13 surprising signs that you will live long

[Smilie]

Yay for carbonated beverages! I must be addicted to the fizz. Or maybe that I drink soooo much water, I just need something else 'cuz water gets old sometimes.

[bmccasland]

Yay for carbonated beverages! I must be addicted to the fizz. Or maybe that I drink soooo much water, I just need something else 'cuz water gets old sometimes.

That's why there's fizzy water! My current favorite is fizzy mineral water with a wedge of lime.

[arielmoon]

Great link! Thanks!

[katluvr]

I must say I did like it...
BUT NO WAY will I give up my house cleaner....I do enough other stuff to burn those calories.

And YIPPEE once again for red wine. Another thing I will NOT give up.

Interesting read and perspective.
But I think WE should make our own list! I bet we can come up with one.

[arielmoon]

That's why there's fizzy water! My current favorite is fizzy mineral water with a wedge of lime.

Mine too!

I havent had 'soda' in over 15 years

[malkin]

How do they establish a "30% lower risk of death?" Ever? or only during the housework hour? What were the other subjects doing? Riding motorcycles drunk and without helmets? or nibbling blueberries?

And they figured this out by studying people in their 70s and 80s...Does the result apply to anyone older or younger?

Still, pretty interesting things to think about.

[OakLeaf]

How do they establish a "30% lower risk of death?"

+1

I hate stuff like that... especially when it's applied to medical procedures. Last I checked we all have a 100% risk of death.

[pardes]

I LOVE cheeseburgers.....I just don't eat them more than once a month. That may cost me a few microseconds off my life, but it's worth it.

[kelownagirl]

It's vague because it's a mainstream recap of a scientific study. Usually, when they say 30% lower risk of death, they mean a lower chance of dying prematurely. The mainstream media tends to simplify too much in my opinion. I would assume that the people who didn't do housework likely had a cleaning service and were less active. Naturally, if you have a house cleaner and you spend your free time riding or working out, the data wouldn't apply to you. The main point here is that being activity reduces your chance of dying prematurely from things such a heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, and even cancer.

If you want to see another presentation with very similar information in a more 'scientific' format, check out this link.

Why Fitness Matters

The http://fitnessrocks.org website itself is also very good and you can subscribe to the podcast to hear weekly reviews of scientific studies about longevity.

How do they establish a "30% lower risk of death?" Ever? or only during the housework hour? What were the other subjects doing? Riding motorcycles drunk and without helmets? or nibbling blueberries?

And they figured this out by studying people in their 70s and 80s...Does the result apply to anyone older or younger?

Still, pretty interesting things to think about.

[OakLeaf]

Usually, when they say 30% lower risk of death, they mean a lower chance of dying prematurely. The mainstream media tends to simplify too much in my opinion. I would assume that the people who didn't do housework likely had a cleaning service and were less active.

Considering that life expectancy at birth in the USA is 77.8 years, what constitutes a 30% lower risk of dying "prematurely" for people in their 80s?

I think this is pretty clearly one of those things where a marker is not a cause but an effect. People in their 70s and 80s who are still able to do their own housework are obviously healthier than those who can't.

I spent most of the months of July and August looking at mortality statistics and believe me, when you look at what treatments and tests "they" are using those statistics to support, let's just say it was an eye-opener. Morbidity statistics are much harder to come by, and there's a reason for that.

Sorry for the thread drift - it just illustrates why I don't put a lot of stock in this stuff, either the media version or most of the medical journal versions. Show me (1) a biochemical reason why the alleged "cause" is actually a cause, and (2) a real improvement in the quality of life of human subjects, then I'll give it some credence.

[kelownagirl]

Again, because we can't see the actual study, we can't really speculate but... I'm thinking that the study was probably not so much about what the 70-80 years old were currently able to do, but rather a comment on how much they'd done over a period time, such as their adult lives. I agree with you that 80 year olds who can do their own housework are healthier than those who can't and you definitely cannot prove a causal relationship in any way. However, if we could see the whole study, we might find out that in general, people who had been doing their own housework over their adult lives (ie an example of being physically active), were healthier than people who can been sitting on their butts all their adult lives and therefor lived longer and/or had fewer chronic diseases caused by a sedentary lifestyle.

Take a look at the links I posted. The data there is much clearer and gives more reasons for an actual causal relationship between living a healthy lifestyle through diet, exercise, and maintaining a healthy weight and not dying prematurely from heart disease, type 2 diabetes, or cancer. I find it very clear and compelling and even if it's not completely correct, I'm not going to use it as an excuse to sit on the couch all day and eat crap.

Considering that life expectancy at birth in the USA is 77.8 years, what constitutes a 30% lower risk of dying "prematurely" for people in their 80s?

I think this is pretty clearly one of those things where a marker is not a cause but an effect. People in their 70s and 80s who are still able to do their own housework are obviously healthier than those who can't.

I spent most of the months of July and August looking at mortality statistics and believe me, when you look at what treatments and tests "they" are using those statistics to support, let's just say it was an eye-opener. Morbidity statistics are much harder to come by, and there's a reason for that.

Sorry for the thread drift - it just illustrates why I don't put a lot of stock in this stuff, either the media version or most of the medical journal versions. Show me (1) a biochemical reason why the alleged "cause" is actually a cause, and (2) a real improvement in the quality of life of human subjects, then I'll give it some credence.