American Women Are Dying Younger Than Their Moms

reply to post by astra001uk



I agree because I believe you are absolutely right.

Also, some chemicals and toxins, even those air-borne that we can't avoid (unless we walk around with a face-mask) mimic Estrogen, which is why many cancers, especially certain types of breast cancers are categorized as ERP or ER+ --- Estrogen Receptor Positive.

reply to post by Jana12

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

I was asking how their theory relates to the evidence that in only a relatively few areas have female life expectancies declined.

reply to post by ValentineWiggin


Oh yes - I know how cortisol works due to my profession, and also because I'm prone to stress - ugh. Corisol is the good guy initially - it is relased in order to regulate systems so adrenaline and norepinephrine (among two) don't make your blood vessels explode (a little dramatic but...). Too much is bad for a plethora of reasons.



What I'm hearing in all of this is it is hormone related - that's the theory. I know there is a bunch of crap in water systems due to estrogens and the like being flushed out through people's systems (through meds). How much of this circulates back into the food we eat or things drink I'm not sure but I wonder how it might play a role (if at all). If all of this is within certain regions only, what is the hormone rate in ingestible substances. For example - I like to buy hormone free milk but it is more expensive. Economics plays a role but this would not be these regions only so probably a weak link.

I know hormones can wreck havoc so this could very well be a big player but all I've seen with repeated studies is how breast cancer and heart issues are related to estrogen levels dropping/being raised artificially. The latest longitudnal saying hormone replacement is not a protective factor. Findings from this study came out around the time period where things look bad on this map. We're they using hormone replacement more readily in these regions? These are lower population areas so ratio of older women to younger would be considered. Anyway - I'll keep checking in to see where this goes.

reply to post by soficrow


I remember back in the early 80's, fast food was around, but not prevalent. I think people were generally much thinner back then. Then there was this proliferation of Burger, Pizza and chicken joints, and people generally started to get more obese. Now we are pretty much a culture that is food obsessed. We eat way too much protein, fat, sugar, and carbs. Salt is in processed foods at near poisonous levels. Then you have all the additives that they put in foods now, and dyes, preservatives, etc. Not to mention all the industrial pollution that has ebbed into our biosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Its not all bad, life expectancy has jumped, and as a result the population has skyrocketed. But I think the overall quality of our environment has fallen and is falling slowly.

Also people used to walk much more, read books instead of spend endless hours in front of TV or computer screens. It used to be quieter most places as well. We are slowly slipping away from our natual environment to one that tips more and more towards the artificial. Its bound to start having an effect.

reply to post by soficrow


Women in third world countries work really hard and die in childbirth, So what is your point?

Four pages of discussion
and no one has mentioned cars.














The automotive industry has really done well for itself,
getting Americans to "love their cars", and blame everything else.








Americans stopped walking, and ride everywhere now.
Corner store two blocks away... they drive.
And I get to read four pages of convoluted reasoning
why it is anything but cars.

Mike

reply to post by openminded2011

Its bound to start having an effect.

You mean in an increasing life expectancy for the vast majority of the population?

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Interestingly, there has been a number of studies and a lot of evidence showing marriage and kids will lower a woman's life expectancy while increasing a man's.

Presented in this way, without any other constrains I very much doubt any result of those studies, can you point me to them (I would expect that all would benefits form the family structure). It should be obvious to anyone that a stable family unit is the best promoter of improved quality of life especially when inserted in the supra-social structure that is human society...

Phage
reply to post by openminded2011

 

Its bound to start having an effect.

You mean in an increasing life expectancy for the vast majority of the population?

Um, I did mention that in my post. Did you read the entire post?

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Stormdancer , Cheers , trouble with garlic is the smell ,what if I took garlic tablets or though I am ready to try just about anything, I could try whole pieces (cloves?) . I have been eating a large spoon of honey and cheese dipped and covered in honey as I read honey is a natural antibiotic .
I really want to get it under control as I am looking forward to starting work again and not be so broke.
thanks for your reply.1%

reply to post by Panic2k11

...It should be obvious to anyone that a stable family unit is the best promoter of improved quality of life especially when inserted in the supra-social structure that is human society...

Erm. No. Not obvious. Nuclear families tend to be isolated, intensive labour in the home falls on the mother, and it's not very healthy. Extended families are far more healthy.

oops. double post

FlyersFan
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.

Cheers , It was suggested to me I had graves disease , but after they did the tests apparently not. I have those T3 and T4 levels not right but there are no other indications.
If I continue to take the 4 thyroid tabs a day I would go hypo instead of hyper , so I am weaning myself of those as I am worse on them .

I have heard of lupus but not SJogrens . I will look it up .thanks for your reply cheers 1%

reply to post by ValentineWiggin

Well said. Not trying to run off topic, but I believe the cortisol issue needs to be further taken into consideration by women and men alike.

Cortisol and body fat:

Cortisol redistributes fat in the body to the area in the abdomen surrounding the organs. This fat is harder to get rid of when dieting as it is. Any added stress can increase fat levels in the abdomen.

According to a study by Laval University, abdominal tissue contains more fat cell concentration, greater blood flow and is more receptive to cortisol. This makes it easier for fat to accumulate in this area due to increased cortisol stress levels.

Source

It is not being released by the body due to modern technology(i.e. computers) lifestyle changes; more sitting, less walking, less time to exercise, fast food, etc.


Reducing Cortisol:
As the wiki article for a starting point- as shared, here -, those are good pointers for lowering cortisol.


Also to add that:

If you stand up after sitting for a while (15 mins, half hour...), which you should anyway, that shows better results than just exercising for weight loss/keeping off the cortisol.

Another,
I found interesting a study that says :
30 minutes exercise 'better than an hour of training' for weight loss
Take into consideration, until we know more I guess that some is better than none and well this may benefit even though you think it won't, for those pressed for time under high stress.

Topic of garlic advice- I prefer the garlic soft gels over eating the cloves raw or pickled because of slight acid reflux(which I have anyway sometimes) from it. Try both and see what works for you.

reply to post by soficrow

Nuclear families tend to be isolated, intensive labour in the home falls on the mother, and it's not very healthy. Extended families are far more healthy.

My point was a disagreement with point of the grand parent post, that family was bad for women longevity, I still defend my view that it can't be so (even if I admit that in specific picked samples it can be proven as true but to that specific set not to be generalized). Having a stable family is better than having none (for most, even if there are exceptions mostly due to individual choices not society, a family itself buffers the individual against general society). From this extrapolating that the bigger the family unit the best seems only logical this will also work for extended family or even a united (closely related) community this structures will tend to protect individuals (and if not culturally inclined to do otherwise indirectly longevity of all members, especially women).

reply to post by Panic2k11

My point was a disagreement with point of the grand parent post, that family was bad for women longevity, I still defend my view that it can't be so ...

Ah. fyi - studies show that marriage only increases womens' longevity IF her partner is of the same age - younger or older partners have a negative effect on womens' life spans. [Conversely, having a younger wife used to increase mens' life span but now not so much, presumably due to greater healthcare availability.] Also, and more self-evident, unhappy marriages decrease life span and apparently, more so for women. Both scenarios point to the stress factor, and substantiate the accumulating evidence that stress kills.

Besides geographic location, the women whose life spans are being shortened apparently are middle class - overworked, underpaid, lacking healthcare coverage for themselves and family and predictably, stressed beyond endurance.

reply to post by soficrow


I'm sorry but I'm going to change position, you can help by pointing to the studies you refer so I can examine them but I don't see how it can be generalized. I agree that in particular setups that may be true but facing the two stances that women alone in the same environment will have a greater life expectancy than if married makes no sense. From child bearing having an impact in the reduction of breast cancer to the benefits of a family structure I can't see a way that a women outside of a family, all other things remaining the same. will have any advantage towards longer longevity...

You mention stress but I think that in the same environment living alone or being a single mom will be more stressful that sharing the burden with other family members...

If that's the case, and the life expectancy for women has decreased, I can think of only one factor that is different for women, and women only. Didn't read all the post but I wonder how come no one came up with this.
The reason in my opinion is contraceptives. I know so many girls who start taking them as early as 12-13 years old, for stupid reason like "it regulates the menstrual cycle". Every civilized woman today is on contraceptive for at least few decades of her life. That's a lot of hormones to mess with a woman's natural cycles; so many women, after years of taking contraceptive discover they can't get pregnant anymore and turn to fertility treatments, thus even more hormones to force a process which should be simple and natural.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is the cause of shorter life span for women.

reply to post by Panic2k11

...you can help by pointing to the studies you refer so I can examine them

No can do. I scanned about 20 articles on this subject a day or so ago but didn't copy or paste text or links. My synopsis is an accurate overview of what's out there, dating back to about 2002. I can tell you that one of the studies came from Denmark. ...Mostly, I come here to flex my brain muscles and relax a bit - occasionally I want to see a topic or issue picked up by alternative news sites if not the MSM, so I do more work. But I am not interested in providing free research services for itinerant writers, trolls or policy hacks.

You mention stress but I think that in the same environment living alone or being a single mom will be more stressful that sharing the burden with other family members...

Look around and think about it. Most mothers ARE single moms, married or not - they have 1-4 small children to feed, care for, chauffeur and clean up after plus one large one who may or may not be excessively demanding but often does not "share the burden." Speaking of generalities. And fyi - exerting patriarchal control over decision-making does not constitute sharing the burden. We're talking grunt labour here, time, and lost sleep.