• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * * 5 votes

Average Age of 100 validated Oldest living people


  • Please log in to reply
300 replies to this topic

#151 rapier

  • Guest
  • 104 posts
  • 11
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 21 April 2008 - 05:53 PM

Giving up atheism is not an option for me; that's like giving up common sense and rational thinking.
I don't see your point in your refered article; it doesn't say anything about the bible there, but even if you find articles/literature to 'prove' your point don't assume that I accept/support/digest anything that is thrown at me even from credible sources.
Your cited article is as handicapped/lame as the people that are surveyed. No need to argue about the article or your advise, simply I find them as garbage even though you may have 'good' intentions.


Why do you feel the inclination to inject nastiness where there was none? Is it because you are an atheist?

#152 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 22 April 2008 - 10:43 PM

Giving up atheism is not an option for me; that's like giving up common sense and rational thinking.
I don't see your point in your refered article; it doesn't say anything about the bible there, but even if you find articles/literature to 'prove' your point don't assume that I accept/support/digest anything that is thrown at me even from credible sources.
Your cited article is as handicapped/lame as the people that are surveyed. No need to argue about the article or your advise, simply I find them as garbage even though you may have 'good' intentions.


Why do you feel the inclination to inject nastiness where there was none? Is it because you are an atheist?


Why do you ask fuzzy (stupid) questions? is it because you are religious?

#153 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,023 posts
  • 1,532

Posted 23 April 2008 - 09:36 PM

When I did the averaging I had to extrapolate for the number of people of a particular age below 110-years-old age [at 110 they become supercentenarians and they make it to the grg.org list(s) that I have used]. However, the data closer to our present time becomes more and more reliable (less extrapolating). For example if I had to compute the Av. Age of 100 VOLP right now I have to consider 75 supercentenarians + 25 people that are [assumed] 109 years old; this assumption is quite reliable since there are already 27 111-years old and 27 110-years old validated and one expect that number to increase as you go down in years (109, 108, 107 group, etc).
So, when viewing S.E.M below you have te keep in mind that the data has been heavily extrapolated for the earlier years.


year---Av. (yrs)--S.E.M (yrs)

1972 => 104.9---0.14
1973 => 105.0---0.15
1974 => 104.9---0.14
1975 => 105.1---0.16
1976 => 105.0---0.16
1977 => 105.1---0.16
1978 => 105.1---0.17
1979 => 106.1---0.16
1980 => 107.2---0.16
1981 => 107.2---0.16
1982 (missing)
1983 (missing)
1984 => 107.9---0.15
1985 => 108.1---0.17
1986 => 108.9---0.16
1987 => 108.9---0.12
1988 => 108.9---0.13
1989 => 109.0---0.13
1990 => 108.9---0.14
1991 => 109.2---0.15
1992 => 109.9---0.13
1993 => 109.9---0.15
1994 => 109.9---0.16
1995-2005 (missing)
2006 => 110.8
2007 => 110.8

2008--------------0.13 (at this moment)

the SEM is small: nice!
I don't have much time to do precise stats right now but we can clearly confirm that
-top 100 maximum human lifespan increases
-at the same speed as average lifespan in developped countries
great news

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#154 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 25 April 2008 - 01:50 AM

110.6 years

#155 VictorBjoerk

  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 21 May 2008 - 11:01 PM

Why isn't this updated any longer?

#156 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 22 May 2008 - 04:37 PM

110.5 years


Why isn't this updated any longer?

The frequency of updating this dropped due to the change of significant figures in this number, from 5 to 4 significant figures, i.e instead of 110.54 years it's 110.5 years.

I update this only when there is a change in that 4 digit number and it just happened today that I needed to update it; otherwise if you don't see any updates in the number it means that the last value entered is the one to consider for the present time.

Edited by struct, 22 May 2008 - 04:38 PM.


#157 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 26 May 2008 - 04:15 AM

110.6 years

#158 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 26 May 2008 - 11:59 PM

110.5 years

#159 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 07 June 2008 - 09:42 PM

110.6 years

#160 VictorBjoerk

  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 07 June 2008 - 09:48 PM

How could it go up now when Clementine Solignac died?

#161 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 07 June 2008 - 10:01 PM

How could it go up now when Clementine Solignac died?


2 supercentenarians turned 112 yesterday, 1 turned 111 and 1 was added today. So overall went up enough to just increase it to 110.6 years.

#162 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,023 posts
  • 1,532

Posted 24 June 2008 - 09:19 PM

Hi Struct,

I talked about your statistics on this thread.
they are appreciated, As you will read. Cases were you had to do some extrapolation because there were not 100 people listed are of course not very presentable; a 'top 50' should solve that.

Best

#163 VictorBjoerk

  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 24 June 2008 - 10:58 PM

Are you counting their age in days or just whole years??

