|
camhead
Mar 11, 2011, 2:59 PM
Post #226 of 509
(4023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
Rufsen wrote: enigma wrote: Thanks for the Twlight Zone What's your thought on blue zones where people live 100 and stay healthy, such as Okinawa, Ikaria, Sardina. and Costa Rica island on the Nicoya Penisula ? Are these people eating differently? What do you attribute these blue zones relationship and their diet? So populations who live next to the ocean seem to live longer. Maybe something in their diet works swimmingly to protect them against cardiovascular disease. But what could it be? Something they have in common, somehow related to their diet, these people who live next to the ocean.
Yes, but in light of this morning, we are seeing that there are drawbacks to living near the ocean as well.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Mar 11, 2011, 3:01 PM
Post #227 of 509
(4019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
camhead wrote: Rufsen wrote: enigma wrote: Thanks for the Twlight Zone What's your thought on blue zones where people live 100 and stay healthy, such as Okinawa, Ikaria, Sardina. and Costa Rica island on the Nicoya Penisula ? Are these people eating differently? What do you attribute these blue zones relationship and their diet? So populations who live next to the ocean seem to live longer. Maybe something in their diet works swimmingly to protect them against cardiovascular disease. But what could it be? Something they have in common, somehow related to their diet, these people who live next to the ocean. Yes, but in light of this morning, we are seeing that there are drawbacks to living near the ocean as well.
|
|
|
|
|
c4c
Mar 11, 2011, 3:19 PM
Post #228 of 509
(4012 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 18, 2006
Posts: 1279
|
spikeddem wrote: camhead wrote: Rufsen wrote: enigma wrote: Thanks for the Twlight Zone What's your thought on blue zones where people live 100 and stay healthy, such as Okinawa, Ikaria, Sardina. and Costa Rica island on the Nicoya Penisula ? Are these people eating differently? What do you attribute these blue zones relationship and their diet? So populations who live next to the ocean seem to live longer. Maybe something in their diet works swimmingly to protect them against cardiovascular disease. But what could it be? Something they have in common, somehow related to their diet, these people who live next to the ocean. Yes, but in light of this morning, we are seeing that there are drawbacks to living near the ocean as well. The tsunami is a government cover-up.
It's God's wrath on vegetarians.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Mar 11, 2011, 3:29 PM
Post #229 of 509
(4005 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
c4c wrote: spikeddem wrote: camhead wrote: Rufsen wrote: enigma wrote: Thanks for the Twlight Zone What's your thought on blue zones where people live 100 and stay healthy, such as Okinawa, Ikaria, Sardina. and Costa Rica island on the Nicoya Penisula ? Are these people eating differently? What do you attribute these blue zones relationship and their diet? So populations who live next to the ocean seem to live longer. Maybe something in their diet works swimmingly to protect them against cardiovascular disease. But what could it be? Something they have in common, somehow related to their diet, these people who live next to the ocean. Yes, but in light of this morning, we are seeing that there are drawbacks to living near the ocean as well. The tsunami is a government cover-up. It's God's wrath on vegetarians.
It's an obvious sign... people need to eat more seaweed.
|
|
|
|
|
justroberto
Mar 11, 2011, 3:34 PM
Post #230 of 509
(3999 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876
|
kachoong wrote: c4c wrote: spikeddem wrote: camhead wrote: Rufsen wrote: enigma wrote: Thanks for the Twlight Zone What's your thought on blue zones where people live 100 and stay healthy, such as Okinawa, Ikaria, Sardina. and Costa Rica island on the Nicoya Penisula ? Are these people eating differently? What do you attribute these blue zones relationship and their diet? So populations who live next to the ocean seem to live longer. Maybe something in their diet works swimmingly to protect them against cardiovascular disease. But what could it be? Something they have in common, somehow related to their diet, these people who live next to the ocean. Yes, but in light of this morning, we are seeing that there are drawbacks to living near the ocean as well. The tsunami is a government cover-up. It's God's wrath on vegetarians. It's an obvious sign... people need to eat more seaweed.
And uncooked fish. Sue, gnaw me?
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Mar 11, 2011, 5:36 PM
Post #231 of 509
(3974 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
enigma wrote: ...where they can predict with a 77% accuracy of living to 100...
Ummm... That's not saying much, since I can 'predict' that with much greater than 77% accuracy, by just 'predicting' that nobody will live to 100, since far less than 23% of people live to that age, therefore the statement that nobody will make it to that age is greater than 77% accurate.
In fact... A quick google check yields percentages of people living to 100 in this day and age, to be between 7% and 14%, depending on the source, so, that would make my statement 86%-93% accurate.
(This post was edited by rrrADAM on Mar 11, 2011, 5:38 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jomagam
Mar 11, 2011, 6:08 PM
Post #232 of 509
(3960 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2008
Posts: 364
|
In reply to: In fact... A quick google check yields percentages of people living to 100 in this day and age, to be between 7% and 14%, depending on the source, so, that would make my statement 86%-93% accurate.
That seems way off. What are your sources ?
|
|
|
|
|
macherry
Mar 11, 2011, 6:23 PM
Post #233 of 509
(3948 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848
|
enigma wrote: As climbers we need to be healthy and fit . If you get cancer or heart disease its unlikely you would be able to continue with this sport. ( I can't imagine how awful it must be for someone to be on a list of being recruited by Genetech because they have malignant tumors ) Hoping that their new drug will eradicate their illness. I appreciate your opinion.
cancer or heart disease is not a death sentence. i believe there are many cancer survivors or people living with cancer and heart disease still participating in athletic activities
|
|
|
|
|
jomagam
Mar 11, 2011, 6:30 PM
Post #234 of 509
(3942 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2008
Posts: 364
|
In reply to: The New England Centurian(sic) Study where they can predict with a 77% accuracy of living to 100
That 77% figure illustrates lies damned lies and statistics very nicely. Is it:
o for 77% percent of the population they can successfully predict if a person lives to be 100 ?
o did 77% of the people that they predicted live to be 100 ?
o if so, what is the ratio of people correctly predicted to live 100 vs people not predicted to live 100, but did
o what was the average/median age of the sample ? 20 ? 50 ? 95 ?
|
|
|
|
|
jomagam
Mar 11, 2011, 6:34 PM
Post #235 of 509
(3940 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2008
Posts: 364
|
From http://outlier.bookofodds.com/...l-You-Live-to-Be-100:
the predicted odds a one-year-old will live to at least 100 years old are 1 in 39.57. Making it through the perilous teenage years raises the odds only slightly; the predicted odds a 21-year-old will live to at least 100 are 1 in 39.29.
But once those candles start piling up in middle age, a long life is looking better and better. At 50, your odds improve to 1 in 37.34, jumping to 1 in 21.48 once you reach 80. Before you know it, you’ll be 90 years old, with 1 in 8.85 odds of making it to the century mark.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 11, 2011, 6:38 PM
Post #236 of 509
(3932 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
enigma wrote: What's your thought on blue zones where people live 100 and stay healthy, such as Okinawa, Ikaria, Sardina. and Costa Rica island on the Nicoya Penisula ?
The only one of those regions whose dietary pattern I'm familiar with is Okanawa, which was studied in the 1960s in the Seven Countries Study. The Okinawans had the longest lifespan in the study. Back then, at least, their diet was plant based and low in total and saturated fat. They were also physically active. So, yeah, I think their diet played a role in their longevity.
In reply to: Are you familiar with The New England Centurian Study where they can predict with a 77% accuracy of living to 100 with your genome ,various genetic markers?
The New England Centenarian Study. This is the first I've heard of it, actually. I looked up their paper that was published in Science, and you're right: they have a genetic model that they claim has 77% predictive power. However, their statistical methodology has received serious criticism.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
sp115
Mar 11, 2011, 6:45 PM
Post #237 of 509
(3921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 515
|
jt512 wrote: enigma wrote: What's your thought on blue zones where people live 100 and stay healthy, such as Okinawa, Ikaria, Sardina. and Costa Rica island on the Nicoya Penisula ? The only one of those regions whose dietary pattern I'm familiar with is Okanawa, which was studied in the 1960s in the Seven Countries Study. The Okinawans had the longest lifespan in the study. Back then, at least, their diet was plant based and low in total and saturated fat. They were also physically active. So, yeah, I think their diet played a role in their longevity. In reply to: Are you familiar with The New England Centurian Study where they can predict with a 77% accuracy of living to 100 with your genome ,various genetic markers? The New England Centenarian Study. This is the first I've heard of it, actually. I looked up their paper that was published in Science, and you're right: they have a genetic model that they claim has 77% predictive power. However, their statistical methodology has received serious criticism. Jay
It would have been a much more interesting study had it actually been conducted on Centurions.
- just sayin'
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Mar 11, 2011, 6:51 PM
Post #238 of 509
(3915 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
macherry wrote: enigma wrote: As climbers we need to be healthy and fit . If you get cancer or heart disease its unlikely you would be able to continue with this sport. ( I can't imagine how awful it must be for someone to be on a list of being recruited by Genetech because they have malignant tumors ) Hoping that their new drug will eradicate their illness. I appreciate your opinion. cancer or heart disease is not a death sentence. i believe there are many cancer survivors or people living with cancer and heart disease still participating in athletic activities
I think I agree with what I think you're trying to say, but considering that "heart disease" as an umbrella term is the leading cause of death in most of North America, it could certainly be called a death sentence. Of course, it depends on what you consider "heart disease".
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 11, 2011, 8:32 PM
Post #239 of 509
(3879 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
rrrADAM wrote: enigma wrote: ...where they can predict with a 77% accuracy of living to 100... Ummm... That's not saying much, since I can 'predict' that with much greater than 77% accuracy, by just 'predicting' that nobody will live to 100, since far less than 23% of people live to that age, therefore the statement that nobody will make it to that age is greater than 77% accurate. In fact... A quick google check yields percentages of people living to 100 in this day and age, to be between 7% and 14%, depending on the source, so, that would make my statement 86%-93% accurate.
Yes, but although you correctly identify 100% of the non-centenarians, you correctly identify none of the centenarians, which makes your method useless for identifying (or predicting) which individuals are centenarians.
In technical terms, your model has 100% specificity and 0% sensitivity, whereas (a look at the paper reveals) that their model has 77% specificity and 77% sensitivity. They have sacrificed the specificity of your model in exchange for sensitivity.
If their model predicts that you are a centenarian, then your odds of actually being a centenarian are 77:23, or 3.35:1. On the other hand, if their model predicts that you are not a centenarian, then the odds that you really are not a centenarian are 23:77, or 0.299:1. Dividing the first odds by the second gives an odds ratio of 11.2.
In other words, if their model predicts that you are a centenarian, then your odds of actually being a centenarian are 11 times that of the average person.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Mar 11, 2011, 10:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 11, 2011, 8:54 PM
Post #240 of 509
(3872 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jomagam wrote: In reply to: The New England Centurian(sic) Study where they can predict with a 77% accuracy of living to 100 . Is it: o for 77% percent of the population they can successfully predict if a person lives to be 100 ? o did 77% of the people that they predicted live to be 100 ? o if so, what is the ratio of people correctly predicted to live 100 vs people not predicted to live 100, but did o what was the average/median age of the sample ? 20 ? 50 ? 95 ?
In the time that you took to write all these questions, you could have looked up the paper and actually found the answers.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Mar 11, 2011, 10:39 PM
Post #246 of 509
(3800 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
Please don't post personal attacks or quote personal attacks. I can't keep up with you guys via iphone!
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Mar 11, 2011, 10:52 PM
Post #248 of 509
(3788 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
wonderwoman wrote: Please don't post personal attacks or quote personal attacks. I can't keep up with you guys via iphone!
Can we quote spray?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 11, 2011, 10:54 PM
Post #249 of 509
(3785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
chadnsc wrote: wonderwoman wrote: Please don't post personal attacks or quote personal attacks. I can't keep up with you guys via iphone! Excuse me? I did not post a personal attack or quote one.
She has a point. I quoted the personal attack as well, which kind of necessitates that the moderator delete our posts, too.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Mar 11, 2011, 10:55 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Mar 11, 2011, 11:08 PM
Post #250 of 509
(3833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
jt512 wrote: chadnsc wrote: wonderwoman wrote: Please don't post personal attacks or quote personal attacks. I can't keep up with you guys via iphone! Excuse me? I did not post a personal attack or quote one. She has a point. I quoted the personal attack as well, which kind of necessitates that the moderator delete our posts, too. Jay
I know. I just think that when someone says something they should have to stand by it and fess up to it when it was offensive or inappropriate.
Ah to mod us, it's a tough job. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
