From kevinf@teleport.com Wed Aug 6 14:24:36 1997
Newsgroups: rec.food.historic
Subject: Re: Stone Age food?
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 14:24:36 -0700
To: Richard Strayer
On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Richard Strayer wrote:
> >In pre-industrial Europe, the "average life span of (from) thirty" is
> >based on a high death rate up to the age of 15. Most children died of
> >disease. I one was lucky enough to make it to late teens, they were much
> >more likely to live to a ripe old age of 70 something (Most peasants could
> >not afford to get married until late 20's, by the way).
>
> Yes, well this all very interesting. Can you provide me with a credible
> source which supports your actuarial data for this period, since it seems
> to contradict nearly everything I've ever read over the past 35 years?
> Thanks!
O.K. Let's compare notes. I wrote my response from a memory due to a
college class about 15 years ago. But for completeness, I looked it
up again. Please give me your references that counter these figures and
quotes:
TITLE Population in history; essays in historical demography.
Edited
by D. V. Glass and D. E. C. Eversley.
PUBLISHER Chicago, Aldine Pub. Co. [1965]
DESCRIPT ix, 692 p. illus. 26 cm.
BIBLIOG Bibliography: p. 140-143.
Bibliographical footnotes.
page 93: for 15 and under:
"mortality improved inversely with age."
Table 7, p. 96 "Total Age Specific Mortality Rate per 1000"
1480-1679
age (years) Men Women
0-1 320
1-14 160
15-19 64 43
20-24 102 55
25-29 104 79
30-34 95 86
35-39 100 94
40-44 105 116
45-49 158 136
1680-1779
Men Women
0-1 310
1-14 200
15-19 43 39
20-24 92 59
25-29 67 67
30-34 74 71
35-39 81 67
40-44 82 70
45-49 104 77
1780-1879 (Louis Pasteur's Pasteurization in 1860's)
Men Women
15-19 29 42
20-24 47 42
25-29 44 44
30-34 61 51
35-39 24 42
40-44 41 38
45-49 62 42
>
> >While it is true that famine was more likely for Europeans then than now,
> >a bigger factor
> >in longer life expectancy is the control of bacteria (sterilization,
> >anti-biotics, etc.)
>
> Oh, really? If this were so, then one would expect to see a rather
> pronounced jump in life expectancy around the turn of the century when
> antibiotics were discovered, rather than the steady increase over the
> past several thousand years. Again, I'd be interesting in some
> supporting data.
Currently, infant mortality rate is less than 1%,
1-14yrs is less than .5% (roughly).
What do your sources say?
>
> I'd also point out that you seem to be completely oblivious
> to the fact that you're not arguing within the parameters of the original
> topic, but have branched out into a more generic discussion of whether
> diets "then" (ostensibly in Medieval Europe?) compare favorably to diets
> "now." The cut-off point for "Stone Age Diets", as loosely defined by
I was responding to your statement that an increase of "average" lifespan
of 30 to nearly 80 was due to changes in diet. If you look at when
this changed the most rapidly, you'd look at the years outlined above,
right?
> >Most people with knowledge of modern agriculture (i.e. in USA) agree
> >that the varieties of crops and eggs, etc. produced are selected for
> >mechanization at the expense of nutrition, flavor, etc.
>
> Actually, they're selected primarily for pest & disease resistance, rapid
> maturity, size and appearance, with flavor & nutritive value being low
> on the list of priorities. To say this with the implication that
We agree.
> "modern" agricultural produce is devoid of nutrition, however, is quite
> ludicrous, and only serves to illustrate that people who make such
> claims have no basis in reality.
No such claims here, just that nutrition & flavor do suffer because of
low priority.
> >Do you think most of us with modern agriculture and food processing eat
> >much of a great variety? A greater variety is available to us, without
> >question, but most eat foods based on dairy, a handfull of grains, meats,
> >tomatoes and lettuce. For example, the same "enriched wheat flour" which
> >has had some vitamins added to compensate for aging and loss of nutrients
>
> So your argument now is that the typical American diet of processed
> and/or high-fat foods is boring and generally unhealthy? You'll get no
That wasn't the point. The point was that a handful of foods are
sold as a large variety of "different" foods due to different processing,
packaging, etc., the end result being that variety from the grocery
store isn't neccessarily variety in the diet.
>
> >What did your meals consist of yesterday?
>
> My meals are balanced in both variety and nutrition, thank you; without
> having to resort to fads or preposterous notions of what I
> supposedly "evolved" to eat.
There is evidence of physical adaptation due to diet. For example,
the Inuits (spelling?) or Native Eskimos have traditionally eaten
mostly animal protein and very little starch. They tend to have large
livers which supposedly have developed in such a way as to process
the protein into starch (to be digested into sugars). This is not to
say that others couldn't adapt similarly in less than a lifetime.
If you want, I could look up the reference for this, too. Don't have
it handy right now.
