Moving Naturally

[Your Mother Should Know]

To make it to age 100, it seems that a person must have to win the genetic lottery. However, many individuals have the capacity to make it well into the early 90s and largely without chronic disease. Blue Zones uncovered 9 evidence-based common denominators among the world’s centenarians that are believed to slow this aging process.

1. Move naturally. The world’s longest-lived people do not pump iron, run marathons, or join gyms. Instead, they live in environments that constantly nudge them into moving without thinking about it. They grow gardens and do not have mechanical conveniences for house and yard work.

Buettner, D., & Skemp, S. (2016, July 7). Blue zones: Lessons from the world’s longest lived. American journal of lifestyle medicine. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6125071/

What casual physical things do you do? Are you willing to sacrifice some modern conveniences for daily exercise without risking concussions involved in most sports?

 

[User names must be unique]

Doesn't matter I'm male, 6'3", a former smoker and I hate doctors. I'm not making it past my 70's

 

[Spasticus Autisticus]

Ackshually "blue zones" are probably bullshit. Dan Buettner has made a comfortable grift out of peddling "secrets of the blue zones" so of course he's going to ignore the fact that the entire concept of "blue zones" is based on the very least on shoddy records, if not outright fraud. Dr. Saul Newman has been critiquing this for a while, with much of his critique summarized in the paper "Supercentenarian and remarkable age records exhibit patterns indicative of clerical errors and pension fraud". Kind of weird that three of the biggest predictors of supercentenarians in an area are poverty, crime rate, and short life expectancy, isn't it?

 

[LifeAlert]

Get out of your pewdiepie gaming chair every once in a while and touch grass

 

[Tablet County]

Get a dog. If its shit and piss begins to destroy your living space because you're too lazy to take it outside, you're alredy too far gone.

 

[Your Mother Should Know]

Ackshually "blue zones" are probably bullshit. Dan Buettner has made a comfortable grift out of peddling "secrets of the blue zones" so of course he's going to ignore the fact that the entire concept of "blue zones" is based on the very least on shoddy records, if not outright fraud. Dr. Saul Newman has been critiquing this for a while, with much of his critique summarized in the paper "Supercentenarian and remarkable age records exhibit patterns indicative of clerical errors and pension fraud". Kind of weird that three of the biggest predictors of supercentenarians in an area are poverty, crime rate, and short life expectancy, isn't it?

"Wine at five" seems like a shoddy principle for sure, "move naturally", "belong", and "80% rule" seem uncertain one way or the other, and the rest of the nine rules sound reasonable due to stress (possibly aimlessness) being proven unhealthily. Purpose could drive your body forward and make your mind give up slower (mind is connected to body), downshift would be a stress reliever, plant slant is obviously good because it's a healthy balance between nutrition-rich plant-based foods and omega 3's/extra protein/etc. from meat, loved ones first means you get the warmth of socialization and share germs (thus immunity), and right tribe is backed up by this video. Wine at five seems shoddy because I can't find evidence that wine in particular is healthy at ANY dose (there's some evidence that once a day = 6% mortality chance increase and once a week = 1% mortality chance increase, but possibly the downshifting aspect and health of "natural wine" ["Cannonau wine has 2 or 3 times the level of artery-scrubbing flavonoids" - Buettner and Skemp] could theoretically offset the mortality rate, but more likely once a week than 1-2 times a day). "Move naturally" versus "exercise vigorously" (save for the risk of injury from certain sports) seems a bit sketchy (both probably beat doing nothing, but I'd assume it's natural to move intensely), "belong" may make people feel safe but I'd assume religion is stressful and makes people more prepared to die if they feel set for heaven (or more stressed if they feel like they're going to hell), and 80% rule might work, but for plant slant on their old-timey natural diets, I'd assume it could lead to malnutrition.

It's a .gov article that says these things are evidence-based, so maybe the information in the article itself is screened, even if the author did a lot of guessing? There's not a list of limitations in the article, so it's harder to gauge potential wrongs here. We have to find the limitations, and one I notice is the lack of citations for many of the claims. Are these random attributes? Are they genetic? This article could inspire further research, even if it seems incomplete.