(Un) Healthy Aging - Dubious interpretation of data?
Discussion
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/sep...
The more I think about this Guardian article from a couple of days ago, the more I think that the author has it wrong.
The central idea is that although people are living longer, they are declining into ‘poor health’ earlier - so longer lives just mean more time spent in poor health.
The figures are rather surprising, suggesting that ‘Healthy Life Expectancy (HLE)’ is currently only around 60 in the UK despite actual Life Expectancy being 79 for men and 83 for women.
The figures rely on self reporting, so obviously start off a bit problematic - but the elephant in the room is that by definition they must apply to data received from all ages. If, for example, an increased number of people in their 20s and 30s are reporting ‘poor health’, then this inevitably reduces that HLE figure.
I think the data needs much more scrutiny before you could come to a conclusion that poor health is increasing in the elderly - in fact I suspect that the reverse is true and that people who still have a lot more living to do once they reach their 60th birthday are actually healthier than was the case in the past.
The more I think about this Guardian article from a couple of days ago, the more I think that the author has it wrong.
The central idea is that although people are living longer, they are declining into ‘poor health’ earlier - so longer lives just mean more time spent in poor health.
The figures are rather surprising, suggesting that ‘Healthy Life Expectancy (HLE)’ is currently only around 60 in the UK despite actual Life Expectancy being 79 for men and 83 for women.
The figures rely on self reporting, so obviously start off a bit problematic - but the elephant in the room is that by definition they must apply to data received from all ages. If, for example, an increased number of people in their 20s and 30s are reporting ‘poor health’, then this inevitably reduces that HLE figure.
I think the data needs much more scrutiny before you could come to a conclusion that poor health is increasing in the elderly - in fact I suspect that the reverse is true and that people who still have a lot more living to do once they reach their 60th birthday are actually healthier than was the case in the past.
I've long thought of retirement as having two distinct phases:
- The Tampax phase - where you live life like you're in a Tampax advert. Loving life, doing whatever traveling and activities that are your passion.
- The Tena phase - where you live your life in Tena pads. Basically the low-health elderly life mentioned.
- Raising my kids right so they leave home and are no longer a financial burden.
- Looking after my body so I stay fit and healthy for years to come.
- Get the finances sorted to retire early enough, with enough income to be able to enjoy my retirement. (Partially linked to #1, obvs.)
Condi said:
Modern medicine (/the NHS) is very good at keeping people alive longer than nature intended, but not great at keeping people in good health for the end of their lives. You fix one issue, there is another one.
Maybe or maybe not - but that is not particularly relevant to the figure quoted for ‘Healthy Life Expectancy’.Can't find a proper definition of healthy life expectancy.
I assume non healthy includes stuff like high blood pressure, crappy back and all the usual wear and tear.
In many a case you can't lifestyle your way around that anyway and you're functional enough.
I assume non healthy includes stuff like high blood pressure, crappy back and all the usual wear and tear.
In many a case you can't lifestyle your way around that anyway and you're functional enough.
Edited by bloomen on Thursday 1st October 17:50
bloomen said:
Can't find a proper definition of healthy life expectancy.
I assume non healthy includes stuff like high blood pressure, crappy back and all the usual wear and tear.
In many a case you can't lifestyle your way around that anyway and you're functional enough.
It's the combination of life expectancy (which is based on mortality rates) and self assessed health (comes from surveys), combined to give a measure of years in poor health.I assume non healthy includes stuff like high blood pressure, crappy back and all the usual wear and tear.
In many a case you can't lifestyle your way around that anyway and you're functional enough.
Edited by bloomen on Thursday 1st October 17:50
It isn't an especially reliable metric but one that policy makers pay a lot of attention to, particularly around the allocation of resources.
A significant number of people are 'in poor health'. That's unlikely to change any time soon, despite the wishful thinking.
Covid royally - insert swearword - things up for many people, especially those needing access to healthcare.
Edited by Yahonza on Thursday 1st October 18:05
bloomen said:
Can't find a proper definition of healthy life expectancy.
I assume non healthy includes stuff like high blood pressure, crappy back and all the usual wear and tear.
In many a case you can't lifestyle your way around that anyway and you're functional enough.
Much like life expectancy this is far more influenced by younger than older people. One 20 year old in poor health equates to 5 70 year olds if age of death is 80. I assume non healthy includes stuff like high blood pressure, crappy back and all the usual wear and tear.
In many a case you can't lifestyle your way around that anyway and you're functional enough.
Edited by bloomen on Thursday 1st October 17:50
A long health expectancy requires a high level of personal commitment throughout life, rather than an effort to keep someone alive at the end. A of concerted effort to build muscle and not be fat, plus avoiding smoking and excessive consumption or stress is not the default British position and requires the right resources and attitude.
It's the marshmallow test - you need to invest in your future when you are too young to realise that is what is needed. The later you leave it, the harder it is to regain the health
It's the marshmallow test - you need to invest in your future when you are too young to realise that is what is needed. The later you leave it, the harder it is to regain the health
The most obvious health issue is the general obesity of the UK population.
Inactivity is the norm and I can only assume that a lot of grazing/snacking takes place.
Most people over the age of around 35 (and many below 35, especially women) are carrying a lot of surplus fat.