#164 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 24 June 2008 - 11:36 PM

Hi Struct,

I talked about your statistics on this thread.
they are appreciated, As you will read. Cases were you had to do some extrapolation because there were not 100 people listed are of course not very presentable; a 'top 50' should solve that.

Best



Thank AgeVivo for supporting this topic.

There are 77 validated supercentenarians as of now according to grg.org.
29 of them are 111 years old.
27 of them are 110 years old.
My assumtion is that if 109-years-old ones were being validated (with the same effort as was given to validate 111-years-old ones) there would be at least 23 of them in the list since there are more less-older-people in that level.
Taking top 50 would still involve extrapolation for the most of the early years 90's and earlier.
The number 100 has other statistical advantages over the number 50.
1. less flactuations when taking 100.
2. sqrt of 100 =10 whereas sqrt of 50 = "messy" number (easier/quicker calculation with 100).
3. 100>50, i.e 1/sqrt(100)<1/sqrt(50). (1 and 3 are pretty much saying the same thing)

And, besides, it won't take that long when we have at least 100 validated supercentenarians (something to look forward).

#165 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 25 June 2008 - 12:14 AM

Are you counting their age in days or just whole years??


Just whole years but what matters most is consistency. Incorporating days/hours would increase this number throughout by roughly 0.5 years without affecting the rate of change of this number (kind of equivalent to taking the average of some other number).
If one had to consider days and hours then this Average Age would change every hour considering different time zones. I don't find it worth going through counting hours since that won't bring anything new to the analysis.
In a sense, I am also following the way that general public perceives the age; one is 110 years old till his next birthdate comes, then s/he turns 111 (if s/he is alive of course).
It's easier to do the calculation this way without loosing any significance at concluding about this Average Age change.

#166 Heliotrope

  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 25 June 2008 - 12:35 AM

110 years, barely supercentenarian status

#167 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 25 June 2008 - 12:58 AM

110 years, barely supercentenarian status


Let's maybe calculate the Av. Age of 1 validated oldest living person (ha ha); that will bring it up a little bit: 115 years.
By the way, if you had to write 110.6 in 3 significant figures u write 111 years.

#168 Heliotrope

  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 25 June 2008 - 02:33 AM

yeah forgot to remember the tenth place , 110.5 or 110.6 both about 110 year and a half,

but the oldest person now is only 115? i guess after Calment and that japanese guy (izumi? ) died, the average dropped by quite a bit

#169 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 25 June 2008 - 03:15 AM

just temporary but overall it increased.

This is how the Average Age of 100 Validated Oldest Living People (1972-2006) would look like if presented in integer years (3 significant figures).


Year => (years)

1972 => 105
1973 => 105
1974 => 105
1975 => 105
1976 => 105
1977 => 105
1978 => 105
1979 => 106
1980 => 107
1981 => 107
1982 (missing)
1983 (missing)
1984 => 108
1985 => 108
1986 => 109
1987 => 109
1988 => 109
1989 => 109
1990 => 109
1991 => 109
1992 => 110
1993 => 110
1994 => 110
1995-2005 (missing)
2006 => 111
2007 => 111
2008 => 111 (up to now)

#170 Heliotrope

  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 25 June 2008 - 06:05 AM

thanks for the data struct.

i like the rising trend. when extreme life extension tech comes, there shall be a drastic jump

thanks for the data struct.

i like the rising trend. when extreme life extension tech comes, there shall be a drastic jump

#171 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 25 June 2008 - 06:26 AM

Ha, yours doubled, I had one triple earlier today. Ive never seen a post thats been clicked on to many times do that before. Is it a clich or a change in programing toward that end?

As for these age trends going up, thats great and all, but isnt it a little like upkeeping your house despite the termites? You can keep it looking good for longer and longer but the termites will always get you. Even if the excercise, nutrition and technological things that are pushing centarians to older ages never happened and these trends never went up, then aging therapies and stratagies to repair and reverse the 7 things in sens would still propel them into indefinite life spans wouldnt they?

#172 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,023 posts
  • 1,532

Posted 25 June 2008 - 10:06 PM

comments on the latest posts:
  • much better statistics could be done
    based on all the data we have. One way would be to choose a parametric shape of the extreme part of the survival curves of the whole human race born in year t=XXXX (there is much research on this, a good keyword is probably makeham-gompertz distribution) and a parametric distribution of its evolution (affine increase typically: shift a t + b). Then to mathematically apply the reality: only people aged 110 and over, from 1950 to 2008 are counted, the same people are followed, based on XXX births on earth 110 years before. The parameters could then be fitted by maximum likehood with a program such as R, and a estimation of the 95% interval would be simultaneously provided. Such techniques are feasible but much time consuming and computational-time consuming.
  • the simpler statistics above are sufficient.
    The results are clear. Plus there might be bias that would could not model correctly (births were better documented 110 years ago that 150 years ago so the extreme precision of sophisticated method would be irrelevant wrt such imprecision). Statistics on the top50 are likely to be more noisy but very likely to be still relevant
  • again, one or two people having lived to 120 (or even 140) is statistically irrelevant.
    This is why the (statistically relevant) average can still move up while a few extreme survivors die.
  • isnt it a little like upkeeping your house despite the termites?

