Neil, I read every word you wrote.
It still doesn’t make you right. People from 100 years ago died of infectious causes at an early age, and that had nothing to do with infant or childhood mortality rates. Diseases that we now cure with a $10 prescription.
Your info is wrong. It’s just a fact.
Neil needs to go live in the woods and eat deer, nuts, berries and leaves. He can train with logs and be at one with nature. Heck, then he’d be living the life of the aboriginal people he so much admires.
I think Neil may be singlehandedly responsible for the explosion of lesbianism in our country. Are you being paid by a recruiting agency, dude?
“See, girls, we told you that men are primitive beasts.”
My abs hurt from laughing…this thread is just too damn much
That seizure thing is just classic, I love that one. . .
Neil: What was the average lifespan amongst north americans 200 years ago? What is it today?
Also, you’re constantly talking about getting your fat from animal sources because that’s what we evolved doing. . . You do know that there’s a substantial difference in fat composition between free range and farm fed animals don’t you? Perhaps Cass or someone could chime in on this. Funny as it sounds, I’m not disagreeing with you if your animals are free range but you need to stipulate.
STU
ps. Neil, I want my hair back!!!
I thought my seizure pic was funny…no?
Quick example.
Ben Franklin died at 84 years of age in 1790, when the life expectancy was somewhere around 34.5 years.
So he lived to be 2.435 times the life expectancy of his day.
What’s the life expectancy today? Something like 77 years?
Where are the 187 year olds? The best we’ve done is 122 (and that’s the oldest in the WORLD) and we have a ton of emergency medicine. Ben Franklin wasn’t a freak and wasn’t the oldest in the world at the time. Why haven’t we even come close to that age when back in the 1790s they had harsh conditions and hardly any emergency medicine?
So what’s going on here? It’s the difference between life expectancy at birth and once you reach 18. DocT, if you can’t see this, then you have no right sitting there insulting me.
Neil
DocT,
It’s ok, though. I understand your need to attack and insult based on this information. Afterall, it undermines your position and all the work you’ve done to become a doctor. I respect you for the work needed to become a doctor, and I understand your position.
Take care,
Neil
DocT,
George Washington 67
Ben Franklin 84
John Adams 91
Thomas Jefferson 83
James Madison 85
James Monroe 73
Andrew Jackson 78
Aaron Burr 80
Martin Van Buren 80
John Marshall 80
William Penn 74
Samuel Adams 81
Paul Revere 83
George Washington Carver 79
Amazing how each random person I looked up around the late 1700s just so happened to live a lot longer than the life extectancy of 34.5 years in 1790.
These people didn’t have emergency medicine anywhere near like we do today. Wasn’t anesthetic (sp?) whisky and a leather strap in the mouth? Tell me what made people live that long back then.
It’s amazing how things change when you look at the facts differently than usual.
Neil
Stu,
“Neil: What was the average lifespan amongst north americans 200 years ago? What is it today?”
At birth in 1790 was 34.5 years. At birth today is something like 77 years. But as I mentioned, the life expectancy once you reach 18 changes a lot when you consider the high mortality rate of years ago, since there was a lack of emergency medicine and infectious disease due to conditions (very different from degenerative and auto-immune disease).
I did give some examples of prominant people in history circa late 1700s. The thing is, though, that I don’t think it’s very fair to compare life expectancy or health to America a while ago. Large societies like that just tend to get dirty and diseased. Just look at Europe in the Middle Ages. It’s just not fair to compare to that. But, even then, back in the late 1700s people still lived a long time. John Adams lived to be 91, and I seriously doubt he was the oldest person in the world at that time. The oldest people in the world are not from the US, either. How old was the oldest American? I don’t have a Guiness Book on hand at work here. I think it might be safe to say that the oldest American back in the late 1700s was at least 100 years old. So that would make the huge increase in longevity less than 20 years? But, we don’t know who the oldest American was back then. For all we know, this gigantic increase in longevity has resulted in maybe 10-15 years of an increase in max longevity.
“Also, you’re constantly talking about getting your fat from animal sources because that’s what we evolved doing. . . You do know that there’s a substantial difference in fat composition between free range and farm fed animals don’t you? Perhaps Cass or someone could chime in on this. Funny as it sounds, I’m not disagreeing with you if your animals are free range but you need to stipulate.”
Actually, “free range” isn’t ideal. What you want is pastured animals. Cows that eat green grass, chickens that run outside eating bugs and good feed, and pigs that eat good feed and get sunlight to get vitamin D into their fat. Animals such as these are very healthy, and it would be great if we could all eat this way.
The problem is all food has problems like this. Plant foods are sprayed like hell, genetically modified, grown in depleted soils, etc. Would you stop eating vegetables just because you can’t get them pure and totally natural? I would hope not. The same applies to animal products.
Take care,
Neil
“It’s amazing how things change when you look at the facts differently than usual.”
No, it’s amazing how you can twist actual facts to “looks at things differently”. Picking random people and giving their age at death is NOT a valid way of comparing life expectancies. So, according to you, I now have the right to insult you again. You’re a moron. There, that was fun.
