A cardiologist explains how to tell if your heart is aging too fast, and 4 tips to keep it young
A cardiologist said understanding your heart age can help you reduce the risk of heart disease and stroke.
Try a free online calculator to find your heart age. Improve it with simple habits like daily walking.
Your heart could be older than you think, limiting your potential lifespan by up to a decade. But a cardiologist says a few simple lifestyle changes could help.
New research from Northwestern University School of Medicine shows the average American's heart health makes them four to seven years older than their calendar age.
That's because of risk factors like high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and sedentary routines, driving up their risk of heart disease, the leading cause of death in the US.
You can check your own heart age for free online using a test developed by Northwestern researchers.
If you don't like what you see, incorporating daily habits like regular exercise can improve your heart age, said Dr. Sadiya Khan, a preventive cardiologist and professor of cardiovascular epidemiology who led the team that developed the calculator.
"As we think about our growing, aging population, some people age faster than others, and slowing that down can have a lot of impact for health," Khan told Business Insider.
How to tell if your heart is healthy
Usually, doctors measure heart health in percentages using your vital signs. For instance, a patient with a 7.5% risk of heart disease is considered intermediate risk.
But that doesn't translate well for the average person.
"It's a challenging piece of information to communicate and grasp. What does it mean to have a risk of 7.5%?" Khan said.
That's why Khan's team made an age predictor. It's easier to come up with a plan for your heart health if you understand in real terms what it means for your life expectancy.
The researchers studied 14,000 adults in the US aged 30 to 79, with no prior history of heart disease. They found that, on average, women's heart health age was about four years older than their chronological age, and men's heart age was about seven years older than their chronological age.
The gap widened for people with a lower income and education level; their heart age was as much as 10 years older than their chronological age.
Khan added a caveat: it's important to note that the calculator is meant to be a more accurate predictor of heart health risk, but it's not designed to be used alone to manage your health. Talk to your doctor about your risk.
"There's no exact number that means people should be alarmed or be concerned, but provide some context for what it means to have a heart age that's five years older or 10 years older," she said.
Simple ways to boost heart health
Knowing your heart health age can help you find simple, actionable steps to potentially boost longevity, Khan said.
"We wanted to be sure it was a tool to motivate heart-healthy behavior," she said. "There are things we already know that can help with your heart age and improve it."
To boost your heart health:
Stop smoking: If you're a smoker, quitting is the number one change you can make to improve your heart health, Khan said. That's not just tobacco — marijuana has been linked to worse heart health, even in edible form.
Optimize your workout: Regular physical activity, including low-intensity movement like walking, helps to strengthen your heart, and every added minute counts.
Get the right macros: Whole foods rich in fiber and healthy fats like omega-3s help support your heart. Avoid processed foods and added sugars.
Manage your stress: Rest and relaxation are crucial to keep your blood pressure and cholesterol low and prevent strain on your heart.
If you're already young at heart, following the above tips can help you stay that way for years to come.
"If your heart age is a good spot, it's about strategies to maintain it," Khan said.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
25 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Man Who Was Too MAHA for the Trump Administration
Vinay Prasad, until Tuesday one of the country's top medical regulators, just got a bitter taste of what it means to have real power. In recent months, the academic hematologist-oncologist, medical contrarian, and polemic podcaster had become a central figure at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In May, he was chosen to lead its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research—a position that gave him authority over vaccines and gene therapies. In June, Marty Makary, who is currently the FDA commissioner, bestowed upon him an even more important role: chief medical and scientific officer of the entire agency. This week, Prasad abruptly departed. We don't know the exact reason behind Prasad's departure. According to a Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson, he resigned to 'spend more time with his family.' (Neither Prasad nor HHS responded to my request for comment.) Politico reports that President Donald Trump ordered his removal this week over the objections of Makary and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Whatever the particulars, Prasad's sudden need for a better work-life balance suggests the administration is following a time-honored approach to medical regulation: Business comes first. Prasad's troubles began in the first weeks of his tenure at the FDA, when he overruled the agency's own scientific reviewers by limiting the use of COVID vaccines. In doing so, he managed to anger the country's pro- and anti-vaccine factions at the same time. While many public-health experts criticized the decision to limit access to the shots, Kennedy's allies in the 'Make America healthy again' movement felt betrayed by the fact that the government had allowed mRNA shots to remain available at all. Prasad also faced a blitz from the pharmaceutical industry and patient-advocacy groups after the FDA tried to suspend distribution of a gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy called Elevidys, over safety concerns. For those affected by this rare, incurable condition, the move was seen as an outrageous denial of their right to weigh the drug's risks and benefits for themselves, and an extinguishing of what had been at least a glimmer of hope. Two days later, the right-wing provocateur Laura Loomer publicly accused Prasad of 'sabotaging Trump's deregulatory agenda,' and an opinion writer for The Wall Street Journal declared him a 'one-man death panel.' I know Prasad a bit: I've twice been a guest on his podcast, and I've followed his prolific academic work and public commentary about evidence-based medicine since about 2016, when he was a young professor at Oregon Health & Science University working to identify low-value medical practices. We've had our disagreements over the years. But with respect to Elevidys and drugs like it, our views are in alignment. We share the worry, for example, that the FDA keeps lowering its approval standards for drugs that keep getting more expensive. 'The American economy can handle a great deal of wasteful health-care spending,' Prasad told me in an interview in 2021. 'But it can't tolerate an infinite number.' His skepticism of Elevidys, in particular, is both long-standing and well-founded. The therapy has not been conclusively shown to slow the progression of the muscle-wasting disease it targets, but it does often induce vomiting and damage patients' livers. Worryingly, it also appears to be related to a pair of deaths. Prasad's predecessor in his role at CBER, Peter Marks, approved the drug, which costs $3.2 million per course of treatment, in spite of his own staff's uncertainty about its benefit. (Marks was forced out by Kennedy this spring, after the two clashed over access to vaccine-safety data.) Read: The sanewashing of RFK, Jr. That Prasad should take a tough line on drug regulation was perfectly in keeping with his history. He rose to prominence on that basis: To his many fans, he was a dogged and courageous industry watchdog; to his many critics, a self-righteous pharma scold. That mainstream Republicans should balk at this approach, and strive to undo it, was equally predictable. Politicians, particularly those on the right, have for years supported patients' ability to obtain still-unproven therapies. During Trump's first term, the president signed into law the 'Right to Try Act,' which expanded access to experimental drugs. That law was championed by Republican Senator Ron Johnson, who, according to reporting from STAT, may have been instrumental in Prasad's ouster. One might have guessed that things were different now in Washington—that Kennedy's eccentric philosophy had ushered in a novel form of conservative leadership, in which business interests didn't always lead the way. Thus far, however, the MAHA movement has done little to adjust the status quo. Instead, it has mostly wallowed in its own contradictions. We've been told that cooking with seed oils is toxic but that treating measles with cod-liver oil is great; and that both deworming pills and microbe-laden raw milk are good for you. MAHA leaders have declared the FDA a ' sock puppet of industry ' from which Prasad himself would provide a ' welcome reprieve,' while also championing the public's right to choose its food and drugs (even as they interfere with the distribution of some vaccines). So which is it? Should people have easy access to almost any health-care intervention, or should the government protect vulnerable patients from drugs for which there isn't rigorous evidence of benefit? For years, Prasad has been clear on where he stands in that regard. 'It is not a case of patients who crave risk facing off with regulators who abhor it,' he wrote in a medical journal in 2019. Rather, the current system, in which 'reliable data are inconsistently generated,' has failed patients who wish to make informed decisions about their care. Whenever this tension has been tested in the Trump administration, MAHA leaders have almost always seemed inclined to move the other way. A recent op-ed by the FDA's Makary and Mehmet Oz, the head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, summed up the current regulatory approach as follows: Agency bureaucrats should cooperate with industry leaders instead of antagonizing them, and the government should favor 'market solutions' over 'prescriptive regulation.' Indeed, even as the news of Prasad's firing was coming out, Makary was promoting his 'national listening tour' of private interests. 'Looking forward to hearing from more pharma and biotech CEOs!' he wrote on X. Prasad himself appeared to recognize which way the wind was blowing. From the moment he took office, he was tempering his point of view. Before he became a political appointee, Prasad was dogmatic in his dismissal of evidence that did not emerge from large, randomized clinical trials. ('As readers know, my philosophy is RCT or STFU,' he wrote in his newsletter in 2023.) But Prasad seemed to back away from this idea even in his opening remarks to his new colleagues and staffers. 'Randomized controlled trials are not always necessary, and when they are done, they are not always informative,' he reportedly said on May 7, his second day on the job. Such appeasement efforts proved insufficient to protect him from rival forces in the Republican Party, if not also in the MAHA movement itself. For the moment, Prasad has been replaced at CBER by the wealthy biomedical entrepreneur George Tidmarsh. Surely that will come as a relief to a constituency that seems to hold immense sway with this administration: America's drug companies and medical-device makers.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Rony Seikaly reflects on how players treated Magic after HIV diagnosis: "Watching all the players kind of distance themselves was really not something that I was very proud of"
Rony Seikaly reflects on how players treated Magic after HIV diagnosis: "Watching all the players kind of distance themselves was really not something that I was very proud of" originally appeared on Basketball Network. When Earvin Magic Johnson announced his retirement in November 1991 after testing positive for HIV, the basketball world was rocked deeply. Looking back from today's standpoint, we have to understand that it was a time when the disease was largely misunderstood and cloaked in fear and misinformation. As for the guys in the best basketball league in the world, the NBA, the reaction was mixed. Plenty of shock, a touch of sympathy among fellow players and, quite understandably, distance from many of them. Those afraid, uncertain about how HIV spread, instinctively pushed Magic away, avoiding all contact by any means necessary. Ron Seikaly, the Lebanese-American big man who was a walking double-double at the time of his peak, didn't shy away from admitting his disappointment at how the Los Angeles Lakers legend was treated. "So, basically, when Magic retired because of HIV, a lot of the players and a lot of the people didn't understand the disease and stuff like that. Everybody just didn't want to be around Magic. Nobody knew how you would get infected. So, all the players kinda pushed away. For me growing up, Magic Johnson was the NBA. Him and Larry Bird. Watching all the players kind of distance themselves from Magic Johnson was really not something that I was very proud of," Ron said about the unknown situation at the time. Seikaly went on to support his idol Ron's respect for Magic ran very deep, and it passed the lines of pure basketball competitiveness. Johnson was his idol, so Seikaly recalled how, before a game, he approached Magic with nothing but respect and compassion, despite the tension and fear hanging in the air around the diagnosis. "I remember before one of the games, I wanted to go up to Magic and just give him a hug. He was still working out, still giving his all, despite everything. It was not something that he chose. The reaction to it was very bad," Seikaly explained. This human approach was rare in a league where the unknown ruled all the time. Seikaly acknowledged that while players were pushing away physically, he wanted to break through that barrier, showing that beyond the disease, Magic was still a competitor, a peer and most importantly, a person deserving of respect for everything that he did for the Association during the 1980s, alongside Larry Bird, of almost missed his last ASG Even as Magic returned for the 1992 NBA All-Star Game, in a moment that was meant to be a fitting tribute for the end of his legendary career, the unease around him hadn't completely faded. Not only that, but some players still questioned if he should be out there at all, which only goes to show the unwillingness of competitors to go full strength at him. "Some guys came out and said, 'I don't want to play against the guy if I have a chance to get sick.' I'm not going to name any names," the Western Conference starting guard Clyde Drexler stated at the time. That's where Seikaly's perspective stood out. Instead of retreating like so many others, he offered to bring back that physicality through the simple hug. He saw Magic as more than just a "walking diagnosis." That reaction from the towering big man aged far better than the fear-driven reactions of the story was originally reported by Basketball Network on Jul 29, 2025, where it first appeared.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
How Trump's Medicaid Crackdown Is Fueling This $22-Million Backed Healthcare Startup's Expansion
