3 ms·
I hate when people claim things as fact in comments which are entirely unsourced. EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lo
by aestra 13y ago
I hate when people claim things as fact in comments which are entirely unsourced.
EDIT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity
Study of the regions of the world known as blue zones,[11] where people commonly live active lives past 100 years of age, have speculated that longevity is related to a healthy social and family life, not smoking, eating a plant-based diet, frequent consumption of legumes and nuts, and engaging in regular physical activity. In another well-designed cohort study, the combination of a plant based diet, frequent consumption of nuts, regular physical activity, normal BMI, and not smoking accounted for differences up to 10 years in life expectancy.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_into_centenarians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_into_centenarians
Many centenarians manage to avoid chronic diseases even after indulging in a lifetime of serious health risks. For example, many people in the New England Centenarian Study experienced a century free of cancer or heart disease despite smoking as many as 60 cigarettes a day for 50 years. The same applies to people from Okinawa in Japan, where around half of supercentenarians had a history of smoking and one-third were regular alcohol drinkers. It is possible that these people may have had genes that protected them from the dangers of carcinogens or the random mutations that crop up naturally when cells divide.[15]
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-secrets-of-the-supercentenarians-scientists-seek-to-unlock-key-to-longer-lives-a-719208.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-secrets-of...
The results are sobering: "There is no pattern," says Barzilai, 54. "The usual recommendations for a healthy life -- not smoking, not drinking, plenty of exercise, a well-balanced diet, keeping your weight down -- they apply to us average people," says the researcher, "but not to them. Centenarians are in a class of their own." He pulls spreadsheets out of a drawer, adjusts his glasses and reads out loud: "At the age of 70, a total of 37 percent of our subjects were, according to their own statements, overweight, and 8 percent were obese; 37 percent were smokers, on average for 31 years; 44 percent said that they only moderately exercised; 20 percent never exercised."
But Barzilai is quick to point out that people shouldn't start questioning the importance of a healthy lifestyle: "Today's changes in lifestyle do in fact contribute to whether someone dies at the age of 85 or already at age 75." But in order to reach the age of 100, says the researcher, you need a special genetic make-up. "These people age differently. Slower. They end up dying of the same diseases that we do -- but 30 years later and usually quicker, without languishing for long periods."
37 percent isn't disproportionate. It is about average.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_tobacco_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_tobacco_consumpti...
- a8da6b0c91d 13y agoCitation needed.
- aestra 13y agoYes, citation needed, for you. When you make claims you need to back them up. How hard of a concept is that? You can't just go around spouting "facts" without any basis. EDIT: Congratulations, you have just been hellbanned for your comments to me. But since you asked for a citation, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence
- a8da6b0c91d 13y agoCitation needed.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- pessimizer 13y agoHow is making an (possibly incorrect) assertion without providing evidence an argument from ignorance? I can't for the life of me figure out what was so offensive or trolly about a8da6b0c91d's comments. >You can't just go around spouting "facts" without any basis. Really?