live longer

perinova

Full time employment: Posting here.
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
534
enjoy your money as long as possible by extending your life expectancy.
So what should you look at in priority? : Do not smoke, eat the right diet.

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html

(1) Diseases of the heart heart attack (mainly) 28.5% :eek:
(2) Malignant neoplasms cancer 22.8% :eek:
(1) Lung 30.9% 154,900 :-\
(2) Colon 9.6% 48,100
(3) Breast 8.0% 40,000
(4) Prostate 6.0% 30,200
(5) Pancreas 5.9% 29,700
(6) Lymphoma 5.2% 25,800
(7) Leukemia 4.3% 21,700
(3) Cerebrovascular disease stroke 6.7%
(4) Chronic lower respiratory disease emphysema, chronic bronchitis 5.1%
(5) Unintentional injuries accidents 4.4%
(1) Motor vehicle (MVA) 44.3% :-\
(2) Falls 17.8%
(3) Poison,liq/solid 13.0%
(4) Drowning 3.9%
(5) Fires, Burns,Smoke 3.4%
(6) Medical/Surgical Complication 3.1%
(7) Other land transport 1.5%
( 8 ) Firearms 0.8%
(9) Other (nontransport) 17.8%
(6) Diabetes mellitus diabetes 3.0%
(7) Influenza and pneumonia flu & pneumonia 2.7%
( 8 ) Alzheimer's Disease Alzheimer's senility 2.4%
(9) Nephritis and Nephrosis kidney disease 1.7%
(10) Septicemia systemic infection 1.4%
(11) Intentional self-harm suicide 1.3%
(12) Chronic Liver/Cirrhosis liver disease 1.1%
(13) Essential Hypertension high blood pressure 0.8%
(14) Assault homicide 0.7%
(15) All other causes other 17.4%
 

Attachments

  • behaviors.gif
    behaviors.gif
    23.2 KB · Views: 321
  • behaviors.gif_thumb
    11 KB · Views: 3
Interesting. Thanks for posting that, PN.

Over a thousand per day from tobacco! IOW, every few days, more people die from tobacco than died in the 9/11 attack.
 
I've always liked his mechanisms of aging page.

Here's what we're in for as we age:

fertile2.gif


A loss of hearing ability, particularly for higher frequencies. There is a decline in the ability to taste salt&bitter (sweet&sour are much less affected). [...] One third of men and half of women over 65 report some form of arthritis. About half of those aged 65 have lost all teeth.  [...] Body fat increases to age 60. Muscle strength for men declines 30−40% from age 30 to age 80. Reaction time declines 20% from age 20 to 60. [...] Presbyopia (reduced ability to focus on close-up objects) occurs in 42% of people aged 52−64, 73% of those 65−74 and 92% of those over age 75. Most people over age 75 have cataracts. About half of those over 85 are disabled (defined as the inability to use public transportation). Over 75% of people over 85 have 3−9 pathological conditions, and the cause of death for these people is frequently unknown.
 
My goodness.... Ugly facts...

*** You can't out of this world alive. *** :LOL:
 
"Cheer up, Brian. You know what they say.
Some things in life are bad.
They can really make you mad.
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle,
Don't grumble. Give a whistle.
And this'll help things turn out for the best.
And...

[music]
Always look on the bright side of life.
[whistling]
Always look on the light side of life.
[whistling]

If life seems jolly rotten,
There's something you've forgotten,
And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When you're feeling in the dumps,
Don't be silly chumps.
Just purse your lips and whistle. That's the thing.
And...

Always look on the bright side of life.

MR. FRISBEE:
For life is quite absurd
And death's the final word.
You must always face the curtain with a bow.
Forget about your sin.
Give the audience a grin.
EVERYONE:
Enjoy it. It's your last chance, anyhow.
So,...

Always look on the bright side of death,
[whistling]
Just before you draw your terminal breath.
[whistling]

MR. FRISBEE:
Life's a piece of s**t,
When you look at it.
Life's a laugh and death's a joke. It's true.
You'll see it's all a show.
Keep 'em laughing as you go.
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.
And...

. . .

Oh, never mind . . .

@Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian.htm
 
I wonder if that chart is meant just for comparing the different deteriorations, or if it shows that deterioration is truly linear. I've often feared that as I get older, the rate of deterioration will increase. If things decrease linearly, that's not too bad.
 
I wonder if that chart is meant just for comparing the different deteriorations, or if it shows that deterioration is truly linear. I've often feared that as I get older, the rate of deterioration will increase. If things decrease linearly, that's not too bad.

I had the same thought. I think those lines are composite averages. I dont think the deterioration is that linear. You "age" a lot more between 40 and 50 than you do between 30 and 40. And it's all really downhill between 80 and 90.
 
Here's a similar chart from another source:

aging_chart.gif
 
wab said:
Here's a similar chart from another source:
Sure, that's great for "average people", but all of us are above average, right?

I'd like to see how the curves drop off for healthy, active people who stay active in ER/retirement. For example I'd be more interested in 5K & marathon times for lifetime runners or triathletes (over several decades).

