U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-22-2018, 05:02 AM
 
4,355 posts, read 10,176,032 times
Reputation: 9171

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
Mentioning a couple of cases does not prove anything.

If it really were mostly genetic, then all the research showing the benefits of exercise would be wrong.
And what exactly have you "proved" on this thread....

You have done nothing but give your "opinions" unsubstantiated by any research, you make the same tired erroneous claims and state them as FACT even though you have been PROVEN wrong on all the other identical threads you have made to this one...

Claims like all gains in lifespan are due to decreased infant mortality...

You have been shown over and over again with actual data that this claim you keep stating as FACT is WRONG

Stating that if CAD were mostly genetic, then all the research showing the benefits of exercise would be wrong???

How so??

How does exercise benefiting people in treating and preventing/delaying onset of CAD show that genetics doesn't play a role?

You do realize that even people with a genetic predisposition towards CAD can benefit from exercise don't you?

If not then why you are making the claim that exercise is important?

Because if some CAD is due to genetics.....you state below that even you believe that to be the case

And if exercise is useless where genetics is involved....your claim above

Then it follows exercise has no role in individuals genetically predisposed to CAD

 
Old 06-22-2018, 09:09 AM
 
2,243 posts, read 671,588 times
Reputation: 1971
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedevilz View Post
And what exactly have you "proved" on this thread....

You have done nothing but give your "opinions" unsubstantiated by any research, you make the same tired erroneous claims and state them as FACT even though you have been PROVEN wrong on all the other identical threads you have made to this one...

Claims like all gains in lifespan are due to decreased infant mortality...

You have been shown over and over again with actual data that this claim you keep stating as FACT is WRONG

Stating that if CAD were mostly genetic, then all the research showing the benefits of exercise would be wrong???

How so??

How does exercise benefiting people in treating and preventing/delaying onset of CAD show that genetics doesn't play a role?

You do realize that even people with a genetic predisposition towards CAD can benefit from exercise don't you?

If not then why you are making the claim that exercise is important?

Because if some CAD is due to genetics.....you state below that even you believe that to be the case

And if exercise is useless where genetics is involved....your claim above

Then it follows exercise has no role in individuals genetically predisposed to CAD
Your problem is either-or thinking.
 
Old 06-22-2018, 09:26 AM
 
2,243 posts, read 671,588 times
Reputation: 1971
Summary:

Although genetics have a role in most diseases, in certain diseases lifestyle is more critical.

When you over-emphasize genetics, the implication is that lifestyle changes won't make a big difference, and that drugs will be needed.

The diseases where lifestyle is most critical are more common at older ages. Is this (A) because the effects of the modern lifestyle are cumulative? Or (B) because there are more older people now, since we are living longer thanks to medical advances?

If you believe A, then you are likely to consider lifestyle important. If you believe B, then you will consider the diseases to be inevitable, and drugs to be necessary.

Mainstream medicine and the drug industry are promoting B. They emphasize the role of genetics in heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, dementia, etc. And they claim that these diseases are inevitable results of advancing age.

Theory A and theory B are not mutually exclusive, and it is possible for both to be true.

I think that heart disease is most often caused by lifestyle factors. Genetics are always involved, as I have said over and over and over. But for certain diseases, lifestyle is a much more common cause.

Most cases of heart disease are related to cigarette smoking or type 2 diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes is primarily caused by the modern lifestyle. And it has been increasing dramatically, and occurring even at young ages. So you can't simply blame it on people living longer.

And the idea that we are living longer thanks to medical advances is misleading. If you look carefully at the actual data you will see many possible reasons for lifespan differences between different times and places.

The facts have been over-simplified and distorted so that people will be encouraged to rely on drugs, especially as they get older.

I don't mean it's a malicious conspiracy. The facts can be looked at in various ways, depending on your preconceptions. If your faith is in modern medicine, then you will prefer theory B. If your faith is in the body's natural healing abilities, you will prefer theory A.

And you don't have to choose one or the other. I think modern medicine can be extremely useful for diseases that can be cured by drugs or surgery.
 
Old 06-22-2018, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
20,367 posts, read 24,906,557 times
Reputation: 24904
Summary:

The contribution of genetics to coronary artery disease is substantial.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4728103/

"The long-recognized familial clustering of CAD [coronary artery disease] suggests that genetics plays a central role in its development, with the heritability of CAD and MI estimated at approximately 50% to 60%."

The article describes some of the genes involved.

Physicians are interested in modifiable risk factors, since genetics cannot be modified. The primary risk factors that can be modified are blood pressure, blood sugar, and lipids.

The very first therapeutic options offered to patients with hypertension, diabetes, and abnormal lipid profiles are diet, exercise, and weight management (if the patient is overweight). Some, but not all, patients can avoid medications if they adhere to diet and increase activity. They may be placed on medication while they make lifestyle changes and weaned off of them later.

The greatest risk factor for coronary artery disease is not modifiable: age. The majority of people who die from heart attacks are over 65.

Coronary Artery Disease - Coronary Heart Disease

The increase in type 2 diabetes correlates with the increase in obesity, which is caused by overeating.

The contribution of medical advances to increased longevity is measurable.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...475-4932.12332

"My estimates indicated that 60 per cent of the 19982011 decline in premature (before age 75) mortality was due to previous pharmaceutical innovation. This estimate is broadly consistent with estimates of the impact of pharmaceutical innovation on longevity in the USA and other countries."

That leaves 40% that are due to other causes, including non-drug medical interventions.

People are not encouraged to rely on drugs to offset bad eating habits and lack of exercise.

Faith has nothing to do with the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease. Having faith in a theory will not make it true.

The prevention of coronary artery disease is based on modifying those factors that can be changed. If the patient can do it with lifestyle changes, that is great. Many will not be willing to make those changes, and some will make them but not achieve therapeutic goals. Medications can help both of those groups of people.
 
Old 06-22-2018, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Near Falls Lake
2,057 posts, read 1,555,045 times
Reputation: 1920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
Mentioning a couple of cases does not prove anything.

If it really were mostly genetic, then all the research showing the benefits of exercise would be wrong.
While I agree that mentioning a couple cases is not in itself proof, it appears you missed the comment about the geneticists. I will repeat, per the geneticists I know (and there are several), most of what is going to happen to you will happen....you are programmed! You can delay to an extent but in the end what was programmed to happen will likely happen. Personally I do believe in eating well and exercise. At 66, I can still do far more than most people in their 40's. That said, it doesn't mean that I will live longer....just better!
 
Old 06-22-2018, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Near Falls Lake
2,057 posts, read 1,555,045 times
Reputation: 1920
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
However, the goal is to make it happen later rather than sooner!
To the extent that you can.
 
Old 06-22-2018, 02:05 PM
 
296 posts, read 63,826 times
Reputation: 687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
Summary:

Although genetics have a role in most diseases, in certain diseases lifestyle is more critical.

When you over-emphasize genetics, the implication is that lifestyle changes won't make a big difference, and that drugs will be needed.

The diseases where lifestyle is most critical are more common at older ages. Is this (A) because the effects of the modern lifestyle are cumulative? Or (B) because there are more older people now, since we are living longer thanks to medical advances?

If you believe A, then you are likely to consider lifestyle important. If you believe B, then you will consider the diseases to be inevitable, and drugs to be necessary.

Mainstream medicine and the drug industry are promoting B. They emphasize the role of genetics in heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, dementia, etc. And they claim that these diseases are inevitable results of advancing age.

Theory A and theory B are not mutually exclusive, and it is possible for both to be true.

I think that heart disease is most often caused by lifestyle factors. Genetics are always involved, as I have said over and over and over. But for certain diseases, lifestyle is a much more common cause.

Most cases of heart disease are related to cigarette smoking or type 2 diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes is primarily caused by the modern lifestyle. And it has been increasing dramatically, and occurring even at young ages. So you can't simply blame it on people living longer.

And the idea that we are living longer thanks to medical advances is misleading. If you look carefully at the actual data you will see many possible reasons for lifespan differences between different times and places.

The facts have been over-simplified and distorted so that people will be encouraged to rely on drugs, especially as they get older.

I don't mean it's a malicious conspiracy. The facts can be looked at in various ways, depending on your preconceptions. If your faith is in modern medicine, then you will prefer theory B. If your faith is in the body's natural healing abilities, you will prefer theory A.

And you don't have to choose one or the other. I think modern medicine can be extremely useful for diseases that can be cured by drugs or surgery.

Where did you get this idea from? Improved nutrition, antiseptics and sterility/awareness of bacterial and viral sources/antibiotics have been the main contributions to increased lifespan. Modern medicine, and the science that precedes most of it, gave us those things. What are you talking about? Lifespans around the world have increased steadily for the past 200 yrs, and archaeological evidence prevalence studies suggests that in fact its been increasing (at least measured over the time points with sufficient n numbers of remains for any measurement of statistical significance) since just after pre-history. "If you look at the data carefully". What does that mean? Cherry pick some early self-selecting population of 100 people A and compare it to B 1 million people in China in 2018? That's not a comparison - that's bollox.


You can't just trot out made-up stuff and then expect people to take you seriously. Honestly there was some clown on here the other day who thought that lifespans hadn't increased "because there were people in the 1600s who lived till 85." I've got a suspicion that you are the same poster that horribly misunderstood epigenetics and then started a rant on Dawkins about it (was that you?)


Humans have, like virtually every species, an inbuilt obsolescence (mainly from genetic expression changes and epigenetic issues within a lifetime). In previous times, humans didn't get a chance (as populations) to fulfill that inbuilt natural limit of that obsolescence. Medicine and the related science led to societal & treatment changes with infectious diseases, sanitation and nutrition that dramatically pushed the lifespans of huge numbers upward, and closer to that limit. Super-agers already are closer to the limit and show some common genetic signatures. How close the application of knowledge can get people to the natural limit is still to be played out. As are forays into manipulating beyond the natural limit.

Last edited by Chint; 06-22-2018 at 02:39 PM..
 
Old 06-22-2018, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
20,367 posts, read 24,906,557 times
Reputation: 24904
Quote:
Originally Posted by carcrazy67 View Post
To the extent that you can.
Well, in the US cardiovascular mortality has decreased rather dramatically.

http://circres.ahajournals.org/conte...2/366.full.pdf

"Using this model, Ford et al estimated that ≈47% of the decline in CHD mortality rate from that period [1980 to 2000] was attributable to evidence-based medical and surgical treatments, whereas reductions in major risk factors contributed ≈44%. As reported by Ford et al, the percentage contributions included secondary preventive therapies after myocardial infarction (MI) or revascularization (11%), initial treatments for acute MI or unstable angina (10%), treatments for heart failure (9%), revascularization for chronic angina (5%), and other therapies (12%) and ≈44% was attributed to changes in risk factors, including reductions in total cholesterol (24%), systolic blood pressure (20%), smoking prevalence (12%), and physical inactivity (5%). About 9% of the decline remained unexplained.'

The author points out that increases in obesity and in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus added almost 60,000 deaths in 2000. Eliminating that would make the decline in coronary artery disease mortality even greater.

It behooves us to change the risk factors that we can on an individual level: lower cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and lower blood sugar, with medication if diet and exercise are not enough. Do not smoke. Move more. Lose weight if you are overweight.
 
Old 06-22-2018, 03:42 PM
 
4,355 posts, read 10,176,032 times
Reputation: 9171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
Your problem is either-or thinking.
Nope....that would be YOUR problem

As in "Genetics can't be a major cause of CAD because then exercise wouldn't help"

That is YOUR statement...

That is classic "either or"
 
Old 06-22-2018, 04:48 PM
 
Location: too far from the sea
17,074 posts, read 16,252,141 times
Reputation: 27982
And this is The End.
__________________
my posts as moderator will be in red. Moderator: Health&Wellness~Genealogy. The Rules--read here>>> TOS. If someone attacks you, do not reply. Hit REPORT.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top