From: Ramez Naam (mez@apexnano.com)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 12:00:45 MDT
From: Brian Atkins [mailto:brian@posthuman.com]
> Here is quote from an old 1950's diet book I was browsing:
>
> "In 1921 coronary thrombosis was a rarity and accounted for only 746
> male deaths in Britain. In 1956 the figure was 45,000. It is
> still going up."
Hmmm. I simply do not believe that statistic. It's inconsistent with
other data from that time period. For example in the US in 1921,
137,000 people died of heart disease, out of a total of about 1
million deaths in the US that year.
Let me summarize the CDCs statistics for US causes of death in 1921.
In descending order of incidence:
CAUSE % of ALL DEATHS
Heart Disease 14%
Pneumonia 9%
Tuberculosis 9%
Stroke 8%
Cancer 7%
Nephritis 5%
Accidents 5%
Diarrhea & enteritis 4%
Premature birth 4%
Diphtheria 1-2%
These stats are available at
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/lead1900_98.pdf
What they suggest to me is about what I'd expect. In 1921 the US was
in a transition from the pre-1900 period (when infectious disease was
responsible for most deaths) to the late 20th century (when
age-related problems were responsible for most deaths).
Note that life expectancy in 1921 US was somewhere in the low 50s.
This is consistent with a model where the conquering of infectious
disease has allowed humans to live longer and, for the first time,
experience the problems of old age such as heart disease and cancer.
> So I don't believe the argument that we
> are only seeing this huge rise in that set of diseases because we
are
> living longer is accurate. In 1920 people over 50 simply _did not_
> suffer from heart attacks very often at all. Something
> changed in just a few short decades to make this a much more
> common event, and so far science has not figured it out.
Well, in the US between 1920 and 2002, heart disease has gone from
causing 14% of all deaths to 50% of all deaths. But incidence of
infectious disease deaths has dropped almost to zero, and life
expectancy has increased by more than 20 years. So that doesn't seem
to hard to explain.
Also note that infectious diseases are particularly dangerous not only
to the very young, but to the old, the very same people at risk of
heart disease and cancer! Now that we've effectively conquered
infectious disease in the US it doesn't matter, but if you look at the
pattern of death by age in earlier civilizations you'll find that the
old died of infectious diseases much more frequently than young or
middle-age adults.
At the same time, I completely agree that lifestyle factor are also to
blame for an increased incidence of heart disease. Americans in 2002
consume more total calories, more fat, and more sugar than at any
point in last few centuries. They also live an unprecedented
sedentary lifestyle.
So, put all of this together and I don't see why you say that science
hasn't figured out why heart disease has become the leading killer.
> It very well could be due to dietary changes- most of which
> were shifts away from eating traditional/natural foods.
By traditional/natural do you mean pre-agrarian? If so, I doubt you
could find much evidence of that in the early 1900s.
mez
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 16 2003 - 12:08:00 MDT