Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We didn't need to study to state the obvious. Genetics are destiny. They not only determine how long you live but everything about your life as well. They determine looks, talent, intelligence, life span, disease- everything. That is why you see siblings who were separated and lived in totally different environments but who ended up in roughly the same station in life. If you are born with good genes, you will have a good long life. If you were born with bad genes your life will suck and probably be short.
No, they are not. I had 3 grandparents live to 86 and all died of various cancers, the 4th died in an accident. However, my mother only lived to 71 after 40 years of ill health. Dad lived to 81. But my gggrandfather who was born in 1819 lived to 90. One of his nieces, my gg-aunt, lived to 95 or 96. On the other side I had a great aunt who lived to 95. However, all of her siblings died in their 60's, 70's, 80's.
Far too much variation for genetics to be destiny.
I've known a lot of people in their 90's who are really enjoying life. They are active and their minds are still sharp. If I'm like that I wouldn't mind living well into my 90's. But over 100 is probably more than I'd want.
I saw somewhere, research study, that genes are about 20 % of life expectancy, while the other 80 % is lifestyle. Even the researchers were kinda shocked. It's really only a small percent compared to what you actually do to promote health.
I think good living is the key to long life but good genes don't hurt. If you're exposed to a carcinogenic your genetics might or might not kick in to protect you from the exposure. If you're highly stressed your genes might or might not work to protect you from the effects of stress on the heart. Parents outlive their children, sad to say, all the time.
Let's try to take the broadest possible look at this.
I read the linked article in its rather short entirety. It makes no pretense to being an even half-way in-depth discussion of the relative influence of genetics and health practices on longevity.
The article looks at people who have or had unusually long lives, and for that subset of people, it does seem to be the case that genetics play a remarkably strong role. But a truly comprehensive look at this issue would have to include a look about factors in the deaths of people at various ages: in their 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's, to compare with the relatively few who get close to 100 and/or surpass the century mark. In other words, longevity includes factors which might influence whether we die at 68 or at 78 or at 88.
There is a vast medical epidemiological research literature on all this. Certain organizations which come to their conclusions based on evidence - not just on theory or the latest fads - tell us that our health practices such as diet and exercise and smoking do in fact make a more than negligible difference. Three such organizations which come to my mind are the U.S. Surgeon General's Office, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Sports Medicine.
Please notice I am not arguing that certain individuals don't triumph over their own poor or mediocre health practices; some indeed do exactly that and that is properly seen as the triumph of genetics over known beneficial practices. It is really a question of balance which I am attempting to address, and it is precisely the issue of balance which is missing in so many discussions of areas as complex and nuanced as this one.
I saw somewhere, research study, that genes are about 20 % of life expectancy, while the other 80 % is lifestyle. Even the researchers were kinda shocked. It's really only a small percent compared to what you actually do to promote health.
I've read that we (you and I) may be be the longest living generation ever because due to technology (in agriculture and healthcare and safety and other things) lifespans have increased. However generations of the future may have shorter lifespans due to obesity and other health harming lifestyles.
The other day I saw a billboard on which was written "The first person to live to 150 is alive today." May well be true if the age of the oldest living person on earth is extrapolated out 150 years.
Strongly agree. I have seen people with good genes smoke and drink a lot and live to 80. I have seen those with bad genes eat organic not smoke and die before 70.
Strongly agree. I have seen people with good genes smoke and drink a lot and live to 80. I have seen those with bad genes eat organic not smoke and die before 70.
Of course that happens but they are far from typical.
i wasn't so happy with the k-mart jeans but the gap jeans are not bad. if you want good jeans the EJ KORVETTES ones were really good.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's try to take the broadest possible look at this.
