Canada -
News Sections
Heart disease risks up in young, poor Canadians
CTV News Video
|
Watch: See all Videos in the Player
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Tue. Jul. 21 2009 7:10 PM ET
Canada could be heading for even higher rates of heart disease, suggests a new report that finds more young Canadians are at serious risk of the disease.
The report in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that the risk factors for cardiovascular disease -- such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and obesity -- are rising among younger people between 12 to 50 years of age.
The study looked at Canadians aged 12 and up from all socioeconomic and ethnic groups. It found an estimated 1.29 million Canadians reported having heart disease in 2005. That's a 19.3 per cent increase among men and 2.1 per cent increase among women compared with 1994.
Rates of high blood pressure were up 77 per cent between 1994 and 2005 among both sexes, diabetes was up 45 per cent over the same period, and obesity rates rose 18 per cent.
The one bit of good news was that smoking rates fell 25 per cent from 2005 to 1994.
The authors suggest that with more young Canadians with heart disease risk factors, cardiovascular disease rates are going to continue to rise, sending more Canadians to an early grave.
"Projections suggest that the rising prevalence of obesity in the current generation of adolescents will increase the prevalence of coronary heart disease by five to 16 per cent in 2035, and may for the first time in two centuries significantly reduce life expectancy in the 21st century," said Dr. Douglas Lee of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) and coauthors.
Lee notes that the trends in Canada are quite different from those in the United States, where some risk factors, such as hypertension, are declining.
"In Canada, risk factors have not reached a plateau, suggesting that these increases may continue to worsen over time," he said in a release.
People from lower income groups had the most risk factors for heart disease. But the prevalence of obesity is increasing in all socioeconomic groups, while the rates of hypertension have nearly doubled.
Diabetes is also on the rise among almost all income groups, although the gap between the richest and the poorest is widening over time.
"This study has implications for all Canadians because the surveys were conducted in a representative sample of the Canadian population, including all ethnic groups," write the authors.
The authors suggest that Canadians under 50 who haven't considered themselves at risk for heart disease should take action by scheduling routine medical exams and talking to their doctor about ways to reduce their risk of dying of Canada's No. 1 killer.
They also suggest governments take steps to encourage healthy eating, increasing community programming for physical activity in low-income areas and making cities more pedestrian-friendly.
User Tools
Related Stories
Subscribe!
CTV.ca Blogs
Like us on Facebook
Stay connected to the latest health news while you're on Facebook with CTV MedNews
Related Websites
Most Popular
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
I fail to see just what a minister could learn by an on site visit that he couldn't get from people who are actual experts in the various fields of work involved. It is doubtful that he is any sort of nuclear engineer or expert in construction. Just another photo op...
Email


Comments are now closed for this story
liz ottawa
0
said
0
Jay
0
said
0
Lin-Z
0
said
0
Marilyn
0
said
0
reidjr
0
said
0
You right to a point lose weight eat healthy live a good life.But some people seem to be under the thought if your thin your healthy if you read the paper watch the news even thing people who are thin may not be healthy.
Avi Ickovich
0
said
0
How Do We Reduce Urban Sprawl?
Many western Canadian cities have been rendered inefficient by urban sprawl. We need better integration of mass transit and urban planning. We need to tailor housing and commercial forms towards mid-to-high density development. Urban sprawl includes increased personal expense, wasted time for individuals, as well as substantial negative impact on the natural environment. The environmental benefits of densification are known to include lower greenhouse emissions and fuel cost savings. Furthermore, the health benefits of densification include more physical activity as people replace walking or transit for their automobiles in compact communities.
