Baby Boomers sicker and frailer than previous generations

My perception of that would be we're a generation who were possibly the first to experience the fast food revolution which hasn't been beneficial health wise. I remember the first time I went to the US, thinking wow! so many people on mobility scooters, grossly overweight and often not that old. Conversely at the other end of the spectrum just loads of people jogging, before that really became a thing here too.

Our parents had a wartime diet, which was boring but reasonably healthy in its make-up, cooked from scratch with fresh ingredients, hardly any processed food I imagine. I think they were also certainly less sedentary, there was probably only the radio, maybe a few had tv, but certainly screens, apart from trips to the cinema were yet to arrive. I also think they walked more, we didn't get a car in our family until I was about 7 or 8, we certainly walked to destinations where people would now get in their car. We played out for ages, cycling, roller skating, swimming and generally running around was very much part of my childhood. I don't remember having snack-like products at home such as crisps or biscuits, maybe we'd have been given an apple. I remember longing for Smith Crisps with the little blue bag of salt which would be a rare treat. Breakfast cereals were not covered in sugar, I remember either Shredded Wheat, Weetabix, Porridge or Cornflakes, certainly nothing like Cocoa Pops. Although I do remember apropos of another thread at the moment, getting pocket money which I spent on sweets. if we were thirsty we drank water, maybe occasionally there'd be orange squash or lime cordial.

I can remember McDonald's/Burger King hitting our shores, before that we had only Wimpy Bars. I may have had a burger occasionally from those places, although there was this aftermath from what I can remember of feeling sick an hour or so afterwards. I haven't had or wanted one for years and years. However, around that time I also remember Jane Fonda launching her aerobic books and we've since had the growth of gyms and health clubs. I joined my first one of those over 30 years ago. I think most people know the value of eating the right type of food, although I think we're also a generation who may have had more opportunity to drink alcohol on a more regular basis, so that could also be a contributory factor.

How healthy people are depends much on lifestyle and inherited genes. I try to be reasonably active, I go to the gym maybe 3 times a week but it's an effort. I'm continually trying to counteract a feeling of sluggishness which comes with an under active thyroid, I envy people with vitality.

Maizie I am the messenger, not the researcher. If you want answers to your questions the research was done by Oxford University direct your queries there.

Dealing with life expectancy, however, the figures are an average of all deaths from 0 to 100plus and until very recently infant and child (0-5) mortality was very high. In 1900 nearly a quarter of all children born died before they reached thee age of 5. By 1935 this was down to just under 10%, now it is 4 deaths for every 1,000 children born.

These figures for infant and child mortality, will when averaged over the whole population bring the average life expectancy figures right down. In the past, live to the age of 15 and you could reasonably expect to live into your 70s. This survey covers people in their 50s and 60s, so I think the comparisons are valid.

Separate research done by the NHS and reported in the DM today says that people now weigh a stone more than they did 30 years again. The average 45-64 year old man weighs 14 stone and has a 40 inch waist. Women in that age group, on average weigh 12 stone and have a 36 inch waist.

These two research projects complement each other. The number of people now being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in their 50s and 60s, a diet and weight related illness has doubled since 1980 and was, I think even less common the further you go back.in time.

BlueBelle

Well it isn’t all the younger generation by any means

I don’t recognise the description in my own family
ALL my seven grown up grandkids are into running, football, boxing, gyms and exercise so what does it depend on? I never did anything in the way of formal exercise (apart from working, looking after children etc etc ) but I am fairly fit can still walk at a reasonable speed, swim, garden and touch my toes with straight knees (almost 80 ) My Dad even in his last weeks (92) was doing his morning exercises albeit while lying on the bed as opposed to standing up.
Is it upbringing? is it genes ? I think it’s much more about genes with upbringing second and modern lifestyle third
My grandkids do have takeaways sometimes but they all seem to like cooking too and although I m a dreadful cook half of them seem very good cooks with quite sophisticated tastes one of my grandsons is an excellent cook and my second eldest Grandaughter who hates cooking has ‘chosen’ a boyfriend who loves cooking from scratch 🤣🤣🤣
Like maizieD I m very unsure about this piece of information

Surely WE are the Boomers , the post WWII babies?

