Percentage of Americans on medication

T

tjl

0
I saw a newsletter about health topics that mentioned that the percentage of Americans on medication for chronic conditions. For those aged 20-44, it was something like half of women and one third of men. For those aged 45-64(?), the percentages were 70% and 60% or something like that.

Seems like such common use of medication may be part of the reason why medical care and medical insurance costs seem to be out of control. But also, are we that unhealthy that even younger adults frequently have chronic conditions that require medication?
 
It's no suprise, considering many people especially older adults have chronic conditions such as hypertension and cholesterol problems. I don't have anything against medications, but the use of medications can certainly be reduced by teaching and implementing health lifestyle changes - prevention is key.

There are not many qualified health professionals in the USA to practice these lifestyle changes with real effectiveness. Australia on the other hand has slowly but surely introduced professionals that are best equipped. The number is only in the 1000's but this will only grow.
 
I think a lot of medications are over prescribed. I was watching a TV show the other day where they said that a total cholesterol level of 170 was considered "borderline". It's all so they can prescribe cholesterol lowering drugs to more people who don't need them.

Don't even get me started on the issues with psychiatric drugs...

Te fact of the matter is, for all conditions there are things people can do themselves to combat the condition/disorder without or with a minimal amount of medication.
 
If you had a total cholesterol of 170 after diet and exercise, and you could lower it more with medication would you? I know I would: Chances of atherosclerosis, stroke, heart attack, etc ALL go down with lower cholesterol. Plus lower C-Reactive Protein levels are a great plus to the statins.

Anyways, my point is that drugs are great. BUT, people turn to them to quickly without looking at other options. Diet and exercise can prevent many complications from arising, while medications can be a last resort.
 
mreik said:
If you had a total cholesterol of 170 after diet and exercise, and you could lower it more with medication would you? I know I would: Chances of atherosclerosis, stroke, heart attack, etc ALL go down with lower cholesterol. Plus lower C-Reactive Protein levels are a great plus to the statins.

Anyways, my point is that drugs are great. BUT, people turn to them to quickly without looking at other options. Diet and exercise can prevent many complications from arising, while medications can be a last resort.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly how I feel. I took it upon myself to lower my cholesterol. The doc simply wanted to put me on Lipitor.
No Lipitor and 2 years later I brought it down 73 points. Just through diet, exercise and educating myself on what foods to eat to lower LDL and raise HDL levels.
 
I think people who don't take their health seriously and refuse to take steps to improve their health issues should be required to pay at least triple the health care premiums that people who take care of themselves do.

These people the ones who will ultimately be burdening the health care system with their self-imposed medical issues. Why should responsible people have to pay for that?
 
The point I'm trying to make is that 170 is considered LOW in most of the medical world. I had mine tested a while back and got congratulated for a score of 170. People with a cholesterol total under 200 really have no reason to be on medication...
 
i_love_muscle said:
I think people who don't take their health seriously and refuse to take steps to improve their health issues should be required to pay at least triple the health care premiums that people who take care of themselves do.

These people the ones who will ultimately be burdening the health care system with their self-imposed medical issues. Why should responsible people have to pay for that?
Click to expand...

Hahaha! That sounds great, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
spicypumpkin said:
The point I'm trying to make is that 170 is considered LOW in most of the medical world. I had mine tested a while back and got congratulated for a score of 170. People with a cholesterol total under 200 really have no reason to be on medication...
Click to expand...


Its different for men and women. I'm at 167 and my doc still wants me to take meds. I refuse.
 
i_love_muscle said:
Why should responsible people have to pay for that?
Click to expand...
Because you're Canadian and Canadians are nice people eh? :canadaf: :rofl:

Usually the responsible people are the ones who need medical attention. Thint about it, Everybody who has a job pretty much have to sit on their ass for 8 hours a day. Bums walk for hours during the day.:rofl:

Bums are getting the exercise, but not the nutrition. People who have jobs have the nutrition, but not the exercise. :rofl:
What IS A RESPONSIBLE PERSON?
 
SKMMAN said:
What IS A RESPONSIBLE PERSON?
Click to expand...

