The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
Certainly lifestyle factors can play an important role in rates of aging. I think that the most prominent results from sleep and circadian rhythms in the elderly are they need to get as much natural light, even if it's through windows.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
A seminal study in over 2000 twins (gold standard for studying genetic effects) found that longevity was only 25% hereditary. In other words, your genes determine only 25% of your biological aging speed and patterns, while the rest (75%) is up to you to decide and influence.
Try to train people up on the idea that you do have control over how fast or how slow you age and how fast you increase your likelihood of disease or stay away from
If you think you can’t do anything about it, you’re even more in denial
80% of your pace of aging is determined by how you live.
That's 20% of the control of aging. - We know that from a twin study of really old data from Denmark. - Yeah, there's a study by Christensen et al.,2003, that looked at Danish twins that are genetically identical, but they live different lifestyles. They have different environments, some smoked, some didn't, some exercise, some didn't. And so now we know that if you're genetically identical, 20% of that, it determines your health in later life, slows down aging, but 80% is in your own hands. How you live your life.