Re: Re: 1907-2007.. who gets the credit for longevity ..?

[Guest guest]

One of the things that has contributed to the increased longevity is

decreased infant mortality and fewer women dying in childbirth. Even

in the bible, written thousands of years ago, 'the days of our years

are threescore and ten.' If you could get through childhood and

childbirth without dying, you were likely to live seventy years even

back then.

Averages are misleading. People didn't live to an average age of

40. It was trimodal: A bunch of deaths in the first five years of

life, a bunch of deaths among females between the ages of 15 and 40,

and then pretty much everyone else plus or minus 70 years, and each

year during tough times some of the weaker older folks would die.

We've done a lot about all of these causes of death, but especially

infant mortality and childbirth deaths, and of course our modern life

makes it less likely older folks will die off during tough thimes,

although even now during hot spells a few older very poor people who

have no AC will die.

On Jan 17, 2008, at 11:13 PM, wrote:

> --- Dan <repent_kog_is_near@...> wrote:

> > I have a puzzling question..

> > The Life expectancy for americans has increased by 30+ years in 100

> > years..

> > Who/what all gets the credit..

>

> Dan, the CDC has stats for the U.S. back to 1900. It looks like a lot

> more people died before the age of 40 back then than now. Life

> expectancy at age 60 has increased by only about 7 years.

>

> Life expectancy

> at birth:

> 49.2 in 1900

> 77.4 in 2003

>

> at age 5:

> 60.0 in 1900

> 78.1 in 2003

>

> at age 20:

> 62.8 in 1900

> 78.4 in 2003

>

> at age 40:

> 68.3 in 1900

> 79.5 in 2003

>

> at age 60:

> 74.8 in 1900

> 82.2 in 2003

>

> at age 80:

> 85.3 in 1900

> 88.9 in 2003

>

> source:

> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_14.pdf

>

> The death rate per 100,000 population has decreased almost in half

> from about 1,548 in 1900 to 801 in 2004. But in 1900, about a third

> of the deaths were from pneumonia, tuberculosis, and diarrhea, the top

> three causes, compared to almost half from heart disease and cancer,

> the top two in 2004. In 1900, heart disease and cancer only caused

> about 13% of the deaths. The rate of death from accidents was almost

> twice as high in 1900 as in 2004. The rate of death from cancer has

> nearly tripled and the rate for heart disease has nearly doubled.

>

> U.S. leading causes of death 2004 (CDC)

> Rate per 100,000 population

> 800.8 All causes

> 217.0 Heart diseases

> 185.8 Malignant neoplasms

> 50.0 Cerebrovascular diseases

> 41.1 Chronic lower respiratory diseases

> 37.7 Accidents

> 24.5 Diabetes mellitus

> 21.8 Alzheimers disease

> 19.8 Influenza and pneumonia

> 14.2 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis

> 11.2 Septicemia

> 10.9 Suicide

>

> source:

> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr55/nvsr55_19.pdf

>

> U.S. leading causes of death 1900 (CDC)

> Rate per 100,000 population

> 1,548.1 All causes per 100,000

> 202.2 Pneumonia

> 194.4 Tuberculosis

> 142.7 Diarrhea, enteritis, and ulceration of the intestines

> 137.4 Heart diseases

> 106.9 Intracranial lesions of vascular origin

> 88.6 Nephritis

> 72.6 All accidents

> 64.0 Cancer and other malignant tumors

> 50.2 Senility

> 40.3 Diptheria

>

> source:

> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/lead1900_98.pdf

>

> So, I'm guessing hygiene and medicine have considerably reduced deaths

> from infectious diseases, more than offsetting the large rise in heart

> disease and cancer.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 1/17/08, <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> Dan, the CDC has stats for the U.S. back to 1900. It looks like a lot

> more people died before the age of 40 back then than now. Life

> expectancy at age 60 has increased by only about 7 years.

Thanks . I've been laboring under the illusion that reduction in

infant and childhood mortality accounted for most of the difference,

but those stats clearly refute that. At five or 20 years, for

example, there is a 16-year difference in lfie expectancy! So

intervening in adulthood diseases to prevent mortality must be huge.

But, you know, there is another question: how healthy were people in

1900? How much of a pat on the back to we deserve to give ourselves

for improving over 1900 America?

Chris

[Guest guest]

> The doctor sent him in for immediate

> emplacement of a coronary stent. Now my friend is good for another

> 10-20 years without having to have suffered a heart attack.

Actually, I seem to remember reading that the effects of stents on

mortality aren't all they're cracked up to be, though I don't have any

references at hand.

But yes, antibiotics, surgery and sanitation (smallpox, for example,

is largely a disease of poor sanitation) are the big three reasons for

the increase in life expectancy, but food quality has finally declined

enough that life expectancy is starting to decline too despite all

those factors, and I doubt antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria

are prevalent enough yet to have a meaningful impact on overall

mortality rates.

-

[Guest guest]

this table shows that the byzantine era was the peak of longevity prior to

the mid-late 1900s (ie: now):

http://tinyurl.com/2u3xhs

*HEALTH & LONGEVITY OF ANCIENT PEOPLES*

*Pelvic Inlet Depth Index

% (higher is better)*

*Average Adult Stature*

*Median

Lifespan (yrs)*

*Historical Time Period*

*Male

cm

(ft/in)*

*Female

cm

(ft/in)*

*Male*

*Fem.*

*30,000 to 9,000 B.C. *( " Late Paleolithic " times, i.e., roughly 50/50

plant/animal diet--according to latest figures available elsewhere.)

97.7

177.1

(5'9.7)

166.5

(5'5.6)

35.4

30.0

*9,000 to 7,000 B.C. *( " Mesolithic " transition period from Paleolithic to

some agricultural products.)

86.3

172.5

(5'7.9)

159.7

(5'2.9)

33.5

31.3

*7,000 to 5,000 B.C. *( " Early Neolithic, " i.e., agriculture first spreads

widely: As diet becomes more agricultural, it also becomes more vegetarian

in character--relatively much less meat at roughly 10% of the diet, and much

more plant food, much of which was grain-based.)

76.6

169.6

(5'6.8)

155.5

(5'1.2)

33.6

29.8

*5,000 to 3,000 B.C. *( " Late Neolithic, " i.e., the transition is mostly

complete.)

75.6(?)

161.3

(5'3.5)

154.3

(5'0.7)

33.1

29.2

*3,000 to 2,000 B.C. *( " Early Bronze " period)

85

166.3

(5'5.4)

152.9

(5'0.2)

33.6

29.4

*2,000 B.C. *and following ( " Middle People " )

78.8

166.1

(5'5.4)

153.5

(5'0.4)

36.5

31.4

*Circa 1,450 B.C. *( " Bronze Kings " )

82.6(?)

172.5

(5'7.9)

160.1

(5'3.0)

35.9

36.1

*1,450 to 1,150 B.C. *( " Late Bronze " )

79.5

166.8

(5'5.7)

154.5

(5'0.8)

39.6

32.6

*1,150 to 650 B.C. *( " Early Iron " )

80.6

166.7

(5'5.6)

155.1

(5'1.1)

39.0

30.9

*650 to 300 B.C. *( " Classic " )

83.5

170.5

(5'7.1)

156.2

(5'1.5)

44.1

36.8

*300 B.C. to 120 A.D. *( " Hellenistic " )

86.6

171.9

(5'7.7)

156.4

(5'1.6)

41.9

38.0

*120 to 600 A.D. *( " Imperial Roman " )

84.6

169.2

(5'6.6)

158.0

(5'2.2)

38.8

34.2

*Medieval Greece*

85.9

169.3

(5'6.7)

157.0

(5'1.8)

37.7

31.1

*Byzantine Constantinople*

87.9

169.8

(5'6.9)

154.9

(5'1.0)

46.2

37.3

*1400 to 1800 A.D. *( " Baroque " )

84.0

172.2

(5'7.8)

158.0

(5'2.2)

33.9

28.5

*1800 to 1920 A.D. *( " Romantic " )

82.9

170.1

(5'7.0)

157.6

(5'2.0)

40.0

38.4

* " Modern U.S. White " *(1980-ish presumably)

92.1

174.2

(5'8.6)

163.4

(5'4.3)

71.0

78.5

it would be great to see the age specific longevities for these prior eras

but my guess is that won't be forthcoming anytime soon. note the height and

pelvic remain best for the paleo folk.

for the paleo folk a broken leg was likely a death sentence. with today's

vastly superior trauma capabilities and hugely reduced reliance on physical

prowess there's presumably much less death as compared to paleo times.

perhaps an interesting study would be that of wild dogs (ie: wolves) and

domesticated dogs. if wolves could be studied where they remain more or less

free of modern man's impact (perhaps not possible now) there might be some

interesting corollaries between ancient and modern man (ie: wolves and

domesticated dogs). the domesticated dog lives much longer but i'm not sure

they are healthier from a physiological standpoint but rather much less

likely to suffer trauma and if they do they receive tlc that's simply not an

option for their wild counterparts. also starvation might be a pretty big

differing factor. eating crap (ie: dog food) is still better than starving i

think.

oliver...

