American Women Are Dying Younger Than Their Moms

reply to post by OrphanApology

That table shows the total female death rate declining from 1563.3 in 1979 to 1410.5 in 2010.
Projected decline to 768.6 in 2100.

How can you say that there is an increase in female death rates?

OrphanApology
reply to post by my1percent

 

Be sure to get a blood test if you haven't already. HIV has a lot of the symptoms you are complaining of.

Not to say you have that, but just make sure they check for everything.

Also one thing you might look into is if you have any mercury fillings. My father had them and was allergic to them and had very similar symptoms that went away right after he got them replaced with composite.

Thanks , yes I have had heaps blood tests and nuclear injection and scan and neck scan and lung xray and they are all clear except for the bloods . I have reshearhed 9blooming word0 lol heaps on the net and stuff .like I keep saying I have some sort of infection but no one is listening . Most people know there own bodies.

The filling thing interests me , I saw that researching , I had the first fillings one I think in my life at age 40 or so . I am now 45 . I don't know what they put in my teeth and don't live in that town any more , suppose I could try ring them.
I really appreciate your response .
1%

Dianec
Thanks for the study and visuals Phage.

It appears that for the entire U. S. life expectancy has increased, while some areas within the U. S. have been left behind - are out of sync with the national average. I agree with the study, further research is needed to understand why some areas (small percentage), show a significant decrease in life expectancy while every other place has done better.

It's not so much a decrease as "life expectancy didn't increase as rapidly."

Like Phage, I went to check other sources because the OP's comments and the data was SO out of whack with what I see in other studies. The CDC (which maintains illness and death records) and the civic death records don't bear out what the title of this thread proclaims.

What immediately came to mind when looking at the maps are substance abuse, low socioeconomic levels, and lack of good health care (in two areas in particular). It for sure has nothing to do with education in this study. Maybe lack of it due to the other variables.

Exactly.

I did a very similar study in the 1980's (which was published in the Texas Journal of Epidemiology in 1983) on physician mortality, and what I found was that the patterns of what women doctors were dying from were the same as male doctors. Although they still had the life length advantage, the causes of death were less like those of other women and more like those of male physicians.

(and they tended to die older than the rest of the population because of health care and access to medical information.)

It's fairly easy to see that we are not our mothers' generation. I look at movies from the 1940's and 1960's and look particularly at the "older women." Women in their 50's and 60's of those generations look like women of today in their 70's and 80's.

I may start working with a program to involve seniors in continuing education next semester, so may have more to say on this at another time.

reply to post by Phage


I was basing it off information in article stating life expectancy was lower, guessing that the cause would be increased obesity. Now that I am looking at the actual mortality tables I'm not sure where these studies are getting their data but from the data actual actuaries use, looks like decreases across board. Unless they mean that the % change in life expectancy is lower now for women. The law of averages would prevent women from continually increasing life expectancy however, at some point it has to go down even with greater advances in healthcare.

One interesting thing though is that respiratory disease in women has increased 33.7 per 100k to 82 since 1979 ,the "other" category, cancer, and diabetes have all increased death rate.

I was wrong about heart disease. Seems I can't blame obese women...this time.

While attending college in the late 1970's a University Professor told us that they were starting to see an increase in female enrollment -- not just the school I attended, but across the nation. Male students clearly outnumbered female students in all of my classes for all 4 years --- hey, I wasn't complaining.

The majority of women back then were stay-at home-moms (a term that did not yet exist), at least in the Northeastern U.S. where I lived and was raised and educated. They gradually started entering the workforce full time in the 1980's, at which time the number of college educated women increased.

He said that as female enrollment increased, women would postpone childbearing and that by the year 2000+ we would start to see more women dying at an earlier age. He said this was because the female body was intended/designed to reproduce between the very late teens to mid-late 30's with 3 full-term pregnancies by age 30.

He said that women who have 3 full-term pregnancies by their 30th birthday and who also breastfeed each child for at least one-year rarely ever/less likely to develop female cancers. I do not fall into that category as I didn't have 3 full-term pregnancies by the time I turned 30. And, I battled breast cancer years ago.

I am okay now, but I do not feel that I'll live as long as my grandmothers and my mom and my 14 aunts who all had 3 full-term pregnancies by the time they were 30 and with no interrupted pregnancies.

