Health Considerations - Post Peak Oil / Climate Change

[boisdevie]

I think there's a reporting bias going on there! You hear about it because folk don't expect it. Elite sports people do have a lower death rate than the general population... I think I saw recently that 18 of the London 2012 athletes have subsequently died - which is around half the age-equivalent general population death rate.

So yes, some very fit young men drop dead... but not as many as unfit folk.

I think these stories are put around by fat people to make themselves feel less bad about being fat.

[Little John]

I think there's a reporting bias going on there! You hear about it because folk don't expect it. Elite sports people do have a lower death rate than the general population... I think I saw recently that 18 of the London 2012 athletes have subsequently died - which is around half the age-equivalent general population death rate.

So yes, some very fit young men drop dead... but not as many as unfit folk.

That's not enough information. Half of what population? Half of all age-equivalent people over, say 70? Half of all age-equivalent people over 50? Half of who? Or, if it includes all people of all ages, what proportion of deaths are in what age ranges? The reason I ask is because if the bulk of deaths are concentrated in people who die over, say, 80, then there is something to the numbers perhaps if they represent half of the average. But, if the bulk is concentrated in people who die when they are younger, then that number would be small in the first place and so half of such a small number may, arguably, be irrelevant.

Also, assuming, for the sake of argument, that the deaths are in the younger age range (given that marathon runners will tend to come from the younger age range); not only is the number of people in the general population who die young very small anyway, of those that are in sufficient ill-health when they are young that their risk of dying young is high, they are least likely to be running marathons in any event and so represent a confounding variable within the general population when making any comparison of death rates between marathon runners and the general population

[clv101]

Googling 'London 2012 deaths' leads to this article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36055238

It sounds like a lot - 18 young athletes dying in four years - but is it really, when you consider that 10,568 people took part in the Games?
Based on crude mortality rates "you would expect 7.89 people in 1,000 to die," says Rob Mastrodomenico, a sports statistician at Global Sports Statistics.
So in a group of 10,568 people one could expect about 333 to die over a four-year period, he says.
However, Olympic athletes are young - they have an average age of 26. Taking this into account, we should expect approximately seven deaths a year, says Mastrodomenico, or 28 deaths in four years.
So the figure of 18 deaths over four years does not seem quite so out of the ordinary - and definitely not the sign of a "curse".

[woodburner]

I think there's a reporting bias going on there! You hear about it because folk don't expect it. Elite sports people do have a lower death rate than the general population... I think I saw recently that 18 of the London 2012 athletes have subsequently died - which is around half the age-equivalent general population death rate.

So yes, some very fit young men drop dead... but not as many as unfit folk.

I think these stories are put around by fat people to make themselves feel less bad about being fat.

They would only feel bad about being fat because of social pressures from people who a) live in societies who think being slim is desirable or b) have little understanding of why people get fat.
If you think it is because of over eating, or inactivity, think again.

I weigh 12st just in case you are starting another thought train.

[Little John]

Googling 'London 2012 deaths' leads to this article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36055238

It sounds like a lot - 18 young athletes dying in four years - but is it really, when you consider that 10,568 people took part in the Games?
Based on crude mortality rates "you would expect 7.89 people in 1,000 to die," says Rob Mastrodomenico, a sports statistician at Global Sports Statistics.
So in a group of 10,568 people one could expect about 333 to die over a four-year period, he says.
However, Olympic athletes are young - they have an average age of 26. Taking this into account, we should expect approximately seven deaths a year, says Mastrodomenico, or 28 deaths in four years.
So the figure of 18 deaths over four years does not seem quite so out of the ordinary - and definitely not the sign of a "curse".

So, 18 deaths out of 10,000 odd people as opposed to 28 deaths in a relatively young age range. A little less than half reduction on a tiny number in the first place. Plus, as I have mentioned, a good proportion of that reduction may be simply explainable by the fact that people of this age range who are already in very congenitally poor health for reasons that are not to do with lifestyle will not be taking part in marathons and so are disproportionately represented in the general population as compared to marathon runners.

In other words, the comparison presented of death rates in marathons runners of a relatively young age with death rates in the general population of a similar age for the purpose of positivity highlighting marathon running as a means of significantly reducing risk of death at that age is arguably garbage.

[woodburner]

The "problem" is always that lives can never be saved, only the end date adjusted.

[clv101]

I've never said anything about marathon runners!

I just mentioned the 18 London 2012 deaths in passing as a response to emordnilap's comment about young men heavily into sports dropping dead. I suspect young men heavily into sports have a lower mortality rate than the general population of young males - I suspect the reason you hear about them is a reporting bias.

If you look back at my recent posts here, is there actually anything you take issue with?

[vtsnowedin]

The "problem" is always that lives can never be saved, only the end date adjusted.

Excellent point.

[vtsnowedin]

Pheidippides the runner in the very first marathon died right after completing it. He fought in the battle against the Persians then ran with the message twice the distance runners normally ran because there was no one at the relay point to relieve him. They had a series of runners similar to the pony express only using human runners but they had all either gone to the battle or deserted fearing a loss.
At any rate it has always been a race that puts the runners at the extreme limit of what the human body can do. I have relatives that have trained for and run in them and they train no more then ten miles a day and only run the full distance once or twice a month as their bodies need time to recover from the losses the race extracts from their bodies.
I used to cover a lot of ground uphill and down in a days hunting but a marathon has never appealed to me.

[Little John]

I've never said anything about marathon runners!

I just mentioned the 18 London 2012 deaths in passing as a response to emordnilap's comment about young men heavily into sports dropping dead. I suspect young men heavily into sports have a lower mortality rate than the general population of young males - I suspect the reason you hear about them is a reporting bias.

If you look back at my recent posts here, is there actually anything you take issue with?

It is a more general point I am making about keeping super fit and the extent to which that affects lifespan. I don't think the evidence shows it does. It may improve the quality of life that is lived. But, that starts to enter subjective territory about what "quality of life" actually means. In short, so long as someone is not leading a particularly overtly unhealthy lifestyle, as long as they have plenty to eat, potable water and good shelter and, perhaps as important as all of these, low stress levels, much of the rest is details. That is to say, in the presence of those things, most people (who have managed to make it past childhood), most of the time, will make it to their mid 70s.

Even the reported supposedly shorter lifespans of people living in, say, mediaeval times is misleading. It turns out, from what I have read, that these average lower lifespans of mediaeval people was, in significant part, due to higher mortality in children. Parcel that variable out and their average lifespans were much higher than a simple, crude, mean average might suggest. Again, from what I have read, there were plenty of people back then who were in their late 60s and 70s. Their main problem was making it past childhood. All of which has nothing to do with regular exercise, but was more probably related to hygiene issues and a relatively limited capacity for medical intervention.

I'm not saying being fat is good for you or that regular exercise is bad for you. I just think that, particularly (and, ironically, being the longest lived) Westerners, get very hung up about dying. Being alive is dangerous and it is certain to kill everyone in the end.

[woodburner]

Even the reported supposedly shorter lifespans of people living in, say, mediaeval times is misleading. It turns out, from what I have read, that these average lower lifespans of mediaeval people was, in significant part, due to higher mortality in children. Parcel that variable out and their average lifespans were much higher than a simple, crude, mean average might suggest. Again, from what I have read, there were plenty of people back then who were in their late 60s and 70s. Their main problem was making it past childhood. All of which has nothing to do with regular exercise, but was more probably related to hygiene issues and a relatively limited capacity for medical intervention

I think the lack of available medical intervention was the most significant. The only reason there appears to be an increasing lifespan is there are more people, caused as you say by stopping childhood deaths. There is likely to be a reduction in lifespan (for people eating modern western diets) unless we revert to a low carbohydrate diet which was the norm before the 1970s when it was understood for at least the preceding 100 years, that carbohydrates were fattening. Now they are mis-labelled as "healthy".

[kenneal - lagger]

I can find more interesting things to do for the several hours a day that the superfit spend in training. At say 3 hours per day, seven days a week for 52 weeks over say 15 years, 16380 hrs or 683 days plus the fact that they will probably still train after they finish competitive sport I think I'll just accept the free time and take any training opportunities as they come. Opportunities such as not taking the lift for less than three storeys, walking up stairs two at a time and walking at a brisk rate. If I live a few months less I think I will still be better off.

[emordnilap]

I think there's a reporting bias going on there! You hear about it because folk don't expect it. Elite sports people do have a lower death rate than the general population... I think I saw recently that 18 of the London 2012 athletes have subsequently died - which is around half the age-equivalent general population death rate.

So yes, some very fit young men drop dead... but not as many as unfit folk.

You could be right there Chris - we do hear about them because it's unexpected. But they're usually (round here anyhow) superfit, or supposedly so. After all, that's part of the point of the sport. I dunno, maybe once you get to that level, nature says it either works for you or you drop dead.

One thing that does puzzle me is these young people I see in gyms, working out or whatever, bristling muscles and six-packs. Do they have to keep that up for the rest of their lives? I mean, gyms are not cheap, time is not cheap, circumstances change - what happens to that muscle mass when you're too busy or poor to keep it up?

[PS_RalphW]

Traditionally it is said the muscle will turn to fat once you stop the exercise.

I think in practice the muscle mass will decline, use it or lose it. and unless you cut your calorie intake, you will lay down lots of fat. The two processes are independent.

I have expanded one notch on my belt in the last year. I am eating the same, but cycling less.

[emordnilap]

I have expanded one notch on my belt in the last year. I am eating the same, but cycling less.

Exactly. It's almost impossible to maintain habits throughout the course of a lifetime.

In my experience, it's best to cut down on food at Christmas. There's so much food around at that time that your willpower to avoid food is nicely counterbalanced by the added temptations.