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.
I like the way you think....After all, at this point, what are you saving yourself for?
Well, I must admit it was a rhetorical comment, I've more or less subscribed to a healthy lifestyle ( mainly as it makes me feel better), at least most of the time, and I guess old habits are not easy to break. But I remind myself often that those tips for longevity, data on actuarial charts, genetics involving early deaths of family members don't apply all that much as I have outlived them. It's a wierd feeling, I don't feel that old though reality tells me I'm there.
Though I'm still not ready to kick off this mortal coil. I guess I am nosy and I don't want to miss anything.
^^^Good idea! I'm gonna start paying attention to the earlobes around me lol
Be sure to update us
I had people over the other evening to play cards and we talked about this, and all 5 had ear lobe creases. The retired physician among us discounted it, for what that's worth.
Wouldn't small earlobes be less likely to crease, regardless of age?
I did notice, though, that my dad's lobes were creased. He had rather long, plump ones and was in his eighties. He did have heart disease, but also was a long-time diabetic. The diabetes was always well controlled.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...earlobe%20fold.
Earlobe crease is strongly associated with CAD, but also with age, and age is even more strongly related to CAD than the crease, so the crease adds nothing to predictive value.
Moral -- worry about being old, not about your ears.
What that means is that for an given age group, the earlobe crease still shows positive correlation with risk. The paper I quoted showed that the risk compared to age had better correlation than risk compared to crease so considering crease didn't add anything to the predictive accuracy of age alone.
What that means is that for an given age group, the earlobe crease still shows positive correlation with risk. The paper I quoted showed that the risk compared to age had better correlation than risk compared to crease so considering crease didn't add anything to the predictive accuracy of age alone.
This is a misinterpretation of the data. The fact that age-alone has a larger positive correlation coefficient than crease-alone doesn't mean the crease adds nothing if age is considered. Two factors that are both independently correlated result in higher risk when both are present than when only one is present.
Another example of this would be age and obesity, both of which are positively associated with heart disease. If it were true that age had a stronger association with heart disease than obesity, that wouldn't imply that adding obesity into the equation didn't result in higher risk.
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.
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.
