This is about those aged over 100, not 110 which is a completely different ballpark... Besides that, all my relatives lived close to 100 and they certainly hadn't a healthy lifestyle nor are they japanese nor had they access to the current medical breakthroughs. I assume the secret is mostly genetics and it is easy for me to see how 100k are aged over 100 in Japan.
My maternal grandparents are currently 98 and 96 and the last time I visited them grandpa said that his father didn't live to age 60.
Meanwhile he has an older sister who, while bedridden, is very much alive at 100.
I suppose the necessary medical breakthroughs happened in the second half of the 20th century, as no one, including the people in question, anticipated they would live this long. Grandma even stated in her will that my second oldest cousin would inherit the apartment - supposedly to have "a better start in life when she grows up". That was 30 years ago and my cousin's oldest child should be in high school now right now.
> I assume the secret is mostly genetics
That, but also various factors during one's life - most importantly, ample and healthy food (especially during fetal growth, childhood and youth), a lack of exposure to known damaging factors for physical and mental health (smog, noise, tobacco, alcohol and other drugs), and a lack of wars and other forms of violence.
The top killers in the Western world are cardiovascular diseases (strongly linked to food) and cancers (strongly linked, again, to food but also to drugs). A safe working culture (both in business and in private) is also a good thing to have - the typical lackluster attitude towards workplace safety is a top cause of workplace accidents both fatal and non-fatal but serious.
I worked with a manager that looked after the mainframe and he always told me to never assume. Assuming genetics is the assumption with nutrition and health, with this not always being helpful. Regardless of our genetics, what we eat and how we move can always move the needle on our health outcomes.
Ancel Keys and his work on diet and longevity is pertinent to this article. He discovered that the people that lived the longest had a low saturated fat plant-based diet. This was to be found in the 'blue zones' around the world. This does not mean exclusively vegan, but getting that way.
Keys had to make some recommendations to the U.S. government and he went for the Mediterranean Diet rather than what they were eating in Okinawa. This was because the Second World War was fresh in people's memories at the time and telling Americans to eat like Japanese people was not going to be well-received advice at the time.
The Japanese diet has changed since the post-war years with the processed foods, animal products and saturated fats rather than what you might call a peasant diet. It is also the same with the Mediterranean Diet, which is not 'pizza, pasta, red wine and meat from imprisoned animals'.
Also important is that most Japanese live in walkable neighbourhoods. Japan is a cycling nation so cycling happens too, not this lycra + polystyrene hat cycling from the parking lot and back to the parking lot that passes for cycling in the West, but everyday cycling on bicycles that are designed for comfort and getting about in regular clothes.
We all like our fat, sugar, salt and motor cars, however, those that were deprived from these joys due to war do well in the longevity stakes.
[dead]
1 in 3 Japanese smoke. That's down from 2 in 3 about 30 years ago.
I can tell you very easily why Japanese live longer than Americans, since I have spent abundant time in Japan.
You can tell easily while entire scientific commune is still guessing? Epic.
[dead]
A guess from a random commenter is probably going to be more accurate than the food science academic community, when you consider their track record.
I suspect two things, low-calorie diets consisting predominantly of fresh foods and vegetables. And active lifestyle.
It is unreal how much a good diet and walking everyday will change your entire life.
The actual traditional Japanese food consists of obscene amount of carbohydrates taken with pickles flavored salt with little to no protein or fat intakes. The role of carbs and proteins is switched from a stereotypical European dinner, a meal is about how to deal with the grains. This naturally shortens body heights and take diabetics out of family lines. This had changed massively owing to Westernization of diet and had reduced stroke(brain and heart) deaths even as recent as last ~30 years.
This is apparently weird even to Chinese people; an image of ramen with rice and roast dumplings on sides amounts to a ragebait to them(as well as to experts in cardiovascular systems), while it's nothing more than a common lunch menu to students and young workers in Japan.
But I digress - my point is, the real traditional Japanese meal is more like half a football worth of rice with vegetable flavored salt, quite unlike idealized modern interpretations thereof.
Otherwise correct, but the real real traditional Japanese diet was barley (mugi), millet (kibi/hie) and sorghum (awa), not just white rice, which was an unaffordable luxury for many peasants.
The article also mentions that 60 years ago, Japan had the lowest proportion of 100+ year olds.
Gemini disagrees with this.
Try an actual source: https://2024.sci-hub.se/1147/ff0abbc773b295a97bc927b98dcaed9...
It is true that rice was always the prestige food consumed by the upper classes, and the peasantry ate rice too, but it was only one of the five staples (gokoku) and was often extended with other grains (mugigohan etc).
Mugi/awa/hie were untracked substitutes for rice. Medieval Japanese warlords mainly collected taxes in form of bags of rice, and ignored other crops. So peasants mixed those grains into rice at varying ratios of up to 100% depending on local and yearly yields. That doesn't mean those grains were culturally considered defaults.
Your pdf is mostly about the 1870s and later. (Although it does mention the Tokugawa period, which began in 1603, it seems to do so for quite tangential reason.)
In contrast, people in East Asia started cultivating rice 9,000 years ago, and modern Japanese are probably mostly descended from these early rice farmers (who started out in China, then spread to Korea and then Japan) with a substantial contribution from another population called Jomon, which were already in Japan when the heavily-rice-dependent people started to arrive in Japan about 2,300 years ago and who lived mostly by hunting and gathering.
This is relevant because some people here are advocating for everyone to adopt a Japanese-like diet, which might not turn out so well for you unless most your ancestors have 8,000 or 9,000 years of experience getting most of their calories from grains.
We're not really disagreeing here? But wet paddy rice farming requires flat land, which in mountainous Japan is in notably short supply, so they planted other crops too.
This parallels China, where the warm, wet south is rice country but the colder, drier north grows other grains. The five grains (gokoku) idea is itself originally Chinese:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Grains
Gemini thinks there are two "g"s in "guava" as of two weeks ago when I tested it.
That's pretty close. If I had to sum it up in one word, it would be: trains.
Car culture makes Americans fat and lazy. 40% of US adults are obese. 80% are overweight.
Walking and good food, yeah, that helps. But trains introduce short sprints into everyday life. It starts with "He's too late, he's never gonna catch it... well I'll be damned, he did it." and pretty soon, you're saying "We can catch it, just run!" Everyone on the train has a shopping bag, because trains don't have huge trunks like a car. You want groceries? Carry it. Good exercise. Trains also remove the road rage from your life, the daily stress of defensive driving in a fast moving freeway full of other angry drivers. Trains eliminate the premature death caused by road accidents which not only lower life expectancy directly, but indirectly as bread winners are taken from families. The car exhaust is gone too. Trains reshape how towns are built, with higher density and less parking. More walking! Everything mushrooms out from the decision to travel with trains. It's little wonder why Japan has the lowest obesity rate in the world.
I don't disagree, but to add I think the retirement culture probably helps a lot for longevity too.
The Japanese retirement attitude is "I've worked my ass off all my life. Contributing to the society all my life. Finally I have some time to spend on my hobbies! I should be active!" and they pick up quite active hobbies: if you go hiking mountains you'll see many old retired people with serious gears. Also still trains.
Contrast it to ime, western retirement which is more "finally I can relax" and people become sedentary. Hanging around in parks, cafe, or focus more on socializing and diet. And starts to rely more on cars and other senior services.
Yes. My Japanese wife’s father and mine are the same age. FIL had a heart attack last year and almost died. Yet he’s still the president of the rotary club, travels every two weeks across the country to attend events or give lectures. Recently hosted an international student exchange at his workshop and is still making new pieces of art to be exhibited.
My father spends all day watching football or horses and has visibly started going senile.
Feels like a much more likely explanation. Heard my parents talk a lot about people who retire, make their primary activity be vegging out, and then health issues start popping up. Japanese also seem to have a big culture of everyone needing to have hobbies.
Germany is rather like that. Never try to keep up with a German granny going up a hillside.
By this logic wouldn't people in nyc, London, Washington dc, and Paris be living extra long?
The answer to that should be fairly obvious after Iryna Zarutska and Emily Carlson happened so recently. American and Japanese trains are not qualitatively the same. Vagrants and solicitors wander the local trains here like it is their asylum. Amtrak is a lot safer since they have conductors checking tickets, but that is still very loud and unruly.
If you'd like a more direct comparison to Japan, try Hong Kong, another place where I have spent a fair amount of time riding the trains. They also have world leading life expectancy.
Life expectancy in NYC is 82.6 vs 78.4 overall for USA. Lots of variables and such, but NYC must be doing something better than the rest of the country and I wouldn't doubt trains (and walkability) are a contributing factor.
I recently had an experience where I needed to do physical labor about 16 hours a day for two weeks, at the same time there was hardly any time to eat so I had to eat very small and simple meals. At the end of the two weeks I felt amazing.
Be careful with that feeling and don't underfuel, or at least keep it at "sane" levels. I feel pretty amazing and full after 62km/2700mD+ XCMs as well, as an extreme example... which is at least partially due to the immune system (and resp. inflammation/etc) being suppressed. Long, light/moderate efforts without adequate food intake and rest can lead to the same thing.
What are XCMs? 2700mD? Why would the immune system being suppressed make you feel good? I’m so confused
Stress hormones. Read up on cortisol's effects. XCM - cross country marathon (MTB race). 2700mD+ - 2.7km of vertical gain. A reduction of inflammation is a general effect of anti-inflammatory drugs, which tend to make you feel better. There's a LOT more than that (i.e. say, all the things that fall under the umbrella of "runner's high"), but the TL:DR is that significant physical activity / energy expenditure, combined with a lack of proper rest & nutrition leads to long-term undesirable effects that can definitely be masked and/or disregarded.
I fugure XCM must be cross country marathon, where 62km is the distance. But what is mD? Difference in elevation in meters?
