Home > Health, Studies, Supps & Pharmaceuticals > Scientific Studies > The "Young" Have Now Become The Old

The "Young" Have Now Become The Old

  1. This new study is yet another grim reminder of how much the health of the "young" has really declined over the last several decades. I put the "young" in quotation marks because it is becoming increasingly clear that those people are only young chronologically. Biologically, these people are effectively several decades older since cancer and aging are essentially the same energetically-driven process (as Peat has written many times). Actually, increased cancer rates are only one such indication of biological age far exceeding the chronological one. We have numerous threads on the forum about other biomarkers signalling the declining health of young people. The shear diversity of those biomarkers makes the picture on how old the "young" really are that much more obvious and grim.
    Heart Attacks Are On The Rise Among Young Women
    Health Of Young People Has Declined Strongly In The Last 30 Years
    Breaking News: Colorectal Cancer Rates In Young People Have Doubled
    Stroke Rates Have Almost Doubled In Young Adults
    One In Four People Will Have Stroke At Least Once, Including People In Their 20s
    Breaking News: Colorectal Cancer Rates In Young People Have Doubled
    Rates Of Diabetes I And II Are Rapidly Rising In Young Children And Teens
    IQ Scores Have Been Dropping For Decades And The Reason Is NOT Genetic
    World IQ Scores Are Declining
    Sperm Count (Biomarker Of Male Health) In The West Has Declined By 60% Since The 1970s
    Remarkable Decline In Fertility - Half The World Below Replacement Levels
    Americans Are Retiring Later, Dying Sicker And Sooner In-between

    One of the threads above discusses strikingly increasing colon cancer rates in the youngest segment of the population studied. The new study adds pancreatic cancer, multiple myeloma, kidney cancer, endometrial cancer, leukemia, GI cancer, and gallbladder cancer to that list of dramatically increased risk in the youngest cohorts studied. And the explanation offered is laughable - obesity. As if obesity rates are somehow only rising in the young. Millenials may be many things but one thing they are not is more obese than other generations.
    Are Millennials On Course To Be The Unhealthiest Generation?
    "...Young adults have the freedom to eat, drink, and smoke as they please while their metabolisms help them curtail the threat of America’s obesity epidemic. According to Gallup’s recently released lifestyle data, the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, the Millennial generation has the lowest obesity rate compared to older generations, but their eating and lifestyle habits are far from healthy."

    I have no idea how such remarkably idiotic and outrightly fraudulent explanation can ever make it past peer review, but apparently mainstream medicine is willing to do anything to cover up the real reasons. For the record, while almost every cancer can technically be shown to have a positive correlation with obesity only colon cancer has been definitively linked to BMI, and the increased risk is only for a very narrow range of BMI. In fact, morbidly obese people actually have lower risk for colon cancer than people considered slightly overweight (BMI in the 25-27 range). However, cancers such as pancreatic, kidney, leukemia and myeloma have long been touted as mostly genetically driven, with risk mostly determined by whether the cancer runs in the family combined with smoking habits. Yet now, when it is convenient to say so, we are being told that these cancers are suddenly driven by lifestyle choices, especially uncontrolled eating habits.
    Poor Millenials, both literally and figuratively! Not only are they likely to be the financially poorest generation in the last 100 years, but they get to be the sickest and dying at the youngest age. It's almost as if the youngest and the oldest people today are one and the same. Maybe that's why so many new politicians run on campaigns of universal health care. They know quite well this may turn out to be most important political issue for ALL living generations, and especially for the Millenials (and even younger people).

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(18)30267-6/fulltext
    For millennials, cancers fueled by obesity are on rise, study says - CNN
    "...The study, published in The Lancet Public Health, examined data on 12 obesity-related cancers between 1995 and 2014, as well as 18 common cancers not associated with weight. They found a disturbing trend among adults age 24 to 49. "The risk of cancer is increasing in young adults for half of the obesity-related cancers, with the increase steeper in progressively younger ages," said co-author Ahmedin Jemal, who is the vice president of the Surveillance and Health Services Research Program for the American Cancer Society."

