
Russian deaths from malnutrition rate 5x lower than in the US - ommunist
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/
======
whack
Setting Russia aside for a second, the UK has a malnutrition rate that's 4-5x
lower than the US as well. Why is this? I suspect this is related to the high
rates of obesity in the US, and that this site is including all deaths caused
by obesity related problems?

~~~
dpark
France also has a rate ~4x higher than the US, and even Norway has a rate
double that of the US. I do wonder how much of this is difference is
legitimate differences between countries and how much is a difference in
categorization. Are the French really 20x as likely to die of malnutrition as
the neighboring Germans?

~~~
marcosdumay
How much of it is pure noise?

Those numbers are smaller than 1/100,000. You are counting 200 occurrences an
year at the US, and many less at France or Germany.

~~~
dogma1138
I have it hard time to believe that only 200 people die in the US due to
malnutrition it's likely different classification.

Death due to lack of certain nutrients isn't that uncommon.

While VAD deaths in the US and the west are probably rare VDD related deaths
are quite common especially in cardiac cases.

Same goes for many other things.

If you only count acute starvation then 200 cases per year might make sense
but diet has a huge impact on mortality.

~~~
dpark
> _Death due to lack of certain nutrients isn 't that uncommon._

Citation? My understanding is that study after study has generally shown
little impact from vitamin supplementation except in specific cases where
subjects show obvious signs of deficiency (e.g. iron deficiency in pregnant
women).

> _VDD related deaths are quite common especially in cardiac cases_

I'm assuming this is "vitamin D deficiency". I'd against ask for a citation. I
couldn't find anything supporting this claim. Seems to be a risk factor but
that's very different than being caused by the deficiency.

 _We’re still a few years away from clinical trials that explore the possible
link between taking vitamin D supplements to achieve higher vitamin D levels,
and lower cardiovascular risk._

[http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heart_vascular_institute/clin...](http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heart_vascular_institute/clinical_services/centers_excellence/womens_cardiovascular_health_center/patient_information/health_topics/vitamin_d_and_the_heart.html)

~~~
dogma1138
Nothing to do with supplements, that is nonsense but we're talking about very
low levels of certain nutrients including vitamins and various minerals.

Low levels of vitamin D have been directly linked to increased death rates
from cardiovascular conditions that doesn't mean the swallowing pills would
help.

Vitamin A deficiency is one of the leading causes of blindness amongst
children and pregnancy related mortality in the world, this also happens in
western countries by not as much.

And so on and so on, eventually you can tie a lot of medical causes to poor
diet, not getting enough X which causes or makes condition Y worse leading to
death.

Dying to starvation proper (excluding famines and other natural disasters) is
kinda hard in the west, and in many other places unless it's enforced
starvation, you simply tend to die to exposure way before that.

~~~
dpark
> _Nothing to do with supplements, that is nonsense but we 're talking about
> very low levels of certain nutrients including vitamins and various
> minerals._

I don't know how to interpret this. You're saying that supplements are
nonsense but the deficiencies are real? So the deficiency causes mortality but
from fixing the deficiency doesn't reduce mortality?

> _Low levels of vitamin D have been directly linked to increased death rates
> from cardiovascular conditions that doesn 't mean the swallowing pills would
> help."_

Vitamin D deficiency is _correlated_ with certain cardiovascular conditions.
"Directly linked" doesn't really mean anything and is misleading because it
could easily be interpreted to be causal which is definitely not established.
If it were causal then supplements _would_ fix it.

> _And so on and so on, eventually you can tie a lot of medical causes to poor
> diet, not getting enough X which causes or makes condition Y worse leading
> to death._

This is the sort of statement that I don't think is supported by the science,
but is so vague that it's difficult to meaningfully discuss. What is "a lot"?
Is it some small fraction of a percentage? My understanding is that in the
western world, vitamin deficiencies are fairly rare and clinical evidence
doesn't indicate most conditions are clearly tied to deficiencies.

Obviously what you eat will impact your health but the area is so complex that
the contribution of minor deficiencies is basically impossible to separate
from the noise. An implication of this is that recommendations of specific
supplements or specific foods for correcting deficiencies are generally not
scientific.

------
cjensen
Gosh I'd need to know a lot more about this number before drawing any
conclusions. For example, what counts as malnutrition? In the US, do addicts
die from spending too little on food? If a baby dies due to untreated
gestational diabetes, is that malnutrition? Does Russia categorize the death
of a drunk differently than the US?

So many sad questions.

------
wnevets
According to the russian media they also have higher levels of freedom there
too.

------
yenda
The rate is so high In France it's hard to believe.

~~~
dpark
20x the rate in Germany. It's very hard to believe this data is consistent
across nations.

------
internaut
Russians have a habit of employing scientific information in their daily
lives. For instance: I've been told that a Russian or Eastern European weather
forecaster sometimes gives health advice based on the air pressure changes.

In America or the UK I know this would be dismissed as 'woo'.

Unless it was contextualized correctly of course. Such as between friends or
within a relevant domain like medicine.

Sometimes I worry we might be retarded.

