5 ms·

I'm surprised this statistic isn't brought out more in articles that call cancer, heart disease, etc. diseases of the developed world vs. the modern world, the

by avani 17y ago

I'm surprised this statistic isn't brought out more in articles that call cancer, heart disease, etc. diseases of the developed world vs. the modern world, the difference being that instead of living in a pure time of organic everything, many people simply didn't live long enough to develop our modern diseases.

pyre 17y ago
The way we eat in the 'developed world' is not necessarily the reason that people are living longer. Advances in medicine, sanitation, personal hygiene, etc probably have played a larger role. That said, being in 'the developed world' doesn't necessarily mean that we are eating worse than in previous years. IIRC, the Irish Potato Famine happened because most of the farmers in Ireland ate a diet that mostly consisted of potatoes, so they were starving when the crops were bad (I believe the potatoes that they grew for themselves were different than the ones they grew for the land-owners, and it was the type of potato that they grew for personal food that suffered causing starving farmers). I can't imagine that a diet that largely consists of potatoes is necessarily healthier than eating McDonald's everyday. Just saying...
- JacobAldridge 17y ago
  Actually, you could survive solely on a diet of potatoes and milk, with all the essential nutrients provided - http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2828/could-i-survive-on-nothing-but-potatoes-and-milk http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2828/could-i-surviv... (This includes more potato famine info as well). I doubt fries and a shake would work as well. Then again, maybe it's just evolving 'essential nutrients' to 'essential nutrients with optional cholesterol'.
- wisty 17y ago
  IIRC, the life expectancy of people who lived past 40 hasn't changed much in the last few thousand years. Early life expectancies were low due to childbirth (for women) and accidents + infections (for men). If you reached old age, then you were likely to hang around until cancer or heart disease got you; the same as today. Cancer treatments and heart pills extend people's old age a little, but I'd imagine that modern diets (increased meat consumption and refined carbs) take their toll.
abecedarius 17y ago
That's often asserted, but what evidence I've read about leans the other way. E.g.: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cancer-among-inuit.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cancer-among-i... http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/mortality-and-lifespan-of-inuit.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/mortality-and-...
- tokenadult 17y ago
  There is very good evidence for short lifespans until quite recently, including the remaining bones from Pleistocene times. Much of the evidence is reviewed in The Nature of Paleolithic Art, http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Paleolithic-Art-Dale-Guthrie/dp/0226311260 http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Paleolithic-Art-Dale-Guthrie/dp... a book full of interesting information on how our ancestors lived.
  - abecedarius 17y ago
    That does sound interesting. Stephan Guyenet also discusses some of the literature at http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/03/paleopathology-at-origins-of.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/03/paleopathology... and http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/life-expectancy-and-growth-of.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/life-expectanc...
- wheels 17y ago
  Uhm, that article says that the average life expectancy for inuit, not counting infant mortality was 43.5 years old. Sure, some of the people lived to older ages, but it's hardly the apples to apples comparison they're trying to make.
  - abecedarius 17y ago
    "Keep in mind that the Westerners who were developing cancer alongside them probably had a similar life expectancy at the time." I don't have figures for that exact comparison, but grabbing _A Farewell to Alms_ off my bookshelf, it's got for England, 1750-99: life expectancy at 20: 34 (i.e. living till 54). That's not dramatically different. (Looking at the graph, I think "excluding infant mortality" means to take life expectancy from age 4 instead of 20, though I haven't checked.) Infant mortality doesn't obviously bear on how common cancer is among adults.

by avani 17y ago

pyre 17y ago

The way we eat in the 'developed world' is not necessarily the reason that people are living longer. Advances in medicine, sanitation, personal hygiene, etc probably have played a larger role. That said, being in 'the developed world' doesn't necessarily mean that we are eating worse than in previous years. IIRC, the Irish Potato Famine happened because most of the farmers in Ireland ate a diet that mostly consisted of potatoes, so they were starving when the crops were bad (I believe the potatoes that they grew for themselves were different than the ones they grew for the land-owners, and it was the type of potato that they grew for personal food that suffered causing starving farmers). I can't imagine that a diet that largely consists of potatoes is necessarily healthier than eating McDonald's everyday. Just saying...

JacobAldridge 17y ago
Actually, you could survive solely on a diet of potatoes and milk, with all the essential nutrients provided - http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2828/could-i-survive-on-nothing-but-potatoes-and-milk http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2828/could-i-surviv... (This includes more potato famine info as well). I doubt fries and a shake would work as well. Then again, maybe it's just evolving 'essential nutrients' to 'essential nutrients with optional cholesterol'.
wisty 17y ago
IIRC, the life expectancy of people who lived past 40 hasn't changed much in the last few thousand years. Early life expectancies were low due to childbirth (for women) and accidents + infections (for men). If you reached old age, then you were likely to hang around until cancer or heart disease got you; the same as today. Cancer treatments and heart pills extend people's old age a little, but I'd imagine that modern diets (increased meat consumption and refined carbs) take their toll.

abecedarius 17y ago

That's often asserted, but what evidence I've read about leans the other way. E.g.: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cancer-among-inuit.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cancer-among-i... http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/mortality-and-lifespan-of-inuit.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/mortality-and-...

tokenadult 17y ago
There is very good evidence for short lifespans until quite recently, including the remaining bones from Pleistocene times. Much of the evidence is reviewed in The Nature of Paleolithic Art, http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Paleolithic-Art-Dale-Guthrie/dp/0226311260 http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Paleolithic-Art-Dale-Guthrie/dp... a book full of interesting information on how our ancestors lived.
- abecedarius 17y ago
  That does sound interesting. Stephan Guyenet also discusses some of the literature at http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/03/paleopathology-at-origins-of.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/03/paleopathology... and http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/life-expectancy-and-growth-of.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/life-expectanc...
wheels 17y ago
Uhm, that article says that the average life expectancy for inuit, not counting infant mortality was 43.5 years old. Sure, some of the people lived to older ages, but it's hardly the apples to apples comparison they're trying to make.
- abecedarius 17y ago
  "Keep in mind that the Westerners who were developing cancer alongside them probably had a similar life expectancy at the time." I don't have figures for that exact comparison, but grabbing _A Farewell to Alms_ off my bookshelf, it's got for England, 1750-99: life expectancy at 20: 34 (i.e. living till 54). That's not dramatically different. (Looking at the graph, I think "excluding infant mortality" means to take life expectancy from age 4 instead of 20, though I haven't checked.) Infant mortality doesn't obviously bear on how common cancer is among adults.