Brits healthier than Americans

[Guest Warwick Green]

CHICAGO - White, middle-aged Americans — even those who are rich — are far less healthy than their peers in England, according to stunning new research that erases misconceptions and has experts scratching their heads.

Americans had higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, strokes, lung disease and cancer — findings that held true no matter what income or education level.

Those dismal results are despite the fact that U.S. health care spending is double what England spends on each of its citizens.

"Everybody should be discussing it: Why isn't the richest country in the world the healthiest country in the world?" asks study co-author Dr. Michael Marmot, an epidemiologist at University College London in England.

The study, based on government statistics in both countries, adds context to the already-known fact that the United States spends more on health care than any other industrialized nation, yet trails in rankings of life expectancy.

The United States spends about $5,200 per person on health care while England spends about half that in adjusted dollars.

Even experts familiar with the weaknesses in the U.S. health system seemed stunned by the study's conclusions.

"I knew we were less healthy, but I didn't know the magnitude of the disparities," said Gerard Anderson, an expert in chronic disease and international health at Johns Hopkins University who had no role in the research.

.

.

.

Health experts have known the U.S. population is less healthy than that of other industrialized nations, according to several important measurements, including life expectancy. The U.S. ranks behind about two dozen other countries, according to the World Health Organization.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060502/ap_on_he_me/sick_america

[geoffrey]

I'm sure Canada is closer to the US in results than the Brits. Our population is just a fat and out of shape as the Americans.

One of the best health policies a government could persue right now is one that encourages more active lifestyles, by whatever means.

[RB]

The Brits have much more leisure time than the busy North Americans, plus they have much more time to socialise with their friends, neighbors, have drinks and good laughs, and their work day ends at 5 pm means all malls, and stores closed. Folks have much more time to cook a good meal for their families.

If I am not deterred, as I haven't completely made up my mind, but I am looking to go live there for a couple of years or so in the near future.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Why isn't the richest country in the world the healthiest country in the world?" asks study co-author Dr. Michael Marmot, an epidemiologist at University College London in England.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060502/ap_on_he_me/sick_america

A couple of years ago Dr. Michael Marmot was involved in this study:

http://www.wineloverspage.com/wineadvisor1/tswa040816.phtml

"Of people who reported drinking alcohol in the past year," the researchers' abstract says, "those who consumed at least one drink in the past week, compared with those who did not, were significantly less likely to have poor cognitive function.

These benefits appeared even at levels of alcohol consumption that most sensible observers would consider excessive; in fact, the cognitive benefits appeared greatest among the heaviest drinkers, those drinking more than 240 grams per week, approximately 30 drinks or five full bottles of table wine.

The authors concluded that for middle-aged subjects, increasing levels of alcohol consumption were associated with better function regarding some aspects of cognition ."

Looks like this guy could be a lager lout.

[PocketRocket]

Consider that throughout Europe, and especially Britain, per-capita car ownership is far power than in North America.

Bicycles are very prevalent. Walking moreso.

Even a walk to the pub is still exercise.

Over here some people will drive to a convenience store that is only 200 yards from their home.

Pathetic, really.

[geoffrey]

Consider that throughout Europe, and especially Britain, per-capita car ownership is far power than in North America.

Bicycles are very prevalent. Walking moreso.

Even a walk to the pub is still exercise.

Over here some people will drive to a convenience store that is only 200 yards from their home.

Pathetic, really.

We need higher gas prices.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Consider that throughout Europe, and especially Britain, per-capita car ownership is far power than in North America.

Bicycles are very prevalent. Walking moreso.

Even a walk to the pub is still exercise.

Over here some people will drive to a convenience store that is only 200 yards from their home.

Pathetic, really.

We need higher gas prices.

In the UK I was paying 87p a liter. That's an incentive to buy a bike.

[scribblet]

I'm surprised considering the diet of many Brits. Beer, fish and chips, steak and kidney pie, pork pies, etc. etc. Maybe they've reformed, and bending the elbow at the pub is considered exercise.

I was there for a month about 4 years ago, my relatives are middle class, not rich, but all have cars. The cars are small, they get much better mileage than our N.A. larger vehicles.

[Liam]

I'm surprised considering the diet of many Brits. Beer, fish and chips, steak and kidney pie, pork pies, etc. etc. Maybe they've reformed, and bending the elbow at the pub is considered exercise.

I was there for a month about 4 years ago, my relatives are middle class, not rich, but all have cars. The cars are small, they get much better mileage than our N.A. larger vehicles.

You have to look at the totality of the environment, from cradle to grave. Britons walk more and bike more all their lives than we do. They are more likely to live in towns and cities where it is possible to walk and/or use public transport to get to most places (school, the market, work, etc.). It is the more consistent use of their bodies to go places that allows them to eat steak and kidney pie and drink at the pub.

