BearWithMe
Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2017
- Messages
- 2,024
...Detroit?this is the obvious answer
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
...Detroit?this is the obvious answer
Good point and major confounding variable. People who are young and motivated are often drawn to cities.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.
Most scientists involved in anti aging research don't even question this.
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 landFarmers get Parkinson quite often.
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.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?
***t, do SSRI work? Get me on them ******** then I wanna be haapppyHonestly 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.
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 dietBecause 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.
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.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.
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?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.
Not all for sure, if they did they might get their critical thinking faculties back.That's very true.
Do people in big cities generally eat peaty, though?
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]
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.
I have absolutely never, ever heard of someone regretting having their children.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