Yes. The time to fix your health is now. Any unhealthy habits put time on the biological clock, and they'll just get harder to undo later. This is true if you're 20, 40, or 60. Plaque even starts building up on the arteries of healthy teenagers. It all adds up.
But don't read this and panic or beat yourself up, that's a waste of energy. That's choosing the punishment instead of the fix.
Instead, quietly start doing one small healthy habit. If you stop, don't revert to self-punishment again. Just quietly get back to it. Stubbornly persist until you've won.
I just watched this video by a doctor, and his point was every one of his ER patients had a problem that was years in the making (except for 1, a little girl who swallowed a battery)
IMO developing good sleep hygiene is by far the most important habit to cultivate.
It has lots of benefits, but the most important one is it replenishes your willpower. If you're trying to develop other healthy habits, it's 10x harder if you haven't slept well.
It's also the easiest to implement, imo. But there is a tradeoff: fewer waking hours during your best years cognitively for more years when you're older...
Poor sleep is a widespread problem and very few of those people are cognitively doing it intentionally as some sort of "tradeoff". The number of people "grinding on a startup" is tiny compared to the population of people who suffer from this problem. Instead it's caused by things like general anxiety, too much screen time before bed, or not having consistent sleep schedules. And other health related reasons that compound the problem.
I usually stop, if my body signals me I had enough.
(might seem like pedantery, but I know some people do believe it literally, that it is healthy to just fill themself up with "healthy food", but it is not).
I think the commenter meant such that as much as possible of your diet consists of healthy rather than unhealthy food — NOT as great a quantity as you can take in.
Previous studies have shown that heart health at 50 predicts brain health at 75.
This study is interesting in that it quantifies the benefit as 12.5 extra dementia-free years. People with 0 risk factors had 30 years of dementia-free survival, vs 17.5 years for people with all 3 risk factors measured.
The risk factors in this specific study are blood pressure, diabetes (HbA1c), and smoking. You could reasonably also include cholesterol/ApoB, inflammation (hs-CRP), and perhaps Lp(a) as potential risk factors.
> Maintaining optimal midlife vascular health was associated with up to 12.6 additional dementia-free survival years,
Stay on top of your cardiovascular health. Even moderate diet and lifestyle changes can have a significant impact on the last decade of your life. These things compound over decades.
Being human, I think more about the number of dementia years than number of dementia-free years. Could having good dietary, sleep, and exercise habits result in living longer with dementia?
I've hard about cognitive reserve and how healthy lifestyle choices can build that. But I never read about ways to minimize the number of years you have to live with dementia. I wish I could sign an order that would grant me a dignified death once I'm deemed no longer fit to make that decision.
The work of Dr. Rick Johnson is perhaps relevant. He links the effects of fructose on the mitochondria, which then affects the neurons in the brain, over time.
This hypothesis makes much more sense to me when you think to the associated diseases (diabetes, heart disease etc...)
I have always had a very low blood pressure, below what's considered "normal." I never feel dizzy when standing up, though. Is this still a risk factor for dementia?
The importance of walking can not be overstated. Walking for 30 mins every other day will dramatically improve your life if you are sedentary. If you can't do 30 minutes, start with 15.
Had an uncle who swore by this. He died at 57 of ALS.
That obviously doesn't mean walking is bad, I just mean to point out that even those people who believe in it as a silver bullet, can be hit with something totally out of left field.
Life is really quite brutish and short. You can do all the right things, and die early. All the wrong things, and live a long time. Take care of yourself for sure, but also find a balance and enjoy your life.
Fine. But walking is also just kind of nice and unobtrusive for most people. I'd understand if you were replying to someone telling you to do strength training, but I'd argue walking is just pleasant.
You can do everything right and get taken out by an accident. So far I've dodged a loose trailer that came off next to me going the opposite direction, a rock dislodged by a marmot from the cliff above, two drunk drivers drifting towards me, a city bus turning towards me on an icy road, a few other left turning drivers who didn't see me in a crosswalk (I now carry a high intensity pulsing flashlight for crossing at intersections) and two near misses when a gust upset my glider.
I'd argue that if someone wants to go beyond walking into running or even jogging, they ought to get their strength up so they don't have blood sugar crashes or cramps. It's never a bad idea to gain some muscle.
That cuts both ways though, and I have quite direct knowledge of how this has been misused in really gross ways. But that said, I would still bias towards more freedom than less, and hope that we can get a handle on the more extreme cases.
> Hypertension was defined as a systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or higher, a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher, or the utilization of blood pressure-lowering medications.
Whoever defined this, thank you for having common sense!
This stood out to me because there are so many lunatics defining it as 121/80 or even 121/70 with the backwards idea that the systolic is more important. Worse still is when they insist that something as low as 100/65 is optimal despite complaints of dizziness. All the while hammering home that you should chug a million gallons of water and deprive yourself of sodium. It's like they're trying to make people miserable.
The 120/80 benchmark isn't lunacy. Most people in the west have issues with hypertension because that's the direction it goes due to the common risk factors.
If you're at 135/85, and you're middle aged / younger, and your diet and lifestyle aren't already optimized, it's something you should probably care about, not look for the next highest rung on the ladder so that you can celebrate for being below it.
But don't read this and panic or beat yourself up, that's a waste of energy. That's choosing the punishment instead of the fix.
Instead, quietly start doing one small healthy habit. If you stop, don't revert to self-punishment again. Just quietly get back to it. Stubbornly persist until you've won.
I Saw 120 Patients This Week. Here's Why They Were Actually Sick. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiVKh97rJsg
eat healthy food as much as possible.
walk. exercise. and SLEEP.
It has lots of benefits, but the most important one is it replenishes your willpower. If you're trying to develop other healthy habits, it's 10x harder if you haven't slept well.
I usually stop, if my body signals me I had enough.
(might seem like pedantery, but I know some people do believe it literally, that it is healthy to just fill themself up with "healthy food", but it is not).
This study is interesting in that it quantifies the benefit as 12.5 extra dementia-free years. People with 0 risk factors had 30 years of dementia-free survival, vs 17.5 years for people with all 3 risk factors measured.
The risk factors in this specific study are blood pressure, diabetes (HbA1c), and smoking. You could reasonably also include cholesterol/ApoB, inflammation (hs-CRP), and perhaps Lp(a) as potential risk factors.
Stay on top of your cardiovascular health. Even moderate diet and lifestyle changes can have a significant impact on the last decade of your life. These things compound over decades.
I've hard about cognitive reserve and how healthy lifestyle choices can build that. But I never read about ways to minimize the number of years you have to live with dementia. I wish I could sign an order that would grant me a dignified death once I'm deemed no longer fit to make that decision.
This hypothesis makes much more sense to me when you think to the associated diseases (diabetes, heart disease etc...)
You can get a overview of his research on this podcast (approx 75min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59Oje6n2JLU
That obviously doesn't mean walking is bad, I just mean to point out that even those people who believe in it as a silver bullet, can be hit with something totally out of left field.
Life is really quite brutish and short. You can do all the right things, and die early. All the wrong things, and live a long time. Take care of yourself for sure, but also find a balance and enjoy your life.
If I get taken out, I want it to be while I'm saving kids from an angry bear, not something stupid like ^
I'd argue that if someone wants to go beyond walking into running or even jogging, they ought to get their strength up so they don't have blood sugar crashes or cramps. It's never a bad idea to gain some muscle.
The right to die humanely is the single most under-regarded and under-valued aspect of life hygiene.
Whoever defined this, thank you for having common sense!
This stood out to me because there are so many lunatics defining it as 121/80 or even 121/70 with the backwards idea that the systolic is more important. Worse still is when they insist that something as low as 100/65 is optimal despite complaints of dizziness. All the while hammering home that you should chug a million gallons of water and deprive yourself of sodium. It's like they're trying to make people miserable.
If you're at 135/85, and you're middle aged / younger, and your diet and lifestyle aren't already optimized, it's something you should probably care about, not look for the next highest rung on the ladder so that you can celebrate for being below it.