I am 51 yrs old am I to old?

[1Path]

Perhpas a better question is when was the last time anyone asked their doctor how much experience they had, especially in an emergency?

Ok, since no one as answered this question yet, I'll go first.

I had NEVER asked a doctor how many years of experiecne they have. I ususally get my recommendations from other doctors I know and whose opinions I trust. So far, this has only led to one medical screw up, incidently from a young doctor with little experience.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

Which ever was the better physician - experience doesn't always = better.

Of course it doesn't, there are always exceptions to everything. Allen Iverson is hardly 6 feet tall and he's amazing. But like I said, those are exceptions, and in my opinions rare ones. I am saying in general, it would make sense for a doctor who has 30 + years to be better than one with say, 5 years. Again, in general.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

Iron,

Don't get me wrong. I respect you and all. However, I don't think that the one who is older is necessary the best physician. I can tell you I've had a friend who's had many a bad physician and many of them have been practicing for years. His much younger family physician however tends to be much better in terms of getting down to things. Anyhow, as someone pointed out many of the older physicians tend to go into things that most of the younger students don't like going into like family medicine so it turns out that they do us a favor by going into the fields we don't want to go into.

Oh I totally agree, there are plenty of older doctors who flat out suck, and plenty of young ones who are amazing.

All I am saying is, what are the chances that a physician who just finished residency at say, age 60, will be a better doctor (for whatever that term is worth) than his 60-year old counterpart who entered medicine at, say, age 30. Of course there is a chance, but I'm not putting my money on it.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

Ok, since no one as answered this question yet, I'll go first.

I had NEVER asked a doctor how many years of experiecne they have. I ususally get my recommendations from other doctors I know and whose opinions I trust. So far, this has only led to one medical screw up, incidently from a young doctor with little experience.

I did address that question in my previous post..... but it has nothing to do with my point.

Im not talking about old or young, I'm talking about experience only. Guess how doctors usually build up good reputations? Yep, you guessed it, experience. My point then, is that doctors who start medicine at age 60 simple won't be alive long enough to build up that kind of experience.

And yes, I understand people live longer these days, but let's just take the average age of somewhere in the mid to upper 70's - and that's assuming the doc works with little to no health problems until the day he/she dies.

 

[Pembleton]

I had NEVER asked a doctor how many years of experiecne they have. I ususally get my recommendations from other doctors I know and whose opinions I trust. So far, this has only led to one medical screw up, incidently from a young doctor with little experience.

It sounds like the lack of experience was the deciding factor.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

I'm not arguing with that fact but I think most people who go into it at that age don't go into the real competitive fields that we compete for. They go into the fields that most younger med students wouldn't want like primary care. I can say this for a fact because I know many a nontrad at my university ranging from mid 30s to 40s. I know a couple of long time nurses who want to go back to med school. One may be about 49 before she is in med school. But she isn't going into it to go into derm, rad onco, rads, surgery, etc. She's going to go into the fields we probably will not be satisified with going into ourselves. So if they have what it takes I don't see the problem.

That's a good point, and it makes sense. I mean, realistically, I don't think you are going to find too many 55-year olds who are willing to start a 5-8 year sugery residency. Surgery is one of the fields that is also ESPECIALLY dependent on solid experience. Would you want a 63 year old performing his first craniotomy on you?? HELL NO (and for the same reason I don't want ANYONE performing their first craniotomy on me), I want a 63 year old who has been doing it his whole life!

 

[1Path]

It sounds like the lack of experience was the deciding factor.

Actually, it was not knowing when you are in over your head that was the factor, at least that's what the more mature physician said when I went to see her to repair the damange done by the young gun.

I think people call this thing that young people often do hubris, except that in medicine it can cost lives.

 

[1Path]

If experience is your basis then it seems you and Iron are on the same page because his point is that at 60 the person who started at 30 something or 20 something will be more experienced then someone who started at such a late age.

Unless she/he is saying that life experiece can be just as valuable if not more valuable than years of practice, then I don't think were are on the same page.

And I don't agree with his statement that doctors build up good reputations based on expereince alone. Honestly, that's just the kind of answer I'd expect from someone who is 1) Under 30 and probably under 25 and 2) never received medical care for a serious illness.

