Guest guest Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 I was 60 in 1995 so I expect to live 19.3 yrs longer than that per that table. At 70 in 2003 looks like 13.5yrs or 83.5 yo. On page 270 of the Handbook of Mathe Tables, 1956, Table xxiv. Shows about half living at age 65 starting with 100,000 at age 10. The probability of living one more year at 70 yo is .938 and drops to zero at 95yo. the 50 % prob of living one more year is about 90.5 yrs. At that point only about 600 remain of the orig 100,000. I think the 50% point is now around 69-70yo. That's stats based on experience, used by insurance companies for average folks. You'll get to be a more significant part of that average as you get older. Be nice to see what numbers the average is made of. Regards. [ ] Life Expectancy Hi folks:When the term life expectancy is used, it generally is intended to mean expected age at death of a newborn infant: "When you read a headline saying for instance that American life expectancy has increased but is below Japan's, it is always using what might be called "life expectancy at birth", or more precisely the expected age at death for a newborn infant".Source: http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/Darlington/lifespan.htmThe above is a useful piece explaining a few of the details about the calculation of life expectancy. But even the definition above is somewhat ambiguous. Does it mean the life expectancy of a child born today? If so then that may have only marginal relevance to the lifespan of those of us who were not born today. Or even yesterday. ("I was NOT born yesterday"!)So here is another source which gives life expectancies at ages from zero to 80, going back to the year 1850.http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.htmlFrom this table I can see that I have already reached my life expectancy at birth as of the year I was born. However, since I am still here then I could probably expect to live to age 74 based on the life expectancy given in that table for someone my current age for the year of my birth.But should I be looking at the row corresponding to my year of birth to determine my life expectancy from here on? Or should I look at the data for 2003, the latest shown, and use the number in the column corresponding to my age in 2003? In that case the life expectancy table suggests an age at death of between 80 and 81.Does anyone know which row I should be looking at?[Of course the average person, from whom the data in the table were collected, are not on CRON, and have a BMI approaching 30. I am still not at what I would consider to be a full-CRON weight. But the average weight/BMI for people my age is more than 30% higher than my weight. So I am getting there. Gradually!] Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 I was 60 in 1995 so I expect to live 19.3 yrs longer than that per that table. At 70 in 2003 looks like 13.5yrs or 83.5 yo. On page 270 of the Handbook of Mathe Tables, 1956, Table xxiv. Shows about half living at age 65 starting with 100,000 at age 10. The probability of living one more year at 70 yo is .938 and drops to zero at 95yo. the 50 % prob of living one more year is about 90.5 yrs. At that point only about 600 remain of the orig 100,000. I think the 50% point is now around 69-70yo. That's stats based on experience, used by insurance companies for average folks. You'll get to be a more significant part of that average as you get older. Be nice to see what numbers the average is made of. Regards. [ ] Life Expectancy Hi folks:When the term life expectancy is used, it generally is intended to mean expected age at death of a newborn infant: "When you read a headline saying for instance that American life expectancy has increased but is below Japan's, it is always using what might be called "life expectancy at birth", or more precisely the expected age at death for a newborn infant".Source: http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/Darlington/lifespan.htmThe above is a useful piece explaining a few of the details about the calculation of life expectancy. But even the definition above is somewhat ambiguous. Does it mean the life expectancy of a child born today? If so then that may have only marginal relevance to the lifespan of those of us who were not born today. Or even yesterday. ("I was NOT born yesterday"!)So here is another source which gives life expectancies at ages from zero to 80, going back to the year 1850.http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.htmlFrom this table I can see that I have already reached my life expectancy at birth as of the year I was born. However, since I am still here then I could probably expect to live to age 74 based on the life expectancy given in that table for someone my current age for the year of my birth.But should I be looking at the row corresponding to my year of birth to determine my life expectancy from here on? Or should I look at the data for 2003, the latest shown, and use the number in the column corresponding to my age in 2003? In that case the life expectancy table suggests an age at death of between 80 and 81.Does anyone know which row I should be looking at?