I'll qualify. A "responsible person" is a person who does what they need to do to be a healthier person, i.e, they take steps to have a healthier lifestyle :)

Not many of us around, so our healthcare system would be pretty awesome if the non-responsible people had to pay three times the premiums :D
 
Imo, in the absence of urgency, medicate once you've done what you can otherwise.

Sorta brings to mind washing dishes. First you clean them (remove the junk) and then you sanitize. There isn't really much point to sanitizing while there are still gross chunks of goo on your plate. Not if you want to eat off of it, anyway.

What I mean to say is I do not believe that even the best of drugs can do their job (properly) in a flawed system. And will often cause problems when introduced into one, particularly without thought and care given to mitigating the potential negative consequences of their interactions. But, on the other hand, merely doing the best with what you're given (scrubbing the food off your plate), may not necessarily be enough.
 
Last edited:
To this very day, I have never had to take any medication that was biologically necessary (or seriously needed) for my operational health.

Sure, I had the traditional childhood sicknesses (like Measles), but this doesn't count within the equation, IMO. I have been very fortunate that the most serious issues I had to deal with were (LOL): An occasional cold, flu, and one upper respiratory infection, which I do not count in the first statement. Currently, I don't take any medication (for anything), because simply there isn't anything wrong.

There are some that are not this fortunate, and I am very grateful as a person nearing 50 years old, that I have a body completely dependent on itself for its operational health, and I do not have to look for an outside source for medical assistance.

I know one thing for absolute certainty. I know I lower the odds (but not completely eliminate) the potential health problems just through proper diet and exercise--alone.

This is my buddy.....and we rock together.......we tiiiight like dat'---:)


Wish all forum members the best of health,


Chillen
 
Last edited:
Kraken said:
Its different for men and women. I'm at 167 and my doc still wants me to take meds. I refuse.
Click to expand...

Note that total cholesterol by itself is not a very good indicator of heart disease risk, at least when it is in the common ranges. 167 TC with 25 HDL is a lot riskier than 167 TC with 80 HDL, for example.
 
I wanna know how much damage that 6g cholesterol a day phase did to me. I should really see a doc and get a test :D
 
Yes. We need to use up more health care funds to pay for healthy people to get tested ;)

Touché, Karky!! :D

Just consider it to be preventative maintenance ... ;)
 
Uh, just to clarify for anyone who isn't in the know, dietary intake of cholesterol actually doesn't have much of an effect effect at all on serum (blood) cholesterol levels. This is due to the fact that the major contribution occurs via cholesterol synthesis in the liver, in addition to the rates of cholesterol synthesis in the liver being inversely related to the amounts of dietary cholesterol consumed.

There have been many studies done on the effects of dietary cholesterol on serum cholesterol, and while it is true that reducing the amount of dietary cholesterol does have an effect on serum cholesterol levels, quantitative meta-analysis of the literature indicates that reducing dietary cholesterol by a whopping 35% can be expected to reduce the average total cholesterol level by ~1.2%, lowering the LDL-cholesterol by ~1.4%, but also lowering the HDL-cholesterol by ~1.1%. Overall, the net effect is functionally insignificant and is, besides, pretty much cancellation, as the loss of "good" cholesterol (HDL) will usually mitigate the benefits of the loss of "bad" cholesterol (LDL).
 
[Focus] said:
There have been many studies done on the effects of dietary cholesterol on serum cholesterol, and while it is true that reducing the amount of dietary cholesterol does have an effect on serum cholesterol levels, quantitative meta-analysis of the literature indicates that reducing dietary cholesterol by a whopping 35% can be expected to reduce the average total cholesterol level by ~1.2%, lowering the LDL-cholesterol by ~1.4%, but also lowering the HDL-cholesterol by ~1.1%. Overall, the net effect is functionally insignificant and is, besides, pretty much cancellation, as the loss of "good" cholesterol (HDL) will usually mitigate the benefits of the loss of "bad" cholesterol (LDL).
Click to expand...

While it is true that for most people, dietary cholesterol has very little effect on blood cholesterol levels, some people have been found to be hyper-responders to dietary cholesterol. Unfortunately, there is not an easy way to tell if you are a dietary cholesterol hyper-responder except experimentally.
 
tjl said:
Unfortunately, there is not an easy way to tell if you are a dietary cholesterol hyper-responder except experimentally.
Click to expand...

What do you mean, unfortunately? Experiments is fun. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top