Live expectancy now versus 100 years ago page

[hdmod]

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!!!!!

[Knifegill]

Because THIS is now considered living:

[activia]

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".

[touchdowntodd]

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 ..

[NWPrimate]

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

[hdmod]

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

[dbalch]

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.

[touchdowntodd]

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 ...

[driver8]

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?

[Finnegans Wake]

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.