←back to thread

135 points andsoitis | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.203s | source
Show context
lovethevoid ◴[] No.41849070[source]
> The decline in the United States is driven by increasing numbers of deaths because of conditions such as diabetes and heart disease in people aged roughly 40 to 60.

People are asking if we should be surprised by the headline but are missing this. As suggested in the article by the researchers, there is something dragging down the average since the 2010s. Not even hitting the general expectation of ~75 years. We don’t have solid answers yet, only theories.

So yes, generally while going up against the process of aging is going to create barriers (eg can we get to 130 years old), we are also failing to raise the baseline which is the bigger issue that people might not grasp when it comes to “life expectancy rates”.

replies(4): >>41849103 #>>41849266 #>>41849314 #>>41855788 #
hn_throwaway_99 ◴[] No.41849103[source]
> We don’t have solid answers yet, only theories.

The exact quote you gave had a pretty solid answer, certainly not just "theories".

replies(2): >>41849449 #>>41849483 #
lovethevoid ◴[] No.41849483[source]
That's not what I meant. A solid answer as to why those conditions are happening, not the fact that they are happening at all.

We have research on what can affect heart health, like what things might be linked to it, such as smoking and alcohol. We also know genetics plays a huge role.

So we don't actually have solid answers, actionable answers as to the rise of heart health issues. Look at this analysis[1] regarding how dietary guidelines specifically for fats (saturated, trans) have very little substantial evidence supporting it. Yet this gets repeated by the average person, that fats are the ultimate evil you must avoid. In another study[2] we find that reducing your fat intake still resulted in the same rates of mortality as those who ate more. This is also why more in the space are shifting away from these sort of claims ("only eat x amount of saturated fat per day") and more to general food composition (eg who cares if a fish has saturated fats, eat the fish with vegetables).

It's quite challenging to figure out, everyone has their theories. All I'm saying is we don't actually have the answers yet.

[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/ [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8092457/

replies(4): >>41849792 #>>41851220 #>>41853625 #>>41854190 #
hu3 ◴[] No.41849792[source]
I recommend studies about stain medication in increasing life expectancy.

We're talking years of increased life expectancy.

Sadly statin is not without its downsides.

replies(1): >>41853285 #
joe_the_user ◴[] No.41853285[source]
We're talking years of increased life expectancy.

Huh? Statins are a medication type in which increases in life expectancy are extremely hard to point to all. I think they're almost a "poster child" for medications that correct a problem to an extent but whose overall benefit is quite dubious.

(and given that these medications were highly prescribed before any long term studies were finish - creating considerable incentive for people to find benefit - I'd personally wager they are overall harmful but that's me guessing - the main point is they definitely aren't boost-life-expectancy-by-years drugs but probably aren't reduce-life-expectancy-by-years drugs either, given the studies)

Link from google: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3531501/

replies(1): >>41853507 #
1. pessimizer ◴[] No.41853507[source]
Every few years, the lobby inserts op-eds insisting that statins are of such indisputable benefit and zero side effects that they should go into the water supply. I understand this from the companies themselves, but I have no idea which studies are convincing normal people that this is sane.

There is no lobbying like the lobbying for massively selling classes of drugs of dubious effect.