[Of course the average person, from whom the data in the table were collected, are not on CRON, and have a BMI approaching 30. I am still not at what I would consider to be a full-CRON weight. But the average weight/BMI for people my age is more than 30% higher than my weight. So I am getting there. Gradually!] Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 Hi JW: The difficulty I am having with that table is (to take a specific example) I am uncertain whether the number in the 2003 row and the 60 column is the number of years remaining for the average person who was 60 in 2003, OR, alternatively, the number of years remaining for someone born in 2003 when they get to be aged 60. We do know, I think, that the 2003 row and 0 column datum is the number of years remaining for the average person born in 2003. So do all the data in the 2003 row refer to individuals born in 2003? Or not? Do you see my point? There is a possible ambiguity which those who prepared the table did not consider it necessary to de-ambiguize (!) Without specific instructions about how the data in the table should be interpreted, it could be read either way. And either way the data are purely extrapolations about the future based on whatever data the investigators could get their hands on at the time. Rodney. --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote: > > I was 60 in 1995 so I expect to live 19.3 yrs longer than that per that table. At 70 in 2003 looks like 13.5yrs or 83.5 yo. > > On page 270 of the Handbook of Mathe Tables, 1956, Table xxiv. > Shows about half living at age 65 starting with 100,000 at age 10. > The probability of living one more year at 70 yo is .938 and drops to zero at 95yo. > the 50 % prob of living one more year is about 90.5 yrs. At that point only about 600 remain of the orig 100,000. > > I think the 50% point is now around 69-70yo. > That's stats based on experience, used by insurance companies for average folks. You'll get to be a more significant part of that average as you get older. Be nice to see what numbers the average is made of. > > Regards. > > [ ] Life Expectancy > > > Hi folks: > > When the term life expectancy is used, it generally is intended to > mean expected age at death of a newborn infant: " When you read a > headline saying for instance that American life expectancy has > increased but is below Japan's, it is always using what might be > called " life expectancy at birth " , or more precisely the expected age > at death for a newborn infant " . > > Source: http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/Darlington/lifespan.htm > > The above is a useful piece explaining a few of the details about the > calculation of life expectancy. But even the definition above is > somewhat ambiguous. Does it mean the life expectancy of a child born > today? If so then that may have only marginal relevance to the > lifespan of those of us who were not born today. Or even yesterday. > ( " I was NOT born yesterday " !) > > So here is another source which gives life expectancies at ages from > zero to 80, going back to the year 1850. > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html > > From this table I can see that I have already reached my life > expectancy at birth as of the year I was born. However, since I am > still here then I could probably expect to live to age 74 based on > the life expectancy given in that table for someone my current age > for the year of my birth. > > But should I be looking at the row corresponding to my year of birth > to determine my life expectancy from here on? Or should I look at > the data for 2003, the latest shown, and use the number in the column > corresponding to my age in 2003? In that case the life expectancy > table suggests an age at death of between 80 and 81. > > Does anyone know which row I should be looking at? > > [Of course the average person, from whom the data in the table were > collected, are not on CRON, and have a BMI approaching 30. I am > still not at what I would consider to be a full-CRON weight. But the > average weight/BMI for people my age is more than 30% higher than my > weight. So I am getting there. Gradually!] > > Rodney. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 Hi JW: The difficulty I am having with that table is (to take a specific example) I am uncertain whether the number in the 2003 row and the 60 column is the number of years remaining for the average person who was 60 in 2003, OR, alternatively, the number of years remaining for someone born in 2003 when they get to be aged 60. We do know, I think, that the 2003 row and 0 column datum is the number of years remaining for the average person born in 2003. So do all the data in the 2003 row refer to individuals born in 2003? Or not? Do you see my point? There is a possible ambiguity which those who prepared the table did not consider it necessary to de-ambiguize (!) Without specific instructions about how the data in the table should be interpreted, it could be read either way. And either way the data are purely extrapolations about the future based on whatever data the investigators could get their hands on at the time. Rodney. --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote: > > I was 60 in 1995 so I expect to live 19.3 yrs longer than that per that table. At 70 in 2003 looks like 13.5yrs or 83.5 yo. > > On page 270 of the Handbook of Mathe Tables, 1956, Table xxiv. > Shows about half living at age 65 starting with 100,000 at age 10. > The probability of living one more year at 70 yo is .938 and drops to zero at 95yo. > the 50 % prob of living one more year is about 90.5 yrs. At that point only about 600 remain of the orig 100,000. > > I think the 50% point is now around 69-70yo. > That's stats based on experience, used by insurance companies for average folks. You'll get to be a more significant part of that average as you get older. Be nice to see what numbers the average is made of. > > Regards. > > [ ] Life Expectancy > > > Hi folks: > > When the term life expectancy is used, it generally is intended to > mean expected age at death of a newborn infant: " When you read a > headline saying for instance that American life expectancy has > increased but is below Japan's, it is always using what might be > called " life expectancy at birth " , or more precisely the expected age > at death for a newborn infant " . > > Source: http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/Darlington/lifespan.htm > > The above is a useful piece explaining a few of the details about the > calculation of life expectancy. But even the definition above is > somewhat ambiguous. Does it mean the life expectancy of a child born > today? If so then that may have only marginal relevance to the > lifespan of those of us who were not born today. Or even yesterday. > ( " I was NOT born yesterday " !) > > So here is another source which gives life expectancies at ages from > zero to 80, going back to the year 1850. > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html > > From this table I can see that I have already reached my life > expectancy at birth as of the year I was born. However, since I am > still here then I could probably expect to live to age 74 based on > the life expectancy given in that table for someone my current age > for the year of my birth. > > But should I be looking at the row corresponding to my year of birth > to determine my life expectancy from here on? Or should I look at > the data for 2003, the latest shown, and use the number in the column > corresponding to my age in 2003? In that case the life expectancy > table suggests an age at death of between 80 and 81. > > Does anyone know which row I should be looking at? > > [Of course the average person, from whom the data in the table were > collected, are not on CRON, and have a BMI approaching 30. I am > still not at what I would consider to be a full-CRON weight. But the > average weight/BMI for people my age is more than 30% higher than my > weight. So I am getting there. Gradually!] > > Rodney. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I tried contacting a compounding pharmacy there with an email. They didn't respond. ________________________________ From: k0cm <Randy@...> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:34:05 PM Subject: Re: Life Expectancy The doctor that started me on T, was Greg West with St 's Internal Medicine. He left town last Spring. My current doctor is just continuing the 'scripts because I've been on it for 2 years. She says she has very little experience with HRT. > > > > Why is it we are so weak these days? Our ancestors fought wars, famines and other problems with out it even effecting them in the long run. > > Is it just cruel evolution or what? > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Dr. Tipu Sultan 11585 W Florissant Ave Florissant, MO 63033 (314) 921-5600 Is Missouri the state you are looking for a doc to help your mom? I have this doc above listed on my thyroid group, no personal experience. If close by, call and ask the questions, perhaps if they cannot help they can refer. Also, check local listings for *compounding* pharmacies for referrals to docs who precribe dessicated thyroid (Armour, Naturethroid), bio-identical s*x hormones or those who use saliva testing; these docs will be more open minded. El Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 That is my doctor! She isn't doing too bad and Dr. Sultan is a 3 hour drive. I was just hoping for someone in her town. Thank you. ________________________________ From: mbmom123 <dbkczar@...> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:55:45 AM Subject: Re: Life Expectancy Dr. Tipu Sultan 11585 W Florissant Ave Florissant, MO 63033 (314) 921-5600 Is Missouri the state you are looking for a doc to help your mom? I have this doc above listed on my thyroid group, no personal experience. If close by, call and ask the questions, perhaps if they cannot help they can refer. Also, check local listings for *compounding* pharmacies for referrals to docs who precribe dessicated thyroid (Armour, Naturethroid) , bio-identical s*x hormones or those who use saliva testing; these docs will be more open minded. El Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.