Yet another article filled with bad science. I don't doubt there is a correllation between exercise and lowered risk of dementia. But they failed to establish a true cause and effect relationship. This is a typical ecological fallacy.
The true cause of the lowered risk may be eating habits. Perhaps it is more frequent washing (exercisers get stinky and probably wash more often). Maybe it is that exercisers have a lower exposure to chemical propellants because they are less concerned with their state of their hair - it's going to get messed up anyway, right? The point is that there are a lot of differences between exercisers and non-exercisers that are not accounted for in the article. If the researchers did attempt to control for this, it certainly isn't presented in the bbc article. If so, then this is just another case of the public press butchering good science because they don't know how to report it properly.
Some of the above, plus never drinking or smoking. My grandmother never rode a bike that I knew of, and never went out to eat 'God knows what is in the food?' restaurants, was always active, and lived to 100. She had a television but never turned it on that I know of. She also had one glass of red wine at bedtime to fall asleep on, but that was it. Her downfall, literally, was a broken hip while carrying some stuff down the outside stairs that had no railing. She was also still totally alert and admitted to being pleasantly surprised every morning she woke up. Attitude helps, too. Bill Baka
Didn't look like bad science to me - anyway the science is in the research paper whereas this is just a journalistic report. It would seem that the conclusions are hedged with 'mays' and 'mights' and the conclusion is that 'more research is needed'. You don't need to prove a cause and effect to establish that something may be hazardous or beneficial. Anyway I'm going to keep on pedalling even if it is too late in my case.
cheers
Jacob
I don't want to overpost here, but I seem to be at my most alert when riding either slow or fast. Maybe the extra blood flow while pumping blood to the legs juices up the brain too? Bill Baka
The true cause of the lowered risk may be eating habits. Perhaps it is more frequent washing (exercisers get stinky and probably wash more often). Maybe it is that exercisers have a lower exposure to chemical propellants ... -Buck
Some of the above, plus never drinking or smoking. Bill Baka
Studies have shown that moderate drinking is actually better for you then not drinking.
Studies have shown that moderate drinking is actually better for you then not drinking.
Rich
Right! I'll drink to that :-)
The one glass of red wine at bedtime may explain, partly, why my grandmother made it to 100. She could still be going at 120 if not for that fall. I heard once that a broken hip or leg is likely to kill an older person just because of the change in activity level, and my grandmother seems to be proof of that. I also doubt that she got the best of medical care since she was 100 already and they probably figured that even if they got her back on her feet she would not make 101 anyway. Selective medical care? Bill
I also doubt that she got the best of medical care since she was 100 already and they probably figured that even if they got her back on her feet she would not make 101 anyway.
That's the trouble with medics, they don't understand whole population statistics. Its not until you reach 103 years old that the probability of living until your next birthday drops to 50:50.
-- Tony
"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't" Anon
That's the trouble with medics, they don't understand whole population statistics. Its not until you reach 103 years old that the probability of living until your next birthday drops to 50:50.
But it is also the case that soemthing like 60% of your lifetime medical costs will be incurred in the last few weeks of your life. From an economic point of view a poor investment, as clearly the incurred costs didn't do much for extending life. So it is not irrational (economically) to think hard about expensive medical care to the elderly. Seems like it would be a much better investment to provide better health care to children and workers as society will get a much better return on the investment. We have medicare becasue old folks vote in higher percentages than any other group and thus have political clout out of proportion to their numbers. I can say this because I'm 60+ and getting ready to get mine 🙂
That's the trouble with medics, they don't understand whole population statistics. Its not until you reach 103 years old that the probability of living until your next birthday drops to 50:50.
But it is also the case that soemthing like 60% of your lifetime medical costs will be incurred in the last few weeks of your life. From an economic point of view a poor investment, as clearly the incurred costs didn't do much for extending life. So it is not irrational (economically) to think hard about expensive medical care to the elderly. Seems like it would be a much better investment to provide better health care to children and workers as society will get a much better return on the investment. We have medicare becasue old folks vote in higher percentages than any other group and thus have political clout out of proportion to their numbers. I can say this because I'm 60+ and getting ready to get mine 🙂
So if you get hurt do you want to get repaired or call Dr. Kervorkian? People who spend 20 years in rest homes gripe me, but many of them are there because their 'loving' children wanted to get their hands on the estate. I am a relative 'junior' at 57 but I do know that I would go nuts sitting around with old people staring out the window at nothing, or wheel chairing it, or hobbling around with walkers. If I ever get that way I want out, not looking forward to living decay. I have encountered some men older than myself (70's and one 80's) bicycling and chatted ending the conversation with an encouraging word to keep on riding. Age is an attitude I am at odds with. Bill Baka
I am a relative 'junior' at 57 but I do know that I would go nuts sitting around with old people staring out the window at nothing, or wheel chairing it, or hobbling around with walkers. If I ever get that way I want out, not looking forward to living decay. I have encountered some men older than myself (70's and one 80's) bicycling and chatted ending the conversation with an encouraging word to keep on riding. Age is an attitude I am at odds with.
