Young age, instead of old, is now a risk factor for stroke...even without predisposing conditions

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Just a week or so ago I did a post on the unfolding epidemic of cancer in the young. Just 20 years ago, most cancers were seen in people over 50 years of age and the strongest predictive factor for developing cancer was age itself. That link has now been reversed and the older generations are enjoying both lower incidence of cancer and lower death rates from cancer, while the exact opposite has become the norm for people younger than 40. The study below now adds stroke to the risk of morbidities, for which age now forms and inverse relationship. Namely, stroke rates have decreased in the old and increased in the young, and this finding remains after controlling for all co-morbidities known to be associated with or predisposing one to strokes - i.e. diabetes, CVD, obesity, smoking, drinking, etc.

Changes in Incidence of Stroke and Other Vascular Events at Younger vs Older Ages, 2002-2018

"...Results A total of 2429 incident strokes were ascertained (mean age, 73.6 [SD, 14.4] years; 51.3% female). From 2002-2010 to 2010-2018, stroke incidence increased significantly among participants younger than 55 years (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.31-2.14) but fell significantly among participants aged 55 years or older (IRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.92; P < .001 for difference). The significant increase in incidence at younger than 55 years was independent of sex, stroke severity, pathological subtype, and changes in investigation and was also seen for TIA (IRR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.36-2.57) but not for myocardial infarction and other major vascular events (IRR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.93). Although TIA and stroke at younger than 55 years were significantly associated with diabetes (risk ratio [RR], 3.47; 95% CI, 2.54-4.74), hypertension (RR, 2.52; 95% CI, 2.04-3.12), current smoking (RR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.92-2.94), and obesity (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.72), the significant increase in incidence from 2002-2010 to 2010-2018 was still seen in individuals without these risk factors. The increase was greatest in professional/managerial occupations (IRR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.75-3.62) and least in partially skilled/unskilled occupations (IRR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.79-1.74). The proportion of TIAs and strokes among those younger than 55 years without known vascular risk factors increased significantly over time (45 [30.4%] vs 115 [42.4%]; absolute difference, 12.0%; 95% CI, 2.6-21.5), especially in patients with cryptogenic events (10 [18.5%] vs 63 [49.2%]; absolute difference, 30.7%; 95% CI, 17.2-44.2; P < .001; P = .002 for heterogeneity).

Conclusions and Relevance Comparing persons living in Oxfordshire, England, in 2002-2010 vs 2010-2018, there was a significant increase in stroke incidence in those younger than 55 years, but a decrease in those aged 55 years or older. Given the absence of this divergence for other vascular events, further research is needed to understand the causes of this difference."
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
21,494
Just a week or so ago I did a post on the unfolding epidemic of cancer in the young. Just 20 years ago, most cancers were seen in people over 50 years of age and the strongest predictive factor for developing cancer was age itself. That link has now been reversed and the older generations are enjoying both lower incidence of cancer and lower death rates from cancer, while the exact opposite has become the norm for people younger than 40. The study below now adds stroke to the risk of morbidities, for which age now forms and inverse relationship. Namely, stroke rates have decreased in the old and increased in the young, and this finding remains after controlling for all co-morbidities known to be associated with or predisposing one to strokes - i.e. diabetes, CVD, obesity, smoking, drinking, etc.

Changes in Incidence of Stroke and Other Vascular Events at Younger vs Older Ages, 2002-2018

"...Results A total of 2429 incident strokes were ascertained (mean age, 73.6 [SD, 14.4] years; 51.3% female). From 2002-2010 to 2010-2018, stroke incidence increased significantly among participants younger than 55 years (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.31-2.14) but fell significantly among participants aged 55 years or older (IRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.92; P < .001 for difference). The significant increase in incidence at younger than 55 years was independent of sex, stroke severity, pathological subtype, and changes in investigation and was also seen for TIA (IRR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.36-2.57) but not for myocardial infarction and other major vascular events (IRR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.93). Although TIA and stroke at younger than 55 years were significantly associated with diabetes (risk ratio [RR], 3.47; 95% CI, 2.54-4.74), hypertension (RR, 2.52; 95% CI, 2.04-3.12), current smoking (RR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.92-2.94), and obesity (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.72), the significant increase in incidence from 2002-2010 to 2010-2018 was still seen in individuals without these risk factors. The increase was greatest in professional/managerial occupations (IRR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.75-3.62) and least in partially skilled/unskilled occupations (IRR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.79-1.74). The proportion of TIAs and strokes among those younger than 55 years without known vascular risk factors increased significantly over time (45 [30.4%] vs 115 [42.4%]; absolute difference, 12.0%; 95% CI, 2.6-21.5), especially in patients with cryptogenic events (10 [18.5%] vs 63 [49.2%]; absolute difference, 30.7%; 95% CI, 17.2-44.2; P < .001; P = .002 for heterogeneity).

Conclusions and Relevance Comparing persons living in Oxfordshire, England, in 2002-2010 vs 2010-2018, there was a significant increase in stroke incidence in those younger than 55 years, but a decrease in those aged 55 years or older. Given the absence of this divergence for other vascular events, further research is needed to understand the causes of this difference."
This has to be because the elderly still stick to their old eating habits or meat and potatoes, sugar and dairy and don’t buy into all the new stuff. I think all the fad dieting, extreme exercise routines, modern childhood vaccinations, fake butters and nut/oat milks, new cars and furniture with chemical laden upholstery and avoidance of sunshine all play into this.
 

Dr. B

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
4,320
This has to be because the elderly still stick to their old eating habits or meat and potatoes, sugar and dairy and don’t buy into all the new stuff. I think all the fad dieting, extreme exercise routines, modern childhood vaccinations, fake butters and nut/oat milks, new cars and furniture with chemical laden upholstery and avoidance of sunshine all play into this.
the vaccines are definitely a big factor, and they can't admit to modern medicine or things being toxic so i'm curious how they would rationalize younger people being less healthy than older ones.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
21,494
the vaccines are definitely a big factor, and they can't admit to modern medicine or things being toxic so i'm curious how they would rationalize younger people being less healthy than older ones.
Exactly! It is younger people buying into the new and “improved” things while the elderly stick to their old ways of eating and old cars and furniture, and take walks instead of exhausting themselves at the gym.
 

Dr. B

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
4,320
Exactly! It is younger people buying into the new and “improved” things while the elderly stick to their old ways of eating and old cars and furniture, and take walks instead of exhausting themselves at the gym.
how would mainstream science explain this? they cant say genetics either, because mainstream science claims genetics improve overtime because of "beneficial" mutations, even though logically and from what Peat said, damage builds up over time in humans and future generations, which actually supports the idea that the very first humans would have been the best.
they might blame it on older people playing less video games or something.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
21,494
how would mainstream science explain this? they cant say genetics either, because mainstream science claims genetics improve overtime because of "beneficial" mutations, even though logically and from what Peat said, damage builds up over time in humans and future generations, which actually supports the idea that the very first humans would have been the best.
they might blame it on older people playing less video games or something.
Yeah right?! This study is very telling.
 

-Luke-

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2014
Messages
1,269
Location
Nomansland
Interesting, so this is pre "pandemic" and pre Covid injections. I suppose the 2018-2026 data will be devastating.
 

Atman

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
393
I think I already know the cause of this:

Climate change. We have to reduce the evil CO2. ;)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom