American Women Are Dying Younger Than Their Moms

reply to post by Jana12


I've heard of this theory many times, not just regarding longevity but for general female health.
It just sounds bad to say women are just for reproductive purposes.



What I heard before might have been about ovarian, breast , uterine or cervical cancers, that's it's less likely to affect those who've had 3 pregnancies in the early 20's.


So is it that there's been a rise in these cancers that are killing women at a faster rate and the root cause is that is they take on careers and put childbirth on hold ?? When did Oprah's show debut btw?

Breast feeding is the first thing I thought of too.

The C-sections aren't helping either...



They made a documentary from the future about this...

its called Idiocracy...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by soficrow



Easy ,

massive influx of simple carbohydrate consumption on a enormous scale.

reply to post by soficrow


More like, women got their equal rights, aren't stay at home anymore, and work kills you quicker.

All those late nights/early mornings/doubleshifts wears you down.


Last generation, worked less. Generation before that, even less, before that, less still.

Stress is more common in women. Yes it's true.

There have been studies lately that have shown women who experience a lot of stress are more likely to get Altzheimer's Disease.

Cortisol is the stress hormone, it increases sugars in the blood stream. It also increases adrenaline which increases your heart rate.

Chronic stress would mean that you have this wonderful combination going for you at all times (or most of the time).

Let's break it down some more.

Women are more likely to report that money (79 percent compared with 73 percent of men) and the economy (68 percent compared with 61 percent of men) are sources of stress while men are far more likely to cite that work is a source of stress (76 percent compared with 65 percent of women).

So the economy is crap, check.

Women are more likely to report physical and emotional symptoms of stress than men, such as having had a headache (41 percent vs. 30 percent), having felt as though they could cry (44 percent vs. 15 percent), or having had an upset stomach or indigestion (32 percent vs. 21 percent) in the past month.

So depression and anxiety leading to stomach upset/indigestion, check.

Put it all together, I think it's stress (Cortisol). I think the economy has a lot to do with it, mother's not being able to stay home with their children and both spouses having to keep jobs. Women report more stress related to work than men anyway, add being away from your child all day to the situation constantly worrying if they are okay, and I would say that most women are living in a perpetual state of stress.

I hate linking to my own threads in other people's threads but I think it's related

reply to post by soficrow


I highly doubt it has to do with education level. If anything, higher education means more income and better health care and better eating habits and more exercise ....

I'd think it has to do with the world being more polluted now than it was 50 years ago. More toxins in the food; in the air; in the water; and more problems with frequent vaccinations ... etc etc. That makes much more sense to me.

webedoomed
The womens movement backfired in some ways.

From an evolutionary standpoint, it's ridiculous to have women focusing on building education and career during their most fertile years. Lots of stress on women to become what they already are. Equal.

Women are females, Men are males.
Why do women think their bodies are designed for same thing men are?
Not that a woman should be relegated to baby factory status, but June Cleaver was awesome.

reply to post by my1percent


garlic
try garlic uncooked

reply to post by my1percent

Seriously ... get checked for autoimmune. It's the one thing that doctors always forget to check for. Lupus. SJogrens. Get the full blood workup done. 'Dry cough'?? Double check for Sjogrens.

I personaly belive Polychlorinated Biphenyls aling with phthalates and have a detrimental effect on womans life expectancy, they are hormone disruptors and effect the fatty tissue in womens breasts, they are almost every where in the enviroment phthalates are in our drinking water, tin food cans, plastic water pipes, I belive the slow poisining is the next asbestos problem

reply to post by Phage


As rickymouse points out, life expectancy at birth -and lowered infant mortality- does not translate to actual life expectancy for even 50% of the population.

But mea culpa, you got me - and provided MORE evidence of a conspiracy. Overall, men are living longer while more and more women are dying younger. Is it really women with higher educations who are dying younger? What's going on?

Metaphysique
reply to post by soficrow

 

and yet the pharma/GMO shills loudly proclaim that health & longevity are at an all time high

Too loudly, I suspect.

Agreed. Fact is, infant mortality is down and interventions help keep kids alive til they're in their 20's or so - which brings the numbers way up. Meantime, people are dying in droves in their 40's and 50's, but the averages are still bumped to look like life expectancy has increased. When it has not.

OrphanApology
reply to post by soficrow

 

...For any saying that it has to do with education and working, I say bs. There are many countries where women are highly educated and routinely have jobs and have high life expectancy.

www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org...

Maybe the journalist was more interested in word count and paycheck than accuracy - I still haven't delved so can't say. BUT. Seems clear that higher education and income in the bad counties is [not a 'live longer free' card. The last paragraph in the original study might offer some clues. [Thanks to phage for the link.]

Laykilla
reply to post by soficrow

 

More like, women got their equal rights, aren't stay at home anymore, and work kills you quicker.

All those late nights/early mornings/doubleshifts wears you down.


Last generation, worked less. Generation before that, even less, before that, less still.

Sounds right to me. Plus - environmental contamination, bad food yada yada.

FlyersFan
reply to post by soficrow

 

I highly doubt it has to do with education level. If anything, higher education means more income and better health care and better eating habits and more exercise ....

I'd think it has to do with the world being more polluted now than it was 50 years ago. More toxins in the food; in the air; in the water; and more problems with frequent vaccinations ... etc etc. That makes much more sense to me.

