Modern Humans Far More Robust Than Ancestors

joeljkp writes "The New York Times has an article up discussing how modern humans are 'So Big and Healthy Nowadays That Grandpa Wouldn't Even Know You.' Despite the hyperbole, the article makes several excellent points regarding the impact of antibiotics and modern medicine on humans in their youth. The 'baby boomers' of today have an overall level of health far higher than their parents did in middle age, and reason stands that their children will have even better health to look forward to." From the article: "The biggest surprise emerging from the new studies is that many chronic ailments like heart disease, lung disease and arthritis are occurring an average of 10 to 25 years later than they used to. There is also less disability among older people today, according to a federal study that directly measures it. And that is not just because medical treatments like cataract surgery keep people functioning. Human bodies are simply not breaking down the way they did before. Even the human mind seems improved. The average I.Q. has been increasing for decades, and at least one study found that a person's chances of having dementia in old age appeared to have fallen in recent years."

Comments

The article and conclusion totally ignores..

[msauve]

what I believe is likely the real reason.
Life was just plain a lot harder then.
It's as simple as that. We've moved from an agrarian society to an industrial one to a service economy. Life is easier. No more scythes or plowing with a horse. No more mining coal with pick axes. No subsistance farming or clearing new fields by hand (unless you want to, I suppose). People are more educated about what's healthy and what's not, no more mercury based patent medicines, or blood letting with leaches.
The article has it half right - modern medicine play a large part, but I believe the major effect is because it's able to recognize and address the true nature of ailments, not because it's making the human body more robust. That is, it's a remedial effect more than a prophylactic one.

To the "100 is always the avg LOL!!1" crowd

[thebigo195]

It's entirely possible that the overall average is an all-time constant 100 but that people being tested in recent years have consistently beaten the historical average.

Re:I doubt it.

[kfg]

. . .the weight of fast food (har har) holding them back.

Have you never heard the phrase "greasy spoon"?

As a baby boomer let me inform you that McDonald's started serving fried burgers because that's where the demand already was. In fact, their food is a damned sight less greasy than was typical in prior times. Many older people go so far as to bemoan the fact that they can't get a properly greasy burger anymore, only that McDonald's crap.

We used to use butter as a staple. The five gallon can of lard/Crisco could be found in nearly any home's pantry. Fat puddings were revered. Colonel Sanders did not invent fried chicken.

Don't believe everything you read in the papers. If you'd ever been interviewed by one you'd know they're full of shit.

KFG

Re:Increasing IQ's?

[kingkongrevenge]

The increasing IQ trend is called the "Flynn effect." But Flynn himself thought people were just getting better at taking tests and various other biases were interfering. He suspected that intelligence was actually declining at a rate of about 1% per generation because the dumbest among us have more children.

http://users.fmg.uva.nl/jwicherts/wicherts2004.pdf

This study concludes the Flynn effect is a matter of how you tweak the numbers. It's weak enough it's not really worth talking about. Other studies have shown IQs have been declining in the West since the mid to late 90s.