LONGEVITY
Longevity of adults has changed little
Home
Human Aging, Position Paper
Longevity of adults has changed little
Senior runners postponed disability 8.7 years
Estrogen with progesterone lengthens women lives
Testosterone and vascular functions in aging
estrogen and longevity
Free radicals part of aging process
FAD AGING CURES EXPOSED, by leading scientists
genes that slow aging
Genes and aging
Insulin's effect upon the SKN-1 gene and aging
Telemores, sexual size dimorphism and gender gap in life expectancy
SKIN AGING: causes & treatments
BIOCHEMCIAL APPROACHES TO AGING: 1984 summation
ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE
LEFT HANDERS EARLY DEATH MYSTERY, 5 articles thereon
Carbohydrates and aging and age related diseases
Arthritis reduced with vigorous physical activity
Why Women Live Longer than Men




We have a confirmation of the 1871 census, that medical advancement has contributed little to longevity once a person makes to the age of 20.  In this case the non-combatant veterans from New Zealand live an average of 74.2 years.   Moreover combatants who survived the war lived 1.7 years shorter, 72.5 years.  And these results occurred during the period when cigarettes when from under 10% to over 45% of adult population by 1972.  Those who some a pack a day shorten their life an average of 9 years--jk.



An adult male in 1871 U.K. lived almost as long (75 years) as a male today (77)---WHY?

 

 

Given the great increase in survival of the two principle reapers of the elderly, cancer and heart attacks, plus the [i]reduction in adult deaths from infectious diseases, strokes, kidney stones, and physical traumas, this entails that various conditions in the UK (and US) are shortening life sufficiently to reduce significantly the improvements in medical treatment, sanitation, and immunology that extend the life of adults of this century compared to those of the late 19th century.   And in the 19th century there were extremely unhealthy work conditions in certain industries, such as mining, smelting, and textiles; something is very amiss as to our current longevity.   Evidence supports that the chemical pollution of foods, air, water, tobacco smoke, and pharmaceutical drugs counter the advantage of current the life extension from treatments for serious illnesses that have developed over the last 142 years.  First among causes are chemicals  and first among chemicals are the drugs which people take for which the side effects aren’t worth the benefit, and second would be the chemicals added to foods, including pesticides and those brought about through genetically modified crops.   These pernicious chemical have brought about a significantly earlier average occurrence of cancer, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s (to name the 4 big reapers) and the drugs used to treat them have off-set the gains of current medical interventions and sanitation.  Second is lifestyle-obesity, which statistically shorten life 5 years.  There is good evidence that of those chemical, those that mimic estrogen are responsible for the increase in the frequency of obesity.   Obesity has increased from 11.3% in 1970 to 30.5 in 2000 in the US.   Bisphonels, used as a plastic (vinyl) softener are the prime candidate.  Third is tobacco for which a pack a day long-term shortens life an average of 7 years.  Something is very wrong, 



[i]  Arguments placing the primary cause upon soft drinks and sedentary life style are misplaced.  Though they play a role, both have been rebutted as to primacy.  Those from affluent areas and those who attend or work in universities in the US have a lower rate of obesity, illustrating the effect of pier pressure.  And sodas have been very popular for over 60 years.  The biological cause, bisphenols, supported by animal studies, best fits the phenomena.  Though sophisticated large studies of humans, in our corporatist state, are not considered important by those who do the funding.  

 

  • Spain: 79.08 years in 2002, 81.07 years in 2010
  • Australia: 80 years in 2002, 81.72 years in 2010
  • Italy: 79.25 years in 2002, 80.33 years in 2010
  • France: 79.05 years in 2002, 81.09 years in 2010
  • Germany: 77.78 years in 2002, 79.41 years in 2010
  • UK: 80 years in 2002, 81.73 years in 2010
  • USA: 77.4 years in 2002, 78.24 years in 2010
  • Monaco: 79.12 years in 2002, 89.73 years in 2011 {Suspect failed to confirm in link, etc}
  • Canada, 78.6 years in 2002; 81.9 years in 2009, 78.8 for men, 83.3 for women

Longevity and lifestyle     Wikipedia “longevity”

Evidence-based studies indicate that longevity is based on two major factors, genetics and lifestyle choices.[6] Twin studies have estimated that approximately 20-30% of an individual’s lifespan is related to genetics, the rest is due to individual behaviors and environmental factors which can be modified.[7] Recent studies find that even modest amounts of leisure time physical exercise can extend life expectancy by as much as 4.5 years.[7] 

In preindustrial times, deaths at young and middle age were common, and life-spans over 70 years were comparatively rare. This is not due to genetics, but because of environmental factors such as disease, accidents, and malnutrition, especially since the former were not generally treatable with pre-20th century medicine. Deaths from childbirth were common in women, and many children did not live past infancy. In addition, most people who did attain old age were likely to die quickly from the above-mentioned untreatable health problems. Despite this, we do find a large number of examples of pre-20th century individuals attaining life-spans of 75 years or greater, including Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Cato the Elder, Thomas Hobbes, Eric of Pomerania, Christopher Polhem, and Michaelangelo. This was also true for poorer people like peasants or laborers. Genealogists will almost certainly find ancestors living to their 70s, 80s and even 90s several hundred years ago.

