36 replies to this topic

[Stefanovic]

I consider myself a semi vegetarian, I'm almost 29 but haven't eaten meat since I was about 7-8 years old. I still eat fish, eggs,....
Most people never think I'm older than 25. A few weeks ago someone thought I was 21-22.
There were times I didn't exercise, had a lot of stress, ate much sugar but nevertheless I look younger. My mother and her mother are no veggies but they look younger than their age, but my father's family looks old.
So I was wondering if the fact that I haven't had meat since I was a kid has something to do with it?

[numbered]

You can not be sure . 29 is still very young . If someone things you are 25 when you 're 45 then that will be something. Please eliminate all sugar from your diet.

[motif]

Most people never think I'm older than 25. A few weeks ago someone thought I was 21-22.
There were times I didn't exercise, had a lot of stress, ate much sugar but nevertheless I look younger. My mother and her mother are no veggies but they look younger than their age, but my father's family looks old.
So I was wondering if the fact that I haven't had meat since I was a kid has something to do with it?

not at all, it's not so easy to estimate once age in his twenties. When you'll be 40 and they say you look like 33 then you can be happy...

BTW my wife is 40 and she eats meat. In restaurant they once asked for her driving license when she wanted order an alcoholic drink...that was a nice surprise

Edited by motif, 15 December 2010 - 12:50 PM.

[Stefanovic]

in another thread I read that Jared Leto looks so much younger because he doesn't eat meat and it has something to do with DHT levels. Can anyone elaborate on that?

[ksbalaji]

I consider myself ................vegetarian............since I was a kid has something to do with it?

I also feel that being a vegetarian has to do something with younger looks. In India we have a lot of vegetarians around. It is generally observed that vegetarians seem younger (about 5 to 8 years) at around 60-65 years of age. This may also be due to highly restricted/restrained eating habits which is not prescribed for others. But beware! there are voracious vegetarian eaters who seldom resemble anything young!

[Logan]

You can not be sure . 29 is still very young . If someone things you are 25 when you 're 45 then that will be something. Please eliminate all sugar from your diet.

Really, ALL sugar. So no berries, no apples( even if you eat mostly the skin), not even a little honey, no dairy products like very healthy and potent wholemilk yogurt(Erivan is one I'm thinking of, also raw milk/goat's milk yogurt), and no LaLoo's Strawberry Darling Goat's Milk Icecream!(I'm kidding about the last one, but that shit is amazing!)

Edited by morganator, 15 December 2010 - 07:30 PM.

[numbered]

You can not be sure . 29 is still very young . If someone things you are 25 when you 're 45 then that will be something. Please eliminate all sugar from your diet.

Really, ALL sugar. So no berries, no apples( even if you eat mostly the skin), not even a little honey, no dairy products like very healthy and potent wholemilk yogurt(Erivan is one I'm thinking of, also raw milk/goat's milk yogurt), and no LaLoo's Strawberry Darling Goat's Milk Icecream!(I'm kidding about the last one, but that shit is amazing!)

yeah i didn't mean it like that. I meant it the way he implied it when he stated "There were times I didn't exercise, had a lot of stress, ate much sugar but nevertheless I look younger." He obviously did not mean berries and apples and a little honey

[Logan]

You can not be sure . 29 is still very young . If someone things you are 25 when you 're 45 then that will be something. Please eliminate all sugar from your diet.

Really, ALL sugar. So no berries, no apples( even if you eat mostly the skin), not even a little honey, no dairy products like very healthy and potent wholemilk yogurt(Erivan is one I'm thinking of, also raw milk/goat's milk yogurt), and no LaLoo's Strawberry Darling Goat's Milk Icecream!(I'm kidding about the last one, but that shit is amazing!)

yeah i didn't mean it like that. I meant it the way he implied it when he stated "There were times I didn't exercise, had a lot of stress, ate much sugar but nevertheless I look younger." He obviously did not mean berries and apples and a little honey

Gotchya

[Brafarality]

You can not be sure . 29 is still very young . If someone things you are 25 when you 're 45 then that will be something. Please eliminate all sugar from your diet.

Really, ALL sugar. So no berries, no apples( even if you eat mostly the skin), not even a little honey, no dairy products like very healthy and potent wholemilk yogurt(Erivan is one I'm thinking of, also raw milk/goat's milk yogurt), and no LaLoo's Strawberry Darling Goat's Milk Icecream!(I'm kidding about the last one, but that shit is amazing!)

Sugar is not the enemy. Protein is!
The anti-protein society strikes again. We will be back. Until then, organic/whole/natural fruits, cakes, muffins and drinks are the furthest from unhealthy and will never ever EVER make you look older.
But, have a steak a day and see what happens in 5 years. You will lose the glow. Meat is incompatible with preservation optimization.
I have never seen any living example or came across any compelling evidence to even slightly waver my certainty in this.
And, btw, vegetarians DO look younger.

Edited by Brafarality, 16 December 2010 - 12:08 AM.

