'Healthiest hearts in the world' found | Hacker News Reader

'Healthiest hearts in the world' found

bbc.co.uk

53 pointskeithpeter46 comments

It seems questionable to me that genes aren't even mentioned in passing when summarizing possible reasons for a specific physiological difference observed in a small, insular population. Especially considering that there are well-documented cases of both genes that accelerate atherosclerosis and specific families with extremely low rates of heart disease that don't seem to be explained by lifestyle factors. If it were all about macros and staying active, why this population and not dozens scattered throughout the world?

I agree. The most interesting thing to check would be to try finding some Tsimane that left to work in the city and check their heart values.

That would be interesting, but part of the complexity of this is that "healthy lifestyle" may be as much about fitting together with genetic factors as approaching some universal ideal. I think it would be really interesting (albeit unrealistic) if there were a baby exchange among various populations with high longevity in general or low CVD in particular, and see if there's any significant pattern. Would people with Tsimane ancestry thrive in Okinawa? Would people with Ryukyuan ancestry get a heart attack at 40 living on Sardinia?

Seems like the biggest takeaway is their high levels of activity, like walking and biking. Developed countries are unlikely to get rid of 'screen time' anytime soon, but we could surely orient our cities around walking and biking more (particularly in the US).

As a developer, I sometimes ask myself how I can get more exercise. My commute is 1.5 hrs each way. So 8+3= 11 hours of sitting related to work.

By the time I get home I am almost super tired and hungry to anything else.

Averaging 16,000 steps is very impressive. Feels like a distant dream.

Honestly that is one very long commute. You really can't get anything closer, even factoring in how much it costs you to drive that much, and the value of your time?

Have you considered a treadmill desk? I really want to try it but they're so heavy to get moved in.

I bought a motorless one but it turns out you have to concentrate on walking to make it work so it's not conducive to intellectual work. I still use it during phone calls though or when I'm stuck on a hard problem.

That is a very long day of sitting. When I was younger I had a similar duration commute, with a couple transfers each way. I was fortunate that each line could carry a bike, so I skipped a bus on one end by sacrificing a few minutes to bike a few miles. I would have been in bad shape (mentally, physically, ...) without it.

That said, this was one of the unhealthiest periods of my life, and it didn't really get better until I stopped commuting such a distance. The time and effort that commuting saps seems pretty deeply incompatible with an active life. Not a hugely useful observation unless you have the freedom to change it, which many developers do in some way if willing to prioritize it.

I know other people who hit the gym at 6am to fit it before the trek into the office, but I've never been one of those. Making exercise a subconscious part of the routine, even if it isn't the most efficient method, has always been the most effective way to get me to actually do it.

About 1,5 years ago, I worked for a company that had company showers. And nearby was a nice, green area. So often I would bring my jogging gear and run for about 1 hour during break time.

At that time, my commute was about the same, perhaps a bit longer even.

Sadly my current company doesn't have showers and I am sure my colleagues wouldn't appreciate a sweaty smell.

As a kinda lazy developer myself here are the things that motivate me to workout:

1. Being more attractive. This is probably the no.1 reason, as facetious as it may sound...helps that I am single. I have certainly noticed people of the gender I like begin to notice me more, and that is an implicit but powerful motivation to stay in shape. Don't worry about looking like models from Men's Health: you just have to look/feel like you take care of your body.

2. Having workout possibilities close at hand. I live in a residential neighborhood and my gym is far away, so I got into outdoors running. So after work, I put in my bluetooth headphones, play some tunes and just run. I'm too lazy to go to my gym regularly, but since I can just step out of my house and start running, it reduces the barrier to doing that. I'm planning on moving to an apartment complex that has an in house gym because of the very same reason.

3. Eating healthy and mindfully. Your diet can have an out sized impact on your ability to work out. Personally, I found that I need to wait for a couple of hours after my last meal before I start an active workout; otherwise, my tummy is full and busy digesting food. Also, perhaps the food digests by that time because I feel a surge of energy...which brings to my last point:

4. Point 2 is useful because there will be peaks and troughs in your day, energy wise. You might get up at midnight and feel full of energy, or may have a planned workout at 7pm and feel completely exhausted. Having the ability to run/workout closeby helps here, because you can then use your body's natural inclinations in your favor.

