American Women Are Dying Younger Than Their Moms

reply to post by WhiteHat


: up :

I can't believe it hasn't come up either!!! ...But there really are so many factors, and the effects are limited to just 43% or so counties. We may be looking at contraceptive-environmental interactions at best.

I believe diet with stress. I am at an age (60's) that I still remember what it was like to get most of your food from the garden. Instead of going to McD's, we get a tomato sandwich, or a banana sandwich, dessert was rare, never had a steak til I was grown, never saw a pizza til I was 18. When you grow most of your own food, you naturally do not overeat. My husband is 160 lbs, but smokes and drinks a lot of beer. The doctors cannot understand why his blood levels are so good. But we both have always been gardeners and grow our own vegetables and do not eat out except rarely. IMO.

reply to post by MOMof3


Thanks MOMof3. I'd like to know - did you need to work full time to help pay the mortgage? Were you able to focus on your family and garden without having to work outside the home?

reply to post by soficrow


I can show you my soc sec statement. I started working in 1968 retired in 2007, had three children. My husband had The Career and I had jobs. I prioritized my kids first and jobs were just extra cash. I chose CNA because jobs were plentiful but low pay,It was a life that worked for us. Still married after 34 years. If it is a life that works for two, it relieves a lot of the stress. Gardening for me is like a cigarette to my husband, it brings relief and food.

reply to post by MOMof3

I prioritized my kids first and jobs were just extra cash.

Thanks. ...I think there's a huge difference when a woman's "job" provides essential income - not just extra cash. Stress for starters, and knowing you can't stay home to care for a sick kid for example. Times have changed - and "just a job for extra cash" is a luxury most people can not afford these days. Many couples are working 2 or 3 jobs each - and it's still not enough.

reply to post by soficrow


one word: cosmetics. Their potential hazards are totally underestimated.

reply to post by soficrow


I understand that. My kids are in their late 20's now. They work full time and second jobs also, raise families, and take college courses when they can for improvement. Still, it is not enough to keep up. We help all three out when the unexpected happens. Something is seriously wrong in the US that it has become so family "unfriendly". I read history. Loving and raising a family has always been about sacrifice and hardship and stress for many. But families are running out of options and stress turns to hopelessness. I don't know who took away the options like, the choice to raise your own children, owning land, home, long term employment, involved communities, inviting churches, country doctors, county hospitals. I guess Money.

reply to post by soficrow

Look around and think about it. Most mothers ARE single moms, married or not - they have 1-4 small children to feed, care for, chauffeur and clean up after plus one large one who may or may not be excessively demanding but often does not "share the burden." Speaking of generalities. And fyi - exerting patriarchal control over decision-making does not constitute sharing the burden. We're talking grunt labour here, time, and lost sleep.

After the last post it becomes clear that there may not indeed be any studies (mostly by how you framed those that would like to get that information) and that you are presenting your own view. No problem with that as I'm doing the same. The distinction is that I'm not claiming an higher ground based on supposed studies, only logic itself and realization of first hand factual data (even if some of the things I said to support this view I could easily find scientific data-points to validate it).

For all I have read you seem to have a personal distaste for marriage, to a point I can empathise with your darker view but not with the generalization you are making the simple fact that backs me up is society around us even if it is indeed mostly patriarchal.

We may also be having a disconnect on the definition of marriage (to me it is the legal union of two individuals, in the case we are discussing of different sexes). This is mostly a contractual agreement, a simple union in general has not same benefits.

I have stated in ATS many times before things are a they are because women keep it so, especially after WW2 and today where women have in general (in the West) a majority in high education (world wide in PhD men still retain 56% and a majority in research 75% UNESCO 2010). The only excuse that existed to prevent that society would change toward matriarchal (or greater equilibrium) organization of society was lack of education and cultural indoctrination this has long ceased to be the case in the West.

You are clearly wrong in your generalization, even the above statement regarding access to high education proves you wrong most of it derives from a family effort and better education is directly related to high longevity.

reply to post by Panic2k11

...You are clearly wrong in your generalization, even the above statement regarding access to high education proves you wrong most of it derives from a family effort and better education is directly related to high longevity.

MY generalization? I'm reporting others' findings - at least 4 studies are linked via the source article. And fyi - it was the study that found even women with higher educations have lower life expectancy in the affected counties. (I questioned that finding at first myself then realized the main triggering factor was probably environmental. But we don't know.) Also, to clarify, I do not have a "distaste for marriage" but rather, a distaste for the plight of ordinary people in our troubled upside-down world. The original report on marriage and life expectancy from the Max Planck Institute:

Marriage is more beneficial for men than for women - at least for those who want a long life. Previous studies have shown that men with younger wives live longer. While it had long been assumed that women with younger husbands also live longer, in a new study Sven Drefahl from the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (MPIDR) in Rostock, Germany, has shown that this is not the case. Instead, the greater the age difference from the husband, the lower the wife’s life expectancy. This is the case irrespective of whether the woman is younger or older than her spouse.

Just a few hints about reading online reports: If you click on the title in blue in the quote in the OP on ATS, you'll be taken straight to the source article: New Study: American Women Are Dying Younger Than Their Moms. In the source article's first paragraph, if you click on the word "studies" highlighted in orange, it takes you to the study's summary/news release,
Gir ls born in 2009 will live shorter lives than their mothers in hundreds of US counties. To the right of the text are 5 categories to search: News Release, Data and Methods, Visualizations & other Tools, Publications & Presentations, and News & Events. Again just click to enter - and evaluate to your heart's content. Study evaluated by HealthMetrics.

Back to the 1st paragraph source article - the word "reported" in orange takes you to U.S. Women Are Dying Younger Than Their Mothers, and No One Knows Why. This article has all kinds of linked references, for example:

[url=]In March, a study published by the University of Wisconsin researchers David Kindig and Erika Cheng found that in nearly half of U.S. counties, female mortality rates actually increased between 1992 and 2006, compared to just 3 percent of counties that saw male mortality increase over the same period.

…Kindig’s findings were echoed in a July report from University of Washington researcher Chris Murray, which found that inequality in women’s health outcomes steadily increased between 1985 and 2010, with female life expectancy stagnating or declining in 45 percent of U.S. counties. Taken together, the two studies underscore a disturbing trend: While advancements in medicine and technology have prolonged U.S. life expectancy and decreased premature deaths overall, women in parts of the country have been left behind, and in some cases, they are dying younger than they were a generation before.

…a study by Sven Drefahl at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rosktock, Germany, shows that the greater the age gap between a woman and her husband, the shorter her life expectancy, regardless of whether he is older or younger.

Also of interest,

OCTOBER 15, 2013 | The poor die younger

In 2008, 65-year olds enjoying a high retirement income could expect to live for another 20 years. Peers living on a very low pension, by contrast, had a remaining life expectancy of not even 15 years.

MAY 13, 2010: Does marriage shorten women's lives? A new study says maybe

Also: Go to google, enter "life expectancy women marriage". I trust this will all keep you quite busy for some time to come.

reply to post by _damon


I know the constituents and contaminants in cosmetics are incredibly hazardous. However, cosmetics are used all over America while only about 50% of US counties have lowered life expectancy for women. So something else is going on too - a triggering co-factor that mainly exists in the 'corridor' at risk.

Here's the map:

That's awful.. and means each generation will have a shorter life span than the generation before. I think it's due to the chemicals in the foods we eat and cancer.

reply to post by soficrow


Are we talking about the same ?!?

MY generalization?

The OP was that American Women Are Dying Younger Than Their Moms to that I see no logic problem. Quality of life has been decreasing globally after a peak in 60-70s, from bad nutrition (not to be read as famine only) to pollution and increase on artificial methods not only for reproduction but the increased capability to keep genetically compromised individuals in the gene-pool, to new still little understood but most probable genetically linked diseases like autism to asthma (that is, the genetic factors that potentiate the occurrence of the pathology seem to have become highly disseminated) this susceptibility allied with environment factors, even cultural behaviour seems fated to cause this sort of problems, but shouldn't affect only females (even if female biology is more complex and genetically females have a larger role in the race genetic quality, for instance a majority of deceases are transmitted from mother to child and its indisputable that as natures incubator women have a larger role on reproduction) (List of genetic disorders)

My objection (here) was to the link formulated to marriage and having kids to lower longevity that was what I strong disagreed with and so far have not seen any data that substantiates that view.

post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

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.

That is false, and you interjected in support...

by soficrow

Nuclear families tend to be isolated, intensive labour in the home falls on the mother, and it's not very healthy. Extended families are far more healthy.

To what I agreed. I note that in all our interchanges you did not outright claim that marriage decreases a women longevity but you seemed to have been defending that point and my refusal to agree with that view (since did I agree with a non-generalized possibility in specific cases, just not as the norm). So not your generalization but the generalization that you started by defend...

In the rest we seem to be in fully accord. None of the studies you presented supports what I objected, that is present a link that defines marriage or family to a lower longevity they all simply differentiate the trade-offs. The last one that at first seems to support the claim (as presented) includes the clear statement that:

it is not true that marriage in general is unfavorable. Being married raises the life expectancy of both men and women above those that are unmarried.

That was my point from the start...

PS: Thanks and star for the articles...

reply to post by soficrow


I read about a doctor who has been the family physician of 3 generations of one family he was discussing.

