The Leading Causes of Death from 1900-2010
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
[1] http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1113569
[2] http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/ful...
[3] http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box...
I'm not sure what an age band is but the I saw video showed data of infections for many years it showed typical chart with peaks during each year. That data was rotated 90 degrees toward us the viewers so now each peak showed as a single vertical line.
The end result was a horizontal barcode type chart showing different clusters in certain decades.
Up to 1960 it was very dense waves but after 1960 (almost exactly) it's as if someone flipped a switch and suddenly large numbers of deaths from viruses stopped.
The SENS Research Foundation funds some of the work on potential treatments for this condition, based on a new approach in biotechnology using what are called catalyic antibodies [1] to break down the amyloid, though it is fair to note that as in many of these things much of the research community interest where it exists at all lies in treating the rare genetic variant that young people can suffer. It's called transthyretin-related hereditary amyloidosis, but it is basically the same process - you can just only suffer it young if you have exactly the right rare mutation.
The down vote was probably because you didn't suggest to google "Sugar metabolic disease cancer" or "Sugar metabolic disease Alzheimer's", followed by a few example results such as:
- http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/719423
- http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/newest-impact-...
- The causes of death with the strongest correlation to diet and exercise (heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes) have increased only slightly.
- All those causes of death have some degree of correlation with age
- The cause of death most strongly correlated with old age is the one showing the strongest increase (the correlation between diet and exercise and cancer is tenuous at best)
- It doesn't explain the heart disease peak in the '60s
CPR for example was first promoted as a technique for the public to learn in the 1970s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cardiopulmonary_resu...
The thinking part being more important than sitting.
This is called "emacs fingers" in the office...
More seriously I do most of my work on paper with a pencil.
Soon it will probably be easier to grow you a new heart and replace your old one every 10-20 years or so.
Elective surgery isn't a good idea. If you can do without, do without.
die while on a plane when it suddenly stops or switch the heart planned while you are still healthy?
Yeah down vote the guy that had a stroke playing hockey, then started taking Resveratrol and was back on the ice 90 days later playing against Division 1 and ex-Pro players at a high level again.
Resveratrol is the real-deal, I know from personal experience.
Even assuming you aren't lying, so what? Any number of things could have helped you purely by coincidence. Had things worked out differently, you could just as easily have been in here touting the benefits of copper bracelets, or megadose vitamin C, or cod liver oil. It's just not convincing.
That's why trials have hundreds or thousands of people: To make "it was coincidence" the least likely explanation, from a statistical standpoint.
Add to hat the recent NSA project that search code and autocompletes what you are working on as if MS Word is correcting a word on a document.
Imagine both of those in Google Glass you can jabber to yourself while jogging.
I see all this crap and forget to bookmark it then can't recall where I saw it!
Even non-manual jobs would be more active as you'd need to visit people, move files, gather research materials or whatever.
My conjecture is that the rise of exercise/gym coincides with the rise of automated labor and as jobs moved from being labor intensive to knowledge intensive (i.e., as economy moved from agriculture oriented to manufacturing and then finally to service oriented).
Then again, I don't see "war" in the list so if casualties of war are grouped under accidents...
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1113569
(hover over the line graph)
The non vehicle accident death rate in 1900 was around 80, in 1950 around 40 and around 20 between 1980 and 2000.
So half of the decline was before manufacturing really hit it's stride in the US, and the decline slackened off as capacity really started moving overseas.
WWII "only" killed 4% of the population, with the Soviet Union bearing the brunt on the Allied side.
I've used 4% for long enough that I don't precisely remember how I arrived at it. I probably picked it from the middle of the range. I believe the lower bound is known to be pretty certainly 2.5% of global population. Or it was probably used by some source I've since forgotten.
Figures for China are very uncertain.
"*World-wide casualty estimates vary widely in several sources. The number of civilian deaths in China alone might well be more than 50,000,000."
http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-student...
The uncertainty is kind of astonishing.
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-californa-lea...
And compare the accident rate on stair falls vs. injuries in elevators. Then think about it next time your workplace "healthy living" person nags you to take the stairs.
Edit: Imagine the credibility of a doctor not to at least say: [This is why.]
People get sick, they go to the doctor, they get diagnosed, and then they die. Whatever they were last sick from, that's what killed them. A lot of the illnesses on the 1900 list are not really going to have been hard for a 1900 doctor to diagnose. The doctor says you've got the flu or influenza or pneumonia, you probably do.
So the 1900 list is probably pretty accurate.