The Reality of Primitive People's Lifespan

Human lifespan is one of the topics that frequently comes up in my discussions with others about primitive nutrition and health. In our day and age, this subject has become a trendy factor in gauging the overall health of any given population or individual. If a person lives a long time -- say 100 years -- they are considered long-lived and must have lived a healthful life to reach such an impressive age. Yet, there are always anomalies to this assumption. Comedian George Burns lived to be 100 while smoking between 10-15 cigars a day. At 98, he joked, "If I'd taken my doctor's advice and quit smoking when he advised me to, I wouldn't have lived to go to his funeral."

Western cultures' obsession with lifespan has existed for a very long time. The Bible cites people living for hundreds and thousands of years in ancient times. More recently, researchers were fascinated by claims of the Hunzakats commonly reaching ages of 120 and beyond (this myth is dispelled quite well by this website). On the other end of this spectrum, many experts and laymen agree that primitive humans' lifespan was nothing to be impressed about: old age during those times was thought to be around forty years old.

Recently, I came across a study that blows all these distortions, assumptions, and obsessions out of the water. The study is a meta-analysis -- meaning it draws off of the research of many other related studies, and is titled "Longevity Among Hunter-Gatherers: A Cross-Cultural Examination." I suggest you give the full study a read, as there are many fascinating tidbits in it. The authors, Gurven and Kaplan, assembled lifespan and mortality data from around the world that included isolated hunter-gatherers (the closest living relatives to our paleolithic ancestors that we have), acculturated hunter-gatherers, isolated neolithic cultures, Western modern civilizations, and even chimpanzees for comparison. The authors focused solely on reliable demographic data from a handful of cultures. The table below sums up the results of the study well:

This data may come as a surprise to both romanticists of the ancients' supposed longevity, as well as to those that claim primitive human beings lived a life that was "nasty, brutish, and short." Here we have numbers that secure a middle ground amidst these two extremes. The authors of the study sum up their compiled information as follows:

The average modal age of adult death for hunter-gatherers is 72 with a range of 68-78 years. This range appears to be the closest functional equivelent of an "adaptive" human lifespan.

So there you have it. Convincing research suggesting that our hunter-gatherer ancestors are not at all far-removed from modern civilized human beings in terms of lifespan.

Health Profile: Geronimo

A well-known Chiricahua Apache and leader of his people, Geronimo is most recognized for his bouts with -- and escapes from -- Mexican and U.S. military troops in the mid to late 1800s. Among the Apache, Geronimo was thought to have great powers, including the ability to see into the future and leave no tracks when moving through the mountains and deserts of his tribe's territory. His band of Apache warriors were among the last Native American peoples to surrender to the U.S. government and live on reservations.

Tales of Geronimo's cunning retreats from his military pursuers abound. One story holds that Geronimo and his band disappeared without explanation when trapped in a cave that had no second entrance. On horseback, he and his warriors were able to keep ahead of the U.S. cavalry -- with its horses and loads of supplies -- at a pace of 70 miles a day while carrying very little and living on wild plants and animals, even resorting to killing their own horses for sustenance. During battles, Geronimo was shot and wounded several times yet never succumbed to death from a bullet wound.

In short, the man was -- like most traditional native peoples of his time -- quite a specimen.

Looking at his photos, Geronimo's beautiful facial structure -- round face, square jaw, prominent cheek bones, wide flaring nostrils -- is readily apparent. This indicates a full and proper development during his formative years as an infant, young boy, and teenager. (We can't comment on his teeth as he never smiled in photos, but he probably had all of them.) His broad shoulders and upright posture suggest agile movement and strength. Like a wild animal, Geronimo was optimally built for his rugged environment of high mountain sky islands and vast seas of low desert. Having lived near, and backpacked through, the Chiricahua Mountains in southeastern Arizona (Geronimo's former stomping grounds) for several months, I can attest to the ruggedness of this landscape.

Lifestyle plays a major role in the fitness levels of Geronimo. Traveling on foot or horseback for up to 70 miles, stalking wild game, and crafting tools and shelters from his surroundings, he spent his life using his body. This lifetime "use" was certainly a major contributing factor to his physical capabilities. Yet, perhaps he wouldn't have been as capable -- his body not as supported, his build not as solid, his immunity and ability to recover from bullet wounds diminished -- if he hadn't also eaten the natural, primitive diet of his people. What kind of diet was that? Here's a list of some of the staple foods that the Apaches ate and the nutritional qualities that make them supportive:

• Wild game: deer, elk, quail, rabbit, etc. --> utilizable proteins and fats, which provide amino acids, b-vitamins, fat-soluble vitamins, and, when using the whole animal (as was common in Geronimo's day), every single needed nutrient the human body needs. (Interstingly, the Apaches had taboos against eating snakes, frogs, fish, and bears.)
  