[niner]

Sugar is not the enemy. Protein is!
The anti-protein society strikes again. We will be back. Until then, organic/whole/natural fruits, cakes, muffins and drinks are the furthest from unhealthy and will never ever EVER make you look older.
But, have a steak a day and see what happens in 5 years. You will lose the glow. Meat is incompatible with preservation optimization.
I have never seen any living example or came across any compelling evidence to even slightly waver my certainty in this.
And, btw, vegetarians DO look younger.

I don't agree. Glycation and photodamage are two of the main causes of skin aging. Cakes, muffins, and drinks, organic or not, are just asking for glycation. A steak a day for 5 years is also asking for trouble, due to protein and calorie overload. (Unless it's a really small steak...) We should probably distinguish between vegetarians and junkfoodaterians. If you're eating a crappy diet that happens to be devoid of meat, you aren't going to be very healthy. It's possible to have a pretty healthy vegetarian diet, but a paleo diet that's high in vegetables is probably better for most people. Typical vegetarian diets are glycation-heavy, though with sufficient effort this could probably be kept in check. CR might be the best way to stay young-looking, although being too thin makes you look older.

[Logan]

You can not be sure . 29 is still very young . If someone things you are 25 when you 're 45 then that will be something. Please eliminate all sugar from your diet.

Really, ALL sugar. So no berries, no apples( even if you eat mostly the skin), not even a little honey, no dairy products like very healthy and potent wholemilk yogurt(Erivan is one I'm thinking of, also raw milk/goat's milk yogurt), and no LaLoo's Strawberry Darling Goat's Milk Icecream!(I'm kidding about the last one, but that shit is amazing!)

Sugar is not the enemy. Protein is!
The anti-protein society strikes again. We will be back. Until then, organic/whole/natural fruits, cakes, muffins and drinks are the furthest from unhealthy and will never ever EVER make you look older.
But, have a steak a day and see what happens in 5 years. You will lose the glow. Meat is incompatible with preservation optimization.
I have never seen any living example or came across any compelling evidence to even slightly waver my certainty in this.
And, btw, vegetarians DO look younger.

Ha ha, have you seen any of those older paleo guys lately? They are lookin pretty damn good for their age. Cake and muffins are way worse for health than protein, as long as you are getting a normal healthy amount of protein. They way I see it, give your body what it needs to function at it's best, no more, no less.

I bet you are pretty young and the reality of getting older hasn't quite hit you completely. No matter what any of us do, we will start losing that "glow" that you are speaking of. Sure some things help, but the reality is, we start to lose that glow in our late thirties and early forties.

[Stefanovic]

what's a normal amount of protein? I'm trying to get strong and lean these days and would like to bulk up a bit...

[Logan]

what's a normal amount of protein? I'm trying to get strong and lean these days and would like to bulk up a bit...

I think you need to do some research and try to figure out what normal might be for your body size/type. If you are doing some heavier than normal weight training you may require a bit more protein than normal of course. You can go over to places like mindandmuscle and try to figure out what some guys similar to your body type are doing. I believe you can bulk up a bit and eat a healthy amount of protein without really negatively affecting longevity, especially if you are young. I know there are people here like Michael Ray believe that restricting protein along with calories may be crucial to achieving life extension. I think if you are in you low to mid 20s, you shouldn't have to worry about it too much as long as you eat a well balanced diet, get plenty of rest, and avoid too much stress, you should be in good shape when you hit your 30s, JM0.

[TheFountain]

Ha ha, have you seen any of those older paleo guys lately? They are lookin pretty damn good for their age.

I haven't seen too many examples of this, unless you're talking about bodily appearance. The OP is talking about facial appearance I do believe.

[Logan]

Ha ha, have you seen any of those older paleo guys lately? They are lookin pretty damn good for their age.

I haven't seen too many examples of this, unless you're talking about bodily appearance. The OP is talking about facial appearance I do believe.

Mark Sisson is one example, but I admit he is blessed with superior genes. Guys, you lose this glow no matter what you do after a certain age. Some people never have it, no matter what they do.

Also, I always think examples like Jared Leto are really really bad ones. One, the guy is only in his late thirties. Two, He too has very good genes. Finally, there are many other movie stars that looked great at Jared's age, ones that ate meat and even smoked cigarettes. I would love to never see Jared Leto mentioned on this site ever again.

Many of you younger guys don't realize that things can hold together and look pretty good late into your thirties even if you don't take drastic measures. Just some good genes, avoiding bad stress, a decent diet, and great workouts are enough to stay looking very young for a pretty young time.

I'm not so sure CR is the best way to stay looking young, though it may be the best way to preserver your body long enough to hopefully benefit from anti-aging therapies. Like Niner said, it can make you look older.

Edited by morganator, 17 December 2010 - 06:04 AM.

[TheFountain]

Ha ha, have you seen any of those older paleo guys lately? They are lookin pretty damn good for their age.

I haven't seen too many examples of this, unless you're talking about bodily appearance. The OP is talking about facial appearance I do believe.

Mark Sisson is one example, but I admit he is blessed with superior genes. Guys, you lose this glow no matter what you do after a certain age. Some people never have it, no matter what they do.

Also, I always think examples like Jared Leto are really really bad ones. One, the guy is only in his late thirties. Two, He too has very good genes. Finally, there are many other movie stars that looked great at Jared's age, ones that ate meat and even smoked cigarettes. I would love to never see Jared Leto mentioned on this site ever again.

Many of you younger guys don't realize that things can hold together and look pretty good late into your thirties even if you don't take drastic measures. Just some good genes, avoiding bad stress, a decent diet, and great workouts are enough to stay looking very young for a pretty young time.

I'm not so sure CR is the best way to stay looking young, though it may be the best way to preserver your body long enough to hopefully benefit from anti-aging therapies. Like Niner said, it can make you look older.

You keep resorting to the 'genes' argument. I don't think this is the best approach to this argument. Especially when it is a vague argument at best. I have very seldom seen males in their later 30s or early 40s who could pass for early 20s unless they were health nuts of some variety, usually the vegetarian or vegan sort. Mark sisson is a bad example because although his body looks good for his age his face still looks quite his age.

You could make the same argument for someone like vin diesel (someone I am sure eats alot of meat).

His body looks buff but his face looks quite worn out and 40 something-ish.




Comparatively, someone like David Duchavny, now 50 years old, in my opinion looks better and perhaps even a little younger than vin diesel does despite being almost 10 years older than him. David is someone who was vegetarian for the better part of his younger years. I'm not saying he looks way younger than his age but facially you can see the difference between him and someone who has eaten meat the majority of their adult life.





My conclusion still is that years of elevated DHT cause some of this problem, who knows what the rest of the contributing factor might be? Oxidative stress from pushing oneself beyond the brink with extremely heavy weights?

Edited by TheFountain, 17 December 2010 - 07:00 AM.

[Logan]

Ha ha, have you seen any of those older paleo guys lately? They are lookin pretty damn good for their age.

I haven't seen too many examples of this, unless you're talking about bodily appearance. The OP is talking about facial appearance I do believe.

Mark Sisson is one example, but I admit he is blessed with superior genes. Guys, you lose this glow no matter what you do after a certain age. Some people never have it, no matter what they do.

Also, I always think examples like Jared Leto are really really bad ones. One, the guy is only in his late thirties. Two, He too has very good genes. Finally, there are many other movie stars that looked great at Jared's age, ones that ate meat and even smoked cigarettes. I would love to never see Jared Leto mentioned on this site ever again.

Many of you younger guys don't realize that things can hold together and look pretty good late into your thirties even if you don't take drastic measures. Just some good genes, avoiding bad stress, a decent diet, and great workouts are enough to stay looking very young for a pretty young time.

I'm not so sure CR is the best way to stay looking young, though it may be the best way to preserver your body long enough to hopefully benefit from anti-aging therapies. Like Niner said, it can make you look older.

You keep resorting to the 'genes' argument. I don't think this is the best approach to this argument. Especially when it is a vague argument at best. I have very seldom seen males in their later 30s or early 40s who could pass for early 20s unless they were health nuts of some variety, usually the vegetarian or vegan sort. Mark sisson is a bad example because although his body looks good for his age his face still looks quite his age.

You could make the same argument for someone like vin diesel (someone I am sure eats alot of meat).

His body looks buff but his face looks quite worn out and 40 something-ish.




Comparatively, someone like David Duchavny, now 50 years old, in my opinion looks better and perhaps even a little younger than vin diesel does despite being almost 10 years older than him. David is someone who was vegetarian for the better part of his younger years. I'm not saying he looks way younger than his age but facially you can see the difference between him and someone who has eaten meat the majority of their adult life.





My conclusion still is that years of elevated DHT cause some of this problem, who knows what the rest of the contributing factor might be? Oxidative stress from pushing oneself beyond the brink with extremely heavy weights?

I think for 57 and having had plenty of sun exposure over the years, Mark Sisson looks great in his face.

Jared Leto does NOT look like he is in his lower 20s.

Lol! Vin Diesel looks 40 somethingish? Hahahahahahahaha. You're a total freakazoid. The guy looks like he is 30. His NATURAL nasal labial folds that he was born predisposed to are throwing you. You pick and choose pictures that favor your argument.

I feel bad for you that at such a young age you have such an unhealthy obsession. Get out and have some fun. Hang with your friends. Go to parties, bars and clubs. Play some sports. Go snowboarding and skiing. Start obsessing about your future career. Volunteer somewhere. Maybe you do some or all of these things, even if you do, you gotta stop with the obsessing about looking like a fucking teenager for the rest of your life.

I agree that a vegan that eats a perfect diet is way better off than the average meat eater. But I don't think anyone can make a good argument that eating a little meat and dairy(the right meat and dairy of course) weekly is going to have any noticeable impact on the way someone ages visibly or biologically.

[Logan]

BTW, the genetics argument is not at all vague. It's a reality. And you are picking celebrities, all of whom are genetically gifted when it comes to appearance. You are also picking pictures where the celebrities are not making strong facial expressions.

Facial bone structure and skin type have a major impact on how someone ages. I realize though that genetically superior facial attributes does not ward off lines and wrinkles.

The main reason why Duchovny hasn't developed crow's feet and other lines is because he doesn't show much expression in acting or real life, it's not his style. Mostly kidding, but it could have something to do with it. I have seen him recently on a talk show and he was showing his age some in lines and wrinkles.

