Lifeworld

This post is based on an analysis of a subset of the China Study II data, using HealthCorrelator for Excel (HCE), which is publicly available for download and use on a free trial basis. You can access the original data on the HCE web site, under “Sample datasets”.

HCE was designed to be used with small and individual personal datasets, but it can also be used with larger datasets for multiple individuals.

This analysis focuses on two main variables from the China Study II data: mortality in the 35-69 age range, and mortality in the 70-79 range. The table below shows the coefficients of association calculated by HCE for those two variables. The original variable labels are shown.


One advantage of looking at mortality in these ranges is that they are more likely to reflect the impact of degenerative diseases. Infectious diseases likely killed a lot of children in China at the time the data was being collected. Heart disease, on the other hand, is likely to have killed more people in the 35-69 and 70-79 ranges.

It is also good to have data for both ranges, because factors that likely increased longevity were those that were associated with decreased mortality in both ranges. For example, a factor that was strongly associated with mortality in the 35-69 range, but not the 70-79 range, might simply be very deadly in the former range.

The mortalities in both ranges are strongly correlated with each other, which is to be expected. Next, at the very top for both ranges, is sex. Being female is by far the variable with the strongest, and negative, association with mortality.

While I would expect females to live longer, the strengths of the associations make me think that there is something else going on here. Possibly different dietary or behavioral patterns displayed by females. Maybe smoking cigarettes or alcohol abuse was a lot less prevalent among them.

Markedly different lifestyle patterns between males and females may be a major confounding variable in the China Study sample.

Some of the variables are redundant; meaning that they are highly correlated and seem to measure the same thing. This is clear when one looks at the other coefficients of association generated by HCE.

For example, plant food consumption is strongly and negatively correlated with animal food consumption; so strongly that you could use either one of these two variables to measure the other, after inverting the scale. The same is true for consumption of rice and white flour.

Plant food consumption is not strongly correlated with plant protein consumption; many plant foods have little protein in them. The ones that have high protein content are typically industrialized and seed-based. The type of food most strongly associated with plant protein consumption is white flour, by far. The correlation is .645.

The figure below is based on the table above. I opened a separate instance of Excel, and copied the coefficients generated by HCE into it. Then I built two bar charts with them. The variable labels were replaced with more suggestive names, and some redundant variables were removed. Only the top 7 variables are shown, ordered from left to right on the bar charts in order of strength of association. The ones above the horizontal axis possibly increase mortality in each age range, whereas the ones at the bottom possibly decrease it.


When you look at these results as a whole, a few things come to mind.

White flour consumption doesn’t seem to be making people live longer; nor does plant food consumption in general. For white flour, it is quite the opposite. Plant food consumption reflects white flour consumption to a certain extent, especially in counties where rice consumption is low. These conclusions are consistent with previous analyses using more complex statistics.

Total food is positively associated with mortality in the 35-69 range, but not the 70-79 range. This may reflect the fact that folks who reach the age of 70 tend to naturally eat in moderation, so you don’t see wide variations in food consumption among those folks.

Eating in moderation does not mean practicing severe calorie restriction. This post suggests that calorie restriction doesn't seem to be associated with increased longevity in this sample. Eating well, but not too much, is.

The bar for rice (consumption) on the left chart is likely a mirror reflection of the white flour consumption, so it may appear to be good in the 35-69 range simply because it reflects reduced white flour consumption in that range.

Green vegetables seem to be good when you consider the 35-69 range, but not the 70-79 range.

Neither rice nor green vegetables seem to be bad either. For overall longevity they may well be neutral, with the benefits likely coming from their replacement of white flour in the diet.

Dietary fat seems protective overall, particularly together with animal foods in the 70-79 range. This may simply reflect a delayed protective effect of animal fat and protein consumption.

The protective effect of dietary fat becomes clear when we look at the relationship between carbohydrate calories and fat calories. Their correlation is -.957, which essentially means that carbohydrate intake seriously displaces fat intake.

Carbohydrates themselves may not be the problem, even if coming from high glycemic foods (except wheat flour, apparently). This post shows that they are relatively benign if coming from high glycemic rice, even at high intakes of 206 to 412 g/day. The problem seems to be caused by carbohydrates displacing nutrient-dense animal foods.

Interestingly, rice does not displace animal foods or fat in the diet. It is positively correlated with them. Wheat flour, on the other hand, displaces those foods. Wheat flour is negatively and somewhat strongly correlated with consumption of animal foods, as well as with animal fat and protein.

There are certainly several delayed effects here, which may be distorting the results somewhat.  Degenerative diseases don’t develop fast and kill folks right away. They often require many years of eating and doing the wrong things to be fatal.

HealthCorrelator for Excel (HCE) is now publicly available for download and use on a free trial basis. For those users who decide to buy it after trying, licenses are available for individuals and organizations. If you are a gym member, consider asking your gym to buy an organizational site license; this would allow the gym to distribute individual licenses at no cost to you and your colleagues.

HCE is a user-friendly Excel-based software that unveils important associations among health variables at the click of a button. Here are some of its main features:

- Easy to use yet powerful health management software.

- Estimates associations among any number of health variables.

- Automatically orders associations by decreasing absolute strength.

- Graphs relationships between pairs of health variables, for all possible combinations.

The beta testing was successfully completed, with fairly positive results. (Thank you beta testers!) Among beta testers were Mac users. The main request from beta testers was for more illustrative material on how to use HCE for specific purposes, such as losing body fat or managing blood glucose levels. This will be coming in the future in the form of posts and linked material.

To download a free trial version, good for 30 use sessions (which is quite a lot!), please visit the HealthCorrelator.com web site. There you will also find the software’s User Manual and various links to demo YouTube videos. You can also download sample datasets to try the software’s main features.

Genes do not evolve, nor do traits that are coded for our genes. We say that they evolve to facilitate discourse, which is alright. Populations evolve. A new genotype appears in a population and then either spreads or disappears. If it spreads, then the population is said to be evolving with respect to that genotype. A genotype may spread to an entire population; in population genetics, this is called “fixation”.


Asexual reproduction is very uncommon among animals. The most accepted theory to explain this is that animal populations live in environments that change very quickly, and thus need a great deal of genetic diversity within them to cope with the change. Otherwise they disappear, and so do their genes. Asexual reproduction leads to dramatically less genetic diversity in populations than sexual reproduction.

Asexual reproduction is similar to cloning. Each new individual looks a lot like its single parent. This does not work well in populations where individuals live relatively long lives. And even 1 year may be too long in this respect. It is just too much time to wait for a possible new mutation that will bring in some genetic diversity. To complicate matters, genetic mutation does not occur very often, and most genetic mutations are neutral with respect to the phenotype (i.e., they don’t code for any trait).

This is not so much of a problem for species whose members reproduce extremely fast; e.g., produce a new generation in less than 1 hour. A fast-reproducing species usually has a short lifespan as well. Accordingly, asexual reproduction is common among short-lived and fast-reproducing unicellular organisms and pathogens that have no cell structure like viruses.

Bacteria and viruses, in particular, form a part of the environment in which animals live that require animal populations to have a large amount of genetic diversity. Animal populations with low genetic diversity are unlikely to be able to cope with the barrage of diseases caused by these fast-mutating parasites.

We make sex chiefly because of the parasites.

And what about death? What does it bring to the table for a population?

Let us look at the other extreme – immortality. Immortality is very problematic in evolutionary terms because a population of immortal individuals would quickly outgrow its resources. That would happen too fast for the population to evolve enough intelligence to be able to use resources beyond those that were locally available.

In this post I assume that immortality is not the same as indestructibility. Here immortality is equated to the absence of aging as we know it. In this sense, immortals can still die by accident or due to disease. They simply do not age. For immortals, susceptibility to disease does not go up with age.

One could argue that a population of immortal individuals who did not reproduce would have done just fine. But that is not correct, because in this case immortality would be akin to cloning, but worse. Genetic diversity would not grow, as no mutations would occur. The fixed population of immortals would be unable to cope with fast-mutating parasites.

There is so much selection pressure against immortality in nature that it is no surprise that animals of very few species live more than 60 years on average. Humans are at the high end of the longevity scale. They are there for a few reasons. One is that our ancestors had offspring that required extra care, which led to an increase in the parents’ longevity. The offspring required extra care chiefly because of their large brains.

That increase in longevity was likely due to genetic mutations that helped our ancestors extend a lifespan that was programmed to be relatively short. Immortality is not a sound strategy for population survival, and thus there are probably many mechanisms through which it is prevented.

Death is evolution’s main ally. Sex is a very good helper. Both increase genetic diversity in populations.

We can use our knowledge of evolution to live better today. The aging clock can be slowed significantly via evolutionarily sound diet and lifestyle changes, essentially because some of our modern diet and lifestyle choices accelerate aging a lot. But diet and lifestyle changes probably will not make people live to 150.

If we want to become immortal, as we understand it in our current human form, ultimately we may want to beat evolution. In this sense, only very intelligent beings can become immortal.

Maybe we can achieve that by changing our genes, or by learning how to transfer our consciousness “software” into robots. In doing so, however, we may become something different; something that is not human and thus doesn’t see things in the same way as a human does. A conscious robot, without the hormones that so heavily influence human behavior, may find that being alive is pointless.

There is another problem. What if the only natural way to achieve some form of immortality is through organic death, but in a way that we don’t understand? This is not a matter of faith or religion. There are many things that we don’t know for sure. This is probably the biggest mystery of all; one that we cannot unravel in our current human state.