• Corn, beans, and squash--> starchy carbohydrates traditionally processed to eliminate anti-nutrients (fermented, roasted, soaked, leached, etc.) providing supplemental energy and sparing fat loss; additional vitamins and minerals (for an interesting account of how Apaches prepared a fermented corn drink called tizwin, see bottom of this post)
• Agave--> heart of the plant pit-roasted, young stalks eaten; provides supplemental starch and sugars in the diet; spares fat loss ... but gives horrible gas (I can attest to this myself after eating a pit-roasted agave -- yeesh!)
  
• Acorns & Pine nuts--> roasted, soaked, leached, pounded, or eaten fresh (some species); beneficial proteins and fats; particularly rich in monounsaturated fatty acids
  
• Prickly Pear Cactus--> fruit cooked into syrup or eaten fresh and young pads boiled or roasted (high in oxalic acid raw); fruits rich in electrolytes for a hot, dry climate; pads rich in calcium and vitamin A beta-carotene

Really, if we break it down, we find that the Apaches were quite omnivirous much like other hunter-gatherer tribes across the world (Australian Aborigines and Bushmen of the Kalahari come to mind). Geronimo's very supportive, nutrient-dense Apache diet of meat and properly prepared plant foods allowed for the full facial and skeletal development -- as well as the mental sharpness and alertness -- common to traditional peoples eating a traditional diet (see Weston Price's studies for more on this).

So, it seems that the famous Apache leader lived healthfully with vigor and "fierceness" (as many accounts report) throughout his life. But what of his lifespan? Does it fit the description, "nasty, brutish, and short?" Not in the least. Geronimo lived from 1829-1909, dying at age 79 from pneumonia after drunkenly falling off his horse and contracting a severe cold. Had his life not been cut short by this accident, perhaps he would have lived well into his 80s or 90s.

"I cannot think that we are useless or God would not have created us. There is one God looking down on us all. We are all the children of one God. The sun, the darkness, the winds are all listening to what we have to say."

Making "Tiznin" -- An Apache Fermented Corn Drink

"First, they soaked the corn overnight in water. They dug a long trench and lined it with grass, placed the soaked corn in the trench, and covered it with another layer of grass. Sometimes they covered the whole with earth or a blanket. After sprinkling the corn with water morning and evening for ten days, during which it sprouted, they took it out, ground it with their grinding stones (mano and metate), and then boiled it for five hours. Finally, they strained off the liquid and set it aside. After about twenty-four hours, when it stopped bubbling, it was ready to drink." (From Geronimo: The Man, His Time, His Place by Angie Debo, p. 22)

Were Early Americans Really Living Shorter Lives?

This is Part 2 in a series adapted from my paper, "Modern Health, Primitive Wisdom: American Health History and the Findings of Weston A. Price."

Looking deeper into the life expectancy statistics that are used to gauge our country's health status, one quickly finds that it is not a simple black-and-white procedure. Many factors create discrepancies in the data. One prime example is the role that infant mortality rate plays in determining life expectancy data. As the mortality numbers of the overall population are added up, every infant death contributes a "0" to the tally, significantly impacting the final average. Below is a graphic representation of the result of this phenomenon. (blue = infant mortality; yellow = average lifespan.)


In the above figure, we see that infant mortality rates in 1900 are quite high at 14 %. Correspondingly, average life expectancy of newborns in 1900 is very low at 47.6 years. In 1992, with infant deaths (along with infectious disease, undernourishment, and death from injury) being largely controlled by medical technological advancements, the infant mortality rate drops drastically to less than 1%. For that year, we find that life expectancy has risen by nearly 30 years compared to data from the year 1900.

It is also important to note that the data for life expectancy in the above figure is only representative of the number of years a newborn infant is expected to live. In other words, at age "0" a white person in 1900 is expected to live up to 48 years; in sharp contrast, a white person born (age "0") in 1992 is expected to nearly 77-years-old. However, if the 1900 person escapes infectious disease, injury, miscarriage, and undernourishment and manages to reach 40-years-old and beyond, the numbers shift significantly (blue = 40+ life expectancy in 1900; yellow = 40+ life expectancy in 1992):


Here we see that if a white American in 1900 reaches age 40, he/she can expect to live 28 years longer (age 68). A white American in 1992 is expected to live 39 years longer (age 79). This is a difference of 11 years. Furthermore, if the 1900 person should live to age 80, he/she is expected to reach age 85. If the 1992 man lives to 80 years, he can expect to see age 87. This is a difference of 2 years. Thus, it can be seen in the above figure that as the age of the individual increases, the gap between the life expectancy data of 1900 and 1992 diminishes. Returning to the first figure, which is based on newborn (age 0) life expectancies, we find a much larger gap in the data -- a difference of nearly 30 years.

Once again, we must remind ourselves of the many changing factors over the century that play an important role in interpreting this data: better hygiene, control of infectious disease, increased food supply, and improved infant outcome. Such influential factors must be taken into consideration when using lifespan data to analyze the health of the United States population throughout the century.

Sources
American Food Habits in Historical Perspective (McIntosh 1995, 219-220)

National Vital Statistics Reports (Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics 2006)

Next Post, Part 3: "Big, Fat Changes in American Foods."

American Health Then & Now

This blog post is adapted from a paper I wrote in 2007 called, "Modern Health, Primitive Wisdom: American Health History and the Findings of Weston A. Price." Enjoy!

One dietary characteristic that was readily apparent in the traditional primitive cultures of Weston A. Price’s studies was the lack of modern, processed foods. There was in these cultures a widespread use of foods high in nutrient content and comparatively low in calories. When processed foods replaced traditional foods, physical deformities and ill health followed. This pattern of less consumption of nutrient-dense foods and greater consumption of processed modern foods has happened in the United States just as it has in the primitive cultures of the world.

A look around the American population with Dr. Price’s discoveries in mind quickly reveals the state of health in our country today. It's common for modern Americans to require braces and other dental corrections, as well as frequent visits to the doctor due to general illness, such as flu, colds, and other symptoms of lowered immunity. As Dr. Price noted in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, it only takes one generation of men and women who regularly displaced their native foods with processed foods to give birth to children displaying physical irregularities and exhibiting lowered immunity to disease. These deteriorations are now commonly observed in modernized societies, like the United States, where a large proportion of the foods eaten are processed and devitalized.

Comparing American eating and disease patterns in 1900 to those in 2000, one can find several significant changes that have taken place over the last century. In 1900, Americans ate mostly whole foods, although substantial amounts of processed foods were eaten as well. The whole foods eaten by turn-of-the-century Americans included untrimmed meats from pasture-fed animals, fresh vegetables and fruits, grains, and fats like butter, lard, and coconut oil. Of course, this diet differs significantly from the foods Americans eat today: vegetable oils, refined and “enriched” grains, simple starches, sugar, and factory-reared grain-fed meats (in a few words: fast food). Table 1 provides an overview of the changes in American disease patterns before (1900) and after (2000) these processed foods fully crept into the food supply.

Table 1. Leading Causes of Death in 1900 & 2000*

1900_________________% Total_______2000__________________% Total
Tuberculosis.......................11.3...........Diseases of Heart.................31.4
Pneumonia.........................10.2...........Cancer .................................23.3
Diarrheal Diseases..............8.1............Stroke...................................6.9
Heart Disease......................8.0...........Lung Disease........................4.7
Liver Disease.......................5.2...........Accidents..............................4.1
Injuries.................................5.1..........Pneumonia & Influenza.........3.7
Stroke..................................4.5...........Diabetes Mellitus...................2.7
Cancer..................................3.7...........Suicide................................1.3
Bronchitis............................2.6...........Kidney Diseases....................1.0
Diphtheria...........................2.3...........Liver Disease & cirrhosis..........1.0
*Adapted from Food Politics (Nestle 2002, 32)

In Table 1, it can be seen that the shift in American health over the last century has been one of major transition. In 1900, many deaths were due to infectious diseases or injury (6 of 10). This was an era when hygiene was not fully understood and such untimely deaths were commonplace. Heart disease and cancer -- the diseases of modern man -- are seen occurring in moderate percentages during this time. Flash forward to 2000, following many years of processed food consumption, and a very different picture is painted. Almost all of the top diseases (8 of 10) causing death at the time of the millennium are chronic degenerative conditions. The numbers for heart disease and cancer top the list, increasing by four and six times respectively compared to 1900.

The drastic changes in American disease patterns require a broad perspective to fully comprehend. As stated before, in addition to dietary changes, many environmental changes (crowded living conditions and an inadequate food supply) no doubt had a prime role to play in the shift in health that took place over the last hundred or so years. This is one reason why the average lifespan in the United States in 1900 is commonly believed to be far less than it is today. The average lifespan data during this time is also influenced by untimely deaths, such as infectious disease, injury, lack of food, and miscarriages.

Stay tuned for the next post titled, "Were Early Americans Really Living Shorter Lives?"

Doctor, please don't poo-poo the Paleo diet!

A friend of mine forwarded an article to me about the paleo diet a while ago. It's a question and answer session in Oprah Magazine with a doctor named David Katz, MD. The article is called, "Should We Eat a Paleolithic Diet?" and it's flawed in many ways. See for yourself:

http://www.oprah.com/article/omagazine/200812_omag_katz_paleolithic

After reading the first few paragraphs, it is very apparent that the author is one of these politically-correct nutrition gurus that never seems to make a solid stand on anything except what mainstream nutritionists and dieticians recommend. Certainly not a breath of fresh air from all of the unfounded dietary recommendations that inundate the media. Following are points brought up in the article by Katz, along with my response.

Quote: "However, many anthropologists prefer describing our ancestors as gatherer-hunters because about two-thirds of their diet was plant based."

You begin to see from this quote that he has strong bias towards a plant-based diet for maintaining health. Two-thirds is a huge stretch, in my opinion. Studies of modern hunter-gatherers conflict with this information. Loren Cordain, one of the foremost researchers on the Paleolithic diet, has very solid data showing HG's eating a meat-based diet. (However, like this Katz guy, Cordain sells out to politically correct nutrition, claiming that HG's ate very little saturated fat and cholesterol.)

A great resource for paleo diet information, based on anthropological research can be found by doing a search for HL Abrams. This dude is on par, in my opinion.

Quote: " The flesh of antelope, which paleontologists believe most resembles the flesh our Stone Age ancestors would have eaten, has a very low fat content, roughly 16 percent of total calories. Contrast that with beef, which can be 30 percent fat or higher. Even more important is the quality of the fat. "

Typical ignorant viewpoint from a man who has most likely never butchered an animal. Fatty portions of an animal that HG's used include: bone marrow, back fat, cavity fat, tongue, kidney fat, intestinal fat, brains, and -- in some cases, when boiling bones for long periods -- bone grease. The fatty acid composition of muscle meat is irrelevant because HG's didn't only eat muscle meat -- they ate the whole animal!

By the way, much of an antelope's fat is actually quite high in saturated fatty acids. Not to mention *gasp!* cholesterol!

Quote: "Meat from animals that graze on grass contains a much higher proportion of polyunsaturated fat, including those heart-healthy omega-3s."

Notice he says grass-fed "meat" contains a higher proportion of polyunsaturated fat. Again, he neglects to mention all of the fat from the rest of the animal, which are dominated by saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids. Not only that, but he is implying that polyunsaturates are the healthiest fats to consume. A big no-no, indeed, considering the studies done on test animals in which a high-polyunsaturated vegetable fat diet leads to death and disease. Also, factor in the lack of polyunsaturates in HG's diets when taking into account the entire animal.

Quote: "Our Stone Age ancestors lived to only about the age of 40—who knows how their health would have fared after 80 years of eating like this?"

Lifespan statistics are influenced by infant mortality rates, which were certainly higher before the advent of modern medicine due to environmental factors. For every set of bones from a paleo 80-year-old, an infant death -- being listed statistically as 0-years old -- will affect the average. The average of 80 and 0 is 40, correct? You can see how statisticians come to such silly conclusions. Also, factor in deaths from weapons and accidents. The fact is that there were elderly castes in many primitive cultures, such as the aborigines. I've heard anectodotal accounts from personal communications with modern Native American people claiming that their grandparents lived to be 100-years-old and beyond. I'm sure if I searched enough I could find some archaelogical evidence (dentition studies) of ancient peoples reaching such an age.

And, as for HGs health when they reach 80-years and beyond: if they still have all of their perfectly straight teeth and dense bones at 80, they're doing a hell of a lot better health-wise than us brace-face moderns. Ancient skulls would suggest that paleo people were optimally healthy (perfect teeth, fully-developed noggin) throughout their lives.

Quote: " The dietary plan I prefer to espouse is one supported by both anthropology and modern science: plenty of vegetables, fruits, and whole grains as a stand-in for the wild plants our ancestors ate, nuts and seeds, beans, seafood, lean meats, eggs, and low-fat or nonfat dairy."

Lord, have mercy! This guy isn't saying anything new -- just sticking to the same line of BS that we've been hearing since faulty, biased studies in the 50s and 60s "proved" that all disease is caused by fat and cholesterol. If this guy truly eats this way, he's got to be one hungry, fat-starved dude.

Our ancestors ate lean meat WITH FAT from all parts of the animal. Gathering plants is entirely impractical in many parts of the world. Hunting animals is the most energy-efficient way to attain nutrition in the wild (especially the all-important vitamins A & D from animal fats -- as documented by Weston Price -- and complete amino acids). We evolved on meat and fat with supplemental plants in season. And, in my opinion, this is what we are biologically suited for. Period.