[yurlungur]

I think some people are just blessed with great genes and great health/immune system throughout their lives. There are stories of 100+ yos who smoke, who eat typical comfort food everyday, who drink in moderation but consistently etc etc, whose lifestyles are what we basically understand as negative for your health but they are unaffected.

[_red]

There could actually be a statistical case for people who have genes for longevity who drink, smoke, etc.

I don't mean that 'smoking is good for you', but that those who are going to live long, will live long no matter what their personal habits are. Thus when you look at really old people, those that drink / smoke are over-represented. They are statistical outliers of course...

[adventured]

That's overwhelmingly the case. Obviously there are exceptions (which is what the critics will target to try to counter the premise, they'll shoot at the 1% negative case outliers among those with genetics for long life). George Burns is the classic example - 10-15 cigars per day for 70 years, lived to 100. It doesn't make you invulnerable of course, it shifts likelihoods strongly in your favor versus the average person. And you can still do incredibly stupid things to shorten your life, it won't prevent that. If the general public understood how set in barely flexible goo (you can only move it a bit) their health outcomes are at birth, it would encourage even worse diet and exercise behaviors due to an increased belief in futility. If you have the genetics to live to 75, you're not making it to 112 [1] no matter what you do. The news media has a thing they like to do with super old people: ask them what their magic secret is, and the answers are frequently wildly different; that's because it's mostly not what they did, but what they are made of, that produced the outcome (which isn't to say that living a healthier lifestyle, or having some good luck during life, won't help the long-lived get to 106 instead of 97; they too can slightly move the needle around in their box).

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-52063482

[felipemnoa]

A lot of it has to do with luck. It is like trying to figure out the secret of a person that won the lotto. Out of billions, statistically speaking, some people will make it past 100.

Like a coin that lands on head 5 times on a road. Nothing special about the coin. It just happens sometimes.

[steveeq1]

Survivorship bias.

[asjw]

If we are measuring survival, surviving is not a bias, it's a data point

Without taking into account genes can you explain why Japan has 54 centenaries every 100k people, France 34, Italy 33 and US only 22?

[bentcorner]

Supercentenarians and the oldest-old are concentrated into regions with no birth certificates and short lifespans

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/704080v1

HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20625547

[asjw]

Sardinia contains only 1/60 of Italian population.

The post you linked does not look very reliable

Moreover I'm not talking about super centenaries, but basic life expectancy

People who live more in general have probably better genes, we don't care how many die if we are counting those that survive longer than average

In US life expectancy is very low for being a developed country

And we can't really say that crime rate or frauds are higher in Okinawa than in Los Angeles

Nobody would believe that

Btw, what about France?

[blondin]

how so?

[quaquaqua1]

For every 1 person who lives an unhealthy lifestyle and lives a long time, there are untold millions who dont

[asjw]

Still in some countries many more get old than others

And I'm talking about countries with the same level of wealth (more or less)

Japan has 2.5 times more centenaries as a percentage of the population than US

[blondin]

well, you are right and i get what you are saying.

but in the current situation most people in that age range are dying. he survived.

isn't it worth talking about or giving it a thought?