2006-10-02 22:21:41 · 18 answers · asked by SADGIT 2 in Health ➔ Other - Health
No. There were certain aspects of their lives which were healthier but in most areas they fell far short. I'm not sure what generation you are but every generation lives longer than the one prior unless disaster strikes. People didn't know a lot about preventing various diseases until fairly recently. They may have known that smoking is bad but they probably spent most of their lives thinking well-marbled meat was healthy and believing that all fish were the same nutritionally. The treatments for many diseases were primitive at best. Accident prevention wasn't a big concern and there were no bicycle helmets or car airbags or even seat belts. Many people died or were severely injured in accidents that either woul not happen now or would be very minor. Smoking and drinking were the norm.
2006-10-02 22:41:17 · answer #1 · answered by Kuji 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The answer is yes and no.
They did not eat junk food or sit and watch TV all day. They worked hard for much longer hours and breathed fresher air.
Walking was a much more likely means of transport.
However, they DID eat much more fat - toast and dripping was a staple for some!
Life expectancy was much lower, even 30 years ago. Depending on how old your grandparents were/are - mine were born in the 1880s (!!!) they grew up with far less health care available.
There were no antibiotics until the 1930s, they lived through two wars, and transplants were a futuristic dream. TB, dyptheria, rickets, polio - an endless list of illnesses - were the cause of death then, whereas they were virtually unknown then.
Then again: stress/PTSD/RSI/ME/binge drinking??? Unheard of.
Whereas they got on with their (albeit shorter) lives, we see all the problems and worry about them. So, although our lives SHOULD be better, we feel that there is some sort of "Good old time" which we should aspire to returning to.
2006-10-02 22:36:42 · answer #2 · answered by Essex Ron 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they had a lot of diseases that were not mentioned as diseases and early death certificates often listed the cause of death as old age. They drank dirty water and ate contaminated food. They died of stuff that we would not think of as fatal today. If they got a scratch and it got infected they had no antibiotics. They had no real medicine and doctors did not even know enough to wash their hands between operations. They would go from an autopsy to a delivery without anything more than a wipe if they had gooey stuff on them. People are much better of now. Thank smart people for raising hell and creating socialized medicine.
the only good thing was they walked more.
2006-10-02 22:33:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really, I mean the Americans and the rest of Europe were having us in a economical blockade, and I hear all these stories about how the whole family had to share one slice of salami per week. They would take turns having the salami on their bread, alway tugging it away so they could catch the scent but not eat it.
On sunday they would draw lots of who could actually eat it. Wait- GREAT grandparents.... well, I don't know about them... Oh, well one of them was a war-vet who became alcoholized and the other was up north making cheeses.
2006-10-02 22:31:20 · answer #4 · answered by dane 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes & No. Depends how you define healthier. Yes becasue there wasnt the same levels of pollution, food additives, dangerous chemicals in the environment and the knowledge about the ones that were knwon about was basic. No, because health care was very basic and unaffordable for many.
2006-10-02 22:36:43 · answer #5 · answered by Richard M 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Life expectancy has greatly increased since then, largely because infant mortality has dropped precipitously, rather than due to any large increase in life-span. Height and intelligence have also been increasing. The reasons for all this are not agreed, but the most likely cause for all three is improved infant health.
2006-10-03 04:20:12 · answer #6 · answered by scientist 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People long ago had to work at every age to get food. If you didn't work you would starve to death. So they had exercise when they worked in the fields, today people sit down and do nothing and eat all day long. My great grandparents died in their 90's and were never in a hospital.
2006-10-02 22:51:54 · answer #7 · answered by kayef57 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Food may have been less abundant, and there was less access to 'labour saving devices' so obesity was not a problem for the general population.
However there was less regulation about 'tainted food', no general access to refrigiration, less understanding of pollution/industrial disease (miners lung, asbestosis), less understanding of radiation (see: http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1388.html )
you only have to look at childhood disease figures and death statistics to see that we live longer.... and living longer is a *pretty good* indication of an overall healthier lifestyle
2006-10-02 22:55:49 · answer #8 · answered by Vinni and beer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have been thinking about that too, the Victorians had some health issues but they were due to sanitation more than the food they ate or the lifestyle they led...seems that the older generations have a longer lifespan than we do now..
2006-10-02 22:25:07 · answer #9 · answered by ♥♥Squirrel ♥♥ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
More healthier? As in, much more better?
Than our lives is?
The answer is yes, and here's why: They ate radishes and you don't. Now go to school and learn your grammar.
2006-10-02 22:32:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