Lifted from comments on Peak life expectancy
Lifted from comments by reader and contributor Run 75441 on Peak life expectancy:
We do wear out after a period of time. I suspect how quickly we wear out could be based upon life style, income, and diet. To answer your first statement, obesity in the is generation of children has led to an expected lowering of longevity in the US. This is the first time that one US generation will not out live the preceding generation. Diabetes is one of the fastest growing disorder plaguing the population of the US. Why???
Saletan at Slate had argued against the a law being passed in LA which had restricted the numbers of fast food restaurants in one section of the city. Never mind there was a fast food restaurant within walking distance for the residents of this particular section of LA or that there was one fast food restaurant for every 1300 residents. Cheaper, fattier, and less healthier foods are more readily available today and/or in lower income areas than ever before and this trend is growing overseas as well. The convenience of fast food impacts not only low income; but, it has also becomes a matter of convenience for high income as as well. Quality of food and the availability of quality food are issues.
We walk less and do less manual labor than our babyboomer predecessors. With the advent of suburbs outside of the cities and the two income families to make ends meet, we find ourselves driving more than we do taking busses, trains, or walking to work. People and industry moved out of the cities. The work level for many of us confines us to our desks for numerous hours. At the other end of the spectrum the lower incomes still face long and hard hours doing manual labor in order to meet the needs of a family. Income has stagnated for much of the population requiring a two earner income. The numbers of people within the Civilian Labor Force has decreased with the shift of emphasis from labor intensive investments to investments that are little more than gambling producing greater gains. Productivity gains have shifted away from labor to capital since the eighties.The healthcare model is still services for fees which is heavily skewed towards specialties rather than preventative care. This has to be changed to a better
outcomes for fees with a heavy emphasis on preventative healthcare. While the ACA is not the shining beacon we could have had, it is a start in the right direction. The access to healthcare is still limited to those who have jobs and who also can afford it.Briefly, all three of these factors are having an impact on the health of the population.
A start in the right direction might be a trap.
Far be it from me to celebrate the early death of fat kids, but the projected shortfall in Social Security depends on us all living longer… and in Medicare depends on the cost of medical care rising at current rates.
Maybe long range predictions are not the best way to determine Social Security policy.
And don’t count on those poor people all having labor intensive jobs. Sitting at a computer all day will destroy your health just as surely, and the pay is not very good either.
The reason this is an important point is that those who don’t think but are brilliant policy geniuses are sure that raising the retirement age is the “obvious” answer to the “Social Security Crisis ™”.
If you tell them… lo, the poor laborer, they will just think… get him a job as a telephone solicitor.
Meanwhile the poor laborer can pay for his own “early” retirement with a raise in his own payroll tax of forty cents per week each year.
Only, sad to say, when I pointed this out to a worker today, she said she didn’t want to retire when she got old anyway. Was worthless to try to point out to her that she might change her mind when she actually got old, or that other people might not have the options, and health, that she has, or that forty cents per week was a cheap price to pay to have the option of not having to work until you fall down.
So, without leaders, the poor are doomed by their own lack of foresight, or quantitative intuition. But as long as their leaders as so brilliant they never have to think about anything, and have never had to work for a living… well, their leaders will lead them into a trap.
Meanwhile, if you want to live a long and health life, get lots of exercise and retire early.
“To answer your first statement, obesity in the is generation of children has led to an expected lowering of longevity in the US.”
Don’t forget childhood mortality. That’s what really lowers life expectancy.
From the first “peaking life expectancy” post. I’m not sure who said this, but I think it was Cameron Murray:
“Life expectancy has peaked in some US States according to recent research. This follows research published in 2005 that suggests current living children may not outlive their parents, and that peak life expectancy in the US may be reached between 2030 and 2040. Mostly, this is attributed to the massive spike in childhood obesity which typically results in lifelong obesity and associated health problems.”
There is so much wrong with that. First, as any English teacher will tell you, there is a big difference between “has peaked” and “may peak {in the future}”. Second, the attribution to obesity is highly questionable. Not that childhood obesity is not a problem, as is the associated increase in adult onset diabetes. But the real problem, **as always**, with life expectancy is childhood mortality. The main reason that people in the developed world live longer than their ancestors did in the 19th century is that we keep our children alive better than they did.
Since posting my last note here I did a quick search for childhood mortality in the U. S. Guess what! Life expectancy is up in the U. S. Peak life expectancy my ass! We really do not know. Here is a story from earlier this year: http://singularityhub.com/2011/03/20/us-life-expectancy-is-up-hits-record-high-of-78-2/
I do not endorse the speculation about living much longer. But let me direct your attention to the last line of Table A on that web site. Infant mortality rates are around 2.5 time as great for Blacks as Whites. I expect that that is mainly the result of poverty, not genetics. Childhood mortality is a disgrace in the U. S. The richest, most powerful nation in the world ranks 41st in infant mortality. See http://singularityhub.com/2011/09/08/us-child-mortality-rates-rank-41st-in-the-world/
Let’s get real, folks.