On Jan 18, 2008 9:44 AM, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> On 1/17/08, <oz4caster@... <oz4caster%40>> wrote:

>

> > Dan, the CDC has stats for the U.S. back to 1900. It looks like a lot

> > more people died before the age of 40 back then than now. Life

> > expectancy at age 60 has increased by only about 7 years.

>

> Thanks . I've been laboring under the illusion that reduction in

> infant and childhood mortality accounted for most of the difference,

> but those stats clearly refute that. At five or 20 years, for

> example, there is a 16-year difference in lfie expectancy! So

> intervening in adulthood diseases to prevent mortality must be huge.

>

> But, you know, there is another question: how healthy were people in

> 1900? How much of a pat on the back to we deserve to give ourselves

> for improving over 1900 America?

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

On 1/18/08, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> But, you know, there is another question: how healthy were people in

> 1900? How much of a pat on the back to we deserve to give ourselves

> for improving over 1900 America?

This is from Psalm 90, written probably around 3,000 years ago:

========

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2090:10; & version=31;

The length of our days is seventy years—

or eighty, if we have the strength;

yet their span [a] is but trouble and sorrow,

for they quickly pass, and we fly away.

=========

This would suggest that people in 1900 America were living shorter

lives than the ancient Israelites, but that modern technology has

pushed the average lifespan up in modern America to what was

achievable but not average for the ancient Israelites.

Chris

[Guest guest]

i'm not sure these folks were actually doing averages here but rather

looking at how old the oldest among them were and reporting that. do you

think they were factoring in the dead infants 'n such for that quote?

oliver...

On Jan 18, 2008 10:44 AM, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...>

wrote:

> On 1/18/08, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

>

> > But, you know, there is another question: how healthy were people in

> > 1900? How much of a pat on the back to we deserve to give ourselves

> > for improving over 1900 America?

>

> This is from Psalm 90, written probably around 3,000 years ago:

>

> ========

> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2090:10; & version=31;

>

> The length of our days is seventy years—

> or eighty, if we have the strength;

> yet their span [a] is but trouble and sorrow,

> for they quickly pass, and we fly away.

> =========

>

> This would suggest that people in 1900 America were living shorter

> lives than the ancient Israelites, but that modern technology has

> pushed the average lifespan up in modern America to what was

> achievable but not average for the ancient Israelites.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

On 1/18/08, oliver t griswold <olivergriswold@...> wrote:

> this table shows that the byzantine era was the peak of longevity prior to

> the mid-late 1900s (ie: now):

Hmm. Well, hospitals as we know them were invented in the Byzantine

empire and were most advanced in Constantinople around the turn of the

second millenium, so that could play a factor. But, how do they

determine lifespans of prehistoric peoples? I would put more stock in

figures derived from a society that recorded this type of data in some

form.

Chris

[Guest guest]

i agree. i think that *if* it can be determined that the stature and pelvic

measurements are representative they are a much better overall indicator of

well being than the longevity stats.

oliver...

On Jan 18, 2008 10:49 AM, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...>

wrote:

> On 1/18/08, oliver t griswold

<olivergriswold@...<olivergriswold%40gmail.com>>

> wrote:

> > this table shows that the byzantine era was the peak of longevity prior

> to

> > the mid-late 1900s (ie: now):

>

> Hmm. Well, hospitals as we know them were invented in the Byzantine

> empire and were most advanced in Constantinople around the turn of the

> second millenium, so that could play a factor. But, how do they

> determine lifespans of prehistoric peoples? I would put more stock in

> figures derived from a society that recorded this type of data in some

> form.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

On 1/18/08, oliver t griswold <olivergriswold@...> wrote:

> i'm not sure these folks were actually doing averages here but rather

> looking at how old the oldest among them were and reporting that. do you

> think they were factoring in the dead infants 'n such for that quote?

