4 ms·

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:

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.
  - rue 17y ago
    An average 10 years longer life expectancy is huge.
    - abecedarius 17y ago
      The question we started with: are so-called diseases of civilization caused by something about lifestyle, or is it people living longer revealing an underlying rate that's screened off by early death in the other cultures? These figures say there were plenty of older people; usually when I see the latter claim made it lumps in infant mortality. On the other hand, the reported differences in rates of things like cancer are huge. Also, the 10 years leaves out age 4-20 mortality, if I understand it right.

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.
- rue 17y ago
  An average 10 years longer life expectancy is huge.
  - abecedarius 17y ago
    The question we started with: are so-called diseases of civilization caused by something about lifestyle, or is it people living longer revealing an underlying rate that's screened off by early death in the other cultures? These figures say there were plenty of older people; usually when I see the latter claim made it lumps in infant mortality. On the other hand, the reported differences in rates of things like cancer are huge. Also, the 10 years leaves out age 4-20 mortality, if I understand it right.