Aging (not CF) decline in %FEV1 ??

[Ricky123]

juliet great question
what i do know is a normal persons fev 1 ranges from 80 to 120.So someone who does a lot of exercise etc will be around 110 and over as compared to someone who is overweight unhealthy etc is very likely to be at the lower end of the normal range hence around 85.
I think from what the docters told me a while back when i poised them this same question was that lung function drops incredibly slowly in a normal person(who doesnt smoke) ie i cant give you a exact amount but from the information i gathered of the docter i doubt if over a normal persons lifespan their fev1 doesnt drop more than 10%

 

[Ricky123]

juliet great question
what i do know is a normal persons fev 1 ranges from 80 to 120.So someone who does a lot of exercise etc will be around 110 and over as compared to someone who is overweight unhealthy etc is very likely to be at the lower end of the normal range hence around 85.
I think from what the docters told me a while back when i poised them this same question was that lung function drops incredibly slowly in a normal person(who doesnt smoke) ie i cant give you a exact amount but from the information i gathered of the docter i doubt if over a normal persons lifespan their fev1 doesnt drop more than 10%

 

[Ricky123]

juliet great question
what i do know is a normal persons fev 1 ranges from 80 to 120.So someone who does a lot of exercise etc will be around 110 and over as compared to someone who is overweight unhealthy etc is very likely to be at the lower end of the normal range hence around 85.
I think from what the docters told me a while back when i poised them this same question was that lung function drops incredibly slowly in a normal person(who doesnt smoke) ie i cant give you a exact amount but from the information i gathered of the docter i doubt if over a normal persons lifespan their fev1 doesnt drop more than 10%

 

[Ricky123]

juliet great question
what i do know is a normal persons fev 1 ranges from 80 to 120.So someone who does a lot of exercise etc will be around 110 and over as compared to someone who is overweight unhealthy etc is very likely to be at the lower end of the normal range hence around 85.
I think from what the docters told me a while back when i poised them this same question was that lung function drops incredibly slowly in a normal person(who doesnt smoke) ie i cant give you a exact amount but from the information i gathered of the docter i doubt if over a normal persons lifespan their fev1 doesnt drop more than 10%

 

[Ricky123]

juliet great question
<br />what i do know is a normal persons fev 1 ranges from 80 to 120.So someone who does a lot of exercise etc will be around 110 and over as compared to someone who is overweight unhealthy etc is very likely to be at the lower end of the normal range hence around 85.
<br />I think from what the docters told me a while back when i poised them this same question was that lung function drops incredibly slowly in a normal person(who doesnt smoke) ie i cant give you a exact amount but from the information i gathered of the docter i doubt if over a normal persons lifespan their fev1 doesnt drop more than 10%
<br />

 

[Juliet]

Hey James - Very good. Thanks! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"> That's what I was looking for (creative googling got me down a whole bunch of interesting garden paths but not towards what I needed.) <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

So that means it's on absolute numbers, not %. Looking at my data I've gone down by about 1L over 30 years. So if that chart is accurate, then .75L is likely due to age and I know the other .25 is easily from A) being overweight B) not Exercising enough and C) CF.

Looks like I'd best get my butt in gear (literally). At least I can address A and B. ~Juliet

 

[Juliet]

Hey James - Very good. Thanks! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"> That's what I was looking for (creative googling got me down a whole bunch of interesting garden paths but not towards what I needed.) <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

So that means it's on absolute numbers, not %. Looking at my data I've gone down by about 1L over 30 years. So if that chart is accurate, then .75L is likely due to age and I know the other .25 is easily from A) being overweight B) not Exercising enough and C) CF.

Looks like I'd best get my butt in gear (literally). At least I can address A and B. ~Juliet

 

[Juliet]

Hey James - Very good. Thanks! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"> That's what I was looking for (creative googling got me down a whole bunch of interesting garden paths but not towards what I needed.) <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

So that means it's on absolute numbers, not %. Looking at my data I've gone down by about 1L over 30 years. So if that chart is accurate, then .75L is likely due to age and I know the other .25 is easily from A) being overweight B) not Exercising enough and C) CF.

Looks like I'd best get my butt in gear (literally). At least I can address A and B. ~Juliet

 

[Juliet]

Hey James - Very good. Thanks! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"> That's what I was looking for (creative googling got me down a whole bunch of interesting garden paths but not towards what I needed.) <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

So that means it's on absolute numbers, not %. Looking at my data I've gone down by about 1L over 30 years. So if that chart is accurate, then .75L is likely due to age and I know the other .25 is easily from A) being overweight B) not Exercising enough and C) CF.

Looks like I'd best get my butt in gear (literally). At least I can address A and B. ~Juliet

 

[Juliet]

Hey James - Very good. Thanks! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"> That's what I was looking for (creative googling got me down a whole bunch of interesting garden paths but not towards what I needed.) <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
<br />
<br />So that means it's on absolute numbers, not %. Looking at my data I've gone down by about 1L over 30 years. So if that chart is accurate, then .75L is likely due to age and I know the other .25 is easily from A) being overweight B) not Exercising enough and C) CF.
<br />
<br />Looks like I'd best get my butt in gear (literally). At least I can address A and B. ~Juliet

 

[wanderlost]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>mamerth</b></i>

Mine haven't budged much since my diagnosis-- even with lung damage. Weird!! My husband's are lower than mine (No CF).

.</end quote></div>


same here - despite the fact that I can tell my Cf is progressing, my PFT numbers have remained largely the same
for years - so I really think you have to look at more than just the numbers.

 

[wanderlost]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>mamerth</b></i>

Mine haven't budged much since my diagnosis-- even with lung damage. Weird!! My husband's are lower than mine (No CF).

.</end quote></div>


same here - despite the fact that I can tell my Cf is progressing, my PFT numbers have remained largely the same
for years - so I really think you have to look at more than just the numbers.

 

[wanderlost]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>mamerth</b></i>

Mine haven't budged much since my diagnosis-- even with lung damage. Weird!! My husband's are lower than mine (No CF).

.</end quote></div>


same here - despite the fact that I can tell my Cf is progressing, my PFT numbers have remained largely the same
for years - so I really think you have to look at more than just the numbers.

 

[wanderlost]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>mamerth</b></i>

Mine haven't budged much since my diagnosis-- even with lung damage. Weird!! My husband's are lower than mine (No CF).

.</end quote>


same here - despite the fact that I can tell my Cf is progressing, my PFT numbers have remained largely the same
for years - so I really think you have to look at more than just the numbers.

 

[wanderlost]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>mamerth</b></i>
<br />
<br />Mine haven't budged much since my diagnosis-- even with lung damage. Weird!! My husband's are lower than mine (No CF).
<br />
<br />.</end quote>
<br />
<br />
<br />same here - despite the fact that I can tell my Cf is progressing, my PFT numbers have remained largely the same
<br />for years - so I really think you have to look at more than just the numbers.

 

[CowTown]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Sevenstars</b></i>

I remember when I was 10 years old and doing PFTs and I wanted to bring in my friends to do it so we could compare. I should have! If anyone has a very cool pulmonary lab, or a PFT machine in your house, start giving PFTs to your family and friends amd tell us the results. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif" border="0">

</end quote></div>



I have an interesting tid bit to add that I found very interesting a few years back. A family member of mine who does not have CF, is overweight, smokes and suddenly had a lung collapse and extreme high blood pressure. I don't remember exactly what else was going on but those were basics. It was serious and he was in ICU for about a month as I remember. They trached him too while they were hoping his lungs inflated back to normal.

I remember hearing the news of him doing PFTs and they were around 70%. Honestly, though I'm not positive if his 70% was before all this or right after. I wish I had that part straight for the story! But.....He was explaining how 70% was sooooo low, that it was a huge difference for him and was scared by the number. When I heard the PFT number I thought that was so interesting. I guess 70% for a 'normal' person is pretty bad, but all in all it seems pretty good to me right now. I wish I knew what his numbers are now.

Doesn't add much to the techincal info, but I'm curious too about this question.

 

[CowTown]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Sevenstars</b></i>

I remember when I was 10 years old and doing PFTs and I wanted to bring in my friends to do it so we could compare. I should have! If anyone has a very cool pulmonary lab, or a PFT machine in your house, start giving PFTs to your family and friends amd tell us the results. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif" border="0">

</end quote></div>



I have an interesting tid bit to add that I found very interesting a few years back. A family member of mine who does not have CF, is overweight, smokes and suddenly had a lung collapse and extreme high blood pressure. I don't remember exactly what else was going on but those were basics. It was serious and he was in ICU for about a month as I remember. They trached him too while they were hoping his lungs inflated back to normal.

I remember hearing the news of him doing PFTs and they were around 70%. Honestly, though I'm not positive if his 70% was before all this or right after. I wish I had that part straight for the story! But.....He was explaining how 70% was sooooo low, that it was a huge difference for him and was scared by the number. When I heard the PFT number I thought that was so interesting. I guess 70% for a 'normal' person is pretty bad, but all in all it seems pretty good to me right now. I wish I knew what his numbers are now.

Doesn't add much to the techincal info, but I'm curious too about this question.

 

[CowTown]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Sevenstars</b></i>

I remember when I was 10 years old and doing PFTs and I wanted to bring in my friends to do it so we could compare. I should have! If anyone has a very cool pulmonary lab, or a PFT machine in your house, start giving PFTs to your family and friends amd tell us the results. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif" border="0">

</end quote></div>



I have an interesting tid bit to add that I found very interesting a few years back. A family member of mine who does not have CF, is overweight, smokes and suddenly had a lung collapse and extreme high blood pressure. I don't remember exactly what else was going on but those were basics. It was serious and he was in ICU for about a month as I remember. They trached him too while they were hoping his lungs inflated back to normal.

I remember hearing the news of him doing PFTs and they were around 70%. Honestly, though I'm not positive if his 70% was before all this or right after. I wish I had that part straight for the story! But.....He was explaining how 70% was sooooo low, that it was a huge difference for him and was scared by the number. When I heard the PFT number I thought that was so interesting. I guess 70% for a 'normal' person is pretty bad, but all in all it seems pretty good to me right now. I wish I knew what his numbers are now.

Doesn't add much to the techincal info, but I'm curious too about this question.

 

[CowTown]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Sevenstars</b></i>

I remember when I was 10 years old and doing PFTs and I wanted to bring in my friends to do it so we could compare. I should have! If anyone has a very cool pulmonary lab, or a PFT machine in your house, start giving PFTs to your family and friends amd tell us the results. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif" border="0">

</end quote>



I have an interesting tid bit to add that I found very interesting a few years back. A family member of mine who does not have CF, is overweight, smokes and suddenly had a lung collapse and extreme high blood pressure. I don't remember exactly what else was going on but those were basics. It was serious and he was in ICU for about a month as I remember. They trached him too while they were hoping his lungs inflated back to normal.

I remember hearing the news of him doing PFTs and they were around 70%. Honestly, though I'm not positive if his 70% was before all this or right after. I wish I had that part straight for the story! But.....He was explaining how 70% was sooooo low, that it was a huge difference for him and was scared by the number. When I heard the PFT number I thought that was so interesting. I guess 70% for a 'normal' person is pretty bad, but all in all it seems pretty good to me right now. I wish I knew what his numbers are now.

Doesn't add much to the techincal info, but I'm curious too about this question.

 

[CowTown]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Sevenstars</b></i>
<br />
<br />I remember when I was 10 years old and doing PFTs and I wanted to bring in my friends to do it so we could compare. I should have! If anyone has a very cool pulmonary lab, or a PFT machine in your house, start giving PFTs to your family and friends amd tell us the results. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif" border="0">
<br />
<br /></end quote>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />I have an interesting tid bit to add that I found very interesting a few years back. A family member of mine who does not have CF, is overweight, smokes and suddenly had a lung collapse and extreme high blood pressure. I don't remember exactly what else was going on but those were basics. It was serious and he was in ICU for about a month as I remember. They trached him too while they were hoping his lungs inflated back to normal.
<br />
<br />I remember hearing the news of him doing PFTs and they were around 70%. Honestly, though I'm not positive if his 70% was before all this or right after. I wish I had that part straight for the story! But.....He was explaining how 70% was sooooo low, that it was a huge difference for him and was scared by the number. When I heard the PFT number I thought that was so interesting. I guess 70% for a 'normal' person is pretty bad, but all in all it seems pretty good to me right now. I wish I knew what his numbers are now.
<br />
<br />Doesn't add much to the techincal info, but I'm curious too about this question.