Wed, Oct-01-03, 13:42
|
|
Senior Member
Posts: 1,042
|
|
Plan: atkins
Stats: 283/250.5/190
BF:
Progress: 35%
Location: Pacific NW
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by adkpam
When we say things like "Years ago, life expectancy was forty years old," it doesn't mean what it sounds like. It means the life expectancy averaged out at forty years, because so many people died as small children from diseases we have stopped with hygiene and immunization.
500 years ago, people still lived into their 70's and 80's and beyond... the way they do now.
The real clue is in the transition to agriculture. Type in "diseases of civilization" into google and you'll find that dental caries and heart disease started around the same time people started eating more grains and sugars.
|
First, I've seen plenty of studies that exclude infant deaths from calculations of life-expectancy because, as you point out, high infant mortality skews the numbers so dramatically.
Second, in addition to a correlation with widespread adoption of a "civilized" diet, 19th century and early 20th century increases in heart disease, cancer, and so forth can also be correlated with increased life-span and improved diagnosis (both as a result of advances in medical science). I'm NOT saying that increased longevity causes heart disease. In fact, that is my point: correlation does not prove causation.
The absence of "diseases of civilization" in dissimilar populations (i.e., modern v. renaissance v. ancient v. primitive) does not prove that a "civilized" diet causes "diseases of civilization." There are too many other significant factors involved.
|