Anyways, full disclosure: completely personal experience, I am not a certified anything. Hope you find something that works! It may be a personal thing, but I find my productivity and creativity peaks when I live a healthy lifestyle.

2000 steps per mile or slightly more depending on your height/ I'm assuming that your commute is car based: any chance of parking about 1 or 2 miles away from work location and walking?

I had the same problem, and came to this solution:

Could you park near work, and bike the rest of the way? Some 5, 10, 02 20 minutes?

Is it really the problem with "screen time" though? Are construction workers much healthier for example? What about the Samoans or some other pacific islanders? I think the type and easy availability of food makes a big difference.

It's interesting that the article points to a high carbohydrate diet as being one of the takeaways. I suspect some people will glom onto this data point (see, sugar isn't bad!) despite their largely unprocessed diet and constant physical activity into old age.

And massive survivor bias

I thought that as well when reading the article, however, the authors of the study did claim the following...

"The researchers have been studying this group for a long time so it is not simply a case of the unhealthy Tsimane dying young."

The key being how long is a 'long time'? Enough for one complete generation?

Some information on mortality rates would be useful as well.

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6rf56475#page-50

20% of people dies before reaching adulthood and only 50% passes the 55 mark.

on a side, it's incredible the amount of information one can dig out of internet

What kind of carbs though? Beans actually have a lot of carbs even after subtracting fiber but I don't think anyone thinks they're unhealthy.

It says right in the article... "Most of the rest comes from family farms growing rice, maize, manioc root (like sweet potato) and plantains (similar to banana)... It is topped up with foraged fruit and nuts."

Exactly, I didn't see it in the article but I think it's a good guess their carb intake has somewhere near zero processed/simple sugars and processed carbs. They are eating "whole foods."

One thing I'm interested in is other than animal sources, what what fat sources do they have in their diet. Nuts is one thing that was mentioned. I wonder if they extract any oils for cooking from vegetable sources.

Total lack of dairy struck me as well (I'm quite capable of demolishing half a pound of a nice Cheshire cheese and I like butter on my toast)

Do they need more fat in their diet? They aren't buying 15% fat ground beef and nicely trimmed steaks and they probably aren't discarding the skin of the fish they catch.

The paleo people, in fact, do think they're unhealthy: https://paleoleap.com/beans-and-legumes/ http://www.marksdailyapple.com/beans-legumes-carbs/

From the links:

>"eating a handful of lentils as a snack every now and again probably wouldn’t be any more problematic than eating a handful of cashews, but that’s just not the way people eat lentils."

>"Legumes (beans, lentils, chickpeas, split peas, etc.) aren’t, by any means, the worst thing you can eat, but they don’t make the ideal meal either."

"The paleo people" also think a diet of 100% meat is unhealthy. Your links do identify what the paleo community associates as unhealthy traits in legumes, but both of the links advocate constraint not abstinence... unlike say... Twinkies or Wonder Bread.

A small sample population is likely to produce the highest rate of occurrence of a randomly distributed feature. A small sample population is also likely to produce the lowest rate of occurrence.

"They also live in small communities, life is very social and they maintain a positive outlook."

Quote from one of the researchers.

The article did not point out to other details of their research like: 1. Do the Tsimane people consume or have access to processed foods? 2. Vaccinations? 3. Any access to pharmaceutical products?

It also mentioned on the article:

"The scientists scanned 705 people's hearts in a CT scanner after teaming up with a research group scanning mummified bodies."

If they performed the test on mummified bodies, how were they able to determine the amount of CAC at the age of 45 and again at the age of 75?

I wonder if they also performed some tests for those people who are still alive?

They scanned live people, they just teamed up with a group that was scanning mummies.

I'm trying to deduce a physiological way a vaccine could induce coronary artery problems and I can't see any way.

1.) not directly but the listing of their diet implies all of the food is locally sourced/eaten with only the processing available to a low technology society and no food stuff is traded/purchased with any other humans. The difficulty of the researchers on getting there implies no easy access to processed foods unless that, too, came on a canoe to the villagers or the villagers travelled via canoe to more advanced city and traded their hunter/gatherer food for modern food. The few photos indicates only a little bit of clothing made with sewing machines and not looking very new so more evidence for little contact with current tech villagers.

What is their longevity though? I could not find it anywhere in the BBC article.

Healthy heart is nice and does bring quality of life, but what is their life expectancy?