The prognosis for many of these fairly young people as they reach middle age cannot be good.
Inactivity is the norm and I can only assume that a lot of grazing/snacking takes place.
Most people over the age of around 35 (and many below 35, especially women) are carrying a lot of surplus fat.
The prognosis for many of these fairly young people as they reach middle age cannot be good.
Condi said:
Modern medicine (/the NHS) is very good at keeping people alive longer than nature intended, but not great at keeping people in good health for the end of their lives. You fix one issue, there is another one.
That's more an issue of personal responsibility, mainly a lack of exercise and obesity, exacerbated by the food industry surrounding us all with cheap UHP foods. The NHS can only really try to mitigate the impacts of what people present with - the damage is already doneYahonza said:
It's the combination of life expectancy (which is based on mortality rates) and self assessed health (comes from surveys), combined to give a measure of years in poor health.
It isn't an especially reliable metric but one that policy makers pay a lot of attention to, particularly around the allocation of resources.
A significant number of people are 'in poor health'. That's unlikely to change any time soon, despite the wishful thinking.
Covid royally - insert swearword - things up for many people, especially those needing access to healthcare.
The ‘years in poor health’ bit (being measured by LE minus HLE) is a nonsensical figure in my opinion. The extraordinarily low (60) HLE is massively skewed by those reporting poor health who are under 60 (that cohort being 75%+ of the UK population).It isn't an especially reliable metric but one that policy makers pay a lot of attention to, particularly around the allocation of resources.
A significant number of people are 'in poor health'. That's unlikely to change any time soon, despite the wishful thinking.
Covid royally - insert swearword - things up for many people, especially those needing access to healthcare.
Edited by Yahonza on Thursday 1st October 18:05
It certainly doesn’t mean that once you reach 60 you are expected to suffer poor health for the next 20 years, or that increasing LE means increasing years of poor health (which is sort of what the article implies).
I would imagine that most people who exceed their expected lifespan have been in good health well beyond their 60th year.
smn159 said:
Condi said:
Modern medicine (/the NHS) is very good at keeping people alive longer than nature intended, but not great at keeping people in good health for the end of their lives. You fix one issue, there is another one.
That's more an issue of personal responsibility, mainly a lack of exercise and obesity, exacerbated by the food industry surrounding us all with cheap UHP foods. The NHS can only really try to mitigate the impacts of what people present with - the damage is already doneShe got ill in her final few years and the NHS kept treating one problem, only for her to get something else, often either as a side effect or as a consequence of the previous problem. By the end she was very happy to go, many of her friends had died, her husband had died and she couldn't live the life she wanted. I am sure that the doctors were well meaning, but really it would have been much kinder (and cheaper for taxpayers!) to let nature take it's course 2 or 3 years sooner than it did. They were extending life, but without any quality of life.
Watching her final few years has really impacted how I see old age and what the NHS is currently doing for people in their final few years. It shouldn't be there to simply keep people alive for as long as possible, and there should be an easy and accessible choice for people who would rather end their life on their terms.
Edited by Condi on Thursday 1st October 20:05
Condi said:
I entirely disagree, my Grandma was active until she was over 80 years old leading Women's Institute walks and spent half her life in the garden doing something or another. She was not overweight and never ate processed food.
She was healthy until she was over 80 years old. That is good.Terminator X said:
I don't see it day to day. Each generation seems to be fitter and healthier at age than the last.
Look at someone 65 y/o in the 70's Vs today.
TX.
Yes - exactly my point. The increase in poor health, whether real or perceived is in the 15-60 age groups. This is what is driving the healthy life expectancy figure down.Look at someone 65 y/o in the 70's Vs today.
TX.
It seems highly likely that the health of the over 60 cohort is, on average, better than it has ever been.
A lot of people of all ages have 'poor health' to some extent.
That's not new.
There are fit and unfit people of all ages.
That's not new either.
You have to be careful comparing with previous generations.
A whole cohort is an outlier due to growing up in the war and rationing.
The ethnic distribution has changed.
People's jobs have changed. There are less people doing physical work keeping them fit until they die of industry related diseases for example.
More people spend longer commuting to work (or have done pre-covid and WFH), which is more hours sat down.
More people are alive and functioning in middle age, because modern medicine stopped them dying young.
Less people are dying healthy, accidental death rates keep reducing.
That's not new.
There are fit and unfit people of all ages.
That's not new either.
You have to be careful comparing with previous generations.
A whole cohort is an outlier due to growing up in the war and rationing.
The ethnic distribution has changed.
People's jobs have changed. There are less people doing physical work keeping them fit until they die of industry related diseases for example.
More people spend longer commuting to work (or have done pre-covid and WFH), which is more hours sat down.
More people are alive and functioning in middle age, because modern medicine stopped them dying young.
Less people are dying healthy, accidental death rates keep reducing.
Foss62 said:
Yes - exactly my point. The increase in poor health, whether real or perceived is in the 15-60 age groups. This is what is driving the healthy life expectancy figure down.
It seems highly likely that the health of the over 60 cohort is, on average, better than it has ever been.
If you can show this in the data then publish it!It seems highly likely that the health of the over 60 cohort is, on average, better than it has ever been.
The ONS report is comparing 2011-13 with 2022-24 using the same methodology and found a decline over that time.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff