Are we healthier than our fathers generation?

Sam Kade

ted1 wrote: »

Agree our diet is **** now, sugary drinks, sweets crisps and chocolate are every day items. Meat is pumped with steroids and other chemicals. Veg is GM and covered on pesticides etc.

Give me natural organic food any day

I'll have to pull you up on that statement, meat in the EU does not have steroids or any other chemicals
Beef, sheep, pork is safe whatever about horse meat.

pastorbarrett

Despite our economic woes, we live (the geographically lucky among us, that is) in a time of bountiful surplus with cheap access to food (read: not necessarily correct nutrition). Once upon a time, being disadvantaged and overweight/ unhealthy would have been some class of misnomer. Being overweight was the sole preserve of the wealthy. Now, generally even those with the least amongst us can readily afford access to food.

I think it's fair to say that on the whole, we adjusted to this seemingly positive change in circumstances fairly atrociously- loss of cooking skills, lack of knowledge/ education concerning good nutrition and diet, over reliance on processed foods etc. The sharp increase in obesity and related disease was/ is testament to this.

The prevalence of obesity amongst the disadvantaged continues to necessitate focus ( I think cooking/ food prep/ nutrition should be part of the curriculum from the off), but that said, I think the tide is slowly (very slowly, perhaps!) turning with respect to our food intake, general interest in health, matters concerning weight etc. Culturally, at least to my mind, it seems our interest in food, ingredients, cooking etc, and generally being active etc is aspirational in terms of lifestyle. I hope this trend continues and gathers momentum.

Wibbs

EdenHazard wrote: »

wibbs you are 40, wtf, unless im mistaken i honestly thought you were like 32.

46 and my lack of wrinkles aint down to clean living I can assure you and my insides probably look 80. Good genes I suppose and I've never had a tan in my life. I've also varied at most within a stone of my weight at 18, I reckon that makes a big diff. Women I knew over the years who yo yo dieted you could really see it in their faces, compared to women who stayed the same weight or even got heavier.

Sam Kade wrote: »

I'll have to pull you up on that statement, meat in the EU does not have steroids or any other chemicals
Beef, sheep, pork is safe whatever about horse meat.

Yea unlike the US where their meat, while cheap is cheap for a reason. Grass fed beef is a novelty.

meridiangroup wrote: »

I think it's fair to say that on the whole, we adjusted to this seemingly positive change in circumstances fairly atrociously- loss of cooking skills, lack of knowledge/ education concerning good nutrition and diet, over reliance on processed foods etc. The sharp increase in obesity and related disease was/ is testament to this.

+1 though with all the stuff in the media about diet and nutrition youd wonder how we could be ignorant of the facts?

proteinpolice

no the life expectancy has just risen for no reason what soever :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Wibbs

proteinpolice wrote: »

no the life expectancy has just risen for no reason what soever :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Eh why has life expectancy risen? Two reasons; fewer people die in childhood. 200 years ago it was around 1 in 3 that would survive to 20. Walk around an old graveyard and read many of the ages on the tombstones. Childhood mortality massively skews the stats. If you take them out of the equation the longevity difference between the 1890's and today are a lot closer. Most of the changes have been near the start of life, it's only in the last 30 or so years where we've noticeably increased survival at the end of life. Secondly immunisation and antibiotics and clean water and an overall rise in the standard of living kept more people alive(in the west).

As for the original question? Well the jury is out so far as far as longevity is concerned. After all those old people today are our fathers or grandfathers. We may expect to outlive them, but we may not. Some researchers in the US reckon their current generation may be the first to buck the upward trend in longevity. I recall reading about a study into very long lived people(90-100+) and while they varied in lifestyle as people will(the longest lived person so far known was a heavy smoker and liked a drink), a couple of things were common to them. They tended to eat less than average, they were better at dealing with emotional losses, but most of all they had a superior insulin response mechanism. This was apparently near a given in centenarians. Today we're seeing a huge rise in insulin resistance type conditions, so IMHO that's gonna affect the stats in our futures.

P_1

Wibbs wrote: »

Then clearly we diverge on what we both define as "healthy". And that's cool too.

I would say the two can sometimes be conflated. If one is looking for a problem, one can often find one where none may exist, or if it does exist it's acutely, but diagnosis can label and make it chronic. The defining and oft medicalisation of the range of normal human emotional states I think is quite the problem in some quarters. Plus our species need to fit in can plug into that too. The diagnosis by Dr Google and our social media peers has quite the effect IMH. "I'm [insert personal problem here] and here are my symptoms". Followed by "really?? no way! I'm the same. We're brothers/sisters in kind". I call it the horoscope effect. People who believe in that will seek to fit a square peg into a round hole to back up that belief. It is my humble that if a cast iron test for many borderline mental illnesses was discovered tomorrow, it would come back with a result of around a third of people being actually afflicted, with the other two thirds afflicted by a new condition tentatively labeled "Me Too" syndrome.

