Are people today sicker or healthier than their ancestors? - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 33 Old 07-30-2006, 07:13 PM - Thread Starter
 
tamagotchi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,096
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm confused. I read this article in the NYT. The article argues that people today are much healthier than their ancestors 100 or more years ago. One of the diseases mentioned in the article is heart disease. On the other hand Enig and Fallon say that heart disease was rare before 1920. They specifically mention coronary heart disease. Are the articles talking about different types of heart disease? I don't know much about heart disease, it's never been common in my family.

What about other diseases? I get the impression from reading NT-ish material (and MDC) that more traditional diets, lack of antibiotics and vaccines, etc., contributed to better health for people who were born 100 or more years ago ... Am I mis-reading NT and other NT-ish material? This NYT article claims the opposite. Where can I find objective statistics?


New York Times, "So Big and Healthy Grandpa Wouldn’t Even Know You"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/health/30age.html

Quote:
The biggest surprise emerging from the new studies is that many chronic ailments like heart disease, lung disease and arthritis are occurring an average of 10 to 25 years later than they used to. There is also less disability among older people today, according to a federal study that directly measures it. And that is not just because medical treatments like cataract surgery keep people functioning. Human bodies are simply not breaking down the way they did before.

Even the human mind seems improved. The average I.Q. has been increasing for decades, and at least one study found that a person’s chances of having dementia in old age appeared to have fallen in recent years.

The proposed reasons are as unexpected as the changes themselves. Improved medical care is only part of the explanation; studies suggest that the effects seem to have been set in motion by events early in life, even in the womb, that show up in middle and old age.

[...]

Today’s middle-aged people are the first generation to grow up with childhood vaccines and with antibiotics. Early life for them was much better than it was for their parents, whose early life, in turn, was much better than it was for their parents.

And if good health and nutrition early in life are major factors in determining health in middle and old age, that bodes well for middle-aged people today. Investigators predict that they may live longer and with less pain and misery than any previous generation.

“Will old age for today’s baby boomers be anything like the old age we think we know?” Dr. Barker asked. “The answer is no.”

Mary Enig and Sally Fallon, "The Skinny on Fats"
http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html

Quote:
Before 1920 coronary heart disease was rare in America; so rare that when a young internist named Paul Dudley White introduced the German electrocardiograph to his colleagues at Harvard University, they advised him to concentrate on a more profitable branch of medicine. The new machine revealed the presence of arterial blockages, thus permitting early diagnosis of coronary heart disease. But in those days clogged arteries were a medical rarity, and White had to search for patients who could benefit from his new technology. During the next forty years, however, the incidence of coronary heart disease rose dramatically, so much so that by the mid fifties heart disease was the leading cause of death among Americans. Today heart disease causes at least 40% of all US deaths.
tamagotchi is offline  
#2 of 33 Old 07-30-2006, 09:38 PM
 
spughy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 5,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
That article doesn't exactly say that people are suffering less from heart disease, just that when it occurs, it statistically does so later in life. I would expect that Fallon et. al. are correct when they say it happens MORE. My guess would be that 100 years ago, heart disease occurred due to genetic flaws occasionally combined with lifestyle choices, whereas today it is lifestyle choices occasionally combined with genetic flaws. So 100 years ago most of the heart disease would show up in people relatively early, but today it shows up in people later on because it is due to different factors.

Do I think that people are healthier now? Yes and no. There are so many factors - less poverty today, for one thing - and in NA and Europe where 100 years ago starvation was a real possibility, things are far different in terms of bulk supply of food. Also, say what you will about vaccines, but they have largely gotten rid of previously devastating diseases like polio and smallpox, which, if survived, left lifelong health issues. Also, food preservation (ie cheap freezing) means that pretty much everyone can afford vegetables throughout the year, somewhat reducing vitamin deficiencies. But if you compare a middle-class desk jockey in America or Canada (the majority of the population now) today to a well-off agriculturalist 100 years ago (the majority of the population then), I doubt the modern person would come off very well.

What is worth pointing out is that if we took care of ourselves, we should be much, much healthier both individually and across populations now than we were 100 years ago, given the abundance of food and access to medical (and dental) care. But the fact that there is any question about it is the shocking thing and shows the lack of regard people have for their own bodies and health.