Edited by morganator, 17 December 2010 - 08:46 AM.

[TheFountain]

Ha ha, have you seen any of those older paleo guys lately? They are lookin pretty damn good for their age.

I haven't seen too many examples of this, unless you're talking about bodily appearance. The OP is talking about facial appearance I do believe.

Mark Sisson is one example, but I admit he is blessed with superior genes. Guys, you lose this glow no matter what you do after a certain age. Some people never have it, no matter what they do.

Also, I always think examples like Jared Leto are really really bad ones. One, the guy is only in his late thirties. Two, He too has very good genes. Finally, there are many other movie stars that looked great at Jared's age, ones that ate meat and even smoked cigarettes. I would love to never see Jared Leto mentioned on this site ever again.

Many of you younger guys don't realize that things can hold together and look pretty good late into your thirties even if you don't take drastic measures. Just some good genes, avoiding bad stress, a decent diet, and great workouts are enough to stay looking very young for a pretty young time.

I'm not so sure CR is the best way to stay looking young, though it may be the best way to preserver your body long enough to hopefully benefit from anti-aging therapies. Like Niner said, it can make you look older.

You keep resorting to the 'genes' argument. I don't think this is the best approach to this argument. Especially when it is a vague argument at best. I have very seldom seen males in their later 30s or early 40s who could pass for early 20s unless they were health nuts of some variety, usually the vegetarian or vegan sort. Mark sisson is a bad example because although his body looks good for his age his face still looks quite his age.

You could make the same argument for someone like vin diesel (someone I am sure eats alot of meat).

His body looks buff but his face looks quite worn out and 40 something-ish.




Comparatively, someone like David Duchavny, now 50 years old, in my opinion looks better and perhaps even a little younger than vin diesel does despite being almost 10 years older than him. David is someone who was vegetarian for the better part of his younger years. I'm not saying he looks way younger than his age but facially you can see the difference between him and someone who has eaten meat the majority of their adult life.





My conclusion still is that years of elevated DHT cause some of this problem, who knows what the rest of the contributing factor might be? Oxidative stress from pushing oneself beyond the brink with extremely heavy weights?

I think for 57 and having had plenty of sun exposure over the years, Mark Sisson looks great in his face.

Jared Leto does NOT look like he is in his lower 20s.

Lol! Vin Diesel looks 40 somethingish? Hahahahahahahaha. You're a total freakazoid. The guy looks like he is 30. His NATURAL nasal labial folds that he was born predisposed to are throwing you. You pick and choose pictures that favor your argument.

I feel bad for you that at such a young age you have such an unhealthy obsession. Get out and have some fun. Hang with your friends. Go to parties, bars and clubs. Play some sports. Go snowboarding and skiing. Start obsessing about your future career. Volunteer somewhere. Maybe you do some or all of these things, even if you do, you gotta stop with the obsessing about looking like a fucking teenager for the rest of your life.

I agree that a vegan that eats a perfect diet is way better off than the average meat eater. But I don't think anyone can make a good argument that eating a little meat and dairy(the right meat and dairy of course) weekly is going to have any noticeable impact on the way someone ages visibly or biologically.

You're getting ad hominem and personal now. Making assumptions about what I should and what I actually do with my personally time has no bearing on this discussion. I don't think I spend any more or less time on this forum than you do, in fact possibly less as of late. But I guess opinions vary. I still think my example of vin deisel was spot on. I think elevated DHT damages the body long term and causes irreparable skin damage and possibly even morbid bone growth.

[TheFountain]

BTW, the genetics argument is not at all vague. It's a reality. And you are picking celebrities, all of whom are genetically gifted when it comes to appearance. You are also picking pictures where the celebrities are not making strong facial expressions.

Facial bone structure and skin type have a major impact on how someone ages. I realize though that genetically superior facial attributes does not ward off lines and wrinkles.

The main reason why Duchovny hasn't developed crow's feet and other lines is because he doesn't show much expression in acting or real life, it's not his style. Mostly kidding, but it could have something to do with it. I have seen him recently on a talk show and he was showing his age some in lines and wrinkles.

You're talking like a national geographics narrator. I mean 'genetically superior facial attributes'? What are these attributes? And who decides them? Can we ask, are they arbitrary at best? Do apes in wilderness possess such variable attributes? Or is it their physical energy which makes them viable targets for their kin?

Let's face the facts, there has not been any long term cross referential study that has ever concluded that developing lines and/or wrinkles at a specific age is 'genetic'. Could it be that this was a myth that began a long time ago and has never been socially questioned? Thus people continue to believe it?

[chris w]

I think elevated DHT damages the body long term and causes irreparable skin damage and possibly even morbid bone growth.

Why would you think so ? Honest question.

[sthira]

I wonder if all this constant deconstruction and judgement regarding who looks old, who looks young, who looks good, who doesn't look good, and how any of this is related to lifestyle and genetics, I wonder if this is good for the longevity movement or not good for it? I guess it's both? I mean, in some ways, the constant judgement over how people look -- and how they got that way -- seems like it's pushing the life extension science. In other ways, the superficiality seems misguided. Sure, it's important to "look good" on the outside, but that's so subjective and in flux, tied in with the ad biz and selling stuff. I don't know. I wish the conversation was more elevated not just here, but throughout society. I suppose we're slowly churning forward as we push out more boundries and judging others is part of the process. Just thinking out loud...

