16 replies to this topic

[Hebbeh]

http://www.nytimes.c...t-man.html?_r=0

 

Forgive the cross post in Nutrition Sub Forum but I felt his diet deserved discussion there as well as his general habits here.  Food for thought!

[adamh]

I see he made another vote for chocolate which that very old woman in france also ate. Makes you think, doesn't it?

[Hebbeh]

I love 90% dark chocolate and fortunately have made it a nightly treat for many years.  It doesn't seem to have hurt me but being only 57, I won't know for sure for another 54 years in 2069.  I'll post updates.

[normalizing]

yeah makes you think, tons of other people living past 100 never ate chocolate....

[belgin fish]

yeah makes you think, tons of other people living past 100 never ate chocolate....

 

or maybe they did?

[normalizing]

no they didnt. i researched. anyway, dont act blunt, not one thing specifically does the job. you need a lot of education still more young lad.

[belgin fish]

I realize that I was kidding around.

[niner]

Perhaps more importantly, tons (and tons) of people eat chocolate and drop dead at an early age.  You need to look at both sides of the coin, then you can see if there's really a correlation with longevity or not, and even quantitate it.  Without actually going into pubmed and looking for it, I would expect that dark chocolate would be at least mildly positive, highly sweetened chocolates less so or negative.  There's a lot more to the puzzle than chocolate, though.

[Darryl]

Caloric restriction, initiated in his 30s.

 

 

In the early 1930s, Mr. Imich grew fascinated with a Polish medium who was known as Matylda S., a doctor’s widow gaining renown for séances that reportedly called up the dead... He always ate sparingly, inspired by Eastern mystics who disdain food. “There are some people in India who do not eat,” he said admiringly.

[Adrastus]

Heh, you think this man is the world's oldest?     I would imagine there are still some cave dwelling immortals roaming around remote parts of Asia...

 

 

Edited by Adrastus, 01 June 2014 - 05:01 PM.

[JohnD60]

Inadvertent calorie restriction. Not having kids is probably significant. As far as chocolate, that is what the home aide says he eats now, the story didn't discuss any life long food preferences other than 'he ate sparingly'. Note, all the foods he eats now do not require chewing.

Edited by JohnD60, 03 June 2014 - 08:48 PM.

[normalizing]

how is not having kids significant. there are dozen of studies associating lack of social life, and lack of bound or having family as having shorter life

[JohnD60]

how is not having kids significant. there are dozen of studies associating lack of social life, and lack of bound or having family as having shorter life

 

I am sure you can. But there are loads of co-variables in those studies that are not controlled for and make a direct comparison of a healthy, non risk taking man with children vs. and equally healthy, non risk taking man without children problematic. My viewpoint is based upon my personal observation that people without children tend to maintain their health better than people with children.
 

[normalizing]

i dunno if its worth living really long if you have nothing to show for. in fact, its kind of fucked up to seek longevity by being selfish and narcissistic

[alexjlim]

What (general) elements of a good life do you all think would make living to over a hundred years old be worth it? Things to consider would be tangible externalities such as basic food, shelter and all of that. But after you reach a certain level in terms of lifestyle, there are, IMO, a ton of intangible factors to account for. For instance, I imagine that someone who derives a tremendous amount of meaning from his/her work would have significantly lower biological "wear and tear," as opposed to the guy working in a stressful environment solely for the weekend and a paycheck. Another quick example: I'm currently spending my summer vacation in Singapore. I believe that in terms of absolute wealth, the country ranks in the top 4 in the world, yet a study conducted by the Economist also found that it was the most unhappy country in the world (with the USA not that far behind, if I remember correctly). Interestingly, the "happiest" country was vanuatu, which also happens to be one of the poorest countries in the world. Hard-nosed scientists would be inclined to avoid any research involving a hard to empirically quantify term such as "happiness" but I challenge anyone to dispute the notion that an individual's level of wellbeing would have some correlation with longevity. Context is tremendously important as well: if the community around you is living a particular lifestyle that is not necessarily aligned with your core values, I would imagine that having to "go through the system" would be soul-crushing. Perceptions of success would differ tremendously based on what those around you value - for instance, Silicon Valley would prize start-ups over all else, while what is prized in, say, New York, would be something like finance. Anyway, that's a topic for another discussion. What does your vision of "the good life" look like, and how would that extend your lifespan?

[JohnD60]

This guy happened to die last week while I was in NYC very close to his home. Coincidence? I will let you decide. The King is dead! Long live the King!

[jroseland]

"Alcohol? Never, he said." Not surprised!