I find the Obituaries column in the CTC mag somewhat uplifting. All these regular cyclists still going into their 80s and beyond..
So if you get hurt do you want to get repaired or call Dr. Kervorkian?
That is an argumentum ad absurdum.
The correct answer is "it depends." It depends on what is wrong and what the costs to repair that and what the probabilty of a positive outcome might be.
So, in the case of someone 93 years old with massive metastasized tumors affecting numeerous organ systems I would question the adminstration of heroic, expensive care. Palliative care such as a hospice might make more sense. (Kevorkian?) On the other hand the same 93 year old with a dermatologic condition rather than tumors should certainly have the best care available.
Unless folks understand that there is a limit on resources (only economists seem to think this way) there will always be poor alocation of those resources.
Unless folks understand that there is a limit on resources (only economists seem to think this way) there will always be poor alocation of those resources.
It's the same people who complain about centralised control, and then complain about a 'postcode lottery'.
So, in the case of someone 93 years old with massive metastasized tumors affecting numeerous organ systems I would question the adminstration of heroic, expensive care. Palliative care such as a hospice might make more sense. (Kevorkian?)
Why should it be any different at age 60 or 40? Complete remission in such cases is rare, Lance apart.
Quoted message said:
On the other hand the same 93 year old with a dermatologic condition rather than tumors should certainly have the best care available.
And why shouldn't that happen for a 101 year old?
-- Tony
"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't" Anon
But it is also the case that soemthing like 60% of your lifetime medical costs will be incurred in the last few weeks of your life. From an economic point of view a poor investment, as clearly the incurred costs didn't do much for extending life. So it is not irrational (economically) to think hard about expensive medical care to the elderly. Seems like it would be a much better investment to provide better health care to children and workers as society will get a much better return on the investment. We have medicare becasue old folks vote in higher percentages than any other group and thus have political clout out of proportion to their numbers. I can say this because I'm 60+ and getting ready to get mine 🙂
That statistic is probably true for most ages. If you want to drive the decision by the economics, economically we would be far better off terminating people when their useful working life has ended as we do with agricultural animals. The cost of pensions, social services, healthcare etc care in many senses hitting the workers. It would be a far greater economic impact than just saving on healthcare. So why are you not suggesting termination on retirement?
-- Tony
"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't" Anon
"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Bill said:
I am a relative 'junior' at 57 but I do know that I would go nuts sitting around with old people staring out the window at nothing, or wheel chairing it, or hobbling around with walkers. If I ever get that way I want out, not looking forward to living decay. I have encountered some men older than myself (70's and one 80's) bicycling and chatted ending the conversation with an encouraging word to keep on riding. Age is an attitude I am at odds with.
I find the Obituaries column in the CTC mag somewhat uplifting. All these regular cyclists still going into their 80s and beyond..
Except for the disproportionate number who are hit by a truck when in their 80s. You wonder if there's a truck repellent muscle that wears out by the time you get past your three score years and ten.
"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
gds said:
Unless folks understand that there is a limit on resources (only economists seem to think this way) there will always be poor alocation of those resources.
It's the same people who complain about centralised control, and then complain about a 'postcode lottery'.
I was watching the lottery draw the other day, and there's no chance my number will come up: there were no balls with Ws, Ss, Bs or Ds on them.
Looks as if no one wins the postcode lottery to me.
You threw those out the window when you suggested letting the elderly die on economic grounds.
The worlds unequal distribution of wealth causes thousands die every year on economic grounds.
Isn't it unethical is spending 50K or whatever amount to add 10 years to someones life instead of spending the 50K to buy food for starving children in 3rd world countries?
You threw those out the window when you suggested letting the elderly die on economic grounds.
Interesting point. I think my point addresses the ethical side quite well. Yes I would argue that spending $X on prolonging one elderly person's life for a few years is less ethical than spending the same $X on an early childhood intervention that will increase the length and quality of life of 100 children. Clearly these are hypotheitcal numbers but if you compare the costs of say heroice intervention for a heart attack I think you find that those same dollars will buy over a 1000 doses of vaccine against childhood deseases. And since there are millions of children currently not getting those doses due to insufficeint $$ then I think the ethical is is right at the center of the oversimplified economic argument.
I'm not against eldrly getting health care- heck I'm elderly. My point is that there are tradeoffs and that in a world of limited resources (the real world) that means that if resources are spent in an econoically ineffient way than overall the benefit to all of society is less than it could be.
Sure there are economic disparities all over the place. Rich/poor. 1st world/3rd world. White/black. I understand these issues. I am simply suggesting you add. Old/Young.
