this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
789 points (99.3% liked)
Data is Beautiful
3569 readers
376 users here now
Be respectful
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Considering that the top reasons for death in the US are related to, more or less, how well you treat your body - as in exercise, diet - there will absolutely be data on poorer people being affected more. If you don't have enough money for a good diet or sports, naturally your body's health will suffer as a result.
Alzheimer and cancer, depending on the cancer, maybe not so much.
This is a big assumption and from what I have researched up to 60% of heart disease is caused by genetics. Environmental pollution and genes play a huge role in both heart attacks and stroke. With dramatic example like:
"In England and Wales, the mortality rate for coronary heart disease (CHD) between 1981 and 2000 have decreased by 62% in men and 45% in women, and more than half of this decline was attributed to a reduction in environmental risk factors."
"This is most strikingly demonstrated by data from China, which show that the age-adjusted CVD mortality rates in Beijing increased by 50% for men and 27% for women because of environmental changes between 1984 and 1999"
I am sure diet and exercise is helpful in preventing heart disease, but it is clear trying to push all responsibility of this disease onto lifestyle choice is highly inaccurate.
You bring up poor being poor as a risk factor. While this may not be true, what is true is poor people's mortality is much higher. See below.
"For example, high-income Asia Pacific and central Latin America have similar age-standardised prevalence of ischemic heart disease (about 2600 cases per 100,000), but the mortality rate due to ischemic heart disease in central Latin America is four times that in high-income Asia Pacific (109 vs 26 per 100,000, respectively). "
So same prevalence, but a huge difference in mortality.
Thanks for the figures. 60% is crazy tho. Sure, genetics are bound to be involved in some way, but I would have assumed that especially anything related to your heart's function is bound to be linked to your "lifestyle choices" and not as much to your gene pool
That appeared to be the highest amount in literature I found. So it is definitely the high end.
I learned that the environment played a large role in cancer awhile ago, but the heart disease challenge my perception as well. While it does not appear to be the dominate factor, it is definitely a significant one.
i agree different cancers have different statistics, but the most common cancer would be skin cancer, BCC , 2nd would be SCC and then melanoma.
Going off the US again, then, skin cancer would probably be more of a thing if you don't have the money to go see a doctor and get treatment for it