Is it true that during the Korean War, U.S. soldiers in their early 20’s who had been killed were found to have arteriosclerosis, while Korean soldiers who were of the same age weren’t found to have this problem?
A number of websites state this, but I wasn’t able to find any documentation for this claim.
Thanks.
Well, I can’t comment about the Korean soldiers, but it’s definitely true regarding the Americans (although using the word “clogged” is a stretch).
I can provide no cite, although it is one of those things ‘everybody knows.’ Open-heart surgery began at about that time. Before then, operations above the diaphragm were (never? rarely?) done. (This is why the guy on MASH is called a ‘chest cutter.’)
So it would seem that the Korean War would have been the first time a large number of healthy American hearts or young people could have been observed.
(So what were the hearts of their grandfathers like, I wonder.)
It’s always Vietnam in the versions I’ve heard of this story.
Update: A recent JAMA study found that U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan had a substantially lower incidence of atherosclerosis than their predecessors in Korea and Vietnam:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1487497
So why has the incidence of atherosclerosis among U.S. soldiers dropped 90%?
<wild guess> Maybe the lack of a draft means that we are seeing healthier recruits?
Is that why MREs are dropping corned beef and spam?
As long as going into the military represents a prime way for poor young males to get health insurance, I wonder whether this is actually correct. Maybe the military can afford to be more discriminating now that the draft is over: Back when there was a draft, how many draftees washed out due to conditions related to poor diet?
Smoking, overeating, being overweight and hard drinking is less tolerated in the current military at all levels vs 50-60 years ago. I imagine this would be the main change.
I also thought that the lower prevalence of smoking these days would account for much of the difference, but the authors found that wasn’t the case:
Were these websites telling you about one weird secret to cut cholesterol?
Wasn’t the US diet in the 50s generally terrible? Red meat, lard, butter and milk were the staples. Butter bread was considered a healthy vegetable. Hell, before the Basic Four food groups (which came out in the 50s), there was the Basic Seven, which included butter and margarine in their own food group.
I can imagine a bunch of soldiers getting fed shit on a shingle every day being told to make sure they get their daily allowance of butter, “for your health”. It’s a recipe for cardio disaster.
I would have thought the infusion of fast food and junk food since the '50s, and the lack of exercise due to the growing popularity of (1) TV and (2) video games in recent years, would have been equally potent risk factors. (Not to mention increased reliability on automotive transport, as opposed to walking or bicycling.)
You’re right about that. In general, I think we’ve gotten more sedentary and we eat a lot more since the 50s. But I think calorie for calorie we have a much better diet, even if we eat too much.
I think, but I’m not a medical professional so don’t take my word for it, that cholesterol is about what you eat, while obesity is about how much. My WAG is that since the 50s we’ve got better about the former but worse about the latter.
Invented by a local mom, don’t you know.
Hey…early 1950’s American foods were high fat-vegetables cooked with fat pork, bread fried in bacon grease, lots of butter, and soups dripping with butter and cream.
And don’t forget chicken and/or sausage Jello.