~~~
dekhn
It's more likely that Russia simply underreports malnutrition.

Anyway, got more specifics on the weather forecaster giving health advice on
air pressure changes? I mean, other than, "watch out for rain"?

~~~
tetromino_
For one thing, air pressure changes are a common trigger for migraines:

[http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/migraine-
heada...](http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/migraine-
headache/expert-answers/migraine-headache/faq-20058505)

[http://www.webmd.com/migraines-headaches/headache-and-
migrai...](http://www.webmd.com/migraines-headaches/headache-and-migraine-
trigger-weather)

~~~
dekhn
And so what would you do if you had a migraine? It's not like you can adjust
the pressure by staying inside- it equilibrates.

~~~
internaut
You might want to talk to some engineers about that.

It may be possible to have a fine degree of control over air pressure in
today's high spec houses because of their high air tightness requirements.

I don't know that it is possible, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was
because they are so tight they have to employ mechanical ventilation. I know
hospitals employ air pressure as a way of controlling for disease spreading.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_room_pressure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_room_pressure)

~~~
dpark
> _It may be possible to have a fine degree of control over air pressure in
> today 's high spec houses because of their high air tightness requirements._

Houses are not that airtight. Long before a house gets airtight enough to
maintain a pressure differential efficiently, the occupants will get ill as
off-gassing from carpets and paints and wood finishes cannot escape. If you
run a large negative pressure in a typical house, you also risk carbon
monoxide poisoning from sucking exhaust from the furnace into the living
space.

> _I know hospitals employ air pressure as a way of controlling for disease
> spreading._

They use air pressure this way specifically because construction is not
airtight. If you run a negative pressure differential (which requires a pretty
beefy blower to accomplish and isn't very energy efficient), you end up
pulling air in from all the gaps and cracks and porous materials, which means
that contaminated air is not going _into_ all the gaps and cracks and porous
materials.

~~~
internaut
> Houses are not that airtight. Long before a house gets airtight enough to
> maintain a pressure differential efficiently, the occupants will get ill as
> off-gassing from carpets and paints and wood finishes cannot escape.

They are that airtight. That is why they put in mechanical ventilation such as
HRV and ERV. The houses are that air tight that off-gassing is a problem once
they get down below 0.6 ACH @ 50 pascals as they do in passive house builds.

> If you run a large negative pressure in a typical house, you also risk
> carbon monoxide poisoning from sucking exhaust from the furnace into the
> living space.

It happens, I read this the other week.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/TinyHouses/comments/5ec33i/the_big_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/TinyHouses/comments/5ec33i/the_big_tiny_house_problem_nobody_seems_to_be/)

> They use air pressure this way specifically because construction is not
> airtight. If you run a negative pressure differential (which requires a
> pretty beefy blower to accomplish and isn't very energy efficient), you end
> up pulling air in from all the gaps and cracks and porous materials, which
> means that contaminated air is not going into all the gaps and cracks and
> porous materials.

I understand why a negative pressure room works. The linked to Wikipedia page
explains it. They are an example of manipulating air pressure to affect an
outcome.

What I don't understand is what point you're trying to make.

If it is that the air tightness of a house coupled with a HRV is not
sufficient to effect barometric pressure on a human body, then I already
acknowledged that might be so. It also might be sufficient, which is why
suggested getting an expert's opinion.

~~~
dpark
> _They are that airtight. That is why they put in mechanical ventilation such
> as HRV and ERV. The houses are that air tight that off-gassing is a problem
> once they get down below 0.6 ACH @ 50 pascals as they do in passive house
> builds._

Yes, off-gassing is a problem. Off-gassing is a problem long before a house is
really airtight enough to efficiently maintain a pressure differential,
though.

0.6ACH@50Pa means that your house is extremely airtight by even modern
standards. It also means that a very light pressure is sufficient to cause
your house to completely exchange it's interior air in less than two hours. If
you want to depressurize a house enough to offset a high pressure weather
system, you're going to be moving a lot of air.

> _It happens, I read this the other week._

Yes, I know it happens. That's why I said it. This is another reason that you
cannot significantly depressurize a house.

Plus your door would fly open and break your face when you turned the knob.

> _What I don 't understand is what point you're trying to make._ > _If it is
> that the air tightness of a house coupled with a HRV is not sufficient to
> effect barometric pressure on a human body, then I already acknowledged that
> might be so. It also might be sufficient, which is why suggested getting an
> expert 's opinion._

Yes, I'm saying it won't work. For many reasons. You don't need an expert. It
doesn't even pass the sniff test.

