Baby Boomers sicker and frailer than previous generations

I wonder whether smoking was factored into this study. During the war and into the 50s almost all adults smoked. No evidence that you shouldn’t, and smoking was an appetite depressant. It was almost assumed that giving up smoking meant putting on weight. Similarly, few families had cars until the end of petrol rationing, hence more walking (and more buses).

Everyone grew their own fruit and veg, so much healthier, also no snacking meals were breakfast, lunch and dinner consisting of meat and veg

The modern way of living has a lot to answer for, but ultimately we must all take responsibility for trying our best to manage our own wellbeing via a healthy diet without UPFs, weight management, avoiding ingesting known poisons such as alcohol and nicotine, adopting a reasonable level of regular exercise, and I would add, managing our own stressors. Life, of course, throws out different challenges and it's not always possible to do all that we should for an entire life time.

Yes- every time I have a health issue I get asked whether my parents had the same. Cholesterol issues, heart queries, whether they had cancer, diabetes etc etc. I would think probably more than 80 % are inherited ‘tendencies’. Not to mention hereditary things that are just passed down through generations like blood disorders.

We didn't live healthily as teens either. All night parties and drugs etc. Risky sex. Smoking. And I think we were the first generation whose parents did everything for us. I also remember my mother was so relieved to be out of wartime rationing that she kept a whole cupboard bursting with chocolate bars. We were the peak generation for childhood and teenage degenerate living, before a generation later some health messages started filtering through.

I remember reading an interview with some eminent scientist involved in medical research. (I can't remember his name.) When asked about the most important thing you can do to be healthy, he said "Choose your parents carefully." In other words, genes are a major factor in your health, regardless of lifestyle.

JacquiG

A huge number of negatives since the 60s I think. Processed food, less exercise, pesticides, herbicides, pollution and other environmental pressures. Perhaps even no gardens. My grandparents lived in a very nice council house which had a huge garden. Roses in front of the dining room window, and carrots, potatoes, cabbage, tomatoes, beans etc in the rest of it. No fertilisers except what was picked up after the coal man's horse had visited.

Also, perhaps the weaker members of society died from injury, bomb damage etc and the physical/psychological stress of war?

Actually in the 1960s there were far more really nasty chemicals used to control pests on food and in the home, DDT and organophosphates, to mention just two, the fly spray used in the home in those days was really nasty. Today the chemicals used are far less toxic and used in a much more controlled way, every batch of food going into a supermarket is tested for residues and is traceable. Imported food is certainly not traceable and may or may not be tested.

I am constantly amazed by the number of people of all ages who say "but it is such a long way!" when I tell them I cycled or walked from my place to theirs - distances of 3-5 km!

These are nothing to me who has walked or cycled all my adult life, never having had a car, but are apparently the kind of distance that gets even the nuns at the local convent into the driving seat of their communal car!

I have also all my adult life made food from basics, done my own housework etc. so I would suggest "re-inventing" school cookery and housekeeping classes, making them compulory for all children, academically gifted and those better at using their hands, rather than only the girls deemed not brainy enough to need Latin as my school did, and of course compulary for both girls and boys, as should bike maintenance and carpentary be too.

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...

People shouldn't be called, in my opinion, a burden on the health service. In the post war era, women mainly were in the home, men brought in a wage for the family that was enough (but doesn't seem to be now). I am not saying women shouldn't be in the workforce if they want to be but I'd like if we could stop blaming people who are time poor for their decisions. If we could have a society where a person, regardless of their gender, was paid enough for family to live on instead of two people having to scurry about on minimum wage, families could have time to make meals, care for their elderly parents etc. What a world that could be

I remember reading an article many years ago which advocated eating salads at least once a day and telling my DH this. He has since that time, what ever sandwich he has made (ham, mackerel, cheese), accompanied it with a bowl of salad. I make a hot meal for the evening only occasionally doing a bacon, sausage, etc fry-up. We have one small glass of wine if we feel the meal "warrants it, i.e. fish dish or Italian". So the point I am making is my DH is slim, upright, and physically fit. Lots of his contemporaries have "pots". He can still wear trousers from way back. It's a good job as he hates buying new!

Happygirl79

Lovemylife

Working my way through ‘Ultra Processed People’, a sobering read about diet and health.

That book is a revelation. Everyone should read it. It exposes the big food manufacturers and their marketing methods to push their unhealthy foods . Previous generations were not exposed to UPF and were more active, took in more calories than we do but used real foods to feed themselves with nutritious wholefoods and stayed healthy fir longer.

It’s not the UPF, it’s eating them that is the problem you choose to do that, they contain far too many calories not to mention salt. To satisfy appetite there is too much fat and carbohydrates, given the chance most of us will eat to apetite.

Back in the 1950s we had no central heating, we used a lot of energy to keep warm, we walked or biked to school, school sports were compulsory, so much more exercise. My grandchildren all get a lot of exercise their parents make sure they get plenty of activities, so none are overweight.

You are what you eat, it’s your choice, everyone has a choice.

A huge number of negatives since the 60s I think. Processed food, less exercise, pesticides, herbicides, pollution and other environmental pressures. Perhaps even no gardens. My grandparents lived in a very nice council house which had a huge garden. Roses in front of the dining room window, and carrots, potatoes, cabbage, tomatoes, beans etc in the rest of it. No fertilisers except what was picked up after the coal man's horse had visited.

Also, perhaps the weaker members of society died from injury, bomb damage etc and the physical/psychological stress of war?

I think the OP report is a generalisation and much depends on individual genetics as well as nutrition.

Born in 1947. I walked to school and back, played outside before school and after (weather better then too) and went swimming 3 times a week( dad was an instructor). We cycled everywhere when we were old enough or walked. Mum baked cakes, pastries and cooked from scratch. She died at 92, dad 78. He died of Alzheimer’s, his physical health was fine, no medication needed. They were definitely hardier and healthier than us. Everyone my age and even younger are on BP medication and Statins.

Life has changed , more Labour saving devices, less physical jobs and a sedentary, stressful job is bad for your health, people used to walk more, less fancy foods, less takeaways, only had fish and chips, more people had home cooked healthy meals before ready meals made a huge impact from the 70s onward, endless ads for fast food, alcohol, drinks in general, when I was a teenager there were so many ads on tv saying don’t smoke, and showing green cross code and stuff like that, then it seemed to stop, just like the ads explaining about septicaemia, or blood poisoning, now called sepsis, and the symptoms of meningitis, those stopped too and now no one seems to know what it is, all these things contribute, of course everyone, in an ideal world, would eat right and exercise , but it isn’t an ideal world and is getting worse, asthma and other conditions are affecting more and more children and antivaxxers have caused so many to be scared of vaccinating children that diseases like whooping cough are making a come back

It's obvious this thread isn't about longevity because the majority of us babyboomers are still alive, and have hopefully a decade or two to go yet before the picture becomes clear! So who knows who will come out on top in the long run.

The thread is about longitudinal studies, and as I am knowledgeable on this subject, I shall contine to contribute! 😃

Lovemylife

Working my way through ‘Ultra Processed People’, a sobering read about diet and health.

That book is a revelation. Everyone should read it. It exposes the big food manufacturers and their marketing methods to push their unhealthy foods . Previous generations were not exposed to UPF and were more active, took in more calories than we do but used real foods to feed themselves with nutritious wholefoods and stayed healthy fir longer.

Sparklefizz

Diet and lack of exercise.

Spot on.
Plus ultra processed foods.

Infant mortality was much higher in previous generations therefore those who survived childhood had already proved they were of a strong disposition.

I presume everyone is free to continue if they wish?

M0nica

How many times do I have to point out that this research has got absolutely nothing to do with longevity.

Threads are free to go where they will so do continue to discuss longevity. As it is not relevant to my OP. I will cease to contribute.

Crumbs!

How many times do I have to point out that this research has got absolutely nothing to do with longevity.

Threads are free to go where they will so do continue to discuss longevity. As it is not relevant to my OP. I will cease to contribute.

@nanna8, I am guessing that the introduction of antibiotics and increased standard of living for many people between the 1920s and the 1950s may have been the reason that treatment for scarlet fever may have changed.

I had scarlet fever in the 1950s but didn’t have to isolate. I think I stayed away from school for about a week. Probably spread it everywhere! Same with measles. My mum sent me back to school but they sent me home again because I still had a rash. I had to walk a couple of miles home with it on my own. I remember having a dreadful headache and watery eyes. Tough on kids in those days . I’m still here,though!

I'm not sure there was a question in this post.

My opinion is that my parents/pils generation and my/my husbands generation seem far healthier than most people born after around 1948. Then another healthy group born after 1975.

Just my opinion based on my family and friends health.