Calorie Restriction & Longevity

Nutrition
61

[quote]JWJordan wrote:
On the subject of living to 112 - It’s not 30 people who made it that far, it’s a little more than 200.[/quote]

…and that number is increasing. There are more people living to be over 100 years old than possibly ever before. What I’m laughing at is the fact that I remember going to the funeral as a kid because it was a big deal with my parents.

Maybe I should just provide my mom’s home phone number over the internet for everyone who challenges me on shit every single time something like this pops up. I’m sure she would love that.

62

The claim by X is not that extrordinary. It may be unusual to live for 115 years, but not unbelievable.

I haven’t studied it enough to make an authoratative statement on aging, but I think a major factor in quality and quantity of life is genetic. In my grandfather and grand mothers generation, with 14 and 13 members of each family in that generation, they all did about the same thing.

They lived very well until about 80, then like clockwork, started experiencing terminal conditions that lead to death, somewhere between 87 and 90.

Someone also mentioned the island of Okinawa, and I think Honshu is also a population being studied for longevity.
Many of the people on these islands share the same genetic material. They are basicaly a closed population, with not a whole lot of outside material comming in.

I’m betting that if you look down the woman that lived to 115’s branch of the family tree, you would seee a few more who lived a good bit longer and stronger than most.

63

[quote]Jinx Me wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
… Hitting your self on the head with a hammer 3 times is going to be more damaging than doing it once.
…

Study?

lol. Trust Zap to take the piss out of a great point. I LOLed at this one.

Trib made a great point that restricting calories from damaging foods will extend life. Also, even if you’re eating less, if you’re eating ‘superfoods’ you’ll be doing fairly well from a nutritional standpoint.

All of this is null and void if you’re simply starting yourself on convenience foods.

My understanding of calorie restriction is that it works by effectively lowering metabolism and removing demands from the body. Stress is taken off the digestive system, and there’s not much lean mass to maintain. It makes the body very efficient because it lowers the ‘cost of upkeep’ so to speak.

I like to eat - a lot. In both senses of the word. Sometimes I like to eat more than my body needs. I figure by working out and eating clean and highly nutrtious foods, I’m still at least a few steps ahead of most people.

And I might not live to 100, but at least I’ll have a sex drive. People who starve themselves lose a lot of ‘vitality’ and that to me is the ultimate testimony to the fact that it’s not ideal for us as species - something that discourages reproduction, though it maybe be appropriate for us now, isn’t ‘naturally ideal’ for any species.[/quote]

Great post. I think people are too quick to dismiss. I think there’s a lot of merit that these amounts of nutrition-dense calories could extend life. But you won’t catch me doing it anytime soon. I would miserable in a state of perpetual semi-starvation. This would be like following the Get Shredded Diet for life instead of just a brief period.

64

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Jinx Me wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
… Hitting your self on the head with a hammer 3 times is going to be more damaging than doing it once.
…

Study?

lol. Trust Zap to take the piss out of a great point. I LOLed at this one.

Trib made a great point that restricting calories from damaging foods will extend life. Also, even if you’re eating less, if you’re eating ‘superfoods’ you’ll be doing fairly well from a nutritional standpoint.

All of this is null and void if you’re simply starting yourself on convenience foods.

My understanding of calorie restriction is that it works by effectively lowering metabolism and removing demands from the body. Stress is taken off the digestive system, and there’s not much lean mass to maintain. It makes the body very efficient because it lowers the ‘cost of upkeep’ so to speak.

I like to eat - a lot. In both senses of the word. Sometimes I like to eat more than my body needs. I figure by working out and eating clean and highly nutrtious foods, I’m still at least a few steps ahead of most people.

And I might not live to 100, but at least I’ll have a sex drive. People who starve themselves lose a lot of ‘vitality’ and that to me is the ultimate testimony to the fact that it’s not ideal for us as species - something that discourages reproduction, though it maybe be appropriate for us now, isn’t ‘naturally ideal’ for any species.

Great post. I think people are too quick to dismiss. I think there’s a lot of merit that these amounts of nutrition-dense calories could extend life. But you won’t catch me doing it anytime soon. I would miserable in a state of perpetual semi-starvation. This would be like following the Get Shredded Diet for life instead of just a brief period.[/quote]

My other point is that by eating highly nutritious foods in larger volume, we can hopefully counteract the added strain on digestion and metabolism with the very high levels of nutrients and antioxidants.

AND we can still enjoy eating and sex!

AND we can be muscular and not look like famine victims!

But we might only live to 100 instead of 115 years… aw crap.

65

[quote]Professor X wrote:

There is no reason to provide her name because she is related TO ME. That’s why. While no one knows who you are or cares (I haven’t even seen you post here before), some people actually may read my posts.

Further, if you really wanted this info instead of some lame attempt to call me out, you would have sent me a private message, not asked me on the public forum that arguably gets read by thousands of people everyday. Like I’ve told you, you don’t have to believe a word. I feel great knowing that I’m not lying and that you feel it is impossible. [/quote]

How is it you are able to say that no one knows who i am or cares? As if your posts are so super special. The reason why i didnt PM as i still zero harm coming the relative and or you. It is just a name.

First you tell us you call your mom to find out more. Well most likely if your had to find out more from your mom then its the moms side of the family were talking about. Which means a different last name than you. Which meams sure difficult to pin it back to you.

But even if it was your last name involved so what. What are you so afraid of? Again you claim your posts are so cared for by others well so are the authors of T-Nation. And I know for a fact that most or perhaps all are actually the real names and not pen names. Well if its fine for them its fine for you.

I myself have had or have at the moment 4 close relatives all on the fathers side that lived between 99-103. Now this is rare enough alerady. But the difference between this and to live to 115 is millions of times harder. Again as i stated before there has only about 30 people ever to make it past 110.

The number is not 100% sure cause some of the cases have not been fully proven. And of that only about 5 American females to make it over 110. Really only 5 people were talking here. That shows just how rare it really is.

66

this dicussion on longevity and calorie restriction is interesting. i have my own theory on this. i believe carbohydrates accelerate ageing because they work like nitros on a car. they just burn the body out.

a diet high in animal fat and fried coconut flakes gives you all the energy you need. plus saturated fat makes you strong and keen! also the human stomach isn’t designed to digest starch only protein and fat.

the american indians thrived on a high fat diet. the indians were very strong and the europeans who came to settle in the west nearly lost. lucky for the settlers samuel colt invented his colt handgun, otherwise they would have physically overwhelmed.

the prarie indians always favoured the fat and organs of the buffalo not the muscle meat. so should all you bodybuilders!

67

[quote]johnkee wrote:
the prarie indians always favoured the fat and organs of the buffalo not the muscle meat. so should all you bodybuilders![/quote]

It’s no coincidence that the organs are also where vitamins and minerals are stored and processed. Very high calories and nutritional value.

68

I have to agree with the schools of thought that genetics plays a large role in terms of longevity in people who live past 100 years, or long past the average life expectancy. And also that moderation is a better outlook in terms of caloric intake.

69

[quote]Jinx Me wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Jinx Me wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
… Hitting your self on the head with a hammer 3 times is going to be more damaging than doing it once.
…

Study?

lol. Trust Zap to take the piss out of a great point. I LOLed at this one.

Trib made a great point that restricting calories from damaging foods will extend life. Also, even if you’re eating less, if you’re eating ‘superfoods’ you’ll be doing fairly well from a nutritional standpoint.

All of this is null and void if you’re simply starting yourself on convenience foods.

My understanding of calorie restriction is that it works by effectively lowering metabolism and removing demands from the body. Stress is taken off the digestive system, and there’s not much lean mass to maintain. It makes the body very efficient because it lowers the ‘cost of upkeep’ so to speak.

I like to eat - a lot. In both senses of the word. Sometimes I like to eat more than my body needs. I figure by working out and eating clean and highly nutrtious foods, I’m still at least a few steps ahead of most people.

And I might not live to 100, but at least I’ll have a sex drive. People who starve themselves lose a lot of ‘vitality’ and that to me is the ultimate testimony to the fact that it’s not ideal for us as species - something that discourages reproduction, though it maybe be appropriate for us now, isn’t ‘naturally ideal’ for any species.

Great post. I think people are too quick to dismiss. I think there’s a lot of merit that these amounts of nutrition-dense calories could extend life. But you won’t catch me doing it anytime soon. I would miserable in a state of perpetual semi-starvation. This would be like following the Get Shredded Diet for life instead of just a brief period.

My other point is that by eating highly nutritious foods in larger volume, we can hopefully counteract the added strain on digestion and metabolism with the very high levels of nutrients and antioxidants.

AND we can still enjoy eating and sex!

AND we can be muscular and not look like famine victims!

But we might only live to 100 instead of 115 years… aw crap. [/quote]

Yes. There are also some recent studies where they forced animals to engage in high levels of exercise but fed them adequate amounts of food. They still retained quite low levels of bodyfat throughout their lives compared to their more sedentary counterparts. And they also lived much longer. This is much closer to what T-Nationers could do. And still enjoy life.

70

[quote]Jinx Me wrote:

I like to eat - a lot. In both senses of the word. Sometimes I like to eat more than my body needs. I figure by working out and eating clean and highly nutrtious foods, I’m still at least a few steps ahead of most people.

And I might not live to 100, but at least I’ll have a sex drive. People who starve themselves lose a lot of ‘vitality’ and that to me is the ultimate testimony to the fact that it’s not ideal for us as species - something that discourages reproduction, though it maybe be appropriate for us now, isn’t ‘naturally ideal’ for any species.[/quote]

I like your point about Quality of Life.

71

[quote]jii wrote:
Professor X wrote:

There is no reason to provide her name because she is related TO ME. That’s why. While no one knows who you are or cares (I haven’t even seen you post here before), some people actually may read my posts.

Further, if you really wanted this info instead of some lame attempt to call me out, you would have sent me a private message, not asked me on the public forum that arguably gets read by thousands of people everyday. Like I’ve told you, you don’t have to believe a word. I feel great knowing that I’m not lying and that you feel it is impossible.

How is it you are able to say that no one knows who i am or cares? As if your posts are so super special. The reason why i didnt PM as i still zero harm coming the relative and or you. It is just a name.

First you tell us you call your mom to find out more. Well most likely if your had to find out more from your mom then its the moms side of the family were talking about. Which means a different last name than you. Which meams sure difficult to pin it back to you.

But even if it was your last name involved so what. What are you so afraid of? Again you claim your posts are so cared for by others well so are the authors of T-Nation. And I know for a fact that most or perhaps all are actually the real names and not pen names. Well if its fine for them its fine for you.

I myself have had or have at the moment 4 close relatives all on the fathers side that lived between 99-103. Now this is rare enough alerady. But the difference between this and to live to 115 is millions of times harder. Again as i stated before there has only about 30 people ever to make it past 110.

The number is not 100% sure cause some of the cases have not been fully proven. And of that only about 5 American females to make it over 110. Really only 5 people were talking here. That shows just how rare it really is.[/quote]

Well, I see no reason to disbelieve. But don’t really care if he’s lying either. People HAVE lived to 115. It IS very rare. But what of it. Someone on this site could be related to someone who lived that long. Stranger things have happened.

72

[quote]jii wrote:

Again as i stated before there has only about 30 people ever to make it past 110.

The number is not 100% sure cause some of the cases have not been fully proven. And of that only about 5 American females to make it over 110. Really only 5 people were talking here. That shows just how rare it really is.[/quote]

Once again, less than five minutes of research would have show that this wasn’t the case.

There are hundreds of verified super centenarians, which are people that have lived to 110 or above.

If you’re bound and determined to have a stupid argument, at least get a few of the relevant facts first.

73

When something is known to extend the lifespan of yeast, worms, flies, rodents and non-human primates - then you can it very probably will do so in humans as well (might I remind you the the resveratrol, which is marketed by Biotest - is drawing attention to itself because of animal studies). That being said, there has been at least one study performed on humans, which measures the affects of calorie-restriction on “longevity markers”.

  • Lofshult, Diane. Calorie restriction & longevity. IDEA Fitness Journal (1548-419X)
74

Bock on topic:

Mice genetically altered to literally live a cooler life also lived longer, scientists now report.

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/061102_cool_mice.html

75

[quote]jii wrote:

A huge load of unsubstantiated bs related to people living past 110…

I myself have had or have at the moment 4 close relatives all on the fathers side that lived between 99-103. Now this is rare enough alerady. But the difference between this and to live to 115 is millions of times harder. Again as i stated before there has only about 30 people ever to make it past 110.

The number is not 100% sure cause some of the cases have not been fully proven. And of that only about 5 American females to make it over 110. Really only 5 people were talking here. That shows just how rare it really is.[/quote]

A cursory Google search on “Americans aged over 110” offers this, at:
Help Center - The Arizona Republic

"According to 2000 U.S. census figures, 14 Arizonans are older than 110.

Nationally, the census counted more than 54,000 Americans older than 100. But the biggest surprise was the number of people older than 110: The census counted 1,388 of them, including the 14 in Arizona. This is the first time the census has released numbers for the 110-year-old age group."

A Census Bureau official admits that the numbers may be off, “but no more than 20 percent”:

"Census officials know that at least 39,356 centenarians are living, because that’s how many were collecting Social Security in December 2000. Still, Spencer last week began a re-examination of data on the 110-year-olds.

“I don’t find it comforting that there are so many over 110,” he said, adding that he will look for human and computer errors. He is suspicious because the maximum human life span is believed to be about 122. If that many people are approaching that age, it’s important to know, Spencer said.

Lynn Peters Adler, founder of the Phoenix-based National Centenarians Awareness Project, thinks the census is actually underreporting over-100 crowd.

“I know a lot of people who weren’t counted,” she said. “Those living on their own value their privacy.”"

As a group, Adler says, centenarians are doing better than ever. “Those living to be 100 are healthier, happier and more active than 15 years ago,” she said.

Each April for the past 15 years, the Pima County Area Agency on Aging has thrown a party for centenarians in the Tucson area. It has identified 80 of the 168 in the community. About 30 or 40 are well enough to attend.

“The most inspirational story over the past 15 years was a 102-year-old who handled all the financial investments for her nieces and nephews,” said Marian Lupu, executive director of the agency. When the agency called another centenarian to tell him about the party, his daughter said he was on the roof making repairs.

While many older people become frail as they age, 108-year-old Ethelyn Lamar has a robust figure. She likes pinto beans, protein drinks and oatmeal with brown sugar.

…Her first husband, Paris, was a musician. They eventually divorced. She has had several relationships over the years. When asked what makes her happy, she replies, “my men folks.”

76

[quote]cakewalk wrote:
jii wrote:

A huge load of unsubstantiated bs related to people living past 110…

I myself have had or have at the moment 4 close relatives all on the fathers side that lived between 99-103. Now this is rare enough alerady. But the difference between this and to live to 115 is millions of times harder. Again as i stated before there has only about 30 people ever to make it past 110.

The number is not 100% sure cause some of the cases have not been fully proven. And of that only about 5 American females to make it over 110. Really only 5 people were talking here. That shows just how rare it really is.

A cursory Google search on “Americans aged over 110” offers this, at:
Help Center - The Arizona Republic

"According to 2000 U.S. census figures, 14 Arizonans are older than 110.

Nationally, the census counted more than 54,000 Americans older than 100. But the biggest surprise was the number of people older than 110: The census counted 1,388 of them, including the 14 in Arizona. This is the first time the census has released numbers for the 110-year-old age group."

A Census Bureau official admits that the numbers may be off, “but no more than 20 percent”:

"Census officials know that at least 39,356 centenarians are living, because that’s how many were collecting Social Security in December 2000. Still, Spencer last week began a re-examination of data on the 110-year-olds.

“I don’t find it comforting that there are so many over 110,” he said, adding that he will look for human and computer errors. He is suspicious because the maximum human life span is believed to be about 122. If that many people are approaching that age, it’s important to know, Spencer said.

Lynn Peters Adler, founder of the Phoenix-based National Centenarians Awareness Project, thinks the census is actually underreporting over-100 crowd.

“I know a lot of people who weren’t counted,” she said. “Those living on their own value their privacy.”"

As a group, Adler says, centenarians are doing better than ever. “Those living to be 100 are healthier, happier and more active than 15 years ago,” she said.

Each April for the past 15 years, the Pima County Area Agency on Aging has thrown a party for centenarians in the Tucson area. It has identified 80 of the 168 in the community. About 30 or 40 are well enough to attend.

“The most inspirational story over the past 15 years was a 102-year-old who handled all the financial investments for her nieces and nephews,” said Marian Lupu, executive director of the agency. When the agency called another centenarian to tell him about the party, his daughter said he was on the roof making repairs.

While many older people become frail as they age, 108-year-old Ethelyn Lamar has a robust figure. She likes pinto beans, protein drinks and oatmeal with brown sugar.

…Her first husband, Paris, was a musician. They eventually divorced. She has had several relationships over the years. When asked what makes her happy, she replies, “my men folks.”[/quote]

Well, there goes his “millions of times harder” theory. Why should anyone believe you have relatives over 99 years of age, “jii”? Why should anyone believe you even know who your father is?

77

[quote]JWJordan wrote:
jii wrote:

Again as i stated before there has only about 30 people ever to make it past 110.

The number is not 100% sure cause some of the cases have not been fully proven. And of that only about 5 American females to make it over 110. Really only 5 people were talking here. That shows just how rare it really is.

Once again, less than five minutes of research would have show that this wasn’t the case.

There are hundreds of verified super centenarians, which are people that have lived to 110 or above.

If you’re bound and determined to have a stupid argument, at least get a few of the relevant facts first.[/quote]

guess what your the stupid one. Always the way isnt for stupid people to call others stupid. There really is only about 30 verifie4 people to lived older than 110. I have done research. The majority of claims of super old age do not have sufficient documentary support to be validated. There ages were changed when there were young to avoid ie. a military draft. Here is an offical list. This does not include the 110-115.

Among the oldest ever (115+)
Name Age Born Died Notes
Jeanne Calment 122 yr 164 d 21 February 1875 4 August 1997 Oldest documented supercentenarian
Shigechiyo Izumi 120? yr 237 d 29 June 1865? 21 February 1986 Oldest documented male supercentenarian (disputed)
Sarah Knauss 119 yr 97 d 24 September 1880 30 December 1999 Oldest in USA history, oldest recognized in world 1998?99
Lucy Hannah 117 yr 248 d 16 July 1875 21 March 1993 Oldest African American
Marie-Louise Meilleur 117 yr 230 d 29 August 1880 16 April 1998 Oldest Canadian, oldest recognized in world 1997 ? 98
Mar?a Capovilla 116 yr 347 d 14 September 1889 27 August 2006 Oldest in Ecuador ever, oldest living person 2004 ? 2006
Tane Ikai 116 yr 175 d 18 January 1879 12 July 1995 Oldest Japanese woman
Carrie C. White 116? yr 88 d 18 November 1874? 14 February 1991 Formerly oldest in USA history, 3rd-oldest American ever recorded (disputed)
Elizabeth Bolden 116 yr + 15 August 1890 - Oldest living person, Tennesseean
Kamato Hongo 116? yr 45 d 16 September 1887? 31 October 2003 Third-oldest Japanese person (disputed)
Maggie Barnes 115 yr 319 d 6 March 1882 19 January 1998 North Carolina woman
Christian Mortensen 115 yr 252 d 16 August 1882 25 April 1998 Oldest undisputed male, Danish immigrant to USA
Charlotte Hughes 115 yr 228 d 1 August 1877 17 March 1993 British longevity recordholder
Margaret Skeete 115 yr 192 d 27 October 1878 7 May 1994 Was oldest living American 1993-1994; Texas state recordholder
Anitica Butariu 115? yr 157 d 17 June 1882? 21 November 1997 Romania
Bettie Wilson 115 yr 153 d 13 September 1890 13 February 2006 USA
Susie Gibson 115 yr 108 d 31 October 1890 16 February 2006 USA
Emiliano Mercado del Toro 115 yr + 21 August 1891 - Oldest living man, oldest in Puerto Rico ever
Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper 115 yr 62 d 29 June 1890 30 August 2005 Netherlands Oldest Dutch person ever
Maud Farris-Luse 115 yr 56 d 21 January 1887 18 March 2002 USA
Julie Winnefred Bertrand 115 yr + 16 September 1891 - Canada
Marie Br?mont 115 yr 42 d 25 April 1886 6 June 2001 France
Annie Jennings 115 yr 8 d 12 November 1884 20 November 1999 UK

78

[quote]jii wrote:
JWJordan wrote:
jii wrote:

Again as i stated before there has only about 30 people ever to make it past 110.

The number is not 100% sure cause some of the cases have not been fully proven. And of that only about 5 American females to make it over 110. Really only 5 people were talking here. That shows just how rare it really is.

Once again, less than five minutes of research would have show that this wasn’t the case.

There are hundreds of verified super centenarians, which are people that have lived to 110 or above.

If you’re bound and determined to have a stupid argument, at least get a few of the relevant facts first.

guess what your the stupid one. Always the way isnt for stupid people to call others stupid. There really is only about 30 verifie4 people to lived older than 110. I have done research. The majority of claims of super old age do not have sufficient documentary support to be validated. There ages were changed when there were young to avoid ie. a military draft. Here is an offical list. This does not include the 110-115.

Among the oldest ever (115+)
Name Age Born Died Notes
Jeanne Calment 122 yr 164 d 21 February 1875 4 August 1997 Oldest documented supercentenarian
Shigechiyo Izumi 120? yr 237 d 29 June 1865? 21 February 1986 Oldest documented male supercentenarian (disputed)
Sarah Knauss 119 yr 97 d 24 September 1880 30 December 1999 Oldest in USA history, oldest recognized in world 1998?99
Lucy Hannah 117 yr 248 d 16 July 1875 21 March 1993 Oldest African American
Marie-Louise Meilleur 117 yr 230 d 29 August 1880 16 April 1998 Oldest Canadian, oldest recognized in world 1997 ? 98
Mar?a Capovilla 116 yr 347 d 14 September 1889 27 August 2006 Oldest in Ecuador ever, oldest living person 2004 ? 2006
Tane Ikai 116 yr 175 d 18 January 1879 12 July 1995 Oldest Japanese woman
Carrie C. White 116? yr 88 d 18 November 1874? 14 February 1991 Formerly oldest in USA history, 3rd-oldest American ever recorded (disputed)
Elizabeth Bolden 116 yr + 15 August 1890 - Oldest living person, Tennesseean
Kamato Hongo 116? yr 45 d 16 September 1887? 31 October 2003 Third-oldest Japanese person (disputed)
Maggie Barnes 115 yr 319 d 6 March 1882 19 January 1998 North Carolina woman
Christian Mortensen 115 yr 252 d 16 August 1882 25 April 1998 Oldest undisputed male, Danish immigrant to USA
Charlotte Hughes 115 yr 228 d 1 August 1877 17 March 1993 British longevity recordholder
Margaret Skeete 115 yr 192 d 27 October 1878 7 May 1994 Was oldest living American 1993-1994; Texas state recordholder
Anitica Butariu 115? yr 157 d 17 June 1882? 21 November 1997 Romania
Bettie Wilson 115 yr 153 d 13 September 1890 13 February 2006 USA
Susie Gibson 115 yr 108 d 31 October 1890 16 February 2006 USA
Emiliano Mercado del Toro 115 yr + 21 August 1891 - Oldest living man, oldest in Puerto Rico ever
Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper 115 yr 62 d 29 June 1890 30 August 2005 Netherlands Oldest Dutch person ever
Maud Farris-Luse 115 yr 56 d 21 January 1887 18 March 2002 USA
Julie Winnefred Bertrand 115 yr + 16 September 1891 - Canada
Marie Br?mont 115 yr 42 d 25 April 1886 6 June 2001 France
Annie Jennings 115 yr 8 d 12 November 1884 20 November 1999 UK
[/quote]

WHO F*CKING CARES???

Geez, this is such a dumb argument! Besides, just because there isn’t sufficient documentation of birth dates for people who are that freaking old is NOT evidence that people rarely live that old! All you can say with that is that it can’t be conclusively proven that they do live past 100 except for those exceptions. That’s not proving your theory. And make no mistake, it’s a theory. Big freaking deal, whoop de doo!

Now can we quit calling people liars and either kill this thread or discuss something of relevance?

79

[quote]boroughbred wrote:
A piece for the rather-live-longer-than-bulkier crowd:
[/quote]

You’ll never get a solid answer. There are as many studies supporting this as there are disputing it. Alot of the studies don’t take ‘what’ in with ‘how much’. I don’t even think about it, i need a certain amount of food for my size. Its like obsessing about my greater chances of dying young because i’m taller. who cares. Who the fuck wants to be over 100 anyways.

What do you think you would do all day? I’m sure i’d change my tune about living to 100 if i made it to 99. but living past 100 or even 90 is not a goal of mine, i don’t beleive i will expirience the best years of my life at those ages, so its not worth travelling through my life as an underfed runt.

80

“guess what your the stupid one. Always the way isnt for stupid people to call others stupid.”

One, I said the argument was stupid, not you. And if being in a stupid argument makes a person stupid, well, that’d include me, wouldn’t it?

Two, your inability to recognise the difference between your and you’re and the difference between criticism of an argument and a person aren’t helping your case there.

I’m not printing a list of reliably documented people over 110, because it’s 27 pages long.

http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/oldest.html

That’s one such list, with fairly extensive notes about the methods used to verify those ages. You’ll note that most of those names are women who, oddly, have very little reason to try and dodge a draft.

And there are sufficiently large enough numbers of people reaching 110 and 111 that it’s no longer the marker for really extreme longevity.

None of which means PX isn’t lying, though. Of course, it’s worth considering that most people of great age will have a quite a large number of people related to them.