(no title)
lokrian | 6 months ago
Diet really does seem to be one of those highly individualistic things, and I'm guessing humanity is in an evolutionary transition from paleolithic type diets to mcdonalds 3 times day, with different people having the genes to thrive on different things. You just have to see what works for you.
N_Lens|6 months ago
Everyone has heard of someone who smoked and drank and lived to a hundred. That doesn't mean smoking and drinking aren't harmful for health; Infact overwhelming evidence clearly shows their harm. Same goes for unhealthy food, and we broadly see the impact statistically as well as viscerally.
userbinator|6 months ago
It's interesting that the oldest known human to have lived (122!) smoked too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment
Calment continued smoking in her elderly years until she was 117
But I'd say she is definitely an extreme genetic outlier, and would not bet that she could've lived longer had she not smoked.
(Disclaimer: non-smoker and no interest in doing so either, for other reasons.)
andrewinardeer|6 months ago
imiric|6 months ago
There are documented cases of people living well into their 80s while having smoked cigarettes since their teens. Same thing. It doesn't invalidate the millions of deaths each year that are directly caused by tobacco.
Also, wealth plays a larger role in living longer than genetics. It gives access to the best medicine and physicians money can buy, which are not accessible to the average person.
lokrian|6 months ago
vixen99|6 months ago
eviks|6 months ago
What are your indicators of "thriving"???
verisimi|6 months ago
hackerbeat|6 months ago
imiric|6 months ago
WA|6 months ago
- If your claim was true, shouldn’t the data be more flat and not show an increase in mortality? Or do you suggest that only few people have these genes? Survivorship bias probably has the greater effect here.
- Buffet and Trump are probably closely monitored by doctors and get way better treatments (although my grand dad wasn’t closely monitored and survived to 91 on 2 liters of coke, too, but had quite a few ailments)
amriksohata|6 months ago
CWIZO|6 months ago
You're just cherry picking examples while ignoring a mountain of literature that shows exactly the opposite of what you're saying.
esseph|6 months ago
Yes it can
> Over the past two decades, it has become clear that evolutionary change can be fast enough to be observed in present-day populations (Hendry and Kinnison 1999; Kinnison and Hendry 2001; Hendry et al. 2008; Gingerich 2009) and that it can directly affect the dynamics of populations and communities (Hairston et al. 2005; Saccheri and Hanski 2006; Kinnison and Hairston 2007; Pelletier et al. 2009). Much recent interest has focused on the possibility that so-called rapid or contemporary evolution leads to ‘evolutionary rescue’, whereby threatened populations avoid extinction by adapting to an altered environment (Barrett and Hendry 2012; Gonzalez et al. 2013).
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3894905/
spaceman_2020|6 months ago
And yet he is the healthiest 81 year old I’ve ever seen. Amazing blood work, no blood pressure or cardiovascular issues, and is mentally 100% the same as he was 20 years ago.
I really don’t think conventional medical science can explain it
AstralStorm|6 months ago
If you have a bad one like myself, you go decent diet and still have metabolic syndrome by 20. (No diabetes at least. Yet.)
scarab92|6 months ago
Not only have you cherry picked anecdotes to support this, but you don’t have a counter factual, e.g. maybe someone who survives until 95 on junk food would have lived until 105 on healthy food.
aaron695|6 months ago
[deleted]
AngryData|6 months ago
QuantumFunnel|6 months ago