this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2025
3 points (71.4% liked)

Wild Feed

194 readers
18 users here now

A catch-all world journalism community for news, reports, blogs, editorials, and whatever.

Rules:

  1. Be cool to each other. Instance rules apply.

  2. All posts should link to a current* blog, article, editorial, listicle, research paper, or something that can be considered "news."

  3. Post title should be the article title or best fit.

  4. No misinformation or bigotry.

  5. For paywalled media — provide an archived link in the text body of the post.

Tags: Not required unless the post fits under one of the below categories.

[NSFW] and [Content Warning - x] — At your discretion.

[OLD - (year)] — For old but relevant articles. Use your best judgement.

[Conspiracy Tuesday] — Conspiracy theories/occult themes/cryptids/pseudoscience. On Tuesdays.

[E-mail required] — If an e-mail is needed to sign in.

A more serious community for Independent Journalism — !Independent_Media@lemmy.today

Both communities were created with the goal of increasing media pluralism.

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
Icytrees@sh.itjust.works
Wren@lemmy.today
Dasus@lemmy.world
3
New study reveals why some ancient people lived to 100 years or more (interestingengineering.com)
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by Icytrees@sh.itjust.works to c/wildfeed@sh.itjust.works
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

These ancient groups had to evolve because they faced adversity. The human body had to strengthen its defense mechanisms and energy output, as per Archaeology Mag. And, as a result, they passed down these more robust genes to the future generations, perhaps inspiring, in considering that the toughest times that we might face could pass down a positive, rather than the trauma of the negative.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Centenarian data is most likely largely fake, actually, especially in the so-called "blue zones". Have a look at this guy's research: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/news/2024/sep/ucl-demographers-work-debunking-blue-zone-regions-exceptional-lifespans-wins-ig-nobel-prize

People in blue areas aren't even more healthy than the general population of their country, but usually less. These are usually fairly poor and remote areas, and general life expectancy isn't particularly high, either - they just supposedly have more people who get extremely old, but even in these areas, people who get >100 years old are quite rare.

On top of that, studies that look at biological markers for old age found that with these markers you can predict the person's official age quite accurately until they're about 90, but when they're 110 or older, the markers consistently report that they're 8-20 years younger than they are officially. The mainstream explanation is that the markers just don't work the same way on extra-old people (i.e. they biologically age slower), but the alternative explanation is that most or all of these extremely old people have misrecorded ages (intentionally or unintentionally).

[–] Icytrees@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

That's pretty fascinating. I had no idea so much old age research relied on innacuracies to grab headlines, but not surprised.

I won't say this is any different, but was it not about finding an ancestral genetic link to living longer, and less about the regional demographic? It appears they worked in a notable area to see if there were genetic similarities between people who, well, claim to, have been alive for a hundred years or more, and if they were statistically different from the general population.

The original paper is open access. I'll admit I only skimmed it.