Becoming old is no picnic but it does provide one advantage, at least as far as I am concerned. I do not worry much anymore about taking major efforts to prolong life, since any precautionary steps I take are likely to have only a small effect. It is not that I now live recklessly. It is just that I can be more relaxed about what is worth doing and what is not. One liberating area is food. What I care most about now when it comes to food is that as long as I eat a balanced diet and not too much junk, what matters is whether it is tasty and enjoyable, and I pay little attention to factors like its cholesterol or fat or sugar content. I figure that whatever damage I have done to my body because of past consumption of those items is too late to rectify. The one thing I do do is take daily walks because it is enjoyable to get out and about and meet and chat with my neighbors. The reputed health benefits are a bonus.
But I do read the occasional article about health tips and found the results of this study to be intriguing because even if the results are replicated and robust, it does not seem actionable.
How well a person can balance can offer an insight into their health. Previous research, for instance, indicates that an inability to balance on one leg is linked to a greater risk of stroke. People with poor balance have also been found to perform worse in tests of mental decline, suggesting a link with dementia.
…An inability to stand on one leg for 10 seconds in middle to later life is linked to a near doubling in the risk of death from any cause within the next 10 years. The results were published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
…The researchers said the study had limitations, including that the participants were all white Brazilians, which means the findings may not be more widely applicable to other ethnicities and nations.
Nevertheless, the researchers concluded that the 10-second balance test “provides rapid and objective feedback for the patient and health professionals regarding static balance” and “adds useful information regarding mortality risk in middle-aged and older men and women”.
…Nevertheless, the researchers concluded that the 10-second balance test “provides rapid and objective feedback for the patient and health professionals regarding static balance” and “adds useful information regarding mortality risk in middle-aged and older men and women”.
Unfortunately the article did not provide a link to the research paper on which it is based.
My problem with this study is that it can cause alarm without suggesting any corrective action. If someone tries the balance test on their own and they fail, they may worry more about about impending death while there is nothing they can do about it.
Furthermore, this kind of comparative study can alarm people who are not familiar with the difference between absolute and relative risk. Suppose you are told that some activity that you do doubles your risk of a heart attack when compared to people who do not do it. That sounds bad. But that is the increase in relative risk. If instead you are told that the absolute risk increases from 1% to 2%, that is much less frightening.
Researchers and news reports tend to highlight relative risks because the numbers are larger and thus more dramatic. But the reports should also report the absolute risks so that people can better judge if they need to take some action or not.
Balance tests are also incredibly dependent on how they’re done. Where exactly do you place your feet and hands, are your limbs turned out or in, what you’re wearing on your feet, etc., make a huge difference.
These results won’t be replicable unless every detail of that is specified. And, people who can’t balance on one foot when they place their limbs anywhere or try it any old way, will worry about it.
For example, to keep balanced, you fix your eyes on one point in front of you and don’t shift your gaze. Were the study participants told to do that or not to do it or did they do it randomly? It makes a big difference.
I have never been very good at balance. I also am fearful of heights. The two may be related, but I don’t know. When I have gone to some high place, even if it is enclosed, I tend to have a vertigo-like feeling, and that uneasy feeling does not go away until I am back “on ground level”.
Balance can be improved with practice. When I took taiji class our warmup routine included leg swings -- forwards and back, as well as sideways. And of course the entire taiji form does a lot to practice balance in many different postures and movements. Nowadays I include leg swings and balancing on each leg in my exercise routine. I have been able to increase the length of time I can balance on each leg. Does intentionally improving one’s balance have any greater impact on brain function? I have no idea. But it may make falls less likely (or less likely to be damaging). In any case, the brain is plastic, and remains so well into older age. Whatever you use it more for it gets better at that.
I took up yoga a while back as a way of balancing my aerobic activities (running, biking, etc.) that might cause some areas to tighten. Whether or not it fits into this study, I can report that working on certain poses (like tree pose) will definitely help your balance. Why? Because it uses muscles that most people have allowed to atrophy, and refines the feedback system with your inner ear. I do not know how that would relate to improving the odds of not having a stroke, but it’s a worthwhile endeavor on its own as it makes your day-to-day life easier.
https://www.everydayyoga.com/blogs/guides/how-to-do-tree-pose-in-yoga
It strikes me that all this study may be showing is that people who continually engaged in these sorts of activities are in better health in general, and thus less likely to have a stroke.
Wonder how many of those deaths are caused by people falling over while trying to stand on one leg. 😉
My dynamic balance (recovering from a slip or trip) is excellent. Static balance, not so much.
That’s the description of the test from the article. That’s a rather easy test (at least for me at 59). But for fun I tried closing my eyes and was not able to do it at all which surprised me as I’m sure I was able to do so when I was young (as an ex-gymnast, proprioception is very necessary and trained for).
I tried it like Jean described @6 and had no problem. I then tried it looking around and still passed. The second I closed my eyes, I lost balance.
I’ve had increasing trouble over the last few years balancing on my left foot, but not on my right. (I’m 59.)
It seems more likely that the balance test really only provides insight about your… ability to balance. And perhaps secondarily, your age.
“The researchers said the study had limitations, including that the participants were all white Brazilians, which means the findings may not be more widely applicable to other ethnicities and nations.”
If you ask me, this is a major issue… my (possibly stereotyped tv-inspired) view of Brazil is dat it has much more of a dancing culture than most ‘western’ countries. A 50 year old who can’t stand on one leg in a culture where 50 year olds dance a lot is an indication of a problem. A 50 year old who can’t stand on one leg in a couch-potato culture might just be run of the mill (although he’ll probably have other issues!)
Your lead-in line drew my attention as I am getting old too.
Hang in there.