I, too, received my surveys yesterday. I am a one person household and received 3 surveys. There are a total of 177 questions divided between 3 different surveys.

I THINK they send them as to how many are on the deed?

I'm sure you figured this out, but, just pick one of the three and answer it and ditch the rest. Maximum of one response per resident of a household to keep the integrity of the survey responses intact.

With all of our seasonals and rentals and constant comings and goings, it would be difficult to attain 100% of the target audience. With a sample size this large, results should be meaningful. Article in today's paper says that over 15,000 paper surveys have already been turned in locally. Not bad for less than a week. Deadline is fast approaching.

I also received extra surveys -- called the USF number and they asked me to return the unused ones in one of the return envelopes, marked EXTRAS so they would know. Leave them in the box at your mail kiosk.

Yes, but what does that mean? Does it really mean anything? What does it mean for the populaton at large? That nothing matters? That people might as well neglect their health, get sick and then take medications? And by doing so they will be as good as ever? And as good as those who are healthy because of their healthy lifestyles?

Is there any long term population study that you know of that suggests that drug taking populations do as well as non-drug taking populations? I don't think so. As a matter of fact, the Okinawa study shows that Okinawans are not only healthier, but they live longer than Americans. They don't believe in taking drugs or vitamins and we do. Good health and longevity doesn't come from taking drugs.

:wave:

Well, you could say that medical intervention, including taking medicine is causing something good to happen. We are definitely living longer and more of us are living longer than we did a hundred years ago. I respectively submit that you may be proceeding from an illogical premise.

I did not receive a survey in the mail. Stopped by the office today and picked one up. Asked why some folks got more that one survey per person, was told the surveys were sent based on the information per household, that was available. Do not know where or how that information was obtained. Didn't think it was important before I asked or after.

Set the Stage
 

I was not going to make any remarks about the survey but I am having a weka moment so will comment.
Let me set the stage:
- You are going to get a survey which you, as a respondent can be identified.
- You have no idea how it will be actually used or who will use it.
- You are going to be asked questions relating to everything from your phyusical condition, your mental condition, (even if you may be paranoid, eg.
question under #37, "Do you feel that people would try to take advantage of you if they got the chance?" I think the survey speaks for itself on this one.), your drug intake/prescriptions, etc., a huge list of potential/real medical conditions, your eating habits, has anyone tried to harm you, (back to potential paranoia). your education level, age, do you own/rent?, your religious habits/how spiritual are you, insurance you may carry, depression, and many so on's..
**Now you are going to send all of this personal information off to someone who you don't know and yet can be identified to you and used anyway they see fit.
Has anyone..anyone ever been sent a survey whether not identifiable or
can identify respondent that covered the broad a series of questions? I have not and would NEVER respond to such an incrediable invasion of my privacy.
I don't overlook the fact that it could provide a great profile of The Villages.
That is not enough to support tracking on your privacy and worse yet with
no restrictions on who will have access, how it will be used and what mechanics are in place to prevent misuse.:loco:

Yes, people are living longer but in too many cases they are living longer because they are propped up by medical proceedures, drugs, feeding tubes, diapers and nursing home assistance. In too many cases the quality of their extended life is poor and nothing to brag about.

A hundred years ago there was a high infant mortality rate and that brought down the average life expectancy. My grandfather was born around 1875 and lived to age 97. I also had an ancestor who lived to 106 and he was born in 1850.
I had a great aunt who lived to 100.

And to what do you attribute their longevity?

The ones I mentioned, except for my maternal grandfather, were from a "family tree" that is not yet complete. So I can only talk about my grandparents who grew up in Italy. Growing up in small towns of about 500 people, they lived close to nature. They didn't have radio, TV, stove or refrigerator. And, of course, there were no cars. If you had a mule, you were considered wealthy.

What they did have (In Sicily, Italy) was lots of fresh vegetables that they grew in their own gardens. Every family had a few chickens so they had a few eggs but not too many. Eating chicken once in a while was a big treat. A lot of families had a goat to. I suppose for milk and goat cheese but that wouldn't have been a lot. Once in a great while they would have goat meat and shared it with family. My father told me that there were orange trees and wheat fields. And food was cooked in a fireplace.

So the diet was simple, from nature, and didn't include a lot of the processing that is so common today.

Thanks for asking. :wave:

Cooking food over an open fire is not supposed to be good for you and now you are told to avoid a lot of barbecued meat as it is a carcinogen.

I think that all of those things that you mentioned are valid reasons that would contribute to a healthy life. I think people should eat a variety of food and particularly of different colors, that is the easiest way to think of it. Not as much meat as we used too and more vegetables and fruits, but still, STILL, cancer and bad things can happen to us.

Long life is not the prize for being virtuous. Wonderful medicines now exist that help us live longer and more healthily. Antibiotics and blood pressure medicines and medicine that lowers our cholesterol (which in many cases is caused by a genetic factor, rather than a diet factor) and a whole plethora of medicines are helping us live longer lives.

Diet and exercise are two very important factors in living a healthy life.
Choose a good physician, trained at a place you respect and do what he/she tells you to do is also very good advice.

Good post. Most of what you say I agree with. No matter how healthy someone tries to be, something can always happen. And if something bad does happen, of course drugs should be considered as an option. But I think of drugs as a last resort if all of my attempts to be healthy fail. I know from experience that my system won't tolerate drugs very well. I believe I would be known as a "slow processor". For example, even a little caffeine each day seems to add up in my system. Anyway, here's some information I prepared just for you. See what you think of it:

"Health Expectancy Versus Life Expectancy"

The above heading comes from page 327 of the book, "The Okinawa Program". (2001 edition) Under that heading the authors explain that health expectancy is more important than life expectancy. Who among us would want to live 10 or 15 extra years in "decrepitude or dementia"?

At the time the book was published in 2001, Okinawans had a life expectancy of 81.2 and Americans had a life expectancy of 76.8. Not only was their life expectancy greater, but their "health expectancy" was greater too. They had less cancer, for example, and thus fewer deaths from cancer.

Yearly cancer deaths per 100,000 people:

........................OKinawa................U.S .
Breast:...................6....................... 33

Ovarian...................3....................... .7

Prostate..................4....................... .28

Colon.......................8..................... ...19

USF's Dr. Petersen has said that our health survey results will be compared with other groups. Will we be compared to other groups in the U.S. who have taken the same test? I think so, but what will that prove? Not much, in my opinion. We need to find a way to compare ourselves with the best in the world: Okinawans! To settle for less would be wimpy, in my opinion.

Again I ask, have you been to Okinawa to actually see for yourself? Are the people there as mentally healthy and happy as we here in The Vilages are. In today's world a study done ten years ago is already outdated. All the studies are good and moslty valid, but until you see the reality of it all, it's just facts and figures on a page.

From what I understand they didn't barbecue. At least not indoors. I think they had a big pot for boiling and steaming. I don't have all the details because I never thought to ask about it.