I wonder if there is a way to measure the effects of attitude and if it plays a role. For example, my in-laws are both diabetic, one is insulin dependent, and both my spouse and I are astonished at the lack seriousness that they both have towards their health. As in, not measuring their blood sugar levels on a regular basis, and then just taking a shot of insulin at whatever-dose, because they didn't measure their blood sugar level. Missing doses, not making dietary adjustments (excessive sugar/candy intake), etc.. Not sure if it is solely laziness, or some sort of low-level brain damage, or asense of entitlement that the world will just cater to me, or giving up on life, or what.
It’s so funny you say this - I have a colleague who’s mom in India has an A1c of 8.5 - she’s probably late 60s- and apparently a doctor she went to just dismissed it as no big deal for her age
Diet seems like the obvious one. Both in big picture sense like high fructose corn syrup vs sugar cane, but also on ingredients. EU bans a bunch of stuff the US does not. Presumably a couple of misses in there, but probably also some hits.
Applying that over an entire population for their entire life...a couple years diff sounds plausible
> Both in big picture sense like high fructose corn syrup vs sugar cane, but also on ingredients.
This is an interesting one. I was of the impression that HFCS is worse for you than sugar cane, but in the past when I've repeated that statement here, I've had people disagree with it.
But, I just found this meta-analysis – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9551185/ – which suggests an association between HFCS consumption and increased CRP (C-reactive protein, a marker of inflammation)
A study (standard IN MICE disclaimer) suggesting that HFCS may contribute to NAFLD (non-alcoholic fatty liver disease) and NASH (non-alcoholic steatohepatitis) – https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/how-hig... – and NASH sometimes (not always) progresses to liver cirrhosis, plus it also significantly increases the risk of liver cancer. The proposed mechanism is that fructose causes greater injury to the intestinal lining than other sugars, and the injured intestinal lining allows more bacterial toxins into the liver, which causes liver injury.
The article itself says this, but this likely has very little to do with healthcare. We in the US have a higher murder rate, we drive more, walk and cycle less, air and water pollution is worse. We've had free movement between states far longer than the EU has existed and facilitated free movement between member countries, and while labor mobility is great for the economy, it makes for weaker communities and social bonds when everyone is a transplant.
The study only compared Americans to Europeans. Of course diet and access to healthcare, even for the wealthy, is part of the issue here.
We have to ask "earlier than who"?
Of course, the majority of Americans are descended from Europeans, but the American diet is significantly worse than most European countries, and the healthcare system is not as accessible. Americans lack the levels of exercise Europeans get, and a host of other factors.
The less wealthy in America die earlier than the wealthy, but being richer in America buys more years, but not more years than one would live if in Europe.
I wonder if anyone's studied family connections of colonies vs old regions?
Like for Americans, at some point all of their ancestors significantly detached themselves from their place of origin and relocated. For e.g. Europe some people definitely did that but not all and maybe not even most?
I would expect Americans to have less of a familial social network in general, which could affect health and lifespan.
>more work still needs to be done to determine which specific aspects of European social systems − whether health care delivery, education access, retirement security or tax policies − most effectively protect health regardless of personal wealth.
Hypothesis.
Rich in the US healthcare system suffer from overtreatment. Medical ads are allowed, marketing drugs and treatments to people who don't need them is a health risk. In the US doctors have much stronger incentives to overtreat. They can be sued much easier for not treating or giving medicines the patient wants, if something happens.
The rich are exposed to all the chemicals in the environment and food just as the poor are. With the EPA being gutted and regulations being removed this will only get worse. The biggest issue is proving that it is a case when the effects take decades and studies are torpedoed by industry. Your only hope is to compare with nations that have stricter regulations but you then always also have other factors.
