Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Live expectancy now versus 100 years ago

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Live expectancy now versus 100 years ago

    My parents argue if this Primal system is so good----whey do we live longer now than say, 100 year ago?? I haven't the answer. Need some ammo, guys!!!!!

  • #2
    Because THIS is now considered living:

    Crohn's, doing SCD

    Comment


    • #3
      More people have longer lives maybe, but their quality of health is down. Antibiotics have saved a lot of lives, and also vaccines that have eradicated viruses that have killed many in the previous 100 years. So less young people are dying, I dont think that necessarily means that the people that do get to older ages live longer. Do you see the difference? If you dont die as an infant or child... plus our lives are a lot more cushy, people aren't dying out in fields by "fever".
      Last edited by activia; 03-20-2012, 11:15 AM.
      Primal since March 2011

      Female/29 years old/5' 1"/130ish lbs

      Comment


      • #4
        life expectancy goes up drastically as you get older ... remember 100 years ago how many children passed away early .. if you made it to 20 you lived to 60-70-80 years old regularly same as today

        also, you can argue that we dont live taht long, but we are kept alive that long .. many people "should" have passed away and are kept going longer by medication and greedy doctors ..

        but all in all look at childrens mortality . . im sure they remember friends and family with younger brothers or sisters that passed away when still very young ..
        started at 310 July 23rd 2011 ... workin and workin!

        my journal - http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread34980.html



        Comment


        • #5
          Lower infant mortality, antibiotics, more intervention surgery, more "life support".

          Comment


          • #6
            Good stuff people. I thought of some but not all of those points. Thanks a ton

            Comment


            • #7
              One issue here is that average life expectancy statistics include childhood mortality. The main difference between average life spans between today and 100 years is that infant mortality is so much improved. This is mostly due to better understanding of germs and sanitation, also immunizations against communicable diseases has kept more very young and very old people alive.

              I don't think they keep track of statistics of "age people lived to if they survived childhood". If they did, I don't think the numbers would be a lot closer.

              I'm 55, and for me this is a quality of life issue as much as an extension of life issue. This diet has already relieved me of the plague of cold and flu viruses, kidney stones, hemorrhoids, arthritis in my elbows.

              Yes, modern medecine keeps you alive longer, but only to empty your (or the taxpayer's) bank account with overpriced treatments for conditions that either they themselves or the food industry caused. This diet can keep you from being disabled by a heart attack, mentally crippled by alzheimers, crippled by arthritis and on and on.
              Last edited by dbalch; 03-20-2012, 11:39 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                there is a life expectancy chart on the .gov website that shows how long you will live on average based on current age .. but unsure if I know of one for the past ...
                started at 310 July 23rd 2011 ... workin and workin!

                my journal - http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread34980.html



                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by NWPrimate View Post
                  Lower infant mortality, antibiotics, more intervention surgery, more "life support".
                  The impact of dramatically lower infant mortality rates on average life expectancy is often underestimated. As an illustration, imagine Bill Gates walks into your living room. The average income rate of people in your house just went way up. Are you any richer?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I started doing some genealogy research into my father's side of the family, and was able to trace back to the early 18th century in the US (and as far back as 16th century in Germany, Switzerland, etc.). I haven't done any formal LI analysis, but it did seem striking to me that in the 1700s and 1800s especially, my ancestors would have either died very young (many under age 20, even a fair number under 40), but once they cleared that a very high percentage lived well into their 70s, 80s, and even 90s. So, LI average then would have been lower, but I would say that once past the point of danger their longevity was excellent. Many were farmers or lived in rural areas and ate traditional foods, so I would surmise their vitality was excellent even late in life.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by driver8 View Post
                      The impact of dramatically lower infant mortality rates on average life expectancy is often underestimated. As an illustration, imagine Bill Gates walks into your living room. The average income rate of people in your house just went way up. Are you any richer?
                      Absolutely. Let's consider a population of 5 for a thought experiment.

                      We will call these people A,B, C,D & E

                      Age at Death

                      A .5 years
                      B 55 years
                      C 70 years
                      D 60 years
                      E 55 years

                      With this example the "average" lifespan is 48.1 years
                      If poor little "A" lives for the "average" of 48 years instead of dying in infancy, but the rest of the people have the same outcome as before our populations average goes up to 57 years.

                      To be more accurate, without the infant death, the true average would be 60 years. If "A" lived to 60, that brings the average up even further than used in the formula. But with the simple math, you can see that our group's average lifespan just jumped 9 years.

                      Does this mean that B, C, D or E get to live any longer? Of course not.
                      Last edited by NWPrimate; 03-20-2012, 11:41 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        We no longer die because of getting mauled by bears at age 30.
                        My chocolatey Primal journey

                        Unusual food recipes (plus chocolate) blog

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by sakura_girl View Post
                          We no longer die because of getting mauled by bears at age 30.
                          Grok had a lot of survival issues, bear and other predators being one of them. I think paleos suffered terribly from parasites. There's alot of evidence that things got very chippy in the caves over the Winter. Alot of skulls bashed in, similar evidence of this type of within-the-group violence very common in modern hunter gatherers as well.

                          What he probably didn't die of was heart attacks and cancer. He probably didn't have arthritis or alzheimers. And he was probably very physically robust into old age if he did survive the other challenges, not the least of which was starvation ( the intermittent fast that ended up not being intermittent).
                          Last edited by dbalch; 03-20-2012, 11:55 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Knifegill View Post
                            Because THIS is now considered living:

                            They say a picture is worth a thousand words. This one definitely says it all, doesn't it?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Like others have said, we may live longer these days, but our quality of life is absolute shit. Would consider being kept alive on a slew of medications while still living in constant pain and suffering a good life? No, nobody would, but the fact of the matter is there are people who live the last 20 or more years of their lives in such a state. It's such a rare thing to see a healthy elderly person these days that when you do you actually take the time to marvel at them, which is really fucked up because that should be the norm and not the exception.
                              Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own experience.

                              In the mind of the beginner, there are many possibilities; in the mind of the expert, there are few.


                              I've shaken hands with a raccoon and lived to tell the tale

                              SW: 220- 225 pounds at the beginning of January
                              CW: 180 pounds

                              Goals for 2012: Lose a bit more fat and start a serious muscle and strength routine

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X