Life expectancies increasing in California....decreasing in South (areas, cities)

[EclecticEars]

As a person who has visited (and is in the process of moving to) California and was born and raised in a Southern state, I'm absolutely, positively, confidently not surprised.

In fact, if you look at Alaska, Hawaii, the West Coast, Intermountain West, Southwest, Great Plains, Great Lakes, and Northeast, those regions are among the highest in the world with their life expectancies. The South might have gained tremendous economic and higher educational clout over the last 50 years, but they do pull the entire country down in average life expectancy figures and just about anything pertaining to public health. Never mind the fact that Texas Medical Center in Houston, Grady in Atlanta, UAB in Birmingham, and Vanderbilt in Nashville are among the world's most renowned healthcare and research facilities (or, in the case of TMC, multitude of facilities). It's a shame.

But hey, we gots that thar fried chickin, okra and griiiits wit bacon. I'll admit, that's all good, but miles of government-built bicycle and walking lanes won't cut it. That's why the rest of the U.S., particularly California, fares much better, healthier living is more of a social mentality in those other regions. What I know is that I look forward to enjoying the better year-round climate and awe-inspiring scenery of the Bay Area and urban exploration of San Francisco, all of which I can at least enjoy on weekends when I'm not working like a slave.

[DC at the Ridge]

Thirty responses to the OP, and NO ONE pointed out that the article was about women's life expectancy.

The map shows that the declines were sporadic. It was not consistent throughout any state, and the map did not display demographic factors like race or occupation or even the number of doctors & medical centers that can profoundly affect life expectancy statistics and have very little to do with lifestyle choices.

If this was an attempt to bash the South, then the OP failed.

But if this was an attempt to have an honest discussion of why life expectancy has declined for some women in this country, then we need to have more information in order to make that discussion meaningful and productive.

[yeahthatguy]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Thirty responses to the OP, and NO ONE pointed out that the article was about women's life expectancy.

The map shows that the declines were sporadic. It was not consistent throughout any state, and the map did not display demographic factors like race or occupation or even the number of doctors & medical centers that can profoundly affect life expectancy statistics and have very little to do with lifestyle choices.

If this was an attempt to bash the South, then the OP failed.

But if this was an attempt to have an honest discussion of why life expectancy has declined for some women in this country, then we need to have more information in order to make that discussion meaningful and productive.

It pointed this out .. But you can never win here w/ the echo chamber of idiots ... user_id likes to troll.. and I just find too many people don't perform critical thinking here. I'm retiring from it come tonight .. but don't expect this to change ... That's just how things are. It was an attempt to bash the south as most user_id's attempts are for anything that is not Calif... He fails quite often but doesn't see the folly in his logic.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

The map shows that the declines were sporadic. It was not consistent throughout any state, and the map did not display demographic factors like race or occupation or even the number of doctors & medical centers that can profoundly affect life expectancy statistics and have very little to do with lifestyle choices.

Sporadic? The South is very red while other areas not so much.

My claim in this thread has been about social models, not so much lifestyle choices, though the two have some connection. Southern states provide a low level of social services and this is at least evidence that this low-service model has profound effects for your community.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by user_id

Sporadic? The South is very red while other areas not so much.

My claim in this thread has been about social models, not so much lifestyle choices, though the two have some connection. Southern states provide a low level of social services and this is at least evidence that this low-service model has profound effects for your community.

Sporadic because "the South" is not "very" red, it simply has more counties that show up red. That red block in Nevada is much more indicative of something significant going on then the scattered spots across the South. Statistically, the way the red is scattered across the South means that this is not evidence of anything. There are too many factors that affect longevity that go beyond a "low level of social services", and frankly, the argument that "the South" is to blame for offering a low level of social services is not a very good one. Rural areas don't offer a plethora of social services because the population density means that the inflated costs of providing social services (when the population is less dense and more spread out, it costs more to give people access to social services) have to be weighed against the efficacy of those social services. IE, if it's going to cost you 6 million dollars to provide a county with public transportation, and you're only going to get 20 riders a day, then the costs of the service can't be supported by the population. Unfortunately, this applies to the entire range of social services, including health services. However, "the South" is not the only rural area in this country, which is why you saw red counties in areas outside the South, including California. Additionally, we know that certain genetic groupings have lower life expectancy than others, and that fact alone may have something to do with where the red counties appear. The most salient fact of the matter is that life expectancy is statistically not related to a person's political leanings, but have much more to do with occupation and access to quality healthcare. And people who live in rural areas are more likely to engage in hazardous occupations, and have to travel greater distances to get to hospitals. Why not do some research on rural hospital closings? I'd be willing to bet that quite a few of these counties that have seen declines have also seen declines in the number of doctors and/or hospitals in the area. Which is more about economics than about politics.

[pacific2]

Here's an interesting article:

Lifestyle Affects Life Expectancy More Than Genetics, Swedish Study Finds

Lifestyle affects life expectancy more than genetics, Swedish study finds
ScienceDaily (Feb. 8, 2011) — How long your parents lived does not necessarily affect how long you will live. Instead it is how you live your life that determines how old you will get, reveals research from the University of Gothenburg recently published in the Journal of Internal Medicine.

It is often assumed that people with parents who lived to be very old are more likely to live to a grand old age themselves.

"But that's just not true -- our study shows that hereditary factors don't play a major role and that lifestyle has the biggest impact," says professor emeritus Lars Wilhelmsen, referring to the 1913 Men study that formed the basis of the current research.

Those who did not smoke, consumed moderate amounts of coffee and had a good socio-economic status at the age of 50 (measured in terms of housing costs), as well as good physical working capacity at the age of 54 and low cholesterol at 50 had the greatest chance of celebrating their 90th birthday.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by pacific2

Here's an interesting article:

Lifestyle Affects Life Expectancy More Than Genetics, Swedish Study Finds

Lifestyle affects life expectancy more than genetics, Swedish study finds
ScienceDaily (Feb. 8, 2011) — How long your parents lived does not necessarily affect how long you will live. Instead it is how you live your life that determines how old you will get, reveals research from the University of Gothenburg recently published in the Journal of Internal Medicine.

It is often assumed that people with parents who lived to be very old are more likely to live to a grand old age themselves.

"But that's just not true -- our study shows that hereditary factors don't play a major role and that lifestyle has the biggest impact," says professor emeritus Lars Wilhelmsen, referring to the 1913 Men study that formed the basis of the current research.

Those who did not smoke, consumed moderate amounts of coffee and had a good socio-economic status at the age of 50 (measured in terms of housing costs), as well as good physical working capacity at the age of 54 and low cholesterol at 50 had the greatest chance of celebrating their 90th birthday.

The 1913 Men Study studied men living in Goteborg, Sweden. Hardly a genetically diverse sampling.

[pacific2]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

The 1913 Men Study studied men living in Goteborg, Sweden. Hardly a genetically diverse sampling.

True to an extent, but the focus was on the heritability of maybe elusive longevity traits, not on factors of ethnic diversity. In fact, holding the latter variable relatively constant, made it easier to look at life style influences, and raises the possibility that in any given population, improvements in lifestyle might add to increased years.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by pacific2

True to an extent, but the focus was on the heritability of maybe elusive longevity traits, not on factors of ethnic diversity. In fact, holding the latter variable relatively constant, made it easier to look at life style influences, and raises the possibility that in any given population, improvements in lifestyle might add to increased years.

If your sampling is genetically so narrow, the applicability of the results are correspondingly narrow. It's like tracking one family over four generations and saying that the experiences of that family characterize the entire human race. Yes, limiting the genetic variable made the study easier, and the conclusion that improvements in lifestyle might add to increased years is simple common sense. We don't call them "improvements" in lifestyle because they lead to shorter lifespans, do we? But because this study is so limited in its genetic range, it cannot conclusively be used to discredit the role of genetics in longevity.

[BeauCharles]

If lifestyle and life expectancy are any indication I live in the "Little South" of California. Not all the state is like the more prosperous coast. I've read time and again over the years how the population here is poorer, less educated, more inclined to smoke, more inclined to use certain drugs (meth and Oxycontin), more inclined to drink and is fatter. Having a life expectancy lower than the coastal areas isn't surprising given all that. What's disturbing is to see healthier seniors burying their baby-boomer children who have abused their health. Its not at all unusual in this area - many WWII era parents seem to be in better shape than their kids.

Yes, this is all subjective and anecdotal on my part, but I firmly believe that at least in this area life expectancy is mostly dictated by lifestyle choices than the availability of social services (the access is the same here as anywhere in the state). I see it played out every day and those choices seem to be getting worse.