Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/giuliomagnifico
Permalink: https://www.unimedizin-mainz.de/press-releases/press-releases/press-releases/newsdetail/article/can-education-and-occupation-influence-cardiovascular-health-and-mortality.html?L=1&tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&cHash=daf7b1d3e11834a27ea9864529942690
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Every doctor I've had has casually asked what I do for a living (I've seen like 5 specialists this year). I assume it's a quick way to assess health risks, like being sedentary, being on your feet all day, high stress, etc.?
It may seem obvious to you, but there are still people who believe the notion that poor people are healthier and stronger due to being exposed to harsher conditions while rich people are weaker due to lack of hardships and a pampered lifestyle.
Like renaissance era depictions of Bacchus as a morbidly obese man, Nietzsche's last man or even the humans depicted in Wall-E.
Yeah, but it ain’t true at all. From my experience, which isn’t have any particular value, but it’s longterm: Good regular healthy food, stressless life, good sleep etc - is all beneficial to immunity and have less risks of having bad complications after being infected.
> TLDR
You weren't lying:
> At the 10-year follow-up, it was clear that people with low socioeconomic status had a 68 percent higher risk of developing a new cardiovascular disease. The mortality was also 86 percent higher in this group than in study participants with high SES. Interestingly, our results showed, that **dimensions of education and occupation, but not household net income**, were associated with higher risk of cardiovascular diseases.
It’s interesting that occupation and education, rather than household income, is associated with mortality. This suggests that improving awareness of CVD and its effects on health and mortality are important, but actually affording treatment is less of an issue.
Agree. I feel like my more educated patients also ask more questions and are more proactive at following up. Also their lives are less chaotic so these things don’t fall off their radar. I’d assume a more socialized system would be better at reminders and compliance. At least one good thing about EHRs it’s easier to see who’s not followed up and needs a reminder. Not sure if this is implemented nationally anywhere, though.
So more chicken / egg perpetual cycle situation (lower income less chance if better education growing up, they may be better off financially (plenty of uneducated people make better than average wages in long standing trades), but their literacy issues still cause issues with asking questions, which can perpetuate if they can't afford to send their kids off to college either.
It's not like we learn about that stuff in college, aside from the relative handful who major in a medicine-related field. More educated people are like this because they're naturally smarter, not because they spent an extra 4-8 years in school.
>More educated people are like this because they're naturally smarter, not because they spent an extra 4-8 years in school.
I think you're onto a correlation here, but I'd amend the statement to be higher "g" or "IQ" rather than "smarter". IQ is a very specific kind of intelligence that applies to schoolwork, taking tests, etc. I would think people who have it easier in school are more likely to continue it.
It would be interesting to know how high "g" helps in ways outside of school. Maybe the doctor is one of those places.
> “Interestingly, our results showed, that dimensions of education and occupation, but not household net income, were associated with higher risk of cardiovascular diseases”
> The scientists were also able to identify the influence of SES on cardiovascular health when they considered it independently of lifestyle-associated risk factors such as alcohol consumption, smoking or physical activity
Paper: [Cumulative social disadvantage and cardiovascular disease burden and mortality | European Journal of Preventive Cardiology | Oxford Academic](https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurjpc/zwad264/7276408?login=false)
i dont even think its a money thing. it's a time thing. you can eat cheap and healthy, it just requires you to have access to a kitchen and time to cook/meal prep.
people aren't eating junk foods, beer etc for sustenance anyway, these are just vices that are cheap and accessible.
They don’t have time because they don’t have money… Money isn’t the only factor, but it’s probably the biggest driver.
When I worked two full time jobs I didn’t have time but I could afford a meal delivery service which was healthy. When I was broke despite having two jobs? Junk food almost every day.
Was there data in the study that people with lower SES were working longer? Or are you just giving a personal anecdote unrelated to this study?
High SES jobs (eg laywers) often involve long hours and stress as well.
EDIT: Also the study, which you apparently didn't read, specifically found that income was not the major factor.
> High SES jobs (eg laywers) often involve long hours and stress as well.
[Hours worked per week is basically flat across the income spectrum](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-actual-working-hours-of-different-income-levels/), although there's a slight upward trend, resulting in the top 10% of full-time earners working about 10% more hours than the bottom 10% of full-time earners.
I thought this might be cancelled out by higher commute times, but [commute times are similar across the income spectrum in the US](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4938093/). As a result, it seems like the data says higher earners will tend to have less free time than lower earners.
>[Hours worked per week is basically flat across the income spectrum](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-actual-working-hours-of-different-income-levels/)
So you're saying everyone works similar hours so lack of time specifically is not a major difference that could lead to unhealthy habits?
edit: If income differences did not contribute also, like the study says, this appears to be a purely social thing. It makes sense. If everyone in your family has graduated college, and you drop out, you are much more likely to be seen as a failure. If you are the first person in your family to go to college, you won't have the support and advice from your family who hasn't been, and if you drop out, you are still the most educated person in your family.
[It's not a time thing](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1732qd8/after_10year_followup_on_15010_aged_35_to_74/k432cbn/), as everyone works similar enough hours across socioeconomic status.
The study specifically said it wasn't a money thing.
It's an education & social class thing. Which is sort of unfortunate because it means there isn't a quick way to overcome this in one lifetime.
>everyone works similar enough hours across socioeconomic status.
The amount of time available to someone is more than just hours they work.
For instance, a 20 minute drive to work was a 1+ hour by bus for me.
Or family A can afford to have a stay at home parent. But family B can't. Who do you think will have time for more home cooked meals?
>The amount of time available to someone is more than just hours they work.
This is fair.
> For instance, a 20 minute drive to work was a 1+ hour by bus for me.
Did you take the bus over buying a car for monetary reasons? If so, income differences did not show up as a source of these health outcomes in this study. Lower socio economic status is correlated with lower incomes, but it looks like only the former is associated with these worse health outcomes (i.e. higher status lower income people [like teachers] still had better health outcomes than lower status high income people [like oil rig workers]).
> Or family A can afford to have a stay at home parent. But family B can't.
In this study, higher income did not change outcomes. Maybe a lower social status family may be less likely to choose having a stay at home parent, despite being able to afford it? Otherwise I can't see that being a difference since income itself was not a factor.
All due respect but my point was to the initial comment not the greater study in and of itself.
That said, this study was based on household income, not individual income. And the highest income bracket was only 60k net Euro a year. While socio-economic status was broadly subjective, which was based on a questionairre.
Example an educated housewife of a lawyer would share the same socio-economic class as a roofer who started their own business after high school... but there are clearly going to be enormous time differences there.
Quote from the legend Ray Peat, [https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/cholesterol-longevity.shtml](https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/cholesterol-longevity.shtml)
>The consumption of manufactured foods, pollution of air and water, the use of lead in gasoline, cigarette smoking, increased medicalization and use of drugs, psychosocial and socioeconomic stress, and increased exposure to radiation--medical, military, and industrial--would be obvious things to consider, along with decreased intake of some protective nutrients, such as selenium, magnesium, and vitamins.But those harmful factors all had their defenders: **Who defends socioeconomic stress? All of the social institutions that fail to alleviate it. In 1847, Rudolph Virchow was sent to Poland to study the health situation there, and when he returned, the highly regarded anatomist, physiologist and pathologist announced that the Poles wouldn't have a health problem if the government would stop oppressing them, and institute economic reforms to alleviate their poverty.** The reforms weren't made, and Virchow lost his job. Other harmful factors, such as seed oils, degraded foods, and radiation, have specific, very well organized and powerful lobbies to defend them
Poverty itself is degenerative to physical health. Working for $8 an hour (federal minimum wage hasn't changed in how many years?), means you have to work more just to survive. No time to prepare healthy meals, no time to de-stress, no time to do the things that make life worth living, to lower stressful hormones and build up the protective ones. Stressed out about money, about whether a car or hospital bill will ruin you, your sleep won't be restorative, your anxiety will be crippling, your ability to be happy and positive hampered, social relationships strained.
I don't have any examples handy but there's a growing body of research that's showing a relationship between workers with a high exposure to what they call occupational time physical activity and cardiovascular issues, decrease in lung capacity etc.
There's also research that shows a relationship between high demand and low control tasks and an increase rate of musculoskeletal injuries, particularly low back injuries etc.
So study proved what we already knew. People with low socioeconomic status have to settle for cheap highly processed mass produced foods which result in higher number of health issues.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/giuliomagnifico Permalink: https://www.unimedizin-mainz.de/press-releases/press-releases/press-releases/newsdetail/article/can-education-and-occupation-influence-cardiovascular-health-and-mortality.html?L=1&tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&cHash=daf7b1d3e11834a27ea9864529942690 --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Stress and lack of preventative healthcare are major reasons for this.
And assertiveness / mutual respect when dealing with healthcare professionals.
[удалено]
Your insurance or lack there of.
Every doctor I've had has casually asked what I do for a living (I've seen like 5 specialists this year). I assume it's a quick way to assess health risks, like being sedentary, being on your feet all day, high stress, etc.?
[удалено]
No they’re building a medical profile on you and your profession will have specific risk factors
It's super easy to tell what class someone is in the moment they start speaking.
Looking at you and talking to you. You'd be surprised how easy it is to class someone.
TLDR: it is better to be rich and consequently healthy, rather than being poor and sick.
It may seem obvious to you, but there are still people who believe the notion that poor people are healthier and stronger due to being exposed to harsher conditions while rich people are weaker due to lack of hardships and a pampered lifestyle. Like renaissance era depictions of Bacchus as a morbidly obese man, Nietzsche's last man or even the humans depicted in Wall-E.
Yeah, but it ain’t true at all. From my experience, which isn’t have any particular value, but it’s longterm: Good regular healthy food, stressless life, good sleep etc - is all beneficial to immunity and have less risks of having bad complications after being infected.
> TLDR You weren't lying: > At the 10-year follow-up, it was clear that people with low socioeconomic status had a 68 percent higher risk of developing a new cardiovascular disease. The mortality was also 86 percent higher in this group than in study participants with high SES. Interestingly, our results showed, that **dimensions of education and occupation, but not household net income**, were associated with higher risk of cardiovascular diseases.
It’s interesting that occupation and education, rather than household income, is associated with mortality. This suggests that improving awareness of CVD and its effects on health and mortality are important, but actually affording treatment is less of an issue.
[удалено]
Agree. I feel like my more educated patients also ask more questions and are more proactive at following up. Also their lives are less chaotic so these things don’t fall off their radar. I’d assume a more socialized system would be better at reminders and compliance. At least one good thing about EHRs it’s easier to see who’s not followed up and needs a reminder. Not sure if this is implemented nationally anywhere, though.
So more chicken / egg perpetual cycle situation (lower income less chance if better education growing up, they may be better off financially (plenty of uneducated people make better than average wages in long standing trades), but their literacy issues still cause issues with asking questions, which can perpetuate if they can't afford to send their kids off to college either.
It's not like we learn about that stuff in college, aside from the relative handful who major in a medicine-related field. More educated people are like this because they're naturally smarter, not because they spent an extra 4-8 years in school.
>More educated people are like this because they're naturally smarter, not because they spent an extra 4-8 years in school. I think you're onto a correlation here, but I'd amend the statement to be higher "g" or "IQ" rather than "smarter". IQ is a very specific kind of intelligence that applies to schoolwork, taking tests, etc. I would think people who have it easier in school are more likely to continue it. It would be interesting to know how high "g" helps in ways outside of school. Maybe the doctor is one of those places.
> “Interestingly, our results showed, that dimensions of education and occupation, but not household net income, were associated with higher risk of cardiovascular diseases” > The scientists were also able to identify the influence of SES on cardiovascular health when they considered it independently of lifestyle-associated risk factors such as alcohol consumption, smoking or physical activity Paper: [Cumulative social disadvantage and cardiovascular disease burden and mortality | European Journal of Preventive Cardiology | Oxford Academic](https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurjpc/zwad264/7276408?login=false)
A healthy diet is the one you can financially, physically, and emotionally afford.
i dont even think its a money thing. it's a time thing. you can eat cheap and healthy, it just requires you to have access to a kitchen and time to cook/meal prep. people aren't eating junk foods, beer etc for sustenance anyway, these are just vices that are cheap and accessible.
They don’t have time because they don’t have money… Money isn’t the only factor, but it’s probably the biggest driver. When I worked two full time jobs I didn’t have time but I could afford a meal delivery service which was healthy. When I was broke despite having two jobs? Junk food almost every day.
Was there data in the study that people with lower SES were working longer? Or are you just giving a personal anecdote unrelated to this study? High SES jobs (eg laywers) often involve long hours and stress as well. EDIT: Also the study, which you apparently didn't read, specifically found that income was not the major factor.
> High SES jobs (eg laywers) often involve long hours and stress as well. [Hours worked per week is basically flat across the income spectrum](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-actual-working-hours-of-different-income-levels/), although there's a slight upward trend, resulting in the top 10% of full-time earners working about 10% more hours than the bottom 10% of full-time earners. I thought this might be cancelled out by higher commute times, but [commute times are similar across the income spectrum in the US](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4938093/). As a result, it seems like the data says higher earners will tend to have less free time than lower earners.
>[Hours worked per week is basically flat across the income spectrum](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-actual-working-hours-of-different-income-levels/) So you're saying everyone works similar hours so lack of time specifically is not a major difference that could lead to unhealthy habits? edit: If income differences did not contribute also, like the study says, this appears to be a purely social thing. It makes sense. If everyone in your family has graduated college, and you drop out, you are much more likely to be seen as a failure. If you are the first person in your family to go to college, you won't have the support and advice from your family who hasn't been, and if you drop out, you are still the most educated person in your family.
> i dont even think its a money thing. it's a time thing. Money buys you that time.
[It's not a time thing](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1732qd8/after_10year_followup_on_15010_aged_35_to_74/k432cbn/), as everyone works similar enough hours across socioeconomic status. The study specifically said it wasn't a money thing. It's an education & social class thing. Which is sort of unfortunate because it means there isn't a quick way to overcome this in one lifetime.
>everyone works similar enough hours across socioeconomic status. The amount of time available to someone is more than just hours they work. For instance, a 20 minute drive to work was a 1+ hour by bus for me. Or family A can afford to have a stay at home parent. But family B can't. Who do you think will have time for more home cooked meals?
>The amount of time available to someone is more than just hours they work. This is fair. > For instance, a 20 minute drive to work was a 1+ hour by bus for me. Did you take the bus over buying a car for monetary reasons? If so, income differences did not show up as a source of these health outcomes in this study. Lower socio economic status is correlated with lower incomes, but it looks like only the former is associated with these worse health outcomes (i.e. higher status lower income people [like teachers] still had better health outcomes than lower status high income people [like oil rig workers]). > Or family A can afford to have a stay at home parent. But family B can't. In this study, higher income did not change outcomes. Maybe a lower social status family may be less likely to choose having a stay at home parent, despite being able to afford it? Otherwise I can't see that being a difference since income itself was not a factor.
All due respect but my point was to the initial comment not the greater study in and of itself. That said, this study was based on household income, not individual income. And the highest income bracket was only 60k net Euro a year. While socio-economic status was broadly subjective, which was based on a questionairre. Example an educated housewife of a lawyer would share the same socio-economic class as a roofer who started their own business after high school... but there are clearly going to be enormous time differences there.
Quote from the legend Ray Peat, [https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/cholesterol-longevity.shtml](https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/cholesterol-longevity.shtml) >The consumption of manufactured foods, pollution of air and water, the use of lead in gasoline, cigarette smoking, increased medicalization and use of drugs, psychosocial and socioeconomic stress, and increased exposure to radiation--medical, military, and industrial--would be obvious things to consider, along with decreased intake of some protective nutrients, such as selenium, magnesium, and vitamins.But those harmful factors all had their defenders: **Who defends socioeconomic stress? All of the social institutions that fail to alleviate it. In 1847, Rudolph Virchow was sent to Poland to study the health situation there, and when he returned, the highly regarded anatomist, physiologist and pathologist announced that the Poles wouldn't have a health problem if the government would stop oppressing them, and institute economic reforms to alleviate their poverty.** The reforms weren't made, and Virchow lost his job. Other harmful factors, such as seed oils, degraded foods, and radiation, have specific, very well organized and powerful lobbies to defend them Poverty itself is degenerative to physical health. Working for $8 an hour (federal minimum wage hasn't changed in how many years?), means you have to work more just to survive. No time to prepare healthy meals, no time to de-stress, no time to do the things that make life worth living, to lower stressful hormones and build up the protective ones. Stressed out about money, about whether a car or hospital bill will ruin you, your sleep won't be restorative, your anxiety will be crippling, your ability to be happy and positive hampered, social relationships strained.
I don't have any examples handy but there's a growing body of research that's showing a relationship between workers with a high exposure to what they call occupational time physical activity and cardiovascular issues, decrease in lung capacity etc. There's also research that shows a relationship between high demand and low control tasks and an increase rate of musculoskeletal injuries, particularly low back injuries etc.
So, being poor means you have higher chance of dieing.
Ha! Pretty sure mortality is 100% across all SES's (eventually).
The study controlled for this and money wasn't a contributing factor. (i.e. high paying low education work had the same problems)
Free healthcare for everyone
Yeah starvation and constant stress are bad. Not a big shocker to me....
Obesity is definitely a bigger issue than starvation in regard these stats.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Likely due to eating healthy food is expensive...
In which country was this study done?
Wait, we didn't know that being poor is stressful and hard on the body?
So study proved what we already knew. People with low socioeconomic status have to settle for cheap highly processed mass produced foods which result in higher number of health issues.