Nikita Singareddy (middle) and her cofounders Courtesy of Andreessen Horowitz When Nikita Singareddy, Cydney Kim, and Ben Wesner first thought up Fortuna Health from a Crown Heights apartment, they saw opportunity in one of the least modern but most utilized corners of American healthcare: Medicaid. The legacy program offers free health insurance to 80 million Americans, but the current enrollment process is complex, slow and sometimes entirely paper-based. To bring a much-needed software update to the nearly $870 billion government program, the three founders leveraged their backgrounds in healthcare, strategic operations and technology to launch Fortuna in 2023. The SaaS startup offers a user-friendly web-app for patients to easily submit and renew their Medicaid applications. While the typical enrollment process requires users to send materials online or via snail mail—then wait upwards of 45 days for a decision—Fortuna completes it in under a minute thanks to its AI models that flag common errors like missing pay stubs on employment verification forms. Fortuna makes money by selling its technology to insurance agencies and hospitals, which benefit from keeping patients insured because it increases the amount of money they get from the state. Here's how it works. After a person applies to Medicaid, their provider sends a push notification powered by Fortuna, directing them to an online portal with instructions for accessing benefits. Fortuna's software then guides them through a personalized and multilingual experience—similar to a one-on-one interaction—that can respond to unique situations such as households with a mixed immigration status or seasonal employees who don't earn income throughout the year. Last week Fortuna Health closed an $18 million Series A led by returning investor Andreessen Horowitz. The goal? Expand its service into more U.S. states and territories (they're currently active in eight) and the development of AI-powered workflows. The Series A brings their total funding to $22 million. Nikita Singareddy declined to comment on Fortuna Health's most recent valuation. 'We've experienced an 11x increase in users since last year and the growth is not entirely new,' Singareddy said. 'But because we've already laid the groundwork with our partners we have seen more customers that are ready to activate with this new sense of urgency.' Singareddy, a healthcare policy wonk who got her start interning on Capitol Hill in college, worked on different sides of the healthcare industry from insurer Oscar to venture firm RRE Ventures. But it wasn't until her work at a Federally Qualified Community Health Center, otherwise known as 'free clinics,' where she saw firsthand how outdated technology created a barrier for people to access Medicaid. Experts estimate that 70% of Medicaid churn—which is when eligible people lose coverage—is due to procedural hiccups that could have been avoided with clearer instructions. 'There is a totally different healthcare system for people who are lower income and under-resourced versus commercial health insurance,' Singareddy told Forbes . 'Coming from policy being my area of passion, I saw that discrepancy and wanted to solve it.' Fortuna raised its seed round shortly after the Medicaid unwinding period when pandemic-era protections expired and members had to verify that they still qualified for the program. Health plans and states needed a tech-enabled third party to manage the millions who suddenly lost coverage, generating early traction for Fortuna in the Medicaid SaaS field that has few competitors. 'We always say there are no bad ideas, just bad timing and what generated so much momentum for Fortuna is that they picked the perfect time to enter the market,' says Julie Yoo, a healthcare investor at Andreessen Horowitz. Two years later, the startup is generating more momentum—thanks to politics. President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law on July 4, which includes strict oversight on Medicaid, making the already analog process more complex like increasing the frequency in which users have to renew their coverage from once a year to every six months, and a new 80-hour work month requirement with additional documents required to prove employment. 'We've never wavered from our mission to be the TurboTax for Medicaid but the bill has forced our hand to move quicker on expanding into all 56 U.S. states and territories that have Medicaid programs,' Singareddy said. While fully integrated into eight states, Fortuna has yet to scale nationally. The latest Series A will go toward building infrastructure to meet demands in new territories, but entering new markets will require a go-to-market strategy tailored to each state's unique Medicaid system. To apply for Medicaid via Fortuna, enrollees need their health provider to grant them access to the platform. That makes securing contracts with insurers, hospitals and health plans in each region critical for the startup's growth. 'They're only in a handful of states, so they either need a major payer or health system to get behind them in each new market,' a healthcare analyst at William Blair Ryan Daniels said. 'But how do you get them on board without consumer awareness? And how do you drive consumer awareness without the payer behind you? It's the classic chicken and egg problem.' The One Big Beautiful Bill itself could mitigate this problem as Singareddy says Fortuna has already seen an increase of general inquiries from users about how the policy changes will affect their coverage. Fortuna is also building localized relationships with organizations at the state and county level to drive consumer awareness in new regions. 'We are not new to this problem. We didn't get created just to solve the Big Beautiful Bill,' Singareddy said. 'I'm glad we've spent so much time obsessing over how to modernize Medicaid so that we can be in the hands of many more people for this moment.'