Min
i think we are real. while your objection to the grammar is probably correct, the point of the essay was that we are in a position to predict that the current generation of children may not live as long as their parents.
and while this does not address your concern with childhood mortality, it does suggest a real problem.
meanwhile if childhood mortality is a function of poverty, do you see signs that poverty is decreasing?
also, if we are being picky about “grammar”, the essay said
“life expectancy has peaked IN SOME STATES”
“peak life expectancy IN THE U.S. may be reached…”
sometimes what’s wrong with the other guys logic or grammar is that we did not finish listening to what he said.
coberly: “Maybe long range predictions are not the best way to determine Social Security policy.”
Welcome! 🙂
coberly: “the point of the essay was that we are in a position to predict that the current generation of children may not live as long as their parents.”
We are in a position to predict that an asteroid may hit the earth this century. We are in a position to predict that the Yellowstone super volcane may erupt next year. Par’n me, but those are tabloid predictions.
Sorry, I was not meaning to make a grammatical point. On the surface this is tabloid stuff.
At first I was unable to locate the research cited, and so I have relied on my BS detector, but now I am pretty sure that I have found it. http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/pdf/1478-7954-9-16.pdf
Falling behind: life expectancy in US counties from 2000 to 2007 in an international context
From the abstract:
“Across US counties, life expectancy in 2007 ranged from 65.9 to 81.1 years for men and 73.5 to 86.0 years for women. When compared against a time series of life expectancy in the 10 nations with the lowest mortality, US counties range from being 15 calendar years ahead to over 50 calendar years behind for men and 16 calendar years ahead to over 50 calendar years behind for women. County life expectancy for black men ranges from 59.4 to 77.2 years, with counties ranging from seven to over 50 calendar years behind the international frontier; for black women, the range is 69.6 to 82.6 years, with counties ranging from eight to over 50 calendar years behind. Between 2000 and 2007, 80% (men) and 91% (women) of American counties fell in standing against this international life expectancy standard.”
Note that some counties (not states) were 15-16 years ahead of the international frontier. If life expectancy is peaking, there is where to look, not at the counties that are 50 years behind have plenty of room to catch up. And indeed, in those counties that are ahead of the curve, perhaps the greatest threat to life expectancy is childhood obesity. (Obesity was mentioned only once in the paper, as one factor in life expectancy.) But the problem is not that we are peaking, the problem is that we are so far behind.
The conclusion from the abstract:
“The US has extremely large geographic and racial disparities, with some communities having life expectancies already well behind those of the best-performing nations. At the same time, relative performance for most communities continues to drop. Efforts to address these issues will need to tackle the leading preventable causes of death.”
The words “peak”, “peaking”, etc., did not appear in the paper. Perhaps that was a misapprehension of whoever made the claim, from the phrase, “relative perfomance for most communities continues to drop.” Life expectancy in the U. S. is increasing, but not as fast as the rest of the developed world. That is not the same as peaking. (It may well be that it has dropped recently in some counties, **because of statistical variability**. That is not peaking, either.) From http://singularityhub.com/2011/09/08/us-child-mortality-rates-rank-41st-in-the-world/ :“Even though the United States posted a 26 percent decrease in neonatal deaths over the 20 years, it has slipped in lowest risk rankings from 28th in the world to 41st. At 4.3 neonatal deaths per 1,000 live births the US shares the 41st spot with Qatar, Croatia, and the United Arab Emirates.” Got that? Over the past 20 years we have slipped in relative terms from number 28 to number 41. That’s not good. But we have reduced the number of neonatal deaths by over 1 per 1,000. That’s OK, and that is not peaking.
As for peaking nationally, some areas of our country are over 60 years behind others in increasing life expectancy. We have no reason to peak until those areas have caught up.
Despite the fact the the U. S. spends more per capita on health care than any other nation on […]
Of course a decrease in life expectancy is exactly what the extreme environmentalists want. After all if there are fewer people there will be fewer impacts on the biosphere.
Another point is if things are going to get as bad as predicted in the newsmedia in its chicken little point of view of the world, perhaps not living to see the troubles arise is a preferable outcome.
Note that any diseases that occur after age 40 or so have little impact on evolutionary fitness of the individual, as that is focused on reproduction and after the prime age of reproduction, the rest does not affect the chance of offspring reproducing which from a purely biological and evolutionary point of view is all that matters.
