Smartphones and health

I think that I am fairly well qualified (obviously because of my age) to comment about life style changes that have happened over a course of last fifty or sixty years. I am not talking here about inflation, prices or fashions. I do not want to talk about technology either, but would rather like to restrict myself to changes in our life styles that have come about with the rapid growth in technology.

To start with, let us go back and check what was the life style of an average middle class family in India may be sixty years ago. Most of the people stayed in small dwellings of 2 or 3 rooms. The dwellings had minimum comforts. No one had luxury of separate bed rooms or attached bath rooms. In most of the cases, there used to be a common toilet for a few dwellings, which all shared. In big cities, water was supplied through pipes, but people had to collect water in storage drums for their daily use as water supplies were restricted to few hours every days There were no refrigerators, no air conditioners. There was no cooking gas, with most of the people using kerosene stoves. Leaving aside places like Mumbai, no public transport existed worth its name. Men used bicycles to go to work and sometimes families hired horse driven carriages. But mostly everyone walked around.

There used to be few cinema theaters and halls where dramas or plays could be run every day. Except for that, there was no entertainment. The telephone was something that was used very rarely because very few people had a phone. People communicated through written letters, for urgent communications, telegraphic messages would be sent. I can go on and on but think that this should suffice. I have described all these things in details really, to emphasize that life by no means was easy going. For most people, it was hard work from dawn to dusk in some form or other.

If we compare this lifestyle with that of today, we just can not deny the fact that our lifestyle today is far more comfortable, easy going and interesting, where we have cars or motor cycles for convenience, luxury dwellings with individual bed rooms and attached toilets. We have cooking gas and piped water supplies. WE communicate with each other on mobiles or smart phones. We have televisions to provide instant entertainment and a world of information stored on the internet.

About two decades ago, most of the developed countries, already had these gadgets as part of their life but millions of people from developing countries, still could not afford them, causing a big disparity between developed and developing nations. Then something interesting happened. Production centers in the west moved towards Asia and an unabated flow of consumer durables started coming from these new production centers and flooded the world. All of a sudden, costs of most consumer durable started falling. So much so that the consumers from developing economies could now afford them. With these gadgets, people in the low income developing nations quickly started adopting the luxurious western life styles.

What was the effect of this change in life style, on the health of the people, is a subject on which much research is being done presently. Results of one such study on this subject has been published recently in Canadian Medical Journal. The study included nearly 154,000 adults from 17 countries across the income spectrum, from the United States, Canada and Sweden to China, Iran, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The study comes up with some very interesting observations and facts.

Lead author of the study, Scott Lear of Simon Fraser University says:

“With increasing uptake of modern-day conveniences — TVs, cars, computers — low and middle income countries could see the same obesity and diabetes rates as in high income countries that are the result of too much sitting, less physical activity and increased consumption of calories.” He adds that in Canada, about 25 percent of the population is obese and in the United States, about 35 percent of people are obese.

The report says that televisions were the most common electronic device in developing countries, with 78 percent of households having one, this was followed by 34 percent that owned a computer and 32 percent with a car. Just four percent of people in low-income countries had all three, compared to 83 percent of people in high-income countries. What is interesting is that people, who had all three devices were almost a third less active, sat down 20 percent more of the time and had a nine-centimeter (3.5 inches) increase in waist circumference, compared to those that owned none of the devices. The obesity prevalence in developing countries rose from 3.4 percent among those that owned no devices to 14.5 percent for those that owned all three. Eating more, sitting still and missing out on exercise, by driving, are all likely reasons why people with these modern-day luxuries could be gaining weight and putting themselves at risk for diabetes. The report also gives a clear cut warning:

“Our findings emphasize the importance of limiting the amount of time spent using household devices, reducing sedentary behavior and encouraging physical activity in the prevention of obesity and diabetes.”

The findings are not something unusual. We are well aware of these facts. What perhaps is important is that the report has exactly pinpointed the relationship between these modern conveniences and their enduring bad effect on our healths. People with cars, televisions and computers at home, are far more likely to be more obese than people with no such conveniences.

What should we do? Do we give up these conveniences for sake of good health? Fortunately that may not be necessary. The report gives a clear cut warning to us: “Our findings emphasize the importance of limiting the amount of time spent using household devices, reducing sedentary behavior and encouraging physical activity in the prevention of obesity and diabetes.” Which really means that we should not get carried away by these conveniences and use them only when we must. Limit their use. If we do not do that, we are placing ourselves in peril.

(Reblogged)

18th May 2015

The argumentative; do they die early?

Results of a study carried out by Danish researchers from the University of Copenhagen's department of public health and led by Dr Rikke Lund, has appeared recently in a journal; Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. The study known as “The Danish Longitudinal Study on Work, Unemployment and Health,” was first taken up in year 2000. Investigators had enrolled then nearly 10,000 Danes aged 36 to 52 in a long-term study about their health and lifestyle, and have followed them for the next 11 years. In this period, 4 percent of the women participants, and 6 percent of the men had died.

I do not see anything abnormal in this percentage of deaths. However the conclusions drawn by the researchers appear to me bit strange; if I try to compare these with my own experiences and what I have seen in my life. Here are some of the observations from this report:

“ The study found that frequent worries or demands generated by partners and children were linked to a 50%-100% increased risk of death from all causes. Being out of work seemed to increase the negative impact of stressful social relationships. Those who were unemployed were at significantly greater risk of death from any cause than those who had a job, the study said. Men seemed to be particularly vulnerable to the worries and demands generated by their female partners or children, with a higher risk of death than that normally associated with being a man.” The report also says:

“Those who had reported they argued frequently with anyone in their social circle, from partners and relatives to friends and neighbors, were between two and three times more likely to die from any cause compared with counterparts who had said these incidents were rare.”

Let me narrate to you few of my experiences of certain families or whatever remains of them now, over last four decades at least. To start with, here is a family, which started as husband,wife and later a son. From the day they got married, the couple fought with each other almost over any subject, including whether they should have a baby, when the wife conceived. The situation became so unbearable for them that there was a serious talk of divorce. Somehow there was a rapprochement and the couple stayed together continuing their daily fights. The son grew, got married eventually with someone the parents did not approve. So instead of two, now there were four partners arguing and fighting over all kinds of issues. What is the family status today? There are two grandchildren enlarging the family size to six. The group continues to have strange relationships with one of the members not communicating with another particular member of the family at all. Yet to all external appearances, this family seems to be doing extremely well with signs of affluence and most important of all, they all appear to be healthy.

Let me tell you about another family, where the husband loved his drink. This was the first and foremost reason for the arguments between himself and his wife. Two children came out of the wedlock. The husband eventually became a successful businessman. As his personal wealth grew, his consumption of alcohol also increased. Soon he became an alcoholic, yet he never lost his business sense and kept making his millions. Later a wrong business move turned his business empire to ashes. Yet the family life continued all along with daily bickering, fights and quarrels. The sons grew and started their own life. The man died when he was about 70 years old, not because of any heart trouble or anything like that. His consumption of alcohol had finished off his liver.

I had a relative, who would flare up at slightest provocation and was very short tempered. His most favourite subject was politics and would argue with great passion with anyone for any length of time about misdoings of politicians. He was also very frank and never felt slightest hesitation in calling a spade a spade. This man died an year ago at a ripe age of 93 and was one of the fittest persons I have ever seen. He had no ailments like diabetes or high BP even. Another argumentative old grandma of mine died, when she was 90. During last 10 years of her life, I had seen her living alone almost like a hermit, as everyone else avoided her. But the point is that she still survived to live a long life.

All these example would show that temperament of a person probably has nothing do with his life span. Speaking in lighter vein, if temperament was related to life span, most of the India's politicians, who keep arguing and discussing things for hours and hours should have left this world in their middle ages only. However they all seem to be doing well even in their seventies and eighties. TV anchors, political commentators spend hours arguing things every day on television. They all seem to lead a normal healthy life otherwise.

I am not an expert on public health and can not contradict, University of Copenhagen's department of public health's study. But from whatever little I have experienced in last 70 years , my feeling is that our life spans are determined by our DNA and good habits. If we have healthy habits and longevity in our genes, we are likely to remain here for many number of years. The only problems faced by the persons who argue frequently, with anyone in their social circle, from partners and relatives to friends and neighbors, would be that they would find that they are mostly avoided and shunned by other people whom they know.

12^th May 2014

Taking their toll

I think that I am fairly well qualified (obviously because of my age) to comment about life style changes that have happened over a course of last fifty or sixty years. I am not talking here about inflation, prices or fashions. I do not want to talk about technology either, but would rather like to restrict myself to changes in our life styles that have come about with the rapid growth in technology.

To start with, let us go back and check what was the life style of an average middle class family in India may be sixty years ago. Most of the people stayed in small dwellings of 2 or 3 rooms. The dwellings had minimum comforts. No one had luxury of separate bed rooms or attached bath rooms. In most of the cases, there used to be a common toilet for a few dwellings, which all shared. In big cities, water was supplied through pipes, but people had to collect water in storage drums for their daily use as water supplies were restricted to few hours every days There were no refrigerators, no air conditioners. There was no cooking gas, with most of the people using kerosene stoves. Leaving aside places like Mumbai, no public transport existed worth its name. Men used bicycles to go to work and sometimes families hired horse driven carriages. But mostly everyone walked around.

There used to be few cinema theaters and halls where dramas or plays could be run every day. Except for that, there was no entertainment. The telephone was something that was used very rarely because very few people had a phone. People communicated through written letters, for urgent communications, telegraphic messages would be sent. I can go on and on but think that this should suffice. I have described all these things in details really, to emphasize that life by no means was easy going. For most people, it was hard work from dawn to dusk in some form or other.

If we compare this lifestyle with that of today, we just can not deny the fact that our lifestyle today is far more comfortable, easy going and interesting, where we have cars or motor cycles for convenience, luxury dwellings with individual bed rooms and attached toilets. We have cooking gas and piped water supplies. WE communicate with each other on mobiles or smart phones. We have televisions to provide instant entertainment and a world of information stored on the internet.

About two decades ago, most of the developed countries, already had these gadgets as part of their life but millions of people from developing countries, still could not afford them, causing a big disparity between developed and developing nations. Then something interesting happened. Production centers in the west moved towards Asia and an unabated flow of consumer durables started coming from these new production centers and flooded the world. All of a sudden, costs of most consumer durable started falling. So much so that the consumers from developing economies could now afford them. With these gadgets, people in the low income developing nations quickly started adopting the luxurious western life styles.

What was the effect of this change in life style, on the health of the people, is a subject on which much research is being done presently. Results of one such study on this subject has been published recently in Canadian Medical Journal. The study included nearly 154,000 adults from 17 countries across the income spectrum, from the United States, Canada and Sweden to China, Iran, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The study comes up with some very interesting observations and facts.

Lead author of the study, Scott Lear of Simon Fraser University says:

“With increasing uptake of modern-day conveniences — TVs, cars, computers — low and middle income countries could see the same obesity and diabetes rates as in high income countries that are the result of too much sitting, less physical activity and increased consumption of calories.” He adds that in Canada, about 25 percent of the population is obese and in the United States, about 35 percent of people are obese.

The report says that televisions were the most common electronic device in developing countries, with 78 percent of households having one, this was followed by 34 percent that owned a computer and 32 percent with a car. Just four percent of people in low-income countries had all three, compared to 83 percent of people in high-income countries. What is interesting is that people, who had all three devices were almost a third less active, sat down 20 percent more of the time and had a nine-centimeter (3.5 inches) increase in waist circumference, compared to those that owned none of the devices. The obesity prevalence in developing countries rose from 3.4 percent among those that owned no devices to 14.5 percent for those that owned all three. Eating more, sitting still and missing out on exercise, by driving, are all likely reasons why people with these modern-day luxuries could be gaining weight and putting themselves at risk for diabetes. The report also gives a clear cut warning:

“Our findings emphasize the importance of limiting the amount of time spent using household devices, reducing sedentary behavior and encouraging physical activity in the prevention of obesity and diabetes.”

The findings are not something unusual. We are well aware of these facts. What perhaps is important is that the report has exactly pinpointed the relationship between these modern conveniences and their enduring bad effect on our healths. People with cars, televisions and computers at home, are far more likely to be more obese than people with no such conveniences.

What should we do? Do we give up these conveniences for sake of good health? Fortunately that may not be necessary. The report gives a clear cut warning to us: “Our findings emphasize the importance of limiting the amount of time spent using household devices, reducing sedentary behavior and encouraging physical activity in the prevention of obesity and diabetes.” Which really means that we should not get carried away by these conveniences and use them only when we must. Limit their use. If we do not do that, we are placing ourselves in peril.

12^th February 2014