4 ms·

Blue zones have been utterly, thoroughly debunked. There’s no reason to still ask this question in 2026 unless a new/unusual population or lifestyle is emerging

by smt88 4mo ago

Blue zones have been utterly, thoroughly debunked. There’s no reason to still ask this question in 2026 unless a new/unusual population or lifestyle is emerging.

hnfong 4mo ago
This is your personal opinion or general consensus?
- smt88 4mo ago
  Why would it be my personal opinion? Do you think I was the one who did the research debunking them? If you're too lazy to Google it for yourself, here's a history of the Blue Zone research, how the original "researcher" is profiting off of it, and the careful work that has been done to debunk it: https://www.science.org/content/article/do-blue-zones-supposed-havens-longevity-rest-shaky-science https://www.science.org/content/article/do-blue-zones-suppos...
  - hnfong 4mo ago
    I think you misunderstand. You think blue zones are "thoroughly debunked". And it might be even true that blue zones aren't real. But I am not seeing any evidence that the general public is aware of this. And thus we need more of the articles "asking" this question so that more people are aware of the issues on it. FYI, the article you linked basically tells the same story as the topical article. Are you too lazy to read it before commenting?
    - smt88 4mo ago
      A) I can't read the article because it's paywalled. B) Regardless of what story it tells, the article is an opinion piece by a journalist and a cardiologist, not authorities on the topic, and has a misleading title: that "answering [the] question [of whether Blue Zones are real]" is harder than ever. It's not.
      - loeg 4mo ago
        You didn't miss anything. There aren't any new facts in the article. It treats the original blue zone researchers very generously, waves its hands about drawing conclusions on whether the original blue zone research was due to pension fraud or not, and generally blathers on for dozens of paragraphs talking about various things tangentially related like that some blue zone areas no longer have many centenarians or various bullshit marketing claims using blue zone language by Buettner, etc, etc.
      - nkurz 4mo ago
        You keep saying that you "can't read the article" rather than that you choose not to. Are you philosophically opposed to clicking the archive link in this thread: https://archive.ph/cgUxZ https://archive.ph/cgUxZ? Which is fine, although I personally wouldn't use "can't" to describe this stance. In any case, I think the discussion might be smoother if you were willing to review the article under discussion.
PaulDavisThe1st 4mo ago
Tell me you didn't read TFA without telling me. And in fact, TFA is pretty sympathetic to your position, but not as absolutely certain as you are.
- smt88 4mo ago
  I didn’t read TFA because it’s paywalled. The question asked by the headline is fair, but the next sentence is too credulous and is actually false. There’s a reason this was published as “opinion”.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4mo ago
    No paywall visible here (uBlock Origin, maybe?)
  - dredmorbius 4mo ago
    <https://archive.is/cgUxZ https://archive.is/cgUxZ> <https://web.archive.org/web/20260504122247/https://www.statnews.com/2026/05/04/are-blue-zones-real-new-scrutiny-longevity-hot-spots/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260504122247/https://www.statn...> HN readers should know standard workarounds.
tosti 4mo ago
Blue zones do exist for sure. That's where you can park your car for 2 hours and have to place a blue card underneath your windshield that tells the time you left it there. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkeerschijfzone https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkeerschijfzone

by smt88 4mo ago

Blue zones have been utterly, thoroughly debunked. There’s no reason to still ask this question in 2026 unless a new/unusual population or lifestyle is emerging.

hnfong 4mo ago

This is your personal opinion or general consensus?

smt88 4mo ago
Why would it be my personal opinion? Do you think I was the one who did the research debunking them? If you're too lazy to Google it for yourself, here's a history of the Blue Zone research, how the original "researcher" is profiting off of it, and the careful work that has been done to debunk it: https://www.science.org/content/article/do-blue-zones-supposed-havens-longevity-rest-shaky-science https://www.science.org/content/article/do-blue-zones-suppos...
- hnfong 4mo ago
  I think you misunderstand. You think blue zones are "thoroughly debunked". And it might be even true that blue zones aren't real. But I am not seeing any evidence that the general public is aware of this. And thus we need more of the articles "asking" this question so that more people are aware of the issues on it. FYI, the article you linked basically tells the same story as the topical article. Are you too lazy to read it before commenting?
  - smt88 4mo ago
    A) I can't read the article because it's paywalled. B) Regardless of what story it tells, the article is an opinion piece by a journalist and a cardiologist, not authorities on the topic, and has a misleading title: that "answering [the] question [of whether Blue Zones are real]" is harder than ever. It's not.
    - loeg 4mo ago
      You didn't miss anything. There aren't any new facts in the article. It treats the original blue zone researchers very generously, waves its hands about drawing conclusions on whether the original blue zone research was due to pension fraud or not, and generally blathers on for dozens of paragraphs talking about various things tangentially related like that some blue zone areas no longer have many centenarians or various bullshit marketing claims using blue zone language by Buettner, etc, etc.
    - nkurz 4mo ago
      You keep saying that you "can't read the article" rather than that you choose not to. Are you philosophically opposed to clicking the archive link in this thread: https://archive.ph/cgUxZ https://archive.ph/cgUxZ? Which is fine, although I personally wouldn't use "can't" to describe this stance. In any case, I think the discussion might be smoother if you were willing to review the article under discussion.

PaulDavisThe1st 4mo ago

Tell me you didn't read TFA without telling me. And in fact, TFA is pretty sympathetic to your position, but not as absolutely certain as you are.

smt88 4mo ago
I didn’t read TFA because it’s paywalled. The question asked by the headline is fair, but the next sentence is too credulous and is actually false. There’s a reason this was published as “opinion”.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4mo ago
  No paywall visible here (uBlock Origin, maybe?)
- dredmorbius 4mo ago
  <https://archive.is/cgUxZ https://archive.is/cgUxZ> <https://web.archive.org/web/20260504122247/https://www.statnews.com/2026/05/04/are-blue-zones-real-new-scrutiny-longevity-hot-spots/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260504122247/https://www.statn...> HN readers should know standard workarounds.

tosti 4mo ago

Blue zones do exist for sure. That's where you can park your car for 2 hours and have to place a blue card underneath your windshield that tells the time you left it there. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkeerschijfzone https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkeerschijfzone