Forum Index > Food & Grub > How the Mid-Victorians Worked, Ate and Died
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Jake Neiffer
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 739 | TRs
Location: Lexington, OR
Jake Neiffer
Member
PostTue Dec 01, 2015 9:36 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Some interesting points made here, I think:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Schenk
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Apr 2012
Posts: 1642 | TRs
Location: Traveling, with the bear, to the other side of the Mountain
Schenk
Member
PostTue Dec 01, 2015 1:26 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Wow...those Victorians seem to have had a very robust lifestyle!
20 tons of dirt shoveled, overhead, per day
I was quite worn out just from spreading, leveling, and hand compacting 15 tons of gravel on my driveway in one day....sheesh!
I can't imaging shoveling it back into a dump truck, over my head, in one day.
But they seem to have eaten well.

--------------
Nature exists with a stark indifference to man's situation.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Navy salad
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Sep 2008
Posts: 1260 | TRs
Location: Woodinville
Navy salad
Member
PostTue Dec 01, 2015 5:02 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Very interesting that cancer was quite rare as well as degenerative diseases. When people had heart problems, they were due more to diseases damaging the valves, such as scarlet fever, rather than the clogged artery problems so prevalent today.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RumiDude
Marmota olympus



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 1915 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
Marmota olympus
PostSun Dec 06, 2015 12:39 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
No charts make me skeptical.  Further, this doesn't appear to be peer reviewed. I'm not sayin' it ain't all or partially true, just that it raises red flags.

Rumi

--------------
Valhalla Outdoors
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
tigermn
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 9224 | TRs
Location: There...
tigermn
Member
PostThu Mar 10, 2016 1:12 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Well the first line starts out that once past age 5. I suspect a lot more early deaths at birth or in early childhood.
That's like in football saying the defense only gave up 200 yards if you don't count the one 100 yard run.

I have a hard time believing that someone born back then with much more primitive medical care than today would have a life expectancy equal to someone born today.

--------------
My flickr photo site.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Grannyhiker
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 2945 | TRs
Location: Gateway to the Columbia Gorge
Grannyhiker
Member
PostSat Aug 13, 2016 7:16 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Actually, it's quite accurate.  Once you got past childhood diseases, accidents (for men) and childbirth (for women), plus other killers of adults like tuberculosis and typhoid, you had as a a good chance of living as long as you have today.  Of course, getting past those barriers was far more difficult than it is today, which is why the average life span (a statistical number) was so short!

Of course, this being a UK study, it doesn't include the traumatic years of 1861-1865 in the US.  During the Civil War, disease killed far more than battlefield injuries.  The Civil War Trust states, "For every three soldiers killed in battle, five more died of disease."

--------------
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view.--E.Abbey
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
KarlK
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Jun 2009
Posts: 387 | TRs

KarlK
Member
PostSat Jan 07, 2017 12:08 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RumiDude wrote:
this doesn't appear to be peer reviewed

I'm confident that it was peer reviewed (read the 'instructions for authors'). The lack of charts is a non-issue.

The information on diet composition lends credence to the claims that cardiovascular morbidity/mortality and degenerative disease prevalence were low. The diet was similar in important respects to that of other populations having low CV and degenerative disease issues, e.g., the Kitavans (studied by the Staffan Lindeberg, the subject of a recent post by a friend of mine:  http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/) Low rates of smoking and alcohol use would also have contributed hugely to metabolic health.

--------------
Karl J Kaiyala
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RumiDude
Marmota olympus



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 1915 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
Marmota olympus
PostWed Jan 11, 2017 12:40 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Well, over all the article lacks scientific backing for it's assumptions and conclusions. An example of this is: "These figures suggest that breast cancer during the Victorian period was significantly less rapidly progressive than is the case today, probably due to the Victorians’ significantly higher intakes of a range of micro- and phytonutrients which slow cancer growth."  Really?  And what evidence do the authors present for this conclusion based on a single physician's observation? This article is full of such assumptions and conclusions.

IMO, this article is not scientific, it merely uses scientific phrases and terms to sound scientific. This is an article which seems to cherry pick it's ideas to fit it's conclusion. Just read the final paragraph to notice its slant:  "Do not, therefore, look to the drug companies to provide remedies for the appalling state of our health; nor to our politicians who seem unable, in many cases, to see far beyond the brims of their parliamentary troughs. Look, instead, to the food and beverage industries, and to a lesser extent the supplement companies, who may well step up to the plate with better designed foods and nutritional programmes once the currently profoundly counter-productive regulatory system has been re-drafted." This is instead a political statement rather disguised as scientific research and as such offers little or nothing to guide us today.

I am not saying the Victorian lifestyle has nothing to offer us as insight into how to live, but this article isn't it. I wanna see meta analysis, good definitions, and real numbers rather than descriptions like "compares surprisingly favourably with today’s figures". I wanna see charts and tables that show real figures rather than words with vague descriptions.

Rumi

--------------
Valhalla Outdoors
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Food & Grub > How the Mid-Victorians Worked, Ate and Died
  Happy Birthday RG, the1mitch!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy