How the Mid-Victorians Worked, Ate and Died

International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health ^ | March 20, 2009 | Paul Clayton & Judith Rowbotham

[Atomic Vomit]

Thanks for posting, it was very interesting reading.

Mrs AV

[SamAdams76]

because everyone’s a millionaire

[marktwain]

Are you really going to argue horse accidents over autos? Boating? How many people in England set foot on a boat back then? I’d wager the vast majority stayed damn close to home their entire lives. And a much higher percentage of people lived in rural areas compared to today.

Yes. Horses are very dangerous.

Most of England is close to water. If not a river, then the coast.

As for rural areas, you are making my case.

[marktwain]

Notice all diseases in 1880 were more common causes of death than cancers and diseases of the circulatory system (which would include heart attacks). "Other diseases" is almost 50% in 1880.

It is exactly as I would expect for people who had to do hard, physical work: There cardio-vascular system was in better shape.

It also makes sense from people who died younger, of other diseases, infections, parasites and trauma: they did not live long enough to develop cancers.

There is no data in the chart for trauma from accidents. Accidents are not a disease. The authors of the paper label the chart "Causes of Death".

But, they leave out important causes of death by accident and trauma.

Very likely, the trauma deaths are on another chart, which they did not include.

[marktwain]

The chart is from the paper. The authors list where it was obtained.

[SoCal Pubbie]

So despite all the rampant carnage sweeping through Victorian era farms, and rabid horses stomping Brits to death en masse, and hordes of drowning Limeys swept out to sea, English longevity rivaled Methuselah.

I say, old boy, good show!

[marktwain]

So despite all the rampant carnage sweeping through Victorian era farms, and rabid horses stomping Brits to death en masse, and hordes of drowning Limeys swept out to sea, English longevity rivaled Methuselah.

Please explain.

I am unable to follow your argument.

I do not see any evidence of age of when people died.

I would love to see it.

We need to know how many people died at what age. That is the critical data we do not have.

[Joe 6-pack]

About 10-15 years ago the BBC had a short series called, "Supersizers Go..." that examined the diet and lifestyles of different periods of English history. The show was hosted by a restaurant critic and his comedienne partner who would live the lifestyle and eat the foods of a specific period for a week.

Here's a link to the Victorian Episode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aKwYECKxVw&list=PLE6540D9DCB4A9949

Pretty interesting and entertaining stuff....

[cpt_dave]

Check out this video by Dr. Knobbe on vegetable oils: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kGnfXXIKZM&t=0

[Qiviut]

I have seen that video - he makes a good case & is one of the reasons I do not use veg oils! I’ve gotten so hardcore I won’t eat in restaurants any more because I know they use it (1st/primary reason among all the reasons I don’t ‘eat out’).

[SoCal Pubbie]

You’re saying there were all sorts of deaths in the Victorian era attributed to boating, farming, and horses. I’m saying if that’s so and they lived as long as limeys today, then pip pip hooray!

[marktwain]

I’m saying if that’s so and they lived as long as limeys today, then pip pip hooray!

That is the critical data which we do not have, and which they do not give.

They simply assert it is so, based on the fact that some Victorians lived as long as we do today.

It has always been so.

Some people live long and healthy lives, in any era.

It it what percentage which do so that is the important data.

The article does not show that information.

It simply asserts it is true.

Here is some data from the Sweden which shows life expectancy at age 50 and 65.

You can see in 1861-70, at age 50, the life expectancy for men was 19.4 years, for women, 21.3 years.

If we jump forward 150 years to 2010-2014, the live expectancy for men is 31.57 years, for women, 34.74.

This is an increase of about 12 years for men and 13+ years for women. Those numbers are significant.

I do not know if similar data exists in the UK.

[marktwain]

Here is the data for England and Wales, showing the life expectancy at age 65.

Somewhere, there is data for what life expectancy was at age 5, and so on. This shows the premise of the article we are discussing is false.

People after about 1970 live much longer than they did in 1870. The chart shows similar advances to Sweden, referred to earlier.

Notice that English men today, at age 65, live about 8 years longer; women live about 10 years longer, than they did in 1870.

The numbers vary a bit by country.

[marktwain]

Here is the link for the England and Wales data and chart.

[Svartalfiar]

And did the authors likewise factor out murder, transportation deaths, drug overdoses and other causes of death that either did not exist in the Victorian era or were much more rare? If you’re going to carve out the stats that favor your argument it makes debate a lot easier.

Probably not, because those are an expected part of normal living. The only one they likely ignored is infant deaths because those skew the results so much. Not every manipulation of data is nefarious...

[x]

It was all fun and games until Jack the Ripper showed up or somebody died of cholera.

[Chickensoup]

Ummm. This lines up with None of my readings about that era in England. This was the era of large estates. Limited food supply starvation impoverished filthy cities. And diseases. Typhoid scarlet fever tb diphtheria were common. This is some leftist screed about being happy peasants with less.

[Chickensoup]

And multiple wives because of childbirth deaths.

[Chickensoup]

There were no toddler foods. Everyone ate the same once teeth arrived

[SoCal Pubbie]

If you’re talking about nutrition and healthcare, as the authors are, you HAVE to take accidents out of the equation.