Why are people in big cities generally much healthier?

[BearWithMe]

this is the obvious answer

...Detroit?

 

[OccamzRazer]

Maybe has been mentioned before in the thread but a big city also attracts the most capable of individuals, intellectually or just physically.

Meaning those who are able to put in more work, are more healthy in general will go get their changes in a place where there are more opportunities for them, if those are not found where they went, they go to another place again.
Who is ill and sick can't afford to jump around and mingle with the healthiest of people.

Take for example city like Paris where people from all over the world go for the lifestyle and even for fashion/modeling. Certain people with certain characteristics migrate to an area.

There is even the question weather not moving around where the opportunities are would be a waste of life. I see clearly people I know they keep moving from place to place and always improve, these are also mentally strong and for the most part physically capable (no nausea half of the day because of this or that diet, no anxiety to the max, etc)

Is is certainly a perspective I see around me and also hear this from others, so in a sense certain individuals that are doing "well" gather in places where others are also doing "well". If you are not strong enough to survive the journey or adapt to a new place you might not be healthy enough already.
Knowing how poverty looks like, it is obvious whoever is able and capable will leave.
It's just a view on a partial cause, not an overall explanation why that would be so.

Good point and major confounding variable. People who are young and motivated are often drawn to cities.

If they went into farming instead these types would be [even] healthier, but alas...

 

[Ben.]

Most scientists involved in anti aging research don't even question this.

How can someone call him- or herself a scientist without questioning the premise? Questioning / experimenting and coming to the same conclusion - fine, not questioning and just taking "words" for it is just lazy and unscientific.

 

[PolishSun]

Farmers get Parkinson quite often.

 

[BearWithMe]

Farmers get Parkinson quite often.

Damn... It would be really interesting to know what percentage of people living in rural areas are living in the vicinity of agricultural land, and how their health differ from those that are not living near agricultural land

 

[Sam321]

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?

Because food and diet is like 15% of the equation. Feeling connected to other people and not being isolated is the rest. Rural America is a breeding ground for loneliness where as in the cities you might have a club you join or a group of friends who go out and do things together, etc.

 

[Sam321]

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.

***t, do SSRI work? Get me on them ******** then I wanna be haapppy

 

[BearWithMe]

Because food and diet is like 15% of the equation. Feeling connected to other people and not being isolated is the rest. Rural America is a breeding ground for loneliness where as in the cities you might have a club you join or a group of friends who go out and do things together, etc.

Studying centenarians confirms that. Not sure if it is 85/15, but the mind definitely plays huge role in longevity and health, likely much bigger than the diet

 

[ChemHead]

How can someone call him- or herself a scientist without questioning the premise? Questioning / experimenting and coming to the same conclusion - fine, not questioning and just taking "words" for it is just lazy and unscientific.

Who said they didn't question it at one point? Most don't question it now because of the overwhelming research that's been done in the past 3 decades. Does it mean they 100% have the exact mechanism and understand it? Not even close, but caloric restriction is definitely associated with longer life span.

Let me put it another way, if you live a life of dietary excess (which, if you are poor, is undoubtedly very unlikely), you are going to die an early death. Who here wants to tell me that they think their fatass uncle Jim who eats a burger, fries, Mac and cheese, and pork until he can't fit anything else in his gut every day is going to outlive a thin homeless person who is forced to only eat enough food sufficient to sustain life due to circumstances? Uncle Jim will die of heart disease before he hits 70 and those last 10 years he'll be on statins and blood thinners.

 

[Explorer]

More money=more food=more calories/nutritional storages if coupled with exercise, stress-free creative social mind-stimulating lifestyle, the calories and nutrients are used positively for growth and development rather than turning into obesity due to accumulation of them without proper usage

More warmth during months in which naturally living people would be exposed to more cold on the average

Overall more opportunities/shops/people/activities are available lowering stress, boosting the brain metabolism, making life more interesting and meaningful

Even though some people fantasize about paleo conservative return to an era of pre-industrial society I believe that properly managed towns/cities/societies/civilizations with reduction of bad factors like pollution etc. and good combination between nature and civilization can bring more health and prosperity than living in nature alone

+a lot of overexertion and energy spending in more private natural environments and cycles of less food availability

Whereas in modern civilizations people have more or less the same access of food/warmth/sleep/opportunities all the year long as long as they have got stable income/etc.

 

[Ben.]

Who said they didn't question it at one point? Most don't question it now because of the overwhelming research that's been done in the past 3 decades. Does it mean they 100% have the exact mechanism and understand it? Not even close, but caloric restriction is definitely associated with longer life span.

You said they dont even question it, how would i know or how would this imply "... but they might have in the past" ? And how can one extensevily research a topic without ever thinking if the basic assumption could have its hickups? Even with "overwhelming science" one needs to keep this in mind, especially if the research gets "stuck" or hits a plateau.

---

There is also the matter and issue of context. What is the control group, what is the setting, to what do we compare it to. Theres also evidence and cases as bearwithme said where some people who drink regulary seemed to experienced a longer life, does this automaticly mean alchohol = good for longevity? Maybe but I'd beg to differ.

But here again what is measured? Longevity with qualitiy of life/youthfullness and its biomarkers or simply the age reached? In many places people die old but suffer or have suffered for 30 years. Con-fuckinng-grats ... who'd want that? What most people want that are interested in longevity is aqcuiring it as healthy and youthfull as possible.

Let me put it another way, if you live a life of dietary excess (which, if you are poor, is undoubtedly very unlikely), you are going to die an early death. Who here wants to tell me that they think their fatass uncle Jim who eats a burger, fries, Mac and cheese, and pork until he can't fit anything else in his gut every day is going to outlive a thin homeless person who is forced to only eat enough food sufficient to sustain life due to circumstances? Uncle Jim will die of heart disease before he hits 70 and those last 10 years he'll be on statins and blood thinners.

dietary excess does not equal eating alot of crap. One could be eating "good/nutritious food" in excess, wether that is good who knows.
Homeless people living to old age is very, very new to me. They often suffer issues and die "young" from stuff more in the range of "easily treatable" due to deficiencies.

In that case, yes i think the guy with heartattack at 70 due to lifelong mac nd cheese outlives the homeless guy, but not necessarily with quality of life. One could argue they both didn't have the greatest life quality. But fictional stories dont get us further either.


Outside of lab settings there is no 100% conclusive proof for longevity based on the anti aging stance that says "be thin/eat little, move alot, get into the cold alot, resveratol". In reality we obsevere longevity in people who have very different lifestyles from eachother. Usually in common from what i've observed is them having a good, simple and satisfactory family life.

 

[ChemHead]

You said they dont even question it, how would i know or how would this imply "... but they might have in the past" ? And how can one extensevily research a topic without ever thinking if the basic assumption could have its hickups? Even with "overwhelming science" one needs to keep this in mind, especially if the research gets "stuck" or hits a plateau.

---

There is also the matter and issue of context. What is the control group, what is the setting, to what do we compare it to. Theres also evidence and cases as bearwithme said where some people who drink regulary seemed to experienced a longer life, does this automaticly mean alchohol = good for longevity? Maybe but I'd beg to differ.

But here again what is measured? Longevity with qualitiy of life/youthfullness and its biomarkers or simply the age reached? In many places people die old but suffer or have suffered for 30 years. Con-fuckinng-grats ... who'd want that? What most people want that are interested in longevity is aqcuiring it as healthy and youthfull as possible.



dietary excess does not equal eating alot of crap. One could be eating "good/nutritious food" in excess, wether that is good who knows.
Homeless people living to old age is very, very new to me. They often suffer issues and die "young" from stuff more in the range of "easily treatable" due to deficiencies.

In that case, yes i think the guy with heartattack at 70 due to lifelong mac nd cheese outlives the homeless guy, but not necessarily with quality of life. One could argue they both didn't have the greatest life quality. But fictional stories dont get us further either.


Outside of lab settings there is no 100% conclusive proof for longevity based on the anti aging stance that says "be thin/eat little, move alot, get into the cold alot, resveratol". In reality we obsevere longevity in people who have very different lifestyles from eachother. Usually in common from what i've observed is them having a good, simple and family life.

I'm not saying this is the answer. It's simply one of the many possibilities that I offered to explain why people living in the city live longer than rural areas. Most people in western civilization do live a life of dietary excess, they're just too out of touch with the rest of the world to realize it. There are a lot of delusional people that live in western civilization that both think they're eating healthy (but aren't) and eat more than is healthy. Why do you think obesity is so high and continually growing?

Anyway, the real answer is the first answer I gave.

 

[Drareg]

That's very true.

Do people in big cities generally eat peaty, though?

Not all for sure, if they did they might get their critical thinking faculties back.

 

[BearWithMe]

I was hoping there might be one specific illness significantly more prevalent in rural areas, which would help find the reason for the difference. But nope, rural people are more sick overall, except for Alzheimers disease.

rural Americans are more likely to die from cancer, heart disease, chronic lower respiratory disease, stroke and unintentional injury than their urban counterparts. [1]

(Cancer) Death rates were higher in rural areas (180 deaths per 100,000 persons) compared with urban areas (158 deaths per 100,000 persons). ... While overall cancer incidence rates were somewhat lower in rural areas (442 cases per 100,000 persons) than in urban areas (457 cases per 100,000 persons), incidence rates were higher in rural areas for several cancers, including those related to tobacco use such as lung cancer and those that can be prevented by cancer screening such as colorectal and cervical cancers. [2]

Cancer incidence and mortality rates in the United States are declining, but this decrease may not be observed in rural areas where residents are more likely to live in poverty, smoke, and forego cancer screening. Rural cancer disparities included higher rates of tobacco-associated, HPV-associated, lung and bronchus, cervical, and colorectal cancers across most population groups. Furthermore, HPV-associated cancer incidence rates increased in rural areas (APC = 0.724, P < 0.05), while temporal trends remained stable in urban areas. [3]

Between 1999 and 2017, rural areas exhibited greater cardiovascular disease AAMRs among all subgroups, with the absolute difference between rural areas and large metropolitan areas nearly doubling over time. The increase in cardiovascular disease AAMRs among middle-aged individuals in medium and small metropolitan and in rural areas beginning in 2011, in addition to drug overdoses and suicide, may be contributing to reductions in life expectancy. [4]

Diabetes prevalence is approximately 17 percent higher in rural areas than urban areas [5]

The prevalence of Chronic kidney disease was 13.2 % overall, 14.1 % in rural and 10.9 % in urban participants [6]

In 2019, age-adjusted death rates for influenza and pneumonia were higher among males (14.4 per 100,000) than females (10.7) and among those who lived in rural counties (15.3) compared with those who lived in urban counties (11.7). Among males, the age-adjusted death rate for influenza and pneumonia was 17.4 in rural counties and 13.9 in urban counties. Among females, the age-adjusted death rate for influenza and pneumonia was 13.6 in rural counties and 10.2 in urban counties. [7]

The suicide rate in the most urban areas was 16 deaths per 100,000, while the rate in rural counties was more than 24 deaths per 100,000. [8]

we found that 2013 diagnostic prevalence (of Alzheimer diseas) was 11% lower in rural counties (95% CI: 9%, 13%). [9]

@tankasnowgod @boris

 

[BearWithMe]

Just have read a bunch of other studies from all around the world.

People in big cities are healthier just about anywhere in the world - in the US, Europe, Asia and Africa.

The only exception appears to be Northen Ireland. For some reason, people living in Northern Irish rural areas have significantly (22%) lower mortality than people living in cities.

What could be so different about Irish countryside and / or cities?

 

[BearWithMe]

From this study: Rural-Urban Disparity in Mortality in the US From 1999 to 2019

From 1999 to 2019 the gap between rural and urban death rates grew from 62 per 100,000 to 169.5.
In urban areas, the total rate went from 861.5 to 664.5. In rural areas it went from 923.8 to 834.
The new data and other studies show that chronic disease is driving this trend, (...) including heart disease, lung disease, liver disease and even dementia.

 

[jdrop]

More apparent options for novelty, friendships. General ability for financial freedoms, resulting in less stress.

 

[BearWithMe]

Median household income is so correlated with death rates both in time and location it is not even funny. Daaaaamn, could it all really be about money?!!

Age-Adjusted Death Rates, by State, 2017:

Median household income by state, 2013-2017:

This is especially interesting. Death rates in both rural and metropolitan counties are getting better, but the rural death rates are getting better muuuuuch slower. Average household income is increasing in both rural and metropolitan counties, but the rural median income is increasing muuuuuch slower.

 

[BearWithMe]

Daaaaamn... If there was a map of European purchasing power it would be even more interesting I'd guess

 

[PxD]

I can imagine having a child can be very stressful, especially if you are not doing very well financially and struggling to provide to him or her

I have absolutely never, ever heard of someone regretting having their children.

Regretting getting married or marrying a particular person, on the other hand, I’ve heard a lot…and seen a lot of divorces where the exes proceed to fight like cat and dog for custody of the kids. If the kids are such a source of stress as to lower life expectancy, you’d expect divorced couples to fight over who DOESN’T get custody.

If cities are where the higher paying work is, and lucrative work requires higher intelligence and motivation, then city dwellers are probably also more likely to take more proactive care of their health. I think it’s like the “red meat is unhealthy” studies, which purported to show that red meat was unhealthy, when what they really showed is that people who liberally eat red meat are more likely to drink and smoke and engage in risky behavior as well.

Another thought…what about the incidences of serious injury in more rural areas versus cities? Is living in a more isolated place more likely to put Grandpa at risk of things like accidentally falling into a wood chipper, or have a stroke while doing heavy yard work, where such things are highly unlikely to happen in cities?