Both of my grandmothers lived to their late 70's and my mom and all of my aunts are between their early 80's to early-90's, as well as my 85 year old mother-in-law and none of them have ever had a cancer diagnosis. Not one. They all had 3 full-term pregnancies by age 30.

I also wonder about the vaccine given to us baby-boomers in the 1950's -1960's that my mom and grandparents and that none my relatives received.

Also, alcohol was not an ingredient in any skin/hair products, especially body lotions and sunscreens back then. My mom and relatives didn't even grow up with these products. The point is that a Holistic Doctor once told me I could not cure cancer if I used products with any type of alcohol listed as an ingredient -- which they did not use back then.

Anything we put on our skin enters our bloodstream within 20 seconds and the alcohol in these products weaken the immune system regardless of one's age and health. I believe a change in my diet and eliminating all hair/skin products containing alcohol might be why the breast cancer I had years ago has not returned. I also had the mercury removed from my teeth and only go to Biological-Holistic Dentists.

I am blood-related to 37 women, female cousins and sisters included, and none of them born before 1950 have had cancer, only those born after 1950. Not one of the 15 born after 1950 had 3 full-term pregnancies by age 30, and so far half of us, including myself and sisters have struggled with cancer.

This professor also said if a pregnancy or pregnancies are terminated or interrupted/miscarriages chances of developing or dying from a female cancer increase dramatically. He had a PhD in Anatomy & Physiology and had been instructing at the University for over 20 years.

So, I asked my GYN/OB, who was about the same age as this University Professor, and he said that was also his firm belief. He additionally stated that educated women tend to postpone childbearing until their late 20's -- mid 30's, and as a result, we would see a drastic increase in female-related cancers after the year 2000 and going forward, as the women aged. Again, this was said to me back in the late 1970's.

About one year ago I read an article claiming this was a proven scientific fact. But, I do not remember the title of the article or where I saw it. I do not know if this is actually a proven fact. But, I thought I would share what I had been told almost 35 years ago, as unfortunately, it's coming true.

Thanks OP for bringing about this awareness -- S&F .... JANA

reply to post by Jana12

Do you think the things you are talking about are restricted to a very few, small regions? Because the decline in female life expectancies is.
www.pophealthmetrics.com...

reply to post by webedoomed


It is scientifically proven that in healthy females (Womanhood is a cultural frame and has varied meanings) with access and good diet the pregnancy has deep impact in their cellular regeneration capability and immune system. I do not think that this should be at all controversial since females have evolved toward this factors, even with advantage over males in regards to longevity as they provide the family nucleus more advantages.

My grandmother lived to be 79. So far, none of her children have even lived to see their 70th birthday. My mother died at 53. Two aunts died at 64. One uncle lived to be about 62. The remaining three children are in their 50's and 60's. All died from lung or liver disease and heart problems caused by a lifetime of smoking drugs, alcohol, and/or spousal abuse/neglect.

Since they all came from lives of poverty, it does explain a lot of it, as it does in the life expectancy maps. The lower life expectancy areas are also very poor and underdeveloped. Where as the better educated, more wealthy areas show life expectancy increases.

Interestingly, there has been a number of studies and a lot of evidence showing marriage and kids will lower a woman's life expectancy while increasing a man's. Historically, "old maids" outlived their married sisters. There are many physical and mental reasons for this. For example, while childbirth and the like might have minor protection for things like breast cancer (though interestingly, every woman I have ever known that had breast cancer also had kids and or a husband, where as none of the childless women I've known have developed it), it has been shown that married women and prostitutes are far more likely to develop cervical cancer, where as cervical cancer is almost completely absent amongst nuns and lesbians. Also, carrying and giving birth to children is more draining on a woman's body and has longer lasting problems.

I would say the increase in life expectancy is in part due to women getting married less and having kids less.

Whatever is the cause, it's quite recent

IHME analyzed new mortality data by age, sex, and county for the US from 1989 to 2009. Across US counties, life expectancy in 2009 ranged from 66.1 to 81.6 years for men and 73.5 to 86.0 years for women. From 1989 to 2009, life expectancy for men improved by 4.6 years on average but only by 2.7 years for women. And throughout the country, women were more likely than men to have no progress in life expectancy or to have their lifespans get shorter over time.

In 661 counties, life expectancy stopped dead or went backwards for women since 1999. By comparison, life expectancy for men stopped or reversed in 166 counties. This troubling trend is occurring in 84% of Oklahoma counties, 58% of Tennessee counties, and 33% of Georgia counties.

Stu dy