Personality, ability to communicate, life experience, ect I think are the characteristics that seperate OK doctors from good ones. As an example, I had endocrinologist that was voted one of the best in the area, but she had the personality of an eggplant. I could care less about her years of practice, because if as a patient you can't COMMUNICATE with the doctor, then you'll NEVER benefit from their years of experiecne.

Common sense is best lerned through living life and there is NO substitute for that.

 

[Law2Doc]

This thread sure has gone on longer than I thought it would. I think the OP is 52 by now.

 

[8744]

I haven't read the rest of the thread so my apologies but...

You're not to old to do it, medical school I mean, but you're way too old to subject yourself to four years of poverty and at least three years of extremely low pay, long hours, and a lot of chicken**** which you will not be through with unit you are sixty or so.

Think hard about it. I'm not sure I'd do it again and I started medical school when I was 37.

 

[ExtremeUnderdog]

I mean gosh I've had sooooo many nontrad friends its not funny. They are wonderful.

For some reason this just made me laugh out loud...

I suppose I should also say something more directly related to the thread. I say, if you are a day younger than 50, you probably aren't even in the same town, let alone in the ballpark - so passing judgment on the "societal value" of a 51-year-old is like playing baseball in the subway using a hockey puck and a toaster.

It's hard to breathe in this thread, is it me or is the oxygen being displaced by the air of entitlement. The invincible, indomitable, self-important 20-somethings shouldn't be feeling threatened by a 51 y.o. dreamer, who is a complete loser for not getting their act together until now, who is certain to become worthless to society in about 2 hrs and 37 min, and will most likely be dead or at the very least be a hemiplegic by this time next year... ... I mean, come on, why are you even wasting your precious time on the worthless senior citizens!

Sorry... I got a little carried away, and I'll apologize in advance if the sarcasm is rubbing anyone the wrong way.

And as far as public $$$ being "wasted" on older citizens... let's look at it this way - what's better: spending that money educating the person, so they can work and provide a service (even if they never make it past residency, they are cheap (read near-slave) labor in the most high-demand positions/locations/specialties) or send them off to retirement where society will be footing the bill for their SSI, OAP, disability, medicaid, medicare, etc. etc. (keep in mind that studies show that active people are less likely to get sick, so having them retire and be idle sooner will likely mean more money "wasted" on their medical care sooner).

When this society foots the bill for medical education, rather than sticking people with $100-200K debt, then we can start talking about fair allocation of public funds. There are certainly more flagrant examples of taxpayer $$ waste than partially funding a 51 y.o.'s education.

 

[mmmkay121]

One may be about 49 before she is in med school. But she isn't going into it to go into derm, rad onco, rads, surgery, etc. She's going to go into the fields we probably will not be satisified with going into ourselves. So if they have what it takes I don't see the problem.

How much service will she be able to put into the specialties there's are shortages in? Yeah, the residency spot is filled, and a need primary care doctor is trained. Wouldn't the 53 year old starting MD in primary care put in less total service than a 26 year old FMG?

 

[gregMD]

Unless she/he is saying that life experiece can be just as valuable if not more valuable than years of practice, then I don't think were are on the same page.

And I don't agree with his statement that doctors build up good reputations based on expereince alone. Honestly, that's just the kind of answer I'd expect from someone who is 1) Under 30 and probably under 25 and 2) never received medical care for a serious illness.

Personality, ability to communicate, life experience, ect I think are the characteristics that seperate OK doctors from good ones. As an example, I had endocrinologist that was voted one of the best in the area, but she had the personality of an eggplant. I could care less about her years of practice, because if as a patient you can't COMMUNICATE with the doctor, then you'll NEVER benefit from their years of experiecne.

Common sense is best lerned through living life and there is NO substitute for that.

I agree that communication and life experience are important in terms of relating to patients... but i absolutely, 100% disagree that experience isn't what makes a good physician. Experience will become the backbone on which you practice medicine (obviously on top of your medical education) - the patients you see, the patients you treat, and the patients you kill are what will make you good at what you do; not medical school, and not being 59 and graduating from medical school. As much as you'd like to think, you simply cannot substitute life experience for years practicing medicine. Sorry.

