News Brief by Kip Hansen — 22 January 2025 — 750 words/3 minutes
Here’s the pop science lede: “Imagine living to be over 100 with literally no health problems. You’re still able to walk around your neighborhood or work in your garden, your memory is in-tact enough to recall your favorite childhood memories, and you’re not taking any medications whatsoever.”
What’s new?
A new study into the concept of Blue Zones, or regions in which there seems to be a higher percentage of people living to advanced ages, was first posted to the preprint archive in March 2024 by Saul Justin Newman, a senior research fellow at the University College London Center for Longitudinal Studies. A full-text copy is available on bioRxiv, The preprint server for biology. The title of the new paper gives away its content: Supercentenarian and remarkable age records exhibit patterns indicative of clerical errors and pension fraud.
Dr. Newman received the 2024 Ig Nobel Prize in Demography for his work.
The subject of Blue Zones became a hit ‘field’ of popular science when a book titled “The Blue Zones: 9 Lessons for Living Longer from the People Who’ve Lived the Longest” was published in 2012 by Dan Buettner. As recently as 2023, Buettner was still working the idea and co-produced a TV mini-series documentary: Live to 100: Secrets of the Blue Zones. And, of course, Buettner has made the idea into a business.
And what are those lesson for living longer?
According to our friend Perplexity (moderately useful when she is in her right mind):
“People in Blue Zones live long lives by following habits that promote physical health, mental health, and social connections. These habits include:
Plant-based diet: Eating a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes provides essential nutrients and fiber.
Physical activity: People in Blue Zones incorporate exercise into their daily lives through walking, gardening, and other chores. They also try to stand more and limit time spent in front of screens.
Stress management: People in Blue Zones have developed practices and rituals to reduce the effects of stress.
Moderate alcohol consumption: Drinking alcohol in moderation, especially red wine, can have health benefits.
Sense of purpose: Having a strong sense of purpose can improve quality of life and motivate healthy behavior.
The 80% rule: Eating fewer calories may help with longevity.
Getting enough sleep: Getting good sleep can protect against a variety of health issues.
Building strong connections: People in Blue Zones value building strong connections with others.”
And all of those traits [except “plant based diets” if it is taken to mean eating no meat] are fine ideas and maybe many of us would benefit from incorporating more of them more often in our lives.
But do the people living in regions classified as so-called Blue Zones actually live exceptionally long lives by keeping those habits?
Not according to Newman:
The following quote is from Newman’s preprint paper. It is a very thorough deep dive into the demographics of the “Blue Zones” and the claims made for longevity.
“The observation of individuals attaining remarkable ages, and their concentration into geographic sub-regions or ‘blue zones’, has generated considerable scientific interest. Proposed drivers of remarkable longevity include high vegetable intake, strong social connections, and genetic markers.”
“Here, we reveal new predictors of remarkable longevity and ‘supercentenarian’ status. In the United States supercentenarian status is predicted by the absence of vital registration. In the UK, Italy, Japan, and France remarkable longevity is instead predicted by regional poverty, old-age poverty, material deprivation, low incomes, high crime rates, a remote region of birth, worse health, and fewer 90+ year old people.”
But, but, but….?
Saul Newman bares all in a 20 January 2025 OpEd in the New York Times titled “Sorry, No Secret to Life Is Going to Make You Live to 110”.
The OpEd is well worth your time if you are interested in how decades of seemingly careful science on Blue Zones has led to results which are imaginary or just “wished to be true”. At 1600 words, it is a seven minutes read.
But, Newman handily sums it up for us with this:
“After years of open criticism, basic problems [of longevity research] remain unexplained. Instead, the science of extreme longevity continues as an immense joke.”
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
Most people seems to want to live to advanced ages, and in the news there is one guy who wants to live forever (or at least “not die”).
I have been writing about Nutritional Epidemiology and its efforts to find diets that will make people live longer (or something…).
The mini-science-field of extreme longevity and Blue Zones operates on those same erroneous methods which attempt to find “the secret to long life”.
I’m with Newman, as science, it is “an immense joke.”
You may know of other fields whose Popular Science manifestations are also immense jokes.
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Really bad record keeping helps.
Plus pension
https://www.thetimes.com/article/db9f814d-8929-44dc-a335-3542b9fb94e5?shareToken=a9ebd93ce06dbc10003ffd007a5a8676
James ==> Keeping old Aunt Tilly ‘alive’ for an extra decade to keep those SS checks coming is a time honored tradition in some parts of U.S. society.
Aunt Tilly is also a Democrat voter. 😉
There have been several cases of Japanese families not reporting deaths, or even keeping deceased elderly relatives in deep freezers in order to keep harvesting their pensions. This must have an impact on calculated life expectancy.
https://japantoday.com/category/crime/man-keeps-fathers-dead-body-at-home-for-3-years-to-keep-collecting-pension
Tom ==> See Tallbloke’s ongoing series on UK weather stations, for an example.
Old age creeps up slowly on you at first, then bam! If I knew I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.
My thoughts exactly.😞……….. 😉😂
I knew I was going to live this long and decided early on to enjoy life to the fullest.
Sparta ==> I think I managed to do both — and now I am paying for it. That said, I am also reaping the rewards of a life well lived.
In the words of Garfield,
Dieting doesn’t make you live longer, it just seems that way.
Scissor ==> Amen to that, brother. I just did what had to be done,knowing I would pay for it later — meaning now.
On the other hand, if you died years ago all that was wasted.
“But we’d taken much better care of ourselves
If we’d have known we was gonna live this long”
I think Willie & Merle go that one right. I almost fell out of my chair when I heard ’em sing it :<)
Another field whose Popular Science manifestations are also immense jokes. Let me guess–i do believe it’s (drum roll…) climate change!!!
Apropos this article, I don’t live in a “blue zone”, but my father made it to 99 years, and for damn sure his diet did not even aproximate the above claimed diet. Bacon and eggs for breakfast with croissant, whatever struck his fancy for lunch, steak and potatoes or suchlike for dinner, preceeded by a martini, wine with dinner, and tamped down with a cognac, then maybe a single malt as a nightcap. Yep, this “science” is crap. Longevity is the luck of the genetic draw, and climate is the will of the gods, as the Roman’s might have said.
You had me at cognac.
There likely will be a lot of suicides among the soy kiefer, cricket diet.
My maternal grandfather lived to 99. On his last day he smoked 2 packs of Camel cigarettes, something he did every day of his life since his teen years.
My grandfather made it to 84 smoking 2 packs a day. On the farm, that is just how he grew up.
slowroll ==> Yes, it is pretty conclusive that any reasonable adequate diet keeps one going as long as the “other things” don’t get ya.
When I was growing up I like listening to a Doctor on the radio. He had a lot of good things to say. He said if you want to live a long time you needed to choose the right parents.
I am in the process of creating my own blue zone. Since I have just had my 93rd birthday on New Year’s Eve I feel qualified to give my own reasons for longevity. One is hereditary; I’ve a number of aunts who lived to their late eighties and early nineties. My mother died at 95. I had asthma as a child, almost died at the age of 8 but have very few allergies; mainly cat dander. The second is nutrition. You are what you eat. Eliminate sugar and cut back on carbohydrates. Fat is good and vitamins do work. I will stop ranting now.
This ^
and don’t be a crummy vegan.
Albert ==> It is great that you’ve made it so far. and seem happy with your diet.
Personally,I think “diet-anxiety” is harmful
Conspiracy zone
Story tip:
The Heartland Institute, which has links to the Trump administration and has drawn on funding from companies including ExxonMobil and wealthy US Republican donors, has seized on a time when rightwing anti-climate action sentiment has been surging, and has set up a new European base in London.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/22/us-thinktank-climate-science-deniers-working-with-rightwingers-in-eu-parliament-heartland-institute
Seems to have struck a nerve.
Or three
A couple of former Trump staffers went to work for Heartland.