For example, an 1871 census in the UK (the first of its kind) found the average male life expectancy as being 44, but if infant mortality is subtracted, males who lived to adulthood averaged 75 years. The present male life expectancy in the UK is 77 years for males and 81 for females (the United States averages 74 for males and 80 for females).  Women would have fared worse because of risk from bearing children and effect of repeated pregnancies. 

Studies have shown that African-American males have the shortest life-spans of any group of people in the US, averaging only 69 years (white females average the longest). [Doubt this since American Indians die at least a decade early, principle cause alcoholism and tobacco.] This reflects overall poorer health and greater prevalence of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and cancer among African-American men.

Women normally outlive men, and this was as true in pre-industrial times as today. Theories for this include smaller bodies (and thus less stress on the heart), a stronger immune system (since testosterone acts as an immunosuppressant), and less tendency to engage in physically dangerous activities. It is also theorized that women have an evolutionary reason to live longer so as to help care for grandchildren and great-grandchildren.  [Principle cause now is that of the protective effect of estrogen entailing a significantly lower mortality rate from heart attacks through to the middle of the 6th decade.  Some of this might be due to chemical exposure in the work place being greater for men.]  

Study of the regions of the world known as blue zones,[8] where people commonly live active lives past 100 years of age, have speculated that longevity is related to a healthy social and family life, not smoking, eating a plant-based diet, frequent consumption of legumes and nuts, and engaging in regular physical activity. [Living in a hilly environment and the elder continue to work.]  In another well-designed cohort study, the combination of a plant based diet, frequent consumption of nuts, regular physical activity, normal BMI, and not smoking accounted for differences up to 10 years in life expectancy.[9] The Alameda County Study hypothesized three additional lifestyle characteristics that promote longevity: limiting alcohol consumption, sleeping 7 to 8 hours per night, and not snacking (eating between meals).[10]  [Link for Alameda Study, the article gives no indication if they have controlled for contravening variables.]

 

 

 



[i]  Arguments placing the primary cause upon soft drinks and sedentary life style are misplaced.  Though they play a role, both have been rebutted as to primacy.  Those from affluent areas and those who attend or work in universities in the US have a lower rate of obesity, illustrating the effect of pier pressure.  And sodas have been very popular for over 60 years.  The biological cause, bisphenols, supported by animal studies, best fits the phenomena.  Though sophisticated large studies of humans, in our corporatist state, are not considered important by those who do the funding.  

We have a confirmation of the 1871 census, that medical advancement has contributed little to longevity once a person makes to the age of 20.  In this case the non-combatant veterans from New Zealand live an average of 74.2 years.   Moreover combatants who survived the war lived 1.7 years shorter, 72.5 years.  And these results occurred during the period when cigarettes when from under 10% to over 45% of adult population by 1972.  Those who some a pack a day shorten their life an average of 9 years--jk.

http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7168

Christmas 2014: In Love and War

Mortality of first world war military personnel: comparison of two military cohorts

Objective To identify the impact of the first world war on the lifespan of participating military personnel (including in veterans who survived the war).

 

Design Comparison of two cohorts of military personnel, followed to death.

 

Setting Military personnel leaving New Zealand to participate in the first world war.

Participants From a dataset of the New Zealand Expeditionary Forces, we randomly selected participants who embarked on troopships in 1914 and a comparison non-combat cohort who departed on troopships in late 1918 (350 in each group).

 

Main outcome measures Lifespan based on dates of birth and death from a range of sources (such as individual military files and an official database of birth and death records).

 

Results A quarter of the 1914 cohort died during the war, with deaths from injury predominating (94%) over deaths from disease (6%). This cohort had a significantly shorter lifespan than the late 1918 “non-combat” cohort, with median ages of death being 65.9 versus 74.2, respectively (a difference of 8.3 years shown also in Kaplan-Meier survival curves, log rank P<0.001). The difference for the lifespan of veterans in the postwar period was more modest, with median ages of death being 72.6 versus 74.3, respectively (a difference of 1.7 years, log rank P=0.043). There was no evidence for differences between the cohorts in terms of occupational class, based on occupation at enlistment.

 

Conclusions Military personnel going to the first world war in 1914 from New Zealand lost around eight years of life (relative to a comparable military cohort). In the postwar period they continued to have an increased risk of premature death.