JustCare

Tag: Longevity

  • Want to live longer? Genes and lifestyle matter

    Want to live longer? Genes and lifestyle matter

    Dana G. Smith reports for The New York Times on the extent to which you control how long you live. How much does a healthy lifestyle help and how much do your genes determine your fate?

    For sure, we know about smokers and drinkers, people who eat junk food, as well as people who never exercise, who have lived long and relatively healthy lives. But, the data suggest that these people are the exceptions. If you want to live a long healthy life, you’d better change your lifestyle.

    According to the evidence, your behaviors will likely dictate whether you live until you’re 90. Indeed, one recent study found that you can add 24 years to your life if you: 1. eat healthy, 2. exercise, 3. get adequate sleep, 4. don’t smoke, 5. don’t drink excessively, 6. don’t take opioids, 7. manage stress and 8. engage socially. These healthy behaviors should help you to live to around 87.

    There’s little you can do to help ensure you will live to 100. But, 87 is pretty good relative to most Americans. In the US today, the average life expectancy is 78.5.

    At the end of the day, whether you live a long life depends to the greatest extent on your lifestyle, your daily habits. Genes are responsible only for about 25 percent of your longevity. Living to 100 is far more about your genes than your lifestyle.

    There are plenty of people who live very long lives without particularly healthy habits. They smoke and don’t exercise. Because of their genes, they still are not as likely to have chronic conditions, such as heart disease or cancer or dementia.

    For example, you are better off carrying the APOE2 gene if you are going to avoid an Alzheimer’s diagnosis. If you have the APOE4 gene, you are more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. For another example, having the FOXO3 gene can keep you from getting a variety of diseases that generally come with old age.

    Unfortunately, fewer than one in 100 people have these genes. Not surprisingly, fewer than one in 100 people live to 100.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • 2025: Could Americans be getting healthier?

    2025: Could Americans be getting healthier?

    For as long as I can recall, Americans have ranked well below dozens of other countries on life expectancy. We are also more likely to die as a result of gun killings, drug overdoses and automobile accidents than people in other wealthy nations. And, we have a 50 percent greater rate of obesity than Europeans. In a piece for The Atlantic, Derek Thompson refers to the US as a “rich death trap.”

    Still, Thompson notes that we have seen some good news in the health department. Last year, three percent fewer people died of a drug overdose. Automobile accidents fell, even though people drove more. The US obesity rate fell one point six percent. And, murder rates across the nation fell.

    This is a first in a while. Perhaps the best data we have seen in decades. Though it’s not clear that these rates continue to decline, because the data lags by a bit, it’s also not clear why these rates are down.

    With regard to overdose death declines, declines are large and focused on the East. Were these declines the product of good policy? The explanation could simply be that more people who would have died somewhat later, died during the Covid pandemic. Or, it could be that street fentanyl is not as strong as it has been.

    Ozempic and Mounjaro could be in part responsible for the decline in the rate of obesity. One in 16 Americans reportedly are now taking one of these appetite-suppressing drugs. Or, perhaps, we have reached the limit of Americans who could be obese.

    Violent crime has also dropped for reasons that are not fully understood. Some think that public outrage at the police for their conduct reduced police activity, causing more violent crime. But, as police activity increased, violence fell.  Another theory is that as the Covid pandemic was ending, violent crime fell when the school year began.

    How could public policy have contributed to these declining rates? It’s possible that the American Rescue Plan, which delivered hundreds of billions of dollars to states and cities, enabled local governments to boost law enforcement activities, which kept violent crime and dangerous driving at bay.

    Where do we go from here? If you ask Elon Musk, counselor to the incoming president, “Nothing would do more to improve the health, lifespan and quality of life for Americans than making GLP inhibitors super low cost to the public.” RFK Jr. argues that lifestyle is what drives better health, not technology. It’s all about our behaviors–getting people to eat healthily and exercise.

