Re: Longevity...

[Guest guest]

> My question to you all is, aside from the *Nasty, Brutish

> and Short*article (

> http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/nasty_brutish_sh

> ort.html) on

> the Weston A. Price website, what information do we have to

> support the

> theory that the NT lifestyle would make someone live long.

> There is plenty

> to support that living NT can help us avoid chronic illness,

> but what's to

> say that people in pre-industrial societies lived longer than

> those today?

> Or is the whole point quality over quantity, again.

Yes, I too am very interested in this question. I find it to be one of the

most powerful arguments against NN/NT style eating and I have seen very

little support for the notion that you will live out your genetic maximum

eating high fat/high protein or NN/NT. If anyone has information supporting

longevity in NT eating I would love to see it.

> (The *Nasty, Brutal an Short *article talks mostly about

> health and not so

> much about longevity)

Dreadful article. One of the worst that Sally has ever written. I does

little to support her argument.

Ron

[Guest guest]

>I remember from my college days that in ancient Greece, if someone made it

>past their 30s or 40s, they most likely lived into their 60s or 70s, as can

>be seen by the likes of Plato, Socrates, Herodotus, Solon and other older

>renown ancients.

> Polemeropoulos

>Acton, MA

People in the past really did live rather short lives, but when you look

at the bone evidence, it's rather sad. First off, the homicide rate

was like 50% ... that is, up to half the folks died at the hands of

other humans. Like Oetzi, the Ice Man ... one deadly arrow in

his shoulder, and a spearpoint in his hip that had *healed*. War

was, in some places, ongoing and regarded as a kind of art

form, as was torture. The places that fought the most were

places where the population tended to rise, which sometimes

meant the most " healthy " communities.

A lot of the other folks have major trauma injuries.

Women were often killed when their husband died

and buried with him (in India the tradition was that she threw

herself on the funeral pyre). In nomadic cultures, when a person

couldn't keep up with the tribe they got left behind. Babies

were often " exposed " if not wanted. It WAS a brutal life.

I expect a person couldn't live much past 60 unless they

were in really really good shape though, because of all the walking.

Without pack animals, there wasn't the option of " caring

for " an elderly person, though lately they found an old skull

that suggests someone cared for an older person with no

teeth. There isn't a lot of documentation though, because most

of this is before " civilization " .

Now when you get to civilized times, where we have written

records, that is exactly the time when grains started getting

eaten a lot, and THAT is the time you really start seeing the

degenerative diseases come into play. In in the Native American

communities, the corn-eaters started getting arthritis and other

problems.

So I don't think anyone really knows what a healthy human

life span is, on a diet designed for humans (which probably

means Paleo style and breastfeeding) starting at birth,

from a healthy mother. You can't look to the past, really.

A good analogy is wild animals ... the same animal in captivity

on a " wild " diet will have like twice the lifespan, because it

is protected from predators and competition from it's own

species. In the wild, as soon as it slows down, it's eaten.

(which happens with our pastured chickens, BTW. When

they start getting older the eagles tend to eat them ...)

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

,

The major reason we live longer than 4 or so generations back is because of

contagious, epidemic medicine. Even though there's plenty of research and

funding going into pharmaceuticals for the physical diseases I see this as

self defeating because the need for medicine for the multitude of physical

diseases needed to treat since is not linked with the food supply becoming

industrialized and overprocessed shortly before. The pharmaceuticals and

present food abundance extend life beyond the years of mass epidemic times

but is the quality of life in those extended years any different than the

end of life years experienced earlier when longevity was shorter, work maybe

harder, some times leaner foodwise? Maybe just different with more tools to

keep the motor running but not in optimal tune .

One example that's always stuck with me is in the book Bury my Heart at

Wounded Knee. Has a photo of survivors of Wounded Knee, what's considered

the final massacre of the wars in this country against Native Americans.

There's a dozen men at least and all are over 90 years old, most over 100.

The men of that same tribe now in South Dakota have one of the lowest life

expectancies in this country, 54 years, mostly heart disease, diabetes from

diet change. Life expectancy reversed to around what the non Native American

male life average was at the time of Wounded Knee. Also for a while here

there were half a dozen obituaries with diet of centarians posted from

around the world. Fatty diets, smoking, small towns in not overly developed

countries were common to many of them.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

<sigh>

The thing that keeps coming to my mind is that all my grandparents

(except the worst alcoholic granddad) lived into their 80s/90s.

My mom died at 57 and my dad died at 68. In fact, my dad's mom died

2-1/2 weeks before my dad did. My husband's mom died at about 58.

His dad is still living and is in his 70s, but he looks like he feels

bad. I understand he has bad leg pain when he is on his feet much.

I'm reasonably certain he would not be open to changing his diet to

be in line with NN/NT.

I credit NN/NT with the fact that I was able to impress my husband

with my stamina in digging post holes last summer. I'm a computer

geek by trade, and very sedentary. I have never dug post holes in my

life! If it weren't for NN/NT, I would probably have had surgery for

heel spurs by now, and be on Glucophage or something like that, like

my cousins. Maybe worse. If not for NN/NT. Before NN/NT, I was

tired a lot of the time, and my arms felt heavy. Not a good sign.

I like to *think* I will live as long as most of my grandparents....

I always thought I would make a good grandma...after having DD when I

was 40, I'll have to live past my 60s to be one, though.

> Hi, Everyone.

>

> I was in a conversation last night with someone comparing the NT

way of life

> with today's typical SAD lifestyle and its dependence on the

> medical/pharmaceutical industry.

> The corner she got me into was that today people live longer than

they did

> generations ago (pre-industrial revolution), and as a result, are

healthier

> than in the past. I felt I had no ammo against her argument. It's

pretty

> much true, right?

> What I ended up saying was that people today *appear* healthy even

though

> they take drugs for a variety of ailments, but I felt that still

wasn't a

> strong argument. It didn't do much to convince her that people

aren't

> necessarily healthy today even though they may be more motile while

> chronically ill. I guess most people think that being able to get

out of the

> house and into their car to drive someplace makes them healthy and

> independent.

> My question to you all is, aside from the *Nasty, Brutish and

Short*article (

>

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/nasty_brutish_short.html

) on

> the Weston A. Price website, what information do we have to support

the

> theory that the NT lifestyle would make someone live long. There is

plenty

> to support that living NT can help us avoid chronic illness, but

what's to

> say that people in pre-industrial societies lived longer than those

today?

> Or is the whole point quality over quantity, again.

> (The *Nasty, Brutal an Short *article talks mostly about health and

not so

> much about longevity)

> I remember from my college days that in ancient Greece, if someone

made it

> past their 30s or 40s, they most likely lived into their 60s or

70s, as can

> be seen by the likes of Plato, Socrates, Herodotus, Solon and other

older

> renown ancients.

> Polemeropoulos

> Acton, MA

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Personally, I think it's a myth that we're living longer. I actually

think that we're living about 5 years shorter today! And many people

are only getting there because of interventions!

I tend to go to a lot of places like Colonial burg and

Washington Crossing here in NJ. There are so many headstones,

photographs and other documents that show a great deal of founding

fathers (and others of the era) who lived well beyond 80. Fire was

the #1 cause of death for women and children at least because the

women were wearing those huge skirts and cooking on open fire.

Pestilence killed a large percentage of the population. And war

wasn't as fancy as it is today, so when those were on they took a

large number of lives as well. One thing that is true is that infant

mortality was higher. But if you lived past 5, you lived until at

least 70 (barring infectious disease, war, fire etc). When doctors

(because it usually is them claiming this) say that life expectancy

was 40, that's inaccurate. Forty was the AVERAGE age people lived

until. In other words, that number includes all the dead babies and

80 year olds too divided by the population.

Another thing you could point out is that people didn't contract

cancer, heart disease, (Sugar) diabetes and all the modern scourges

either. Some may argue that that's because they didn't live long

enough to get them, but look around you, don't you know lots of 20

year olds with these conditions?????

I, myself, had ovarian cysts, cervical dysplasia (a pre-cancerous

condition), a gangrenous intestine and chronic fatigue before I took

some supplements and changed my eating habits. And I didn't even eat

as poorly as most americans. I cooked nearly all my food.

Unfortunately, I was doing lowfat and when I did eat fat it was of

the vegetable oil/margarine persuasion. I've been eating like this

for 10 years and none of these have plagued me since and hopefully

nothing else will surface either.

What it comes down to is that the establishment can make anything

look like it's in their favor, by omitting or misrepresenting the

facts.

Hope this is helpful.

Adrienne

[Guest guest]

On 4/30/05, ahewcn <ahewcn@...> wrote:

Forty was the AVERAGE age people lived

> until. In other words, that number includes all the dead babies and

> 80 year olds too divided by the population.

I don't understand why anyone would even bother to calculate an

*average* life span, except to be deliberately deceptive and

obfuscatory.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 04:44:59 -0000

" ahewcn " <ahewcn@...> wrote:

> Personally, I think it's a myth that we're living longer. I actually

> think that we're living about 5 years shorter today! And many people

> are only getting there because of interventions!

I actually began to question this back in my early days of studying

theology. I kept bumping into all these ancient writers who lived very

long lives, yet the mantra was and is " the average lifespan at the time

of Christ was 33. " I say baloney.

People live longer in advanced civilizations be they ancient or modern.

In areas of the world or during periods of time when life is not so

civilized, then life can be " nasty, brutish, and short " as it was during

the centuries immediately prior to the genuinely liberal revolutions of

the 17, 18, and 19 centuries.

And while the 20th century saw the unfortunate and often brutal revival

of the state, you won't find much sympathy here for those folks who have

this romantic (and largely untrue) notion of the past, where the

division of labor was small, freedom was at a premium, and life was

often quite nasty. If they want to live in the shire, let 'em. I'll stay

in civilization thankyouverymuch.

IIRC correctly, someone who made it past childhood (and that was a real

issue for many reasons) during the time of Christ lived longer and

healthier than we do today.

The sinews of war, a limitless supply of money.

Cicero (106-43 B.C.), Roman orator, philosopher.

Philippics, Oration 5, sct. 5.

[Guest guest]

As Mark Twain once said, " There are three kinds of lies,

lies, damned lies, and statistics! "

Take care,

Alice - HSing mom to Alice (DS) born Thanksgiving Day 1995 :-)

Hopewell Junction, NY

http://users.bestweb.net/~castella

Re: Longevity...

On 4/30/05, ahewcn <ahewcn@...> wrote:

Forty was the AVERAGE age people lived

> until. In other words, that number includes all the dead babies and

> 80 year olds too divided by the population.

I don't understand why anyone would even bother to calculate an

*average* life span, except to be deliberately deceptive and

obfuscatory.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>IIRC correctly, someone who made it past childhood (and that was a real

>issue for many reasons) during the time of Christ lived longer and

>healthier than we do today.

>

>

If they made it past childhood AND weren't drafted into the army or

killed fighting invaders or in one of the local brawls or duels. You

read the historical accounts ... guys fought a LOT, sometimes just

for fun and death in a fight wasn't uncommon. Plus you could

be executed for fairly minor infractions, like stealing or some

lord not liking you.

Heidi

[Guest guest]

At 3:52 PM -0700 4/30/05, Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

> >IIRC correctly, someone who made it past childhood (and that was a real

>>issue for many reasons) during the time of Christ lived longer and

>>healthier than we do today.

>>

>>

>

>If they made it past childhood AND weren't drafted into the army or

>killed fighting invaders or in one of the local brawls or duels. You

>read the historical accounts ... guys fought a LOT, sometimes just

>for fun and death in a fight wasn't uncommon. Plus you could

>be executed for fairly minor infractions, like stealing or some

>lord not liking you.

My undergraduate major was medieval studies, and Heidi is partly

right -- war and pestilence (infectious diseases for which there was

no cure) were major causes of death for a lot of folks during that

time period, although there was a lot of variation depending on where

and when you lived: despite accounts in history books that make it

look that way, the ancient and medieval world was not one long

nonstop bloodbath.

Still, even taking deaths by violence and plague into account, that

only affects the average life span; it doesn't say much about how

long people would have lived if their lives hadn't been prematurely

cut short. In other words, how their overall health -- based largely

on diet -- affected their longevity. And there does seem to be a good

bit of evidence that people who did not a) die in infancy, get

killed in war, or c) die of plague could expect fairly long and

useful lives. There hasn't, so far as I know, been any systematic

study on this, though -- any grad students looking for a dissertation

topic...? ;-)

Tom

--

" Good company and good discourse are the very sinews of virtue. "

~ Isaak Walton, The Compleat Angler, 1653

-------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Harbold P.O. Box 1537

tharbold@... Westminster, MD 21158

tom_in_md@... http://www.geocities.com/Tom_in_MD

-------------------------------------------------------------------