3 ms·
Sounds more like a wager based on rationalizing laziness than a wager informed by knowledge of the research on the factors that contribute to longevity. So wha
by sn9 10y ago
Sounds more like a wager based on rationalizing laziness than a wager informed by knowledge of the research on the factors that contribute to longevity.
So what if she has the genes? You have no information indicating whether or not her active lifestyle added 1 year or ten or twenty or zero. We do know that the research shows a causal relationship between activity level and longevity.
- jack9 10y ago> than a wager informed by knowledge of the research on the factors that contribute to longevity. Not the longevity that gets you to 100. The stats on centennials shows it's genetics. - see the Forbes article covering the people studying it.
- sn9 10y agoYes it must be binary. No spectrum of benefits.
- jack9 10y agoSmoking must cause cancer is the same kind of misleading nonsequitor. It misses the point. So no it "mustn't" be anything. It just is.
- sn9 10y agoCite your claims then. Show me even one study that says reaching 100 is 100% due to genetics and no amount of dietary or lifestyle changes contribute in any way.