Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
If no medical assistance and fitness was applied.................
Replies
-
(attribution intentionally removed by reply-er)
Because yeah, you can't do heavy farm when you're 65 very well but YOU HAVE ADULT CHILDREN living with and caring for you/ensuring you eat - and those multi-generational families living together were typical until very recent historically-- and is still typical in a whole lot of the world.
So less about medicine and more about community/family caring for the elders.
Of course we now have more medical options for disease/accident/industry and relatively less dangerous lives but the basic human body breaking down in catastrophic ways hasn't really changed in quite a long (very long) time.That's that "country strong" mentality. Had this kid one time who wasn't great at weight lifting, but one time I watch him hand bale hay. At 50lbs per bale he handled it like it was styrofoam. Amazing.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah, that specific thing is maybe "country strong". The PP I quoted/bolded first, though: That's also the "tyranny of low expectations" for people at 65 these days.
Yes, many physical problems become more likely as we age. (Don't I ever know that, in the most profound way, being, y'know, 65 myself.) But the effect is multiplied by all the lifestyle factors that are compromising the health of people of all ages, childhood to elderly, in the US (and probably other countries, but the US is where I have experience).
Some earlier generations, ones that lived through long or multiple stretches under brutal conditions (famine, for just one example), would've suffered cumulative damage from those things, of course. But the reasons we're now not at least as strong and healthy on average as the most robust of those generations . . . a lot of that is about our personal choices.
Expectations of older people have kept up with that slide in health and ability, to the point where often young people think anyone over 60 (maybe younger) is decrepit and incapable, and they expect that for themselves, too. It seems natural. People here on MFP are routinely posting about how they're going downhill after 40, and seemingly expect that it's all a steeper downhill from there, so there's not much point in trying. People over 60 post things like "can I do X after 60?". It doesn't make any difference, really, what "X" is, IMO: If you can't think of any reason why you can't do it, and you want to do it, then condition your way up to X, and *find out* if you can do it. Age, per se, is not a disability.
Expectations are important. Low expectations are a particular kind of curse. We impose them on others, we impose them on ourselves.
No, I'm not talking about cases where someone has known, diagnosed disabilities or limitations. Those can happen at any age, and some do become higher risk, or more common, at older ages. It doesn't make those things synonymous with age. (And yes, very generally, improvement is slower, de-training faster, relatively speaking, with increasing age . . . but progress from a low strength/fitness level to a better level seems to be possible at nearly any age, absent true disability barriers; and a good retained level of early-developed fitness also more achievable than some appear to think.) There are plenty of strong, fit 60+ people here, and not all of them have been strong or fit their whole adult lives. There are plenty in my real-life world, too. We could expect more of ourselves, and not *assume* less of others, as a culture, if you ask me.
Sorry, pet peeve.
5 -
Yes it does irk me when I do get clients who are elderly (over 65) and when I put a beginner training program together for them (after an assessment of capability and know their medical history), it's not uncommon to ask "I can lift weights? Won't that injure my joints and bones more?"(attribution intentionally removed by reply-er)
Because yeah, you can't do heavy farm when you're 65 very well but YOU HAVE ADULT CHILDREN living with and caring for you/ensuring you eat - and those multi-generational families living together were typical until very recent historically-- and is still typical in a whole lot of the world.
So less about medicine and more about community/family caring for the elders.
Of course we now have more medical options for disease/accident/industry and relatively less dangerous lives but the basic human body breaking down in catastrophic ways hasn't really changed in quite a long (very long) time.That's that "country strong" mentality. Had this kid one time who wasn't great at weight lifting, but one time I watch him hand bale hay. At 50lbs per bale he handled it like it was styrofoam. Amazing.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah, that specific thing is maybe "country strong". The PP I quoted/bolded first, though: That's also the "tyranny of low expectations" for people at 65 these days.
Yes, many physical problems become more likely as we age. (Don't I ever know that, in the most profound way, being, y'know, 65 myself.) But the effect is multiplied by all the lifestyle factors that are compromising the health of people of all ages, childhood to elderly, in the US (and probably other countries, but the US is where I have experience).
Some earlier generations, ones that lived through long or multiple stretches under brutal conditions (famine, for just one example), would've suffered cumulative damage from those things, of course. But the reasons we're now not at least as strong and healthy on average as the most robust of those generations . . . a lot of that is about our personal choices.
Expectations of older people have kept up with that slide in health and ability, to the point where often young people think anyone over 60 (maybe younger) is decrepit and incapable, and they expect that for themselves, too. It seems natural. People here on MFP are routinely posting about how they're going downhill after 40, and seemingly expect that it's all a steeper downhill from there, so there's not much point in trying. People over 60 post things like "can I do X after 60?". It doesn't make any difference, really, what "X" is, IMO: If you can't think of any reason why you can't do it, and you want to do it, then condition your way up to X, and *find out* if you can do it. Age, per se, is not a disability.
Expectations are important. Low expectations are a particular kind of curse. We impose them on others, we impose them on ourselves.
No, I'm not talking about cases where someone has known, diagnosed disabilities or limitations. Those can happen at any age, and some do become higher risk, or more common, at older ages. It doesn't make those things synonymous with age. (And yes, very generally, improvement is slower, de-training faster, relatively speaking, with increasing age . . . but progress from a low strength/fitness level to a better level seems to be possible at nearly any age, absent true disability barriers; and a good retained level of early-developed fitness also more achievable than some appear to think.) There are plenty of strong, fit 60+ people here, and not all of them have been strong or fit their whole adult lives. There are plenty in my real-life world, too. We could expect more of ourselves, and not *assume* less of others, as a culture, if you ask me.
Sorry, pet peeve.
Like the expectation is that after a certain age, they get frail. And it's true to a degree IF they haven't been doing anything physically active for those muscles and joints.
My dad (who's 87) complained about his knees at 70. I put him on a walking program with a few sets of sit squats (in a chair) and he still does them now. Knees hardly hurt anymore. And he can get up off the floor by himself.
And while he can do it, he is much slower now than when he was 70, but still can do it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 4 -
Workout preventative medicine and screenings, love would be shorter and involve more suffering.0
-
Clean drinking water, good basic hygiene, and a safe food supply have done most of the heavy lifting in increasing our life spans.
Most medical intervention does more to improve the quality of life than broadly extend everyone's life.3 -
Just think now too that women who may be high risk for breast cancer due to heredity have the option to have them removed if they fear it could happen to them. Imagine if you didn't have that option. You'd stress out everyday wondering if and when you might get breast cancer. Even if you did all the right things with your health tto lower risk.Speakeasy76 wrote: »A lot of people would die young without medical help nowadays. There are tons of diabetics in this country and people on dialysis who would pass away quickly. Medical advances have allowed sickly people to live longer and pass on their genes.
Thankfully for me, medical advances literally saved my life when I was born, and it's possible they saved my son (and even my daughter's) as well (born via unplanned and planned c-sections). I was born prematurely and very sick due to Rh incompatability, something that is purely influenced by the mother's blood-type interacting negatively with the fetus'. However, I am not and never was a sickly person, and in fact rarely get sick. Yeah, I have some allergies and digestive issues, but nothing life-threatening.
Fitness in and of itself probably wouldn't have prolonged my dad's life (if he hadn't of already been active), and in fact pushing himself too hard could've caused him to die younger. He died from a type A aortic dissection, which is largely hereditary--the same thing that John Ritter and Alan Thicke died from. We didn't know he had this until he died quite suddenly and unexpectedly from it, and didn't have the risk factors that often can cause it (high blood pressure, for example). In fact, his doctor had called him "the healthiest 65-year old he had ever seen" 9 months prior to his death. It's possible stress could've brought this on sooner, but things were stressful in the past...just a different kind of stress.
I'm grateful for medical interventions not only for my own life as a newborn, but to hopefully prolong mine, as I'm also at risk for an aortic dissection as well. In fact, I may have to even curtail my more strenuous activity at some point (e.g, heavy lifting), as aortic dissections can happen with extreme exertion in those who are prone to them.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I don't imagine anyone back then was thinking in terms of cancer risk but more along the lines of "If I'm good, God won't afflict me with disease."2 -
What about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents?Clean drinking water, good basic hygiene, and a safe food supply have done most of the heavy lifting in increasing our life spans.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
What about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents? Or treatments for cancer or poisoning?Most medical intervention does more to improve the quality of life than broadly extend everyone's life.
Majority would mean that the majority of people go to hospitals for what you mentioned when most are in there because they are sick, injured or need medical attention.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
Well again we're taking into consideration that there was some medical intervention. But what if there wasn't any? A simple infection could easily kill someone off or what if they got the measles or flu with no medical help?Pretty sure that childhood and maternal mortality in the past is what accounted for most of the lower average life expectancy. Once you were out of childhood (and for women past childbearing I guess) you had a pretty good chance of living to be elderly.
As amazing as the human body is, we're still pretty susceptible like any other animal to disease and injury. If not for medical intervention, our current population would likely be half of what it is now around the world.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Some medical intervention in medieval times????
Very little and some of what there was did more harm than good.
I agree with others that if you take out infant/ childhood deaths and maternal childbirth deaths the life expectancy was not that much less than today.
Less, sure , but not as dramatically less as one might think.
1 -
Everyone knows a "Fred". I ride my bike a lot and generally move at about 15mph. "Fred" is a guy in his 80's riding some old beat up bike and beat us younger guys (60's). He us shaky and frail looking, but rides along with no effort at 20 mph.4
-
Well that's not what stats are saying.paperpudding wrote: »
Well again we're taking into consideration that there was some medical intervention. But what if there wasn't any? A simple infection could easily kill someone off or what if they got the measles or flu with no medical help?Pretty sure that childhood and maternal mortality in the past is what accounted for most of the lower average life expectancy. Once you were out of childhood (and for women past childbearing I guess) you had a pretty good chance of living to be elderly.
As amazing as the human body is, we're still pretty susceptible like any other animal to disease and injury. If not for medical intervention, our current population would likely be half of what it is now around the world.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Some medical intervention in medieval times????
Very little and some of what there was did more harm than good.
I agree with others that if you take out infant/ childhood deaths and maternal childbirth deaths the life expectancy was not that much less than today.
Less, sure , but not as dramatically less as one might think.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/longevity-throughout-history-2224054#:~:text=of Bubonic Plague-,From the 1800s to Today,and 40 years of age.&text=Though it's hard to imagine,surgery in the mid-1800s.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2885717/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
paperpudding wrote: »Some medical intervention in medieval times????
Very little and some of what there was did more harm than good.
I agree with others that if you take out infant/ childhood deaths and maternal childbirth deaths the life expectancy was not that much less than today.
Less, sure , but not as dramatically less as one might think.
I might quibble a little bit with this. Some methods were harmful, sure, and the explanations and descriptions can sound fanciful or ridiculous to the modern ear, but medieval and ancient peoples were far from stupid - they simply lacked the observational tools we benefit from today. In some things (though not all), modern inventions and techniques were actually MORE harmful at first than what generations past had done. The fields of obstetrics and gynecology in particular are full of this kind of thing (others might be as well, but that's my area of familiarity.)
I'm very thankful for sanitation and germ theory, to be sure, but I think one thing that's hard about the original question is that people have been practicing medicine, of a sort, for all of human history. It might look different, but it's there. People have always tried to take care of themselves.5 -
...elderly at 65?! Old yes, but the closer I get to 60 the more I think of 80 as elderly. Or maybe that's because both of my parents are 84.3
-
Most antibiotics reduce the intensity or duration of an infection which is different than saving a life. For example, treating acne is a major reason to take it (impacts quality of life, not duration). I've never taken it to save my lifeWhat about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents?What about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents? Or treatments for cancer or poisoning?
Majority would mean that the majority of people go to hospitals for what you mentioned when most are in there because they are sick, injured or need medical attention.
If you are saying zero medical intervention, probably the life of women would be noticeable shortened due to increased death from child birth.
For reference, the most common OR procedures are:
1. cesarean section (saves some lives though many would go fine with natural birth)
2. circumcision (no impact to length of life)
3. Arthrosplasty knee (quality of life, not length)
4. Hip replacement (quality of life, not length)
5. Spinal fusion (quality of life, not length)
6. Coronary angioplasty (does extend length of life)
Poisoning is very rare in our modern world and very few people per capita go to hospital for life saving surgery following an accident.1 -
Most antibiotics reduce the intensity or duration of an infection which is different than saving a life. For example, treating acne is a major reason to take it (impacts quality of life, not duration). I've never taken it to save my lifeWhat about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents?What about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents? Or treatments for cancer or poisoning?
Majority would mean that the majority of people go to hospitals for what you mentioned when most are in there because they are sick, injured or need medical attention.
If you are saying zero medical intervention, probably the life of women would be noticeable shortened due to increased death from child birth.
For reference, the most common OR procedures are:
1. cesarean section (saves some lives though many would go fine with natural birth)
2. circumcision (no impact to length of life)
3. Arthrosplasty knee (quality of life, not length)
4. Hip replacement (quality of life, not length)
5. Spinal fusion (quality of life, not length)
6. Coronary angioplasty (does extend length of life)
Poisoning is very rare in our modern world and very few people per capita go to hospital for life saving surgery following an accident.
I actually have relatives who died of fairly straightforward infections, before antibiotics were commonly available. It wasn't that unusual. Infections after childbirth were pretty common. Bacterial pneumonia. My uncle died of infection (peritonitis) after appendicitis, which likely would've been survivable only a few years later (sulfa drugs were discovered in the 1930s, in pretty wide use by WWII, perceived to have saved many lives). Simple wound infections killed quite a few people, before antibiotics.
I think antibiotics are more influential on lifespan than you're thinking: Each case where I've gotten an antibiotic was an opportunity to have died of that infection, had antibiotics not been available. Maybe I would've fought it off, maybe not. When you had infections that were not life-threatening, it's often the antibiotics making those conditions less life-threatening. They don't worry us much, anymore, except for the resistant-bacteria types.
Further, some modern surgeries would be impractible without antibiotics, from a total mortality standpoint, so it's complicated. People who've had hip replacements are generally told to take antibiotics prophylactically before some dental work, and I'll bet there's a reason, let alone antibiotics involved in these surgeries themselves.
FWIW, my understanding is that hip fracture is correlated with earlier mortality for women, even in a modern world with more nursing homes for services to the disabled. There are implications for lifespan from some of those "quality of life" surgeries.5 -
Well that's not what stats are saying.paperpudding wrote: »
Well again we're taking into consideration that there was some medical intervention. But what if there wasn't any? A simple infection could easily kill someone off or what if they got the measles or flu with no medical help?Pretty sure that childhood and maternal mortality in the past is what accounted for most of the lower average life expectancy. Once you were out of childhood (and for women past childbearing I guess) you had a pretty good chance of living to be elderly.
As amazing as the human body is, we're still pretty susceptible like any other animal to disease and injury. If not for medical intervention, our current population would likely be half of what it is now around the world.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Some medical intervention in medieval times????
Very little and some of what there was did more harm than good.
I agree with others that if you take out infant/ childhood deaths and maternal childbirth deaths the life expectancy was not that much less than today.
Less, sure , but not as dramatically less as one might think.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/longevity-throughout-history-2224054#:~:text=of Bubonic Plague-,From the 1800s to Today,and 40 years of age.&text=Though it's hard to imagine,surgery in the mid-1800s.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2885717/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Your article doesn't dispute what I said.
It says life expectancy from birth was 30 to 40 years.
But the thing is that statistic is heavily skewed by childhood deaths and in the case of women,childbirth deaths.
Doesn't dispute what I said - if you take those deaths out of the equation, life expectancy was not that much less than today.
Less, sure - but not 50 years less.
Your article does not say otherwise.2 -
alisdairsmommy wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Some medical intervention in medieval times????
Very little and some of what there was did more harm than good.
I agree with others that if you take out infant/ childhood deaths and maternal childbirth deaths the life expectancy was not that much less than today.
Less, sure , but not as dramatically less as one might think.
I might quibble a little bit with this. Some methods were harmful, sure, and the explanations and descriptions can sound fanciful or ridiculous to the modern ear, but medieval and ancient peoples were far from stupid - they simply lacked the observational tools we benefit from today. In some things (though not all), modern inventions and techniques were actually MORE harmful at first than what generations past had done. The fields of obstetrics and gynecology in particular are full of this kind of thing (others might be as well, but that's my area of familiarity.)
I'm very thankful for sanitation and germ theory, to be sure, but I think one thing that's hard about the original question is that people have been practicing medicine, of a sort, for all of human history. It might look different, but it's there. People have always tried to take care of themselves.
Oh sure - a lot of ancient people had a degree of natural remedies which did have some benefit.. not disputing that
My post responded to medieval times - an era in Europe of quite anti scientific practices0 -
My odds of dying if I didn't take antibiotics were close to zero the times I took them, same for my immediate family members.
If we are going to regress all safety, health, OSHA standards back to what they were before, including more frequent wars, then we already know the impact on life expectancy
0 -
And yet before antibiotics, people died from infections that are common now, but with the advent saves lives. Bacterial meningitis killed. As well as whooping cough for kids. Tuberculosis, pneumonia and even strep throat was fatal for many. You do realize that antibiotics are one of the biggest medical advances in history? And it was because they could save lives.
Most antibiotics reduce the intensity or duration of an infection which is different than saving a life. For example, treating acne is a major reason to take it (impacts quality of life, not duration). I've never taken it to save my life.What about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
7 -
Most antibiotics reduce the intensity or duration of an infection which is different than saving a life. For example, treating acne is a major reason to take it (impacts quality of life, not duration). I've never taken it to save my lifeWhat about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents?What about vaccines for diseases? Or antibiotics for infections? Or surgery because of accidents? Or treatments for cancer or poisoning?
Majority would mean that the majority of people go to hospitals for what you mentioned when most are in there because they are sick, injured or need medical attention.
If you are saying zero medical intervention, probably the life of women would be noticeable shortened due to increased death from child birth.
For reference, the most common OR procedures are:
1. cesarean section (saves some lives though many would go fine with natural birth)
2. circumcision (no impact to length of life)
3. Arthrosplasty knee (quality of life, not length)
4. Hip replacement (quality of life, not length)
5. Spinal fusion (quality of life, not length)
6. Coronary angioplasty (does extend length of life)
Poisoning is very rare in our modern world and very few people per capita go to hospital for life saving surgery following an accident.
I have to disagree about your stance on antibiotics. They save lives, and regularly. I say that as an ER PA. My hospital is a sepsis center. What may start as a small infection, UTI, for example, or foot would can quickly become life threatening if not treated. Even with antibiotics available, many patients come in and die from life threatening bacterial infections.5 -
My odds of dying if I didn't take antibiotics were close to zero the times I took them, same for my immediate family members.
If we are going to regress all safety, health, OSHA standards back to what they were before, including more frequent wars, then we already know the impact on life expectancy
If that's so, why do you take them? Taking *unnecessary* antibiotics is just contributing to the proliferation of resistant bacteria, after all.
Really, they're being prescribed for a reason. They're mitigating the risk of dangerous, even life-threatening infection. Guaranteed life threatening? No. But as others have said, people used to die much more often from "minor" infections. A few still do.
No one is arguing that we should regress all safety, health or OSHA standards, that I saw. I don't know where that straw man came from. I also don't know what argument the life expectancy chart is intended to support, either: The effect of antibiotics and other medical interventions is in there, along with safety and health standards, among other things.
3 -
paperpudding wrote: »
Oh sure - a lot of ancient people had a degree of natural remedies which did have some benefit.. not disputing that
My post responded to medieval times - an era in Europe of quite anti scientific practices
My quibble is primarily with your assertion about medieval people, so it still stands!
I think it's a really unfair, albeit common, description of how medieval people lived and thought. Medieval people absolutely experimented, invented things, and tried to heal to the best of their ability. They weren't "anti-science" (there was no defined scientific method at that time, which I have no problem conceding), but they were absolutely curious about nature and how things worked. That they may have purposefully integrated other disciplines like philosophy and theology doesn't dismiss that.
Medieval people are largely the ones we have to thank for preserving the knowledge of how ancient peoples did those things, too.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 897 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions