What his father is experiencing is luck mixed with good genetics. Plus, additional support of good diet and exercise. Yes, we all can control our diets and exercise. However, we cannot control the medication that we take, which carry side effects. We cannot control what is in our food, we cannot control the air we breath, we cannot control cancer and hundreds other diseases. There are so MANY other factors.
If his father grew up somewhere where lead is a problem, I have a feeling the outcome might have been different.
The whole article is useless. My grandfather was an awful person, smoked all his life, drank most of it, and ate whatever he could. Lived to 78 and was healthy, at that point he committed suicide as he could not live without his wife, which passed away few months earlier. Ironically he was an awful husband.
There is ample evidence in medical research that diet (to the extent that people have control over what they eat) has huge impacts on quality of life at high ages.
All of this is about taking actions that reduce risk statistically. None of this is about a magic action that will prevent all disease.
Nonsense. No one is trying to establish a causal link here. Still, a concrete example of what's possible is useful and inspirational. If you do this, will you get this outcome? Probably not. Does it help me imagine a possible path? Yes, definitely.
So, if the article mentioned {insert product name}, doing mushrooms, drinking and smoking, should I look at it as a possible path for me to achieve great health? Even though all it is, is just some survivorship bias? Should I think about doing those things? Am I wrong for not doing those things?
Yeah it’s anecdotal but there are statistics backing up most of what is said here. We know diet and exercise play a positive role, we know drinking and smoking play a negative one and we know there are outliers. It’s probably best to assume you aren’t one.
You can control the side effects you may get from a medication you take? If you get an infection you are taking meds. If you get kidney stones, you are very likely getting meds, if you injure yourself and need surgery you are getting meds. These carry risks, therefore, every time your chances of "perfect health" are decreasing.
I get that most people on HN, can control the air they breath as they have the means to decide where they want to live, this isn't the case for most of the people.
Cancer is literally just a numbers game, people in perfect health at their PEAK get diagnosed with cancer. A top club soccer player is now going through testicular cancer treatment.
I am not sure how general person can control any of this.
Many cancers are lifestyle affected. For example, smoking and lung cancer. Excessive sun exposure and skin cancer. Alcohol consumption and throat cancer.
No, it really isn't. "Control your medication" might leave you dead if you are diabetic or leave you hearing voices if your meds control a psychiatric condition.
In the same vein, you don't really get a choice in most cancers. Sure, you can do things like never smoke tobacco, but you might just be an 8-year-old with bone cancer. And lots of other afflictions and diseases are similar in this manner, much like you probably won't be able to avoid whatever cold is circulating in your workplace.
Absolutely. The problem is that diabetes type 2 is a lifestyle induced condition. People (most not all) get type 2 because of unhealthy diet so sure you can eliminate the need for medication by eating healthy.
Insulin dependent diabetes is type 1. Eating healthy still helps but you will die without insulin injections no matter your diet
Type 1 exists, and often starts in childhood. Some of the folks with type 2 won't be able to control it with lifestyle changes, there is no evidence that you can cure it, and it has been pretty common knowledge that you have better results if you eat healthily.
Your link is an advertisement, however, and doesn't back up your claims. Sure, they cite research - 6 papers - but they were funded by Virta. [1] At least some of the research was done by cofounders.
The link backs up my claims. Apparently you didn't read the underlying research papers.
No one is claiming a cure for type-2 diabetes, or that it works for every single patient. So I think your comment was not made in good faith. However, dietary changes can put it into remission for many patients. This has to be a permanent lifestyle change; it's not something they can just do just temporarily to fix the underlying pathology.
I very highly doubt most of the folks are reading the research pages: I, like most folks here, am not a scientist, doctor, nor dietician. So I do have to look at other things to assess whether or not information is trustworthy before I take it at its word.
I'm not even saying that diet doesn't help. Neither is anyone else.
What I am saying is that your link is an advertisement for a paid service in the US, is done on a limited number of studies and some of those studies are done by a couple of the folks that founded the company. Not to mention that they funded the studies. These things actually make me doubt the entire premise for these links.
From what I can tell, they are basically pushing keto on diabetics. This particular diet program isn't a cure-all, nor does it perform better or have fewer risks than other diets. I don't doubt diet helps, I'm just doubting that this particular diet is something to push on others unless there is more research on this particular diet.
There are definitely some medications that can be avoided by healthy living and we should try to minimize our use of those. But there are others that are necessary due to unpredictable random health issues.
In my mental model, I'm trying to minimize the number of avoidable medications that I take, because you never know if they'll have some weird interaction with a truly necessary one. I'm not sure if this is actually the right way to think of it, but it seems to be working out OK so far.
I agree that the father appears lucky to have avoided issues such as debilitating disease due to random genetic mutation. Even the father acknowledges that "lots of good luck" was involved. The article does not appear to overstate the significance of this single example.
Anecdotes are not useless. They can be inspirational and they can help illuminate possibilities and methods that are otherwise opaque in large-sample statistics. Anecdotes that are consistent with our best scientific understanding are powerful ways of communicating knowledge and providing inspiration for change to those who don't have the ability or inclination to evaluate the studies. In this case, the father is doing several things that large studies tell us are beneficial to health. These unmentioned studies suggest that the father has probably improved his quality of life. Most people I know are far more motivated by such anecdotes than they are by credible statistical analysis.
I disagree with your list of uncontrollable variables. All of them are largely controllable. Much of the medication consumed today is either outright unnecessary or can be reduced with lifestyle changes. You can control the air you breath by controlling where you live and when/where you are most active. You can lower your risk of cancer and many other diseases by lifestyle and environmental changes. The fact that complete control and certainty are impossible is no reason for inaction.
I addressed some of this in another comment:
"You can control the side effects you may get from a medication you take? If you get an infection you are taking meds. If you get kidney stones, you are very likely getting meds, if you injure yourself and need surgery you are getting meds. These carry risks, therefore, every time your chances of "perfect health" are decreasing.
I get that most people on HN, can control the air they breath as they have the means to decide where they want to live, this isn't the case for most of the people.
Cancer is literally just a numbers game, people in perfect health at their PEAK get diagnosed with cancer. A top club soccer player is now going through testicular cancer treatment.
I am not sure how general person can control any of this."
I don't disagree that exercise and healthy habits can be great for your health. But the post seemed like it ignored all the other factors.
> You can control the side effects you may get from a medication you take?
You can eliminate unneeded medication to eliminate side effects.
You can reduce or change your needed medication to control side effects.
You can change your lifestyle to eliminate the need for medication.
Even if there is no way to eliminate your need for medication, you still don't necessarily have to accept bad side effects. Doctors make mistakes and the standard treatment doesn't work for everyone. The first medication a doctor prescribes is often a poor fit. Doctors sometimes need to be prompted to look for better alternatives.
> I get that most people on HN, can control the air they breath as they have the means to decide where they want to live, this isn't the case for most of the people.
Even with very limited means, there is still likely to be something you can control such as: how close to major road traffic you live, how well-ventilated your home is, whether you allow unnecessary particulate or VOC sources in your home, whether you exercise outdoors on days with higher than normal pollution levels, or whether you go running near a highway or at a park. These simple things can have a significant effect on one's air quality.
> Cancer is literally just a numbers game, people in perfect health at their PEAK get diagnosed with cancer.
Cancer has controllable risk factors. There is overwhelming evidence that we can take reasonable actions to significantly reduce our risk of getting cancer.
“Genetics” is the ultimate excuse people love to use nowadays, and I say this as a person with somewhat eugenic views.
The fact is, genetics has a much smaller role than what people think it does. If you make good life choices and stay consistent with optimizing your health your genetics won’t have much relevance. Even if your bloodline is prone to cancers or other diseases you can mitigate dying to those conditions if you have awareness to catch problems early.
We can control much of the medication that we take. Sometimes medications are absolutely necessary, and we have to accept the negative side effects in order to prevent death or serious symptoms. But too often medications are used as a "patch" to treat chronic conditions that would be better addressed over the long term with lifestyle changes. For example, some fraction of chronic depression cases can be treated effectively with frequent exercise and sunlight exposure instead of SSRIs. I am not trying to discourage anyone from seeking allopathic medical treatment but it's worth investigating all the options.
Of all the things you listed, I think this is controllable.
But I agree genes play a huge role. Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger do no exercise and have famously bad diets, yet both are fully productive and healthy at 91.
Sure, some food may have contaminants. Fish is a good example. You might have to choose, for instance, farmed salmon instead of wild. Pesticides may be a factor. Microplastics are going to make this a more annoying problem.
But far more important is to control _what_ you eat. A tomato is a tomato. But ketchup is not a tomato. You may get health issues from contaminants, maybe. But you _will_ have health issues due to bad diet.
> However, we cannot control the medication that we take, which carry side effects.
What makes you say that? The medications one takes are due in part to decisions made earlier in life, which result in conditions experience later for which the drugs are prescribed.
Also, drugs aren't the only solution to certain medical problems. For example, you can take weight loss pills, or you can actually cut your caloric intake.
> The medications one takes are due in part to decisions made earlier in life, which result in conditions experience later for which the drugs are prescribed.
This seems like a naive take. While it is technically correct, you most likely cannot significantly influence a number of significant illnesses, such as mental illnesses (e.g. Alzheimers), cancers, blindness, etc. You might slow down the onset at best with some of those.
If one doesn't smoke, drink, and walks at least ±2h a week, what else is there to do that has significant benefits..?
> Also, drugs aren't the only solution to certain medical problems. For example, you can take weight loss pills, or you can actually cut your caloric intake.
Drugs and medical procedures tend to be the only feasible solution to a number of significant illnesses (such as cancer).
My grandfather is 88, he has definitely slowed down quite a bit lately, but his recipe for a long-life was 2-3 packs of cigarettes a day, alcoholic for most of his adult life, rarely slept more than 4 hours a day and I never ever, saw him eat a vegetable or break a sweat from exercise in my entire life.
I figure if I got just some of those genes, and since I never smoked, not an alcoholic and eat pretty well, I should live to be 150 or so - either that or he will be a pall-bearer at my funeral.
> pallbearer (n): a person helping to carry or officially escorting a coffin at a funeral.
TIL. As a non-native speaker, I've never seen it written and always heard it like "pole bearer", which kinda makes sense: horizontal poles under a coffin.
In linguistics, an eggcorn is an alteration of a phrase through the mishearing or reinterpretation of one or more of its elements,[1] creating a new phrase having a different meaning from the original but which still makes sense and is plausible when used in the same context.
> His resting heart rate is just below 60 beats per minute. The steps pushed it up to 155 beats per minute. (His maximum heart rate should be 220 minus his age, 80. That’s only 140 beats per minute — far below what he is capable of!)
Sorry, that's not how this works.
220 - age is a very crude and not very good guess at the heart rate for a population. It is not YOUR max heart rate, and your max heart rate being higher or lower than that is not a sign of health. It is likely just a sign of your particular heart. It's worth checking in on it every few years and knowing yours.
On the other hand, resting heart rate of under 60 is good. Under 50 is likely better.
> On the other hand, resting heart rate of under 60 is good. Under 50 is likely better.
Not true in the general case. Asymptomatic bradycardia without increased risk of death may be present in athletes but assuming that's always the case can be dangerous. Other causes include a number of heart diseases, hypothyroidism, sleep apnea, medications such as betablockers...
> On the other hand, resting heart rate of under 60 is good. Under 50 is likely better.
At which point does that becomes bradycardia and a sign of a health problem? My understanding is that, unless you are an athlete, your resting heart rate won't be that low (as in, < 50)
Couch potatoe and 45? You may have a health problem.
Cardio athlete and 45? Likely means you are in good shape.
My own resting heart rate varies from low 40s when I am in good shape (trained for a marathon) to near 60 when I am not (currently recovering from having a newborn).
I did need an EKG once, and the dr raised an eyebrow at my heart rate, but upon hearing I was a runner he was fine again.
Yeah, that's covered very clearly in the article: "Dad’s been generous to share what he does each day with us all. But let me be clear: all of the standard caveats apply to his approach. This is NOT necessarily a prescription for a healthy life."
If you work backwards from what kills people, you can theoretically work out what will improve your chances.
In the elderly, heart disease and a rapid decline in health after a broken hip are high on the list of events that lead to death. So keeping the cardiovascular system healthy, and strengthening the muscles that support balance and reduce injuries make sense.
Strength training and a sufficient, consistent amount of exertion each week make sense. They do not, of course, guarantee you'll never have a genetic condition, or some other unfortunate incident. That's not how biology and bodies work. But it does help prepare you as you age.
Diet seems much trickier, because dietary needs do vary somewhat depending on your specific body! The hacker approach of experimenting (and journaling) and figuring out what leaves you feeling healthy and energetic is what I'd recommend to anyone who cares!
So write it off as "yet another" anecdote if you please. But also consider whether these ideas are good for your quality of life, and if they are a trade-off worth making.
> and strengthening the muscles that support balance and reduce injuries make sense.
Unclear how stronger muscles prevent broken hips. It's the bone that breaks.
I've read a comment from a nurse that was pretty interesting. She said that people say that 'someone fell and broke a hip'. While in reality it the more common scenario is: 'someone's hip broke, and due to that, they fell'.
Anecdotally, most of my family members who actively tried to stay healthy died relatively early (< 70 years). Those who didn't usually lived to be at least 85. My grandfather, who never did any type of sports, ate meat every day, who came home after worked and watched TV until bedtime and who drank 1-2 liters of cider per day after retirement died at 92 and was completely healthy up until a few hours before his death.
> Anecdotally, most of my family members who actively tried to stay healthy died relatively early (< 70 years)
I never tried to stay healthy until after I started having health problems (GI issues, mild concussion, etc). I wonder how many other people do the same and how that affects the statistics. Sort of like how "drink a glass of red wine a day" doesn't correlate to health but rather the money to have red wine handy and the circumstances to drink one and only one glass.
Funnily enough the “ate meat every day” part might be the key. Red meat boosts testosterone and testosterone plays a big role in mens health, especially as they age and experience the natural drop in testosterone levels.
People literally think that eating meat is unhealthy nowadays. While they don't restrain themselves on carbs and sugar whatsoever. Then you wonder why people are so confused and think being healthy is like winning a lottery ticket.
same with my grandfather, drank a lot everyday and died at 82. My other grandfather died at 60 of a sudden heart attack, he was the model of a "good husband, father, community member and, responsible citizen", i sometimes think the stress that is caused by living such a clean life was what killed him.
I skimmed the first five articles Google found, they seem to disagree.
All five were less than 40 years old
All of them showed "somewhat less than 10%" longer lives for the rats and spun that same number in varying ways from "almost no difference" to "considerable lifespan extension" depending, I think, on how much the authors hate rats.
All the studies showed dramatically increased healthspans and much lower decline in rat-performance and quality-of-rat-life thru the rat's lifespan. Or rephrased there wasn't much difference in performance between young exercise rats and young non-exercise rats but a huge difference in performance between old exercise rats and old non-exercise rats. Clearly, if I were a rat, and I dodge traps until I'm old, I'd prefer being an exercise rat. I question how well this study transfers to humans as there's obvious staggering difference in performance between young lazy humans and young "gym rats" (LOL at that pun). I would theorize a bored rat running on a wheel is vastly less motivated than a highly motivated human weight lifter or similar gym user, and that should result in much better QoL for old human "gym-rats". Anecdotal evidence seems to strongly confirm...
The studies all seemed to agree that exercise did not increase maximal lifespan very much if at all.
Depending on which side of the axe you'd prefer to grind, the articles seem to summarize to some variation on "some rats that don't exercise die young" vs "rats on average live about five percent longer if they exercise". Aside from the side issue where some studies report 5% as not much different and others report 5% as a dramatic increase depending, as I stated, on how much the author hates rats. It's literally the same shape graph in all five separate studies, its just selecting the conclusion you'd like to describe that graph.
Most of us are more concerned with improving healthspan rather than lifespan. And I think those rat studies are mostly useless. Lab rats live in nice safe flat cages where they don't have to worry about falling down the stairs and breaking a hip. Whereas sarcopenia is a huge risk for elderly humans.
> And I think those rat studies are mostly useless.
There are some studies on dogs without many results. Sedentary is bad, but exercise beyond that doesn't seem to boost lifespan in most (any?) mammals. Maybe humans are different, we are the best endurance runners of all animals and one of the few that cool by sweat.
Re: healthspan there is injury risk from exercise too but if it really prevents hip injuries that well that is a good point. Intense exercise definitely seems to be important for astronauts, but also is sort of just barely getting to the level of sedentary on earth and I think they still lose bone density.
A healthy lifestyle definitely helps, and some genetic luck. My grandfather recently passed away unexpectedly at age 88.
He was working in the garden daily or going for walks / riding a bike. He had a more active social life than I did before COVID hit. He read daily, did crossword puzzles at night, and ate healthy. No mental or physical issues.
Lifestyle plays a role, but he was dealt good cards genetically as well which I am aware of.
Generally life extension runs up against three non-technical problems:
Addicts will fight VERY hard in support of their addiction. Try telling a life long sugar addict to fix their T2 diabetes by eating fewer carbs; they'll completely explode at you. People who die from smoking were usually told about a million times to quit smoking before their diagnosis, LOL.
Innumerate people seem to actively oppose statistics. There is only it works or it doesn't and they'll have a complete meltdown at the concept that maybe 80% of lung cancer is caused by smoking and 20% for other causes therefore there is nothing they can do to alter their pre-determined destiny. Arguably belief in predestination and/or innumeracy could be considered a mental illness (see below) but I'm specifically referencing the stubborn desire to beat the odds by ignoring the odds. (edited to emphasize, the type of thing I'm referring to is the aggressive proselytization of the idea that finding one counterexample or anecdote disproves the entire corpus of all theoretical and applied statistical mathematics)
Most people decline and die younger for some kind of psychological reason. They're depressed so they can't do anything so they can't exercise so they get fat and die of a heart attack, they did in a certain technical sense die because they were fat, but they got fat because they were depressed. Or they have an addiction problem. Or they follow quacks because they think if martyrdom is religiously superior then punishing themselves is superior even if it shortens their life, or they follow medical advice based mostly upon making money off prescriptions, or they follow medical advice that was proven obsolete via research last century, or they are so into collectivism and "fitting in" that they would literally rather die than think for themselves or read a book, whatever the TV (or social media) says is not just good enough, but should be forced on people, even if it kills them.
What we really need is robust treatments that either slow down the ageing process or reverse it to some extent. There is some promising research relating to both slowing and reversing. The current approach where we treat age related disease as individual things will never really work out in the long term
One thing right now that is available is rapamycin which basically improves health span and lifespan for every animal it is given, won't make you live to 150 but will probably reduce risk of disease.
I am considering starting rapamycin myself as my mom was diagnosed with ALS few months ago (doesn't seem strictly genetic as her mom and dad lived relatively long and didn't get that disease), so I might have some risk genes..
World where people live to 90-100 and where increasing amount have dementia or other age related disease won't be a nice place
] Although the overwhelming majority of studies on the effect of rapamycin on longevity in mice have shown a significant increase in lifespan, there are five studies that have reported either no effect or reduced lifespan when treated with rapamycin.
When you write "every animal it is given" .. do you mean only flies and mice?
I've been having a hard time finding results for any other animals.
There's a decade of research with marmosets (here's a 2012 mention about it in Nature - https://www.nature.com/articles/492S18a ), but none of the papers I find report lifespan, only secondary measures (eg, "Long-term treatment with the mTOR inhibitor rapamycin has minor effect on clinical laboratory markers in middle-aged marmosets" - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajp.22927 ).
Since marmosets live for about 15 to 16 years, surely there should be something concrete by now if it has the same effect on middle-aged marmosets when the research started.
I found there's research for dogs, but https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8507265/ says it's also ongoing. I haven't found any published results on lifespan only, again, on secondary effects (eg, quoting the paper, "An initial randomized, double-blind veterinary clinical trial confirmed the safety of this treatment and provided indications of potential efficacy (benefits for cardiac function) in dogs".)
What other animals have shown improved lifespan with rapamycin?
If it's only flies and (most) mice, is that really enough to call it "promising" in humans?
Of course we cannot be 100 % sure it will work for humans, but the results on mice are promising and they are replicated by different labs which is very rare for anti-aging compounds. Rapamycin consistently shows effect. The effect on humans probably won't be anywhere near the 25% increase that is shown on mice, we will maybe get some extra years + better health span but the cumulative effect on society will probably be more than any current intervention. If we look at how ageing appears on different mammals, it is actually remarkably similar in terms of the decline, the speed is just different so I would say it is indeed quite promising if the mice results are replicated majority of times.
There was study on a drug what is now called Everolimus (mTOR inhibitor) and it showed that it increases the influenza vaccine effectiveness on elderly people
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25540326/
I just don't think there is any compound currently that is more promising than rapamycin, so that's why I mentioned it here.
The most promising future treatment seems to do with cellular reprogramming as it increasingly looks like epigenetic alterations are responsible for a large part of aging, the epigenetic drift theory of aging.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41580-019-0204-5
The current way of doing medicine for the elderly will never work simply because of ageing, it is like trying to bail water from a sinking ship without fixing the hole. Will work for a short while until it doesn't. I am also very skeptical of getting a working treatment for diseases like Alzheimer's disease without intervening in ageing.
Already when I was a teenager I realized that treating ageing is the holy grail of medicine and it seems recently this field is gaining more attention, but realistically it will be decades in minimum until we get some more radical treatments, might be even longer. At least the billionaires have realized that there is not much point being a billionaire if your body is breaking apart.
All we have now is lifestyle choices, possibly some medicine like rapamycin, and just hoping we don't get unlucky. Worrying trend is also people taking HGH for anti-aging but in the lab it seems to have complete opposite effect, it actually seems more like ageing accelerator.
That's a convoluted way to say you don't know of any demonstrated lifespan increase result beyond mouse and flies.
> it showed that it increases the influenza vaccine effectiveness
I was asking about lifespan increase, which was your point, not secondary effects.
> The dog aging study is ongoing
Which I already mentioned, and it's linked-to in my earlier comment.
> Some smaller scale study on rapamycin for dogs
Yes - it's literally the same paper I already mentioned in my earlier comment.
> more promising than rapamycin
The question I asked was: If it's only flies and (most) mice, is that really enough to call it "promising" in humans?
Not the comparative "which is the most promising of the many compounds which have been reported to increase mouse lifespan?"
> Rapamycin consistently shows effect
Really? You write that after my comment, where I quoted how "five studies that have reported either no effect or reduced lifespan when treated with rapamycin" and provided the citation that shows your assertion to be incorrect?
Bike rides are nice (maybe the best?) but not everyone is the same. My mother in law is awaiting hip surgery after a lifetime of being physically active. Her husband, who lived the same life, is older, has no such problems. Of course genetics plays a part, that's the point.
You're clearly wrong as it relates to the post you're responding to. This one data point is going to get him to engage in a behavior that's healthier than the one he otherwise would've been engaged in, which is clearly good. Thus, the data point is useful!
Not everything his to be a double blind study showing significant effects to be useful.
Suppose that 99.99% of the 80+ year-olds who try this end up breaking their leg, getting a heart attack, etc., and this one data point is from the 0.01% which benefits.
Likely not - but that's why we have double blind studies.
Last summer I bought my 80-year-old father a bicycle. Just a few weeks later, his doctor said, "last time I saw you, you were pre-diabetic, now your readings look great. Whatever you're doing, keep doing that."
Unfortunately he didn't keep up, kept complaining about the seat being uncomfortable… what I eventually figured out is, he was riding in boxer shorts >_<
There is a variety of seats, some are truly uncomfortable for people.
I am not sure how it works for a 80 year old, but if I spend a long time without riding, I'll be uncomfortable too (for a couple of days after the ride too). I don't know exactly what adapts, but it stops after some time.
And this fall, in Africa, I got to see him in action again. Over 16 days of “go, go, go,” my dad, who’s now 80, always seemed to be at the head of the pack. On most days we started at 6 a.m., crisscrossing the dry Serengeti, or climbing rugged rainforest terrain for hours before returning to our home base, where we ate and drank late into the night. We climbed mountains, crossed rivers, and traversed deserts. Dad was right there the whole time, pushing us all to our limits.
This sounds like superior genes more so than lifestyle . Some people's bodies give out earlier in life...stuff like heart disease, stoke, cancer, hypertension which may or may not be related to lifestyle.
My father is 84. Never ate junk food, never smoked, never drank. He plays pickle ball four hours every day and kicks my ass when we play. Also plays volleyball and goes for long walks daily. In his 80's, he's in better shape and has a better life than I do at 51.
my father is the same way, he kills it in pickle ball and is a minor celebrity in Florida. He's always been at least somewhat active for as long as i can remember and probably in better health than i am.
While staying active and eating healthy are very important contributors to a longer life, it seems one also needs to have a healthy social life and sense of purpose to foster the will to live longer.
exercise at 80 if you never did before is not optimal
My two grandfathers never went to the gym yet strong physic and mind. One died in his garden, the other one died while stone cutting. Both 80+, no any supplements whatsoever
What his father is experiencing is luck mixed with good genetics. Plus, additional support of good diet and exercise. Yes, we all can control our diets and exercise. However, we cannot control the medication that we take, which carry side effects. We cannot control what is in our food, we cannot control the air we breath, we cannot control cancer and hundreds other diseases. There are so MANY other factors.
If his father grew up somewhere where lead is a problem, I have a feeling the outcome might have been different.
The whole article is useless. My grandfather was an awful person, smoked all his life, drank most of it, and ate whatever he could. Lived to 78 and was healthy, at that point he committed suicide as he could not live without his wife, which passed away few months earlier. Ironically he was an awful husband.
This is all anecdotal and useless.