    I am actually very optimistic. Knowing that human lifespan DOES INCREASE - at a similar pace as average lifespan - means A LOT:
    i) 110 years is not quite close to any maximum limit
    ii) it is as easy to extend lifespan as what we did to do so (actually we don't know really: antibiotics, medicine? hygiene?).
There are other arguments of course suggesting that aging can be easily postponed, such as creatures living much longer than we do, high percentage of random mutations increasing lifespans, technique to make C elegans live 10 times longer than normal, mice 50% or twice longer than normal, and quite many life-extensions techniques working accross various species with very different lifespans. But this additional argument is non-negligeable: it concerns HUMANS IN THE REAL WORLD.

so

  • simple things can greatly extend lifespan (starting with correct diet& exercise, quit smoking, limit methionine in food and/or caloric restriction, to combine with other new tricks)
  • complex things can greatly extend lifespan (lysoSENS and mitoSENS in particular; more risky but possibly greater payoff)
actions:
  • not doing any of both is very likely to keep the historically longevity increase
  • presenting both as incompatible is wrong, creates tensions and reduces the strength of the life-extension community
  • doing both allows us to be confident in living much longer (120?140?160?) and hope to live a lot longer (1000?)
  • having many people participating (websites, discussions, statistics, biology if possible etc) and sharing/distributing the work over the internet is a great way to increase longevity

Edited by AgeVivo, 25 June 2008 - 10:25 PM.


#173 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 25 June 2008 - 10:52 PM

You seem to be saying that the max age growth trend means a lot because you think that hygeine, excercise, diet etc.. can keep on pushing and pushing the limit? Like I said though, the termites, the seven deadly things in sens. Anything less than radical intervention isnt going to extend the life span beyond a certain point is it?

#174 VictorBjoerk

  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 25 June 2008 - 11:13 PM

Leonard Hayflick says that average lifespan will peak at about 85(82 for men 88 for women) if no true anti-aging medicine is found........

#175 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,023 posts
  • 1,532

Posted 26 June 2008 - 11:21 PM

what would you have said 200y ago concerning the avegage limit: 60y?
currently, to give a number, I'll say... 140y? Sequoias live 5 times longer if protected from mosquitos.
But yes, let's kill the termites! for sure! Personaly I also count on a few/a few dozen aditional years of healthy life through hygiene and methionine restriction.

#176 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 11 August 2008 - 04:41 PM

110.7 years

Few days ago, on August 8, 2008, my mother (57) died.
I'll stay in Albania till mid sept. so I may not be able to do the update(s) promptly.

#177 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 11 August 2008 - 05:05 PM

This is very sad. My condolences.

#178 Heliotrope

  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 August 2008 - 11:31 PM

sorry to hear your loss. my condolences too.

if you don't mind me asking: what did your mother die of at the relatively "young" age (tho i guess 57 is late middle age to senior citizen)? of coures no need to answer, i don't want you to have to live thru the bad experiences of losing a parent once more

Edited by HYP86, 11 August 2008 - 11:31 PM.


#179 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,023 posts
  • 1,532

Posted 12 August 2008 - 10:46 PM

We all face it sometimes. Death happens, we can't go back and whatever might be thought it happened and it's too late and there is no reason for anybody to feel guilty. If we were born a few decades later things could have been different perhaps. c'est la vie. we are still here, life is beautiful (yes it is), it is a gift we received and we need to think what we want to do out of it. One reason why i regularly post is that after a familiy life the second thing that comes to my mind is that i might help reduce death, it would concern everyone everywhere at any time, and enjoy life for everyone and ourselves for a long time.

#180 struct

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 563 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 15 August 2008 - 08:58 AM

if you don't mind me asking: what did your mother die of at the relatively "young" age (tho i guess 57 is late middle age to senior citizen)?


My mother developed a very severe rheumatoid arthritis accompanied with some kind of anemia within the last 1.5 years; during this period besides constant pain she had high body temp. frequently. In the last 3 days her body systems went "downhill". I fail to see her during her last days. I arrived in Albania at 1pm on Aug. 7, she had died at 1am on Aug. 7 [corrected. in my previous post I mistakingly said 'Aug. 8' mislead by the way the date is written in Albania 7/8/08 (Aug. 7) versus 8/7/08 (Aug 7) in US.]

Thanks for the condolences




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users