I've already seen what happens with martial artists. They may get slower, but they're a lot more efficient in their movements and a lot sneakier more deceptive. That's gotta extend to other aspects of life!

Unless I can be 25 years old with my current level of life experience, I still can't decide if I'd rather be 25 & blissfully ignorant or my current age & experience. Considering the way I was 20 years ago I'm gonna have to go with current age & experience.
 
Nords said:
For example I'd be more interested in 5K & marathon times for lifetime runners or triathletes (over several decades).

How about swimmers?

VO2MAX.gif


As shown in figure 1, a trained 60-year old is endurancewise as fit as a untrained 18-year old teenager.
 
so if i read the chart (behaviors gif, "number of death") we should stop smoking, drinking, and eating ... and instead take drugs, have more sex, and drive faster cars (or is that drive cars while taking drugs and having sex?) ... sounds good to me!

(Q: are IRS agents microbial or toxic?)

I'm gonna have to go with current age & experience
me too ... being young and stupid just doesn't even compare with being old and stupid.

And it's all really downhill between  80 and 90.
that's why it's so effortless! besides, the downhill starts at 20, so by the time you get to 50..60..70..80... it's the momentum that counts.
 
wab said:
As shown in figure 1, a trained 60-year old is endurancewise as fit as a untrained 18-year old teenager.
Yep, that's me. Phew... what a relief!
 
I found the same data in my statistics book. I was surprised that what people spend the most time worrying about aren't even near the top three in what actually will most likely kill them. It does make playing with my gun while having wild, wild sex that much easier on my mind. :)

I believe that the chart that shows declining max performance isn't even a real concern for most people. Most people NEVER even come close to their max physical limitations during any phase of their lives. The chart can be crucial to elite athletes because it shows them when they should call it quits at the professional level. By no means should the chart be used as an excuse to stop trying by the rest of us.
 
I have also seen the factoid that a fit 60 year can out work an unfit 20 your old. It really seems to depend on the definition of "fit" and "unfit."

On a quantative note, WAVA (World Assocation of Veteran Athletes) has published tables for comparing age adjusted track and road running performance.

They can be used to compare:

- your adjusted performance with say your age adjsuted performance 20 years ago
- your performance compared to the world best in your age group
- change in world best performance as a function of age

They are published in The Runner's Taining Diary by Bob Glover. You can probably find them on the web. Some values follow.

Age 5K Marathon

20-34 1.0 1.0
40 .9624 .9835
50 .8931 .9130
60 .8193 .8380
70 .7366 .7541
80 .6388 .6551
90 .5111 .5262

The way that you interpret the table follows. The world best time is assigned a value of 1.0. Performance starts to decline in the mid-30s. The charts give a number of less than 1.0 starting at age 35 that represents the world best performance at that age. So for example at age 40 the world best 5Ker runs a pace that is 96.42% as fast as the world best (20-34).

The performance of older athletes has been improving greatly. I forget the exact age and time but recently there was a ~70 year old runner from Toronto that ran a sub 3 hour marathon. For comparison the marathon world record in 1908 was 2:55.

Another little tidbit. A couple of years ago I watched a segment of the Superstars Competition on TV. (Must not have had much to do that day.) It featured a couple of NFL players, one or two MLB players and a mis-mash of world class athletes from other sports. All incredibly talented athletes.

One of the events was an 800m run. I think that Jason Seahorn who was a defensive back for the Giants at the time won it. A couple of NFL wide receivers were also in the event.

Anyway I looked at the times and these great athletes were SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW. We had a 62 year old on our running club at the time that would have kicked their buts.

I'm sure that these guys could have ran a lot faster if they trained for 800m and probably beat our 62 years old but the point is that this guy could still perform at that level at his age. Now of course much of this is genetic both in terms of his running talent and also his ability to train hard at that age without a lot of injuries but I guarantee that he could not have done this if he did not put in the time and the work.

We all have to find our own "optimum" as far as the quality and quantity of exercise and the rest and diet required to support it but I firmly believe that a lot of the deterioration that we associate with aging comes from inactivity and it can be greatly reduced and the quality of life improved just by staying physically active.

MB
 
TromboneAl said:
Interesting.  Thanks for posting that, PN.

Over a thousand per day from tobacco!  IOW, every few days, more people die from tobacco than died in the 9/11 attack.

So what does our government do?They ban artificial sweetner because a rat died.Makes you wonder!
 
mb said:
I have also seen the factoid that a fit 60 year can out work an unfit 20 your old.  It really seems to depend on the definition of "fit" and "unfit."
 
<snip>

We all have to find our own "optimum" as far as the quality and quantity of exercise and the rest and diet required to support it but I firmly believe that a lot of the deterioration that we associate with aging comes from inactivity and it can be greatly reduced and the quality of life improved just by staying physically active.

There is no data that says a marathon runner is more 'fit' than a walker who gets a certain minimum level of exercise every day, e.g. a 1 hour brisk walk. The medical profession says time and time again that it matters more that a person gets some minimum level of activity than to achieve competitive levels.

Competitive levels of fitness are for those that have these as personal goals or for ego, not for optimum health and wellbeing. Indeed, competitive levels of performance often create new ailments with joints and impacted bones. Hence I agee with MB's assertion that optimizing exercise along with nutrition is what matters most.
 
AltaRed said:
There is no data that says a marathon runner is more 'fit' than a walker who gets a certain minimum level of exercise every day, e.g. a 1 hour brisk walk.  The medical profession says time and time again that it matters more that a person gets some minimum level of activity than to achieve competitive levels.

Competitive levels of fitness are for those that have these as personal goals or for ego, not for optimum health and wellbeing.  Indeed, competitive levels of performance often create new ailments with joints and impacted bones. Hence I agee with MB's assertion that optimizing exercise along with nutrition is what matters most.
OTOH, there is this from a book entitled Younger Next Year. The book is a good read, BTW.

These guys promote so serious cardio training for any age.  One of them is in his 70s, and he practices what he preaches, if you believe his posts (and the book).
 
walking unless very very brisk or if your out of shape badly is not a good cardio exercise.Its more than most people get and it helps burn extra calories for weight loss but its not in the same light as a true cardio workout.It will only take you up to the level of being able to walk and never goes beyond.My heart rate never gets into even my low target zone unless i ssustain almost 5 mph walking or doing at leat 4 to 4.5 up a hill
 
If you have been a fat smoker all your adult life your chances of a long retirement are pretty slim! :'(
 
AltaRed said:
There is no data that says a marathon runner is more 'fit' than a walker who gets a certain minimum level of exercise every day, e.g. a 1 hour brisk walk. The medical profession says time and time again that it matters more that a person gets some minimum level of activity than to achieve competitive levels.

Competitive levels of fitness are for those that have these as personal goals or for ego, not for optimum health and wellbeing. Indeed, competitive levels of performance often create new ailments with joints and impacted bones. Hence I agee with MB's assertion that optimizing exercise along with nutrition is what matters most.

Does that mean Lance Armstrong did all that training for ego purposes and not pushing the envelope of what a human body is capable of?
 
AltaRed said:
There is no data that says a marathon runner is more 'fit' than a walker who gets a certain minimum level of exercise every day, e.g. a 1 hour brisk walk. The medical profession says time and time again that it matters more that a person gets some minimum level of activity than to achieve competitive levels.

Alta, allow me a small clarification because I think your post might cause some confusion. Marathon type training does indeed result in a higher level of fitness (aerobic capacity, peak performance achieved, etc .). I think what you may mean is that even extreme fitness does not result in significantly more health benefits than lower intensity activity such as a brisk walk for 30-40 minutes most days (e.g. diabetes, mortality, stroke and heart risk, etc.).

So, while fitness is improved by intense training, 95% of the health benefits of such conditioning can be achieved by much lower intensity exercise, as you point out. Hope that helps.
 
the body is very simple in the sense that we can only do whatever it is we need to do and no more.As we adapt to new levels of endurance and strength those levels now become our norm.Cardio is strengthing the heart like any other muscle.We need to keep taking our heart to new levels inorder to make it stronger and more efficiant than the level it is at.The level we take it to depends on our reasons for doing so.Lance Armstrong is one of the highest levels but thats a level none of us need or maybe can even attain .To get the heart to each new plateau requires pushing ourselves aerobically to new and more enduring levels.It does not happen or go beyond what was needed to take that 30 minute walk at 3 miles an hour even if you walk every day for the rest of your life.you need new challenges and new stresses.That new level you attain is only there as long as you keep pushing to that level.Cardio effects can diminish back in as little as 2 weeks when the stresses are reduced and the heart goes back to the reduced level of performance thats need at this lower level..
 
Rich_in_Tampa said:
Alta, allow me a small clarification because I think your post might cause some confusion. Marathon type training does indeed result in a higher level of fitness (aerobic capacity, peak performance achieved, etc .). I think what you may mean is that even extreme fitness does not result in significantly more health benefits than lower intensity activity such as a brisk walk for 30-40  minutes most days (e.g. diabetes, mortality, stroke and heart risk, etc.).

So, while fitness is improved by intense training, 95% of the health benefits of such conditioning can be achieved by much lower intensity exercise, as you point out. Hope that helps.

Yes, thank you, you clarified that very well. That is precisely what I meant.

And to cube_rat, yes, Lance did it for personal ego. No one pushes the limits without it being for bragging rights and ego. From all the reading I have done, there is no clear evidence that the Lance's of the world live longer.
 
AltaRed said:
Yes, thank you, you clarified that very well. That is precisely what I meant.

And to cube_rat, yes, Lance did it for personal ego. No one pushes the limits without it being for bragging rights and ego. From all the reading I have done, there is no clear evidence that the Lance's of the world live longer.

So that classifies Olympic competitors/elite althletes as egomaniacs. Okay, now I understand. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom