Why are people in big cities generally much healthier?

[Gustav3Y]

Maybe has been mentioned before in the thread but a big city also attracts the most capable of individuals, intellectually or just physically.

Meaning those who are able to put in more work, are more healthy in general will go get their changes in a place where there are more opportunities for them, if those are not found where they went, they go to another place again.
Who is ill and sick can't afford to jump around and mingle with the healthiest of people.

Take for example city like Paris where people from all over the world go for the lifestyle and even for fashion/modeling. Certain people with certain characteristics migrate to an area.

There is even the question weather not moving around where the opportunities are would be a waste of life. I see clearly people I know they keep moving from place to place and always improve, these are also mentally strong and for the most part physically capable (no nausea half of the day because of this or that diet, no anxiety to the max, etc)

Is is certainly a perspective I see around me and also hear this from others, so in a sense certain individuals that are doing "well" gather in places where others are also doing "well". If you are not strong enough to survive the journey or adapt to a new place you might not be healthy enough already.
Knowing how poverty looks like, it is obvious whoever is able and capable will leave.
It's just a view on a partial cause, not an overall explanation why that would be so.

 

[tankasnowgod]

I like this map a lot. Its segments are so small that many big cities have their own segments.

And even if they don't, the segments where the biggest cities are located are always these with the highest lifespans in the given country (which is actually even more impressive IMO)

Again, you still aren't looking at "hard data," you are looking at estimates.

Also, you seem to be confusing "life expectancy" with health. While the two are related, they don't equal each other. For example, farmers in robust health may have a lower life expectancy than city folks with poorer health, due entirely to an increased likelihood of trauma based death (from working with large farm equipment, for example).

 

[Gustav3Y]

I would not really compared US style farmers with 3rd world farmers, it is night and day difference in the amount of physical work one puts in compared to the other with vastly different tools and vastly different protection equipment.
Ironically no one from these areas who are on the forum seem to share these experiences around from 2nd or 3rd world countries, maybe because they may be very young and not accustomed to such details at first hand.

 

[BearWithMe]

Again, you still aren't looking at "hard data," you are looking at estimates.

Also, you seem to be confusing "life expectancy" with health. While the two are related, they don't equal each other. For example, farmers in robust health may have a lower life expectancy than city folks with poorer health, due entirely to an increased likelihood of trauma based death (from working with large farm equipment, for example).

Poor health significantly increases risk of trauma-based death. Many of the trauma-based deaths might not have happened if the person was in good health.

Not many people living in countryside works as farmers and farmers doesn't have above average work related fatalities

 

[tankasnowgod]

Poor health significantly increases risk of trauma-based death.

Lol, not nearly as much as trauma does!

 

[BearWithMe]

Lol, not nearly as much as trauma does!

Yes, but if you are in good health, the trauma is much less likely to happen (faster reaction times, clearer thinking, better orientation in space, thinking ahead, anticipation of things, better hearing and sight, etc).

Actually I think that work of people living on the countryside looks pretty much the same as the work of city-dwellers. Majority of both groups are sitting on their butts in some kind of office and typing into the computer.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Yes, but if you are in good health, the trauma is much less likely to happen (faster reaction times, clearer thinking, better orientation in space, thinking ahead, anticipation of things, better hearing and sight, etc).

Ridiculous. If you work with a Wheat Thresher everyday, you are far, faaaaaar more likely to be injured or killed by a Wheat Thresher than, say, a cancer patient undergoing chemotherapy, who is more likely to be sedentary most of the day, by necessity.

True, in the same activities, trauma is less likely to happen. The cancer patient is more likely to suffer trauma by walking from the bed to the bathroom than the Wheat Thresher worker. But obviously, the Wheat Thresher worker in robust health can engage in activities where trauma is more likely to happen.

Anyway, the earlier point about you not looking at hard data stands. You are looking at "Life Expectancy," which is an estimate. If you have a long term study that followed a group of children who were born, raised, and stayed in the countryside their entire lives, their health and longevity might look very different from a similar group of children from the city. But, since such a study would take several decades to do and complete, you don't have that.

Also, seeing as the earlier study you posted used data starting in 1969, there is no reason to believe that, even if the data was true for when it was done, that it would continue to apply in 2021 and beyond, as cities are the places that are leading the way in things like mask mandates, forced vaccinations, and such.

 

[BearWithMe]

Ridiculous. If you work with a Wheat Thresher everyday, you are far, faaaaaar more likely to be injured or killed by a Wheat Thresher than, say, a cancer patient undergoing chemotherapy, who is more likely to be sedentary most of the day, by necessity.

True, in the same activities, trauma is less likely to happen. The cancer patient is more likely to suffer trauma by walking from the bed to the bathroom than the Wheat Thresher worker. But obviously, the Wheat Thresher worker in robust health can engage in activities where trauma is more likely to happen.

Anyway, the earlier point about you not looking at hard data stands. You are looking at "Life Expectancy," which is an estimate. If you have a long term study that followed a group of children who were born, raised, and stayed in the countryside their entire lives, their health and longevity might look very different from a similar group of children from the city. But, since such a study would take several decades to do and complete, you don't have that.

Also, seeing as the earlier study you posted used data starting in 1969, there is no reason to believe that, even if the data was true for when it was done, that it would continue to apply in 2021 and beyond, as cities are the places that are leading the way in things like mask mandates, forced vaccinations, and such.

The study is analyzing data from 2005-2009 and comparing it with data from 1969-1971.

"In 2005-2009, those in large metropolitan areas had a life expectancy of 79.1 years, compared with 76.9 years in small urban towns and 76.7 years in rural areas. ... In 1969-1971, life expectancy was 0.4 years longer in metropolitan than in nonmetropolitan areas (70.9 vs 70.5 years). ... Between 1969 and 2009, residents in metropolitan areas experienced larger gains in life expectancy than those in nonmetropolitan areas, contributing to the widening gap."

 

[boris]

I'd say pesticides could be to blame for this. Some of them are extremely toxic.

Rural in most of Europe for example will mean that you'll live right next to a field. The fields start directly on the borders of the cities and occupy almost every single possible meter in between them. I've read some pretty horrific reports of people being exposed to pesticide drifts because farmers where spraying in windy weather, some people reported dead pets or dead birds from it in their garden.

 

[tankasnowgod]

The study is analyzing data from 2005-2009 and comparing it with data from 1969-1971.

The study is using that data to come up with estimates, and they tell you that, if you bother to read the "Materials and Methods" section.

Because the national mortality database does not allow direct computation of life expectancies for people in rural and urban areas, the 1974, 1983, 1993, and 2003 rural–urban continuum variables were linked to the age-, gender-, race-, and county-specific mortality statistics from 1969–1980, 1981–1989, 1990–1998, and 1999–2009, respectively, to derive life expectancy estimates.

 

[BearWithMe]

I'd say pesticides could be to blame for this. Some of them are extremely toxic.

Rural in most of Europe for example will mean that you'll live right next to a field. The fields start directly on the borders of the cities and occupy almost every single possible meter in between them. I've read some pretty horrific reports of people being exposed to pesticide drifts because farmers where spraying in windy weather.

...and it got even worse with the advent of "biofuels" and canola oil additives to the fuel, because there are basically no limits on pesticide use for the "fuel" crops, so farmers went crazy with it.

 

[Drareg]

We could view this question through the lens of bioenergetic resource, general cities currently have better access to said resources even with negatives associated with big city life. In general big cities also attract people with more coherent bioenergetic resource to begin with.

What would be interesting to look at is if this is just a western city phenomenon, do poorer nations big cities have the same pattern, the rural areas in poorer areas may still be eating traditional foods in some cases, many rural areas in the west eat poor quality food in contemporary times.

I don’t think this will last for long the way western health is going.

 

[BearWithMe]

We could view this question through the lens of bioenergetic resource, general cities currently have better access to said resources even with negatives associated with big city life. In general big cities also attract people with more coherent bioenergetic resource to begin with.

What would be interesting to look at is if this is just a western city phenomenon, do poorer nations big cities have the same pattern, the rural areas in poorer areas may still be eating traditional foods in some cases, many rural areas in the west eat poor quality food in contemporary times.

I don’t think this will last for long the way western health is going.

What exactly is meant by bioenergetic resource?

 

[Drareg]

What exactly is meant by bioenergetic resource?

Basically what we discuss on here, having the resources available for coherent cellular metabolism, energy production.

 

[BearWithMe]

Basically what we discuss on here, having the resources available for coherent cellular metabolism, energy production.

Ah, I see. Does it matter more than not being exposed to toxins that damage cellular metabolism and halts energy production?

 

[Drareg]

Ah, I see. Does it matter more than not being exposed to toxins that damage cellular metabolism and halts energy production?

The more coherent your metabolism the more chance you have to detoxify, within reason.
Interestingly a big cities in the west makes it easier to find "peaty" food items or even fad health dietary choices than rural areas in many cases.

 

[ChemHead]

Literally only in animal experiments where the animals are kept in captivity. This has never been demonstrated in humans, nor in any free living animal.

That's because humans aren't willing to do it. All evidence points to this being the case in humans as well as other mammals. Most scientists involved in anti aging research don't even question this. Yeah, there's not much long term data because it would require a large group of people to sacrifice a key part of life's enjoyment to test it, but it doesn't mean they can't test epigenetic changes that occur on a shorter time frame in subjects that are on a calorie restricted diet.

It's very clear that calorie restriction and prolonged fasting promote longevity in humans. I don't think anyone actually disputes this at this point.

 

[BearWithMe]

The more coherent your metabolism the more chance you have to detoxify, within reason.
Interestingly a big cities in the west makes it easier to find "peaty" food items or even fad health dietary choices than rural areas in many cases.

That's very true.

Do people in big cities generally eat peaty, though?

 

[BearWithMe]

That's because humans aren't willing to do it. All evidence points to this being the case in humans as well as other mammals. Most scientists involved in anti aging research don't even question this. Yeah, there's not much long term data because it would require a large group of people to sacrifice a key part of life's enjoyment to test it, but it doesn't mean they can't test epigenetic changes that occur on a shorter time frame in subjects that are on a calorie restricted diet.

It's very clear that calorie restriction and prolonged fasting promote longevity in humans. I don't think anyone actually disputes this at this point.

The usual explanation around here is that with calorie restriction, you usually also restrict PUFA and/or iron. And PUFA/iron restriction definitely do have positive effect on health and lifespan. So in that sense, I believe that calorie restriciton do increase longevity.

 

[EmperorOfMan]

I think the answer to this has more to do with the people than the actual environment. People that choose to live in larger cities generally (not always) tend to be of higher intelligence are more success driven... meaning they want to continually improve in most aspects of life and a significant part of self-improvement is going to be health related.

People who choose to live in rural areas are generally going to be less driven, intellectually and academically, and, as a result, will be less inclined to desire that continual self-improvement. They will focus generally on living and enjoying simpler pleasures rather than delayed gratification you might see from people who live in larger cities.

Again, I'm going to stress that this is more of a generalization. It does not necessarily mean that people who live in rural areas are dumb and those who live in large cities are not dumb. There are very intelligent people who live in rural areas and also very dumb people who live in big cities. However, people of higher intelligence will have a proclivity to congregate in large cities because it's where academic institutions and businesses reside. In fact, I'd say that the association between people of higher intelligence living in large cities is kind of foolishly obvious. It's not the large cities that first lured intelligent people... Intelligent people were the point of origin of large cities. Large cities first start as a congregation of intelligent people in what would probably be considered a "rural" area. Those places then become a center for attraction... It's where all the action is happening. It's where all the business is taking place. It's where people with great minds collaborate or compete with one another to build great things. Logically, the allure of a place like this draws more people of higher intelligence and drive, but it eventually also draws morons as the appeal of the city grows. However, it needs to be stressed that the city was first full of intelligence before it was big. So, the intelligence stimulates the size.. not the other way around.

So, to reiterate, people that live in large cities are healthier because large cities draw a certain breed of goal-driven people that generally desire continual self-improvement. And if you want self-improvement, you generally need money. To get money, you need to be intelligent and live where academic institutions and all the commerce and financial action is happening.

this is the obvious answer