 

[mmmkay121]

Ok, since no one as answered this question yet, I'll go first.

I had NEVER asked a doctor how many years of experiecne they have. I ususally get my recommendations from other doctors I know and whose opinions I trust. So far, this has only led to one medical screw up, incidently from a young doctor with little experience.

You seem to have accidently bolded the wrong part. I corrected it for you.

 

[emgirl]

While there's no way in hell I'd ever go into medicine at that age, let me just say that there are traditional doctors still in practice today who are now 80+ in age. You'd be surprised by the number of uber old physicians I've met in my lifetime and how much you'd really think they'd be retired by now but most of them are still going strong at it.

You're right, and frankly I think it's scary that anyone is practicing at 80- however these doctors are far and few between. I'm sure we all have anecdotes of knowing a sweet 80 year old doctor still practicing but this doesn't mean they are out there practicing at the same rate as say, 50 year old physicians- because they are either dead, unable to mentally/physically perform, or simply want to (rightly) be retired. An interesting new study just came out that shows that surgeons older than 65 that are still operating have patients with higher death rates and complications following surgeries than their younger peers. There was talk of possibly making a mandatory retirement age for surgeons, just like there currently is for pilots. The truth is, that when you age, alot of your reflexes and dexterity are not as sharp as someone who is say, oh 30 years younger. There was also data to support that older surgeons were not as knowledgable about newer procedures as younger surgeons. If an 80 year old surgeon was scheduled to operate on me I'd walk right out of the hospital and reschedule with a 50 year old- no apologies.

 

[Law2Doc]

How much service will she be able to put into the specialties there's are shortages in? Yeah, the residency spot is filled, and a need primary care doctor is trained. Wouldn't the 53 year old starting MD in primary care put in less total service than a 26 year old FMG?

I missed where we got onto FMGs, but most of the "resource", and "tax dollar" oriented arguments above assumed the OP was going to compete for US med school seats. There isn't a huge downside to importing a 26 year old physician later when the OP retires as compared to now - there has always been a steady stream of available FMGs. I'm confused.

 

[1Path]

I agree that communication and life experience are important in terms of relating to patients... but i absolutely, 100% disagree that experience isn't what makes a good physician. Experience will become the backbone on which you practice medicine (obviously on top of your medical education) - the patients you see, the patients you treat, and the patients you kill are what will make you good at what you do; not medical school, and not being 59 and graduating from medical school. As much as you'd like to think, you simply cannot substitute life experience for years practicing medicine. Sorry.

And I'm not trying to. See here's what regularly happens on a premed site full of under 25's that I don't see nearly as much on ANY site other with premeds. You read what you want to read into ANY post you don't agree with. So I'm not going to bother defending my position any longer. Continue to highlight, adjust, misintrepret as much as you please.

The truth is, that when you age, alot of your reflexes and dexterity are not as sharp as someone who is say, oh 30 years younger.

How many overweight 70 year olds have you seen? Now how many overweight 25 year old's have you seen?

Reflexes and dexterity won't mean much if your battling type II diabetes and the problems associated with having it.

 

[1Path]

It's hard to breathe in this thread, is it me or is the oxygen being displaced by the air of entitlement. The invincible, indomitable, self-important 20-somethings shouldn't be feeling threatened by a 51 y.o. dreamer, who is a complete loser for not getting their act together until now, who is certain to become worthless to society in about 2 hrs and 37 min, and will most likely be dead or at the very least be a hemiplegic by this time next year... ... I mean, come on, why are you even wasting your precious time on the worthless senior citizens!

When this society foots the bill for medical education, rather than sticking people with $100-200K debt, then we can start talking about fair allocation of public funds. There are certainly more flagrant examples of taxpayer $$ waste than partially funding a 51 y.o.'s education.

Funny post that's right on point!

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

I could care less about her years of practice, because if as a patient you can't COMMUNICATE with the doctor, then you'll NEVER benefit from their years of experiecne.

Common sense is best lerned through living life and there is NO substitute for that.

I'm sorry, but we agree to COMLPETELY disagree.

So I'll let you take the doctor who can talk to people, tell stories about his life experiences, and be nice and I'll take the one who actually knows what he's doing

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

So I'm not going to bother defending my position any longer. Continue to highlight, adjust, misintrepret as much as you please.

With all due respect, I don't think we are misinterpreting anything. You are clearly trying to argue that older doctors who are fresh out of med school are just as good as their collegues at the same age. You are justifying this by stating that "life experience" and communication skills, etc. are just as good as experience practicing medicine.....are you surprised that people disagree with that?

 

[ExtremeUnderdog]

Interestingly enough, someone brought up the point (up a few posts) that older doctors (which, in the study being referenced, in fact means doctors who have been in practice longer) are less knowledgeable about new procedures, etc. So this argument works to support the position that the 53 y.o. new graduate might in fact be better than the 53 y.o. who has been practicing for 28 years. The new grad is up to date and totally on top of what's current, EBM best practice, while the guy who's been practicing for 28 years is probably relying on the "that's what my mentor was doing and that's what I've always been doing" legacy school of thought (this is a huge problem with implementing EBM (evidence-based medicine) practices today, if anyone wants references, I can post them).

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

Interestingly enough, someone brought up the point (up a few posts) that older doctors (which, in the study being referenced, in fact means doctors who have been in practice longer) are less knowledgeable about new procedures, etc. So this argument works to support the position that the 53 y.o. new graduate might in fact be better than the 53 y.o. who has been practicing for 28 years. The new grad is up to date and totally on top of what's current, EBM best practice, while the guy who's been practicing for 28 years is probably relying on the "that's what my mentor was doing and that's what I've always been doing" legacy school of thought (this is a huge problem with implementing EBM (evidence-based medicine) practices today, if anyone wants references, I can post them).

That's an excellent point, but it's mostly only applicable in more advanced fields (i.e. surgery, radiology, ect.) As guju pointed out, these are the fields that these much older nontrad docs are less likely to go into.

 

[shane_doc]

That's an excellent point, but it's mostly only applicable in more advanced fields (i.e. surgery, radiology, ect.) As guju pointed out, these are the fields that these much older nontrad docs are less likely to go into.

I would have to disagree with your statement. Surgery and Radiology may be affected more by technological advances than the other fields. But a radiologist who has been practicing for many years told me that many younger radiologist have to be steered toward reading radiographs. This guy can make prelim diagnoses of heart defects, appendicitis, pyloric stenosis, etc by looking at plain films. That is still important because one day you may find yourself in PoDunk, Tn when more advanced studies aren't readily available.

However, you should also note that EBM is important in other aspects of medicine as well including internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics. misuse of antibiotics by practicing physicians point to the lack of EBM. There practicing physicians who keep abreast of advances in medicine. It is slowly getting easier because there are sites that you can subscribe to that allow you to look over relevant peer reviewed articles.

You guys are arguing on very subjective points. There are younger people who won't bother to pick up a journal because they are too busy actually practicing medicine. There are older folks with quick minds but one cannot deny that the natural process of aging takes toll on your senses. Age does not necessarily translant into common sense. Age discrimination on both ends going on here.

ps: I am one of those straight thru high school and college to med school kids. I remember crying when I got my first C in high school. I remember crying when I flunked my first gross anatomy test. But I also remember changing my game plan (ie study habits) when things weren't working out. IMHO that is also a sign of maturity.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

^ So you are saying that technological advances are equally as important in family medicine as they are in say, surgery?

 

[PEN15]

To the OP, if people told you that no you're too told to start medicine, would you still pursue it? I would hope you would. Ultimately, do what makes YOU happy. Didn't you know that 51 is the new 25?

On a side note - I think the non-traditional forum is quickly becoming my favorite forum! I love the titles of some of the threads on here

 

[shane_doc]

^ So you are saying that technological advances are equally as important in family medicine as they are in say, surgery?

No, I said the specialties like surgery and radiology may be more affected by technogical advances than other fields but EBM (EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE) is important no matter what field you go into. Tech advances are just one part of EBM. I will give you an all inconclusive example. MRI for breast cancer is a new technological advance. But EBM will help practicing physicians decide if there is benefit over mammography. This technology affects radiologists, surgeons AND the family physician/internist who will refer patients to the specialists.

I don't know if you are going for a debate of surgery vs FP but in the real world physicians work together. They need each other. If only for referrel base.

 

[ExtremeUnderdog]

Good points Shane_Doc... and I hope I wasn't coming off as discriminating against anyone. I am not arguing that younger docs are worse than older ones, nor am I arguing the other side... I am simply pointing out that the simplistic question asking whether you would rather be treated by a 55 y.o. fresh out of school or a 55 y.o. who's been in practice for 30 years and all of the simplistic answers are really a shipment of pie (the cow variety )...

The vast majority of doctors were much closer to 20 than 50 when they started their training, so I doubt anyone is arguing that 20-somthings are bad news in med school... they are the med school. But pulling in some silly argument about sharpness of the 50-somethings is just a load of parc (spelled backwards) - if they were sharp enough to get in and sharp enough to graduate and sharp enough to get through residency... then they are definitely sharp enough to treat me (and I get the added bonus of the wisdom and experience of their years ).

Ironman, your point about the technology-intensive fields is excellent. However, it addresses only a small part of the EBM issue. There was a paper in the NEJM earlier this year which found that more than half of all patients passing through the health care system become victims of erroneous medicine. EBM is arguably most important at the primary care level (where those ancient med students incidentally end up ) where diagnosis and treatment of most common diseases and managment of chronic diseases (the biggest problem in US health care today) occurs. So a guy who's fresh out of school and more likely to practice EBM in FP may be at least just as good (no matter what age) as the guy who's done it for 30 years. Of course, the new grad may not be able to pick up stuff as quickly - like figure out that the kid with the rash is suffering from food allergies rather than something else, which the more experienced doc would think of in a flash... but then again the one shortcoming of medical training in the US is the over-reliance on diagnostic technology at the expense of diagnostician's skill (and that's where experience eventually begins to make up for the deficit, but not as much as one would think/hope).

To the OP: I noticed that you have not come back to post on this thread. You have been asked a number of questions, which would help most of us formulate a more objective, constructive and meaningful response to your question, but you have not addressed them. So giving advice or even opinions without having any facts is pointless... but thanks for starting an interesting discussion.

 

[Doctor]

How about this for a question.

Dcotor A is 32 and has been practicing for 5 years.

Doctor B is 62 and has been practicing for 5 years.

Which one would you choose?

I come from the "youth is wasted on the young" school of thought, so I'm going to choose life experience + an MD over the alternative.

How about a choice C?

Doctor C is 19 and has been practicing for 5 years.
Doogie Howser was a pretty good doctor, guys.

No age discrimination!

 

[1Path]

How about a choice C?

Doctor C is 19 and has been practicing for 5 years.
Doogie Howser was a pretty good doctor, guys.

No age discrimination!

So you'd be OK with Doogie doing a prostate exam on you?

 

[Doctor]

So you'd be OK with Doogie doing a prostate exam on you?

I haven't had a physical in 15 years. But for Doogie, sure!

 

[notdeadyet]

To the OP: I noticed that you have not come back to post on this thread.

The thread largely became a litany of young twentysomethings tellin the OP that life experience is not relevant to medicine and her age will hamper her ability to be a doctor.

I'm sure it's amusing hearing folks 30 years her junior explain why life experience isn't important (if you don't have much of it, how can you judge its usefullness?). Or to set her straight on what's important for becoming a doctor (in a career you haven't yet started).

Maybe she got bored with it. It's probably like when I used to hear the preists lecture us on sex. Fun hearing such heated discussion based on lack of experience, but it soon tires.

 

[notdeadyet]

The old make good doctors. They also make bad doctors.

The young make good doctors. They also make bad doctors.

Discrimination based on age is against the law.

What's the discussion again?

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

The thread largely became a litany of young twentysomethings tellin the OP that life experience is not relevant to medicine and her age will hamper her ability to be a doctor.

I'm sure it's amusing hearing folks 30 years her junior explain why life experience isn't important (if you don't have much of it, how can you judge its usefullness?). Or to set her straight on what's important for becoming a doctor (in a career you haven't yet started).

Maybe she got bored with it. It's probably like when I used to hear the preists lecture us on sex. Fun hearing such heated discussion based on lack of experience, but it soon tires.

When it comes to practicing medicine, life experience is extremely important, but not as important as medical experience

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

The old make good doctors. They also make bad doctors.

The young make good doctors. They also make bad doctors.

Discrimination based on age is against the law.

What's the discussion again?

The discussion has nothing to do with old, young, good, bad as you described it.....it has to do with very very nontraditional students in terms of age (starting med school at age 51) and whether or not it's a good idea. Some people think there is nothing wrong with it, others think it's silly and unpractical in for the medical community as a whole (although it is a GREAT accomplishment and something to be very proud of). By not practicle we mean that by the time a 51 year old is finished residency, he or she has very little time to actually practice medicine (if you go by average life expectancies) when compared to a 22 year old, who has about 30 more years to contribute, see more patients, and gain experience in the field. BUT, you hit the nail on the head - age discrimination is not allowed. End of story. This doesn't mean we can't have opinions about it.

Not intended to hurt anyone's feelings (young or old) - just a debate, that's all.

 

[Pharos]

I still think that if you have what it takes to make it through this nearly inhumane (maybe even completely inhumane) process...then all the more power to ya! There are more important things in life to worry about than money, stability, payback to society, etc. etc. I don't know about you guys - but the fact I'm still breathing is right up there on my list. .....the rest always seems to find a way of ironing itself out.

 

[Lashaeot]

You are such an inspiration.

 

[beetlerum]

The thread largely became a litany of young twentysomethings tellin the OP that life experience is not relevant to medicine and her age will hamper her ability to be a doctor.

No. Just false. First, most posts were supportive of the OP. In fact, most were supportive to point of making intellectually dishonest claims about how people in their fifties have the same stamina as people in their twenties. Note that outside this non trad message board, it is considered pretty uncontroversial that people in their fifties rarely have the same stamina as people in their twenties. I think the posters know that is true.

I'm sure it's amusing hearing folks 30 years her junior explain why life experience isn't important (if you don't have much of it, how can you judge its usefullness?). Or to set her straight on what's important for becoming a doctor (in a career you haven't yet started).

Provide one post that said life experience isn't important. There were a couple posts that pointed out that a trad at 50 (or most non trads) will have life experience + far more medical experience.

 

[Law2Doc]

Note that outside this non trad message board, it is considered pretty uncontroversial that people in their fifties rarely have the same stamina as people in their twenties. I think the posters know that is true.

I would agree with everything but the "rarely". I think most of us know a decent number of above average 50 year olds in very good shape with very good stamina, and a decent number of 20 year olds in lousy shape with lousy stamina (there's a thread on obesity in med school on the allo board that demonstrates this latter fact). If the OP is in good shape I see no reason for this to be an issue. If s/he isn't, then this path is probably not realistic.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

I would agree with everything but the "rarely". I think most of us know a decent number of above average 50 year olds in very good shape with very good stamina, and a decent number of 20 year olds in lousy shape with lousy stamina (there's a thread on obesity in med school on the allo board that demonstrates this latter fact). If the OP is in good shape I see no reason for this to be an issue. If s/he isn't, then this path is probably not realistic.

"good shape" is never easy to measure. The bottom line is, once you start hitting 50s and 60s, you are at greater risk in virtually every health category.

edit: I may have misread your post. I do agree with the stamina idea, but stamina is not the only issue

 

[beetlerum]

I would agree with everything but the "rarely". I think most of us know a decent number of above average 50 year olds in very good shape with very good stamina, and a decent number of 20 year olds in lousy shape with lousy stamina (there's a thread on obesity in med school on the allo board that demonstrates this latter fact). If the OP is in good shape I see no reason for this to be an issue. If s/he isn't, then this path is probably not realistic.

Well, I agree with you that there are 50 year olds with more stamina than twentysomethings. However, the reality is that most overweight twentysomethings will have more stamina than an in shape 50 year old.

 

[zenman]

Well, I agree with you that there are 50 year olds with more stamina than twentysomethings. However, the reality is that most overweight twentysomethings will have more stamina than an in shape 50 year old.

I don't think the young ones are as in shape today as when JKF was pushing PE. My wife tells me some schools do not even have PE anymore. When I was teaching Hapkido at 50, I'd wear most young ones down till they couldn't stand up. And that was with me leading them...course my mind was stronger than theirs, LOL!

 

[njbmd]

Well, I agree with you that there are 50 year olds with more stamina than twentysomethings. However, the reality is that most overweight twentysomethings will have more stamina than an in shape 50 year old.

Definitely not true. I have just finished examining the coronary arteries of many of those "twenty-somethings" that have been raised on a diet of McDonalds trans fats. The age of my average patient (vascular surgeon) is lower and lower. I am seeing 30 year olds with worse peripheral artery disease that 50 year olds.

The 40 or 50 year-old applicant to medical school is self-selecting and in far better shape than even the "average" 24-year-old. People who apply to medical school in their 40s, 50s and even 60s are NOT looking for an easy retirement.

 

[beetlerum]

Definitely not true. I have just finished examining the coronary arteries of many of those "twenty-somethings" that have been raised on a diet of McDonalds trans fats. The age of my average patient (vascular surgeon) is lower and lower. I am seeing 30 year olds with worse peripheral artery disease that 50 year olds.

You are a vascular surgeon and you are asserting implicitly that diets have gotten less healthy? Do you have any good citations in support of that position. i've read the opposite, especially with the rise of low fat foods, consciousness about trans fat, and other factors. And yes, of course, there will be 30 year olds with worse vascular disease than 50 year olds. I'm not sure what your point is. The existence of a few random anecdotes is not useful, though it is used all the time on SDN. And of course you, as a vascular surgeon, are not seeing a random sample.

The 40 or 50 year-old applicant to medical school is self-selecting and in far better shape than even the "average" 24-year-old. People who apply to medical school in their 40s, 50s and even 60s are NOT looking for an easy retirement.

First of all, traditional med applicants are above average in shape for people that age, because of the correlation between education/income and health. Second, even if the med school applicants in their 50s are above average in shape (probably a safe assumption), that doesn't mean very much. I mean, this is getting ridiculous. Who is more likely to drop dead of a heart attack: an obese 28 year old or an above average shape 58 year old? And stamina depends on more than vascular disease. In a variety of ways, the 28 year old will have a health advantage over the 58 year old: more muscle mass, stronge bones, more brain cells, etc.

This is getting ridiculous. I'm making the most uncontroversial statements in the world and getting silly responses from people working backwards from the believe that age shouldn't factor into med school admissions. How far are you guys willing to take this? What about a 65 year old? 75 year old?

By the way, if you reread my posts, I'm not even against 51 year olds applying to med school. However, I'm trying to look at the situation objectively.

 

[notdeadyet]

You are a vascular surgeon and you are asserting implicitly that diets have gotten less healthy? Do you have any good citations in support of that position. ....

You start clucking about wanting "good citations" to support his position after you drop declarations like "most overweight twentysomethings will have more stamina than an in shape 50 year old"? There's a wee bit of hypocrisy here.

The existence of a few random anecdotes is not useful, though it is used all the time on SDN. And of course you, as a vascular surgeon, are not seeing a random sample.

I also have to point out that only on SDN would you have a pre-med jump on conclusions that a vascular surgeon draws about vascular disease...

I could be wrong. For all I know, Beetlerum, you're a vascular surgeon too. Or at least a doctor. Or even a medical student. But my instincts say no.

 

[beetlerum]

You start clucking about wanting "good citations" to support his position after you drop declarations like "most overweight twentysomethings will have more stamina than an in shape 50 year old"? There's a wee bit of hypocrisy here.

Excuse me, I asked for citations because his position was so surprising. And to be honest, it was done out of respect. I'm pretty confident that diets have gotten healthier over time. But rather than just dismiss his claim, I asked for citations. There is no hypocrisy here.

I also have to point out that only on SDN would you have a pre-med jump on conclusions that a vascular surgeon draws about vascular disease...

I could be wrong. For all I know, Beetlerum, you're a vascular surgeon too. Or at least a doctor. Or even a medical student. But my instincts say no.

Your instincts are wrong. I'm not a premed, though I'm not a vascular surgeon. And this proves my point. I haven't said anything that makes me seem like a premed. Your "instinct", like many opinions expressed here, is based on emotion, due to not agreeing with my position. (If you disagree, please produce my statement on which your "instinct" is based.)

Also, I didn't say much about vascular disease, other than conceding that there are 30 year olds with vascular disease worse than 50 year olds. My main contentions were about diet and stamina.

Out of curiosity, do you actually disagree with my statement? Do you believe that, in general, above average 50 somethings have more stamina than overweight twentysomethings? This discussion is getting downright bizarre.

 

[Law2Doc]

Excuse me, I asked for citations because his position was so surprising. And to be honest, it was done out of respect. I'm pretty confident that diets have gotten healthier over time. But rather than just dismiss his claim, I asked for citations. There is no hypocrisy here.

It's pretty common knowledge that childhood obesity and obesity of the young is on the rise -- younger people are being hurt by fast food diets, softdrinks and the like far more than the baby boomer generation did. So no, diets are getting worse, not better. Expect this to plague medicine (and future med students) for years to come. Should make vascular surgery a very good job security field. A quick google search will give you many hundreds of cites to the rise in bad diets in the young. See eg.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_440638.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OXU/is_11_58/ai_111113839
http://www.nih.gov/news/WordonHealth/jun2002/childhoodobesity.htm

 

[beetlerum]

It's pretty common knowledge that childhood obesity and obesity of the young is on the rise -- younger people are being hurt by fast food diets, softdrinks and the like far more than the baby boomer generation did. So no, diets are getting worse, not better. Expect this to plague medicine (and future med students) for years to come. Should make vascular surgery a very good job security field. A quick google search will give you many hundreds of cites to the rise in bad diets in the young. See eg.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_440638.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OXU/is_11_58/ai_111113839
http://www.nih.gov/news/WordonHealth/jun2002/childhoodobesity.htm

None of those articles establish that diets are getting worse. (The news article did speculate that that was true without any evidence). I've read a bunch of things to the contrary. And yes, it is quite clear that there is an increase in obesity, but the two are not incompatible. Obesity could be due to a decrease in physical exercise. It is almost certainly due in part to a decrease in the cost of food (i.e. low-income people are now heavy instead of skinny). I highly doubt there is an increase in obseity among the med school applying population.

 

[Law2Doc]

I highly doubt there is an increase in obseity among the med school applying population.

An increase in obesity in the young certainly contradicts your suggestion that diets have not gotten less healthy. That lack of exercise also may play a role (which I agree with) doesn't really support your previous suggestion that people are getting more health conscious. If you don't like those articles, as I have said, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, more on google -- just type in childhood or young plus obesity and rise. If you still doubt, then it's your turn for evidence to the contrary.

 

[BoredRlyin]

Sir William Osler, one of the greatest icons in modern medicine, first chief of staff at John's Hopkins Hospital, and inventor of the medical residency program quoted, "Take the sum of human achievement in action, in science, in art, in literature—subtract the work of the men above forty, and while we should miss great treasures, even priceless treasures, we would practically be where we are today...The effective, moving, vitalizing work of the world is done between the ages of twenty-five and forty.
Vol. I, ch. 24, The Fixed Period
My second fixed idea is the uselessness of men above sixty years of age, and the incalculable benefit it would be in commercial, political, and in professional life, if as a matter of course, men stopped work at this age.
Vol. I, ch. 24, The Fixed Period".

Personally, I think the guy is an eliteist dickhead (read: hopkins professor).

 

[MD'05]

I have two masters already .

You need more than two master's degrees to get through the misery of medical school followed by residency. If you want to become a doctor, go for it. Understand your motivations for wanting to become a doctor. We yield alot of power and have a serious responsibility to society. If you have any doubts, don't do it. I don't find this career rewarding whatsoever. What I do find rewarding is drinking with my buddies and raising hell. That makes it all worth it.

And I won't lie, you are old. Once you start the process you will feel older. I feel old. I am old. Sleep deprivation and seeing death and sickness makes you old. The only advantage to being old is you probably require less sleep than the youngsters.

On a final note, my recommendations for a successful medical education and residency are exercise, coffee, and alcohol in copious amounts. Sleep and eat when you can. Sleep is more vital for survival than food, sex, coffee or alcohol.

I wish you much success in your pursuits. You must be smoking crack.