Normally I would agree but it seems background studies show that even well educated women with higher incomes have lower life expectancies in the particular counties flagged. ...Perhaps something environmental is buggering female metabolism and contributing to the early mortality in those areas?

reply to post by ValentineWiggin


Stress can be connected to most of the causation given so far for these regions: obesity, socioeconomics, hormone imbalances, etc. But why would stress only affect those in these regions?
Sounds like it isn't stress itself but rather coping with stress. Is there a lack of resources to help with coping in these places?

reply to post by Dianec


Well it's how the Cortisol hormone works. It has been entirely took long since I took Anatomy and Physiology but I can link you! lol! Cortisol

To clarify I did not mean to imply that women should be reproductive machines and they should have 3 children by age 30 or the punishment will be a cancer diagnosis. That was not at all 'the point' or 'my point.'

The point was that two very credible experts who knew many other credible experts had predicted (back in the late 1970's when women were enrolling in Universities and starting careers in record numbers) exactly what has happened, and thought I'd share, even though I had other things I could have been doing.

I did not have 3 full-term pregnancies by the time I was 30 due to my education and career, and when I was told this they also knew I couldn't possibly make that ' 3 kids by 30 ' happen. The Professor told this to all 200 students in his physiology/biology lecture that day, not just to me and not to personally upset me.

Then, a few months later, during a routine visit I had asked my GYN/OB (who was around the same age as the Professor) and he agreed and said he and his colleauges had also predicted this. He said that around 2000+ we will start seeing an increase in women with female-related cancers ... and well, here we are --- I asked, he told. But I didn't spend my life worrying about it as I didn't think it applied to everyone all of the time, and as we know, it doesn't. There are other factors; diet and stress two very important factors.

These days one would have to be financially stable/well off, making a substantial living to be a stay-at-home mom with 3 breastfed children by the time they were 30. And, if hubby isn't pulling in the bucks, they end up on public assistance. Having 3 children in their 20's back then was financially doable for most ... but this is no longer the case. The world has changed drastically -- I have seen the changes.

The connection these two experts made with a women's higher education was that they would postpone childbearing so that they wouldn't have three full-term pregnancies and breastfeed 3 babies by age 30. I was also told that full-term is important as premature labor and miscarriages can cause an interruption in the hormonal cycle. They were saying if a women has 3 children by age 30, but they were preemies, then it doesn't count as 3 full-term pregnancies -- so, as part of their theory they emphasized ' full-term.'

There's no need to take that personally or become defensive if one had miscarriages or gave birth to a preemie, as all pregnant women want to carry full-term. But some don't for for various reasons, most are unknown. There is no blame or shame here. It's a biologically based theory. I was sharing what I was told since I am approaching my late 50's and now have a history to draw from and also come from a very large family, mostly females, as mentioned in my previous post.

On another note: there is a lot of crap in the drinking water that wasn't in the water back then and processed foods and fast foods are more popular than ever. Prior to the 1980's this wasn't the case. Women from my mom's generation didn't know what processed foods and junk food were. Cancer was practically unheard of when I was growing up in the mid 1950's and onward.

Way back then the only woman I knew who had breast cancer (and died at age 39 in the early 1970's) was a woman who had 3 children by age 30 and had breastfed all of them ... BUT she was in a very toxic marriage and her oldest daughter was nasty and abusive to her and broke her heart. She couldn't nurture or love this child as she was so unruly and misbehaved. I think that made her sick and contributed to her breast cancer.

We may want to take into consideration that in some cases, in some families, a difficult, defiant child could do you in. Unless one has raised a child past the teen years, this can be hard to imagine. But, there is a ' breast-nurturing ' our children connection. Also, there is a ' cancer -- toxic people ' connection. I was married to a sociopath (the father of my daughter now in her early 30's) and I can tell you even after the divorce, when she was 3 yrs old, co-parenting with a sociopath can cause anyone to develop a life threatening illness. The courts were of no help. I believe this contributed to my health issues.

Both doctors also said that high levels of two (of many) major stress hormones, Adrenaline and Cortisol, cause inflammation and weaken the immune system. We live in a completely different world now. My daughter is in her early 30' s and she has no concept of the world I came from because it's completely different. Everything has changed and that also needs to be taken into account. Peace ~JANA

reply to post by Phage



Their theory is biologically based, as that is their background and area of expertise.

So, their theories are based on the biology/physiology of a woman's (reproductive) body and that her body was intended to reproduce, and not to delay reproduction (too late for me to change that).

Just to clarify --they are not self-righteous, opinionated, control-freaky, male chauvinists ... so their theory isn't coming from a ' pregnant and barefoot' ignorant, arrogant mindset.

An Epidemiologist might disagree and believe cancer rates are only high in isolated pockets, or clusters.

I think it's maybe a case of ' ask 10 different experts, get 10 different answers.'

reply to post by soficrow

Overall, men are living longer while more and more women are dying younger.

Well it could be true that more and more women are dying younger (because there are more and more young women), do you have evidence that the mortality rate for younger women has increased?


1) The number of counties where female life expectancies has declined has declined.
2) The number of counties where female life expectancies has increased has increased.
3) Overall female life expectancies have increased.