Short people have a 50 percent higher chance of having heart problems than tall peopl

[Arnold]

Short people have a 50 percent higher chance of having heart problems than tall people
By Rosemary Black
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Hibbard/Getty

According to a new study, short people have a 50 per cent higher chance of having heart problems than tall people.

Do you stand head and shoulders below the crowd? Better pay close attention to your health.

People of short stature have a 50 percent higher chance of having a heart problem or a fatal heart attack than tall people, according to a new study reported by the Associated Press.

But shorties shouldn't worry too much: a person's weight, smoking habits and blood pressure are still more important factors when it comes to calculating cardiovascular risk.

While researchers are uncertain why short people could be more at risk for heart problems, it could be that traditionally, those of small stature were undernourished and more susceptible to health problems in general.

A possible biological explanation could be a hormone imbalance that damages the heart. Since small people have smaller arteries, those blood vessels theoretically could get blocked faster with cholesterol or be more quickly hurt by blood pressure changes.

While earlier studies showed a possible link between height and cardiac problems such as angina and heart attacks, this is the first large scale review of such studies.

Finnish researchers examined 52 earlier papers that contained data on cardiac disorders and height in over 3 million people. They learned that the shortest people were one and one half times more likely to suffer or die from cardiac problems than the tallest people. Published online in the European Heart Journal, the study was funded by the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research and other groups.

Study lead author Tuula Paajanen of Tempere University Hospital in Finland does not think shorties should be too concerned about the research.
"Height is only one factor (among many) that may contribute to heart disease risk," she told the Associated Press. Instead, she urged people to focus on other ways of staying healthy, like exercising and not smoking.
"Those are easier to change than your height," she said.

Read more: Short people have a 50 per cent higher chance of having heart problems than tall people
​

 

[soxmuscle]

I'm fucked.

 

[tucker01]

I'm fucked.

You got a lot more going wrong for you then this.

 

[soxmuscle]

Explain.

 

[Kathybird]

I believe it. I'm 5'1, and when I got pregnant, the doc wasn't surprised at all when I developed preeclampsia (high blood pressure usually later in pregnancy). In smaller people, she said, where is the weight of the baby, your own added weight, and all the functions associated with pregnancy, to go? In taller people the same amount of weight is distributed over more area, lessening the impact of the overall effects of pregnancy. Smaller (shorter) people don't necessarily have a "smaller" pregnancy - amounts of amniotic fluid, weight gain, baby weight are not really all that different based on one's size. She also mentioned smaller arteries as the author did, one's blood vessels and other organs are working a bit harder in a smaller person to keep up with a pregnancy.

Not relating to pregnancy, I do see a correlation between food consumption and other factors for short people. Less space, less should be consumed (environmental toxins, smoking, drug use both prescription and recreational, etc.). Unfortunately, I can't seem to stick to that thought process.

 

[Little Wing]

i'm 5'9" and had very mild preeclampsia with both my children because my veins are small. my aunt, myself and my mother have all tried to give blood and the people give up and send us home because it comes out so slow.

scary damn findings for a study though, %50 is harsh. how much credit should we really give these studies? did they study 3 million people all of them smokers or non smokers, all of them overweight or not, or was height the only variable they paid attention to?

 

[bandaidwoman]

There is a ethnic and geographic selection bias here, caucasians only it seems ( I would venture to add that if they included asians whose statures are shorter than most of the world and have much less heart disease the conclusions would have been neutral). Next, look at where the study was funded, Finland. Not sure if they collected their data from a worlwide data bank or not but in this country, 70% of the men have heart disease. At one point, 85 % of deaths in that single country alone was due to heart disease..... ( That's why many cholesterol lowering drug trials have been carried out in this population)

 

[DOMS]

They could also be referring to people that are short relative to their own race.

Also, if 70% of the men in Finland have heart disease, and assuming their study is accurate and only limited to Finland, then it would stand to reason short and average people would be included in that 70%. You think they would have said something like, "Unusually tall people are less likely to suffer from heart disease."

I've also seen similar studies, and conclusions reached, in the US.

Even if there is a bias, so what? It's a study done in a Western country in regards to Western cultures. Does that mean that a study in China must also reflect sub-Saharan Africans?

In any case, the logic is that, with short people, the heart sits physically closer to the fat that tends to sit around men's midriffs. Supposedly, this allows for the fat to somehow be transported, and ultimately line the arteries, of the heart.

 

[min0 lee]

You got a lot more going wrong for you then this.

 

[bandaidwoman]

It's not to say the study isn't valid but years of epidemiological analysis of numerous medical studies makes me wary of those that have selection bias. I just would not use this single study to make that conclusion, I would look at all the other worldwide data.

Whats interesting is there is a genetic study conducted by albert einstein that showed shorter women live longer than taller women
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3334639/Short-people-could-live-longer.html
and http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=46184&sectionid=3510210

Short-stature individuals live longer


Albert Einstein College of Medicine researchers believe that short-stature individuals live longer compared with their taller peers...

but once again it was studied in a jewish ethnic subset and can't be extrapolated

with that said you have to wonder if the sociological fact that tall people have better esteem, have higher paying jobs, are more likely to be promoted etc puts them at a better socioecomic level which also is correlated with better health? I'm sure this plays a role in better health, not to mention the physical advantages.

Now if you take very tall people, those with Acromegaly and Marfan's disease, their lifespans are much shorter than their shorter counterparts so there is a limit to the height protection.

honestly I think shorter people have more heart disease than taller people because of smaller coronary arteries, thus it takes less time for plaque buildup to cause a critical stenosis but that may be too simplistic....

 

[DOMS]

It's not to say the study isn't valid but years of epidemiological analysis of numerous medical studies makes me wary of those that have selection bias.

Right here; this is 100% win. So many studies are crap based on nothing other than a poor sampling pool.

I just would not use this single study to make that conclusion, I would look at all the other worldwide data.

Again, who is the target audience? If the study was in Iceland, it was probably geared towards Icelanders. In the same way that the two biggest killers in the US (obesity and smoking) don't mean jack in Sub-Saharan Africa (where Malaria, AIDS, and guns are the biggest killers).

Also, I've heard of other studies in the US that back up this study.

with that said you have to wonder if the sociological fact that tall people have better esteem, have higher paying jobs, are more likely to be promoted etc puts them at a better socioecomic level which also is correlated with better health? I'm sure this plays a role in better health, not to mention the physical advantages.

That was actually the conclusion of a study that I read about in the late '90s. Everyone was trying to find a physical reason for taller people having better lives, and then a study came out indicating it was mostly psychological. Along with taller people being more likely to engage in physical activities such as sports.

honestly I think shorter people have more heart disease than taller people because of smaller coronary arteries, thus it takes less time for plaque buildup to cause a critical stenosis but that may be too simplistic....

I'd like to think that the people doing the studies took that into account, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[bandaidwoman]

Our conversation shows how oversimplistic the media looks at medical studies.

We spend 4 years in medical school not just studying the science of medicine but we look at every study that comes out and critque it because you cannot generallize data like the media does.


Drug A may only be valid in this subset of studied population but if you change variables in another study you can come up with a different conclusion for Drug A. Which is why medical studies seem contradictory. It isn't contradictory for us doctors who do this all the time and the lay public look at is as arguing when it is healthy scientific discourse.

So short stature may be unhealthy but not if you are a ashkanazi jewish women due to insulin like growth factor genetics. Short finnish men are unhealthier than tall finnish men but I have not seen a study in asian men, I'd like to see that.

Right here; this is 100% win. So many studies are crap based on nothing other than a poor sampling pool.

quite the contrary, it shows how few people really know how to analyze medical data.
I tell people anyone can look up all the medical facts on the internet, but I went to school to figure out how to analyze the studies and apply them to my patient population, something most insurance companies who dictate what I give to my patients have absolutely no understanding.

For instance in septic shock management in ICU, different drugs improve mortality or worsen mortality depending on what is causing the septic shock and the age group and time period from the intial symptoms etc. These are variables we juggle in our brains at 2 in the morning and isn't something you can look up on the internet ( which family members try to do and I gently point them to another study..)

 

[DOMS]

Our conversation shows how oversimplistic the media looks at medical studies.

We spend 4 years in medical school not just studying the science of medicine but we look at every study that comes out and critque it because you cannot generallize data like the media does.

Which is fair. You can't spend a minute prefacing a news piece labeling on for people of group X. Certain things must be assumed. If the audience is American, then it's assumed that the data relates to Americans in general.

Not only that, but if the news prefaced it with "This applies to American Caucasians", there would be a shit-storm of people asking where the "African American" version is.

However, I do feel that oversimplifying the audience is okay, oversimplifying the results isn't.

I also think you're discounting the quality of the sampling pool. Take steroids for example. All through the 80s and 90s, the studies conducted on the negative effects of steroids were done on people taking steroids due to illness. Such as cancer patients. Then the people doing the studies would, erroneously, apply their findings to healthy people. Thankfully, more studies have been done on healthy individuals post 2000.

One of my favorites was the one done on "roid rage." They used a pool of 200 people. It was a double-blind study, as well. Half the group was given steroids and the other half was given a placebo. 50% of both groups displayed signs of roid rage.

Which brings me to me second problem with many studies: agendas. I've seen so many studies that were conducted to fit a preconceived idea and a social or political agenda. But I digress.

 

[bandaidwoman]

Which brings me to me second problem with many studies: agendas. I've seen so many studies that were conducted to fit a preconceived idea and a social or political agenda. But I digress.

true, for instance there is a congestive heart failure medicine called Bidil that improves mortality in congestive heart failure patients in blacks only. The only reason why the drug company did that kind of study ( instead of including all races with congestive heart failoure) they knew they could bypass a lot of laws and regulations and reap more profits quidkly if they concentrated on a single factor like uniform race ( and I am not too legal saavy but that was the upshot from one of the JD MDS professor who works with me and consults pharmaceutical companies) . Thus, no attempt to show this drug helped others because by concentrating on a single race it meant expeditious legal and FDA hurdles were cleared faster and they could profit earlier.

Of course they say well black's process nitric oxide differently from whites and may explain the favorable benefits blah blah blah but the upshot was it was easier to get the FDA to approve this quickly versus running a population of whites and blacks and then teasing out the subanalysis data to show benefit or not ( many more participants to show statistical significance or non significance thus adding to the cost of the research and so on.)

 

[Muscle_Girl]

Define "short" I figure I am in the clear being 5'6, but who knows what short really means?