Postpartum doula & certified breastfeeding educator, mama to an amazing girl (11/05) and a wee little boy (3/13).

spughy is offline  
#3 of 33 Old 07-30-2006, 10:09 PM - Thread Starter
 
tamagotchi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,096
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spughy
My guess would be that 100 years ago, heart disease occurred due to genetic flaws occasionally combined with lifestyle choices, whereas today it is lifestyle choices occasionally combined with genetic flaws.
The NYT article says that "eighty percent [of Union Army veterans] had heart disease by the time they were 60, compared with less than 50 percent [of men] today." 80% is a huge number! I don't think that could be due to genetic flaws?
tamagotchi is offline  
#4 of 33 Old 07-31-2006, 02:01 AM
 
spughy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 5,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
That seems oddly high to me. I wonder what their source was?

But if true - hmmm.

Postpartum doula & certified breastfeeding educator, mama to an amazing girl (11/05) and a wee little boy (3/13).

spughy is offline  
#5 of 33 Old 07-31-2006, 04:08 AM
 
kallyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: central PA
Posts: 1,511
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I read this article earlier today and it gave me pause as well.

But then I looked up what Civil War soldiers ate: hard tack, salted beef, sugar, and coffee and they were often all rotting. Hardly the prescription for a long and healthy life. ;P

Add in bacterial infections, poor sanitation, and constant backbreaking labor, and it's not hard to see how these men became so diseased.

Me love.gif, DH guitar.gif, and DD baby.gif9/27/10!
kallyn is offline  
#6 of 33 Old 07-31-2006, 04:44 AM
 
Ruthla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 47,873
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
This argument reminds me of the OB/GYN argument that childbirth is safer now than it was when birth first started taking place in hospitals- without mentioning that it was even safer BEFORE women routinely birthed in hospitals!

I would have to ask- we're healthier now compared to WHAT?? Perhaps 50 years ago there was a lot of heart disease- but what about 100 years ago? 200 years ago?

Ruth, single mommy to Leah, 19, Hannah, 18, and Jack, 12
Ruthla is offline  
#7 of 33 Old 07-31-2006, 10:50 AM - Thread Starter
 
tamagotchi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,096
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ruthla, that's why I want to see more data.

kallyn, I know it seems like the conclusions in the article are just about Civil War soldiers, but that's just one of the studies mentioned. The article also says that the same results are showing up in other studies on different populations: "The effects [of better health, less disability and longer life] are not just in the United States. Large and careful studies from Finland, Britain, France, Sweden and the Netherlands all confirm that the same things have happened there; they are also beginning to show up in the underdeveloped world." It's too bad the article doesn't give references!
tamagotchi is offline  
#8 of 33 Old 07-31-2006, 10:52 AM
 
phroggies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks for posting this link--it's fascinating and I'm always very interested in these kinds of discussions. Some of the questions/challenges raised above make sense; I'd like to hear more about this study.

It seems to me that the author of the article has linked two different studies. The second one (Barker's) seems unsurprising and supported by NT thinking--pre-natal and infant nutrition makes a difference in one's health later in life. The one thing about this study that stands out seems to be that "nutrition" is defined primarily in terms of caloric intake--bad calories are better than too few calories.

But Fogel's study is the one to investigate. I, too, wonder if war veterans are really the best sample demographic, and if we shouldn't be looking at the relationship between nutrition and health prior to the Industrial Revolution. That said, I know that I've made such a commitment to NT ideas that I have to make an extra effort to be objective. Off to do some research. . .
phroggies is offline  
#9 of 33 Old 07-31-2006, 10:59 AM
 
WendyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 587
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamagotchi
The NYT article says that "eighty percent [of Union Army veterans] had heart disease by the time they were 60, compared with less than 50 percent [of men] today." 80% is a huge number! I don't think that could be due to genetic flaws?
I am an NT lurker - slowly intergrating the ideas into our diet, but ANYWAY -

I would bet that the heart disease of the Union soilders was due to being diabetic or some other nutritional deficency. Lack of potassium maybe? My dad is a Type 1 diabetic and has terrible heart problems because of it.

I think its been made very clear that the SAD is causing terrible increases in heart problems compared with traditional diets of places like Japan.

I like the saying there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
WendyC is offline  
#10 of 33 Old 07-31-2006, 11:43 AM
 
phroggies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well, that didn't take long. I'm assuming that the source for the Fogel study is covered in his book, The Escape from Hunger and Premature Death, 1700-2100: Europe, America, and the Third World , amazon link here. Unfortunately, neither of my two local libraries seems to own a copy. ILL, here I come.

