4 ms·

No smoking, no drinking, crap on a regular basis, and sleep 8 hours a day (and enjoy sex) will be much better for your quality of life (and quantity!) than calo

No smoking, no drinking, crap on a regular basis, and sleep 8 hours a day (and enjoy sex) will be much better for your quality of life (and quantity!) than calorie restriction. Look at the stats. Imagine if simply people avoid smoking: average age would go up 10 years immediately across the country.

rubashov 16y ago
The centrality of smoking to these models seems a little suspicious considering all the ancient people in Japan who have smoked all their lives. Also, cancer rates in the west, including lung cancer, have continued to rise despite major declines in smoking. Not that I'd suggest smoking; I'm just suspicious of the models.
- pjscott 16y ago
  The existence of really old people who've been smoking their entire lives is something you should expect to see if smoking is a strong statistical danger but not a guaranteed killer. It does not count as evidence against that theory. By the way, I looked up lung cancer rates in the US and the UK, and they've both been going down quite significantly among men, who were at a higher risk to begin with, and rising slowly among women -- a trend which has tapered off more recently. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics/trends.htm http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics/trends.htm http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/incidence/ http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/inci... Looking at correlations between smoking rates and lung cancer rates in various countries, there's strong evidence that most of the mortality gap between men and women can be explained by the greater prevalence of smoking among men: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/555221_2 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/555221_2
  - jaltucher 16y ago
    Lung cancer huge in China, where everyone smokes like a chimney.
    - pjscott 16y ago
      Air pollution is also huge in China, which is a confounding variable.

rubashov 16y ago

The centrality of smoking to these models seems a little suspicious considering all the ancient people in Japan who have smoked all their lives. Also, cancer rates in the west, including lung cancer, have continued to rise despite major declines in smoking. Not that I'd suggest smoking; I'm just suspicious of the models.

pjscott 16y ago
The existence of really old people who've been smoking their entire lives is something you should expect to see if smoking is a strong statistical danger but not a guaranteed killer. It does not count as evidence against that theory. By the way, I looked up lung cancer rates in the US and the UK, and they've both been going down quite significantly among men, who were at a higher risk to begin with, and rising slowly among women -- a trend which has tapered off more recently. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics/trends.htm http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics/trends.htm http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/incidence/ http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/inci... Looking at correlations between smoking rates and lung cancer rates in various countries, there's strong evidence that most of the mortality gap between men and women can be explained by the greater prevalence of smoking among men: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/555221_2 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/555221_2
- jaltucher 16y ago
  Lung cancer huge in China, where everyone smokes like a chimney.
  - pjscott 16y ago
    Air pollution is also huge in China, which is a confounding variable.