> Some stuff is less damning than it sounds This takes the paper at face value and I would suggest the paper is misleading. For example, the paper says... > H

> Some stuff is less damning than it sounds This takes the paper at face value and I would suggest the paper is misleading. For example, the paper says... > However, alternative explanations for the distribution of remarkable age records appear to have been overlooked or downplayed. After reading through the original blue zones work and this paper, they didn't make a case that alternative explanations were overlooked or downplayed. For example, when they did the blue zones work they had to spend a lot of time making sure the data was good and many places were dismissed for bad data. This paper puts a lot of focus on bad data. No kidding. The paper puts a lot of time into covering bad data in the US. But, then doesn't take the time to point out any issues with the US blue zone. In a place like where Sardinia Italy they call out things like the murder rate being high and a low survivability rate to 55. Except it doesn't look at people in different age groups where "blue zones" tend to be going away as younger generations eat a different diet. There are levels to the analysis that are missing which makes the conclusions a bit misleading.