Here is a lecture Fogel gave on the subject to some Cornell students (pdf format): The general idea seems to be:

Because of a variety of environmental factors, those of the Civil War suffered considerably greater malnurishment than the WW2 cohort or the cohort of post WW2 folks. Factors affecting the Civil War cohort included a) contaminated water sources (so sewage treatment made a big difference), b) relative poverty of a greater number of people which lead to chronic malnutrition, c) widespread disease (malaria, typhus, tb, etc.), d) excessively long working hours (including for women, which one would assume would affect fetal health), e) um, pastuerization of milk (don't hit me. This is what Fogel says, not me), f) high amounts of horse manure in cities pre-automobile.

I am so not qualified to evaluate Fogel's research and wouldn't be even if I had read the book. Based on just a little poking around, I'm inclined to agree that people are healthier today. I think the crucial questions are a) what are the actual causes of these improvements? and b) to what extent are these improvements at risk from the modern diet? Interestingly enough, the author of the NYTimes article also wrote something on my second question (here).

The author has also apparently been taken to task by Ornish for being critical of a low-fat diet for post-menapausal women (see the bottom of this page).

Can you tell that I'm putting off some things I really should be doing instead of this? Sorry for going on.
phroggies is offline  
#11 of 33 Old 07-31-2006, 02:04 PM
 
cobluegirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New Castle, Colorado
Posts: 3,625
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
ugh..I really hate this argument..it is the one that my mom uses to not change her diet...my gma and greatgma..all lived a really long time..so she thinks that she will too even though her diet isn't as good as it could be because theirs wasn't/isn't either...
cobluegirl is offline  
#12 of 33 Old 07-31-2006, 07:03 PM
 
AnnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rainy Western Washington
Posts: 268
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't find this surprising. 19th century Americans didn't eat all that great either. Granted, they were not living on Coke and Big Macs. But they ate a lot of white flour and white sugar. And they had more famines than we do -- Americans simply don't have famines now. As for the part about disability -- hernias and such -- a lot of people do get hernias, and have them fixed surgically. They didn't do that then, so people suffered with them. The article talks about people dying in their 50's from cirrhosis -- well, that still happens, it happened to my former husband.

Plus, the article is very anecdotal. They pick out a couple of families and compare them to their ancestors. You could as easily pick on my family. My grandmother died at 68 of cancer. Her mother lived to 90. Her grandmother to 89. Her great-great grandfather lived to be 102, walking the Oregon Trail from Iowa to Oregon at the age of 63. At 50, I had both cancer and diabetes. Without modern medicine and surgery, I would no doubt be dead by now. So in our family, the life span is decreasing.

It's all in how you spin it, I suppose. Nobody is safe from disease or accident, but good nutrition certainly isn't going to hurt.

Ann
AnnC is offline  
#13 of 33 Old 08-01-2006, 02:03 AM - Thread Starter
 
tamagotchi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,096
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thank you phroggies for the Fogel book reference. I'm going to request it through ILL as well. If it really covers data that goes back to 1700, it could be interesting.
tamagotchi is offline  
#14 of 33 Old 08-01-2006, 02:22 AM
 
fuller2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Historian of 19th & 20th c. medicine in training here...(PhD student)

I'm really tired now, so I'll just say one quick thing about milk. Pasteurization definitely made a big impact on public health, especially for children, in the late 19th & early 20 centuries. Problems was massive amounts of adulterated (as in watered down, god knows what added to it, etc) and spoiled milk coming into cities for people to buy. (This was a period of massive immigration & urbanization--people moved off the farm in huge numbers and went to work in factories). Up to 50% or more of milk sold in cities was either adultrated, infected with disease organisms, or spoiled. The issue of the good stuff you get from raw milk is just beside the point here--without refrigeration, people were giving their kids milk laced with TB, typhus, & other infectious diseases, as well as being just plain spoiled. Infants and small children died regularly of diarrhea and bad milk was a major reason. Pasteurization may kill good stuff in milk, but it also kills germs that kill you. In most densely-populated urban areas before refrigeration, raw milk just wasn't a real option.

Here are some book recommendations--these are major works in the history of medicine and any good public library should either have them or be able to get them for you via interlibrary loan from an academic library. There should also be used copies available on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

James Riley, Rising Life Expectancy: A Global History (2001)
Henry Sigerist, Civilization and Disease (1943)
W.F. Bynum, Science and the Practice of Medicine in the 19th Century (1991)
George Rosen, A History of Public Health (1958, 1993--1993 edition is best)
Charles Rosenberg, The Cholera Years (1963, a classic--fantastic book)

And for a very interesting and well-known book (by a doctor!) that questions the whole concept of medicine having much to do at all with health improvments in the 19th and 20th century: Thomas McKeown, The Role of Medicine: Dream, Mirage, or Nemesis? (1979)

Finally, if you haven't read it, everyone on MDC should read Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's (Harvard professor & mother of 5) book on 18th century midwifery and healing in Maine: A Midwife's Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard, Based on Her Diary, 1785-1812.
fuller2 is offline  
#15 of 33 Old 08-01-2006, 02:31 AM
 
fuller2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
And just to address the OP: In general I'd say that people in wealthy societies are far healthier today than they were 100-150 years ago--that is, in terms of not being permanently disabled by things like childbirth trauma (a real issue in the 19th century because most women were not in the best of health), killed or disabled by childhood diseases (in some places 80% of children were killed in diptheria outbreaks, and diseases like smallpox and scarlet fever could be permanently disfiguring) or by other epidemics, like the 1918 flu epidemic that killed something like 8% of 18-40 years olds and really messed up the lungs of a lot more than that.

No one really knows why life expectancy started to increase so much in the early 20th century (in 1900 it was about 40, in 1930 it was about 60). We do know that vaccination had very little to do with reduction in childhood diseases, which had really gone down by the time most of the vaccines were introduced in the 1940s and 1950s.

People certainly ate whole grains in the 19th and early 20th centuries (That's when Mr. Kellog--yes, the cereal man--and Mr. Graham, inventor of the Graham cracker, were working...)--there was a whole movement there very similar to what people talk about now. In fact, you can find 100-year-old books that are almost identical in subject and argument to what people discuss now re: vegetarianism, meat eating, whole grains, etc. Those are some of my favorite books .

However, life expectancy is now expected to start going down again, in the US at least, because of obesity and diseases related to it, like diabetes and our health system's inability to deal with chronic conditions.
fuller2 is offline  
#16 of 33 Old 08-01-2006, 03:47 PM
 
AnnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rainy Western Washington
Posts: 268
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
When it comes to life expectancy, you have to factor in the fact that the numbers they quote are an average. That's something I learned in my college sociology classes, that infant deaths are included. So if life expectancy was 55, for example, and now it's 75, that doesn't mean that any particular individual would not live to 75 in 1850. It means that more people died young then, for various reasons. For example, in doing genealogical research, I have been amazed by the number of children listed as dying from being scalded. Apparently they tipped over pots on the stove or being boiled for laundry pretty often. Women had lots of babies in quick succession, which added to the likelihood that the mother did not have adequate time to physically and nutritionally recover from each birth, so all the problems associated with poor maternal nutrition would affect the babies, and increase the death rate of both mothers and babies at birth and afterwards. (My great-great grandmother had 17 children, of whom 13 survived childhood.) So those deaths bring the average down. Price found that indigenous cultures spaced their babies a few years apart to allow the parents to rebuild their nutritional status. There must have been a terrible toll on 29th century women who had had so many pregnancies -- their bodies would have been severely worn out, and susceptible to the next infectious disease that came along. Poor sanitation in cities contributed, as well as crop failure. To us crop failure means food prices will go up, which isn't good, but it doesn't mean starvation to most Americans. Back then it did, and semi-starvation would severely compromise your immune system, so you would be more susceptible to flu outbreaks, smallpox, etc.

Anyway, 19th century America isn't a good representation of indigenous traditional food. They didn't have the fast food and processed food problems we have, but they had other problems, and didn't have all of the accumulated traditional wisdom that Price found in indigenous cultures. More than we have, but still they had lost a lot. So I would think the ready access to food, relatively clean water, and birth control would have a lot to do with an increase in health now.

Ann
AnnC is offline  
#17 of 33 Old 08-01-2006, 04:00 PM
Banned
 
DebraBaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 5,311
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Three things not mentioned in the above excellent posts, toxins.

Pollution was much worse in the 18th and 19th century cities.

Lead and Mercury poisoning were real threats to the general population.

Grains were stripped but were not fortified.

Excellent points wrt milk and general disease.