Well a healthy heart is a good basis for 'longevity'. "Wild", not-primarily/fulltime-agricultural and fully nourished tribes are also throughout the ages known to have never encountered diabetes alzheimers dementia bone-issues tooth-decay gout etc. How the heck do you account for the relative/potential/likely lack of vaccines/antibiotics/ambulances however? For at least a half million years, the life-span of any human individual that survived birth and somehow avoided/survived all the sorts of infections (that we are not inherently immune to either, absent pharma) and accidents and strife inherent in their lifestyles long enough was entirely within range with what modern homo sapiens can hope for, with medicines/ambulances/care-homes etc. It's just that on the whole, many-probably-most didn't make it that far to begin with. Those who managed to, were of course treasured respected and prompted for their 'wisdom' =)

A large part of "the strides medical progress has achieved" in terms of longevity is entirely about dealing with "the diseases of civilization" that we invented in the first place (out of necessity and lacking better info) with a chronic highish intake non-stone-age food-stuffs, cities, heavy industries etc.

> fully nourished tribes are also throughout the ages known to have never encountered diabetes alzheimers dementia bone-issues tooth-decay gout etc.

Citation? It's pretty bold to claim that tribes essentially have/had no health issues. I assume there must be some really compelling evidence backing that up.

In Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men[1] (1775) he discusses the Caribs of Venezuela:

"As the savage state also protects them from gout and rheumatism, and old age is, of all ills, that which human aid can least alleviate, they cease to be, without others perceiving that they are no more, and almost without perceiving it themselves.

With respect to sickness, I shall not repeat the vain and false declamations which most healthy people pronounce against medicine; but I shall ask if any solid observations have been made from which it may be justly concluded that, in the countries where the art of medicine is most neglected, the mean duration of man's life is less than in those where it is most cultivated. How indeed can this be the case, if we bring on ourselves more diseases than medicine can furnish remedies? [...]

When we think of the good constitution of the savages, at least of those whom we have not ruined with our spirituous liquors, and reflect that they are troubled with hardly any disorders, save wounds and old age, we are tempted to believe that, in following the history of civil society, we shall be telling also that of human sickness."

[1] http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_03.htm

So the claim is not based on actual medical studies, then, but anecdotes from 1775?

"Average life expectancy at birth was 43 years between 1950-89 and increased to about 50 during the period 1990-2002. Half the population is under 15 years of age."

http://www.philosophy.dept.shef.ac.uk/culture&mind/people/gu... (that is the site of one of the anthropologists quoted in the BBC article)

They also have very high parasite load, which was kind of mentioned in the article; may influence fertility as well as heart health and overall longevity: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3529658/

It's difficult to get a good sense of 'longevity' with life expectancy stats, especially when in this case they only take an average. I can imagine that this group of people does not have modern tools and techniques for child delivery. Obviously that is concerning and worth keeping in the picture, but any higher than usual child mortality rates will really skew the life expectancy stat, making it appear as though people just drop dead in their 40s and 50s.

Edit: I probably don't need to point that out to the typical HN reader, but its something I personally wouldn't have picked up on a few years ago

The second link I posted has survival curves. Child mortality is high but not the whole story - lots of people dying at all ages due to infectious diseases.

Yes, the intestine parasites don't exactly enthuse one to adopt the lifestyle. A simple clinic with antibiotics could sort a lot of the mortality though.

Median age 15 does rather limit the conclusions being drawn from this study. Thanks for research.

PS: The problem with an 'average' is that there are so many to choose from!

Child mortality rates are conventionally very high for traditional people, often around 50%. But if you make it to age 5 the odds of living into your 60s or 70s goes up considerably.

Very strange that the deleterious effects of artificial light extending the day aren't even mentioned. The evidence keeps mounting, we now know that pRGCs exist, but the old assumptions persist. One isolated tribe in New Zealand I believe it was had wonderful health - until a hydro damn was sited there, and they were given free electricity. Diet matters, but light affects appetite, so what you eat will change as your light exposure changes.

> One idea is that intestinal worms - which dampen immune reactions - could be more common and this may help protect the heart.

In case you are interested in this point, then have a look at helminthic therapy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helminthic_therapy).

So what is their number one health risk? And life expectancy after reaching adulthood?

loneliness and pessimism .

Ahh, all a matter of adaptation..

High Blood Pressure Medications http://www.everydayhealth.com/high-blood-pressure/guide/medi...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com