    "...The six obesity-related cancers that showed startling increases among younger adults were colorectal, endometrial, gallbladder, kidney, pancreatic and multiple myeloma, a cancer of the bone marrow. Most of these cancers have traditionally shown up in patients later in life, usually in their 60s and 70s. Yet the study found some of the most significant increases were seen in the millennial age bracket, at a time when "overall cancer incidence is decreasing in males and stabilizing in females in the US," Jemal said. Take pancreatic cancer for example, typically diagnosed in people over age 65. The analysis found the average annual increase for pancreatic cancer was 4.34% for ages 25 to 29, 2.47% in people aged 30 to 34, 1.31% for those in the 35 to 39 age bracket, and only 0.72% in those aged 40 to 44 years. Overall, the risk of colorectal, endometrial, pancreatic and gallbladder cancers in millennials was about double the rate baby boomers had at the same age, the study found."
     
  2. No such thing as a free lunch. Mass industrial civilization means unintended consequences.
     
  3. "sugar" causes this apparently
     
  4. Raised on a steady supply of round-up.
     
  5. This must be why I've been listening to Kenny Rogers. ****.
     
  6. ..... and high PUFA oils and Iron "fortified" grains.
     
  7. staring at a cell phone all day rather than playing outside, too.
     
  8. This sort of thing is very depressing news. But comparing the young men and women of the 1970s to those of today makes it obvious that a physical degeneration has taken place. I wonder if it is deliberate?
     
  9. images (2).jpeg
     
  10. We seem to know the causes of this; PUFA, added iron, mass produced grains and processed foods, vegetarianism/ veganism ideology utilizing the aformentioned foods, GMO, radiation, EMF, chronic stress, excessive vaccination, prescription meds, alcoholism, party culture, smoking in context with everything else, pollutants... did i miss anything?

    The question is can this be reversed? And if so can it be done in one liftime?
     
  11. You severely overestimate the popularity of veganism. Not to mention that a vegetarian diet is essentially a Peat diet minus the gelatin/shellfish. It's a boogeyman.
     
  12. At this point it's obvious. Ever the since mid 20th century, all the official guidelines for health seem to have been precisely calculated to reduce vitality.

    I can't put into words how grateful I am to have found Dr. Peat.
     
  13. These studies are so fraudulent in how they lead people in circles. The same things that lead to obesity are what lead to cancer, but it's not obesity that causes cancer. But by making people focus on losing weight when they are already malnourished, these studies are doing nothing but making people worse. Millennials have the lowest rate of obesity but probably would be healthier if they WERE obese instead of maintaining a low weight via semi starvation which seems to be what many people are currently doing.
     
  14. @lvysaur
    Your response may be a response to a boogeyman, yet I did not conjure him:

    “Vegetarianism/ veganism ideology utilizing the aformentioned foods

    There seems to be a push towards a vegetarian diet not based on dairy, fruit, eggs and leaves but towards increased consumption of whole grains. Whether or not people actually identify as vegetarian or vegan, is besides the point, it is the conditioned base assumption that a grain based, vegetable oil/product based diet is healthy, especially in the context of avoiding red meat, eggs, dairy, saturated fats and organ meats, as well as fruits and sugar.
     
  15. I totally agree. My generation is so focus on weight and doing "healthy things" promoted by the government. We have totally disconnected with our body. Technology keeps our mind busy, so that we don't have to take a hard look at our miserable selves.

    I'm 28 and others around my age all seem like they are already old with their various health issues and low energy. It's like we're 15 years older if not more.

    Fortunately after realizing that doing exactly as I was told just made everything worse. I just stopped believing anything I was taught on health and am following various alternative views to broaden my understanding. I implement what I learn in an intuitive way by listening to my body.

    Unfortunately, it is very difficult to convince others that what we're told is BS.
     
  16. Looking at this from a fundamental perspective - the battle is an inner one - that of accepting external authority over internal authority. Personally, I am entirely self-defined and only rely on my own authority to discern everything I read, hear, see etc. (It relates to being truly empowered)

    It seems that potent psychological conditioning is in place to create a dependance and acceptance on external authority, the biological aspect would include learned helplessness. Psychologically speaking, these types of people have a disempowered victim mentality, and thus play into the Victim-Victimiser dynamic. (A victim will also play the victimiser role). There is also a theme of 'passivity' - possibly relating to the biological sluggish metabolism, underperforming thyroid and mitochondria.

    I feel that trying to convince people who are programmed/conditioned to only accept conventional authoritative figures/groups is a waste of energy. Personally, I cannot be convinced of something - I come to my own conclusions. I am authentic enough with myself to be able to shift my beliefs etc, but not everyone shares these traits.

    It is interesting to break down & analyse this phenomana from different perspectives.
     
  17. And psychological poisons like narcissistic abuse
    Yea cause no one really wants to hear someone tell them that the way they've been living for years has been a lie lol.
     
  18. screen addiction is rampant too, phones, games etc
     
    • Pesticides & Herbicides eg Glyphosate
    • Flouride - inhibits thyroid & collagen synthesis, triggers oxidative stress, inhibit enzymes such as those involved in the pentose pathway, undermine antioxidant defense mechanisms
      Citation: Sananda Dey,Biplab Giri,Fluoride Fact on Human Health and Health Problems: A Review.Med Clin Rev. 2015, 2:2. doi: 10.21767/2471-299X.100011

     
  19. No offense, but what is this obsession with "screen-staring" that older generations have? What is it about screens that's so irritating to you?
     
  20. I’m 27 haha; I’m guilty of it even knowing that it can’t be good for health.
     
  21. just that using a phone 8 hours a day is a very unhealthy thing to do socially and physically
     
  22. Serotonin.
    The only dopamine heavy people I've met are either international students or martial artists.
    Everyone else is too easily bent to an ideology
     
  23. I'm only 25 but have noticed endless people - of ALL ages - seemingly glued and giving all their attention to their phone screen. It's interesting to watch them cross roads etc
     
  24. Millennials not living in the USA/Western Europe also spend enormous amounts of time on their smartphones/playing video games, so the fact that people from other countries are still healthy (in other words, dopamine dominant) is what makes me think that there is something specifically in the environments of these two areas (and the UK in particular) that is destroying the health of the people. AKA it's not the victim's fault as too many people seem to think.
     
  25. Almost everyone born in the 60's or later likely had a TV in their house that got watched almost every day. 70's or later, likely grew up with some sort of home computer, and/or had computers in school. 80's or later, probably also had computers in their workplace, across a vast majority of fields. Sure, millennials have had all of these things, plus a screen constantly with them thanks to cell phones, so could spend more time watching a screen than any other generation at the same age. But the idea than no other generation was "glued to a screen" is ridiculous. And yes, 30, 40, 50, even 60 year olds look at some sort of screen about as much these days.
     
  26. We all drunk the Kool Aid. We all stare at screens, if not we wouldn't be on this forum, reading the things we read, doing research, etc. For me, I try to make sure when I stare at screens that it is for a good purpose, not to find out if my friend's cat took a crap this morning!
     
  27. I'm a Yankee so I guess I can comment. Over here people my age thrive off of processed foods as the go go go mentality is very much present and the parents themselves usually aren't cooking either. So that's a bunch of crap food probably laced with endocrine disruptors and shitty vitamins.
    Lots of comfort foods and no foods which make one strong. I make the people I train with eat liver tacos with me and take vitamin k. They oblige just because my bones are harder than theirs. But then again, that might just be ordering people around.
    At the end of this semester I'll probably have a load more serotoninergic activity going on. Independent thinking is too energy intensive with 19 credit hours. Maybe there's some link between brain "energy" and subservience.
     
  28. I wonder if the generational effects of PUFA is partly to blame for this? Our grandparents, because of their diets and environment, gave birth to their offspring which had higher levels of PUFA accumulation in their adipose tissues. Our parents, due to their environment, gave birth to us and we had even higher levels of PUFA accumulation in our tissues. I'm 25 and I don't have kids, but I would definitely deplete my PUFA stores before I ever thought about having a kid. Finding a woman agreeable to this would be paramount as well. That way our kid would have saturated adipose tissues. Just a thought.
     
  29. I can definitely attest to the fact I was "aging" at a significant pace living the typical high stress lifestyle. At my worst I easily felt 30-40 years older than I am. Heck, my 80 something uncle probably has more energy than me most days, being 50 years older than me. He still is highly active, helps run a flight school etc. Thankfully, I found Peat while I was still pretty young, and the effects are still fairly reversible, rather than waiting another 3 decades to fix my health.

    I think unfortunately the mindset nowadays is that "getting old" can not be avoided and all the negatives that usually come with it nowadays which is fatigue, pain, low to mid grade mental issues, etc. No one can convince me it is normal to have already lost ones' youthfulness by age 30 though.
     
  30. I would add the Pottenger's Cats aspect, that we have been devolving for several generations. Maybe from the late 40s? Ray has mentioned the drop-off in IQ scores after the atomic testing.

    A few years back, I overheard a co-worker talking about her young daughter, maybe six years old, who had suffered from insomnia since babyhood. That night, I came home and Ray's latest newsletter had arrived. In it, he talked about insomnia in children--that doctors would say the children are "advanced" for their age, when in reality their metabolisms were broken, like those of old people who don't sleep soundly.
     
  31. We could make a huge list as to why. In no particular order:
    • Iron fortification
    • massive increase in artificial blue light (especially at night)
    • lack of sunlight exposure
    • Accutane
    • wireless technology
    • tonnes of pesticide use
    • soil mineral depletion and overuse of synthetic fertilizers
    • vaccinations
    • huge increase in PUFA
    • lead exposure from old houses
    • BPA and other estrogen mimics
    • birth control pill
    • both parents at work and stressed, lack of stable nurturing caregiver
    • formula feeding
    • c-sections
    • lack of movement
     
  32. What is specifically wrong with c-sections? I know they probably aren't ideal, but aren't they sometimes necessary to prevent childbirth complications?
     
  33. They don't receive the inoculation of the Mother's gut bacteria basically. Some Drs are now making sure to wipe the vaginal area and then do it manually to the baby's mouth. Plus, recovery is much harder for the Mother which could cause issues with bonding and breastfeeding. C-sections rates are much higher than necessary.
     
  34. It's necessary to minimize on lawsuits, but "necessary" is not from the patient's perspective.
     
  35. That's what you think. Many are asking them nowadays. Some to choose the date, some to avoid any pain at all...
     
  36. So you're saying everybody wants it? Like they're not influenced by doctors advising them?

    If the patient says she wants caesarian, would the doctor ad ise her not to? Not at all. Doc would be sued if something goes wrong if she advised natural.

    If the patient says she wants natural, doc can still advise caesarian. Doc won't be sued if something goes wrong with caesarian, unless doc is really careless. Caesarian births are less likely to run into complications. It's more cut and dry, whereas natural births are a matter of throwing the dice.
     
  37. I clearly stated "some".

    Sounds like you are american with your fixation on doctors being sued.

    In my country, doctors are not constantly threatened to be sued and still some women think the easier way to give birth is a c-section. Patients are not king though C sections are pricier and in a public health system, there will be many barriers to cross before a c-section is considered.
     
  38. Yes, I was exaggerating. And yes, it is in the American context, but it won't take long before the American medical system infects the rest of the world. I'm glad the system has not caught up in your country, but it will come as long as the US dollar is king.
     
  39. @yerrag
    I have seen doctors schedule induced births and mothers choose particular dates to induce births and have C-sections because they wanted thier babies born at particular times or they had a specific schedule in mind that the babies birth didnt work with. I have also seen mothers avoid breast feeding because they are worried thier breast will sag. I have seen mothers use formula out of convenience. The hospitals give formula out for free basically... The formula is PUFA and MUFA, synthetic vitamins in the worst forms, fermentable fibers, and glucose powders. For reference, I work a nurse. In school I worked in labor and delivery for a semester.
     
  40. Without doubt this is a free country and people are free to make conscious choices. I hope they don't feed their babies food with the same considerations they use to buy dog or cat food. The better to scoop their poop than to nourish them fully. Perhaps they should after depriving their offspring of the benefit of natural delivery. Yet these mothers will be the first to make the excuse "it's for the children."
     
  41. I think a woman deserves the right to choose but they should also be given all the information, maybe they would choose vaginal birth. Fetal lacerations occur 2-6%, of the time, no one is talking about that though. Here is one infant who was scalped during emergency csection:
    1-s2.0-S1871404815000209-gr1.jpg

    Of course if it's an emergency fine, but even some emergencies are for liability reasons. "Failure to progress" because they had so many interventions such as induction, epidural, pitocin, chained to the bed. There is a cascade of things that happen. A good movie about it is "Business of Being Born". I had a homebirth and a water birth so maybe it is hard for me to relate to why a woman would want a csection.
     
  42. Fantastic! Did you do a lotus birth too? I read the Placenta nourishes the baby invaluably.

    I guess women who choose c-sections [for convenience] are expressing lack of respect for their own bodies, themselves and their child. I feel that their self-importance would fuel such choices (again assuming they did it for reasons other than emergency)
     
  43. No, when the cord stops pulsing it is just a matter of choice on whether to cut or not, we waited to let all the blood go back in to the baby. I did eat a chunk of my placenta in a smoothie after the homebirth though as I had lost a lot of blood. And the second I dehydrated and encapsulated but didn't feel the need to take very much.
     
  44. Thank you for clarification. All i knew about a Lotus Birth implied the placenta remained attached until the blood had 'returned' to the baby. (I was knowingly ignorant of any other aspect of it).
     
  45. Great list! I would add

    • GMOs
    • Gadolinium (in MRI contrast). Since Haidut mentioned "One of the threads above discusses strikingly increasing colon cancer rates in the youngest segment of the population studied. The new study adds pancreatic cancer, multiple myeloma"
    "Gadolinium Containing Contrast Agent Promotes Multiple Myeloma Cell Growth"
    "Gadolinium (Gd3+) is a trivalent ion of the lanthanide series which has a high charge density and a similar ionic radius to Ca2+" & a "Potent blocker of calcium"
     
  46. Absence of God is the root cause of humanity's degeneration, not the presence or absence of chemicals and their balance and permutations.
     
  47. Perhaps more accurately, absence of an inner sense of god.
    What is lacking inside cannot be perceived outside. This is also refferd to as "As within, so without"
     
  48. Does this stuff chelate over time? I've had two MRIs...
     
  49. I have to ask politely, why are you here then? This is about rational scientific review of how to optimize the human organism via the environment.
     
  50. Did you have contrast injected? If you just had a scan you have no worries. If they injected you with contrast, it's hard to say for many reasons. Gadolinium deposits in the bones & organs so it could easily be around for quite some time. It's such a weird metal I really don't think the body knows what to do with it. They also now admit almost everyone who receives contrast (doesn't matter if it's linear or macrocyclic- no matter what they tell you) retain some amount of gadolinium. Maybe some people are better at clearing it than others? If you're feeling fine you're probably good.

    All I know is that I have/had great kidney function & had first 3 MRIs with Gadavist (a macrocyclic- aka "the safe kind"). One year later, really 1yr & 2 months from last injection, I succumbed to pressure & had an MRI with Gadavist again. That day I was initiated into hell on Earth. My reaction was so much more dramatic the 4th time I can only suspect it was because the gadolinium was retained & the effects cumulative. Now I'm about 9 months out from that injection & still suffer daily to the point of seriously considering assisted suicide. The wickedness of this stuff cannot be imagined or overstated. I did 4 rounds of z-DTPA IV chelation & it only made things worse. There is no antidote or effective chelation at this time. There is a support group for this & I've only heard 1 person say they felt better after EDTA or DTPA chelation.

    Don't mean to be grim just really, really do not want anyone else to have to go through this. There is another thread on here, I think it's titled "MRI contrast worth the risk?". There is a lot of good information in there from a couple members, one works with it in an industry/scientific setting & the other is an MRI tech.
     