I wonder if there is a way to measure the effects of attitude and if it plays a role. For example, my in-laws are both diabetic, one is insulin dependent, and both my spouse and I are astonished at the lack seriousness that they both have towards their health. As in, not measuring their blood sugar levels on a regular basis, and then just taking a shot of insulin at whatever-dose, because they didn't measure their blood sugar level. Missing doses, not making dietary adjustments (excessive sugar/candy intake), etc.. Not sure if it is solely laziness, or some sort of low-level brain damage, or asense of entitlement that the world will just cater to me, or giving up on life, or what.
It’s so funny you say this - I have a colleague who’s mom in India has an A1c of 8.5 - she’s probably late 60s- and apparently a doctor she went to just dismissed it as no big deal for her age
Diet seems like the obvious one. Both in big picture sense like high fructose corn syrup vs sugar cane, but also on ingredients. EU bans a bunch of stuff the US does not. Presumably a couple of misses in there, but probably also some hits.
Applying that over an entire population for their entire life...a couple years diff sounds plausible
> Both in big picture sense like high fructose corn syrup vs sugar cane, but also on ingredients.
This is an interesting one. I was of the impression that HFCS is worse for you than sugar cane, but in the past when I've repeated that statement here, I've had people disagree with it.
But, I just found this meta-analysis – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9551185/ – which suggests an association between HFCS consumption and increased CRP (C-reactive protein, a marker of inflammation)
A study (standard IN MICE disclaimer) suggesting that HFCS may contribute to NAFLD (non-alcoholic fatty liver disease) and NASH (non-alcoholic steatohepatitis) – https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/how-hig... – and NASH sometimes (not always) progresses to liver cirrhosis, plus it also significantly increases the risk of liver cancer. The proposed mechanism is that fructose causes greater injury to the intestinal lining than other sugars, and the injured intestinal lining allows more bacterial toxins into the liver, which causes liver injury.
This is good info. Thanks for sharing!
The article itself says this, but this likely has very little to do with healthcare. We in the US have a higher murder rate, we drive more, walk and cycle less, air and water pollution is worse. We've had free movement between states far longer than the EU has existed and facilitated free movement between member countries, and while labor mobility is great for the economy, it makes for weaker communities and social bonds when everyone is a transplant.
The study only compared Americans to Europeans. Of course diet and access to healthcare, even for the wealthy, is part of the issue here.
We have to ask "earlier than who"?
Of course, the majority of Americans are descended from Europeans, but the American diet is significantly worse than most European countries, and the healthcare system is not as accessible. Americans lack the levels of exercise Europeans get, and a host of other factors.
The less wealthy in America die earlier than the wealthy, but being richer in America buys more years, but not more years than one would live if in Europe.
I wonder if anyone's studied family connections of colonies vs old regions?
Like for Americans, at some point all of their ancestors significantly detached themselves from their place of origin and relocated. For e.g. Europe some people definitely did that but not all and maybe not even most?
I would expect Americans to have less of a familial social network in general, which could affect health and lifespan.
>more work still needs to be done to determine which specific aspects of European social systems − whether health care delivery, education access, retirement security or tax policies − most effectively protect health regardless of personal wealth.
Hypothesis.
Rich in the US healthcare system suffer from overtreatment. Medical ads are allowed, marketing drugs and treatments to people who don't need them is a health risk. In the US doctors have much stronger incentives to overtreat. They can be sued much easier for not treating or giving medicines the patient wants, if something happens.
I wonder if we could tease out differences with rates of psychiatric medication usage.
Good use of anti-depressants -- It's all hopeless there's no point to going on -> Eh, it's not so bad.
Questionable anti-depressant effect -- "Your diabetes is out of control" -> Eh, it's not so bad. Why worry?
Small discussion (12 points, 2 days ago, 7 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43612361
People like to say that the American healthcare system is great if you’re rich, but based on this study, that’s not true. Interesting.
The rich are exposed to all the chemicals in the environment and food just as the poor are. With the EPA being gutted and regulations being removed this will only get worse. The biggest issue is proving that it is a case when the effects take decades and studies are torpedoed by industry. Your only hope is to compare with nations that have stricter regulations but you then always also have other factors.
Well, not just as the poor are, but they are exposed to them also.