I have no idea what you wrote and you shouldn't assume people know some niece jargon.
Did a major house cleaning a few years ago, got me out of the chair and the couch for a couple of weeks. Probably not as intense as your experience but I definitely felt better and was more flexible for about a month afterwards.
I think this works well for relatively short bursts, but if you made it a regular habit your body would start to break down after a year or two.
Japanese food is not actually so great, especially nowadays - lots of carbs for one. Good Japanese food is not so different from Mediatorial.
I'm no food historian/scientist, but I'm pretty sure the Japanese have been eating rice, which is a carb, even longer than has been a Japan.
> I assume the secret is mostly genetics
In Atul Gawande’s Being Mortal he mentions that research shows that long life is not particularly heritable.
Lifespan genetics research is all over the place, partly because it is hard to get adequate statistics. There's currently a new preprint paper by Shenhar et al. that suggests life expectancy is actually heavily influenced by genetics if you account for the confounding factors correctly.
Many diseases that shorten lives have increased chances due to genetics from Alzheimer’s to diabetes or some heart diseases(the leading cause of death) .
While longer lives may not be directly inheritable, shorter lives absolutely can be, good genetics does play a role to living long .
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11258071
Seems like something similar could still be a problem here, although it seems less likely since the number here is significantly less than article I've linked.
> I assume the secret is mostly genetics
Obligatory mention of how genetics and early nurture and environment cannot be separated in research: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/looking-in-the-cultu...
> Besides that, all my relatives lived close to 100
Were you there when they were born, so that you can verify their true age?
Can't speak for the one you're replying to, but when it's just about the age of 100 it's not particularly difficult to verify. Take my great-grandfather, for example, who died at nearly 100. I have photos with him and my father, when the latter was a child, and I've seen photos of my father from his whole lifespan of course. I have photos of my great-grandfather from way way back in time, with references (including newspaper articles with photos). And so on and so forth. There's no way his birth certificate and church records could have been faked. And that actually goes for my great-great-grandfather too.
On my mother's side, I was a little boy when I met my great-great grandmother who was already 90, and witnessed her living to, guess what, nearing that other age mentioned. And, again, there are records and photos going way back to when she was born.
At an old people's home nearby I got to know a gentleman for some years, he died this year at 99. Again there are records in numerous places documenting his age and where and when he was born (and he grew up nearby my grandfather's place). And at that same old people's home there's a vital lady who's 105, and, again, unless you believe all public documents and church records are fake, she's as real as it gets. She has a daughter who visits, she's in her seventies. That daughter has children of her own, and her children also have children.
It's when you get to all the 115-120 year olds in remote regions you start to see the fakes. And it's not difficult to spot when you look, the statistics are all skewed - unlike in places like most of Japan, just to get back to the original story.
But nobody is doubting that these people exist, or saying that their documents were faked maliciously. Back in my grandparents' time, they had a child, then a few years later they went to register the child, the clerk asked "how old is she?" and they said "7 or 8" when she was 11, for example.
My grandmother never knew her birthday, or her birth year. We just estimated, even though she was very much real.
Depends on where you live, I suppose. I know a lot about how it was done back as far as my great-greats and sometimes older, because the church records are meticulous and written with a lot of comments, and notes if there's been any kind of delays. And never would a child be registered years after birth.
It definitely depends where you live. My great grandparents wouldn't make the day's trek down the mountain to the city and sleep in the open just to register a child.
I don't doubt that the people you mentioning are the age they say they are, but even when there are multiple documents verifying somebody's age, they all take get data from a single original document. Apart from this I see things the same way as you've detailed.
The thing is - what I'm talking about is _not_ coming from a single original document. Yes, the birth certificate is a single document, but there's other documentation where children are mentioned. I looked up everything I could find about the 99 year old gentleman I mentioned, and because of certain "interesting" things about two of his grandparents the family had been traced by multiple sources before and through his birth. Newspapers were around, and photos too. The situation is different now than when people claimed to be extremely old back when the rage about super old people in certain east-European / west Asian regions began. Now we're talking about people born way into the 20th century, which means that for many regions in the world there aren't many options to fake it.
> This is about those aged over 100, not 110 which is a completely different ballpark
Is this some kind of new math? 100 and 110 are within 10% of each other, which seems very much in the same ballpark to me.
They are not within 10% of each other when you consider human mortality rates.
Ie if you live to 100, you do not have 10% chance of living to 110.
Eg this study says:
"Three percent of females and 1% of males in the 2019 birth cohort, given age-specific mortality rates in that year, are projected to survive to 100 years old. Only 0.4% of females and 0.09% of males will survive to 105 years which is 10 times rarer than survival to 100. Survival to 110 years is 150 times rarer for females and 333 times rarer for males (0.02% for females, 0.003% for males) than living to 100. "
https://www.bumc.bu.edu/centenarian/statistics/
Your chance of dying is roughly 50% per year in that range.
2^10 = three orders of magnitude difference in survival
The chance of dying is not linear with age.