Min:
Not sure how this applies to my thoughts written above in the top post. The next generation is expected to have a shorter life span due to obesity caused diabetes. You cherry-picked one sentence out of a paragraph. Nor was I writing about life expectancy peaking. It may be that life expectancy is peaking and it may not be the case. I have not had a chance to reserch it to tell you such. My topic was specifically childhood obesity leading to diabetes which is turn can cause a shortening of life due to diabetes and related complications. I may have over reached in my choice of words (will as opposed to may); but, the direction still remains because of an increased occurrence at an earlier age.
http://www.ahrq.gov/research/ria19/expendria.htm “The High Concentration of Costs in US Healthcare”
“Especially important is the increase in the number of people treated for conditions clinically linked to obesity. From 1987 to 2002, the proportion of the population treated increased 64 percent for diabetes (accounting for 80 percent of the increase in costs) and increased 500 percent for hyperlipidemia (accounting for almost 90 percent of the increase in costs). A number of factors might explain the substantial increase in treatment rates for conditions linked to obesity. These factors include a rise in the number of people with obesity-related conditions, a rise in the number of more seriously ill patients, a greater emphasis on preventive care, and the introduction of broader treatment options.”
Canada and Austraila have also down studies on the issues of obesity in youth. That this can be cataloged as a chronic condition leading to other disorders, is certainly pointing a direction for a shortened life span.
Min:
The point of the essay was the earlier the occurrence of diabetes as caused by obesity, the shoter ones life span can be. You cherry-picked one sentence out of a paragraph.
“Other reports present similarly alarming statistics. Ontario’s former Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Basrur commented in her 2004 Chief Medical Officer of Health’s “Healthy Weights, Healthy Lives” report that “… between, 1981 and 1996, the number of obese children in Canada between the ages of seven and 13 tripled. This is contributing to a dramatic rise in illnesses such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, hypertension and some cancers.” http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/child-enfant/advisor-conseillere/index-eng.php
We are very much in a position to predict an outcome given the data supplied which indeed points a direction of what may occur due to the disorder of diabetes. As far as fast food: http://healthyamericans.org/assets/files/ObesityTestimony071508.pdf
“The health impacts of obesity and physical inactivity are dire and can start at a young age. Physical inactivity is tied to heart disease and stroke risk factors in children and
adolescents. A number of studies have documented how obesity increases a child’s risk
for a number of health problems, including the emerging onset of type 2 diabetes,
increased cholesterol and hypertension among children, and the danger of eating
disorders among obese adolescents.”
If you believe there is a better outcome to Diabetes 2, please let me know.
Lyle:
You are missing the point . . . Children are getting the disorder far earlier in life which portends a shorter life span or at least points points in such a direction. Unless one follows a strict diet and exercise regime, death is the more likely outcome in many cases.
Coberly:
No Shit . . . cherry-picking appears to be the modus operandi around here.
Min:
Really??? 10 year windows would make more sense.
About obesity:
Mrs. R. and me are writing a guide for physician offices, essentially on how to accomdate the obese, morbidly obese and super morbidly obese in the office, with an emphasis on safety and diagnostic problems (such as buying super-large blood pressure cuffs wghich may not work anyway).
Meanwhile some nursing homes are having to turn away patients because safey and lifting equipment only go to 350 pounds. Staff injuries are becoming a problem due to lifting and positioning issues.
There is a problem. The long term results are not fully known, but chronic disease problems inevitably will follow obesity.
Oh, I have no trouble with peering ahead into the future as best we can. But predictions with no error terms? 75 year projections? GIGO.
run75441:
“The next generation is expected to have a shorter life span due to obesity caused diabetes. You cherry-picked one sentence out of a paragraph. Nor was I writing about life expectancy peaking.”
If I should have made my comments at the previous post on peak life expectancy, I apologize. I took this to be a continuation of that.
As for shorter life expectancy because of childhood obesity, I do not know where that claim came from. It was not in the research cited. I do not mean to downplay the problems with childhood obesity and adult onset diabetes, but, as always, the main problem with life expectancy remains childhood mortality. You got research that says otherwise, I am all ears. 🙂
str
Look at the “bright” side of super morbid obesity. It is self correcting, in a manner of speaking. Granted that some cases are endocrinological, but there is a point at which self preservation has to be stressed.
Min
generally agree. and even agree about the tabloid journalism…
but “sixty years behind the curve” is a pretty strange metric. especially from someone who thinks 75 year projections are meaningless (as they are).
Lyle
your thought process strikes me as borderline pychotic. we are not terribly interested in the “evolutionary fitness” of humans… especially since we discovered the competitive advantages of cooperation, not to say the contribution of grandparents to the survival of the species.
your understanding of evolutionary biology is ignorant even by 19th century standards. i’ll let you know if i run across any extreme environmentalists plotting shorter life expectancies. gosh, you’d think faster cars and lower driving ages would be a lot easier to engineer than fast food diabetes.
lyle’s idea of evolutionary fitness would have us all evolving into cockroaches. maximum reproduction rate, cope with any environment. constant intraspecies struggle for survival ensures maximum fitness for the life of a cockroach.
jack
i mentioned something about the salt content of a popular brand of vegetable soup.
the point is that in the long run people will take the course of least resistance, even if it leads to an early grave.
ah, if only we had a nanny state to make it a little harder to kill ourselves.
The most urgent problem is “regular” obesity which results in a terrible epidemic of diabetes among other things, usually followed by heart diease and stroke.
A stunning graphic is here http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html showing a year-by-year changes in levels of obesity by state, 1985 to 2010, coloured from pale blue, blue, dark blue, sand, orange and maroon (pale blue, under 10%. Maroon, over 30%. White = no data.)
In 1985, in the states which had data (about half) it’s mostly pale blue and blue. By 1996, with all states reporting, it’s all blue and dark blue (10% to 19% obesity.) That’s ten years. Only five years after that, 2001, half the states are 15-19% (dark blue), half 20-25% (sand), and only one, Colorado, under 15% (pale blue) balanced by one, Mississippi, 25-30% obesity (orange).
By 2010, there’s no trace of blue of any shade. It’s about 1/3 each sand, orange and maroon, with the maroon states (over 30% obesity) predominating the deep south.
This is the sort of map that should have the US government in a panic. If it was the Black Death or something quick they would (I hope) be jumping right on it. But because it looks like a problem that
is simply “free choice” they’re content to let 30% of Americans waddle around like Kobe cattle — pampered but not for the right reasons.
What will happen in another 10 years when we all go maroon? The mind boggles.
Noni
Noni
I question whether it was exactly free choice. Vegetable soup is not something you would expect to make you fat.
The fact is (“fact” seems to be) that we buy commercially prepared food because that is the easiest course. And we may not have much choice about “easy” if our lives are otherwise too busy, or too ill informed, to prepare from basic wholesome food.
And the prices of real food tend to be much much higher than the prices of what you can buy from the store and prepare so easily if at all.
No, this is not a question of “free choice” it’s a question of more or less “naturally evolving” into an unhealthy situation.
Min
they are not peering, they are not even predicting, they are projecting.
so if my child grew two inches this year, in 75 years he will be 12 and a half ft taller.
and you may be fooling yourself with “error terms.”
statistics does reasonably well with repeated measurements, and even potentially repeatable measurements, but predicting the interaction of an indefinite set of unknown variables… ?
coberly: “but predicting the interaction of an indefinite set of unknown variables… ?”
As I say, repeatedly, about such long range economic projections: GIGO! GIGO! GIGO!
coberly: “sixty years behind the curve” is a pretty strange metric. especially from someone who thinks 75 year projections are meaningless (as they are).”
I also think it strange, but that appears to be how such researchers think. It makes sense to me when Hans Rosling says that a particular country’s public health is now where the U. S. was in the 1970s, for instance. That is the kind of measurement for which you can derive error estimates. If some counties in the U. S. are 50 years behind where the most advanced countries are now, that has a clear meaning, since we know where those countries were 50 years ago.
Hey Coberly, I agreed with you before you disagreed with me. I said “because it looks like a problem that is simply “free choice””
These numbers show that the situation can’t be genetic or something like that, and isn’t free choice in the sense of people wanting to pack on the leaf lard. The weight-loss industry is huge, yet seems to have had no effect on the epidemic. As you say, it’s a confluence of factors like people having less time at home, no adults staying home to cook, broken home schedules so families can’t eat all together, very cheap subsidized fats and sugars, and ubiquitous refueling stations selling cheap portions of salt/sugar/fat/starch rations that find our biggest red appetite buttons and dial them up to 11.
All these factors point one direction, toward tubby, and they have been so effective that they have dialed us up to 11 too. (Present company not excepted, sigh.) The obesity numbers are bad enough, the overweight numbers are similar
Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are obese: 33.9% (2007-2008)Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are overweight (and not obese): 34.4% (2007-2008)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm
When I was a kid *totter, totter, wave cane* obese people were rare and they had a hell of a time finding decent clothing. Lots of muu-muus. Now, the sizes shoot up past L to the stratosphere of XXXXL. Why isn’t this a public emergency?
but the comparison is worthless. we could probably put those backward countries where we are today in a year, or ten years… with adequate food and sanitation.
yet we are going backwards in the “adequate food” department, so maybe we’ll meet them coming the other way.
i don’t know what “life expectancy” looked like between 1861 and 1865, but i would think the death of 600,000 young men might have affected the average.
and what kind of “error estimates” are you talkng about, exactly?
Min:
You are being deceptive. Connect the dots. If any of the disorders of being obese do not result in a shorteing of life expectancy, please let me know.
Noni:
Is obesity the issue or the results of obesity???