Its all just a lot of "pencil on paper stuff" I had a heart attack at age 46, quadruple by pass surgery at 59 , atrial ablation at 74, prostate cancer therapy, radiation and hormone therapy at 75. In cricketing terms thats 75 not out and I dont intend on "retiring hurt or run out any time soon. My message is just keep on battling the hardships with your very best efforts each day, they all add up and the years pass by. Oh yes I almost forgot diabetes, soon it will be six years since I was diagnosed as prediabetic, its required a hell of an effort to stay on course ie changing and maintaining new ways of eating to ensure good BG control. You can easily do the same, just by making a "Steling" effort. I wish you all the very best
Nhs Heart Age
- Thread starter sterling
- Start Date
Mine says 75 and i'm 64 i should have taken out the diabetes and cholesterol. Actually i'm going to do that and have a check. Also i may live to 79 
.
.
- Messages
- 10,638
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Treatment type
- Tablets (oral)
The only thing that bothers me about the check list is that some HCPs will take it as gospel and start nagging, and the worried well will be convinced they are in danger of imminent death.
There is one particular nurse practitioner, who thinks she is a doctor, who uses computer tick boxes for everything. She has predicted, wrongly so far, that I will have a heart attack or stroke within the next two years. Bear in mind she has been telling me this for about 5 years when I haven't been able to avoid her. She bases her opinion on the fact that my father had heart attack in his early 50s, I have T2, hypertension( since I was in my 20s, some 40 odd years ago) I am fat, (but about 30% less fat than 10 years ago) . What is not taken into account is that my pa chain smoked untipped ciggies, drank 6 pints a night, each with a whisky chaser, had uncontolled T2, only exercised his arm to lift his pint. Whereas my T2 and hypertension is well controlled, and I exercise daily, despite having other restrictions.
I would pay more attention to The lady with the crystal ball on Blackpool pier than I would to the NHS heart health age calculator.
There is one particular nurse practitioner, who thinks she is a doctor, who uses computer tick boxes for everything. She has predicted, wrongly so far, that I will have a heart attack or stroke within the next two years. Bear in mind she has been telling me this for about 5 years when I haven't been able to avoid her. She bases her opinion on the fact that my father had heart attack in his early 50s, I have T2, hypertension( since I was in my 20s, some 40 odd years ago) I am fat, (but about 30% less fat than 10 years ago) . What is not taken into account is that my pa chain smoked untipped ciggies, drank 6 pints a night, each with a whisky chaser, had uncontolled T2, only exercised his arm to lift his pint. Whereas my T2 and hypertension is well controlled, and I exercise daily, despite having other restrictions.
I would pay more attention to The lady with the crystal ball on Blackpool pier than I would to the NHS heart health age calculator.
I think these calculators are about as useful as a BMI. They give a very broad estimate at best. For example, once you've put yes to having diabetes anything between 10 and 15 years is added on, NO 'allowance' made for a well controlled diabetic or one who might otherwise be as fit as a fiddle and healthy. Again, a person without diabetes may get a lower heart age but they could be completely unfit in all sorts of ways, ie they could be eating carbs galore, drinking heavily and complete sloths. I would say take no notice of them, only YOU can work out your chances based on all the things pertaining to you and how you go about minimising any identified risks. Look at it this way, if 100 people (without any of the 'biggy' conditions) and the same age etc, put their details in they would all come out with exactly the same heart age regardless of the state their hearts might actually be in. Hardly accurate is it?
macabee
Active Member
- Messages
- 35
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Dislikes
- People who think Diabetes is 'nothing much to worry about'
I do not give this test much credence, for one particular reason, I was not asked:
a/ Do I exercise?
b/ If so how much
I am of the opinion that exercise is an important factor in heart "age"
a/ Do I exercise?
b/ If so how much
I am of the opinion that exercise is an important factor in heart "age"
Jo_the_boat
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 784
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Treatment type
- Diet only
You lot are lucky to get to the end.
Q. Do you have CVD or PAD.
Me. Yes
Computer says: STOP NOW. Red flashing light, siren, bells - go and lie down, you might already be dead or if not pretty knackered, go and see your doctor. Read the next story in the Daily Mail Online about some talentless twerp being kicked of a reality TV show - that will get your blood pressure down.
Q. Do you have CVD or PAD.
Me. Yes
Computer says: STOP NOW. Red flashing light, siren, bells - go and lie down, you might already be dead or if not pretty knackered, go and see your doctor. Read the next story in the Daily Mail Online about some talentless twerp being kicked of a reality TV show - that will get your blood pressure down.
Bon83
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 292
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Insulin
I did this test about a year or so ago and thought it was rubbish then. With diabetes my heart age is 38 (I'm 35) without it I'm 30 because I have good bmi cholesterol and blood pressure. I work pretty hard at exercise which this calc doesn't ask about it. Don't listen to it - it's **** and far too simplistic! Even if people do carry extra weight if you exercise you will be helping yourself- just walking is enough.
- Messages
- 21,889
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Treatment type
- Diet only
There are so many flaws in the test that it is a nonsense.
Postcode: being in a deprived or privileged area, or a hard/soft water area (or any other criteria you like) MAY have a slight effect on general life expectancy. But to use that on an individual basis is absurd.
Cholesterol: we now know that cholesterol level has a great deal less effect on 'heart health' than was previously thought. What are the odds that this calculator incorporates the latest evidence? I am guessing NIL. Besides, they don't ask the two useful cholesterol questions - ratio and trig score. So total cholesterol is useless in the context.
Diabetes: type, length of diagnosis, level of blood glucose control and insulin resistance are not taken into account - therefore the question is pointless.
Blood Pressure: the question is just for systolic bp, and then whether you have ever taken a bp drug. What ********. No mention of length of time, degree of raised bp, how many drugs are needed to control the bp, or even if you took one tablet in 2004 and then never needed another.
What a pointless test.
Postcode: being in a deprived or privileged area, or a hard/soft water area (or any other criteria you like) MAY have a slight effect on general life expectancy. But to use that on an individual basis is absurd.
Cholesterol: we now know that cholesterol level has a great deal less effect on 'heart health' than was previously thought. What are the odds that this calculator incorporates the latest evidence? I am guessing NIL. Besides, they don't ask the two useful cholesterol questions - ratio and trig score. So total cholesterol is useless in the context.
Diabetes: type, length of diagnosis, level of blood glucose control and insulin resistance are not taken into account - therefore the question is pointless.
Blood Pressure: the question is just for systolic bp, and then whether you have ever taken a bp drug. What ********. No mention of length of time, degree of raised bp, how many drugs are needed to control the bp, or even if you took one tablet in 2004 and then never needed another.
What a pointless test.