    Many Republican policymakers in Congress do not support Medicare coverage of weight-loss drugs. And, the Republicans in Congress are poised to cut Medicaid significantly. It’s hard to believe that we will continue to see health improvements over the next four years.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Blue Zones: Do they really promote long lives?

    Blue Zones: Do they really promote long lives?

    Twenty years ago, Dan Buettner started writing about Blue Zones, places on this earth where people allegedly live long healthy lives. The public has been transfixed. While people in the Blue Zones appear to exhibit good healthy behaviors, there’s no science behind the Blue Zone claims.

    Buettner has built a large following reporting on these Blue Zones–including authoring eight books–and what we can all do to live longer, healthier lives. And, he has made a lot of money doing it. But, he is making observations, not finding causal links between particular environments and longevity.

    There really migt not be a there there, Dana G. Smith reports for The New York Times. One expert challenges the notion that certain communities have more centenarians because of their special behaviors. He thinks that these communities more likely have bad record-keeping about the age of their residents.

    Why are the areas with purportedly large populations of very old people called Blue Zones? Back in 2004, researchers highlighted Sardinia in blue on a map to signal that its residents lived long lives. They thought Sardinians had especially healthier lifestyles than others or high levels of “inbreeding” leading to a certain set of genes that promoted longevity.

    Buettner, then a reporter for National Geographic, wrote about longevity in Sardinia and two other areas, Okinawa and Loma Linda, California. He argued that people lived longer in these zones as a result of their healthy lifestyles. They ate well, were active, socially engaged and didn’t smoke. Their lives had purpose, and they could handle stress.

    Buettner claimed people in Blue Zones lived ten years longer on average than the rest of us, without taking supplements or going to exercise studios. Rather, they lived in good places.

    Buettner has made “Blue Zones” into a very big business notwithstanding the lack of science behind them. Who doesn’t want to believe in magic, especially if it could help them live longer? Then, Saul Justin Newman, University College, London, decided to look into the data and things did not add up as well as Buettner has suggested.

    Newman believes the Blue Zones might not be such special places. True or not, Buettner admits that Okinawa might no longer qualify as a Blue Zone. People’s diets and lifestyles have changed. He actually believes that Blue Zones will die out in the next 15 to 25 years as a result of fast food and changing behaviors.

    We non-Blue Zone dwellers can still take a page from Buettner’s advice: eat well, stay active, and engage with your community. All three behaviors have been found to promote good health and long lives.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Eat less intermittently, live longer?

    Eat less intermittently, live longer?

    Experiments with lab mice show that if you reduce their caloric intake by 30 to 40 percent, the mice typically live 30 percent longer. The goal is to reduce caloric intake enough to cause biological changes without malnourishing the mice. Experiments with worms and monkeys show similar results, reports Dana G. Smith for The New York Times. If we eat less, will we live longer?

    The jury’s out on the value of eating less for humans, but it’s fascinating to learn about the consequences of eating less for mice and monkeys. Beyond often living longer, it appears that limiting calories in lab mice and other animals also reduced their risk of developing cancer and other serious health conditions that tend to appear as we grow old.

    What is not known? It’s not clear the principal cause of longer life expectancy from animals consuming fewer calories. Is it the number of calories consumed or when the calories are consumed that is most important? And, there’s no meaningful data to indicate that eating less helps human beings live longer.

    Why would eating less extend an animal’s or a person’s life? It’s not well understood. Some believe that consuming fewer calories enables animals to be more resilient to outside stressors. Researchers have found that lab mice that consume fewer calories are better able to resist toxins and heal more quickly after being hurt.

    Some believe that people who consume fewer calories have slower metabolisms. Perhaps requiring your body to metabolize less allows it to live longer. “You know, just slow the wheels down and the tires will last longer,” said Dr. Kim Huffman, an associate professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine who has studied calorie restriction in people.

    Also, if you take in fewer calories, your body will need to rely on sources of energy other than glucose. It could eat up cells that are not functioning as a source of energy. As a result, cells work better, reducing the likelihood of age-related disease and potentially extending life.

    Of note, the research finding eating less leads mice to live longer is not dispositive. A few researchers found that mice and monkeys sometimes lived shorter lives when they ate less. Other researchers dismiss these findings because of the abundance of evidence to the contrary.

    Some believe that intermittent fasting could play a principal role in longevity. In a monkey trial in which the monkeys only received one calorie-restricted meal every sixteen hours, the monkeys lived longer. In another monkey trial in which the monkeys received two calorie-restricted meals a day and could eat them whenever they pleased, the monkeys lived less long.

    Intermittent fasting and a low-calorie diet led mice to live 35 percent longer. Mice that had a low-calorie diet but could eat at any time of the day lived 10 percent longer than those with a full-calorie diet.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Ingredients for living a good long life

    Ingredients for living a good long life

    Morey Stettner reports for MarketWatch on the ingredients for increasing your chances of living a good long life. Follow the science around nutrition and exercise. And, while genes help, don’t assume a good long life is genetically predetermined.

    Worldwide, only four in one thousand people live to 100. It’s normal for them to have a vice or two, like eating ice cream regularly or having an occasional drink. It’s all about moderation. What they tend to have in common is an upbeat perspective.

    People typically live longer when they take pleasure in daily activities, such as smelling the roses and walking their dogs. They don’t sweat the small stuff, especially things that are outside their control.

    “People who live longer tend to be optimistic and manage their stress well,” according to Tom Perls, M.D., Boston University School of Medicine. It’s helpful not to internalize stress.

    Interestingly, a lot of people who live long lives may suffer from serious health conditions but still enjoy their lives. Many of them can live on their own, though they might have had a stroke or heart disease. Their ability to live good lives stems from their resilience and good genes.

    No question that genes contribute significantly to people’s ability to have a good long life. So do healthy diets, routine exercise and a good weight. Social engagement is also extremely valuable.

    Another factor contributing to whether you’ll lead a good long life is cellular senescence. In brief, some of our cells are injured, stressed or otherwise hurt as we grow older. The number of these “senescent” cells in our bodies increases with time. They can spread toxins to other cells, preventing them from functioning properly and keeping people from leading long lives. Senescent cells lead to a variety of diseases.

    As we age, we also develop biomarkers which can permit comparisons between people’s chronological age and biological age. Not everyone ages at the same pace though no one yet understands why. Eventually the hope is to be able to intervene to slow down people’s biological age and extend people’s lives. For now, diet and exercise are two interventions that have been identified, but the types of exercise and foods that are best for different people are still a puzzle.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Costa Rica’s investment in public health extends life

    Costa Rica’s investment in public health extends life

    Atul Gawande writes for the New Yorker on Costa Rica’s secret to longevity–government investment in public health. Gawande reports on the value of the Costa Rican health care model, which weaves together public health and primary health care.

    Seventy years ago, in 1950, the average life expectancy in Costa Rica was 55 and the average life expectancy in the US was 68. But, now Costa Ricans live longer than Americans.  Of note, national income in Costa Rica is far lower than the US, which normally would mean lower life expectancy. And, its per-capita income is one sixth the per-capita income in the US.

    Now, Costa Rica spends a small portion of what the US spends on health care, and its average life expectancy is 81. In comparison, average life expectancy in the US is about 79. The secret, says Gawande, is Costa Rica’s investment in public health–focusing on making the entire population healthier.

    Over the last several decades, Costa Rica invested in running water, electricity, vaccines, child nutrition. Every community had a health minister with resources to stop or prevent infectious disease, sanitary issues, poor nutrition, toxic hazards. Then, in the early 1970’s, Costa Rica offered universal primary care coverage and access to care in both metropolitan and rural communities.

    Unlike the US, Costa Rica targeted preventable death and disability. Gawande argues that the US is reactive in its approach to health care, treating patients who seek treatment and focusing exclusively on them and not their communities. If we were focused on preventing disease, we would be stopping cardiovascular disease, which is the number one killer.  Our focus would be on reducing high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

    Costa Rica first targeted infant mortality and reduced rates to two percent over a decade. Then, it created a mobile public-health unit, so doctors could visit people at their homes and in their communities. They could assess and address the biggest health issues.

    Costa Rica then merged their public health and health care systems, which most countries keep separate. And, they assigned every resident to a primary care team. Among other things, each year, the team would visit the 4,000-5,000 people in their community, in their homes to assess their health needs.

    Costa Rica back then did not have comprehensive universal coverage but it had universal primary care in 1,000 communities. And, it had individuals with both medical and public health skills visiting the 1,400 or so homes in their communities. The priority visits happen three times a year to homes of isolated older adults or people with disabilities and other high-risk individuals. Second up are people with moderate health risks who get two visits a year. Everyone else gets a single visit.

    The community health approach allows the health care workers to reallocate supplies among people in the community where appropriate or to have a neighbor help out another neighbor to get needed care. In the US, public health officials have no relationship with health care workers or people in the community. They can detect local issues, but they do not have the means to address many of them. For example, they might know the community needs COVID testing and vaccines, but they have no relationship with the doctors who provide these services.

    As a result of Costa Rica’s community health efforts, few people die of communicable diseases any longer. And, many fewer people die of non-communicable disease. Life expectancy has increased for people between 15 and 60, with a 8.7 percent mortality rate. In the US the mortality rate for that age group is 11.2 percent.

    Moreover, in the US, inequities in life expectancy among the wealthiest and least wealthy are profound. People in the top 1 percent of income live between 10 and 15 years longer than people in the bottom 1 percent of income. Inequities are also geographically-driven for poorer people. Low-income people live longer in New York City than in Los Vegas or Omaha City.

    A study out of Stanford University found that people live longer when there’s a medical professional in their family. And, the closer their ties to that family member, the longer they are likely to live. While we can’t assure that every family has a blood tie to a health care professional, bringing a primary-care team to the family is a good alternative.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • What’s the secret to a very long life?

    What’s the secret to a very long life?

    Today 110 million Americans are over 50 years old. And, half of people born today are expected to live past 100. What’s the secret to a very long life? Here are a few.

    Harvard Health offers the classic advice for living a long and healthy life: Don’t smoke, maintain a healthy weight, exercise your mind and body, engage socially, get preventive care and visit the dentist regularly. Also, take the medications your doctor prescribes to control chronic conditions such as high blood pressure and cholesterol.

    Professor Nir Barzilai, Albert Einstein School of Medicine, gives a lot more weight to genes than to a healthy lifestyle as cause for a person’s long life. Barzilai studies differences between chronological and biological age — actual years of life relative to a body’s health. He believes that people whose chronological age is much greater than their biological age hold the information to what it takes to live longer. 

    Barzilai has found that many people who live past 100 did not lead especially healthy lifestyles. One group of siblings, who all lived past 100, included a man who worked in a high-pressure job past 100, and his sister who smoked for 90 years. Other people who lived past 100, whom Barzilai studied, were overweight, did not exercise, and did not eat particularly healthy meals.

    Barzilai says that what centenarians all have in common is a “longevity gene,” a gene that resists aging. And, because of this longevity gene, Barzilai believes it is possible to erase cellular aging in people.

    An NIH-funded study, the Longevity Project, found that cautious and less happy people lead longer lives than the happiest people. The more cautious people took fewer risks, which extended their lives and kept them healthier.

    Yet another study out of the University of Washington found that having a greater sense of purpose led to a longer life.

    Wealth also appears to be a significant factor in living a long life. The US Government Accountability Office just published a report finding that wealthy people tend to live longer than poor people.

    Of course, living longer should not be a goal in and of itself. We should be careful about wishing to live longer if that means being old and unhealthy. Leading a healthy life may be a better goal and also likely leads to a longer life.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Genes have little to do with how long you live

    Genes have little to do with how long you live

    If you’re thinking that you’re likely to live a long life because your mom and dad lived to a ripe old age, think again. Stat News reports on a study of more than 400 million people, revealing that genes have little to do with how long you live. You have a lot more control over your longevity than you might think.

    Based on ancestry.com data, scientists found that your genes are responsible for less than 7 percent of how long you will live. Environmental factors contribute far more heavily to how long you live. For this reason, spouses have more similar lifespans than siblings. Spouses live in the same place, so they are exposed to similar social networks, chemicals in the air, crime rates, and other external forces, all of which affect their lifespans. Spouses also tend to lead similar lifestyles, they often have similar diets and views about exercise, along with what it means to live a healthy life.

    Scientists believe that high or low income levels could also explain life spans. Other factors that contribute to how long you live include education, access to health care, smoking, and societal influences.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • How old can we possibly get?

    How old can we possibly get?

    How old can we possibly get? While Americans are not living as long as people in other wealthy countries, we are living about eight years longer than 50 years ago. Meghana Keshavan reports for Stat News on a new study published in Science, which finds that after we get to the ripe old age of 105, the odds of our dying from one year to the next plateaus.

    Researchers at University of California, Berkeley analyzed data from nearly 4,000 Italians over the age of 105. They observed that after 105, people’s likelihood of dying levels out. Their findings counter a 2016 study by researchers at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, published in Nature, which found that we could not live longer than about the age of 115.

    Our likelihood of dying increases as we age until we turn 80. If we live past 80, our risk of death continues to increase, but more slowly, with each passing year. At 105, the risk of death levels out, meaning that whether you are 105 or 110, you have the same risk of death. Even at age 115, with technological advances, you have the same risk of death and could live much longer.

    While average life expectancy at birth in the U.S. (78.7 years) is lower today than in most other high-income countries, it is projected to worsen. In 2030, U.S. life expectancy is expected to be on a par with the Czech Republic for men, and Croatia and Mexico for women. The U.S. has the highest child and maternal mortality, homicide rate, and body-mass index of all wealthy countries. Researchers suggest that lower life expectancy in the U.S.–and even declining life expectancy for some populations–stems in part from our lack of universal health coverage.

    Remember, the top predictor for a longer life is social relationships, family and friends, buddies. Some experts say that people with a plant-based diet, who are socially engaged and have purpose, live longer. There are ten times as many centenarians in Sardinia than in the US. These Sardinians are surrounded by multi-generations of family members and friends.

    Note: The latest study on living longer recommends drinking five or fewer alcoholic beverages a week.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • With alcohol, less is generally more

    With alcohol, less is generally more

    It’s hard to know who to believe any more. When it comes to health care research, industry is almost always in the pocket of the researchers. Roni Caryn Rabin reports for the New York Times on an alcohol study that was pulled because the researchers were working with industry and not looking at the health risks.

    Before explaining, if you’re interested in good, seemingly untainted, alcohol research, click here. We write about a study showing that more than five drinks a week can affect longevity.  And, for the record, alcohol is classified as a carcinogen.

    In the study that was pulled because of conflicts of interest, a Harvard scientist, Kenneth J. Mukamal, and his team, some of them working at the National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, were working closely with executives in the beer and liquor industry to design a trial that would not capture the negative health effects of alcohol consumption. While Mukamal is unapologetic about the tainted nature of his team’s work, the NIH determined that he was meeting the desires of these executives in order to secure nearly $100 million in support for the 10-year trial from them.

    Mukamal’s team was aiming to show the heart benefits of an alcoholic drink a day and not the negative health effects. It was also not collecting data to show the dangers of heart failure or cancer from  moderate drinking.

    Worse still, Mukamal’s team appeared to be hiding from the NIH its collaboration with alcohol industry executives, including the industry’s likely funding of the trial. The team’s primary goal was to collect the industry money and do the trial to show results at odds with a World Health Organization finding that drinking beer and liquor always raises the risk of cancer.

    Industry influence on the design of clinical trials appears all too common. The pharmaceutical industry has a big hand in drug trials, a likely reason that one in three recently FDA-approved drugs have safety risks.

    Here’s more from Just Care: