{{ But because previous studies had suggested human lifespan was only 10 percent to 30 percent heritable, “that in some way gave us some liberty in imagining we could live to become very old, and we had control and were masters of our own aging,” Scheibye-Knudsen added. The new study resets the discussion, showing that both genetics and environment are important.
At the very extremes of old age — people who live to 105 or even 110 — genetics plays a major role in lifespan. But Perls points to a 2018 study in the journal Circulation suggesting that even without winning the genetic lottery, an average person can probably get to about 88 years old as a man, and 93 years old as a woman. That depends on embracing good health-related behaviors. He notes that socioeconomic advantages contribute, too: access to health care, education, healthy food. }}}
None of this really pertains to the “genetic lottery” people referr to.
[quote=“intercst, post:1, topic:124112”] suggesting that even without winning[/quote]
Fabulously fantastic scientific weasel words educing everything the article attempts to proclaim to a hunch. Just another word wanking and numbers wanking virtue signalling piece of “science.”
They found that people who live to 110 have genes that allow them to do so. There’s no amount of eating kale or doing yoga that will propel the average person to that age.
But any upper income American has a chance to get to age 88 or so by getting exercise, a good diet, and good medical care.
Exactly, reporters might as well be writing horoscopes very often. Appealing to the masses is not science.
My cutoff is around 94 to 98 if everything goes ok. If I do better, I get to 98 with next to no problems. If things go wrong…The only solution is to lose more weight to improve the odds. Something many people will not do, and screw up the statistical charts.