People often think I look younger than I am; I usually quip that is because I cultivate an aura of irresponsibility. Turns out, I may actually live longer because I look and act younger. Apparently, thinking of yourself as younger actually makes you live longer:
People who live to 95 or older are no more virtuous than the rest of us in terms of their diet, exercise routine or smoking and drinking habits, according to researchers at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University…"This study suggests that centenarians may possess additional longevity genes that help to buffer them against the harmful effects of an unhealthy lifestyle." -Eureka Alert
"Third, baldness cues old age. Men who bald prematurely see an older self and therefore age faster: Prematurely bald men have an excess risk of getting prostate cancer and coronary heart disease than do men who do not prematurely bald."
This is a ridiculous jump from correlation to causality. Men who bald prematurely have at least one accelerated aging process! AND, they are likely to have high testosterone, and thus have higher chances of prostate cancer.
Do you have a erudite reference for the claim that DHT causes prostate cancer? It surely accelerates the growth of prostate cancer in most cases, but i'm not familiar with any agreement that it is a cause. Without doubt it accelerates benign prostate growth as well, and is the cause of male-pattern baldness. But probably it's most dangerous effect is that of causing male puberty.
Also, if you wear your sunglasses at night, you're at less risk from skin cancer.
The comments have effectively killed the mood for me (Gwern excepted). It's hard to believe there's anything here. The study authors are either incompetent at, or biased against, imagining causes that explain away the correlations they discover. Their thesis is plausible, mostly because of Langer (see Gwern's excerpt). Avoid dwelling on my physical decline? Sure, why not. Act 'young'? Sure, why not.
@John Faben, the study controls for moms' education but not wealth (hopefully older people have higher incomes and savings). Whether some of the younger mothers died young is irrelevant, because the two groups are women who survived to 100, and women who survived to 73. Within the first group, there were far more women who had a child (or a first child) late, e.g. in their early 40s. As with all the evidence in this paper, they attach highly speculative interpretations to it.
Or, it could be that we're all in the "Kick the Can" episode of the Twilight Zone.
Actually, more to the point, older mothers are *older* than younger mothers - please tell me they managed to at least correct for this?
I'm willing to bet quite a lot that older mothers are, on average, a lot richer than younger mothers. Does the paper correct for this?
I'm 21 but a small sample size says I look 16-17. I don't think I should be leaping for joy at this.
Karl Lagerfeld says that wearing sunglasses makes you look younger. Any research on that?
What I find interesting is that, if causality holds, then the effect should be eliminated once societal norms change. It's only by acting against a norm that you get the effect.
This all sounds oddly like the premise of Bernard Shaw's classic sf play "Back to Methuselah."
New highwater mark of snark+wayback machine for you.
I would expect boatloads of correlated factors which may be adding causality for these measures.
Robert Wiblin, birthdays are also bad for you. The more of them you've had, the shorter your expected remaining lifespan.
Robin previously suggested his dashing good looks are responsible for some of his success as an academic.
"Birthdays are good for you. Statistics show that the people who have the most live the longest."
The "Up with People" folks had this all figured out back in the 1960s. Just play the song at: http://www.we7.com/#/song/U...