Well, it's basically a poem, so I have no idea. I wouldn't expect

childhood mortality to be very high in Israel during this time because

they had quite advanced hygenic practices under the Mosaic law. They

had one of the first if not the first census recorded in history, so

they might have had a relatively accurate sense of lifespan as well.

It is hardly *good* data, but I don't think you really get *good* data

until the 20th century (at least from what I have seen).

Chris

[Guest guest]

-

> I think we do have to give credit (begrudgingly to allopathic

> medicine for it's successes in treating infectious disease with drugs

> and for treatment of injuries.

I thought that's what I was doing, actually, but yes, to be clear,

modern medicine is stunningly successful at trauma care and at the

immediate treatment of many infectious diseases, in part because it's

much harder to advocate or even believe in harmful treatments when the

outcomes are immediately evident and therefore all but undeniable.

That said, much of the success in eradicating disease (as opposed to

treating it when it crops up) should be credited to sanitation rather

than vaccination.

> The worst remaining

> false alarms are raw milk, red meat, organ meat, and saturated fat

> phobias that are still prevalent - probably largely driven by vegan

> propaganda.

I think it's probably easy to overstate the power of veganism as a

moral philosophy in swaying public policy, though I certainly wouldn't

discount it entirely. The war on saturated fats and animal foods

predates the development of veganism and even vegetarianism as any

kind of significant forces in this country by a significant amount of

time, and actually stems purely from financial considerations.

Hydrogenated vegetable oils can be produced domestically and are

vastly more profitable than tropical oils and animal fats like lard,

butter and tallow. It's similarly much more profitable to

industrially process wheat and soy and corn into " high value " food

products and sell them directly to the consumer than it is to first

feed them to cows and then sell the beef to the consumer. Etc.

Always remember to follow the money.

-

[Guest guest]

I've read that life expectancy has gone down with the pandemic of Diabetes and

some other food -caused [by lack or nutrients/presence of added poisons/fake

foods] illnesses as of this current generation.

Katy Brezger

http://to-reverse-diabetes.blogspot.com/

Be a Blessing, Find ways to be someone's Santa Claus all year 'round. May you be

so richly blessed that you will bless others with what overflows from your cup.

" If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they

take, their bodies will soon be in a sorry state as are the souls of those who

live under tyranny. "

~ Jefferson~

Re: Re: 1907-2007.. who gets the credit for longevity ..?

On 1/17/08, <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> Dan, the CDC has stats for the U.S. back to 1900. It looks like a lot

> more people died before the age of 40 back then than now. Life

> expectancy at age 60 has increased by only about 7 years.

Thanks . I've been laboring under the illusion that reduction in

infant and childhood mortality accounted for most of the difference,

but those stats clearly refute that. At five or 20 years, for

example, there is a 16-year difference in lfie expectancy! So

intervening in adulthood diseases to prevent mortality must be huge.

But, you know, there is another question: how healthy were people in

1900? How much of a pat on the back to we deserve to give ourselves

for improving over 1900 America?

Chris

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.6/1230 - Release Date: 1/17/2008

4:59 PM

[Guest guest]

people back then were hardier they were work-hardened, but communicable

diseases and some ignorant practices [i.e. arsenic for pesticides] led to a

lower life expectancy. 'Safety' is an illusion we cling to in our darkened

beds at night.

Katy Brezger

http://to-reverse-diabetes.blogspot.com/

Be a Blessing, Find ways to be someone's Santa Claus all year 'round. May

you be so richly blessed that you will bless others with what overflows from

your cup.

" If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they

take, their bodies will soon be in a sorry state as are the souls of those

who live under tyranny. "

~ Jefferson~

Re: Re: 1907-2007.. who gets the credit for longevity ..?

On 1/18/08, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> But, you know, there is another question: how healthy were people in

> 1900? How much of a pat on the back to we deserve to give ourselves

> for improving over 1900 America?

This is from Psalm 90, written probably around 3,000 years ago:

========

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2090:10; & version=31;

The length of our days is seventy years—

or eighty, if we have the strength;

yet their span [a] is but trouble and sorrow,

for they quickly pass, and we fly away.

=========

This would suggest that people in 1900 America were living shorter

lives than the ancient Israelites, but that modern technology has

pushed the average lifespan up in modern America to what was

achievable but not average for the ancient Israelites.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Katy-

> I've read that life expectancy has gone down with the pandemic of

> Diabetes and some other food -caused [by lack or nutrients/presence

> of added poisons/fake foods] illnesses as of this current generation.

Technically speaking, it's hard to say. It's probably dropping, but

we won't know for sure until it happens.

<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7209499>

What particularly infuriates me is that so many people respond to the

plague of obesity and metabolic syndrome by saying they're diseases of

prosperity!

-

[Guest guest]

-

> , that's a good point. I had momentarily forgotten about the

> money side of food politics. But I wonder how red meat got shafted so

> much, they certainly have a strong lobby?

Two reasons. Well, maybe three, actually. First, while the red meat

lobby does have a lot of money, it's a pauper compared to the grain/

legume/processed-food lobby. Second, the ranching business was, at

least historically, made up of individualists who were also competing

with each other and was slow to wake up to the necessity of lobbying.

(This was in marked contrast to the big agro business, which

centralized a lot faster and followed more of a manufacturing business

model.) And third, as meat production consolidated, producers had no

choice but to turn to the factory farming model and begin consuming

lots of lots of grain and legumes, putting them in bed with their

enemies, so to speak.

-

[Guest guest]

no, we give the credit to God for our marvelous recuperative powers even in the

face of dangerous drug bombardment, but some hygiene practices have helped.

Katy Brezger

http://to-reverse-diabetes.blogspot.com/

Be a Blessing, Find ways to be someone's Santa Claus all year 'round. May you be

so richly blessed that you will bless others with what overflows from your cup.

" If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they

take, their bodies will soon be in a sorry state as are the souls of those who

live under tyranny. "

~ Jefferson~

Re: Re: 1907-2007.. who gets the credit for longevity ..?

-

> I think we do have to give credit (begrudgingly to allopathic

> medicine for it's successes in treating infectious disease with drugs

> and for treatment of injuries.

I thought that's what I was doing, actually, but yes, to be clear,

modern medicine is stunningly successful at trauma care and at the

immediate treatment of many infectious diseases, in part because it's

much harder to advocate or even believe in harmful treatments when the

outcomes are immediately evident and therefore all but undeniable.

That said, much of the success in eradicating disease (as opposed to

treating it when it crops up) should be credited to sanitation rather

than vaccination.

> The worst remaining

> false alarms are raw milk, red meat, organ meat, and saturated fat

> phobias that are still prevalent - probably largely driven by vegan

> propaganda.

I think it's probably easy to overstate the power of veganism as a

moral philosophy in swaying public policy, though I certainly wouldn't

discount it entirely. The war on saturated fats and animal foods

predates the development of veganism and even vegetarianism as any

kind of significant forces in this country by a significant amount of

time, and actually stems purely from financial considerations.

Hydrogenated vegetable oils can be produced domestically and are

vastly more profitable than tropical oils and animal fats like lard,

butter and tallow. It's similarly much more profitable to

industrially process wheat and soy and corn into " high value " food

products and sell them directly to the consumer than it is to first

feed them to cows and then sell the beef to the consumer. Etc.

Always remember to follow the money.

-

[Guest guest]

Katy Brezger

http://to-reverse-diabetes.blogspot.com/

Be a Blessing, Find ways to be someone's Santa Claus all year 'round. May you be

so richly blessed that you will bless others with what overflows from your cup.

" If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they

take, their bodies will soon be in a sorry state as are the souls of those who

live under tyranny. "

~ Jefferson~

Re: Re: 1907-2007.. who gets the credit for longevity ..?

What particularly infuriates me is that so many people respond to the

plague of obesity and metabolic syndrome by saying they're diseases of

prosperity!

no, they are diseases of first-world poverty, cheap foods are the culprit HFCS

& fried foods, to start with.

-

[Guest guest]

On 1/18/08, oliver t griswold <olivergriswold@...> wrote:

> i'm not sure these folks were actually doing averages here but rather

> looking at how old the oldest among them were and reporting that. do you

> think they were factoring in the dead infants 'n such for that quote?

Oh, also, that doesn't matter with respect to my comment, because I

was looking at the life expectancies posted for 20-year-olds,

which factors out infant and childhood mortality.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 1/18/08, <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> > Always remember to follow the money.

> , that's a good point. I had momentarily forgotten about the

> money side of food politics. But I wonder how red meat got shafted so

> much, they certainly have a strong lobby?

If you read T. Colin 's book, you get the exact opposite

picture of the money flow: good science stood up against the powerful

lobby of the meat and egg industries. He's an insider, and he has a

lot of insiders' detail, and I'd recommend reading the book (The China

Study) just for the historical stuff. And he's right that there was a

powerful and well financed egg and meat lobby that opposed the

incoming and ascending anti-fat, anti-animal foods, anti-cholesterol

theories. Colpo lists the fact that the main opponents were industry

folks as one of the reasons for the success of the anti-cholesterol

theory in fact.

Now, certainly the vegetable oil industry is also well financed, and

one could argue that the grain and oil industries were better financed

and/or better organized. But to reduce it merely to the flow of money

seems very simplistic to me and probably seriously flawed.

The ascent of the anti-animal foods theory really came with Ancel Keys

Seven Countries Study, as I understand it. Colpo presents it as if he

was acting not out of financial motives but to avenge the humiliation

and repudiation he received when presenting his diet-heart theory of

atherosclerosis at a World Health Organization conference. Maybe

Colpo's analysis is off, I don't know. But the ideas really go back

to the cholesterol-fed rabbits. Whole foods like meat, milk, eggs and

beef brains produced atherosclerosis in rabbits, so if folks who

belonged to the rabbits-are-relevant-to-humans camp were looking for

foods that might be causing hypercholesterolemia, wouldn't fatty

animal foods be the first place to start?

Let's not discount the inherent significance of ideas.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Let's not discount the inherent significance of ideas.

Certainly, but it's also important to remember that ideas generally

need support and nourishment to persevere. It's a rare idea that's so

compelling that it seemingly takes over all by itself, and I'd argue

that even those ideas are generally ones whose time has come, so to

speak -- IOW, ideas which fell on ground which was essentially pre-

prepared for them. Ancel Keys' personal motivations are certainly

interesting, but they're beside the point in a larger sociological

sense. The question is what were the forces that promulgated and

supported his idea, not why he personally was so attached to it.

History is full of people who had unpopular ideas and died bitter

because nobody ever listened to them -- to the degree they're even

written about at all. When someone has an idea which is very

conducive to profit, however, those parties which stand to profit will

often put every bit of their weight behind it, and often enough they

even have a part in the initial development of the idea.

> But to reduce it merely to the flow of money

> seems very simplistic to me and probably seriously flawed.

Following the money doesn't reduce anything to the mere flow of money;

it follows the money through human hands and observes the influence of

money on human behavior. To discount money is to discount a powerful

incentive which has a profound effect on human activity.

-

[Guest guest]

-

> On a side note, I know a lot of people who literally don't want to

> live over eighty or ninety, because they EXPECT their health to be

> practically non-existent and to be dependent on pharmaceutical drugs

> just to keep them alive.

Me too. They think I'm crazy for being interested in life extension,

because to them, once you hit your thirties or forties, the inevitable

decline towards senility and decrepitude starts accelerating

precipitously. In their eyes, IOW, I just want to be more miserable

for longer.

-

[Guest guest]

-

> , you may be right about the influence of money, often behind the

> scenes, but also more openly in the form of advertising propaganda.

> When people are constantly bombarded by advertisements that low fat

> diets are good for you and saturated fat is bad - before long, people

> are believing it's true. I should know, I was one of them

Definitely -- advertising is one of the key tools of any monied

interest, though hardly the only one. As usual, I highly recommend

_Trust Us, We're Experts_, though even they get certain things wrong.

-

[Guest guest]

i found dr. eades follow up comment quite interesting:

An early 20th epidemiologist studying the differences in aging between

> whites and Native Americans who lived in the same area found that their were

> about 20 Native American centenarians to every white centenarian. At the

> time the Native Americans were still living a Paleolithic lifestyle (or at

> least the centenarians had been for most of their lives). So, in brief, the

> old argument that it doesn't matter what was healthy for Paleolithic man

> because he died young doesn't really hold water.

>

i've asked him for this reference to examine it a bit more closely.

oliver...

On Jan 18, 2008 1:39 PM, <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> --- Connie <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

> > There is an interesting article at Dr. Eades' blog comparing people

> > of the Civil War era and today that talks a little about what they

> > ate and disease and life expectancy. " So Big and So Healthy Indeed "

> >

> http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/uncategorized/so-big-and-so-healthy-indeed/

>

> Connie, thanks for posting. Dr Eades assessment of the Civil War era

> diet as compared to today sounds very feasible:

>

> " We've got two extremes. They were suffering from undernutrition; we

> are suffering from overnutrition. If you've got the choice, take

> overnutrition, especially coupled with antibiotics and all the other

> marvels of modern medicine. But just because overnutrition makes you

> bigger and stronger and allows you to live longer than chronic

> starvation, it isn't optimal nutrition. Optimal nutrition, in my view

> anyway, is plenty of good quality protein, plenty of good quality fat,

> and easy on the carbs. "

>

> His reference to larger more robust ancestors 100,000 years ago fits

> in with the evidence that Oliver recently provided that showed both

> men and women were taller on average 30,000 to 9,000 years ago than

> they are today. Eades says:

>

> " Paleolithic man, who ate plenty of meat, was large and robust with a

> greater bone cortical thickness than we have today. It's only been in

> the last generation that we have caught up size-wise to our ancestors

> of a hundred thousand years ago. Why? Because for the first time since

> the advent of agriculture, meat has become relatively cheap and

> plentiful. "

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

what a bunch of crabwalking!

Katy Brezger

http://to-reverse-diabetes.blogspot.com/

Be a Blessing, Find ways to be someone's Santa Claus all year 'round. May you be

so richly blessed that you will bless others with what overflows from your cup.

" If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they

take, their bodies will soon be in a sorry state as are the souls of those who

live under tyranny. "

~ Jefferson~

Re: 1907-2007.. who gets the credit for longevity ..?

--- Katy <webriter@...> wrote:

> One factor that might be mentioned here is the cancer stats for an

> example, if a person lives for 5 years and one day after being

> diagnosed with cancer, they are a 'survivor' according to

> statistics, then most people actually die of cachexia rather listed

> as dying of cancer, it's called renal failure on the death

> certificate. All Statistics seem to be manipulated that way. I was

> just using that as an example of one of the ways it looks like the

> longevity stats show we are long-lived. I'd like to see the stats

> on the number of years, on average people are drooling in their

> wheelchairs. Without quality quantity has no meaning; IMHO.

Katy, that's a good point too. The accuracy of stats on cause of

death are probably somewhat crude at best. Many people have multiple

problems when they die and assigning a cause my be just a guess. The

same problem exists in classifying disease in the first place. I

remember reading that if a person has had a polio vaccine, they will

not be classified as having polio, even if they meet all the symptoms.

BTW, on my point about stubborn pride, I just saw this post by Dr

Eades about the " Statinator " :

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cardiovascular-disease/a-statinator-speaks/

I wouldn't be surprised if Dr Nissen (the statinator) also has plenty

of big pharma money propping him up and keeping him cozy

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.6/1230 - Release Date: 1/17/2008

4:59 PM

[Guest guest]

dr. eades responded that he doesn't have the citation:

http://tinyurl.com/2s9uew (scroll to bottom). so, all you folks with access

to the fancy schmancy medical archives get yer googles on <g> !

thanks,

oliver...

On Jan 18, 2008 1:53 PM, oliver t griswold <olivergriswold@...> wrote:

> i found dr. eades follow up comment quite interesting:

>

> An early 20th epidemiologist studying the differences in aging between

> > whites and Native Americans who lived in the same area found that their were

> > about 20 Native American centenarians to every white centenarian. At the

> > time the Native Americans were still living a Paleolithic lifestyle (or at

> > least the centenarians had been for most of their lives). So, in brief, the

> > old argument that it doesn't matter what was healthy for Paleolithic man

> > because he died young doesn't really hold water.

> >

>

> i've asked him for this reference to examine it a bit more closely.

>

> oliver...

[Guest guest]

Out of curiosity, what made you change your mind and how did you find

out about Weston A. Price?

On Jan 18, 2008, at 9:23 AM, wrote:

> --- Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>> Following the money doesn't reduce anything to the mere flow of money;

>> it follows the money through human hands and observes the influence of

>> money on human behavior. To discount money is to discount a powerful

>> incentive which has a profound effect on human activity.

>

> , you may be right about the influence of money, often behind the

> scenes, but also more openly in the form of advertising propaganda.

> When people are constantly bombarded by advertisements that low fat

> diets are good for you and saturated fat is bad - before long, people

> are believing it's true. I should know, I was one of them

>

>

>

Parashis

artpages@...

portfolio pages:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11468108@N08/

http://www.artpagesonline.com/EPportfolio/000portfolio.html