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)

Back From the Wild

I recently returned from my first 8 day shift (and hiatus from blogging) as a field guide with a local wilderness therapy organization here in Utah. For those unfamiliar, the wilderness therapy industry is made up of organizations -- private, non-profit, and corporate branches -- which treat clients with behaviorial and substance-abuse issues by removing them from civilization and plopping them in the desert or woods or mountains for several weeks of backpacking and therapeutic work. Field guides (like me) in these programs backpack with a group of 2-10 clients (both teens and adults) for a period of 8 days at a time in the wilderness with 6 days off between shifts. If you're a guide like me, you do it all in homemade tire sandals (see picture). The particular program that I now work for specializes in addictions of all kinds, incorporating a 12-Step model (i.e. Alcoholics Anonymous) as the centerpiece of their approach.

In addition to this, primitive living skills are utilized and encouraged as important metaphors. A fire-by-friction bow-drill, for example, provides clients with an opportunity to interact with their surroundings in a practical and creative way to make fire for cooking, warmth, and comfort. When a client has met such a challenge, the accomplishment can be a significant confidence-builder, supporting the difficult recovery from addiction as the client says, "Hey! I just made fire with sticks! Maybe I do have the ability to stop using drugs." Other skills include general backpacking know-how (tarps, sleeping gear, cooking, etc.), caring for pack llamas (yes, each group has a few of these disgustingly lovable creatures), and wayfinding in the wilderness.

Of course, as someone who has a keen eye for nutrition and how it relates to health, I observed the foods being eaten by both the field guides and clients in the program. To my surprise, the foods weren't all that bad. Aside from the typical wheat products (and the potentially problematic gluten therein), I was pleased to see that each client was given a pound of cheese every four days, tuna, fresh meat once a week, and mostly starchy carbohydrates (the sole exceptions being dried fruit, sweetened granola, and "gookinaid" -- a powdered, sugary, electrolyte drink). The group foods included a pound of butter. Questionable foods that one might lump under the "good-not-great" category included: peanut butter with hydrogenated palm oil, spam, and "instant" refried beans.

While this wilderness therapy program isn't tailored to incorporate nutritional therapy, they do so without knowing it by providing the clients with a low-fructose diet. This in and of itself can go a long way towards restoring health, in my opinion. With such a diet, as well as the daily physical activity of backpacking and camping, I found the clients to be quite stable, even those coming off of hard drugs like heroin.

That's not to say that things couldn't be better. I'm a big believer in the power of nutritional therapy and would love to see some use of vitamins, minerals, and amino acids. Particularly for a population like addicts and alcoholics who are in a physically depleted and/or unbalanced state, it would be great refuel their bodies and alter their addictive brain chemistry with the help of supplements. As for food, it would be ideal if clients had access to pemmican (which I personally made and brought out for myself), more fresh meat, and perhaps some fresh raw milk, cheese, cream and butter -- all preferably from grass-fed animals. Supplying digestible, low-toxin foods (such as white rice) and eliminating many of the canned meats and commonly allergenic foods (such as wheat) might help immensely as well. A wilderness therapy program that incorporates these things could be far more successful in terms of graduating clients' continuing sobriety. With such results, the program might be more financially stable as it attracts publicity and recommendations due to its higher success rates.

One such program -- the only one in existence that I know of -- is Open Sky Wilderness Therapy based in Durango, Colorado. These folks have a constant flow of clients. Why? A big reason is their use of all organic and grass-fed foods -- something that people look for nowadays with all the media attention and rising popularity of such products. (*cough* Michael Pollan *cough*) To me, this attention to quality nutrition is the wave of the future in wilderness therapy, and I am hearing more and more talk about it. However, from what I gather from others who have worked with Open Sky, my only criticism is their minimal use of animal products (little to no meat and a lot of rice or quinoa or beans in group stews with little added butter or coconut oil is common -- check out their food menu) and their belief in unprocessed "whole foods," which means nutrient-robbing toxins bound up in whole grains, nuts, seeds, and beans aren't eliminated during cooking. Phytates for breakfast, anyone?

So What's For Dinner?

Part 5 from my paper, "Modern Health, Primitive Wisdom: American Health History and the Findings of Weston A. Price."

"Meat, potatoes, and gravy. I don't like vegetables; I can't hardly eat any of them. The potatoes take care of all the vegetables."

-- Lena Stanley, Centenarian (Edelman 1999, p. 378)

The world of human health and nutrition is a bewildering labyrinth at times. Just about everybody has their own idea of what is and isn't healthy, and there are plenty of diet books, doctor's recommendations, health gurus, and dieticians out there to guide the way. Who is right? Who is wrong? What is the optimal human diet? It is questions such as these that can stir up confusion and debate. Yet, nutritional science is still in its infancy, having only been in the public light since the late 18th century. There is plenty of room for confusion and debate. As one nutritionist says, "It's all theory" (A. Minear, personal communication, January 17, 2007).

If we are to only work with what the last 100 hundred years of research and science has told us about how the foods we eat affect our health, we are left with but a small period of time upon which to base our ideas -- we only see how food has affected human health over a millisecond of the time that people have been eating. During this brief period of history, we have conducted multitudes of studies that make very convincing arguments for or against certain aspects of nutrition. An interested, research-oriented individual can find in books, articles, and journals many studies supporting a low-fat, high-carbohydrate way of eating, for example. That person can also find many resources that support the complete opposite -- extolling the benefits of high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet. Add in the varied interpretations by the scientists involved in these studies, as well as the opinions of independent researchers, the media, doctors, nutritionists, friends and family -- and that's when bewilderment arises.

This is where Weston A. Price comes in. His research and conclusions are drawn from a combination of modern and ancient dietary wisdom. The traditional population groups he studied had all been eating a certain way for thousands of years. With the aid of modern science, Price found that the foods these people ate provided needed nutrients in consistent quantities to allow for optimal growth and development -- and these foods worked for these cultures over thousands of years. In studying nutritional science, why work with only a miniscule piece of human health history (as in the last hundred years) when there exists a firm foundation in the dietary wisdom of primitive peoples -- a foundation built over thousands of years? In interpreting our own health, why not look to our ancestors and ask what kept them free from degenerative diseases? Dr. Barry Groves, a health researcher and author, puts it this way:

We should not be looking for answers to the diseases we suffer from today, but why many peoples in the world don't get them at all. That way we might stand a better chance of an answer to the dreadful plague of ill-health we are beset with.

It is extremely important for our modern world to acknowledge the findings of Weston A. Price. In considering Price's discoveries of healthy traditional cultures, we have the basis for a logical advancement in modern medicine: the creation of a benchmark that describes what true health looks and feels like. This is something that does not currently exist in the medical establishment. Though we have many tests and procedures to determine whether or not a patient is "normal" or "at-risk" for disease, we have no set standards for optimal human development. This was Price's idea in the first place: he wanted to find "control groups" of healthy populations who were not suffering from the physical and mental malfunction of his day -- he wanted to define what it meant to be truly alive and healthy:

Instead of the customary procedure of analyzing the expressions of degeneration, a search has been made for groups to be used as controls who are largely free from these affections (p. 1).

And this is what Weston Price found in primitive peoples across the world. He found in these people a new standard for human potential. But how can we define such a standard in a world where disease and deformities are the norm?

Like Price, we simply observe the people who are actually healthy. When we look at the photos that Dr. Price took during his travels, we witness a level of physical and mental well-being simply unknown to most modern human beings. When we see those broad faces, perfect teeth, and -- as Price stated again and again -- high moral character of primitive peoples, we are observing a higher degree of human health. It is readily apparent that primitive peoples have many qualities that modern people do not possess. Through the observation of these ancient cultures, whether through books, photographs, documentaries, or travel, it isn't hard to see that they are different -- and not just culturally. We can gain immense benefit from observing these differences and determining what they possess in health and well-being that we do not.


Minds and Hearts

Let us consider the way primitive people use their bodies and minds: how they respond to excitement or danger, the values they live by, the nature of their temperaments, and the way they breathe, eat, play, and live. Are they hyper-anxious? Do they steal, cheat, and murder? Do they have nagging physical problems, such as back, neck, and shoulder tension? In large part, the answers are: No, no, and no. We moderns can use the answers to such questions -- and the implications therein -- in the betterment of our own health. In addition to subjecting the "control groups" of healthy indigenous people to medical tests, let us also communicate with these people and sense with our hearts the degree of their well-being. Let us observe closely what separates them from us in body, mind, and spirit. And let us ask what we can learn from these differences.

Perhaps a good start would be to eat the way our ancestors did. In returning to the food traditions of antiquity in the United States, we have a chance to restore our health. Much has changed in American food habits over time. Most people would say that our nutrition has improved immensely in modern times; after all, we have progressed in technology, medicine, and hygiene -- isn't it obvious that we would have enhanced our nutrition as well? With all of the knowledge that we have accumulated in the sciences, children are still being born with facial and dental deformities. These deformities are not questioned so much as they are accepted. In fact, they aren't even referred to as deformities as they were in Weston Price's day, and they are not at all believed to be connected with nutrition as Price's research revealed.

In the U.S. these days, it is just part of life to have your wisdom teeth removed, have a narrow face, get braces, or develop a chronic health condition. We assume we are advanced enough to know if something isn't right with human growth and development. Yet again, how can we know that something isn't right if we don't have any clue as to what is "right" in the first place?

Once again, traditional peoples like our American ancestors paint a picture of how human beings are meant to be. Our ancestors provide -- through their facial and skeletal development and lack of degenerative disease -- an example of close-to-optimal health. I say "close-to" because Americans at the turn of the century still did not match up to the vibrant glow of the aforementioned primitive cultures of Price's studies, all of which were completely free from disease and deformity. However, early Americans were far healthier in many ways than we are today. And, as was suggested earlier, all things in consideration: early Americans' lifespan closely matches the life expectancy of today.

Once we observe the characteristics -- physical, mental, and spiritual -- in traditional peoples across the world, it is readily apparent that modernized populations are sorely lacking. It is only sensible then to ask how traditional peoples attained such refined attributes. It was apparent to Weston Price that diet was a key factor, and this is my assertion as well. Centuries of nutrient-dense foods have allowed for the creation of superb human beings in traditional societies:

One immediately wonders if there is not something life-giving in the vitamins and minerals of the food that builds not only great physical structures within which their souls reside, but builds minds and hearts capable of a higher type of manhood ... (p. 27).

The "minds and hearts" of primitive people provide our modern civilizations with a lucid, inspiring picture of what true health is. We are given a wonderful opportunity to observe these examples and ask how we can attain this health through employing traditional food habits and following the wisdom that our ancestors have left for us.


References

Edelman, Bernard. (1999). Centenarians: The Story of the 20th Century by the Americans Who Lived It. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Groves, Barry (2005). Our love affair with fat -- a historical perspective.
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/love-fat.html

Price, Weston A. (2003). Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. La Mesa, CA: Price- Pottenger Nutrition Foundation.

What About Cholesterol?

Here is Part 4 in a series of blog posts adapted from my paper, "Modern Health, Primitive Wisdom: American Health History and the Findings of Weston A. Price."

It is commonly believed that saturated fat and cholesterol are primary culprits in the current heart disease epidemic in the United States. We have already taken a look at saturated fat, but what about cholesterol? Is there any substantiation behind the claim that a high-cholesterol diet leads to clogged arteries or dangerously high blood cholesterol levels? What about early Americans and other traditional people who ate cholesterol rich foods and did not suffer from heart disease?

Returning to Weston Price's studies of traditional cultures, one finds that the most prized foods were very rich in fat and cholesterol. Some of these foods include liver, butterfat, fish eggs, and a variety of rendered animal fats, such as lard, tallow, and chicken fat. These cholesterol-rich foods are also rich in fat-soluble vitamins, the catalysts responsible for proper protein and mineral assimilation, and may be the key to rearing healthy children with round faces. Price found no evidence of heart disease, cancer, and other degenerative diseases in the people who enjoyed such nutrient-dense foods. On the contrary, he found primitive people to be the most vibrant and healthy people he'd ever seen.

Like other traditional cultures, early Americans saw no reason to avoid cholesterol-rich foods. They savored hearty, nutrient-dense foods that were high in cholesterol. Butter, cream, egg yolks, lard, tallow, and untrimmed animal meats (including organs) were not disdained -- these foods were thoroughly enjoyed and used extensively in recipes of all kinds. Before the advent of nutritional sciences and USDA food pyramids, turn-of-the-century Americans were enjoying such foods while having no knowledge of cholesterol and its function in the human body. They were unknowingly supplying their bodies with a nutrient that is very supportive to good health.

Cholesterol is not a fat -- it is a waxy alcohol that is not utilized for energy by the body; it does not supply calories. Rather, it is absorbed directly by the intestinal wall without needing to be broken down like fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. The amount that is absorbed by the body generally amounts to less than 50%. Cholesterol plays a key role in brain growth and development (especially in infants), cell membrane integrity, and the healing processes of the body -- thus, it is usually present in scar tissues where there is a repair process happening, as in arteriosclerosis (scarring of the arteries). In addition to all of these functions in the body, cholesterol is the raw material for our hormones. This includes sex hormones and adrenal hormones (also known as "stress hormones"). The adrenal hormones are especially needed in the modern world where stress is a constant part of our lives (Enig, 2000, pp. 48-50, 56-58).

The story of how such a vital nutrient went from being revered in the early century, to being maligned and feared in modern times, is well-documented in The Cholesterol Myths, by Uffe Ravnskov. In this book, Ravnskov makes it clear that there is very little reason for Americans to fear the theory that dietary cholesterol contributes to heart disease and high blood cholesterol levels (the diet-heart theory). (Interestingly, according to the author, blood cholesterol levels may not have any pertinence in evaluating the risk of heart disease.) Several population groups are cited by Ravnskov that consume substantial amounts of cholesterol-laden foods and do not have heart disease or high blood cholesterol levels. This includes both modern and primitive populations. It is also noted by Ravnskov that the studies upon which the diet-heart theory are based are either flawed or skewed to prove the truth in the theory.

One of the pillars of the diet-heart theory is The Framingham Heart Study, which is often referred to as proof that high cholesterol levels lead to a greater risk of heart disease. Ravnskov found this study to be flawed in a number of different ways. The director of The Framingham Heart Study had this to say about the final results of the project:

In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the peoples' serum cholesterol ... we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active (as cited in Enig & Fallon, 2001, 5).

Such inconsistencies in the diet-heart theory have spawned an entire network of scientists, researchers, and health professionals who call themselves The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, or THINCS. This organization has among its members many reputable individuals who have taken it upon themselves to disseminate unbiased information and engage in discussions concerning the science and health effects of dietary cholesterol. Armed with this information, the interested individual can arrive at his or her own conclusions about whether or not one should worry about cholesterol in the diet, as well as determine whether or not high-cholesterol foods were detrimental to early Americans.

Sources:

Enig, Mary G. (2000). Know Your Fats : The Complete Primer for Understanding the Nutrition of Fats, Oils and Cholesterol. Silverspring, MD: Bethesda Press

Ravnskov, Uffe (2000). The Cholesterol Myths: Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease. Washington, D.C.: New Trends Publishing.

Next up, the thrilling conclusion: "So What's For Dinner?"

Big, Fat Changes in American Foods

Part 3 in a series of posts adapted from my paper, "Modern Health, Primitive Wisdom: American Health History and the Findings of Weston A. Price."

Over a hundred years, we have conquered tuberculosis and pneumonia, improved safety measures in work environments, developed methods to increase food supply, and improved infant survival rates. Yet the quality of our lives is now diminished through conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. These changes in disease patterns over the last century correlate strongly with changes in diet. Aside from an increase in processed food consumption since the early 1900s, our consumption of fats and oils has shifted quite dramatically in terms of quality (not so much quantity, contrary to popular belief). In other words, the type of fats (animal, fruit, and vegetable) and specific fatty acids (saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated) that Americans ate one hundred years ago were very different from those that are eaten today. The table below provides an overview of the changes that have taken place.



Much of the fats that Americans have eaten for centuries -- and that many traditional cultures have eaten for thousands of years -- have been mostly saturated and monounsaturated. Animal fats top the list in 1890 as the fat of choice for cooking, baking, and spreading. Yet, heart disease (commonly believed to be caused by animal fat consumption) was far less prevalent during this era. In 1990, we see vegetable oils are leading the way, while animal fat consumption is so minimal that it does not make the list. For the first time in history, people are ingesting large amounts of polyunsaturated oils extracted from seeds and grains. These oils are often unknowingly eaten in prepackaged foods, as they are the oil of choice for the modern food industry due to their cost-effectiveness. Most potato chips, for example, use corn, canola, or soybean oils -- none of which were consumed in significant amounts by our ancestors.
As the type of fats and oils that the United States consumes has changed in the last 100 years, degenerative diseases have became more and more common. Saturated fat consumption has been blamed for causing many modern diseases. Modern Americans are claimed to be eating too much saturated fat and have been encouraged to cut back as much as possible to prevent disease. Is saturated fat to blame? If it were, one would expect the consumption of saturated fat to have increased substantially since the early century. This has not been the case, however:

Over the course of the 19th century, as heart disease has increased and cancer has become a common cause of death in the United States, saturated fat consumption has remained quite stable. Monounsaturated fat consumption has increased substantially. Yet this change pales in comparison to the growing popularity of polyunsaturated fat in the American diet. In the 1950s, with polyunsaturated vegetable oils gaining favor by the edible oil industries (whose primary motivation was to make a profit), Americans began eating more and more of these unnatural, man-made fats -- fats which were traditionally only consumed as whole foods, such as grains, vegetables, seeds, and nuts.

In her book, American Food Habits in Historical Perspective (1995), Elaine N. McIntosh states: "Essentially, the consumption of animal fat has declined since 1940, and the consumption of vegetable oils has increased steadily since 1909, overtaking animal fats in 1950" (p. 210). The transition from a diet rich in saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids (mostly from animal fats) to a diet high in polyunsaturated fatty acids (vegetable oils -- many of which are hydrogenated trans fats) has been one of the most significant changes in human nutrition in the past 100 years.

Source for above tables:
Enig, Mary G. (2000). Know Your Fats : The Complete Primer for Understanding the Nutrition of Fats, Oils and Cholesterol. Silverspring, MD: Bethesda Press


Next, Part 4: "What About Cholesterol?"

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."