[giantg2]

What do you mean "not really"? It seem you just posted what I was saying for lower rates of many chronic diseases.

"significantly lower MRs over the age of 40, due primarily to lower rates of cancer (MR = 0.44, age 40-69), and cardiovascular diseases (MR = 0.65, age 40-69)"

As they said, cause differs. When looking at costs, causes are very important. Things like cancer and cardiovascular diseases tend to cost a lot of money to treat as they drag on. If you die young in an accident, it's likely to cost less.

[watwut]

Women had literally zero benefits. And young boys die more. There is only one segment of population that is getting some benefit and that benefit is small.

In order for lifestyle to be healthier, I would want to see more benefits then just some middle aged men mortality shifted onto young ones.

[DoreenMichele]

The Amish suffer from genetic disorders due to inbreeding. From the Wikipedia article someone linked to:

Some of these disorders are quite rare, or unique, and are serious enough to increase the mortality rate among Amish children.

I criticized the practice of inbreeding in my first comment.

[giantg2]

We're talking about costs, not mortality. You also can't equate mortality with healthy or unhealthy lifestyle. Many of the things in the lifestyle are healthy, the two biggest being more physical activity and less processed foods. You can "live" in a nursing home for a long time. But quality of life is an important factor not captured in your mortality figures, including things like some of the lowest obesity rates (and chronic illnesses that go with that).