If that is going to be the standard, CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC/MSNBC all have links to former Democrat presidents as they have all hired former Democrat staffers.
As to the funding from Exxon, that turned out to be a one time, dedicated grant.
And if you check, I’m quite sure that there are a lot of left wing “think” tanks, that get a lot of money from Democrat donors.
People working together with like-minded politicians? Shocking.
….anti-climate action sentiment….
If the BRICS nations and now USA are not on board, and the IPCC + others consider that atmospheric CO2 levels will be elevated for ?centuries, then what is the point of nations bankrupting themselves in a dubious net zero cause rather than adapting to the current weather situations, if necessary at all.
us-thinktank-climate-science-deniers
No Guardian – just a group who are validly questioning the current climate science narrative and conclusions, not valid climate research.
Kip, have you read Lifespan, by David Sinclair? I am about halfway through and finding it a serious piece of work, very thought provoking. On the origin and mechanisms of aging, and in the later sections will be about what he thinks are possible treatments.
Interesting separation of two issues, one how we manage to live to the max limit, and two how we extend this limit. If we can do and will manage to do either. Lots of reports of short lived animal experiments. Quite a lot of evidence which is decisive on some points and seems to point to an overall theory.
michel ==> There are literally hundreds of books about “How to live longer.” I’m sure Sinclair is sincere and trying to help.
{Warning — spiritual thought follows] Personally, I do not think we are meant to live forever or even much past the currently expected lifetimes. How one lives is far more important than how long.
I have given the wrong impression of the book.
This is not a popular how to live longer book at all. I don’t think it has any suggestions for that kind of thing. At least, not so far. Its a scientific book about the causes and nature of ageing. I don’t think Sinclair is trying to help with ageing at all, he is trying to inform readers of recent research and its implications.
Take a look at it. Similarly MarkW.
Are we meant to live as long as we do? I don’t really understand the question. Meant by who, why, and how would we know? And if whoever did mean us to die as we do, is that any reason why we should accept it? One might equally say that we were meant to live in the cold, back in the days before fire, steam, central heating, whatever. Were we meant to travel intercontinentally at 500mph?
There is no length of time that we are “meant” to live. Our lifespan is an evolutionary outcome with no “should” behind it. We have already extended average lifespan and, to a lesser extent, maximum lifespan. How long one lives is also important. If we have more years in good health, we have more time to create, to experience, to contribute, and to improve ourselves.
“…not meant to live longer…”….Exactly right, if by “meant to” we are referring to the math probabilities of efficiency for survival of the species…How many sexes do we need? One doesn’t allow for the recombination of mutations and more than two is unnecessarily complex…Same for the three NA base pairs to a codon– less than three isn’t diverse enough for 20 AAs and more than three is too redundant. It’s all in the math…
We need death, biologically speaking, to clear out the biomass of those using up resources after their reproductive & productive years fail to be contributory.
Potential longevity is most closely correlated with length of the chromosomal telomere (ie- genetically determined) and cannot be exceeded. Bad lifestyle choices and bad luck can prevent achieving that potential. Good choices & good luck cannot make you exceeded that potential.
One of the problems with a book, much like “specials” that you may see on TV, is that authors typically only present you with the information they want you to see, with the spin that they want to give it.
This is a little odd. Of course Sinclair has a point of view – he is a researcher into ageing, he is bound to have reached some conclusions from his work and that of others in the field with whom he has collaborated. Is that a reason for not reading him? if it were, it would bar us from reading just about any non-fiction book – and maybe a lot of serious novels also. Starting with, as a for instance, Pride and Prejudice, whose author was not writing the story of Elizabeth and Darcy, and who certainly had a point of view that she was very deliberately trying to put across. Read Stendhal or Flaubert. Read any English poetry, Donne, Pope, Yeats, full of points of view and selective presentations.
Or, I guess, refuse because one prefers to remain ignorant of the point of view of someone working in the field, but I can’t really see why you would want to do that.
Michel, people have a hard time thinking rationally when it comes to this topic. Their psychological defense mechanisms that deal with the prospect of death kick in and lead to them rationalizing our existing level of mortality.
A couple of short stories (modern fables) illustrate the foolishness of this defense of the status quo:
An early one by Michael Perry
Nick Bostrom’s “The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant,” (also told in video form) tells a tale of a kingdom where a dragon requires the sacrifice of tens of thousands daily. (The dragon is a personification of the ageing process and death.) When someone figures out a way to stop this, the usual apologists pop up to explain why this victimization is really good, natural, and beneficial. The statements by the morality advisor of the kingdom closely mirror real bioethicists’ apologies for aging and death.
I agree. From an ethical point of view, ageing is simply a condition which causes impairment of health and finally death. Its no different from any of the conditions which do the same thing, which we call illnesses. Well, the only difference is that it affects 100% of people, whereas illnesses in the usual sense only affect a minority, even if its a substantial minority.
Its a biological phenomenon, and like all such its capable of being studied and understood. If it cannot be then it would be unique in biological phenomena, and I can’t see any evidence for that. Lots of conditions which we historically thought were just the way things are have turned out to be finally treatable, to the great improvement of human well being. I am sure ageing too will yield in the end, a bit at a time.
So there is no reason to think it cannot be studied, understood and modified and there is also no reason to think we ought not to study and modify it. In fact, the amount of suffering that ageing causes imposes the opposite duty, there is a positive duty to try to prolong healthy life, and life itself. Fatalism in the face of preventable suffering is not a virtue.
But yes, the explosion of the Blue Zones was a fascinating read, and may well be the claims of a decisive dietary connexion are just a distraction from the real task.
The preprint is very nice – real skeptical science in action. So, OK, one has to accept that the Blue Zones are mythical as regards longevity. Longevity is not the only test however. That doesn’t show that there are no differences in health between populations, or that diet does not contribute to them.
Do you think, for instance, that incidence of diabetes and obesity are pretty much the same worldwide?
The material suggesting dietary differences and distinction is a myth also is a bit troubling for this question!
michel ==> Newman does not dismiss the idea that ‘better, adequate, and sufficient’ diets lead to better health — his findings just say that diet does not lead to super-longevity.
It was an absolutely superb demolition of the Blue Zones story. I particularly enjoyed the stories of people who were living and collecting pensions till they were 100+, until someone found their death certificate from age 60+!
Reminds one of Hume. Miracles always happen in a far off country long ago.
Yes, this and other critical analyses of the Blue Zone claims are helpful in dispelling poor information that may be just a distraction to practical efforts to lengthen the healthy human lifespan.
‘Absence of vital registration’ before 1940/50 applies to remote islands, in Japan for instance, and central America, not speaking of places in dark Africa, for instance Ruanda, Burundi, Congo.
Ed ==> Yes, public record keeping and maintenance of those records has a lot to do with these stories of super-longevity.
There are many places, even in Latin America, where whole segments of society don’t have birth certificates and thus people are unable to prove their citizenship and even identity.
Not smoking and not drinking excessively are a couple of rules for a longer life. Having an active social life also helps.
Loma Linda has a lot of 7th day Adventists, whose lifestyle helps with longevity – N.B. I am not an Adventist.
Erik ==> Newman’s paper has a whole section on Loma Linda and the Adventists. Basically, as a group, they tend to have a slightly longer expected lifespan, but not exceptional. The LDS in Utah are the same (when cancer’s from atomic testing are adjusted for….)
Yes, not smoking (tobacco use), not drinking alcohol, avoiding excessively hot drinks, eating your veggies tends to improve lifespans on a population level but does not lead to super-longevity.
FWIW, Lutherans also apparently live a bit longer than average, possibly in part due to church potlucks helping with social activity for the older folks. I remember an article from a few years back where two counties had the highest fraction of people over 85 that were still living independently, one was in Utah (presumably LDS) and the other was in North Dakota (presumably Lutheran).
Analog magazine had an article on life expectancy circa 1980, the basic point of the article is after age 15, a person’s chance of dying from natural causes doubles about every 3 years. Put another way, decreasing the chance of dying in the next year by half will translate into 3 more years of life expectancy.
Loma Linda also has a world-class hospital, with a resultant collection of exceptional practitioners in the area.
Not only in Loma Linda. An Adventist hospital was built where I lived in Colorado and the food in the cafeteria was absolutely fantastic. Plenty of people from the community went there for lunch-it was so good and reasonably priced. They even had their own pizza oven.
Newman simply profited from one of the oldest and most appealing scams: promises of immortality (or longevity). More important than longevity, by far, is quality of life. The principles outlined by Newman are proven to improve quality of life, though I take exception with “plant-based” diet. Humans evolved to be omnivores, not herbivores. Consuming plenty of the right kinds of plants (fibrous and rich in nutrients) in addition to meat is solidly supported by dietary science, but plants only? I’m not so sure.
an immense joke… nobody’s laughing
Another cold day, another example of Red Ed’s climate crusade proving to be a vanity project the UK can’t afford. Over the last 18 hours, wind farms supplied between 0.1% to 3.7% of the UK’s electricity, while solar hit a low of 0%. Gas has been providing between 59% to 70% of electricity.
…
Meanwhile, due to renewable energy sources not providing enough electricity, UK power prices have jumped to their highest level in more than two years, with the day-ahead price reaching £241.49 per megawatt-hour as the country imports electricity from Europe at record levels.
https://order-order.com/2025/01/22/uk-wind-farms-generate-just-0-1-of-electricity-amid-soaring-energy-prices/
Fracking hell.
At around noon on Wednesday, the Connahs Quay 2 power station was offered £745 per megawatt hour to start generating.
Source: Telegraph.
There’s a area in China known as the “Longevity Belt” and there has been
some study done on this, some of the key points…
Optimize nutrition for a healthy body weight
Be physically active every day
Get enough sleep
Optimize relationships–loneliness is a bigger risk than smoking
Have purpose
Dr John Day wrote a book about his time spent there.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34932555-the-longevity-plan
Get outside. Sunshine seems to be part of the picture of health. Advice that seems to not have helped me much… came back from a long road trip in fall with what I assume was Covid. A week of violent coughing followed by a noticeable lack of good taste: Purple plaids with bright green stripes look pretty good. What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
…. Watermelons have weddings; they cantelope.
What cutting-edge Longevity research shows —
Doc to Patient: Well, any more questions?
Patient: Just one thing … is it true? If I diet, exercise, cut out my favorite vices …
… then I’ll live much longer?
Doc: Probably not. But it’ll seem longer.
One practice that seems to work for longevity, in mammals incl humans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRON-diet
Not that any free person could follow that practice, but if they did …
… life would certainly seem much loooonger.
For most animals, being kept in a zoo tends to extend longevity.
Next thing you know, you’re gonna claim those New Jersey Mystery Drones are just misidentified private planes, helicopters and airliners.
Spelling correction “pop science” You spelled poop wrong.
We should perhaps compare U.S. blue zones with U.S. Act Blue zones: most of the elderly in the latter are a) non-existent and b) heavy donors to the Democrat party. Test hypothesis: Blue zone centegenarians are unaware that they have been Act Blue donors for much of their lives.
The doctor told me to alter my lifestyle or I wouldn’t live as long.
“What makes you think my goal is living as long as I possibly can.” I asked
He didn’t reply.
My father died two weeks ago at age 87. He never did a thing to take care of himself. Once he couldn’t do the things he wanted to do, he just sat in his chair and waited to die. It took almost a dozen years.
No one can say better diet and regular exercise would have made him live longer but I can argue he could have enjoyed his last years more if he had only taken care of himself.
Loma Linda would have the best (least defective?) records. Okinawa would be second and the other two I wouldn’t bet on.
I remember when the Georgia region of the Soviet Union had all those spry 120 year old males. Surprising when women usually outlive men. Turned out they were taking the identity of dead relatives (uncles, parents, grand parents) to avoid military service. So the 120 year old fellas turned out to be 80-90 in most cases.
I believe many of the Okinawa records were lost during the US invasion.
I recall watching a TV show in the ’70s featuring people in the Caucasus claiming to be healthy and hearty well into their early 100s. Regular exercise and simple rural living were considered important. That, and some yogurt or kefer fermented milk dish they ate daily.
Strangely, nobody had actual documentation of their age.
What was that syndicated program hosted by Leonard Nimoy? I believe it was that program. Spok would never mislead us, too.
More ==> That’s just entertainment…National Geographic, both the magazine and the TV channel are now just entertainment, part of the Disney empire.
If you want to live to a ripe old age, choose your parents carefully.
“The mini-science-field of extreme longevity and Blue Zones operates on those same erroneous methods which attempt to find “the secret to long life”.” This is an idiotic thing to say. The (flawed) methods used in the Blue Zones research are demographic and based on (inadequate) analysis of existing records. Research into extending human life involve biology, genomic analysis, and other physical scientific methods. Extending healthy lifespan is an immensely complex challenge and we should not expect quick results. That does not detract from its scientific nature.
It’s bizarre how people deride and dismiss efforts to give us more years of healthy life. Apparently, the goal is impossible, just powered human flight or landing on the moon.
Max ==> You seem to have missed the point about “extreme longevity ” — far different field than just seeking to find ways to help people life longer and better.
A good laugh really brightened up my day!
Thanks, Kip. 😀
Pat ==> At least one reader got it! Thanks.
For what is is worth: In a family related to me by marriage, the males frequently live to the late 90s. A daughter, my cousin, made it to 103.
In my father’s family the males make it to about 86. I still have a few years.
On a serious note: There are two methods used to report life expectancy. The most common (and less useful) is called “period life expectancy” and is used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A more reasonable method is called the “cohort life expectancy” and is used by the Social Security Administration. The former (Period type) paints a misleading pessimistic future.
John ==>I’ll have to look up that difference.
WSJ Josh Zumbrun — page A2 weekend Dec. 16-17, 2023
John ==> Thanks.
The only known, not yet practicable, way of living for eternity+ was described by Poul Anderson in his short story “To Outlive Eternity” later expanded to novel length as “Tau Zero”.
Just get yourself on a starship that constantly accelerates approaching “c”
https://newbookrecommendation.com/summary-of-tau-zero-by-poul-anderson-a-detailed-synopsis/
Or you could become one of of Lazarus Long’s drinking buddies 🙂
Kip, we are indebted to you for introducing this very interesting topic. Question: has anyone studied the opposite of blue zones? Are there any such places? Places where, when you control for violence, drugs, infectious diseases etc people live for shorter lives and age faster?
I’m aware (including from Sinclair) of Hutchinson-Gilford and Werner Syndrome, the first affecting children and the second adults. The interesting thing of course is that we call both of these illnesses or diseases, but we don’t call so called normal aging an illness. Though it produces the exact same symptoms, just a bit delayed!
The puzzle that’s occurring to me is a bit to do with this. There are no blue zones. But we know that diet varies among populations, and I think we also know there is a link between diet and obesity and diabetes (unless someone explodes this, too!), Surely however there is also a link between these last two conditions and longevity?
Or is it really that it doesn’t matter what you eat, you are going to live your alloted time whether long or short?
That is what centenarians sometimes suggest – they attribute their longevity to the strangest and most varied things, and they don’t seem to follow particularly healthy lifestyles.
michel ==> “That is what centenarians sometimes suggest – they attribute their longevity to the strangest and most varied things, and they don’t seem to follow particularly healthy lifestyles.”
And that just may be the case — what we consider, quite rightly in many cases, to be a “healthy lifestyle” may be irrelevant to long life. Of course, this idea may exclude some of the very dangerous lifestyle choices — heroin use, smoking (though, as we know, many smokers live to ripe old ages), heavy alcohol use.