Americans Life Expectancy

[Reddy]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/health/inter....html?hpt=hp_c1

 

"The tragedy is not that the United States is losing a contest with other countries," the report states, "but that Americans are dying and suffering from illness and injury at rates that are demonstrably unnecessary."

 

The report outlines nine health areas where the United States lags behind other rich nations, including infant mortality, homicides, teen pregnancy, drug-related deaths, obesity and disabilities.

 

Americans have the highest prevalence of AIDS in the group. Seniors are at a greater risk of developing and dying from heart disease. And our children are less likely than children in peer countries to reach their fifth birthday.

 

This thread posted before I was done with the title, but I meant to include that we're behind 27 other countries in terms of life expectancy. s***'s just got real.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Reddy

[Steve9347]

The current generation of children are the first in like 200 years that aren't expected to live longer than their parents. Kids are fat and eating processed foods and sugars and meats at a higher rate than ever before, with less exercise than ever before, because Facebook and video games and chat rooms.

 

Lazy ass kids with dumbass parents.

[Steve9347]

(oh, and you might as well just move this to the filibuster right now)

[Reddy]

i dunno, doesn't seem too popular yet.

 

pretty mind-blowing to me though. this is what happens when capitalism goes rampant. starts with everyone making a lot of money, ends with the country killing its own people for profits.

 

(there, that should stir things up, and to the filibuster we go!)

[Jenksismyhero]

i dunno, doesn't seem too popular yet.

 

pretty mind-blowing to me though. this is what happens when capitalism goes rampant. starts with everyone making a lot of money, ends with the country killing its own people for profits.

 

(there, that should stir things up, and to the filibuster we go!)

 

You're right. The government should provide meal pills to everyone with the proper amount of nutrition. People don't need choice, they need healthy diets mandated by the suits!

 

If people are dumb enough to die from being a fat tub of lard, so be it. People in this country need to start letting individuals clean out the gene pool a little.

 

(edit: and nicely done )

Edited January 10, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Reddy]

You're right. The government should provide meal pills to everyone with the proper amount of nutrition. People don't need choice, they need healthy diets mandated by the suits!

 

If people are dumb enough to die from being a fat tub of lard, so be it. People in this country need to start letting individuals clean out the gene pool a little.

 

(edit: and nicely done )

 

thank you.

 

the point i was making was that when you let the almighty dollar and free market control our food supply and health care system, it leads to this result. no matter WHAT choices you make these days, our food products are far inferior to their 1950's counterparts. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies have NO incentive to actually heal people, because then they stop making money.

[Balta1701]

(oh, and you might as well just move this to the filibuster right now)

And it took 1 more post.

[StrangeSox]

let's not forget that life expectancy is split by class too

 

 

 

[3E8]

This chart gives more detail to the first paragraph of the article.

 

source: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archiv...th-care/237171/

 

 

[bmags]

The current generation of children are the first in like 200 years that aren't expected to live longer than their parents. Kids are fat and eating processed foods and sugars and meats at a higher rate than ever before, with less exercise than ever before, because Facebook and video games and chat rooms.

 

Lazy ass kids with dumbass parents.

 

Predictions like that are usually pretty terrible.

[StrangeSox]

You're right. The government should provide meal pills to everyone with the proper amount of nutrition. People don't need choice, they need healthy diets mandated by the suits!

 

If people are dumb enough to die from being a fat tub of lard, so be it. People in this country need to start letting individuals clean out the gene pool a little.

 

(edit: and nicely done )

 

There was just a study released a week or two ago that found that mortality rates for slightly obese people were actually lower than underweight or normal weight.

 

But the "gene pool" can't be "cleaned out" like that. You're talking about massive dietary changes resulting mainly from the industrialization of food in only a generation or two at the most. That's nothing something selection pressures can really adjust to, nor would we expect them to, because you're not dying until well after your prime reproductive years.

 

Nor is being overweight a moral failing that we need to "clean out" from our gene pool.

[LittleHurt05]

Meh. I'd rather live shorter as an American than longer on the other side of the world. USA!

[Joxer_Daly]

Meh. I'd rather live shorter as an American than longer on the other side of the world. USA!

 

 

Ask my arse, ya weirdo!

Edited January 10, 2013 by Joxer_Daly

[Joxer_Daly]

The approach to healthcare was the one thing that occurred to me, even before I read the article.

 

The 'quality of food in the U.S.' angle didn't spring to mind, so I'm interested to see the various comments that spring up here on that topic. (Of course, income can be a factor in the quality of food a person consumes)

 

I suppose, it's the lifestyle choices where the individual has control, though. Not that I'm a model in terms of alcohol consumption or fitness, but as of this week I'm trying to improve on both fronts as well as paying more attention to what I eat.

[StrangeSox]

There's a cultural and economic/market aspect to your own diet, too. Ultimately, yes, you do control what you actually put into your mouth, but your desires for what you want to eat are going to be shaped by the culture around you (advertising, what others are eating, what you were raised on, etc.) and what's available (can't eat what you can't buy).

[iamshack]

There's a cultural and economic/market aspect to your own diet, too. Ultimately, yes, you do control what you actually put into your mouth, but your desires for what you want to eat are going to be shaped by the culture around you (advertising, what others are eating, what you were raised on, etc.) and what's available (can't eat what you can't buy).

The good thing is that more and more folks are taking an interest in what they eat and how much they exercise, although, the graph you posted earlier makes it clear this is something that is split by class, which is understandable, since more healthy foods do tend to cost more (sometimes significantly more) than less healthy foods.

[bmags]

The good thing is that more and more folks are taking an interest in what they eat and how much they exercise, although, the graph you posted earlier makes it clear this is something that is split by class, which is understandable, since more healthy foods do tend to cost more (sometimes significantly more) than less healthy foods.

 

I agree, progress is usually slow but there has been a clear shift to the attention of what we put in our bodies the past decade.

 

The requirement of calorie counts at restaurant I am very pleased by. It's a huge help to me when I was slimming down for the wedding, and really helps you decide whether the marginal benefit of some cheese or sour cream would be worth the 120 calorie increase.

[StrangeSox]

I've also read that it's important psychologically to focus on good diets and exercise for their own sake, not as part of some weight loss goal or ideal. Some people are going to be naturally heavier or skinnier than others at the exact same levels, and someone who's overweight can be perfectly healthy still. When you make diets and exercise tied to weight loss, if someone isn't losing as much as they'd like, they become discouraged and stop. Or they reach their goal weight and then start slipping back into unhealthy diets and reduced activity. Some studies have found that heavily promoting nutritional and exercise programs as weight loss programs can end up having the opposite effect and discouraging obese people from following them.

 

As for the class split, I'd put my money on health care access, not diet or weight issues. Also, the types of jobs worked and the daily stress and struggle of life.

Edited January 10, 2013 by StrangeSox

[LittleHurt05]

Ask my arse, ya weirdo!

 

I'll come to your beautiful country and share a pint with you any day my friend!

[Joxer_Daly]

I'll come to your beautiful country and share a pint with you any day my friend!

 

Your welcome awaits you, pal. And, our kids will be practically the same age, an' all!!

 

[iamshack]

I've also read that it's important psychologically to focus on good diets and exercise for their own sake, not as part of some weight loss goal or ideal. Some people are going to be naturally heavier or skinnier than others at the exact same levels, and someone who's overweight can be perfectly healthy still. When you make diets and exercise tied to weight loss, if someone isn't losing as much as they'd like, they become discouraged and stop. Or they reach their goal weight and then start slipping back into unhealthy diets and reduced activity. Some studies have found that heavily promoting nutritional and exercise programs as weight loss programs can end up having the opposite effect and discouraging obese people from following them.

 

As for the class split, I'd put my money on health care access, not diet or weight issues. Also, the types of jobs worked and the daily stress and struggle of life.

Yeah, I don't own a scale...I don't care what I weigh..I gauge my health by how I feel, how I look, and how easy or hard my workouts are. For instance, this morning, I did a pretty intense plyo workout...usually this workout is somewhat stressful for me but not too bad if I am in good shape...but this morning, it was very difficult for me...I struggled to lower my heart rate and keep my breathing under control at times. This was a clear indicator that I have been slacking and need to lay off the pizza a bit and get more workouts in during the week.

 

Americans are so obsessed with weight. It isn't about weight, folks. It's about eating healthy and exercising semi-regularly and being generally active. But that doesn't sell. What sells is results, and tangible results are weight loss. It's unfortunate, but true.

 

As for your last point, I think it is all of the above. I have all the health care access I need, but I cannot tell you the last time I used it, other than to pick up a z-pack or something when I had a cold. Additionally, the stress does add quite a bit, like you mentioned, and there are probably larger instances of smoking and drinking habitually among those at lower income levels. But I do think it is a combination of everything.

[Joxer_Daly]

I've also read that it's important psychologically to focus on good diets and exercise for their own sake, not as part of some weight loss goal or ideal. Some people are going to be naturally heavier or skinnier than others at the exact same levels, and someone who's overweight can be perfectly healthy still. When you make diets and exercise tied to weight loss, if someone isn't losing as much as they'd like, they become discouraged and stop. Or they reach their goal weight and then start slipping back into unhealthy diets and reduced activity. Some studies have found that heavily promoting nutritional and exercise programs as weight loss programs can end up having the opposite effect and discouraging obese people from following them.

 

As for the class split, I'd put my money on health care access, not diet or weight issues. Also, the types of jobs worked and the daily stress and struggle of life.

 

 

That's a good post - exercise is a great way of tackling depression.

 

I suppose the class split can also be relevant to the quality of food accessed.

[bmags]

Yeah, I don't own a scale...I don't care what I weigh..I gauge my health by how I feel, how I look, and how easy or hard my workouts are. For instance, this morning, I did a pretty intense plyo workout...usually this workout is somewhat stressful for me but not too bad if I am in good shape...but this morning, it was very difficult for me...I struggled to lower my heart rate and keep my breathing under control at times. This was a clear indicator that I have been slacking and need to lay off the pizza a bit and get more workouts in during the week.

 

Americans are so obsessed with weight. It isn't about weight, folks. It's about eating healthy and exercising semi-regularly and being generally active. But that doesn't sell. What sells is results, and tangible results are weight loss. It's unfortunate, but true.

 

As for your last point, I think it is all of the above. I have all the health care access I need, but I cannot tell you the last time I used it, other than to pick up a z-pack or something when I had a cold. Additionally, the stress does add quite a bit, like you mentioned, and there are probably larger instances of smoking and drinking habitually among those at lower income levels. But I do think it is a combination of everything.

 

While a lot of this is true, weight does matter at some point. And it doesn't come down to working out, people need to count how much they are putting into their bodies. And by and large, when people do this they tend to make healthy choices.

 

But to be healthy, cut down on red meat and meat in general per week. Cut down on cheese. Cut down on butter in prep. At that point you are doing good despite size.

[StrangeSox]

There was a thought about "food deserts" in the US, urban areas that essentially have no grocery store and no access to fresh foods, but IIRC some research a year or two ago cast some doubt on that idea.

 

There's a "time to prepare a meal" aspect, too. Making processed foods or picking up fast foods is quick and easy. Making a big meal from scratch, a little more difficult and requires more resources.

[bmags]

There was a thought about "food deserts" in the US, urban areas that essentially have no grocery store and no access to fresh foods, but IIRC some research a year or two ago cast some doubt on that idea.

 

There's a "time to prepare a meal" aspect, too. Making processed foods or picking up fast foods is quick and easy. Making a big meal from scratch, a little more difficult and requires more resources.

 

I have a hard time believing it isn't true. South side sees far fewer grocery stores, and a lot more corner markets. They have some onions, tomatoes, eggs, etc. So they have "fressh food", but not quite equal.