. Waiting until you start experiencing symptoms is putting a band-aid on an open wound compared to avoiding injury at all by focusing on high impact habits related to diet and exercise.
The article is fantastic with only one caveat. Recommending 1.6 g of protein per kg of body weight to people who are only meeting, not exceeding, physical activity recommendations is foolish. 1.6 if amount that one needs to build maximum muscle mass in the shortest possible time. Leading protein intake researchers (think people like Stu Philips) state that that recommendation is excessive for most people and he instead suggests 1.2 g for nearly everyone.
Seriously there is too much shit to worry about to micro manage each facet, unless your like a Bryan Johnson billionaire with a staff.
Beyond just heart disease & cancer taking you out entirely its: my eyesight is going, my hearing, every joint in my body could fail, my brain is slowing, etc.
There is just way too much shit to do anything other than be like: sleep, exercise, eat better and don't drink too much.
And even him doesn’t know what’s working and what’s making things worse. He claims to have really good biomarkers but that’s when cherry-picking numbers from studies made in a range of more than two years (!!).
You’ll never see a published set of tests from him. What you’ll see is ads to buy his supplements.
There are roughly 5 areas of which combined cover 80+% of things you can control.
1. Exercise (aerobic and strength, doesn’t have to be much but more is better).
2. Diet (mostly whole foods, mostly plants, low saturated fat).
3. Prevention (regular check ups and following doctor’s advice).
4. Meaning / purpose (either being passionate about your job or having such hobbies outside of it).
5. Friends and community.
This isn’t too much. By many that’s the bare minimum for having a satisfactory life.
> Beyond just heart disease & cancer taking you out entirely its: my eyesight is going, my hearing, every joint in my body could fail, my brain is slowing, etc.
Absolutely right. You can’t fix everything. But if you can only dedicate time, money, and attention to one thing, cardio health is probably highest impact for most people. This article makes that case. Also it makes the case that there are a few things that will have an outsized positive effect on cardio health and we’d be wise to focus on them.
I think, in some ways, the trick is being able to short circuit the entire journey represented by this website in favour of some form of, “I’m 40. I should be more mindful of heart disease. I should add a 30 min walk to my mornings.” And then move on with your life.
I think many cultures, but especially American healthcare culture, foment a growing background noise of constant anxieties and stressors. Life is sufficiently complex but there’s always a peddler eager to throw you a new ball to juggle (and pay for).