Life Expectancy - Best graph ever

[jjquantz]

Hey all, we spend a lot of time talking about life expectancy and how it might be "different now" . Often this involves financial planning, sometimes health issues and even, on occasion, philosophy.

I think that the single best discussion of life expectancy changes in the developed world is located here: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-624-x/2014001/article/14009-eng.htm

One graph really summarizes the changes that have occurred:

The blue line shows the percentage of deaths at all ages in Canada in 1921, the red line is the same in 1966 and the green line in 2011. The text goes on to explain what is pretty clear in the graph. Gains in life expectancy between 1921 and 1966 were largely due to drops in infant mortality, the eradication of childhood illnesses through vaccinations and the use of antibiotics to stop deaths from infection. The single largest contribution to gains between 1966 and 2011 was better treatment of circulatory system diseases, i.e. heart disease.

What is most striking to me, however, is the pretty obvious hard stop at 90-95. The text describes this as an apparent "natural limit."

Future life expectancy gains are going to have to come about by addressing the issue of aging, not by continuing our, admittedly successful, war on disease. Until the anti-aging breakthrough comes, it looks like we are going to continue to kick the bucket at 90 or so.

A key phrase from the report: Over the past 90 years, life expectancy has not greatly increased for those over 75 years of age.

 

[NW-Bound]

So, we are not all going to be Methuselah?

I won't have to rerun FIRECalc then.

 

[RAE]

Interesting, thanks for posting. I found this part of their narrative (and the chart that accompanies it) interesting:

"Although Canadians are living longer, with a life expectancy of 81.7 years and a most common age at death of 85 years, the ability of many adults to perform key health functions, that is, their functional healthNote 16 declines as they age. The increasing proportion of Canadians reaching older ages raises issues about demand for health services and delivery of care.
Chart 5 shows that after age 65, the decline in the functional health line tends to accelerate, with more severe disability (many activity limitations) occurring, on average, around age 77."

To me, "functional health" is what I am most interested in (and what I am hoping to extend as long as possible). I'm not sure I want to live until 90 or beyond if I am unable to physically perform even basic life tasks for the last XX years of my life. I think it would be better to retain good functional health (without too many limitations) until say, my early 80s, and then die doing something that I enjoy, and skip the prolonged period of disability/deterioration.

At any rate, the fact that a majority of us will decline rather rapidly after about age 77 should certainly provide motivation to all of us live life to the fullest until then (or longer, if we can). Hmmm, that only gives me about another 14 good years......

 

[RobbieB]

Ma made it to 87, Pops to 92. Pops drank and smoked, Ma didn't.

Me thinks 90 is a good upper limit for me.

 

[GR111]

Thanks jjquantz. Great graph. After 35 there is no doubt the lines/ percentage of deaths climb with each year. Good reminder not to take health for granted, enjoy every day, and time > $.

 

[Texas Proud]

I agree... I have seen people who were active in their early 80s do nothing by the end... and in the 90s most are gone even if not dead yet...


The problem I see is that if they do not address the decline of the brain it does not matter if you live to any age... I want a rewarding life, not just a life...

 

[Fedup]

I play bridge with a lot of seniors, some of them still drive, not many older than 85, but today somehow a lot of people were kind of loopy. So I know they do decline even before 80s.

 

[Sunset]

I visited a relative who lived in Canada his entire life, at age 96 living in his own home. He was alert and articulate.
I was totally amazed at his good health. He had fallen on the outside steps the day before but otherwise was fine as far as I could tell.
I suggested he see a doc, as I was surprised he had not broken a hip.
He died at age 97+

 

[SecondCor521]

Interesting, thanks for posting. I found this part of their narrative (and the chart that accompanies it) interesting:

"Although Canadians are living longer, with a life expectancy of 81.7 years and a most common age at death of 85 years, the ability of many adults to perform key health functions, that is, their functional healthNote 16 declines as they age. The increasing proportion of Canadians reaching older ages raises issues about demand for health services and delivery of care.
Chart 5 shows that after age 65, the decline in the functional health line tends to accelerate, with more severe disability (many activity limitations) occurring, on average, around age 77."

To me, "functional health" is what I am most interested in (and what I am hoping to extend as long as possible). I'm not sure I want to live until 90 or beyond if I am unable to physically perform even basic life tasks for the last XX years of my life. I think it would be better to retain good functional health (without too many limitations) until say, my early 80s, and then die doing something that I enjoy, and skip the prolonged period of disability/deterioration.

At any rate, the fact that a majority of us will decline rather rapidly after about age 77 should certainly provide motivation to all of us live life to the fullest until then (or longer, if we can). Hmmm, that only gives me about another 14 good years......

You might be interested in the book "Younger Next Year", which talks a lot about "functional health" (although not sure the authors use the same term) and some basic ideas for how to achieve it. Reasonably easy read, too.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

I wonder how this relates to the USA. Canada has National Healthcare, so everyone gets some form of access too health services. I am sure a lot of folks in the USA postpone doc visits because of the costs, even copays may be expensive for some, especially for specialists. In fact I know an older lady who does just that and only goes to the doc when things get unbearable for her. She cancelled her Medigap Policy ~5 years ago because it got too expensive and now she is liable for the 20%. I do know that in Canada there can be longish wait times for non life threatening situations, I am sure that was taken into account for this data set.

It would also be nice to see UK, France and other Countries Stats compared also.

 

[oneill225]

To me, "functional health" is what I am most interested in (and what I am hoping to extend as long as possible). I'm not sure I want to live until 90 or beyond if I am unable to physically perform even basic life tasks for the last XX years of my life. I think it would be better to retain good functional health (without too many limitations) until say, my early 80s, and then die doing something that I enjoy, and skip the prolonged period of disability/deterioration.
At any rate, the fact that a majority of us will decline rather rapidly after about age 77 should certainly provide motivation to all of us live life to the fullest until then (or longer, if we can). Hmmm, that only gives me about another 14 good years......

So true. I am using 80 as the end point for needing big travel and recreation funding. I have seen my parents (in their late 80's) basically shut down due to health limitations while leaving hundreds of thousands in the bank that they will never use. I am lucky to have a decent pension. That, and SS will fund our reduced lifestyle after that point.

 

[Walt34]

You might be interested in the book "Younger Next Year", which talks a lot about "functional health" (although not sure the authors use the same term) and some basic ideas for how to achieve it. Reasonably easy read, too.

It's on the bookshelf here. Not surprisingly the big issues are exercise every day (according to the authors you can take one day a week off) and a healthy diet. Still no guarantees of course but being fit makes the falloff in activity near the end a sharper drop rather than a long slow steady decline.

I saw this with FIL, who went for long walks every day until he physically couldn't. This is one reason I very rarely skip a "gym day". And if I do the atrophy sets in so fast it's scary.

 

[HadEnuff]

this graph confirms what I've empirically deduced: If I can make it to 115, I'll live forever.

 

[imoldernu]

Kelly passed his drivers' test yesterday. Mandatory every year after 86... He'll be 100 in 10 days. DW Helen turns 100 in December. (Our very sharp friends from our CCRC).

Starting in November 2019, @ age 83, I'll have to take my drivers test (road test) every 2 years. (bummer).

SS tables....

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

Chart says 90 for me and 91 for jeanie. Our numbers look ok... no world travel, and the Lamborghini is now officially off the wish list, but looks like we'll be okay.

 

[PatrickA5]

I visited a relative who lived in Canada his entire life, at age 96 living in his own home. He was alert and articulate.
I was totally amazed at his good health. He had fallen on the outside steps the day before but otherwise was fine as far as I could tell.
I suggested he see a doc, as I was surprised he had not broken a hip.
He died at age 97+

Dad lived to 97, living alone in his home until the end. In the last 10 years, he probably fell 20+ times. A few times he had to crawl to the phone and call me to come pick him up. Each time I figured, "well, this is it - we need to find a place", but he always bounced back (at least until the last fall - which was a stroke). He never broke any bones. I told him we should submit his body for science. He never drank milk, which pretty much threw out that old theory. He was also pretty alert and was even driving into his 90's. It wasn't until the last few months that he really started to decline. I think he was ready.

Me on the other hand will be lucky to make 70.

 

[candrew]

I'm not sure I want to live until 90 or beyond if I am unable to physically perform even basic life tasks for the last XX years of my life. I think it would be better to retain good functional health (without too many limitations) until say, my early 80s, and then die doing something that I enjoy, and skip the prolonged period of disability/deterioration.

My Dad passed away at age 90 from a massive stroke. He had a few TIA's in his 80's that led to some cognition issues, but otherwise, led a full life of functional health. Granddad lived to 93, smoking cigars and drinking bourbon. He also led a full life of functional health til the end. Both passed away without prolonged illness.

DW's Dad is 92, sharp as a tack and still drives. Her mother is 87 and the same.

We should all live as well as they do in their advanced ages.

 

[NW-Bound]

.. Gains in life expectancy between 1921 and 1966 were largely due to drops in infant mortality, the eradication of childhood illnesses through vaccinations and the use of antibiotics to stop deaths from infection.

... The single largest contribution to gains between 1966 and 2011 was better treatment of circulatory system diseases, i.e. heart disease.

What is most striking to me, however, is the pretty obvious hard stop at 90-95. The text describes this as an apparent "natural limit."

Future life expectancy gains are going to have to come about by addressing the issue of aging, not by continuing our, admittedly successful, war on disease. Until the anti-aging breakthrough comes, it looks like we are going to continue to kick the bucket at 90 or so.

A key phrase from the report: Over the past 90 years, life expectancy has not greatly increased for those over 75 years of age.

Yes, there's a natural limit to our life; our body wears out and is not like the trees that can live for thousand of years. At the end, organs such as heart, liver, kidney, lungs start to weaken and fail. And that is if cancer does not get you first.

And then, there's my late father-in-law whose muscles, tendons, and joints all locked up and rendered him immobilized. He could not even lift either hand to scratch his nose. There was nothing any doctor could do for him. All of his internal organs were OK. He was a slim man, and walked a few miles each day, but in his late 80s could not fend off plain old aging any longer.

So true. I am using 80 as the end point for needing big travel and recreation funding. I have seen my parents (in their late 80's) basically shut down due to health limitations while leaving hundreds of thousands in the bank that they will never use...

Ah, the above would not be a bad life. Not everybody gets to celebrate their 80th birthday, and quite a few do not make it to 70.

We keep talking about seeing old geezers out traveling and enjoying life, but the truth is that the ones who die a lot younger, they disappear from view and we do not know or remember about them.

 

[corn18]

This is my favorite graph. It puts life expectancy into context of retirement spending.

 

[GravitySucks]

I wonder how this relates to the USA. Canada has National Healthcare, so everyone gets some form of access too health services. I am sure a lot of folks in the USA postpone doc visits because of the costs, even copays may be expensive for some, especially for specialists. In fact I know an older lady who does just that and only goes to the doc when things get unbearable for her. She cancelled her Medigap Policy ~5 years ago because it got too expensive and now she is liable for the 20%. I do know that in Canada there can be longish wait times for non life threatening situations, I am sure that was taken into account for this data set.

It would also be nice to see UK, France and other Countries Stats compared also.

And it's colder up there. Things last longer in the cold.

 

[SecondCor521]

This is my favorite graph. It puts life expectancy into context of retirement spending.

I like that one. People can generate their own at:

https://engaging-data.com/will-money-last-retire-early/

 

[Oz investor]

75 will be a HAPPY surprise to my various medical professionals

i have been in crashes ( and crises ) all my life , and this is the slowest one i have been in

 

[NW-Bound]

I like that one. People can generate their own at:

https://engaging-data.com/will-money-last-retire-early/

I dunno

The default parameters start retirement at the age of 40, and end with death at 90. Fifty years of blissful retirement.

Seems optimistic to me, but then I was born a pessimist.

 

[SecondCor521]

I dunno

The default parameters start retirement at the age of 40, and end with death at 90. Fifty years of blissful retirement.

Seems optimistic to me, but then I was born a pessimist.

Uh, you realize you can change the numbers to be more pessimistic, right?

 

[NW-Bound]

But then, does it tell me any more than I already suspect?

Seriously, I set my expectations low, so that I may be pleasantly surprised. This philosophy has served me well, even if it makes me stay gloomy, no, sober.

 

[SecondCor521]

I think the main benefit is that it compactly and visually emphasizes the balance of risks. For me with my numbers, there is practically zero chance of running out of money, but a nearly 20% chance of dying by age 70. Helps me keep things in better perspective in a way I couldn't with just the numbers in front of me.