|
|
|
|
|
|
by raketenolli
3293 days ago
|
|
|
Is it possible that the high infant mortality weeded out more children from less healthy socioeconomic and genetic backgrounds than today? So on average you'd get healthier adults which would live longer? Also, I don't like their comparison of the life expectancy of a Victorian 65-year old with a modern 5-year old. Of course the former would be relatively high. |
|
|
Modern Britons' life expectancies at 65 which actually are "comparable" with Victorian life expectancies at 65 are available in well publicised, frequently-updated and granular time series from ONS[1]. But since they suggest life expectancy is about twice as long for todays' 65 year olds as Victorian ones the authors appear to have deliberately distorted the truth by choosing a less relevant basis for comparison instead.
Needless to say, if they're prepared to commit statistical frauds as blatant as this, the rest of their claims should be regarded as suspicious especially the more outrageous longevity claims. It wasn't a surprise to find that one of the authors runs a nutrition supplement company and has been featured on Ben Goldacre's Bad Science blog before
Which is a shame, because there probably are valid, non-obvious points about aspects of Victorian diets and lifestyles that were healthier than ours, buried under wilfully misleading claims about degenerative diseases being a purely modern phenomenon.
[1]https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...