Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

More Than Half of US Adults Will Have Cardiovascular Disease By 2050, Research Finds (cnn.com) 172

By 2050, 61% of U.S. adults will have cardiovascular disease, driven mainly by high blood pressure, according to new American Heart Association research. High blood pressure significantly increases the risk of heart attacks, strokes, and other dangerous cardiovascular problems. The findings also point to ongoing challenges with arrhythmias, heart failure, and congenital heart disease. CNN: In the research published Tuesday, the association predicts that 45 million adults will have some form of cardiovascular disease -- excluding high blood pressure -- or will have a stroke in 2050, up from 28 million in 2020. An aging population will be another force behind these trends, as the older you get, the more likely you are to have heart problems.

By 2050, 22% of the US will be over the age of 65, whereas seniors made up just 13% of the population 10 years ago, studies say. The median age in the US is projected to increase from 37 in 2010 to 41 in 2050, other research shows. The American population is also becoming more diverse, and communities of color tend to have a disproportionate number of heart problems. By 2050, people who identify as Hispanic will make up about a quarter of the US population, vs. about 20% today, and people who identify as Black will be 14.4% of the country, up from 13.6% today. The number of people who identify as Asian will also increase, from 6.2% of the population to 8.6%, according to US Census predictions.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Than Half of US Adults Will Have Cardiovascular Disease By 2050, Research Finds

Comments Filter:
  • Funny they don't mention the most obvious health issue.

    ...laura

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Funny they don't mention the most obvious health issue.

      ...laura

      Who's Laura and why is she a health issue?

  • The question is what *fraction* of the population will have CVD, and how does that compare to the past. In addition, how will the fraction change within each population group, if at all, thus neglecting the rise of certain groups over others. And, finally, how do they even make this prediction, and should I believe it.

    • by ahodgson ( 74077 )

      Well, the single biggest risk factor for CVD is having Type 2 diabetes. The second biggest risk factor is being obese. And the third biggest risk factor is hypertension. So given the widely publicized (and in one case visually obvious) trends, it's not hard to predict where CVD is going in the near future.

    • by shmlco ( 594907 )

      Fraction??? Roughly two out of three U.S. adults are overweight or obese.

      People can blame processed foods, but from my perspective the number one cause is America's car culture and its buildout of cities and suburbs to the point where most people have no choice but to haul their fat rear ends around in oversized, personalized rocking chairs.

      Wall-E nailed it.

  • You mean half of U.S. adults don't already have cardiovascular disease? They must not have done good sampling because based on what I see on a regular basis the vast majority of people should already have it.

    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      That was sort of my feeling. I felt that with an aging population this was the expected result, unless they used a pretty stiff criterion for "what counts as cardiovascular disease". I know that statins are regularly prescribed to a HUGE number of people, and that's only one medication used to treat cardiovascular disease.

    • by ahodgson ( 74077 )

      Half of Americans die of CVD. That doesn't necessarily mean they have it full-blown until they're old.

      But yes.

  • Obesity, metabolic syndrome, hypertension, diabetes, chronic inflammation, gut issues, skin issues, etc are all mostly caused by an absolute shit diet so far skewed from a proper human diet that it's a miracle people are surviving on it at all. I'm not saying diet is always the cause of these conditions, but in the majority of cases, probably so. In this day and age I can spend $16 for a single meal at Canes Chicken Fingers, or cook gourmet meal myself for $12, or cook a still decent meal for $5. Eating ou

    • >Learn to cook and select good foods

      Yep. It's not only better for you, it's less expensive. Stop eating out so much, especially fast food. Cook a few basic dishes. Drink water instead of sodas.

      It's weird, but as my income has risen, I've spent less on food. Not as a percentage, as an absolute value. For the price of one meal at McD's I can make six or more decent dinners, they taste better and are better for me.

      • Oh give me a break. A meal at McD's is $11. You're telling me you can get make a delicious, healthy meal for $1.83? Figuring in $.25 for fuel?

