Last week, a group of researchers published the results of a rather interesting study. Between 1988 and1994, they tested the reaction times of 5,134 Americans using a computer and a button pushing exercise. Each person did the test 50 times and their average score was used to group them by reaction time and by their “variability,” which was how much their times varied over the 50 tests.
After measuring the reaction times range, they separated people into groups by standard deviation from the mean. Then they watched the group over the next 15 years.
Of the 5,134, a total of 378 died during those 15 years. Of those, 104 died of cardiovascular death and 84 died of cancer. Study of the damned... study of the damned!
Anyway, when they compared the deaths to the reaction speed times, they found this:
● Those with the slowest reaction times where the most likely to have died. Indeed, each standard deviation the person was away from the mean increased their likelihood of dying by 25%. Wow!What the research think, and I agree, is that a slow reaction time is an indication of the creeping progress of narrowing arteries, inefficient blood flow, and weakening hearts.
● Those who were at least four standard deviations from the slower were twice as likely to die within the 15 year follow-up period.
● In terms of risk factors that predict death, reaction time was as reliable at predicting death as smoking was.
● High variability was also linked to higher risk of death.
● Reaction speed was more likely to predict cardiovascular death than cancer death.
This is really interesting to me. It’s interesting for a couple reasons. First, something like this might become the best way to measure health in the future. Think about that. Maybe the age of the tricorder is closer than we think if we can now judge human health by looking at things like reaction time or maybe blood speed?
Secondly, I think it’s interesting that it shows just how much of a system humans are. When things start to go wrong, everything starts to go wrong. It may be too imperceptible for us to notice ourselves, but signs like this abound as the system as a hole starts to fray.
I like what you surmise because it is plausible. You are correct about the human as a system. Change one little thing and the results could vary. However, it should be studied more.
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting. I wonder how the other 190 died. But we should concentrate on why 75% are still alive and will live longer too. There are many variables including hereditary (as I just lost someone this week who died at the exact same age of his own father and otherwise healthy).
ReplyDeleteAnd accidents - I have a friend who when asked how her family members tend to die - heart disease, stroke, cancer? She responded "Accidents". Honestly, I was not expecting that answer, but it is also telling - the riskier the life one leads, the higher the chances of dying earlier.
All that being said, and pardon my moroseness, but here is an irrefutable fact 100% of the original 5,034 people will die at some time - fast or slow.
Jed, I think it's a fascinating finding and it suggests a lot of things. I love the idea of a tricorder too and I think this is a step in that direction.
ReplyDeleteBev, That's the thing about life... nobody gets out alive. :(
ReplyDeleteThat is a good question how the other 190 died. It almost has to be accidents, doesn't it? Too slow to avoid the speeding bus?
Personally, I suspect that genetics is by far the biggest decider for when you will die. I've noticed all my life that some families simply live longer than others no matter how they maintain their health.
My dad's people live forever. My dad lived to be 97, in very good health. His father was in his late 80s, and the ones before them all lived long lives. My dad drank whisky, smoked Pall Mall reds and ate what he wanted to. My mom was a non-smoker, non-drinker, and careful what she ate, she died at 59. My mother's people barely make it past 65 for the most part. Anectdotally, I graduated in a class of 100 people (1972), most of the classes around mine were of similar size. We have all lost about 20 (+-) 2 people...except my little brother's class of 1975,,,they have lost almost 30,,,it's odd, but they were considered a reckless class by the teachers; drugs, drag racing, fighting, etc...I wonder sometimes if recklessness is inbred. My little brother hardly ever wears seatbelts for example.
ReplyDeleteCritch, I've run across that a lot too. There are just some families who live forever, even if they drink or smoke or whatnot. Then there are others who die early no matter how healthy they live.
ReplyDeleteI had a client who had a family where every male in the family tree died of heart trouble in their 50s for as far back as anyone could remember. Sure enough, her two brothers died in their 50s of heart trouble too. The women all lived into their 70s.
Good question about the recklessness. People seem to be influenced by things they see in their teens. It's possible that their class happened to see something that swayed them all in a crucial year.
mn it, Andrew, I'm a commenter not a doctor ( apologies to DeForrest Kelly)
ReplyDeleteRe: tricorder - We are almost there. All we need is for the Japanese to micronize an MRI to handheld size, add fun sound and lighting effects and we're good to go!
ReplyDeleteJed, Nice! :D Bravo!
ReplyDeleteBev, That comes next -- a handheld MRI machine!
ReplyDeleteWe already have Ipad apps for heart monitors. It's only a short leap to full body scans and bodily fluid analysis without actually having to extract bodily fluids.
ReplyDeleteTrue. I also saw that they are now putting cameras into pills. How close are we to an injectable camera that can run throughout your body?
ReplyDeleteOooh, an injectable camera - think nanotechnology! Probably not that far away.
ReplyDeleteProbably not. And then they could diagnose things from the inside out.
ReplyDeleteNanobot could be used to seek and destroy cancer cells, but then they may turn on us, take over the other cells and create a Zombie Apocalypse. So, we might want to really consider the possible unintended consequences...just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteBev, I'm no doctor, but in my medical opinion, that is a serious concern!
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of apocalypses of the robot persuasion, have you seen the Scooba? LINK. Cool, huh?
I'm always interested in learning things related to health and the body. Most of the time b/c it upsets some preconceived notion. Or like this that are just plain fascinating. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
ReplyDeleteI believe that is called a Grey Goo scenario.
LINK
Kit, So the Scooba might not be all that it's cracked up to be, huh?
ReplyDeletetryanmax, You're welcome. I thought it was pretty fascinating,
ReplyDeleteI also think there's a solid warning in this. If you find yourself feeling sluggish and slower on a somewhat permanent basis, maybe it's a sign of something bigger and is worth investigating.
I have Rhoomba for years and love it. I can vacuum while I do other stuff ( like sit and read!). If I had enough floor space I would get a Scooba.
ReplyDeleteBev, I must admit that I am intrigued.
ReplyDeleteAndrew- it is the best for vacuuming under stuff. - beds, couches , carpet to hardwood floors. I love it. One caveat - you have to have furniture that it can clear and on other vacuum to do stairs and higher places. Again I love mine. I named mine "Robbie".
ReplyDeleteBev, Cool, thanks! I'm really thinking about getting one (or both).
ReplyDeleteP.S. Robbie Rhoomba is pretty funny.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Rhoombas and Scoobas are all well and good... but you'd just better pray that Tom Selleck is still around to save you when Gene Simmons orders them all to kill their human masters. Just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteBackthrow, that can't happen if you give them names and treat them with dignity. Robbie loves me and would never harm me!
ReplyDelete