[Logan]

BTW, the genetics argument is not at all vague. It's a reality. And you are picking celebrities, all of whom are genetically gifted when it comes to appearance. You are also picking pictures where the celebrities are not making strong facial expressions.

Facial bone structure and skin type have a major impact on how someone ages. I realize though that genetically superior facial attributes does not ward off lines and wrinkles.

The main reason why Duchovny hasn't developed crow's feet and other lines is because he doesn't show much expression in acting or real life, it's not his style. Mostly kidding, but it could have something to do with it. I have seen him recently on a talk show and he was showing his age some in lines and wrinkles.

You're talking like a national geographics narrator. I mean 'genetically superior facial attributes'? What are these attributes? And who decides them? Can we ask, are they arbitrary at best? Do apes in wilderness possess such variable attributes? Or is it their physical energy which makes them viable targets for their kin?

Let's face the facts, there has not been any long term cross referential study that has ever concluded that developing lines and/or wrinkles at a specific age is 'genetic'. Could it be that this was a myth that began a long time ago and has never been socially questioned? Thus people continue to believe it?

You gotta know what I mean- faces that don't age as easily, faces that have a naturally young look to them(baby face), faces that have better than average skin quality, and faces that are usually thought of as more attractive.

[Logan]

Ha ha, have you seen any of those older paleo guys lately? They are lookin pretty damn good for their age.

I haven't seen too many examples of this, unless you're talking about bodily appearance. The OP is talking about facial appearance I do believe.

Mark Sisson is one example, but I admit he is blessed with superior genes. Guys, you lose this glow no matter what you do after a certain age. Some people never have it, no matter what they do.

Also, I always think examples like Jared Leto are really really bad ones. One, the guy is only in his late thirties. Two, He too has very good genes. Finally, there are many other movie stars that looked great at Jared's age, ones that ate meat and even smoked cigarettes. I would love to never see Jared Leto mentioned on this site ever again.

Many of you younger guys don't realize that things can hold together and look pretty good late into your thirties even if you don't take drastic measures. Just some good genes, avoiding bad stress, a decent diet, and great workouts are enough to stay looking very young for a pretty young time.

I'm not so sure CR is the best way to stay looking young, though it may be the best way to preserver your body long enough to hopefully benefit from anti-aging therapies. Like Niner said, it can make you look older.

You keep resorting to the 'genes' argument. I don't think this is the best approach to this argument. Especially when it is a vague argument at best. I have very seldom seen males in their later 30s or early 40s who could pass for early 20s unless they were health nuts of some variety, usually the vegetarian or vegan sort. Mark sisson is a bad example because although his body looks good for his age his face still looks quite his age.

You could make the same argument for someone like vin diesel (someone I am sure eats alot of meat).

His body looks buff but his face looks quite worn out and 40 something-ish.




Comparatively, someone like David Duchavny, now 50 years old, in my opinion looks better and perhaps even a little younger than vin diesel does despite being almost 10 years older than him. David is someone who was vegetarian for the better part of his younger years. I'm not saying he looks way younger than his age but facially you can see the difference between him and someone who has eaten meat the majority of their adult life.





My conclusion still is that years of elevated DHT cause some of this problem, who knows what the rest of the contributing factor might be? Oxidative stress from pushing oneself beyond the brink with extremely heavy weights?

I think for 57 and having had plenty of sun exposure over the years, Mark Sisson looks great in his face.

Jared Leto does NOT look like he is in his lower 20s.

Lol! Vin Diesel looks 40 somethingish? Hahahahahahahaha. You're a total freakazoid. The guy looks like he is 30. His NATURAL nasal labial folds that he was born predisposed to are throwing you. You pick and choose pictures that favor your argument.

I feel bad for you that at such a young age you have such an unhealthy obsession. Get out and have some fun. Hang with your friends. Go to parties, bars and clubs. Play some sports. Go snowboarding and skiing. Start obsessing about your future career. Volunteer somewhere. Maybe you do some or all of these things, even if you do, you gotta stop with the obsessing about looking like a fucking teenager for the rest of your life.

I agree that a vegan that eats a perfect diet is way better off than the average meat eater. But I don't think anyone can make a good argument that eating a little meat and dairy(the right meat and dairy of course) weekly is going to have any noticeable impact on the way someone ages visibly or biologically.

You're getting ad hominem and personal now. Making assumptions about what I should and what I actually do with my personally time has no bearing on this discussion. I don't think I spend any more or less time on this forum than you do, in fact possibly less as of late. But I guess opinions vary. I still think my example of vin deisel was spot on. I think elevated DHT damages the body long term and causes irreparable skin damage and possibly even morbid bone growth.

I'm not just talking about being on this forum. I'm the first to admit I should spend much less time on the internet. 4 or 5 years ago the internet was the last place I wanted to be. Hell I didn't have an email address or cell phone until 2003.

I am assuming that you might be spending an unhealthy amount of time in your personal life focused on some of the issues discussed here. Sorry if you feel I am personally attacking you or making wrongful assumptions.

