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.
You must have good genes, and by that I mean you don't have the bad genes that kill you early.
You live a life that doesn't kill you.
Your body needs exercise, but a lifetime of unremitting hard labor will destroy your back and joints. And sitting in a chair watching a computer screen all day will destroy your health.
And the most important is having good luck. This is what the super agers have - they're just those people on the far end of the bell curve of luck.
They didn't get exposed to Ebola or some chronic uncurable disease. If they did get exposed to some dangerous disease, it was a small dose. There is a difference to your immune system between breathing a single droplet of a virus and having someone cough a lungful in your face as they passed by you.
Yeah, but her daughter only had half of Jeanne's genes, and maybe, just maybe, she didn't have her longevity ones!
If you think genes don't matter, just look at the average life span for someone with sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis. I'm sure if you asked those people with those two genetic diseases, they would wish they didn't have them.
When I read "The Biology of Belief" many years ago, written by, Bruce Lipton, a biology professor, he did mention about 2 diseases that were determined by genes. And that was it. Because of that, some people want to extrapolate to say that everything under the sun is caused by genes.
You say the daughter of Jeanne only had half of her genes. But that doesn't constitute proof of anything, because then you would have to go searching through all of her ancestor's genes looking for some genes to prove your theory.
If you read the following article by Medline Plus, they do give some credit to genes in the first paragraph, but no details to back up the notion that genes determine longevity.
In the second paragraph they mention lifestyle as being an important factor.
3rd paragraph says children of centenarians do better and live longer but they don't know whether it's because of genetics or shared lifestyle. They suggest it could be one or the other, or both. They simply don't know.
The fourth paragraph says, "The study of longevity genes is a developing science."
The fifth paragraph talks about what scientists speculate.
A lot of it is genes. If you think back in history, only the strong survived. The strong had kids. The weak did not.
Kids died in childhood, never growing old enough to reproduce.
Genes don't just come from the parents, you get some genes from your grandparents and so on. Maybe the parent died young but the grandfather lived to be 100. Maybe HIS longevity genes came from some other long lived ancestor.
I think these days with interventions that save the lives of people who would have died young due to disease or genetics, their kids and grandchildren may have shorter lives than the people of the past who wouldn't have lived to reproduce.
Yes, if you go back far enough in history, the strong did survive and the weak did not. But we don't have any way of knowing how much of that was dumb luck. First of all, there are no records to show what the exact situation was for each person. From time to time, weakness could come about due to unexpected harsh climate conditions and lack of food.
I see it when I do genealogy. One example: I had a guy whose parents had about 8 kids. All died as babies and one survived. The one who survived died at age 24. BUT he had married a woman whose family members were living into their 80s and 90s. The widow lived well into her 80s and her kids lived into their 70s (one died in an accident.)
When he married her he must have brought some genes for longevity into the family. You see the same pattern a lot in genealogy.
I think you would have to know what caused the babies to die. What did it say on their death certificates?
Of course life isn't controlled by genes. Of course "Genes are not our destiny". But genes predispose you to certain weaknesses and strengths. If you luck out and get great genes from a grandparent and don't get the weak genes from another grandparent, for instance, then you luck out some more and get some great genes from one of your parents, you'll probably have great genes.
Obviously you can optimize or wreck your chances by doing such things as smoking, eating at McDonald's a lot, drinking soda, eating too much sugar, gaining too much weight, lots of things. But inheriting great genes really gives you a big head start and advantage over those born with poorer genes.
You made some good points: Some luck is involved but it helps to live a healthy lifestyle. Here's the problem:
As soon as you say, "If you luck out and get great genes from a grandparent and don't get weak genes from another grandparent," people who really believe that to be a scientific fact, are going to opt for the tastier processed foods because they will think, "If life is a crap shoot, I might as well enjoy myself."
You made some good points: Some luck is involved but it helps to live a healthy lifestyle. Here's the problem:
As soon as you say, "If you luck out and get great genes from a grandparent and don't get weak genes from another grandparent," people who really believe that to be a scientific fact, are going to opt for the tastier processed foods because they will think, "If life is a crap shoot, I might as well enjoy myself."
What you "say" and how people react, doesn't affect the science. Are you going to tell a kid that sugar will kill him if he eats because otherwise he'll eat too much?
Almost everyone knows whole foods and exercise are good for you. It has affected almost no one's actions, we still have an obesity epidemic. /shrug
People are going to people.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
What you "say" and how people react, doesn't affect the science. Are you going to tell a kid that sugar will kill him if he eats because otherwise he'll eat too much?
Almost everyone knows whole foods and exercise are good for you. It has affected almost no one's actions, we still have an obesity epidemic. /shrug
People are going to people.
So having a Health & Wellness board is a waste of time, and we should just give up?
In that case I know I could certainly find better use of my time.
So having a Health & Wellness board is a waste of time, and we should just give up?
Nope.
Lot's of people do care about their health and live a life of balance.
You just put the best known science out there.
You are making leaps like a mountain goat.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
When I read "The Biology of Belief" many years ago, written by, Bruce Lipton, a biology professor, he did mention about 2 diseases that were determined by genes. And that was it. Because of that, some people want to extrapolate to say that everything under the sun is caused by genes.
You say the daughter of Jeanne only had half of her genes. But that doesn't constitute proof of anything, because then you would have to go searching through all of her ancestor's genes looking for some genes to prove your theory.
If you read the following article by Medline Plus, they do give some credit to genes in the first paragraph, but no details to back up the notion that genes determine longevity.
In the second paragraph they mention lifestyle as being an important factor.
3rd paragraph says children of centenarians do better and live longer but they don't know whether it's because of genetics or shared lifestyle. They suggest it could be one or the other, or both. They simply don't know.
The fourth paragraph says, "The study of longevity genes is a developing science."
The fifth paragraph talks about what scientists speculate.
I volunteered for 2 years at Duke's Children's Hospital in Durham in the playroom and saw patients from all over the world come there to be treated for their various illness and diseases. Many had various genetic diseases (NOT sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis), some with names I couldn't even pronounce and never even heard of, and most of those patients died even before they turned 3 or 5 or 7 or 10-years-old.
So to say, genes don't play a part in ones longevity, is to be foolish and naive; trust me, seeing those parents cry every day and wishing their child, who would eventually die from a genetic disease, not have that disease, is heart breaking to say the least.
I think Thulsa said it best up above:
You must have good genes, and by that I mean you don't have the bad genes that kill you early.
Having seen it first hand at Duke Children's Hospital, those words are so true.
Last edited by cjseliga; 05-08-2022 at 09:05 AM..
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.
