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

Photo

actual age vs. biological age

children for instance

  • Please log in to reply
No replies to this topic

#1 Stefanovic

  • Guest
  • 300 posts
  • 36

Posted 01 November 2011 - 03:37 PM


I've been talking to some people recently and most of them are pretty negative about aging theories ( due to the fact that not many of them have actual knowledge of it)
We were talking about having kids. Most of them thought 40-45 is way too old to have children and I said: I read lots of stuff on anti-aging theories and they said: you can eat as healthy as you can, exercise, avoid stress, cigarettes, sun exposure. Once you're 40-45...you can still be very healthy, but your body will always be 40-45 in a certain way.
You can see a 42 year old mom with her baby (mom is only looking 30-35 ) but once she reveals her actual age, people would say: that's too old.

So many things seem to be "age related": having babies is the most common thing. So how could people of a certain age be really different?

So my actual question is: could a 40-45 yr old be biologically younger when being on resveratrol ( for instance) and maintaining a healthy lifestyle or can you just be healthy for your age.


PS:
It's like seeing two 50 yr olds. one of them looks good but she does look 50 ( or at least 45) and the other one looks bad. You can say: the first one looks good FOR HER AGE, but not actually younger.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users