Healthy Lifestyle Decreases Men’s Risk of Heart Failure
Male physicians who adhered to at least four of six healthy lifestyle factors — normal weight, abstinence from smoking, regular exercise, moderate alcohol intake, and consumption of breakfast cereals and fruits and vegetables — had a lower risk of heart failure, the study found.
Luc Djousse, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and colleagues reported the findings in the July 22 Journal of the American Medical Association.
Howard S. Weintraub, MD, of New York University, said the findings reinforce the concept that a healthy lifestyle will help reduce the long-term risks of cardiovascular disease.
“This is not startling news,” Dr. Weintraub said. “But the size of the study certainly gives it formidable predictive power.”
Do you meet this definition of a healthy lifestyle? If not, does this motivate you to modify your current lifestyle?
I wrote soon after turning 60 (unfortunately, my database had some errors and the post is no longer available), that I felt certain that my good health was a combination of good genes and a relatively healthy lifestyle. While slightly overweight (BMI around 27), I do exercise regularly, eat reasonably (cereal for breakfast 4-5 times per week, moderate red wine, little red meat) and have never smoked.
As I look at my 60 year old patients, one can see the damage of an unhealthy lifestyle.
An observation for readers to consider. It seems that healthy lifestyle and socioeconomic status are related. Those with higher socioeconomic status tend to have a healthier lifestyle.
Do socioeconomic success and healthy lifestyle both represent positive personality traits? Why do so many with lower socioeconomic status smoke, become obese and generally do little to protect their health?
Is this a true observation or an unfair assumption? As one fortunate enough to have socioeconomic success, I note that most of my colleagues and non-medical friends actually do “take care of themselves.”
Now as an academic hospitalist, I see the unhealthy, so my view probably is skewed. Nonetheless, I do believe that there is evidence for my assertion.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Good question at the end there. I think socioeconomic status and healthy lifestyle are linked for 2 reasons. First, and I think least important, there may be a motivation factor. I dragged myself out for a run in the heat and humidity of coastal Virginia today, but desperately did not want to. Doing the things you know you need to do–but don’t necessarily want to–can lead to both healthy lifestyles and a higher socioeconomic status.
But I think lower socioeconomic status also leads directly and independently to a less healthy lifestyle. Sometimes it is because the motivation is all driven toward putting food on the table–hard to exercise when working 2 jobs, and hard to eat well when you have 20 minutes to get from one to the other. Also, if you take a look at the local megamart, the affordable food is not Kashi cereal and chicken breasts. It is hamburger meat (and not the lean stuff-that is 2.99/lb) and Coco Crisps. Forget about fresh produce, it seems to cost more than meat.
So to sum up, I’d say that those who work hard enough to be in higher socioeconomic status _may_ be more likely to also work at healthy lifestyle (by no means all of them, but many). But those in a lower socioeconomic status don’t really get a fair shake at it. It is a lot easier for me to eat well than for most of my patients.
Personality factors lead to social success, and low SES leads people to abuse themselves. There is a considerable British literature on this. Google MG Marmot.
I think that’s odd that “consumption of breakfast cereals” is singled out.
Can you eat Lucky Charms and still benefit or do breakfast cereals stand in for eats regularly, goes off the work, lives a reasonable lifestyle?