Wibbs you put it far more eloquently than I could have possibly hoped to do myself.

Galwayguy35

There have been a lot of interesting points raised in the thread, one would imagine the present generation would be healthier but yet we seem to be hit nowadays with diseases that were unheard of in our Grandparents time, or at any rate a lot less common.

P_1

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

There have been a lot of interesting points raised in the thread, one would imagine the present generation would be healthier but yet we seem to be hit nowadays with diseases that were unheard of in our Grandparents time, or at any rate a lot less common.

I'd say that could be put down to those diseases simply not being known about back then and simply being lumped in under the general heading of 'he's not well'.

Wibbs

True P_1, that is surely the case for a few conditions illnesses, particularly mental/emotional illnesses. Some allergies too like folks with Ceoliac disease. My mum has it and was only diagnosed in middle age, as a child she was considered "sickly".

That said things like diabetes have been well known for a very long time. Galen described it back in Roman times(and also noted how incredibly rare it was*), a few centuries later Arabic doctors spotted the diffs between type 1 and 2 and also saw the connection between extra weight and the latter type and treated it with a stringent diet apparently with great success too. Today that range of conditions is most certainly increasing and worryingly so in the west. Allergies are also up. I've seen that even in my own lifetime. There was one kid in my year that was considered a bit "sickly", suffered from terrible hay fever as the summer rolled in. I only knew of one kid with asthma growing up**. That's out of a year with over a hundred blokes. Now no doubt there were a couple of others that hid such things or had mild cases that went unnoticed, but I'd be surprised if say a 20 year old today had a similar experience to mine. It's even worse in the US. Ever pick up one of their science type magazines? Loads of ads for anti allergy medicines and pallatives. I've a couple of Scientific American mags from the 70's and not one ad of that nature.







* probably cos type 1 in children would kill them and would be missed as a condition so few adults would present with it. Type 2 probably was very rare, considering their diet would be better and exercise would be well in excess of the average today. When you read descriptions of how far and fast a legion could up camp travel and pitch camp in the space of a day it's impressive.

** real odd one there. His asthma went away when he took up smoking. 15 years later he knocked the ciggies on the head and although he got really fit and healthy the asthma came back with a vengeance. Mad or wha? My own "theory" was that his was more of an anxiety driven version and smoking relieved that, plus regulated his breathing. Or overloaded his allegic response so much that his body gave up the ghost trying to cause the symtoms. Odd one though and I know of two other similar cases.

Duggys Housemate

On the subject of life expectancy I agree with what others have said. Its pretty common to hear people talk about how the average age of mortality was 40 or younger for most of history. Yes, but... if most people die in infancy then the average is necessarily halved compared to now. The Roman republic didnt allow people into public office unless they were 35 or 40 depending on the OFfice ( Consul was 40, I think). At that stage they had about -5 years on average to live, if you trust averages. Don't trust averages.

Of course some romans lived to be 70 or 80, as now. In fact many adults did. Most, maybe. If we had infant mortality of 50%, and an average age of death of 80, adults would be hoping to live to 160, and plenty would. Most within a decade or two.

The other thing that really bugs me, is the claim that life expentancy at birth ( I am using LFB from now on) is much higher now. There was recent report that LFB for kids born in 2012 is 78, compare to kids born in the 30's when it was 60. Cry for the kids born in the 30's.

Thats utter bollocks. We dont know the life expectancy of kids born now, and won't until their generation passes; so that stat is actually the average age of death of the society they are born into, and if you are good at simple arithmithic, then the people living to (on average) 78, and dying now, were born in the 1930's

So, if they survived childhood, children born into the 30's made it - we know this empirically - to about 78.

About children born today we have no idea of their average life span. Could be much lower than now, could be higher. Its reversing the US, as discussed.

Stupid stat.

P_1

Wibbs wrote: »

True P_1, that is surely the case for a few conditions illnesses, particularly mental/emotional illnesses. Some allergies too like folks with Ceoliac disease. My mum has it and was only diagnosed in middle age, as a child she was considered "sickly".

That said things like diabetes have been well known for a very long time. Galen described it back in Roman times(and also noted how incredibly rare it was*), a few centuries later Arabic doctors spotted the diffs between type 1 and 2 and also saw the connection between extra weight and the latter type and treated it with a stringent diet apparently with great success too. Today that range of conditions is most certainly increasing and worryingly so in the west. Allergies are also up. I've seen that even in my own lifetime. There was one kid in my year that was considered a bit "sickly", suffered from terrible hay fever as the summer rolled in. I only knew of one kid with asthma growing up**. That's out of a year with over a hundred blokes. Now no doubt there were a couple of others that hid such things or had mild cases that went unnoticed, but I'd be surprised if say a 20 year old today had a similar experience to mine. It's even worse in the US. Ever pick up one of their science type magazines? Loads of ads for anti allergy medicines and pallatives. I've a couple of Scientific American mags from the 70's and not one ad of that nature.







* probably cos type 1 in children would kill them and would be missed as a condition so few adults would present with it. Type 2 probably was very rare, considering their diet would be better and exercise would be well in excess of the average today. When you read descriptions of how far and fast a legion could up camp travel and pitch camp in the space of a day it's impressive.

** real odd one there. His asthma went away when he took up smoking. 15 years later he knocked the ciggies on the head and although he got really fit and healthy the asthma came back with a vengeance. Mad or wha? My own "theory" was that his was more of an anxiety driven version and smoking relieved that, plus regulated his breathing. Or overloaded his allegic response so much that his body gave up the ghost trying to cause the symtoms. Odd one though and I know of two other similar cases.

Wow I didn't realise that about the Diabetes, I really should have known that seeing as I studied history and am a Type 1 Diabetic.

Wibbs

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The Roman republic didnt allow people into public office unless they were 35 or 40 depending on the OFfice ( Consul was 40, I think). At that stage they had about -5 years on average to live, if you trust averages. Don't trust averages.

Exactly. IIRC Julius Caesar was doing well in his 50's until he died of an acute case of stabitis. Plus the retirement age for the army was 45 IIRC and they got a pension and a parcel of land to settle down and raise a family in. They didn't go home to early deaths.

Of course some romans lived to be 70 or 80, as now. In fact many adults did. Most, maybe.

Living to the 60's was pretty much a given for most. Men anyway, many more women died young in childbirth. I'd reckon we'd see a reversal of today with more olde men than women about. Take the Jesus quote of the average span of a life being three score and ten and with some four score . Bear in mind this was aimed at an audience of dirt poor farmers and peasants. If everyone was shuffling off at 40 it wouldn't make any sense and would continue to be nonsensical after the religion spread(and likely would have been dropped as being a bit daft). It would akin to someone now say the average span of life is 5 score and ten, people would be very quick to say "WTF?".

Now there were periods where the average age of death did plummet. The centuries in Europe that saw waves of various plagues on a near yearly basis. Old people were rare and people were dying in droves in their 20's and 30's. You can see that refelected in the culture of the time too. Lots of musing about death as it was so close to most. Outside of those periods though people seeing 70 was pretty common. Even in lulls in those plagues we see it. Look at famous artists. Michaelangelo made it into his 80's as did Titian, Tintoretto mid 70's, Donatello 80.

The other thing that really bugs me, is the claim that life expentancy at birth ( I am using LFB from now on) is much higher now. There was recent report that LFB for kids born in 2012 is 78, compare to kids born in the 30's when it was 60. Cry for the kids born in the 30's.

Thats utter bollocks. We dont know the life expectancy of kids born now, and won't until their generation passes; so that stat is actually the average age of death of the society they are born into, and if you are good at simple arithmithic, then the people living to (on average) 78, and dying now, were born in the 1930's

So, if they survived childhood, children born into the 30's made it - we know this empirically - to about 78.

Very much so. The old people of today grew up and through the "bad old days". Days, particularly in Ireland where immunisation was minimal, if at all and antibiotics came late enough and in small enough amounts. Hell growing up in the 70's tetanus and polio vaccine was about the sum of it. All of us came down with measles mumps etc.

About children born today we have no idea of their average life span. Could be much lower than now, could be higher. Its reversing the US, as discussed.

Pretty much. They can predict, but it's still up in the air.

P_1 wrote: »

Wow I didn't realise that about the Diabetes, I really should have known that seeing as I studied history and am a Type 1 Diabetic.

It's apparently one of the first conditions noted in medical history. AFAIR the ancient Egyptians described it even earlier than the Greeks. Indian docs were on top of it too. It was later when the diff between type 1 and 2 came along, but still that was before the dark ages in Europe. Now the rise type 2 is blamed on the rise of sugar consumption and weight gain, but I was reading some research a while back that suggested we're also seeing a rise in type 1 from roughly the same mechanism. In societies where type 2 is almost unknown they also found type 1 was equally rare. Either those genetically prone to the condition can come down with it because of the environment and/or the mothers lifestyle and exposure to the environment influences the risk in her kids. Fascinating area.

P_1

Wibbs wrote: »

It's apparently one of the first conditions noted in medical history. AFAIR the ancient Egyptians described it even earlier than the Greeks. Indian docs were on top of it too. It was later when the diff between type 1 and 2 came along, but still that was before the dark ages in Europe. Now the rise type 2 is blamed on the rise of sugar consumption and weight gain, but I was reading some research a while back that suggested we're also seeing a rise in type 1 from roughly the same mechanism. In societies where type 2 is almost unknown they also found type 1 was equally rare. Either those genetically prone to the condition can come down with it because of the environment and/or the mothers lifestyle and exposure to the environment influences the risk in her kids. Fascinating area.

That's pretty interesting, I always thought that type 1 was always genetic.

Wibbs

P_1 wrote: »

That's pretty interesting, I always thought that type 1 was always genetic.

From what I gathered it is, but it's how the genes involved are expressed may be down to the environment and the environment of the previous generation(s). Look at type 2 diabetes. Clearly an environmental thing for the most part, however some people are clearly more susceptible to those environmental pressures than others. Some could be necking litres of Coke a day and no bother, no teeth, but no diabetes:). Others might come down with it with a lot less persuasion.

P_1

Wibbs wrote: »

From what I gathered it is, but it's how the genes involved are expressed may be down to the environment and the environment of the previous generation(s). Look at type 2 diabetes. Clearly an environmental thing for the most part, however some people are clearly more susceptible to those environmental pressures than others. Some could be necking litres of Coke a day and no bother, no teeth, but no diabetes:). Others might come down with it with a lot less persuasion.

That makes sense once you think about it. I mean everybody's body is different right down to a genetic level.

Now if only I did a medical research PHD, that sounds like something I'd like to investigate further

seamus

Wibbs wrote: »

Allergies are also up. I've seen that even in my own lifetime. There was one kid in my year that was considered a bit "sickly", suffered from terrible hay fever as the summer rolled in. I only knew of one kid with asthma growing up**. That's out of a year with over a hundred blokes. Now no doubt there were a couple of others that hid such things or had mild cases that went unnoticed, but I'd be surprised if say a 20 year old today had a similar experience to mine

I'm about ten years behind you and I'd have a similar experience growing up. One or two kids might have hayfever. Another one or two with asthma. But most had (or appeared to have) no allergies.

Nowadays if people ask me whether I'm allergic to anything, I'm almost feel like I'm the freak when I say "No, nothing at all".

Aside from it becoming more common, I do think that there's a tendancy to overdiagnose "allergies" too. I've heard quite a few people remark that they're allergic to coffee because they get stomach cramps and mild diarrhoea when they drink too much. That's what coffee does...

walshb

Not sure if we are. But, we certainly have access to a lot more technology, foods, and knowledge to maybe allow us to be more healthy.

P_1

seamus wrote: »

I'm about ten years behind you and I'd have a similar experience growing up. One or two kids might have hayfever. Another one or two with asthma. But most had (or appeared to have) no allergies.

Nowadays if people ask me whether I'm allergic to anything, I'm almost feel like I'm the freak when I say "No, nothing at all".

Aside from it becoming more common, I do think that there's a tendancy to overdiagnose "allergies" too. I've heard quite a few people remark that they're allergic to coffee because they get stomach cramps and mild diarrhoea when they drink too much. That's what coffee does...

I guess that could be put down to us having more information available to us and always second guessing things.

It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, therefore it must be a chicken kind of thinking

Three Seasons

April O Neill wrote: »

I think we drink more as nation than we did 50, or even 20 years ago. A Celtic Tiger legacy.

What are you basing this on?

Wibbs

For a start "In the 10 years to 2006, alcohol consumption per capita increased by 48%." Just having been around for the last 20 odd years of drinking age I've noticed a really steep curve on the amount of drinking going on, particularly drinking at home, wine consumption another, the availability of alcohol has most certainly gone up. When I was 18 there were far fewer off licences, ordinary corner shops didn't sell wine or beer either.

Three Seasons

OP some people's Fathers are 40 and others are 80. Makes it tough to give an accurate answer.

Galwayguy35

Three Seasons wrote: »

OP some people's Fathers are 40 and others are 80. Makes it tough to give an accurate answer.

I get what you are saying but when I say "we" I'm assuming most of use here would be in the late 20s to 40s age group, having said that my own father was 57 when I was born so I'm guessing I would be in the minority on that one.