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.
72 is the new 30?..yeh, to primitive hunter gatherers (looong gone) I'd be more interested in knowing if 160 will be the new 72 in the future..I woulda figured that after 100's of years , and with antiseptics and antibiotics , we would be living longer now. I find the title kinda misleading...here I thought I was still a spring chicken, only to find that's not the case....I find the article seems to come across as some kind of "feel good" paper to help older people feel good about the fact that they still have a life.....when/if the gov takes away their pensions.
Just saw a photo of Jane Fonda...She's 72....Photo looks great...However, I want to see what she looks like when she wakes up in the morning as she is stumbling to the turlet...errr...on second thought...I DON'T.
Yes, I love when they put a pic of Fonda alongside claims like this! She did look good at the Oscars, but let's face it, she's had every part of her body done (although she denies it). That face is not a natural 72.
Just saw a photo of Jane Fonda...She's 72....Photo looks great...However, I want to see what she looks like when she wakes up in the morning as she is stumbling to the turlet...errr...on second thought...I DON'T.
and with the plastic surgeries for all the beautiful older women, what does it matter what they look like in a photo?
give jane fonda credit for exercise, nutrition, etc but still wrinkles happen
Hoping everyone feels it today. Not sure with this rain and cold weather if I am 100% on board today
While statistics are available to compare life-expectancy changes, almost everything else is purely anecdotal. According to the Statistical Abstract and other sources, the average U.S. male life expectancy increased from approximately 48-years in 1900, to 66-years in 1950, to 76-in 2008, with a projection of 78-years by 2020. If one proportionately backs-off the 1900 and 2008 year averages, there might be some context for declaring today's 74-years with 44-years in 1900. However, there were likely significant factors beyond simply 'growing older' that shortened life-expectancy. Did a 44-year-old in 1900 actually feel like a 74-year old today ... or vice-versa? I doubt it.
Also, over the last 60-years, the life expectancy has only increased by about 10-years, as compared with 20-years in the 50-years prior to that. Perhaps there have not been as many dramatic new advancements in diets, healthcare, etc. over the last 50-years, but, that flies in the face of claims that 90-percent of all the knowledge known to mankind has become known over the last 10-years.
So what does this mean? Absolutely nothing ... just like the specious claim that 72 is the new 30. I'm just exercising my 65-year old brain in an effort to keep it from aging faster than my 'now 28-year' old body.
Maybe that anti aircraft gun " traitor" Fonda straddled in North Vietnam was really the fountain of youth
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.
