34 i was at my peak physically, lift heavy weights, have a job you love, surround yourself with motivated and positive individuals and have a glass of red now and then and you should do well. But what do i know I am just old at 52! Hahahah!
34 i was at my peak physically, lift heavy weights, have a job you love, surround yourself with motivated and positive individuals and have a glass of red now and then and you should do well. But what do i know I am just old at 52! Hahahah!
Star wrote:
were not elves wrote:
You can't totally combat aging, but you can stay fit by continuing to compete in a sport at the highest level you can and eating healthy. There are histories of Mithradates V, a king of the Black Sea region in Rome's time leading armies and fighting in battle against the Romans in his 60s. Some of the Diadochi, Alexander the Great's successor kings fought in battle into their 60s and 70s. In that age, it was tradition for kings to lead from the front. Today we see athletes setting masters records and competing as masters. These are people who led physical lives and kept in shape. The problem is that modern day society with its vehicular commutes and 40 hours a week jobs, very few of which are truly active don't lead to good health in old age. The key is to keep training at a sport, like you are much younger while recognizing you're going to train slower and not get as good of results as your body breaks down. You have to set realistic goals but train hard to hit them.
Ed Whitlock was an amazing older runner but died at age 86 while George Burns smoked cigars and lived to 100.
Anyway, do we really need people living longer?
They better be working longer and producing longer, otherwise they are just sucking up resources of the young producers.
That's right and also using up the healthcare resources like there's no tomorrow!
berserker wrote:
You're going to go off one day, Greg. Mark my words.
Care to elaborate?
Greg wrote:
I am 34. Ever since about 27, I've started to believe I could alleviate the aging process.
Now I feel a little older. Still young in some ways. Older in others.
It sucks and I hate aging.
https://www.greggbraden.com/blog/living-beyond-100-years/
What a sad post particularly for someone 34.
Although no one likes to age, the intensity of your feelings at your age suggests there are other issues involved in your feelings.
Thanks, mindreader.
I'm doing alright.
Ghnbdhjfh wrote:
Sleep
Fast
Exercise
Get uncomfortable (heat/cold exposure)
Eat whole, real food
Don’t smoke
I think you are on to something, but I’m not sure how important fasting is.
Honestly I am 44 and look much younger than most of my peers and many friends who are 5 or more years younger.
I have very little gray hair which I can only attribute to running. I have 3 older brothers who all went gray by 40.
One thing I am certain about: don’t smoke is appearance really is that important to you.
A friend of mine is a doctoral candidate at a top aging research lab. His boss is always overhyping their findings in the media and trying to get eveyone who works there to do the same.
Everybody has incentives to sensationalize aging research. Take these articles with a large grain of salt.
Greg wrote:
berserker wrote:
You're going to go off one day, Greg. Mark my words.
Care to elaborate?
No. I'm afraid you would think of it as encouragement.
https://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.htmlkillermike wrote:
Adam certainly did not exist (even most theologians don't believe in a literal Adam anymore)
" Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women. The findings, detailed today (Aug. 1) in the journal Science, come from the most complete analysis of the male sex chromosome, or the Y chromosome, to date."
Almost is not all.
Allmighty wrote:
Almost is not all.
This is how science works. Are you against science?
https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/04/19/science-doesnt-prove-anything-and-thats-a-good-thing"The reality is that science deals in probabilities, not proofs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam"The Y-chromosomal most recent common ancestor is the most recent common ancestor of the Y-chromosomes found in currently living human males."
What is your counter-argument? Do you believe there were 5 ape-like animals that simultaneously gave birth to new humans, instead of a single human ancestor?
The counterargument is that these studies get refuted by another group of researchers a year or two later.
berserker wrote:
You're going to go off one day, Greg. Mark my words.
He's already doing that on this thread.
Too late ... wrote:
He's already doing that on this thread.
I'm doing fine.
I'm trying to get a tv pilot into production and that is not an easy thing to do.
I posted about a song I've written on this thread, one which is alright
but ultimately likely not something you will hear on top 40 radio.
I've gotten a bit defensive on this thread towards others and rightfully so.
I'm pretty happy in my life.
I post on LRC using my registered handle and if I see something I don't like, I generally ignore it.
Great advice for some of the less mature individuals who troll this board.
"What do you do to counter aging?"
I pay closer attention to the positioning of timing mats.
What will happen wrote:
[quote]fisky wrote:
Or is it more likely we’ll have massive wars that will wipe out millions? It certainly doesn’t seem like we’re becoming more peaceful.
Perhaps I'm misreading this, but was this statement written in jest? Violence and deaths due to violence have declined dramatically over time, both globally and in the USA. The data on this abound, anecdotes notwithstanding. In keeping with this sharp trend, we as a society must continue to do what we can to reduce all forms of violence even further.
@DoctorGrubHub
Greg wrote:
I'm trying to get a tv pilot into production and that is not an easy thing to do.
This is a strange thread.
killermike wrote:
I'm sorry, but any article that starts its discussion of aging by talking about how Adam lived for 930 years, and is serious about it, is not credible. Adam certainly did not exist (even most theologians don't believe in a literal Adam anymore), and no human in history has lived 930 years.
So you're calling Jesus a liar?
Because Jesus believed Adam to be a real human. The Bible even provides a long, boring detailed genealogy tracing Adam's descendants for thousands of years. If one doesn't believe Adam was real, then one can't believe in Jesus.
God shortened human lifespans after the Flood.
hurmeri1 wrote:
killermike wrote:
I'm sorry, but any article that starts its discussion of aging by talking about how Adam lived for 930 years, and is serious about it, is not credible. Adam certainly did not exist (even most theologians don't believe in a literal Adam anymore), and no human in history has lived 930 years.
So you're calling Jesus a liar?
Because Jesus believed Adam to be a real human. The Bible even provides a long, boring detailed genealogy tracing Adam's descendants for thousands of years. If one doesn't believe Adam was real, then one can't believe in Jesus.
God shortened human lifespans after the Flood.
Why was that?