Tests for aging well: Second test

This post is the second installment of the four tests described in The New York Times article, “Are You Aging Well? Try These Simple Tests to Find Out.” Here’s the second test:

Walking speed assessment.

To take the test, measure about 13 feet on a straight flat surface. Walk that distance at your normal speed, not as fast as you can. The article says that “people of all ages should aim for a gait of at least 1.2 meters per second, a little over three seconds total.”

I tried walking that distance at what I think might be my normal pace. (It’s hard trying not to rush to get a good score.) Using my Apple watch stopwatch function, my score was between 4 and 5 seconds.

Jennifer Brach, a professor of health and rehabilitation sciences at the University of Pittsburgh says that your walking speed is “predictive of future decline, it’s predictive of mortality, nursing home placement, disability, a whole host of different things.” She says you should retest yourself every few months to see if you’re slowing down—a warning sign of possible problems with your cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, vestibular (balance), or sensory nervous systems.

Maybe I should up my normal walking speed—once I figure out what it is.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Tests for aging well: First test

If you read The New York Times, you may have already seen this article: “Are You Aging Well? Try These Simple Tests to Find Out.” A challenge!

To keep my posts short (and provide material for four posts), I’m going to describe one of these tests per post, along with my test results. Here is the first test:

Go from standing to sitting on the floor, and back up again, using the least amount of support as possible.

Here’s a link to a video showing a man (in his 20s?) doing the test. CLINIMEX: Sitting-rising test (SRT) - an updated 2025 video . On the first try he uses one hand. On the second try he doesn't.  (It’s in Portuguese or something, but there are captions.)

The test is scored on a 10-point scale—5 points for sitting down and 5 points for getting up. You lose a point for every hand, knee or other body part you use to help yourself.  The article says that if you’re in your 30s and 40s, you should score a perfect 10. If you’re over 60 and get an 8, you’re in “very good shape.” 

My result: I used both hands and both knees to get down to the floor and the same for getting up, so I lost 8 points, giving me a score of 2. (First, I got down to my hands and knees to sit down, then I got back onto my hands and knees to stand up.) Pitiful score, but hey, I got down and up!

Supposedly this test is a predictor of mortality. A study that looked at more than 4,000 people, aged 46 to 75, found that, over the course of 12 years, the people who scored 4 or below had death rates nearly four times higher than those who scored a 10. Apparently, that’s because people with low scores were at a higher risk for falls.

 What if, like me, you’re 89? Isn’t my 2 worth something? Evidence of life?

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Should cancer be treated or not?

This is tricky business. Since 1992, the diagnoses of eight cancers in people under 50 has doubled in the U.S. Those cancers include thyroid, anus, kidney, small intestine, colorectum, endometrium (uterus), pancreas and myeloma (blood cancer). Breast cancer is also on the rise.

But here’s the thing: some cancer specialists say this surge is the result of an “epidemic of detection”—finding cancers that wouldn’t have killed patients. One doctor notes, “The epidemic narrative not only exaggerates the problem, but may also exacerbate it. While more testing is often seen as the solution to an epidemic, it can just as easily be the cause.” As another doctor noted, “We are a very imaging-happy society.”

Not every cancer is dangerous. Some go away on their own; others stop growing or pose no risk. Autopsy studies repeatedly find that many people die with small cancers they were unaware of. Prostate cancer is one of these; so is thyroid cancer. The problem is that it’s impossible to know if someone’s cancer will be deadly or not, and if the cancer is gone after treatment, there’s no way to know if it needed to be treated.

Other doctors believe the surge in cancer diagnoses is real and serious. While the death rates for six of the cancers mentioned in the first paragraph are flat or declining, the death rates of colorectal and endometrial cancers have increased. Some scientists attribute this increase to the obesity epidemic, or something amiss in people’s microbiomes, or toxins in the environment. They’re trying to figure it out.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Saturated fat (again)

 I’m not afraid of eating saturated fat. In fact, I eat plenty of it.

“Saturated” refers to fats, such as butter and animal fats, that are firm when refrigerated. Unfortunately, the term, “saturated,” makes it sound like the fat is somehow loaded with goop. In fact, it simply describes the composition of the fat molecule: each carbon atom in the molecule is linked to two hydrogen atoms such that the carbon is “saturated” with hydrogen atoms.

Saturated fats do not clog arteries. They are either burned for fuel or stored in your fat cells. Your cells need saturated fat to help your body perform important chemical processes and make use of vitamins and minerals. For example, saturated fat makes it possible for calcium to be incorporated into your bones.

Scientists have conducted trial after trial comparing the health effects of saturated fats to unsaturated fats, such as vegetable oils. The National Institutes of Health spent several hundred million dollars trying to demonstrate a connection between eating saturated fat and getting heart disease but never did find the connection.

In reviewing the data from the numerous trials, scientists had plenty to say. For example, “…after 50 years of research, there was no evidence that a diet low in saturated fat prolongs life.…if saturated fatty acids were of no value or were harmful to humans, evolution would probably not have established within the mammary gland the means to produce saturated fatty acids…that provide a source of nourishment to ensure the growth, development, and survival or mammalian offspring.”

By the way, most fats are a mixture of saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Lard is only 40 percent saturated fat. Olive oil is 13.7 percent saturated fat, which is why it turns cloudy when refrigerated.

So go ahead and slather your toast with butter. That's what I do.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.