Vin Diesel just has the face bro. Come on, Leto and Duchovny have the "baby face" Diesel doesn't and never has. Again, he has those nasal labial folds, which are mostly genetic.

I should have said there are faces that are built better for looking youthful as we age.

[TheFountain]

BTW, the genetics argument is not at all vague. It's a reality. And you are picking celebrities, all of whom are genetically gifted when it comes to appearance. You are also picking pictures where the celebrities are not making strong facial expressions.

Facial bone structure and skin type have a major impact on how someone ages. I realize though that genetically superior facial attributes does not ward off lines and wrinkles.

The main reason why Duchovny hasn't developed crow's feet and other lines is because he doesn't show much expression in acting or real life, it's not his style. Mostly kidding, but it could have something to do with it. I have seen him recently on a talk show and he was showing his age some in lines and wrinkles.

You're talking like a national geographics narrator. I mean 'genetically superior facial attributes'? What are these attributes? And who decides them? Can we ask, are they arbitrary at best? Do apes in wilderness possess such variable attributes? Or is it their physical energy which makes them viable targets for their kin?

Let's face the facts, there has not been any long term cross referential study that has ever concluded that developing lines and/or wrinkles at a specific age is 'genetic'. Could it be that this was a myth that began a long time ago and has never been socially questioned? Thus people continue to believe it?

You gotta know what I mean- faces that don't age as easily, faces that have a naturally young look to them(baby face), faces that have better than average skin quality, and faces that are usually thought of as more attractive.

I can't condone this silly idea that everything appearance based comes down to genetics. We as a society have been sold this false construct that isn't even scientific for far too long. What study shows that how youthful one looks at certain ages is genetic? Zero studies show that.

I have seen enough guys my age (mid 20s) who look terrible after years of boozing and smoking like chimneys. All it takes is some awareness to prevent it from happening that rapidly. Effort counts, otherwise we wouldn't be altering things about our lives, we would just do whatever the hell we want and wait for the bioscience breakthroughs to come.

[TheFountain]

I wonder if all this constant deconstruction and judgement regarding who looks old, who looks young, who looks good, who doesn't look good, and how any of this is related to lifestyle and genetics, I wonder if this is good for the longevity movement or not good for it? I guess it's both? I mean, in some ways, the constant judgement over how people look -- and how they got that way -- seems like it's pushing the life extension science. In other ways, the superficiality seems misguided. Sure, it's important to "look good" on the outside, but that's so subjective and in flux, tied in with the ad biz and selling stuff. I don't know. I wish the conversation was more elevated not just here, but throughout society. I suppose we're slowly churning forward as we push out more boundries and judging others is part of the process. Just thinking out loud...

I am all for the idea that what is considered attractive is totally subjective in most cases.

And then other cases are based on deliberate suspension of ones true opinions in favor of fitting in to society. I have seen people change their opinions of other's based on what their peers think of said individuals.

We have to start approaching society as individuals and stop this herd bullshit already. I mean look at this justin bieber crap! None of my younger female friends who are between the ages of 18-20 think he is attractive at all. Yet there are a plethora of 19 year old females who call him sexy. Is this a case of subjective observation or of pure herd delusion (people who are too weak minded to think for themselves)? Maybe I should start a thread on this.

Mainly it comes down to psychology. I don't buy that people are programmed to behave a certain way, and I subscribe to one of my favorite philosophers (PD ouspensky) ideas that mechanical evolution has ended and conscious evolution has begun. But the degree to which we evolve consciously is up to us.

[Brafarality]

I am all for the idea that what is considered attractive is totally subjective in most cases.

And then other cases are based on deliberate suspension of ones true opinions in favor of fitting in to society. I have seen people change their opinions of other's based on what their peers think of said individuals.

We have to start approaching society as individuals and stop this herd bullshit already. I mean look at this justin bieber crap! None of my younger female friends who are between the ages of 18-20 think he is attractive at all. Yet there are a plethora of 19 year old females who call him sexy. Is this a case of subjective observation or of pure herd delusion (people who are too weak minded to think for themselves)? Maybe I should start a thread on this.

With all due respect, people who opposed Justin Bieber are just as herd-minded as those who support.
More, perhaps, since it was instantly fashionable in a superficial hipster way to have contempt for Justin Bieber the moment he hit the scene. Much more against the grain to like him, I think.

As observed best by Sean O'Hagen, of The Observer, commenting on the development of Win Butler, the lead singer of indie breakout band Arcade Fire:

"The album is not just a kind of bittersweet look back at his youth in the corporate suburbs of Houston, Texas, but a critique of cooler-than-thou neighbourhoods such as Williamsburg in New York or Hoxton in London, where everyone parades their hipster credentials by dressing the same and listening to the same music, while simultaneously priding themselves on being different."

And, Win Butler continuing: "I think it goes way further than that: if you think of the sociological impact of the internet, which has led to this uniformity of taste, this homogenisation of a certain kind of coolness. It's scary because it spreads like a virus and it's hard to define yourself against. I think the very notion of the suburbs in the old-fashioned sense – that homogenised sprawl of corporate housing and malls – is like a metaphor for something much bigger."