He said the healthiest out of all 3 generations were the grandparents. Why? Because they'd grown up on real good, fewer pesticides, clean air, outdoor play, less junk food, less exposure to environmental toxins, discipline and good clean living.

I think its pretty easy to figure out why people are dying younger!

reply to post by soficrow


Also keep in mind that in 20 years, we will have the technology to end disease.

The first implement will be biotechnology which will help us avoid disease by changing our genes.

The second bridge will be nanotechnology---which will be tiny robots as small as red blood cells that sense pathogens and correct the flaw before it becomes disease.

Google is hot on the trail of developing this technology with futurist Ray Kurzweil who is an amazing MIT grad who cured himself of high cholesterol and diabetes. He says that our bodies are badly in need of a software upgrade. We're still behaving (biologically) the same way we did 10,000 years ago. For example, we still store fat cells to survive hard times of famine even though we have refrigerators right now. We need to upgrade our biology to 21st century paradigms.

Basically, we have to become as healthy as we can by knowing what to eat and by exercising, etc. so we can be healthy enough to benefit from this bio-technology in 20 years or so.

How to live a healthy life is available in books, on the Internet, etc. If you stopped eating sugar, wheat and dairy today you'd be doing yourself a big favor. We all know that exercise is important, along with a host of other things to prolong our lives. Kurzweil also says we need supplements because our bodies don't produce or store these as well as we age. He says he hasn't aged much in years because he's figured out the formula to keeping himself healthy. He constantly has his cholesterol checked, along with a list of other things that mark his health.

But people don't want to do it.

Their chips and their sodas and their desserts are too important to them.

reply to post by MRuss

...I think its pretty easy to figure out why people are dying younger!

The question is, "Why are only women in this particular geographic area dying younger?"



Any ideas?

reply to post by MRuss

...futurist Ray Kurzweil ...says that our bodies are badly in need of a software upgrade. We're still behaving (biologically) the same way we did 10,000 years ago.

...we have to become as healthy as we can by knowing what to eat and by exercising, etc. so we can be healthy enough to benefit from this bio-technology in 20 years or so.

I agree - but we are designed to adapt and evolve. Maybe not quickly enough, but that's another discussion. In any event, why on earth do you think relying on bio-technology is better than relying on proven natural evolutionary processes? Given that you support "natural" foods, lifestyle, etc.?

As far as "natural evolutionary processes" go, my pet theory is that disease is part of an adaptive chain or "cascade," simplified as follows:
1. The environment or elements of it change;
2. Nanomolecules like amino acids respond by changing;
3. Macromolecules like proteins respond in turn by changing or "misfolding" to adapt to the changed environment;
4. The newly modified proteins share their adaptive structure and attendant properties with other proteins (ie., infect them on contact);
5. Viruses and bacteria take on these new proteins, and
6. Spread them around to more complex lifeforms; and
7. Eventually it all comes out in the wash and everything and everyone shares the same basic amino acid and protein building blocks that are adapted to the changed environment.

NOTE: The mistake made in earlier scientific study was to consider only the chemistry - in fact, the chemistry does not change, only the structure - but turns out, structure determines properties when it comes to nano- and macro- molecules.

soficrow
reply to post by MRuss

 

...I think its pretty easy to figure out why people are dying younger!

The question is, "Why are only women in this particular geographic area dying younger?"

Any ideas?

Yes, it has to do with the climate. My guess is that it's a critter which is transmitting something which for some reason or another, is able to target women specifically.

Wild guess, but... look at this pic and the overlap with the above.

hmmm....

upload.wikimedia.org...

I'd say that you should expect to see more of these climate(change)-related medical issues to skyrocket in the coming years, but I bet you already do!

reply to post by webedoomed


This is why I love ATS. Very interesting. This is just my opinion and do not mean to sound derogatory. I was born in the South in 1951. In the 1960's, in Mississippi, the state offered to put in plumbing and electricity in my granddaddy's house since he owned an acre of land. Some kind of govnt program. I was never taught to wash my hands after going to the bathroom or before preparing food. I swear, my family was that backwards. Considering the location, I am guessing lack of education about hygiene and bacteria transference.

reply to post by MOMof3


I wash my hands BEFORE I use the bathroom. Makes little sense to me to wash them after.

Think about it for a sec. If we're healthy, we're not infested with harmful bacteria. No need to wash!

In order to stay healthy, we must practice healthy habits.

Our hands touch more things per day raw than any other part of the body.

It makes perfect sense to wash BEFORE to rid our hands of whatever is crawling all over them.

Then when we wipe and (to many unwittingly) touch our cracks, or for guys our junk, we're a bit less likely to transmit from hand to orifice.

That keeps us healthy, making little sense to wash them after.

So I'm a bit backwards as well.

reply to post by webedoomed


You should get a microscope and prove that theory.