My AC and their husbands - and the grandchildren all lead infinitely healthier lifestyles than I do/did- even allowing for the age difference- long hikes, even longer bike rides (Copenhagen to Berlin this summer for SIL and DGS2) , running, and active sports participation for the DGC, VERY healthy eaters and all looking young for their ages (42-51)
Thinking maybe they learned all this DESPITE me rather than because of our example

Christmas food and sweets are on the supermarket shelves already. High fat high sugar. Expiry date often well before Christmas so aimed at eating from now on. Alcohol easily available and relatively cheap. Easy and acceptable to drink daily. These were items in the past would have been occasional and seasonal treats. Daytime TV! Easy to flop in front of. Life is very different. Not always for the better.
However medical conditions are diagnosed hopefully usually quickly and treatment more readily available than prewar.

I expect we are living longer, but we are not necessarily more healthy.

NannyJan53

Mum is almost 95, and always puts her longevity down to growing up in the 30's and 40's where there were no junk foods, no sweets or biscuits much during the War, and no supermarkets to tempt you to buy more than you need.

Also she said she walked everywhere rarely even took a bus.

Mine is 96 and reluctantly started taking statins last year when she changed doctors.
I thought I had her genes until a few weeks ago. I’m slim, excercise and eat very well. You won’t find much UPF in my house.
Now, apparently I have a heart! Seems my dad’s family, fairly consistent deaths at 75 from strokes, have more to do with my health than I thought. Sometimes genes catch up with you.

To be honest, MOnica, some of that sounds like bollocks to me.
Oh, thank goodness!
As Ziplok says:
I think it’s a bit too easy to generalise like this, though

I agree. We all can cite anecdotal evidence to prove or disprove the claims.

Yes, there does seem to be more obesity now due to many factors but medicines have been discovered which mean people are alive today who might have died in previous generations.

Life expectancy has increased in the UK over the years until the pandemic.

In 2020, period life expectancy at birth in England and Wales was 78.6 years for males and 82.6 years for females; this is 1.2 years lower for males and 0.9 years lower for females than in 2019, reflecting very high mortality in 2020 during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Over the next 50 years, period life expectancy at birth in England and Wales is projected to increase by approximately 6.6 years for males and 5.5 years for females.

Improvements in mortality have slowed since 2011 and this is reflected in slower improvements in projected period life expectancies; it is too early to say with any certainty what impact coronavirus may have on long-term mortality trends

Office for National Statistics.

I thought I did put MaizieD's and Ziplok's posts in quotes but it didn't work.

To be honest, MOnica, some of that sounds like bollocks to me. - *MaizieD
^I think it’s a bit too easy to generalise like this, though^- Ziplok

Surely WE are the Boomers , the post WWII babies?

Some of us are the Silent Generation 😁
What a daft name. Apparently we were told to be seen and not heard. Not in our household!

Bluebelle just because your family are the exception to the rules does not invalidate good scientific research. We are talking averages here across the whole population, some people will be 10 stone overweight, some 1 stone underweight. Some live entirely on fresh organic food. Some live on nothing but cheap takeaways, but the average is, what the Oxford Uni and NHS reearch says.

One factor which I think affects the pre Boomers, in other words the War baby and childhood generation, of which I am one, is that rationing meant everybody had the same level of food and that was a healthy well balanced diet.

For many poorer families, it was the first time they had sufficient food and a well balanced diet. As well as that childhood nutrition was made a priority and children got extra milk, and vitamins - the cod liver oil and bottles of orange cordial that was dished out at clinics. This is when school milk was introduced.

I think my generation received optimum nutrition in childhood and that has affected our life time health to our advantage. So any generation coming behind us, the Boomers etc, who did not receive this scientific nutrition and 'benifitted' from the expansion of ultra processed and highly sweetened foods and the freedom for everyone to buy as much as they wanted without consideration of nutrition has had its inevitable effects.

I'm a 40s baby and my friends are very frugal. No scones with coffee, walk most places. Never have carryout food and eat small meals.

I think there is probably truth in this, the research hasn't just come out of nowhere. However, just focusing on nutrition might be a bit simplistic.

I am a late 50s child, and am part of the National Child Development Study for a cohort of babies born in one week that year. We have regularly had every health examination and test you can imagine during our lives. We have also been regularly interviewed about our lifestyles, finances, living conditions, etc. The data is collected, then analysed and reported for government use. The findings are relayed back to us in booklets and papers online. The study is not only beneicial for looking at our generation's health, but of course comparing it with the previous one because our parents were able to give information about their childhoods and lives too. Some of the comparisons are surprising. I'm not at home at the moment to dig out the books, but for example I remember the baby boomer generation had far higher levels of cholesterol than the previous.

I wonder what effect smoking has had on the relevant populations? There are far fewer smokers today than half a century ago, will that eventually help life expectancy rise or will it be cancelled out by today’s diet?

I’ve certainly read that although people (until Covid) are living longer they are not living longer in good health. They still fall ill but we now have treatments that prevent them from dying for many years.

DH and I have just returned from a coach trip abroad. We stopped at a motorway service station last night and the only food available was pretty much junk. McDonald’s, KFC, burgers, fries, crisps, biscuits. DH had a bacon bap and some fries, I didn’t, but for us this was out of the ordinary. We never usually have this type of food, but obviously many folk do.

And the young people who are simply enormous. Goodness knows what some of these young girls will be like when they’ve had two or three children.

It must be the food they eat, I am sure people weren’t so big years ago.

I am surprised at this report, having been involved with genealogy for decades and having ‘collected’ many death certificates. We live longer now. A lot longer . There used to be a lot of diseases like TB, polio, heart failure etc at a much younger age. I would go as far as to question their research.

The research was not about generations going a long way back, nanna8. Just a comparison between baby Boomers and the generation born before or during the war. and, possible the one born between 1900-1920.

Many of the pre war/war generation are still alive. using purely anecdotal experience, my father, one of 11, born 1910-1929. 4 made it fairly healthily into their 90s, one is still living at 97, and the majority of the rest lived into their late 80s and, again were quite healthy until close to their deaths.

I should have added, that generation older generation's children, 18 ov them, most Baby Boomers, 4 have died. 3 in their 60s from heart disease and strokes, one in a road accident. Generally I would say the rest of the baby Boomers are not as healthy as their parents were at the same age.

Surely some of this is down to the demolition of the NHS, the previous generation had cradle to the grave medical attention, free prescriptions at any age and GPs who were on hand to make home visits at any hour.
These days older people are routinely dismissed and simply given meds, told ‘is just your age’. Many I know don’t even bother going to the GP anymore but go to the chemist instead or look up their symptoms on google. I imagine this means many older people are sitting on potentially fatal illnesses until it is too late.

MaizieD

To be honest, MOnica, some of that sounds like bollocks to me.

How does it reconcile the claim that the prewar generations were 'fitter and healthier' than post war generations with the fact that prewar life expectancy was far shorter and infant mortality rates were higher? In other words, only the 'fittest' actually survived, whereas the postwar inception of the nhs, the improvements in medicine and access to medicine, and, access to greater amounts of cheap food has (or 'had', until the inception of 'austerity') improved life expectancy and infant mortality rates.

I'm particularly unhappy about the 'burden on the health service' statement. was that yours or the researchers'? Keeping more people alive inevitably means that the 'less fit' will be a higher percentage of the population and so skew numbers, but what do we do about that?

Having said all that I think that the usual suspects are to blame for the apparent decline in fitness and health. No doubt already cited by other posters...

Totally agree with the above.

What the headlines on The Times say... "The Baby boomers are living longer but not as healthy as their parents"

Both my grandmothers, born very late 1800s, lived into their late 80s. Both of their husbands died in their 60s. OTOH one great-grandfather (the only one I ever had) died only when I was 14 - he was 96.

It’s not a simple comparison previous generations died earlier because of poorer health care, despite more exercise/physical work, most had adequate nutrition despite rationing.
We - baby boomers have had it easier, less physical work, cheaper food in relation to hours worked and much better health care. Lack of exercise is the cause of many health problems we have, younger generations are even worse, many more obese children and young adults, I do fear for their future.

Babs03

Surely some of this is down to the demolition of the NHS, the previous generation had cradle to the grave medical attention, free prescriptions at any age and GPs who were on hand to make home visits at any hour.
These days older people are routinely dismissed and simply given meds, told ‘is just your age’. Many I know don’t even bother going to the GP anymore but go to the chemist instead or look up their symptoms on google. I imagine this means many older people are sitting on potentially fatal illnesses until it is too late.

Perhaps we did get a prompter service but the medicines and procedures available to past generations were limited compared to what is available today.

I remember being given some "magic tablets" by the GP when he called round when I had tonsillitis. They were huge and called M&B tablets; I can still see him producing them from his doctor's bag.

One thing which will be damaging to the future health of today's children is the lack of NHS dentists. It is a national crisis.

M0nica

Bluebelle just because your family are the exception to the rules does not invalidate good scientific research. We are talking averages here across the whole population, some people will be 10 stone overweight, some 1 stone underweight. Some live entirely on fresh organic food. Some live on nothing but cheap takeaways, but the average is, what the Oxford Uni and NHS reearch says.

One factor which I think affects the pre Boomers, in other words the War baby and childhood generation, of which I am one, is that rationing meant everybody had the same level of food and that was a healthy well balanced diet.

For many poorer families, it was the first time they had sufficient food and a well balanced diet. As well as that childhood nutrition was made a priority and children got extra milk, and vitamins - the cod liver oil and bottles of orange cordial that was dished out at clinics. This is when school milk was introduced.

I think my generation received optimum nutrition in childhood and that has affected our life time health to our advantage. So any generation coming behind us, the Boomers etc, who did not receive this scientific nutrition and 'benifitted' from the expansion of ultra processed and highly sweetened foods and the freedom for everyone to buy as much as they wanted without consideration of nutrition has had its inevitable effects.

Well, I am not going to argue with the Office for National Statistics which states the recent dip in life expectancy is due to the pandemic and that it will rise again over the next half century.

Over the next 50 years, period life expectancy at birth in England and Wales is projected to increase by approximately 6.6 years for males and 5.5 years for females.

M0nica

The research was not about generations going a long way back, nanna8. Just a comparison between baby Boomers and the generation born before or during the war. and, possible the one born between 1900-1920.

Many of the pre war/war generation are still alive. using purely anecdotal experience, my father, one of 11, born 1910-1929. 4 made it fairly healthily into their 90s, one is still living at 97, and the majority of the rest lived into their late 80s and, again were quite healthy until close to their deaths.

We can all quote anecdotal evidence and yes, we had two family members who lived to 99 and over 100 - both ate quite unhealthily if the claims that animal fats and sugar are bad for us are true.

They were not actually blood relatives (and not related to each other either). A friend who always ate very healthily, never smoked and drank very little except for an occasional glass of good wine, died suddenly in her 60s.

Genetics plays a large part in health and longevity.

Pantglas2

I agree with you NannyJan - my Dad is 90 and still chops his own logs, grows vegetables, walks to the pub, cooks all his own food from scratch and his weekly whole meal loaf comes from local bakery.

He’s never smoked or been overweight and has gotten over a cancer scare and a few falls in the last few years.

I watched Paddy McGuiness/Chris Harris programme on longevity on the Greek island Ikaria where the secret appeared to be keep doing what you’ve always done, or you won’t be able to do what you’ve always done!

Our next door neighbour is 93 and still very active. He walks round the block every day and eats lots of fruit. He also catches the bus into town several times a week and has coffee with his cronies.

His motto is "Use it or lose it".

He still reads avidly and plays classical music on his piano. I love chatting to him.