Image
© AlamyToday's 60-year-olds may face more health problems than previous generations despite a lifetime of free healthcare
They were the first to enjoy free health care, and had the time of their lives in the Swinging Sixties.

But the post-war 'baby boomers' are now paying the price.

Today's 60-year-olds are the first modern generation to be less healthy than their immediate predecessors.

Despite improvements in medicine and standards of living, they are more likely to be blighted by problems from aching knees and creaking hips to diabetes, asthma and strokes.

Even simple tasks such as getting in and out of bed or climbing ten steps without a rest prove a challenge.

And with fast food, lack of exercise and a growing reliance on computers and other technology, the future could be even bleaker.

Researcher Teresa Seeman said: 'The baby boomers, whatever health benefits they've enjoyed up until now, may not enjoy such a rosy old age.'

Professor Seeman compared the health of thousands of men and women in their 60s, 70s and 80s with data on different people of the same age collected ten years earlier.

She found that one in five of the 60-somethings polled needed help with basic day-to-day activities - up more than 50 per cent on a decade earlier.

Those just over 60 are 70 per cent more likely to have difficulty walking from room to room, getting in and out of bed and eating or dressing.

Their problems did not end there. They were also 50 per cent more likely to have trouble walking a quarter of a mile or climbing ten steps without a rest.

Stooping, crouching, kneeling and getting up from a chair proved 40 per cent more troublesome, the American Journal of Public Health reports.

Although the data was collected in the U.S., the researchers say there is no reason to believe the UK is not similarly affected. British adults, for instance, are the second fattest in the developed world after the U.S.

Professor Seeman, of the University of California, warned that as more baby boomers enter their 60s and 70s, the trend will have 'significant and sobering' implications.

'The growing number of individuals aged 60 and older will place ever-growing demands on the health care system. Increased levels of disability, particularly among the youngest of older adults, may also negatively affect economic productivity.'

She said younger people could also lose out if they have to 'compete with older people for scarce resources in an overburdened healthcare system'.

British experts echoed the warning. Cary Cooper, professor of health psychology at Lancaster University, said our ever-growing reliance on technology is harming our health.

And he warned that the impact will be even greater in years to come, with the pensioners of the future having spent many more years sitting in front of a computer than those of today.

Professor Cooper, who is in his 60s, said: 'The public health message is to be active, climb the stairs, don't take lifts. It sounds trivial but it is not.

'Being active is good for psychological as well as physical health because you are relating to people in some way other than through a screen.'

Earlier this week, research suggested that those born in 1948 in Britain were the' lucky generation' because they benefited hugely from the end of National Service, the right to free education and healthcare and the property boom.

But the U.S. study suggests that much of those advantages have been squandered by today's 61-year-olds.

Dr Ian Campbell, a GP and medical director of the charity Weight Concern, said that many people were stuck in a vicious circle. Growing waistlines make exercise more difficult, making it harder to lose weight. Some advances in healthcare could also be to blame for the backward trend.

'We have been lulled into a false sense of security that pharmaceuticals are the answer to our health problems,' he said.

'So we get statistics saying that the number of deaths from heart disease is falling but that is because we are keeping people alive with drugs.

'That is admirable but it would be far better if we could cut the amount of heart disease in the first place.'