Why are people in big cities generally much healthier?

[BearWithMe]

According to every study I read and every demographical data I have seen, people living in big cities tend to live longer and do better in almost every measurable health marker.

But living on countryside should be much healthier, in theory. Less pollution, cleaner air, less EMF exposure, better quality of drinking water, less noise, less stress, more contact with nature, arguably more physical activity...

The usual explanation is socioeconomic status, but I'm not buying into that. Buying a house on countryside in often much more expensive than buying a flat in the city. And even in horrible industrial cities with insane pollution, high crime rates and high poverty rates, people are often doing better than people on the countryside.

Exposure to agricultural chemicals and/or radon on the countryside is the only explanation that comes to my mind. Possibly higher average temperatures in the cities, maybe?

What could be the explanation for this?

 

[Sitaruîm]

Countryside is too vague a term. It can mean living close to agriculture, which means living close to nasty chemicals. It can also mean living next to a national park, in which case your life expectancy may be higher than that of city dwellers.

 

[oldfriend]

I wouldn't disregard the socioeconomic status argument. I'm not sure what frame you're using though. I would argue that health, socioeconomic status, and stress tolerance often go hand in hand. I know various people with health and/or financial issues, addiction problems, etc. that eventually moved home from a stint in the city (SF/ Bay Area) including myself. It's not easy to thrive there, the environment naturally sort of weeds out the people who aren't cut out for it.

 

[lampofred]

Honestly I doubt the accuracy of the studies. It reminds me of studies that say people in Scandinavian countries are the happiest in the world when in reality they're just massively on SSRIs.

 

[BearWithMe]

Countryside is too vague a term. It can mean living close to agriculture, which means living close to nasty chemicals. It can also mean living next to a national park, in which case your life expectancy may be higher than that of city dwellers.

Do you have any research that proves living next to a national park increases lifespan? Just looking at average lifespan in different areas around the world, I can't find any evidence of that. Quite the opposite actually

 

[tankasnowgod]

According to every study I read and every demographical data I have seen, people living in big cities tend to live longer and do better in almost every measurable health marker.

But living on countryside should be much healthier, in theory. Less pollution, cleaner air, less EMF exposure, better quality of drinking water, less noise, less stress, more contact with nature, arguably more physical activity...

The usual explanation is socioeconomic status, but I'm not buying into that. Buying a house on countryside in often much more expensive than buying a flat in the city. And even in horrible industrial cities with insane pollution, high crime rates and high poverty rates, people are often doing better than people on the countryside.

Exposure to agricultural chemicals and/or radon on the countryside is the only explanation that comes to my mind. Possibly higher average temperatures in the cities, maybe?

What could be the explanation for this?

If you want people to analyze and discuss studies you've read, you should, you know...... actually post links to what studies you are referring to.

Otherwise, people are just speculating on your speculation.

 

[thisoldtown1978]

I've often observed that people I work with in the city seem more vibrant, resilient, robust. They just seem to have a stronger "life force". I speculate that growing up in an environment with so much social and cultural stimulation, and I suppose conflict, is like resistance training for the whole person. They develop more robustness. Whereas living a slower, quieter lifestyle in the countryside is akin to never exercising. Again, not physically, but socially/mentally/psychologically.

 

[BearWithMe]

I've often observed that people I work with in the city seem more vibrant, resilient, robust. They just seem to have a stronger "life force". I speculate that growing up in an environment with so much social and cultural stimulation, and I suppose conflict, is like resistance training for the whole person. They develop more robustness. Whereas living a slower, quieter lifestyle in the countryside is akin to never exercising. Again, not physically, but socially/mentally/psychologically.

Very interesting, have thought of something similar.

When you look at average lifespan in very violent, high-crime areas, and remove violent deaths (murder etc), you will usually get surprisingly high average lifespan. Much higher than in posh neighbourhoods.

 

[Sitaruîm]

Do you have any research that proves living next to a national park increases lifespan? Just looking at average lifespan in different areas around the world, I can't find any evidence of that. Quite the opposite actually

I have a specific example which I believe we can extrapolate from. I was doing a masters in statistics in Northern Italy, my best friend there was writing his thesis using a dataset that had the distribution of cancer rates for several municipalities. At the foot of the mountains and slightly beyond them lies an area famous for its vineyards, it was found from that data that people living near the foot of the mountains had exorbitant cancer rates because the wind carried all the pesticides there and the mountain served as a sort of windbreak, so the pesticides accumulated.

 

[Ben.]

Or people are just vastly more in numbers within a city, and thoose being outside on the street living the "exciting city life" are thoose who are healthy, while thoose who are not are inside, staying at home. The density also allows one to see more healthy or more sick people at once, which is random.

I do not get to see people outside the city so i cannot compare, but within the city, you see both, extremely unhealthy and healthy people.

 

[BearWithMe]

I have a specific example which I believe we can extrapolate from. I was doing a masters in statistics in Northern Italy, my best friend there was writing his thesis using a dataset that had the distribution of cancer rates for several municipalities. At the foot of the mountains and slightly beyond them lies an area famous for its vineyards, it was found from that data that people living near the foot of the mountains had exorbitant cancer rates because the wind carried all the pesticides there and the mountain served as a sort of windbreak, so the pesticides accumulated.

I was looking more for some kind of proof that living in unpolluted countryside is better than living in the city, but holy shmolly, this is mindblowing. Thanks for posting!

Did your friend also measured actual pesticide levels in the air/water in the area?

 

[BearWithMe]

Or people are just vastly more in numbers within a city, and thoose being outside on the street living the "exciting city life" are thoose who are healthy, while thoose who are not are inside, staying at home. The density also allows one to see more healthy or more sick people at once, which is random.

I do not get to see people outside the city so i cannot compare, but within the city, you see both, extremely unhealthy and healthy people.

I'm not using any personal observations, just hard data on death rates, average life expectancy, cancer incidence and other health markers, and I'm taking into account only studies that shows incidence for 1000 citizens. So population density doesn't come into play.

 

[tankasnowgod]

I'm not using any personal observations, just hard data on death rates, average life expectancy, cancer incidence and other health markers, and I'm taking into account only studies that shows incidence for 1000 citizens. So population density doesn't come into play.

Again, what hard data? If you don't share this, it can't be analyzed.

 

[Ben.]

I'm not using any personal observations, just hard data on death rates, average life expectancy, cancer incidence and other health markers, and I'm taking into account only studies that shows incidence for 1000 citizens. So population density doesn't come into play.

Oh my bad sorry. Altough i wonder how thoose numbers are aqcuired and if they realy accurately display what you are proposing in the OP.

 

[BearWithMe]

Oh my bad sorry. Altough i wonder how thoose numbers are aqcuired and if they realy accurately display what you are proposing in the OP.

Most governments around the world publish these data, plus there are many studies on the topic on pubmed

 

[boris]

Most governments around the world publish these data, plus there are many studies on the topic on pubmed

Could you share some examples?

 

[BearWithMe]

Could you share some examples?

Of the pubmed studies?

 

[BearWithMe]

The difference in life expectancy between cities and rural areas is getting bigger over time. Apparently, living in big city is more and more healthy since 1969.

Widening rural-urban disparities in life expectancy, U.S., 1969-2009 - PubMed

 

[Inaut]

Social interaction and keeping busy may account for the benefits of city living. If you have a good network in the country though, I think it’s much more healthful ( if you aren’t being crop dusted).

 

[Beastmode]

If it's even true, I imagine there's more options for immediate access to life saving interventions (i.e- surgeries.)