Someone I spoke to about diet and health argued that people live longer now, and that this "fact" could be used to support the idea that today's typical diets (in nations like the USA) are better than those of the past. Of course, there is no way to subject this claim to the scientific method, and I also pointed out to this person that the molecular-level evidence is now clear, but I decided to read through my Sajous's Analytic Cyclopedia of Medicine volumes (circa 1910) to see what was described there. There were all kinds of interesting points made, such as the very low cancer rates among native American peoples, but higher rates of death from TB and unspecified gastrointestinal problems. Also, there was a case of an old woman who had surgery for breast cancer, then 14 years later it recurred. A doctor found that providing a selenium supplement had a dramatic, beneficial effect, and this brings me to an excellent study that unifies much of what I discuss on this site:

Free Radic Biol Med. 2000 Apr 15;28(8):1243-

"Plasma antioxidants and longevity: a study on healthy centenarians."

Mecocci P, et al.

A large body of experimental research indicates that oxidative stress contributes to the processes related to aging and to the pathogenesis of several age-related diseases. Vitamins and antioxidant enzymes have a fundamental role in defending the organism from oxidative stress. To better understand the role of antioxidants in human aging, we measured plasma levels of vitamin C (ascorbic acid), uric acid, vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol), vitamin A (retinol), carotenoids, total thiol groups, and the activity of plasma superoxide dismutase (SOD) and glutathione peroxidase (GPX) as well as the activity of red blood cell (RBC) SOD in 32 healthy centenarians-17 elderly subjects aged 80-99 years, 34 elderly subjects aged 60-79 years, and 24 adults aged less than 60 years. Considering the "noncentenarians" only, we observed a consistent behavior in the antioxidant pattern, with a decrease of the nonenzymatic antioxidants and an increase of the enzymatic antioxidant activities relative to age. Remarkably, centenarians were characterized as having the highest levels of vitamins A and E, whereas the activities of both plasma and RBC SOD, which increase with age, decreased in centenarians. From these results, it is evident that healthy centenarians show a particular profile in which high levels of vitamin A and vitamin E seem to be important in guaranteeing their extreme longevity.

Bascially, what this study and other evidence suggests is that "aging well" seems to be directly related to how much dangerous free radical activity your body endures. The way it works is that "vitamin E" is used up to deal with the free radicals, along with a protein the body makes called SOD. SOD requires certain trace minerals in order to function (selenium, magnesium, copper, manganese, and zinc, depending upon which SOD molecules are involved). Once you have depleted your "vitamin E," your body will try to make more SOD. However, if your diet is too low in good quality protein, or if you don't have enough of the trace minerals, you may sustain massive free radical damage, which is the underlying cause of so much "disease" (along with the "inflammation" caused by the arachidonic acid in your cells - if you are on a typical American diet).

In the study, the very old people with high levels of vitamin A and E most likely had endured very little dangerous free radical activity. Their SOD levels were not high, because their bodies did not need to generate more of these antioxidant molecules. However, I have seen studies were it was claimed that higher SOD activity meant that the "food" in question had an "antioxidant enhancing quality." This may be technically true, but it is an unhealthy effect, not a healthy one. You want your vitamin A and E levels high and your SOD levels low. Anything else represents a problem, though of course there are times in just about everyone's life that temporary stressors may upset this state, even if one eats a fairly healthy diet.

Here are some factors that would need to be taken into account when assessing why people supposedly live longer today:

1. The percentage of women who died during childbirth then (whenever that is) as opposed to now.

2. Deaths due to diseases that are rare today, but that are usually easy to prevent or cure, such as TB.

3. The living conditions, for example, people not having refrigerators, yet living in cities like New York, where it can get very hot in the summer.

4. The fact that jobs were more hazardous 100 years ago. Compare the percentage of the population of the US that were coal miners then as compared to now, for example.

5. The fact that many substances were not known to be dangerous, and thus were no avoided, as is usually the case today.

6. The much higher death rates among infants and children.

7. In some time periods, the number of deaths of young men due to war.

8. Various epidemic deaths, which again is rare today, even if death due to "HIV/AIDS" is taken into account in nations like the USA.

9. Vitamin or mineral deficiencies, which are not nearly as common today.

10. Lack of medical knowledge, which would mean that many died of things that could be easily prevented today.

11. Lack of medical technology or equipment.

12. Lack of today's drugs, some of which are useful, of course, while others keep people alive longer than would otherwise be the case.

13. Not consulting a doctor until a problem becomes serious, which is now a problem among those who lack health insurance, though this is mostly a problem in the USA.

14. Lack of good diagnostic equipment and testing. Moreover, people are more likely to get tested today for various diseases and conditions, thus catching the problem early, when it is easier to “cure.�?Also, more people get physical exams today, often as a requirement for a job.

Thus, any claim that today's diet is better because people appear to live longer is quite presumptious, and would require a degree of evidence analysis that is not possible (due to the inability to quantify these factors as well as a lack of evidence for the "Industrial Revolution" period or previous epochs).

A couple of months after writing the above, someone else made the argument that "people live much longer today," as if that meant that diets today are better than all diets of 100 years ago.  I thought about this subject a bit more, and it struck me that today's "homeless people" probably live the way many people did 100 or so years ago, in terms of exposure to "infectious diseases," various toxins, bad weather (homes that did not have enough heat in the winter, for example), bad hygiene, etc.  Sure enough, I quickly found a review article that makes this point:

QUOTE:  ...The noted Boston physician and leading public health advocate, Lemuel Shattuck, studied the Report of the Sanitary Commission of Massachusetts, 1850, and found that Boston had mortality rates comparable to those of London,whose citizens had an average life expectancy eight years shorter than the overall population of England... Three-dimensional computer mapping of mortality statistics in census tracts in Los Angeles County in 1969�?1 found three times greater mortality in the depressed area of Watts and the skid row areas of Los Angeles and Long Beach than elsewhere in the county.  An analysis of all deaths occurring in Massachusetts during 1972 and 1973 revealed that one district in Boston had the highest number of deaths and the greatest excess mortality in the Commonwealth. The social ecology of this “zone of excess mortality�?included severe poverty, poor housing with marked overcrowding and homelessness, personal disability and social isolation.  The authors of this study noted that 652 more deaths occurred in this small area than would be expected by statewide mortality rates. This number exceeded the number of deaths occurring in places the United States government had declared “natural disaster areas...”�?A subsequent report by The Fulton County Medical Examiner’s Office investigated 128 homeless deaths in the three-year period from 1988 through 1990 and found similar results. The average age of death was 46 years old and almost all of the decedents (125) were men. The ethnicity of those who died reflected that of the general population of Atlanta. Fifty-five per cent of the deaths were due to natural causes and 42% resulted from external causes, including 10 homicides, 4 suicides, and 3 undetermined... In San Francisco, the Health Care for the Homeless Program and the San Francisco Department of Public Health reviewed the records of homeless deaths reported to the ME’s office from a six-year period from 1985 through 1990. 644 deaths were identified, of whom 567 (88%) were men. The ethnicity reflected the city’s overall population, and the average age at death was 41 years. The location of death varied: 225 (35%) on the streets; 155 (24%) in an emergency room or a hospital; 135 (21%) in abandoned buildings; 90 (14%) in an SRO in which they lived; 32 (5%) in cars or trucks they used as homes; and 7 (1%) undetermined.  The ME classified 254 (39%) of the deaths as natural and 333 (53%) as external, including 216 (34%) from unintentional injuries and 117 from intentional injuries. These intentional injuries included 81 (13%) homicides and 36 (6%) suicides. 57 (9%) of the deaths were from undetermined causes. One-third of the decedents were legally intoxicated from alcohol at the time of death, and either drugs or alcohol were detected in 503 (78%) of those who died. During the six-year period from 1985 to 1990, the detection of drugs other than alcohol increased significantly in those who died, with morphine from 19% to 21%, cocaine from 4% to 14%, and amphetamines from 4% to 8%...  Another 10-year study examined mortality among homeless persons with schizophrenia in Sydney, Australia. Babidge and colleagues assessed a cohort of 708 homeless persons referred to psychiatric outreach clinics between January 1988 and September 1991. 506 of these individuals were diagnosed with schizophrenia. The median follow-up time was 9.5 years (range 7�?1 years). The list of names in the cohort was submitted to the New South Wales Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages to determine the number of deaths between 1988 and 1998.  Eighty-three (12%) in the cohort of 708 died, with a mean age of death of 50 for men and 57 for women. Fifty-three (64%) of the deaths were due to natural causes, including 43 men and all 10 of the women who died. Thirty (36%) deaths were classified as external: 19 from suicide and 10 from unintentional accidents, injuries, or overdoses. One death was undetermined: this 30 year old man with Munchausen’s Syndrome, personality disorder, and substance abuse was found dead by a highway. No deaths were due to homicide, in contrast to studies from American cities. AIDS was an uncommon cause of death.  UNQUOTE.

Source: http://www.nhchc.org/PrematureMortalityFinal.pdf

I am so glad I found this literature review, because it demonstrates an undeniable pattern for today's "homeless people," even cutting across national boundaries (in other words, in nations that have universal health care and low homicide rates, unlike the USA).  Notice how in the Australian study, men lived to age 50, yet there were no homocides - 64% of the homeless in that study died of "natural causes, and "AIDS" was not a common cause of death.  My great grandparents lived to 96 and 100 (plus a few months), but they tried to live what they thought was a healthy life.  They didn't smoke, rarely had a little red wine, and never ate too much.  My sense is that many people who were born around the time they were (circa 1890) were much less conscientious, and in many ways lived like the "homeless people" of today.

Lastly, I think it's noteworthy that the mainstream media has "played up" many reports about the possibility that genes are very important determinants for longevity, but that they have also reported on studies that found that when people moved a non-Western to a Western nation, rates of "chronic disease" have risen dramatically, apparently mostly due to diet. Thus, the obvious question is, why do our great "experts" not look at the evidence, isolate the food items that appear to be causing the "chronic disease," then feed various dietary combinations to groups of lab rats, to see if there are any clear results that can likely be extrapolated to humans, at least tentatively? Instead, they often change their adivice, and have also contradicted each other on numerous occassions. However, when someone comes along and writes a best-selling book on this subject, they are quick to criticize that author's claims. They may be correct in their ciriticisms most of the time, but why are they taking huge amounts of taxpayer-funded research dollars and yet not doing the simple and inexpensive experiments that would clarify whether their present advice appears to be accurate?