Mountain Living More Heart-Friendly, Study Suggests

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Living in the mountains may provide benefits beyond a picturesque view. The results of a new study indicate that mountain dwellers live longer than their lowland counterparts, perhaps because their hearts get a better work out on a day-to-day basis.

Greece has one of the lowest death rates from heart disease and other causes among industrialized nations. Nikos Baibas of the University of Athens Medical School and his colleagues tracked the health of 1,150 people living in three different villages within 200 kilometers of Athens--Arahova, Zevgolatio and Aidonia--over a 15-year period. The study participants all had similar daily activities because the predominant livelihoods for both men and women are the same in all three villages. But whereas Arahova is located 950 meters above sea level, Zevgolatio and Aidonia are located in the plains. The researchers collected information about general health and potential risk factors at the beginning of the study and subjects submitted blood samples as well. According to a report published in the April issue of the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, at the end of the study period the residents of the mountain village had lower overall death rates and lower cardiovascular death rates than the lowland residents did, despite initially testing higher for both circulating blood lipids and blood pressure. The beneficial effect of mountain-dwelling was more pronounced among men, the team reports.

Living at higher altitudes, with their lower-oxygen environments, can induce physiological changes in the body. "Residence in mountainous areas seems to have a protective effect from total and coronary mortality," the authors conclude. They suggest that the increased physical activity from walking on rugged terrain with less oxygen in the surrounding air could explain their findings.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe