A Counter Intuitive Study on Longevity

There is no easy way to establish strategies for living a long life. This news release adds to our confusion. I proffer the following cautions:

1. This study contradicts many other studies. When that occurs don't accept the study at face value, it needs to be subject to critical review by many people, and believe me that is far superior to peer review! 
2. This study is relying on data gathered a very long time ago, when experimental methods were much less refined than today. 
3. It relates to analysis of "more than 1500 bright children". Small sample, and just what do they mean by "bright". 

The new release does not point to a published paper, the results are being published in book form. I would much prefer that they first publish a series of papers then publish their book. By publishing the book first they are putting out a view on longevity that has not been subject to (1) above.

For myself at least I have to disregard the claims of this news article. Yes I can see elements that I find plausible but in the absence of a series of papers that have been subject to critical review and discussion by a wide range of people it is virtually impossible to know if all their conclusions are valid.

There is a good lesson here in relation to health news. There are also sorts of claims being made about the secrets to longevity. There are no secrets, we're still learning, but obviously a good deal of common sense goes a very long way. Eat well, exercise regularly, and don't go looking for fountains of longevity.

Longevity(Exceptional) - the genes have it

This recent press release has caused a world wide stir, with critics pointing out flaws in the analyses, though with the caveat that the identified flaws did not disprove the conclusions but raised questions that needed further investigation. In that link the researcher states his own research also identifies 150 specific markers in the exceptionally long lived. This more critical analysis though suggests the whole methodological approach is up the creek with one scientist quoted as saying the paper should not have been published because all the conclusions are suspect. The question is: Do we now know enough to enable people to realistically aim at extending their healthy lifespan? Not with studies like the above, but when the current centenarians were born people were only just becoming interested in the work of the quiet monk, Gregor Mendel, who pioneered modern genetics. Today we know so much more, and there is sufficient information to suggest it is possible to increase our lifespan and avoid illness. It is still a numbers game but we can play with the odds. First, some more of these genetic studies ... .