>
> RES
>
>
kevinf@teleport.COM
*****************************************************
From kevinf@teleport.com Thu Aug 7 14:39:47 1997
Newsgroups: rec.food.historic
Subject: Re: Stone Age food?
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 14:39:47 -0700
Richard Strayer wrote:
> Welp, this is of course silliness of the highest order, since it is
> largely improvements in our diet (milk included) from
> pre-agricultural, let alone pre-industrial, standards which has
> radically increased the average life span from thirty something to
> nearly 80.
Responding to "improvements in our diet...has radically increased the
average life span from thirty something to nearly 80",
Kevin Ferguson wrote:
> Table 7, p. 96 Total Age Specific Mortality rate per 1000
> ...let's compare notes...
>
""
The point of the table was that prior to radical advances in _both_
medical and agricultural practices, about 1/2 of all born were dead
before they were 15. As you acknowledge below, a significant reduction in
mortality of those under 15 occured because of improved medical practices.
Thus, one can not conclude that diet has improved by looking at average
life span alone.
> I ask for support regarding your assertion that "they were much more
> likely to live to a ripe old age of 70 something" and you give me
We are talking probability distribution functions here: integrating
over the "curve" the table provides (pick a period) you see that
given a number of births, about 1/2 don't make it to age 15. Then,
for those that do, about 1/2 make it to the end of the table. Once again,
the point is that reducing mortality in the youth has made the most
significant change in "average" life span.
> charts which seem to top out at 49 yrs.
Yes, this is true...I'm still waiting for your references: maybe they
will have data that will conflict with my statement above? Should I
have said 60 something instead? We are taking relative probabilities
here, remember.
> It is not claims regarding
> infant mortality that I dispute; I'm talking about adjusted actuarial
> data for human longevity over the past several thousand years. It is
But you can't ignore infant mortality in determining average life span.
Once a kid is dead, he won't live to 30!
> implied from archeological evidence that neolithic man (you know, the
> one who ate the diet that is supposedly superior to our own) enjoyed
I have been ignoring the caveman diet topic from the start...only been
addressing "average lifespan" and how much "variety" "we" have in "our"
diet, as a practical matter (meaning the bulk of food sold as opposed
to what is available) today.
> an average adult lifespan of some 30-40 years. We currently enjoy a
> lifespan of nearly 80. I find it interesting that your own data shows
> an increase in adult longevity over a period of several hundred years
> that 1) do not include any advances in the discovery of antibiotics,
> or the implementation of antiseptic or aseptic protocols (which you
I did not include all the details, naturally. An example is the
small pox innoculation used in England at least by 1700's (about a
century before pasteurization). Not all medical practice improvements
happened over night. And yes, some improvements in agriculture,
and areas of technology helped to improve lifespan. I think we
at least agree that the average age in lifespan did not increase
primarily due to changes in diet. (We haven't mentioned wars,
natural disasters, and other potentially other causes of death).
> claim are actually responsible for increases in longevity) and 2) do
> correspond to improvements in agricultural yields, which allowed for
> the transformation of previously agrarian societies into metropolitan
> centers.
>
As for urban vs rural, the majority of the most devastating disease caused
population decreases have occured in cities. In cities, lack of
sanition was a main cause. So while agriculural improvements may have
allowed cities to exist, until sanitation and medical practices improved,
people generally were more likely to get a plague, for example, there.
> But this is all beside the point. The original post claimed that the
> "Stone Age Diet" is supposedly superior to our own. Do you support
> that notion or not?
This is not my issue:
I haven't claimed anything about the "Stone Age Diet." I only claim that
one cannot conclude that diet changes caused the increased lifespan
of 30 to nearly 80.
> If so, you're supporting it with data culled from
> the Renaissance, which seems somewhat incongruous. If not, you're
> arguing a completely separate issue altogether. Which is it?
The latter.
>
> >> >While it is true that famine was more likely for Europeans then than now,
> >> >a bigger factor
> >> >in longer life expectancy is the control of bacteria (sterilization,
> >> >anti-biotics, etc.)
> >>
> >> Oh, really? If this were so, then one would expect to see a rather
> >> pronounced jump in life expectancy around the turn of the century when
> >> antibiotics were discovered, rather than the steady increase over the
> >> past several thousand years. Again, I'd be interesting in some
> >> supporting data.
> >
> >Currently, infant mortality rate is less than 1%, 1-14yrs is less
than .5% (roughly).
> >What do your sources say?
>
> Again with infant mortality. I concede that medical technology has
> resulted in a significant and unprecedented drop in infant mortality
> since the turn of the century. This has nothing to do with average
> human lifespan, however, and I fail to see why you continue to hang
> upon the point.
What is your definition of lifespan? I am using the time of birth
to the time of death as my definition. So a relavely high infant
mortality rate has everything to do with average human lifespan.
>
> >> I'd also point out that you seem to be completely oblivious
> >> to the fact that you're not arguing within the parameters of the original
> >> topic, but have branched out into a more generic discussion of whether
> >> diets "then" (ostensibly in Medieval Europe?) compare favorably to diets
> >> "now." The cut-off point for "Stone Age Diets", as loosely defined by
> >
> >I was responding to your statement that an increase of "average" lifespan
> >of 30 to nearly 80 was due to changes in diet. If you look at when
> >this changed the most rapidly, you'd look at the years outlined above,
> >right?
>
> There are several periods which correspond to increases in adult
> longevity. The period your data encompasses certainly would be a
> significant one, for the reasons I suggested above. But again I must
> ask, how does this support the notion that the "Stone Age Diet" is
> superior to our own?
It does not since that is not my point...
>
> >> >Most people with knowledge of modern agriculture (i.e. in USA) agree
> >> >that the varieties of crops and eggs, etc. produced are selected for
> >> >mechanization at the expense of nutrition, flavor, etc.
> >>
> >> Actually, they're selected primarily for pest & disease resistance, rapid
> >> maturity, size and appearance, with flavor & nutritive value being low
> >> on the list of priorities. To say this with the implication that
> >
> >We agree.
> >
> >> "modern" agricultural produce is devoid of nutrition, however, is quite
> >> ludicrous, and only serves to illustrate that people who make such
> >> claims have no basis in reality.
> >
> >No such claims here, just that nutrition & flavor do suffer because of
> >low priority.
>
> Then what was the point? Are you merely being argumentative? If
> nutrition does not suffer to the point of being significant, then this
> was an unnecessary observation.
The point was that not all dietery changes due to agriculural
developments have been positive. It appears that we agree on this point
based on the above.
> >> >Do you think most of us with modern agriculture and food processing eat
> >> >much of a great variety? A greater variety is available to us, without
> >> >question, but most eat foods based on dairy, a handfull of grains, meats,
> >> >tomatoes and lettuce. For example, the same "enriched wheat flour" which
> >> >has had some vitamins added to compensate for aging and loss of nutrients
> >>
> >> So your argument now is that the typical American diet of processed
> >> and/or high-fat foods is boring and generally unhealthy? You'll get no
> >
> >That wasn't the point. The point was that a handful of foods are
> >sold as a large variety of "different" foods due to different processing,
> >packaging, etc., the end result being that variety from the grocery
> >store isn't neccessarily variety in the diet.
>
> I can walk into any grocery store (in America) and find a nearly
> limitless variety of staples, your misleadingly abbreviated list
We have agreed previously that variety is available. What is available is
the superset, a population's diet is a subset...
> notwithstanding. There are beans of over a dozen varieties; lentils
> and other pulses; at least 6 kinds of rice; products made from a
Do _most_ people take advantage of all this variety, or do they tend
to get one type or not buy beans at all, for example...
> variety of grains (semolina, buckwheat, rye, hard wheat, corn, millet,
> quinoa, kasha & oats to name a few);
And do you think most people eat most of these in any significant
quantities on a regular basis?
The same goes for the rest:
> 3 or 4 varieties of potatoes;
> turnips, parsnips and a half-dozen other tubers; and all of these made
> over a hundred times into as many different products of every shape,
> texture, color and taste.
> Do you earnestly mean to tell me that our
> present diet is no more varied than that "enjoyed" by neolithic man,
> or present day aboriginal societies? Do you honestly expect to be
> taken seriously?
Once again, I'll stay out of neolithic man's diet. Once again,
while variety is available, it is a narrow spectrum of what consumed.
However, if you insist on comparing our diet with that of "aborignal"
diets, I will say this:
Here in the Pacific Northwest, over a period of one year local
tribes ate wapato (a tubor somewhat like a potato that goes in the water),
camas ("Indian rice"), cherries, blueberries, huckleberries, strawberries,
salmon berries and other berries, hazelnuts (filberts), acorns (after
leeching out tanin), plums, salmon and other fish, deer and other animals,
a wide variety of roots and leaves. There are accounts by Lewis and
Clark and others of these near where the Columbia and Willamette rivers
meet (meaning one human could cover the area required to reach the source
of all these things.) I don't know if any local tribes cultivated
corn, beans, squash or other common crops from other parts of the
country. There are other wild edible foods, such as wild oats and
other grains (many are pretty tastey). This is not a comprehensive
list. Is there little variety? Maybe.
Based on the volume distribution in grocery stores and typical restaurant
menu and an old Scientific American, here's what most American's typicaly
eat:
chicken, chicken eggs, turkey, beef, pork, tuna
cow's milk
wheat, rice, corn, oats
sugar
potato, tomato, lettuce, carrot, onion, orange
(This is supported by p. 78, Scientific American, August 1978 {Yes, 20
years old, do you have a better reference that shows the typical American
diet?}).
kevinf@teleport.COM