--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt Grimaldi wrote: > > Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > > > > > I once listened from a nutty UFO and psychic > believer > > > that water from high up in the mountains was > more healthy than water from below, because it had > less Deuterium and Deuterium would accelerate aging. > > > > > > Sounds nutty, but - as I said before - might be > > > true. Mountain people _seem_ to have longer > lifes than groundhogs > > > > > > > Not if they fall off a cliff... :-) > > > > I would guess that their lifestyle, which by > necessity > > includes more physical labor, less fast food, etc. > > contributes a lot more to their longevity than a > lack of deuterium. > > One question: What's the infant mortality rate > among the mountain people in > question, as opposed to the population they're being > compared to? If the > weaker people die in infancy, the average lifespan > of the survivors will likely be longer.
Can't back all of this up at the moment, but off-the-cuff: -mountain population tends to be less dense than river delta population, so infectious diseases ought to be less prevalent (high density -> higher rate of infection being passed) -tropical diseases more prevalent at delta altitude (more bugs and bacteria and viruses) than at high altitude -I recall seeing Andean glacier water had a high mineral content, and there is some evidence (posted previously) that this has health benefits; delta river water has a lot of sediment but I don't know about the dissolved mineral content (guessing less), and of course many more bacteria/protozoans -- some of them pathogens -one study did suggest a slightly lower longevity for women at very high altitudes (it didn't pop up in my limited search, however) -A Russian study found "The influence of natural and man-made factors on the longevity of people in Tadzhikistan was studied. The studies indicated that high-altitude hypoxia had an adverse effect on their longevity while premountain and low-mountain areas of the republic were the most beneficial." [I'm going to guess that this population has not adapted yet to altitude -- see last 2 studies below.] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10975187&dopt=Abstract -another notes a higher rate of death from emphysema in Colorado despite the younger average age of residents: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7103248&dopt=Abstract "...Emphysema deaths at higher altitudes in Colorado (greater than or equal to 7,000 ft) occur at a younger age...after a shorter duration of illness, and more commonly from cor pulmonale than at lower altitudes (less than or equal to 4,500 ft) where pneumonia is more common as the immediate cause of death. The mechanism by which high altitude residence interacts unfavorably with survival is not known but may stem from augmented pulmonary hypertension caused by the hypoxia of lung disease added to the hypoxia of high altitude." This older (1982) study I think is suspect: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7094209&dopt=Abstract "...For most comparisons a deficit in cancer mortality in high altitude counties was observed. The largest differences between the low and high altitude groups were found for cancers of the tongue and mouth, esophagus, larynx, lung and melanoma. Some limitations of ecologic studies are discussed." [As this is a US study, and all but melanoma are tobacco-related cancers, I suspect self-selection is one of the limitations: smokers are more likely to have COPD, get short-of-breath, and move to lower altitudes before they die. Melanomas are of course more common with higher UV exposure in the mountains.] -here is are studies on infant mortality that mention both Himalayan and Andean infants, and add to Julia's supposition that generations of "survival of the fittest" has produced hardier sub-populations: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7943187&dopt=Abstract "...Data derived from reproductive histories revealed that neonatal mortality accounted for 70-80% of total infant mortality in Ladakh [India]. Compared to other high-altitude studies, small newborn size in Ladakh was associated with much higher mortality risks; mortality risk rose dramatically with birthweights below the mean (2,764 grams), which characterized 50% of all newborns. It is argued that newborns in Ladakh are subject to strong directional selective forces that favor higher birthweights that incur lower risks of neonatal mortality, while Andean infants are subject to relatively mild selection pressure at both ends of the birthweight distribution. Given the overall small size at birth of Ladakhi newborns and the poor survival outcomes of newborns below the mean, it is suggested that this population is less well adapted in a biological sense to the stresses inherent in this high-altitude environment than are Andean populations, perhaps due to the relatively recent colonization of the area and the substantial genetic admixture that has occurred in the past." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8317562&dopt=Abstract ...In comparison with literature observations, the altitude-associated difference in birth weight was smallest in Tibetans, intermediate in South America, and greatest in North America. These data support the hypothesis that Tibetans are protected from altitude-associated intrauterine growth retardation and suggest that selection for optimization of birth weight at high altitude has occurred in Tibetans." Debbi Mile High Maru :) __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
