Happy Friday to you, too! Great catch on the 70% figure that others missed. One nuance worth considering: this genetic influence applies to maximum potential lifespan once external causes are removed. But most people never reach that genetic ceiling because lifestyle-driven chronic diseases (CVD, diabetes, cancer) kill them first. So while genes may determine whether someone's upper limit is 85 or 105, lifestyle factors largely determine whether they reach that potential at all. For the average person not yet optimizing the basics, lifestyle remains the dominant lever—even if genes set the ultimate boundary.
Irina, thank you. Genes serving as code for an individual's upper limit, not a predictor, is an excellent and necessary point that should have been in my original post. Since you said so well, I'd rather just quote you, if you don't mind.
Some scientists also have pointed out that by excluding so-called extrinsic causes of death in its heritability models, the study essentially changes what its claiming to measure, because what if one's genes played a role in what may look like extrinsically caused deaths?
Such a thought-provoking post. Genes matter, but lifestyle factors are extremely important and influential. Thank you for sharing this study and your insights.
This is really interesting Paul. Many experts have estimated 70% of ageing is in our hands. This potentially flips that number.
There’s been data for quite some time, I believe, saying centenarians mostly carry the genes to make that possible.
Also interesting that the reading of the data in the twins study had such an obvious flaw (not eliminating deaths caused by "extrinsic" factors seems basic if you’re getting a measure of natural biological ageing).
What also stood out for me in the commentary: a person's lifestyle can still alter their lifespan by approximately 5–10 years. To me, this is a conversation we really need to have, given data that shows women lose the last 10 years to poor health, while for men it’s 8 years.
These are the Joyspan years that are ours to claim.
Brodee, it's true that the longevity-industrial complex borrows from the notion that genes play a minor role in getting you to the so-called last lap (whereupon they kind of take over, if you've managed to survive to that point), and that can purchase and supplement our way to longer life. Eric Verdin of the Buck Institute made a valuable point in this NBC story on this study, about how there are probably a constellation of genes that account for extreme longevity, and that science is having a hell of a time identifying them, so far.
While we can definitely assume some part of our potential longevity is due to genetics I think that in practice you can’t typically apply too much of this to your own life. Maybe one or more of your parents or grandparents could’ve died far younger than their potential because of lifestyle issues. They might’ve had lack of access to healthcare, exposure where they live or work to various toxins, poor diet, constant stress, etc., etc. you might not have any of the information about their lives that led to these things as it might not be part of your genetic makeup. You might only know that they died and maybe you have some idea what the cause of death was. I suppose you could look at things like prevalence of cancer or heart disease within a family and take precautions to have some extra screening, so that’s something you can do proactively. It seems to me that you need to have a historical genetic record and medical history of several generations of people in order to remove the correlation from lifestyle issues in order to come to a reasonable conclusion
Happy Friday to you, too! Great catch on the 70% figure that others missed. One nuance worth considering: this genetic influence applies to maximum potential lifespan once external causes are removed. But most people never reach that genetic ceiling because lifestyle-driven chronic diseases (CVD, diabetes, cancer) kill them first. So while genes may determine whether someone's upper limit is 85 or 105, lifestyle factors largely determine whether they reach that potential at all. For the average person not yet optimizing the basics, lifestyle remains the dominant lever—even if genes set the ultimate boundary.
Irina, thank you. Genes serving as code for an individual's upper limit, not a predictor, is an excellent and necessary point that should have been in my original post. Since you said so well, I'd rather just quote you, if you don't mind.
Some scientists also have pointed out that by excluding so-called extrinsic causes of death in its heritability models, the study essentially changes what its claiming to measure, because what if one's genes played a role in what may look like extrinsically caused deaths?
Lifespan is such a complex subject.
I’m deeply honored—please feel free to quote me.
Such a thought-provoking post. Genes matter, but lifestyle factors are extremely important and influential. Thank you for sharing this study and your insights.
Destiny, I’m glad this was helpful to you. Max those genes.
This is really interesting Paul. Many experts have estimated 70% of ageing is in our hands. This potentially flips that number.
There’s been data for quite some time, I believe, saying centenarians mostly carry the genes to make that possible.
Also interesting that the reading of the data in the twins study had such an obvious flaw (not eliminating deaths caused by "extrinsic" factors seems basic if you’re getting a measure of natural biological ageing).
What also stood out for me in the commentary: a person's lifestyle can still alter their lifespan by approximately 5–10 years. To me, this is a conversation we really need to have, given data that shows women lose the last 10 years to poor health, while for men it’s 8 years.
These are the Joyspan years that are ours to claim.
Brodee, it's true that the longevity-industrial complex borrows from the notion that genes play a minor role in getting you to the so-called last lap (whereupon they kind of take over, if you've managed to survive to that point), and that can purchase and supplement our way to longer life. Eric Verdin of the Buck Institute made a valuable point in this NBC story on this study, about how there are probably a constellation of genes that account for extreme longevity, and that science is having a hell of a time identifying them, so far.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/longevity-genetics-play-large-role-lifespan-study-rcna256502
I find this interesting.. However at 84, I’m still going. Mom died at 57 and dad in his 60’s
Anita, keep going. All that's certain is that nothing is certain.
I am looking forward to more study in this area Anita.
As do I, Brodee. But it does make one's brain hurt, sometimes.
While we can definitely assume some part of our potential longevity is due to genetics I think that in practice you can’t typically apply too much of this to your own life. Maybe one or more of your parents or grandparents could’ve died far younger than their potential because of lifestyle issues. They might’ve had lack of access to healthcare, exposure where they live or work to various toxins, poor diet, constant stress, etc., etc. you might not have any of the information about their lives that led to these things as it might not be part of your genetic makeup. You might only know that they died and maybe you have some idea what the cause of death was. I suppose you could look at things like prevalence of cancer or heart disease within a family and take precautions to have some extra screening, so that’s something you can do proactively. It seems to me that you need to have a historical genetic record and medical history of several generations of people in order to remove the correlation from lifestyle issues in order to come to a reasonable conclusion