http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20889381

Erm, I find the vitriol directed at the study scarier than the study itself going by that article

That sort of reaction's usually reserved for the sort of prats who actually use the term 'climate change denier'.

The first one has a case to make. The second one should never be let near any matter of public policy ever,or indeed any sharp objects if possible.


Of course you probably haven't seen any 100 year old people at all, since the vast majority of people don't get to that age anyway for a variety of reasons. You'd hope someone with extensive post-graduate education wouldn't be making such apparently idiotic statements.

I don't know about the whole climate science thing (or indeed the validity of this study) but there is an awful tendency among 'experts' to be rather close-minded to things which would make them look less than 'expert'.

I don't know any 100 year old people myself, but I have met quite a lot of people in their late 80s and 90s. They've all been positively skinny. That implies to me that the many thousands of people that do live to be 100 are also skinny.

Fair enough. My suspicion is certain aspects of the aging process - loss of appetite etc - contribute to that as well as survival rates of getting to that age (i.e. the older people get beyond a certain point the skinnier they get, regardless of their weight say in their 30's). It'd be an interesting longitudinal study.

Jeanne Calment, oldest woman recorded (124 years old) ate chocolate, smoke like a chimney and drunk whiskey well into her hundreds.

But really, what's the point of living a long life if you're going to deprive yourself of everything tasty?

Quite so. The object surely is no to live as long as is possible but to maintain a decent quality of life for as long as possible. Denis Leary, back when he was a stand up comedian rather than an actor, used to do a routine about how he didn't want to live to be 100 if it meant for the last few years he was sat in a chair unable to do anything much at all needing help to be fed and etc. He'd much rather eat, smoke, drink and die of a massive coronary at 60 knowing he'd had fun every possible minute up until then. A lot of his stuff was confrontational for the sake of it but that has a grain of truth to it.

The guy he stole much of that routine from didn't live very long at all.

I've seen the routine I think you're talking about and it wasn't a direct lift. The basic idea was the same but it went off in a different direction. Having said that, I doubt either of them were the first one to consider the notion of quality of life vs quantity of life.

At 45Kg, I'd say she was also quite skinny.

She claims to have eaten "nearly one kilogram" of chocolate per week. While that is a huge amount, it is possible to do while not exceeding 2000Kcal per day and still eating plenty of vegetables.

Apparently she never smoked more than 2 cigarettes per day, which is not "like a chimney". Every packet you smoke on average causes one mutation, and one may cause a fatal cancer. The more you smoke, the more likely you are to die from smoking related disease, but if you are lucky then you'll be fine. If you are very unlucky, then maybe one could kill you. It's a lottery.

I don't know how much she drank, but it's said she drank port and I suspect in moderation. There is some suggestion that a glass of port a day may actually increase the chances of a long life.

Lots of healthy things are also tasty.

I think that there was a study that put low drinkers at lower risks than non drinkers and heavier drinkers.