Neil, your quest to be “innovative” and think “outside the box” isn’t getting you anywhere. Your knowledge of the subjects you’re intending to debate about is lacking, so you have no foundation upon which to base your arguments. Have a little humility and admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Let me repeat this one more time for you, just in case you didn’t read my first post. People died at a younger age 100 years ago because they acquired infectious diseases that they could not treat. Simple things that we can either cure or treat symptomatically in a much better fashion now. The flu, pneumonia, syphilis, tuberculosis, etc. - all things that they couldn’t treat and things that killed millions. People died from a simple appendicitis, whereas now we can simply go in and take it out with minimal risk to the patient. Having a serious asthma attack? We can intubate you safely and you’ll walk out of the hospital in a few days. The point (not that you’re even listening apparently) is very obvious to anybody with half a brain, to use your own words.
Neil, you’re a kid. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being young, but you have to drop the attitude that you know it all. You’re painfully clueless about things that you adamantly argue about, and you’re unwilling to admit that you might be wrong. Thinking outside the box does not entail espousing wild theories and backing them with specious arguments.
When I read an article by JB, I think, “Wow, I’d never thought of that before. That makes sense.” When I read a post by you, I think, “Wow, how can anybody get simple facts so wrong and make so many logical fallacies in one post?”
There’s nothing wrong with being ignorant, but being ignorant + being unwilling to learn from others is a deadly flaw.
What DocT said.
I was going to type all of that but decided the little 'tard wasn’t worth it. Glad someone did though.
“No, it’s amazing how you can twist actual facts to “looks at things differently”. Picking random people and giving their age at death is NOT a valid way of comparing life expectancies. So, according to you, I now have the right to insult you again. You’re a moron. There, that was fun.”
Oh, so since people actually did live to their 80s back in the 1700s doesn’t mean anything? The life expectancy was 34.5 years, and I’m showing how that does not mean people didn’t live long.
I’ll admit if I’m wrong. I’m trying to find a table that has life expectancy after age 18, or even after age 10. Sure, there could be a significant difference, but I think it’s much less than people think.
“Let me repeat this one more time for you, just in case you didn’t read my first post. People died at a younger age 100 years ago because they acquired infectious diseases that they could not treat. Simple things that we can either cure or treat symptomatically in a much better fashion now. The flu, pneumonia, syphilis, tuberculosis, etc. - all things that they couldn’t treat and things that killed millions. People died from a simple appendicitis, whereas now we can simply go in and take it out with minimal risk to the patient. Having a serious asthma attack? We can intubate you safely and you’ll walk out of the hospital in a few days. The point (not that you’re even listening apparently) is very obvious to anybody with half a brain, to use your own words.”
That doesn’t change that people still lived for a fairly long time back then. This is the entire point with traditional cultures as well. Yes, life expectancy at birth for them is low due to higher infant and elderly mortality rates due to harsh conditions. This does not mean that people did not live long, and therefore did not live long enough to get degenerative diseases. If 80 isn’t old enough to get degenerative diseases, then what is?
“When I read an article by JB, I think, “Wow, I’d never thought of that before. That makes sense.” When I read a post by you, I think, “Wow, how can anybody get simple facts so wrong and make so many logical fallacies in one post?””
Because JB is a doctor. Let’s not beat around the bush. What simple facts did I get wrong? Please point them out specifically. And what logical fallacies?
Neil
NeilG,
I don’t know shit about biology. I’ll admit that. But I do know shit about math, and specifically, statistics. My previous statistics professors would have a heart attack if they saw your reasoning based on the ages of a handful of old dead dudes.
It hurts my heart to think that you believe so strongly in something so illogical.
You have several character traits that are excellent, such as perseverance, self-confidence, and a desire to help people. If you temper these traits with a love for logic, a desire to learn, and some more experience, you will go on to do wonderful things.
And wear some deodorant. Please. 
guys…
how did you let a thread on dental hygiene get into personal attacks and discussions on armpits?
tsk tsk.
dr. d
NeilG,
You’re 18, right? Are you going to college/university in the fall? If so, what are you looking to major in?
Jared,
Yeah, I don’t know anything about statistics. But are there actual statistics of life expectancy of 200 years ago at birth and at 18 years of age? I haven’t found anything yet. So Until then I can’t say anything definite that is statistically accurate. But it’s interesting that out of 14 random prominent people back then, the avereage age was almost 80 years when the life expectancy at birth was a mere 34.5 in 1790. I’m just trying to show that people lived longer than what is thought. The arguement is always “people didn’t live long enough back then to get…”
Neil
Thanks again guys for turning another great thread into shit. You guys seriously need a good cock punch.
NeilG,
As far as the degenerative diseases not appearing, they couldn’t even diagnose most of them during the time periods that we’re talking about, so even if there are some guys that managed to live awhile, it doesn’t mean anything about degenerative diseases popping up.
I thought Neil was leaving…