These 'non-conformists', who are spreading like a virus, are becoming the biggest sea of uber-conformity the world has ever seen!
And, Bieber-haters are fully ensconced among them, since there are many more haters than fans.
The 'herd' is the haters.
The fans are probably types who don't self-consciously try to be cool or hip...ultimately seeming more like free thinkers, ironically.

Edited by Brafarality, 18 December 2010 - 08:33 PM.

[TheFountain]

I am all for the idea that what is considered attractive is totally subjective in most cases.

And then other cases are based on deliberate suspension of ones true opinions in favor of fitting in to society. I have seen people change their opinions of other's based on what their peers think of said individuals.

We have to start approaching society as individuals and stop this herd bullshit already. I mean look at this justin bieber crap! None of my younger female friends who are between the ages of 18-20 think he is attractive at all. Yet there are a plethora of 19 year old females who call him sexy. Is this a case of subjective observation or of pure herd delusion (people who are too weak minded to think for themselves)? Maybe I should start a thread on this.

With all due respect, people who opposed Justin Bieber are just as herd-minded as those who support.
More, perhaps, since it was instantly fashionable in a superficial hipster way to have contempt for Justin Bieber the moment he hit the scene. Much more against the grain to like him, I think.

As observed best by Sean O'Hagen, of The Observer, commenting on the development of Win Butler, the lead singer of indie breakout band Arcade Fire:

"The album is not just a kind of bittersweet look back at his youth in the corporate suburbs of Houston, Texas, but a critique of cooler-than-thou neighbourhoods such as Williamsburg in New York or Hoxton in London, where everyone parades their hipster credentials by dressing the same and listening to the same music, while simultaneously priding themselves on being different."

And, Win Butler continuing: "I think it goes way further than that: if you think of the sociological impact of the internet, which has led to this uniformity of taste, this homogenisation of a certain kind of coolness. It's scary because it spreads like a virus and it's hard to define yourself against. I think the very notion of the suburbs in the old-fashioned sense – that homogenised sprawl of corporate housing and malls – is like a metaphor for something much bigger."

These 'non-conformists', who are spreading like a virus, are becoming the biggest sea of uber-conformity the world has ever seen!
And, Bieber-haters are fully ensconced among them, since there are many more haters than fans.
The 'herd' is the haters.
The fans are probably types who don't self-consciously try to be cool or hip...ultimately seeming more like free thinkers, ironically.

By your faulty logic, disliking popular things is 'hipster' and part of a conformist, trendy contrarian movement. Right?

Well, wrong.

You see plenty of people who think for themselves like popular musicians, just good ones. There is nothing at all wrong with loving popular musicians who are in possession of talent and substance (no this is not subjective, substance and/or 'depth' are pretty clear cut). Justin bieber is not one of these musicians though.

Your attempt at marginalizing people who are telling the truth is, at best, a failed play at the devils advocate position. Philosophically logistics would refer to your argument as self defeating, as in the end it basically crumbles in the face of one basic truth. Good poets are good poets, plagiarists are plagiarists. And justin bieber still sucks. Whether it's trendy to note this fact or not. I would actually hope that it is 'trendy' to do so, because it means there are more people in possession of the truth than there aren't.

Edited by TheFountain, 18 December 2010 - 08:56 PM.

[Brafarality]

By your faulty logic, disliking popular things is 'hipster' and part of a conformist, trendy contrarian movement. Right?

Well, wrong.

Actually, spot on, except that the illusion is that these other things are more popular.
Huge fashion and music labels make huge profits playing this up, making each patron feel unique and special, and into something underground, and not like the no-longer-existent Joe Average masses.
Also, think Starbucks and Whole Foods. Same thing.
People who shop at Whole Foods think they are some elite minority, but are simply part of a fragmented viral majority.
Look at Whole Foods sales figures for the past 5 years.
It is not part of a fringe culture.

The thing with the viral hipster movement is it is somewhat more fragmented than stuff like Nsync and Justin Bieber, but it is much more popular, more viral, just marketed differently so as to seem less popular, each band more exclusive, but the numbers don't lie:
Listen to the overall soundtrack of television commercials and hear the 'indie' music resound.
Same for One Tree Hill, Vampire Diaries, Tru Blood, Gilmore Girls, etc.
Try and find a Justin Bieber song on any of these super-popular shows which take great strides to portray themselves as hipster, extreme, fringe or something like that.

Check out Stuffwhitepeoplelike.com and see what's there:
Hummous, jazz, indie music, Japan, unpaid internshjps, public radio, grocery co-ops, writers workshops, gifted children, and much more.
Nothing resembling Budweiser, Justin Bieber, jock rock, or anything that was ONCE the mainstream of American culture.
And this merely represents another unrelated person's observations of a new conformity, which may have at one time been non-conforming.

I admit I don't fully understand what is going on, but so many are noticing it now that it is obvious that something is going on.
Probably not much different from the 1960s British Invasion, which was enormously popular but was still countercultural in its early days.

And, speaking of Arcade Fire, they are way bigger than Justin Bieber will ever be. The fans though are all self-aware hipsters who won't mob them like Bieber fans, so there is less visual splash about it, but album sales and concert attendance as well as market penetration do not lie, again.
Especially if you consider the extremely narrow range of appeal Bieber has: maybe 90 percent females between 14 and 21, or something like that, Im thinking.
Yes, the fans make a loud noise, but are hardly any form of majority.

There are actually people who think that Green Day is 'alternative' and that Guns n Roses is 'main stream' and that they are non-conformist for choosing Green Day. Doesn't get any worse than that.

There are some who are so insistent that they are different, that they will pick the only beer bellied Miller drinker left in the world to represent the 'masses' or 'sheep' they want to contrast themselves with. Instead of truly being unique, they take the easy way out and listen to a few indie bands, shop at a few thrift stores, read a few graphic novels, visit an art museum once in a while, stuff like that.

In deference, I find myself on your side of most, if not all, debates on this forum, but can't help but disagree on this one. Me and my better half have mulled this over so much, my answers may come off as canned, in which case I apologize to one and all for seeming like rehash instead of spontaneous generation.

Edited by Brafarality, 18 December 2010 - 11:12 PM.

[TheFountain]

By your faulty logic, disliking popular things is 'hipster' and part of a conformist, trendy contrarian movement. Right?

Well, wrong.

Actually, spot on, except that the illusion is that these other things are more popular.
Huge fashion and music labels make huge profits playing this up, making each patron feel unique and special, and into something underground, and not like the no-longer-existent Joe Average masses.
Also, think Starbucks and Whole Foods. Same thing.
People who shop at Whole Foods think they are some elite minority, but are simply part of a fragmented viral majority.
Look at Whole Foods sales figures for the past 5 years.
It is not part of a fringe culture.

The thing with the viral hipster movement is it is somewhat more fragmented than stuff like Nsync and Justin Bieber, but it is much more popular, more viral, just marketed differently so as to seem less popular, each band more exclusive, but the numbers don't lie:
Listen to the overall soundtrack of television commercials and hear the 'indie' music resound.
Same for One Tree Hill, Vampire Diaries, Tru Blood, Gilmore Girls, etc.
Try and find a Justin Bieber song on any of these super-popular shows which take great strides to portray themselves as hipster, extreme, fringe or something like that.

Check out Stuffwhitepeoplelike.com and see what's there:
Hummous, jazz, indie music, Japan, unpaid internshjps, public radio, grocery co-ops, writers workshops, gifted children, and much more.
Nothing resembling Budweiser, Justin Bieber, jock rock, or anything that was ONCE the mainstream of American culture.
And this merely represents another unrelated person's observations of a new conformity, which may have at one time been non-conforming.

I admit I don't fully understand what is going on, but so many are noticing it now that it is obvious that something is going on.
Probably not much different from the 1960s British Invasion, which was enormously popular but was still countercultural in its early days.

And, speaking of Arcade Fire, they are way bigger than Justin Bieber will ever be. The fans though are all self-aware hipsters who won't mob them like Bieber fans, so there is less visual splash about it, but album sales and concert attendance as well as market penetration do not lie, again.
Especially if you consider the extremely narrow range of appeal Bieber has: maybe 90 percent females between 14 and 21, or something like that, Im thinking.
Yes, the fans make a loud noise, but are hardly any form of majority.

There are actually people who think that Green Day is 'alternative' and that Guns n Roses is 'main stream' and that they are non-conformist for choosing Green Day. Doesn't get any worse than that.

There are some who are so insistent that they are different, that they will pick the only beer bellied Miller drinker left in the world to represent the 'masses' or 'sheep' they want to contrast themselves with. Instead of truly being unique, they take the easy way out and listen to a few indie bands, shop at a few thrift stores, read a few graphic novels, visit an art museum once in a while, stuff like that.

In deference, I find myself on your side of most, if not all, debates on this forum, but can't help but disagree on this one. Me and my better half have mulled this over so much, my answers may come off as canned, in which case I apologize to one and all for seeming like rehash instead of spontaneous generation.

This is not a debate about popularity. I do not and have not denied the popularity of these artists. What I am saying is that there is obviously a hunger for it otherwise it would not be so popular. Being 'marketed differently' is another way of saying they aren't spoon fed to people the way that justin bieber is simply because they don't have to be, people at least know they have the option there and they can 'choose' it, whereas justin bieber fans are brainwashed like cattle. I also buy a percentage of my music from a website called cdbaby, which features artists that are definitely not know in the widespread societal sense you're referring to. But I do not think there's any illusions about the popularity of bands like green day. I think they are pop punk basically, which is not that much of a rebellious genre anymore. The kind of music bands like radiohead make are straight from the inner well of creativity, and they are popular by virtue of this. There is a major difference between being popular by virtue of your creativity and popular by being marketed like a toy (justin bieber). We should be happy that some things with substance gain popularity to help counterbalance the bullshit most of society is fed. Yes it is part of the economy, yes it is marketed, but it is an option that is nonetheless necessary. Otherwise people wouldn't know other music exists besides the mediocre filth. In the end good is good, and shit is shit.

t I will say that the way it relates to the subject is individuality and the pursuit of ones subjective goals, whether it is through philosophy, art or living a healthy life. Music does facilitate that.

But this is straying off topic, so I will stop here.