Guest guest Posted December 7, 2008 Report Share Posted December 7, 2008 Every so often people who don't particularly care about how they eat bring up the question, " If modern food is so bad for us, how come people are living longer? " Recently, I've had an opportunity to look at some actual numbers. I've received a genealogy of my family going back to the 1600s. Some of the entries didn't have both dates of birth and dates of death, so I ignored them. I didn't see any children that died at infancy, so they may have been excluded from the history as well. This was a VERY small set of numbers, so statistically it's insignificant. I just thought it was interesting. Beginning with an ancestor born in 1634 and stopping with anyone born after 1900, this is what I saw. The minimum age of death was 26. The maximum age of death was 98. The average age of death was 63. Over half of them (57%) lived to be older than 65. If I exclude anyone who was born before 1900 but lived into the 1900s, the average age of death actually went UP to 68. I don't know if anyone else thinks this is interesting, but I did. I think the concept that some people have that before modern food/modern medicine, people just didn't live very long is just plain wrong. Terri -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2008 Report Share Posted December 7, 2008 Thinking off the top of my head here...life expectancy, defined as the average lifespan of a human, indeed may have increased. It's very plausible that the distribution of lifespan, and therefore the average, has shifted upward if the variability is changing, especially in a non- symmetrical way. I.e. People aren't really living longer, but the number of children who ARE now living due to the 'eradication' (or reduction) of childhood diseases is no longer pulling the distribution down, not to mention the number of people now living due to transplants and other modern medicine. Unfortunately, the effects of diet and health can't adequately be extracted and reported due to the confounding effects of drugs and other procedures/medications. Would be an interesting study to try though if I had time and access to a database. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2008 Report Share Posted December 7, 2008 One area that modern, western style medicine is very good at dealing with is emergencies and accidents. Statistically, if you save the life of one young child that is gravely injured in an accident, you've greatly increased the average lifespan. Many advances have been made in maternity/prenatal/newborn care that will also statistically increase the average lifespan. 200 years ago I may not have survived my pregnancy due to preeclampsia. I think that it's in the day to day living and chronic health conditions that things have deteriorated. Lynn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2008 Report Share Posted December 8, 2008 I've been doing a lot of interesting research. In the US, we have this idea that we are the most " advanced " , that people live longer here and that people are healthier here. The information I've been finding does NOT support this idea. According to the CDC, for infant mortality, the US ranks 29th (tied with Slovakia and Poland) out of 37 countries reporting. That means 28 countries have a LOWER infant mortality rate than the US! We don't do much better for life expectancy. The US ranks 26th out of 37 countries reporting. One other interesting piece of information. Healthcare costs per person in the US is NEARLY DOUBLE the healthcare cost per person of any other country, even those with higher life expectancies and lower infant mortality. With all the money that is spent in this country on healthcare, you would think that we'd have less infant mortality and a greater life expectancy. But that's not what's happening. With all these statistics, do you think any of ther " experts " might ever come to the conclusion that it has something to do with what people in this country eat??????? All the money spent on healthcare can't even begin to make a dent in the consequences of eating fake, chemically manufactured, empty " food. " Terri -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com 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.