A proposal that will also encourage densification is to amend the respective current Provincial Property Purchase Tax regimes across Canada to stimulate the construction of high density housing. Each province in Canada has the equivalent of such a tax ranging up to two percent (with the exception of Alberta and parts of Saskatchewan). Each province has certain exemptions that include first time home purchase. I am therefore proposing the additional exemptions and/or reductions based on density and the promotion of public transit usage:
Within 1 km from RapidBus or Rapid Transit Line: 0.25% of the first $200,000 and 0.25% of the balance of the value/purchase (this will enhance adherence to the required density along RapidBus and Rapid Transit Lines) or
Sliding scale (based on density )
1% of the first $200,000 and 2% of the balance of the value/purchase price (Low Density Interface)
0.5% of the first $200,000 and 0.5% of the balance of the value/purchase price (Medium Density Interface)
0.25% of the first $200,000 and 0.25% of the balance of the value/purchase price (High Density Interface)
This proposal could work just as well by using zoning categories as the determining factor (sliding scale).
Not only will such a concept encourage densification it will be more equitable. If we must tax, at least it should be equitable and perform some social or economic objective and not deter economic development. In fact, it is possible that the proposal will actually stimulate economic development as it spurs the construction of medium and high density residential housing. The proposal could provide further incentives for first time buyers: potential easier re-sale for high density and medium density housing.
Economic and environmental objectives are not mutually exclusive. Young growing families who want to upgrade into larger accommodations and need to raise the upfront money for the tax will now be better positioned to get into the market, while at the same time moving into environmentally friendly living (larger condominiums, row houses, brownstones, townhouses rather than single family dwellings). For instance, a 1% difference on a $400,000 townhouse is a $4,000 upfront cost to a young family.
It is also possible that in the long term the decrease in the rate will be more than offset by the density, such that this initiative may be a net generator of revenue to the respective provinces. More specifically, since economics deals with incremental changes, an avoided sale is still 2% of nothing rather than 1% of a lower housing cost multiplied by a larger volume of sales transactions.
Kojak
0
said
0
Ban junkfood!!!
~Joe North American~
0
said
0
Marilyn
0
said
0
Catwoman 37
0
said
0
But it doesn't surprise me that young people are getting sick is because they are under lots of stress.
They see the issues going on around them, and are worried or feeling strained.
R D
0
said
0
Alison from Manitoba
0
said
0
You know who I blame? ME. Me, me, me. I bought the sattellite dish with hundreds of channels. I chose the job where I sit on my butt for 8 hours a day. I hit the drive-through so that I don't have to get up 20 minutes earlier in the morning to make a lunch. I choose to drive around the Walmart parking lot looking for the closest parking space so that I won't have to walk as far.
The worst part about it is that I have not only my guilt about my lifestyle to keep me company, but I also get to thank my neighbours for paying the price for the healthcare I will eventually need if I don't do something about it.
Oh, and who's responsibility is it to make sure that something does get done about it? That's right...ME.
(Sincerely) Sorry guys, I will try to be less of a burden in the future.
Man in Burlington
0
said
0
Cindy
0
said
0
My husband and I did a little test a few weeks back..he bought all the meat, cheese, milk etc...I bought the fruits and vegetables for the week...it cost him $45.36 to purchase the meats and dairy for one week and for our fruits and vegetables...are you ready it cost a whopping $67.98...my purchases were strictly fruit and veggies and only fresh..we do not eat canned or frozen.
We do not and never have eaten a lot of "junk" food. We rarely eat out maybe 6 times a year.
My husband has coronary artery disease and I have had cancer and am a type 2 diabetic insulin dependent.
Our doctors tell us that with the exception of my diabetes we are a victim of our ancestry. We got the bad genes.
I am not a tiny person, but I am not the largest person in my family and if every one that was over weight contracted diabetes it would be more rampant. My pancreas has just "pooped" out (as my doctor says) not something I have done..although my diabetes is not caused by genes...my body structure is. My gene pool is not something I have control on nor does any one else. I do know that my diabetes is not caused from eating a lot of junk cause I have never eaten a lot of it EVER.
I hate it when large people and those of us unfortunate enough to have diseases are put into one carton and told its because of our life styles...well no it isn't!!! some times we really are prone to certain diseases due to our gene pools.
Julie in Ontario
0
said
0
I'm only in my early 20's now. I could see the flawed logic then in what they were trying to teach me, however a lot of people don't.
I agree that the school system needs to change when it comes to teaching children about healthy eating. Also those hot dog and pizza days with ice cream and pop, those should most likely be changed as well. I don't know if urban schools had those days, but rural schools still do.
DD in N.S.
0
said
0
SW
0
said
0
Exercise, take vitamins eat wholesome food and still have
heart disease, high blood pressure
etc.
liz ottawa
0
said
0
Samual
0
said
0
Is unhealthy eating worse for you than smoking?
Stef
0
said
0
sandie in ottawa
0
said
0
Can you explain to me how healthy food such as i dont know milk and fresh fruits and veggies are cheeper then junk..
Just a note
here in ottawa i pay 4.69 for a 4 litre bag of milk..
however a 2 ltr bottle of pop is a $1 so a family can spend 2 on the same amount of sugar filled pop then on a healthy 4ltr bag of milk..
it is the same accross the board.. when it is the difference between eating and paying rent some ppl cant afford the healthy alternative
said
0
jiulu
0
said
0
said
0
The standard of money expected by institutions such as dentists and everything else such as grocery stores, hydro companies etc. keeps people from having the ability to pay out of pocket expenses for things such as dental never mind better food to keep diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease away.
The government has to do an overhaul on our healthcare to include dental for "everyone". They just can't be complicit in giving "Made in China" our economy and expecting Canadians to 'survive' without an economy, jobs and pay out of their own pockets for necessary health care such as dental.
Rick in NB
0
said
0
Why is it harder for a " urban lifstyle " person to make proper meals? If anything an urban dweller has a larger menu to pick from. Unless you are saying urbanites have more important things to do with their day.
As far as exercise goes, it's up to the individual. A long walk does wonders, but you have to get off your rearend.
Alistair McLaughlin
0
said
0
Our craving for sugars, salts, carbs and fats is evolutionary, biological, and deeply ingrained in our genetics. That's because we evolved over millions of years when our very survival depended on consuming as much of these things as possible whenever they were available. Early humans were chronically deficient on salt, and often chronically undernourished, just like many wild animals today. It was a struggle just to get enough calories and nutrients to survive. We also had to expend a lot of calories just to attain food. This was true throughout our evolution.
Now we live in an era when we've got more salt, sugar, fat and carbs than we could ever need, all within arm's reach. Yet we're still allowing the same natural cravings to dictate our eating. Thus the obesity epidemic.
We've come up with all kinds of psychobabble to explain away overeating ("comfort eating", "stress eating", "low self-esteem", "depression", etc...) but it all boils down to evolution and biology. We crave food. We crave salts, carbs, sugars and fats. If we want to avoid obesity and cardiovascular disease, we must make it more difficult to give in to these cravings. That means STAYING AWAY FROM JUNK FOOD. Period.
Rene
0
said
0
If you want to have a healthy lifestyle, then you take the necessary steps to ensure this happens. If you want to live a long life, then you take the necessary steps to ensure this happens.
It's time for people to start choosing the life they really want instead of choosing the life they think or wish they had, and then assigning blame because they didn't get what they wanted.
Mitch in St. John's
0
said
0
Bill in BC
0
said
0
Consider:
1. it's cheaper to eat processed crap and fake "food" than real food.
2. the salt & chemical content of fake foods is constantly increasing.
is anyone REALLY surprised?
Matt in Edmonton
0
said
0
Mandosa
0
said
0
MP
0
said
0
The North American lifestyle is to blame as well as well as people's attitude (i.e. "It'll never happen to me!").
OHIP meanwhile is going to take a serious beating both taking care of the aging Babyboomers and todays fat generation needing expensive cardiac care treatment.