Is it a good idea to have regular health checks?

I read the following article:  Why men are so unhealthy - and what can be done.

It says:

"NHS health checks, which are offered every five years to those aged 40 to 74, are considered a crucial intervention when it comes to many of the diseases which are claiming the lives of men early. But fewer than four in 10 men take up the offer".

Is there any evidence these regular health checks extend life? It seems not. For example, a paper:

General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

reports in its conclusion:

General health checks did not reduce morbidity or mortality, neither overall nor for cardiovascular or cancer causes, although they increased the number of new diagnoses.

On the other hand, regular health checks do worry people as each health check appointment approaches. Or on getting slightly askew test results, say in a blood test, but which never leads to any adverse consequences.

Also, it's interesting that there's evidence for an increase in diagnosis. Yet the mortality rates did not reduce to a statistically significant extent for those having such regular health checks. Over-diagnoses leading to unnecessary treatments, therefore?

Heart age test

Apparently a NHS test shows that almost 80 per cent of people have a heart age higher than their real age.  The Guardian claims that "doctors call figures for England alarming and urge people to adopt healthier lifestyles".

Now, we need to think about this.  Clearly doctors will already be aware of the rates of heart attacks and strokes in England.  These current rates will presumably be a reflection of peoples' cardiovascular health.  So the test results don't indicate the population of England's cardiovascular health is worse than was thought -- we already can infer this from the rate of heart attacks and strokes. If the Guardian is correct and these doctors are calling these figures alarming, then they simply are not understanding this very simple fact. I think this in itself is cause for concern since we generally trust our doctor's advice on health issues.

A word about the actual test.  I completed it and it said my heart is 3 years older than my actual age.  I know my systolic (the top figure) blood pressure, which is 131, but I don't know my cholesterol figures, so they just applied some average.

Altering my weight had no effect on my result.  Reducing my systolic BP -- presumably to less than 120 -- made my heart 2 years older rather than the current 3.  Putting in my old address made my heart 4 years older.  Reducing my cholesterol had the only significant effect bringing my heart age to the same as my actual age.  However, I never provided any cholesterol figures, they're just using some average.

I'm surmising that the calculation depends mostly on my sex, where I live, and the average cholesterol figures of some subset of the population.  Apart from BP, no relevant questions were asked that might have shed light on how healthy my heart is.  For example, questions such as whether I get breathless climbing a flight of stairs, what my resting pulse rate is etc, were not asked.

Here a brief digression is called for. Until 3 years ago I had lived my entire life in a place in the north-east of England called Teesside.  Stockton centre in Teesside has a life expectancy of 64 for men.  I lived approximately 10 minutes walk away from the centre, and given I am now in my 50's (although looking very young for my age) that suggests I only have a few years left!  However, on digging a bit deeper, it seems that men in this area have such a low life expectancy due to their lifestyles; namely heavy smoking, binge drinking, eating junk foods, drug taking etc.  Suffice to say that many people who live in this area have a lifestyle which is, and was, very far removed from my own.  Hence, there's no reason why I should think that such a low life expectancy will be applicable to my own particular case.  Specific questions regarding my specific lifestyle would need to be asked before any reasonable life expectancy can be surmised.

I think precisely the same applies for this NHS test.  They are simply taking averages and are not asking a sufficient number of relevant questions specific to the individual.  I think it is far more sensible to not take any notice of this test, but to judge for oneself how healthy one's heart is e.g how easily one gets out of breath with specific activities.

Dietary Advice

From this Guardian article:

There’s no conclusive evidence a morning meal makes you lose weight and feel great, but the idea that breakfast is the most important meal of the day is widely ingrained. This is largely thanks to the efforts of grain companies. Kellogg’s, for example, funded an influential study that linked breakfasting on cereal with lower BMI. And The Quaker Oats Center of Excellence financed research showing that a daily breakfast of porridge reduces cholesterol.

Many people are very adamant that eating breakfast is incredibly important. Indeed they seem to think I'm completely lacking in common sense when I question it. I hope they are not relying on research funded by those with vested interests. I've read that such research is of no value whatsoever and should be disregarded. And it wasn't someone merely just claiming it. They backed it up with statistics which seemed to me convincing at the time. Unfortunately I'm unable to recollect the source!

Indeed it is claimed by many that we ought to eat breakfast regardless of whether we're feeling hungry. Likewise many people claim we shouldn't wait until we are thirsty before we drink since we are already dehydrated by that point. But it seems strange to me that we should simply ignore our bodily signals. Surely one should eat when one is hungry only? And only drink when we are thirsty?

Presumably non-human animals do not eat and drink when they're not hungry and thirsty? Do they have an obesity epidemic? Er . .no. animals apart from our pets never get fat! Not even when they're in an environment where there is an abundance of food. Do they suffer adverse health consequences since they don't eat when not hungry and drink when not thirsty? Do they get more cancer, suffer more heart disease, dementia etc more frequently than we humans do? I don't think so.

Does eating fat make you fat?

The National Obesity Forum and the Public Health Collaboration recently demanded a “major overhaul” of dietary guidelines. Most noteworthy is their contention that avoiding fat has been a huge mistake. This has provoked a backlash from those who defend the standard dietary advice. Anyway, the ubiquitous Michael Mosley weighs in on the debate.
5:2 author Michael Mosley: 'I'm proof low-fat diets don't work'


I'm pretty much in agreement with Mosley, and think standard dietary advice is a mistake. The fact that people are getting fatter and fatter and type 2 diabetes is becoming more and more prevalent, suggests to me that standard mainstream dietary advice is a mistake. I don't think the counter-argument that people are exercising much less and are not really eating less fat, really stacks up.

So my own view is that we shouldn’t bother avoiding fat. Contrariwise, I'm of the opinion that it is a good idea to try and minimise sugar intake and refined carbs and other processed foods. By processed food I mean food where man has interfered and altered food from its natural state by adding sugar etc. I should think complex carbs will be absolutely fine. Although, on the subject of complex carbs, I’ve noticed I put on weight the next day after eating a lot of wholemeal bread! More so than when I eat my home-made oven chips.

The 5-2 diet seems more promising than other diets in addition to having various alleged health benefits. I managed to lose weight permanently by pursuing this diet. See a blog entry by me:

How to lose weight and keep it off permanently

How to lose weight and keep it off permanently