        It's cheaper to eat out once you consider the cost of your time for cooking and going to the grocery store vs. dropping by a restaurant on your way home from work.

        • I can. It's easy enough once you start thinking ahead - I don't buy single-serving packages.

          In fact, I routinely eat lunches that cost less than $1/each. And they're definitely better than McD's, and they definitely take less time to prep than driving to a restaurant and waiting for the food to be ready.

          Dinner tends to have more meats so it's over the $1/serving, but not by much. And a McChicken meal here is $14+tax.

          • Unseasoned lentils and rice isn't a proper meal. Sure it's technically possible to get enough calories for less than $1, but realistically you wouldn't want to eat that way for longer than you had to.

            • Anyone who believes eating out at restaurants is less expensive than eating at home is a fucking moron who should be under a conservatorship.

              Your parents failed.

        • Oh give me a break. A meal at McD's is $11. You're telling me you can get make a delicious, healthy meal for $1.83? Figuring in $.25 for fuel?

          I can eat healthy for FAR LESS than $11 a meal by shopping and home cooking from scratch....and I do.

          Not sure why you list McD's at $11/meal and then start something bout $1.83???

          Typo?

        • A meal at McD's is $11. You're telling me you can get make a delicious, healthy meal for $1.83?

          Yeah, I did last night.

        • Now, "delicious" and even "healthy" are often in the eyes of the beholder, so let's just go with "home cooked". Also, let's shoot for ~800 calories for a non-breakfast meal.
          Prices are via walmart website:
          1 pd ground chicken $3.42, 600 cal
          1 pd red beans, $1.87, 1040 cal
          1 pd brown rice, $1.64, 3150
          32 oz chicken broth, $1.37, 40
          Seasoning Blend: $1.38, 88 cal (easier than trying to look up calories for fresh, non frozen stuff, it's a mix of onion, celery, red peppers, green peppers, and parsley flakes)
          Total:

    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      You are overly simplistic in multiple dimensions. It's true that the correlation you point to exists, but saying it's "the cause" is just plain silly. It's *A* cause. One of many.

    • "cook a still decent meal for $5"

      No, you can't. The marginal value of the time spent cooking that meal is more than $5, before you've even acquired any ingredients.

      • It depends on how you spend the time while cooking. I like to engage with my kiddo when cooking. I find the entire process relaxing.
      • by shmlco ( 594907 )

        So? It's a wash. The marginal value of the time spent driving to McDonalds is still the same time spent.

        • "The marginal value of the time spent driving to McDonalds is still the same time spent."

          You are assuming that people are not going to places that are on their way home and instead go home then go back out.

      • Some people spend their spare time cooking for themselves or their family.
        Some people spend their spare time hitting a golf ball.
        Some people spend their spare time playing video games.
        Some people spend their spare time doing bong hits and contemplating their navel.
        So, tell me, which of these uses of time has the higher value?
  • By 2050, 61% of U.S. adults will have cardiovascular disease

    "I like those odds!"

  • So Obamacare's not working, you say?
  • by Vegan Cyclist ( 1650427 ) on Tuesday June 04, 2024 @04:42PM (#64523249) Homepage

    "By 2050, 61% of U.S. adults will have cardiovascular disease"... ...and virtually none of them will be people on a vegan diet.

    One of the most effective ways to prevent and reverse CVD is to eliminate animal products from your diet. It's been proven over and over and over. Diabetes too.

    No need for pills, other drugs or surgery.

    It works, although people would rather continue eating the stuff that causes this, take the risk, and live on medication that makes their lives even more shitty.

    Higher levels of activity certainly help, but I know fit people suffering from CVD, getting heart attacks and strokes.

    But even sedentary vegans are mostly immune. Why is that?

    Plus it's also very good for the planet.

    "But bacon". *facepalm*

    #unpopularopinion

The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money. - Ed Bluestone

Working...