  51. I completely agree with lampofred, this is a problem of malnourishment. Starvation, really. This is a problem decades in the making. It is now culminating in a generation so misinformed and paranoid about food that they are consistently deprived of the energy there bodies need for proper cell turnover, reproduction, and just the daily "remodeling" of our bodies, as Dr. Peat describes it. Many millenials have become vegans, true. But, they have been restricting calories in so many other ways that young people decades ago did not do. The numbers eating in a restricted way have been increasing through the decades as the basic brainwashing message of "eat less and exercise more" has become such so common. As people have been following this advice more and more, overweight and obesity have become more common. Our bodies will store fat to protect us from famine. Of course, fat storage requires that we sometimes eat above the calorie requirement of our depressed metabolism. Many do this because, afterall, the famine is not real, in most places. There are plenty of calories available. The body will make us so uncomfortable that we will load up sometimes. The more someone engages in this mad cycle, the fatter they become over time. This is well known statistically. It is the effect of going on "diets". What, though, if you see this unpleasant fattening of the people around you, and you develop a real fear of this happening to you? What if you've been told that people got that way by eating too much and sitting too much? You'll develop a nice, little eating disorder. Some will manifest this as pure portion control. They will consistently undereat, in the semi-starvation way of the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. They will be thin, yes, but consume too little to stay well. Or, as a result of considering so many foods dangerous, they will undereat by accident. Some will exercise so much, they are in energy deficit all the time. The experiment mentioned above showed that to rehabilitate the starving men, they had to eat a superabundance of calories. No supplementation of vitamins and minerals helped them recover until they were allowed to eat as many calories as they wanted. Vegans, for example, may be eating sources of vitamins and minerals in abundance, but undereating calories, as vegetables and fruits are typically very low in calories. As a touchstone for this discussion, the men had to eat above 4000 calories to recover and some ate 11,000 for a time. The edinstitute website explains the absolute minimum calorie requirement for a sedentary person based on age, size, and gender. It's not 2000 calories. Where we got this number as a base is completely unscientific and many eat in the range of the semi-starved men in the study, 1,560 calories, or less. No one can be well eating in this way that has become so common. The findings on the health of young people is not surprising given the insane climate they've been growing up in. They are not robust in the way people who are well fed will be. And the really crazy part is, if they always ate everything they wanted, they would never become fat. A body supplied an abundance of calories doesn't need to store fat. It's against logic. Just like Billy Craig, I've pit my money where my mouth is and tried the abundant calorie experiment. You lose weight if you need to, and become more well every day you eat more. Can the situation be reversed in a generation? Yes. Every one of the young people, or old people being affected by this calorie famine, and that is every single obese person and so, so many of the thin ones, can turn it around beginning today. Get educated about the calories you require and stop shorting yourself. Retrain the way your brain thinks about food.
     
  52. nvm
     
  53. Thanks - I can't say I noticed any difference in mood, energy, or body composition. Maybe we use something different here in the UK. Really sorry that you had such a bad reaction to this crap.
     
  54. Anyone want to list what they think are the threats that pose the greatest risks and ideas to counter act them?

    @Janelle525 got a good list going:
    • Iron fortification
    • massive increase in artificial blue light (especially at night)
    • lack of sunlight exposure
    • Accutane
    • wireless technology
    • tonnes of pesticide use
    • soil mineral depletion and overuse of synthetic fertilizers
    • vaccinations
    • huge increase in PUFA
    • lead exposure from old houses
    • BPA and other estrogen mimics
    • birth control pill
    • both parents at work and stressed, lack of stable nurturing caregiver
    • formula feeding
    • c-sections
    • lack of movement
    Are there any more here that would constitute as 'the biggest culprits'?

    I agree with Haidut's decision to bring this to our attention; people are generally not nearly as healthy or vibrant as they used to be.

    I'm curious to know what is the major contributors? Is it liver health? PUFAs? Lack of Salt? Lack of nutrients? Lack of exercise?

    There's got to be like a 80/20 view of the biggest contributors. Focus most of your energy on the biggest culprits to see the biggest health improvements. Not all health risks are made equal.
     
  55. Amen
     
  56. I think it's a combination of factors and I think this includes epigenetics and health advice propagated by media. Many mention that we peaked in the fifties maybe.

    I'm even considering that the decline could have started a bit earlier since it would take time and some generations to become apparent as a global problem.
     
  57. MK ultra
    Good luck trying to counteract
     
  58. Hi @puella

    Do stick around. A cure for your Gadolinium poisoning may be just around the corner.

    Dr Robert Morse might say the pain is a sign that your body is eliminating the toxin! That's a positive way to think about it!