We are blessed by modern medicine and regulation of the food supply, but we could do much better.
DebraBaker is offline  
#18 of 33 Old 08-01-2006, 05:20 PM
 
kmamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't know if this has been pointed out already, but when we compare today's health with the state of health from "yesteryear", we're not in traditional foods circles generally referring to how it was like 100 years ago. To get a fair comparison you'd have to find an isolated community that has not adopted any kind of modern and denatured foods (such as the people covered in WAP's work). For our ancestors in particular, I think you'd have to go by archeological evidence.
However, the fact that older folks generally tend to have wider skulls, wider noses etc point to a "better" state of health in their times.
kmamma is offline  
#19 of 33 Old 08-01-2006, 07:08 PM
 
Laurel723's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: In the bellybutton of the NW
Posts: 884
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thinking about the remark made in the article posted by the OP also-I'm not sure I believe the 'fact' about IQ's going up. I think it might be more like people are being taught the skills used in the IQ tests more than they were before, you know?

I just reread the Little house on the Prairie series (kid stuff I know but I like it) and it always strikes me how they did the long division in their head, and spelling words in grade school that high schoolers now wouldn't be able to even pronounce; IQ may be going up, but I think common sense and general intelligence are taking a huge hit. So few people think for themselves anymore...(Obesity vax, anyone?)

Just my little ol' humble opinion.....

(totally OT-Anyone know how to get a stubborn little baby boy to climb out from under your ribcage and hang out in front like a normal baby? I swear he hooks his toes in my ribs because he knows it tickes me. Little twerp.... )
Laurel723 is offline  
#20 of 33 Old 08-01-2006, 07:31 PM
 
AnnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rainy Western Washington
Posts: 268
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Everybody has brought up excellent points. About the long division, my grandmother could do that -- she tried to explain how she did it in her head, but I could never get it!

By the way, in my post above, I meant to say women of the 19th century, not the 29th! :

Ann
AnnC is offline  
#21 of 33 Old 08-01-2006, 09:35 PM
 
Ruthla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 47,873
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurel723
(totally OT-Anyone know how to get a stubborn little baby boy to climb out from under your ribcage and hang out in front like a normal baby? I swear he hooks his toes in my ribs because he knows it tickes me. Little twerp.... )
Chiropractic care may help.

Ruth, single mommy to Leah, 19, Hannah, 18, and Jack, 12
Ruthla is offline  
#22 of 33 Old 08-01-2006, 10:11 PM
Banned
 
DebraBaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 5,311
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Little House, the only child out of their five or six who went on to get married and have children was Laura. She had two, one of whom died as a newborn (for some reason, I guess something like RH- or jaundice, but they didn't know.)

Her daughter, Rose, never had children, so, it makes me so sad that no-one from their family made it to even my grandmother's generation.
DebraBaker is offline  
#23 of 33 Old 08-02-2006, 01:08 AM
 
newcastlemama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: My happy place
Posts: 3,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think that if we combine the postives from then and now we could have excellent health.

For example, a traditional diet combined with clean water and medical technology (when appropriate) (Plus other advances from our time, but I have brain fade right now). This would make very healthy people.

This reminds me of birth then and now. Giving birth for women was high risk back then. But I believe that healthy women giving birth at home and then having medical advances as a back up is taking the best of everything.

Hope that makes sense,
Jennifer

homebirth.jpg<>< Mama to DS, DD, and a new baby girl 4/1! homeschool.gifmdcblog5.gif

newcastlemama is offline  
#24 of 33 Old 08-02-2006, 01:19 AM
 
fuller2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Jennifer--I totally agree with you. If there ever was a time when homebirth could be totally safe and good for almost everybody, it's now.

Industrialization of food / mass-produced food products appeared in the late 19th-early 20th centuries (Uneeda Bisquit, Crisco) so that's definitely not a place to look for 'traditional' food! (unless you count the Italian immigrants, who were known for planting kitchen gardens whenever they were able to have a little dirt...)

Even at the time, they knew that cramming all those people together in cities without decent sanitation (the piles of horse poop on the streets could be 5-6 feet high in New York City--automobiles were originally praised for being CLEANER than horses!) was a recipe for spreading diseases. (They also blamed people's morality when they got sick, but then we still do that now but in different contexts, like with AIDS, or telling someone they have cancer because of their anger issues or something) Disease followed urbanization and country living was often considered much healthier.

There's a really interesting book on the history of childbirth in the late 19th-early 20th c., Brought To Bed, by Judith Walzer Leavitt. In it she shows that it was women, not doctors, who wanted birth moved to the hospital, because they wanted the supposed safety promised there. (It was very feminist to want hospital births and pain relief at that time.) But she also found that moving birth to the hospital caused women to lose control over the process of birth--and we just kept going in that direction. And--the promise of safer deliveries didn't really pan out until the 1940s anyway. It's the location of birth, not whether it's attended by a doctor or a midwife, that makes the big difference in women's ability to call the shots.
fuller2 is offline  
#25 of 33 Old 08-02-2006, 08:54 AM
Banned
 
DebraBaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 5,311
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think it depends upon whose traditions the traditional diet is based.

I'll go with a fusion of Mediteranian and Chinese and Japanese foods, personally. :
DebraBaker is offline  
#26 of 33 Old 08-02-2006, 09:26 AM
 
Nankay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,058
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My thought regarding the Fallon article quoted in the OP: There really was no medical equipment at the time available to use to diagnose arteriosclerosis. Surgery on the heart was just not done theneither, so how would anyone know if someone suffered from it? I'm guessing most would just be diagnosed with a genral "heart condition".
Nankay is offline  
#27 of 33 Old 08-02-2006, 10:22 AM
Banned
 
DebraBaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 5,311
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My grandfather died in 1950 at the age of 40 with a severe heart attack.

I'm told he would be rolling-on-the-floor in pain and got diagnosed with heartburn.

My Aunt Edna (his sister,) had Angina in the 1960's and simply suffered. She lived into the 1980's but most of her time with heart disease she simply suffered.

My mom had a heart blockage at the age of 50. She had angioplasty, and eventually a stint put into her cornary arteries. She is presently in very good health but did have at least one heart attack.

She would have been in better health if she wasn't obese and didn't smoke until she had heart problems (and quit at that time.)
DebraBaker is offline  
#28 of 33 Old 08-02-2006, 12:18 PM
 
sophmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: with a brush in my hand
Posts: 2,439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
On my mom's side, almost everyone lives into their mid-upper 90's. My grandparents are mid-80's and have run an organic farm in western NY for over 50 years. They are the epitome of health. At age 81 my grandma decided to learn how to ride a bike. A couple years ago my dh and I went hiking/rock climbing with them. They grow their own food and drink raw milk and buy organic meat from a homesteader who free ranges his animals. I still have a great-great Aunt alive. Only one of my great aunts and uncles's (spouses included) have died on my mom's side.

They all grew up with organic farming practices (they used horses to plow when they were kids - long before chemical farming was popularized). They've all kept those food habits in place, but especially my grandparents. I hope between the fact that I have inherited that part of the family's physique and my love for the foods they introduced me to, I'll be able to live like them later in life.
sophmama is offline  
#29 of 33 Old 08-02-2006, 01:50 PM - Thread Starter
 
tamagotchi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,096
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yeah, I have a similar family history to yours sophmama, I had a great great grandfather who died in his mid 90s by falling out of a tree that he'd climbed to pick fruit!
tamagotchi is offline  
#30 of 33 Old 08-02-2006, 03:29 PM
 
newcastlemama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: My happy place
Posts: 3,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuller2
Jennifer--I totally agree with you. If there ever was a time when homebirth could be totally safe and good for almost everybody, it's now.

Industrialization of food / mass-produced food products appeared in the late 19th-early 20th centuries (Uneeda Bisquit, Crisco) so that's definitely not a place to look for 'traditional' food! (unless you count the Italian immigrants, who were known for planting kitchen gardens whenever they were able to have a little dirt...)
Just to clarify...mass-produced food products are not traditional foods.

Traditional foods in our time must be sought out and prepared with care.(There is a sticky with the specifics of traditional foods)

About heart attacks. I was reading (I belive in the Cholesterol Myths) that scientists have flown the hearts from the deceased Massai over for examination and found that they did not have heart disease. The Massai lived on a very high cholesterol diet (meats, large quantities of whole milk, blood).

I also have family mambers that lived well to a very old age (95-103) and then just died. (That is the way to go!) As far as I know they ate their country's more traditional foods and were also joyful people. My dad said that the grandma who lived to 103 drank 2 pints of beer per day and was often singing while she was about the house.

The point is-- I don't care if I have heart failure when I am 100 and I have lived a robust life until then. IMO, longevity is not valuable if I am too weak and sickly to enjoy that extended life.

Good topic BTW, OP

Jennifer

homebirth.jpg<>< Mama to DS, DD, and a new baby girl 4/1! homeschool.gifmdcblog5.gif

newcastlemama is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off