The death of average life expectancy?

April 18, 2010

I wished to briefly re-state my argument, since the waters are badly muddied at

this point:

I responded to this premise:

---

Did the old-time Chinese have less cancer because they didn't live long enough

to get it?

or

Do we experience so much cancer because we are living long enough to get it?

---

My response:

That's ridiculous, the data is clear on the incidence of cancer (which

sky-rockets in modern cities) - cancer incidence doesn't generally have to do

with increased age.

Then we heard the second premise:

---

But the data show that people only lived to an average age of [x] in the past,

and now we live longer.

---

My response:

Poppycock! Don't confuse average for distribution, make sure your impression

also carries the idea of infant mortality skewing the numbers.

So, my arguments:

1. Incidence of cancer is unrelated to longer LIFESPAN.

2. Many cultures (or cultural sub-units) achieved comparable LIFESPANS to

current 1rst worlders.

3. The LIFE EXPECTANCY and LIFESPAN of a people is most closely related to the

seven determinants of health, as laid out by, for example, the Ottawa charter.

*Therefore* any culture fulfilling these seven determinants will experience a

long LIFESPAN and possibly even a long LIFE EXPECTANCY, the latter carrying with

it the problematic issue of childhood death.

For all those confused about what my arguments are, please refer to the above

three points and the conclusion which follows.

Thank you!

Hugo

________________________________

Hugo Ramiro

http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

http://www.middlemedicine.org

April 19, 2010

Hugo,

please supply some evidence or data (websites or sources would be fine)

showing life expectancy distribution of ancient humans vs modern humans.

So far, just pointing to the diet study of the Chinese in the last 20 years

doesn't tell us anything about life expectancy distribution of ancient

humans and this seems to be your big point.

Either way, it doesn't matter, because the fact is there weren't many people

in ancient times who made it to 80,

let alone 250. So, if there were very few people in an already small

populated area who lived to old age,

it does seem that you would see less of the diseases that usually occur at

these late stages of life.

For those who practiced life preservation exercises, they were few of these

individuals in between.

Even the Nei jing 1st issue writes about this.

I read on one website that in pre-modern times, if people made it to 40,

they averaged another 20 years for their lifespan.

The issue is that not very many people made it to even 40, which is exactly

my point. It doesn't matter if we're looking at it from average or

distribution. The fact is that there weren't very many people who made it

to a ripe old age in the days when famine, epidemics, war, parasites,

poverty etc were so prevalent. This was across the board, not just in the

3rd world. Back then, it was all 3rd world-type conditions, so there's

nothing racist or classist about this idea.

I agree that some sub-cultures of ancient people may have lived long lives,

mainly because they were isolated (protected from war) and lived in a

culture where a bad crop wouldn't kill them (ie Hunza people),

but we're not talking about Hunza diet, we're talking about Han medicine.

K

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote:

>

> I wished to briefly re-state my argument, since the waters are badly

> muddied at this point:

>

> I responded to this premise:

> ---

> Did the old-time Chinese have less cancer because they didn't live long

> enough to get it?

> or

> Do we experience so much cancer because we are living long enough to get

> it?

> ---

>

> My response:

>

> That's ridiculous, the data is clear on the incidence of cancer (which

> sky-rockets in modern cities) - cancer incidence doesn't generally have to

> do with increased age.

>

> Then we heard the second premise:

> ---

> But the data show that people only lived to an average age of [x] in the

> past, and now we live longer.

> ---

>

> My response:

>

> Poppycock! Don't confuse average for distribution, make sure your

> impression also carries the idea of infant mortality skewing the numbers.

>

> So, my arguments:

> 1. Incidence of cancer is unrelated to longer LIFESPAN.

> 2. Many cultures (or cultural sub-units) achieved comparable LIFESPANS to

> current 1rst worlders.

> 3. The LIFE EXPECTANCY and LIFESPAN of a people is most closely related to

> the seven determinants of health, as laid out by, for example, the Ottawa

> charter.

> *Therefore* any culture fulfilling these seven determinants will experience

> a long LIFESPAN and possibly even a long LIFE EXPECTANCY, the latter

> carrying with it the problematic issue of childhood death.

>

> For all those confused about what my arguments are, please refer to the

> above three points and the conclusion which follows.

>

> Thank you!

> Hugo

>

> ________________________________

> Hugo Ramiro

> http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

> http://www.middlemedicine.org

>

April 19, 2010

Well said John...

-Jason

Chinese Medicine