In contrast, in North America, we get in our SUVs, pull out of the garage, drive to the parking garages at our offices, drive to our kids' school, pick them up at the door, drive across town to their ballet or karate classes or soccer practices (where they get their tiny dose of daily exercise while we chat with the other moms and dads), get dinner at the drive through, and drive back to our garages. Our kids couldn't be bothered to actually play outside when they've got Playstation up in their rooms. Heaven forbid we should cook anything that is from scratch. I mean, how lazy and unconcerned with nutrition is a society that solves its kids' school lunch problem with either factory-made, frozen peanut butter and jelly pockets or salt and preservative-laden "lunchable" kits of baloney bits and chocolate pudding?

[Wilber]

Not surprising at all and Canadians shouldn't be smug because we are a lot more like Americans than Brits. Brits walk, they don't drive everywhere. You will see as many people running, walking, skating, skate bording in the parks of London as anywhere in North America. The much maligned British diet is just that. It is such a cosmopolitan country that it has the best of the worlds cuisine. Probably more choice than anywhere on the planet. Europe's easy access to alcohol means they don't feel the need to get pissed all the time. Drinking is a part of society, not an end in itself. There are exceptions to every rule of course.

As an aside, I just came back from Sydney a few days ago. While I was there I walked across the Harbour bridge and wondered around the Kirribilli area. A high rent district to be sure with Admiralty House and several private schools. What struck me was all the kids getting out of school, heading for the rail stations and ferry wharfs (ferry's are like busses in Sydney Harbour) all by themselves with no adult supervision. This in a city of over 5 million. In Canadian cities most parents won't let their kids get 20 feet from the school yard without picking them up. God forbid they should walk anywhere. No wonder the Aussies kick ass in the Summer Olympics compared to countries five times their size. Where did we go wrong?

[PocketRocket]

We need higher gas prices.

Well, personally I don't want to pedal a bike 15 miles to work every day, especially considering that 10 miles of that is on the trans-Canada highway.

Not particularly safe.

Gas prices are more than high enough, thank you.

[geoffrey]

We need higher gas prices.

Well, personally I don't want to pedal a bike 15 miles to work every day, especially considering that 10 miles of that is on the trans-Canada highway.

Not particularly safe.

Gas prices are more than high enough, thank you.

Well that's why we are less healthy than the brits.

Chances are with higher gas prices, you'd live closer to your work then 15 miles away.

Driving your bike on the trans-canada isn't that dangerous, I have friends that bike the trans-Canada all the way to Vancouver from here and no incidents at all. It's way safer than you'd think. Now 401 or something, maybe you have an argument.

Why not take transit?

I'm not neccessarily advocating higher gas prices. Just it would be a great idea to get people off their butts and active. Winter is kind of a scary thought though.

Who knows?

[BHS]

I'm sure Canada is closer to the US in results than the Brits. Our population is just a fat and out of shape as the Americans.

One of the best health policies a government could persue right now is one that encourages more active lifestyles, by whatever means.

This sounds vaguely sinister to me. Do you mean that citizens should persue active lifestyles by whatever means, or that the government should encourage them by whatever means?

We need higher gas prices.

Lucky for you, we're going to get them. Man, I wish there was a cheap and easy way to refine hydrogen.

Driving your bike on the trans-canada isn't that dangerous, I have friends that bike the trans-Canada all the way to Vancouver from here and no incidents at all. It's way safer than you'd think. Now 401 or something, maybe you have an argument.

Perhaps this is true in Alberta, but not so on the cusp between Southern and Northern Ontario. It's the main artery between North Bay and Sudbury, and it's got more traffic than even some of the 400 series highways.

[geoffrey]

I'm sure Canada is closer to the US in results than the Brits. Our population is just a fat and out of shape as the Americans.

One of the best health policies a government could persue right now is one that encourages more active lifestyles, by whatever means.

This sounds vaguely sinister to me. Do you mean that citizens should persue active lifestyles by whatever means, or that the government should encourage them by whatever means?

Little bit of both. Developing more of our park space into recreational areas (where environmentally possible) and giving tax credits for gym memberships, sports equipment, ect., would be a good first step.

These tax credits would save us buckets of cash in the end. Imagine the cost of all those heart-bypasses and all that cholesterol medicine... now times that by 5 or 6 and we get our health care costs down the road.

We can't afford people to be lazy anymore, too much of a burden on society. Healthy people work better too, companies should take more steps to promote a healthy workplace. Many companies have already found the value in this. It's true that there is less sick days in a company that has fitness incentives.

Everything about physical activity is economically positive.

We need higher gas prices.

Lucky for you, we're going to get them. Man, I wish there was a cheap and easy way to refine hydrogen.

Very lucky for me. My health care bill will get smaller (paying less for obesity when most can't afford to drive anymore, biggest threat to our system right now, way more than bird flu), the streets will be less crowded and my portfolio will grow with all that high priced oil and gas. Yeehaw!

About the refining hydrogen, just steal your neighbours power and run it through water... you get Hydrogen, completely free.

All things aside for a moment of seriousness, I know I've recommend this book before, but I'll do it again here. "A thousand barrels a second" by Peter Tertzakian. Talks about why we don't have hydrogen power and when we will have alternative fuels. Brilliant read.

Driving your bike on the trans-canada isn't that dangerous, I have friends that bike the trans-Canada all the way to Vancouver from here and no incidents at all. It's way safer than you'd think. Now 401 or something, maybe you have an argument.

Perhaps this is true in Alberta, but not so on the cusp between Southern and Northern Ontario. It's the main artery between North Bay and Sudbury, and it's got more traffic than even some of the 400 series highways.

I'd bike that highway, I've driven it a few times. There is fairly decent shoulders on it actually. But I cede that point to you, in some rural areas its impractical or dangerous, and in these situations drive your car. But most metro residents, 80% of Canadians, need to be getting to work without their vehicals.

Anyone familiar with Calgary, I bike to school on occasion from the far south (city limits) up to the University or to work downtown, no problem, takes an hour and half to school, an hour to the office. Sometimes its faster than driving, since they are doing all that damned 14th street construction.

So this distance is pretty considerable, about 45-50km to school... so really, if anyone really wanted to bike to work, they could (sparing they don't live 300km away from work, in which case relocation would be beneficial to everyone). Good tip, bike to school/work, then take transit home. Or transit to school/work and bike home, if there is no showers .

Less cars on the road, you'll be way healthier (and feeling way more energetic at work), no pollution and it saves you alot of money, once you've bought your bike anyways.

[BHS]

Little bit of both. Developing more of our park space into recreational areas (where environmentally possible) and giving tax credits for gym memberships, sports equipment, ect., would be a good first step.

These tax credits would save us buckets of cash in the end. Imagine the cost of all those heart-bypasses and all that cholesterol medicine... now times that by 5 or 6 and we get our health care costs down the road.

We can't afford people to be lazy anymore, too much of a burden on society. Healthy people work better too, companies should take more steps to promote a healthy workplace. Many companies have already found the value in this. It's true that there is less sick days in a company that has fitness incentives.

Everything about physical activity is economically positive.

I like where you're going with the tax credits idea (especially since I pay about $800 a year in gym membership fees) but I think you're being a little bit too enthusiastic here. You're really just moving the goalposts.

Assume the government successfully uses carrot and stick measures to coerse the population into a more active lifestyle. You're probably right that heart disease stemming from obesity would fall and people would live longer (though the Lipitor people would probably argue about falling cholestorol rates). But an older population will inevitably find a host of other ailments to suffer from as they age, meaning the money you save not treating middle aged heart disease will be spent treating old age cancer, Alzheimers, etc. (and even geriatric heart disease). At best you're going to see a couple decades' window where overall healthcare costs drop slightly as the demographic trends shift, but it won't have a long term impact and may even increase costs in the long run.

For instance, one of the arguments against smoking is that it invariably leads to big ticket health care costs, chiefly cancer and cardiovascular diseases. Well, not invariably, but you get my meaning. And the feel-good assumption is that if people quit smoking these health care costs will all go away. But studies have shown that while smokers do tend to develop expensive ailments they also tend to die from them rather quickly. It's the tee-totalling nonsmokers languishing away their platinum years in long-term care facilities who soak up the really big bucks.

And increased physical activity also means increased risk of injury. So not everything about physical activity is economically positive. But I digress. (Sorry I'm such an ass - I'm enjoying this conversation.)

Very lucky for me. My health care bill will get smaller (paying less for obesity when most can't afford to drive anymore, biggest threat to our system right now, way more than bird flu), the streets will be less crowded and my portfolio will grow with all that high priced oil and gas. Yeehaw!

About the refining hydrogen, just steal your neighbours power and run it through water... you get Hydrogen, completely free.

All things aside for a moment of seriousness, I know I've recommend this book before, but I'll do it again here. "A thousand barrels a second" by Peter Tertzakian. Talks about why we don't have hydrogen power and when we will have alternative fuels. Brilliant read.

I'll have to look that up. I don't have a lot of faith in alternative fuels at this point though. Ethanol is expensive to produce and has a lower energy/mass ratio than petrol. Same thing with biodiesel. I'm guessing that advances in the coming years will be derived from using nanomaterials to increase efficiency in both production and consumption. Also, there's a company in the States called the Scuderi Group that is set to produce a new air-hybrid engine that promises to vastly increase fuel efficiency. I'm looking forward to seeing how that works out. Follow the link and tell me what you think.