Author Topic: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?  (Read 16445 times)

Kem

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 247
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #50 on: January 03, 2020, 02:48:18 PM »
Gates said it best.  Folks overestimate what they can accomplish in a year and underestimate what they can do in 10.

This is the result of a decade of consistently looking for improvements in all areas of life.  It has been a bumpy ride, but it has smoothed with time and experience.  Damn… I’m sure the fates are chomping at the bit to nip at that moment of ego. 

10 years ago I was over 250#s of flabby pain, drowning in debt, depressed, and living paycheck to paycheck.  My firstborn’s seeding was the catalyst to choosing to go against the choices my peers were making and thus I begin looking for improvements.  How could I dare to be responsible for raising a child where I wasn’t responsible for myself.

My goals were initially to just live with less pain so I could hold and play with my child and find a way out of debt.  From here I planned backwards what needed to be done and gave myself quarterly goals.  If I did not land near that goal I re-tweaked the plan.  As I learned more and applied the grey matter I re-tweaked the plan.

Along the path I began working with doctors, an Olympic chiropractor, & allergy specialist for the health.  For the finances I picked up books (most were really bad advice) and realized I needed to start modeling the dollars myself.  I actually came across MMM which led me to all the various FiRe literature while writing a book for kids about 1.5 years ago (well down my path to leading a better life). 

Along the path I questioned what added value to my goals and what detracted from them.  I did this at first no less than quarterly.  Now I do it as a base thought pattern.

This is all to say, this is really No different than tracking dollars and choosing to spend with a weighting based on what adds happiness.

Along the path I found that Maslow was close… but we can do so much better.  In order to live a happy life I need, in the following order to seek to always improve upon:
Physical
- Sleep
- Nutrition
- Exercise
Mental
- Problem Solving
- New knowledge
- Acts of Creation
Spiritual
- Community & family (giving and taking, along with expanding to folks of differing backgrounds)
- Internal (meditation & nature)
- Integrity
Financial
- Applying Valuism to today
- Looking to tomorrow (goals are Fi & provide children with the tools to live their own lives outside of the societal norm).

Material crap doesn't fit in here, nor does vegging behind a screen, nor does maintaining a comfort stasis.   

How do I stay on the wagon?  How can I not!  Straying leads to saying yes when I should say no… to saying no when I should say yes.  Straying leads to dissatisfaction, pain, and depression.  Straying leads to an inability to pass on those values I feel are most important for my children to be immersed in.     
« Last Edit: January 03, 2020, 02:51:45 PM by Kem »

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #51 on: January 03, 2020, 02:55:59 PM »
Do most people actually think that they will be decrepit dribbling wrecks by 80?

Do most people not know any 80 year olds?
And what’s wrong with being decrepit or dribbling?

Bunch of ageist young whippersnappers. Don’t have the appreciation of a good dribble. Back when I was a boy we knew dribbling. And decrepit? Don’t talk to me about decrepit. Youngsters don’t know a thing about decrepit.

GET OFF MY LAWN!

Metta

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #52 on: January 03, 2020, 03:36:33 PM »
This is a present preoccupation for me. My mother is 82 and has a net worth of close to a million with a paid off condo. My father died three years ago and I've been helping her manage the money since that point. She's about as sharp as she's ever been and has a large circle of friends. She became a private detective in her 70s (mostly tracking down people for genealogists) and continues to do that. She still exercises and is quite healthy. So I am constantly doing the estimate of how long will she live, how long will her money last with her current level of spending, and answering questions like, "Metta, can I afford to buy this house?" or "Metta, can I afford to pay for summer camp for the grandkids?"

I estimate her life expectancy at 96, largely because I know that if the money runs out at that point, I can support her.  But it is a conundrum.

I also estimate my husband and my life expectancies at 100 for ease and because it is ultra-conservative. I'm ok not spending everything I have and leaving money behind.

TheAnonOne

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #53 on: January 03, 2020, 03:51:21 PM »
From the perspective of FIRE (which is presumably why we are here) I don't think this is as much of a 'game changer' as somewhat hyped.

If you go to the FIRE calculators the rate of failure from say 40 years of FIRE to 50 or 60 is pretty slim. FIRE success, due to sequence of returns risk, is decided in the first 15 years. If you make it beyond that, without looking like you got a failure starting year, you basically win for unlimited years.

I think people who FIRE are actually MORE likely to succeed into that 120 age range due to the fact that we save and invest early. Even after FIREing it seems like the majority of us cannot stop making money at least accidentally anyway.

cupcakery

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 154
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #54 on: January 03, 2020, 04:20:00 PM »
I'm planning for 100.  My great-grandmother lived into her 100s.  The rest of the grandparents and great-grandparents were in their 80s and 90s.  I take very good care of myself and so far, so good, have no medical issues.  So I figure I have to plan for that.  If it doesn't happen, the kids get a nicer inheritance.  :-)

Plina

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 663
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #55 on: January 04, 2020, 07:12:30 AM »
I'm planning financially for early to mid-90s and will spend these next 50 years trying to make sure I can utilize assisted suicide when needed. 

Many medical advances that have extended life recently have done just that...extended the duration of life.  But the quality of life?  They don't always go hand in hand.  I'm not confident medical advances over the next few decades will change that, and on this topic I really enjoyed Atul Gawande's book Being Mortal

I'd love to live however long is possible, if I could be in the shape and health I am in now.  But, the shape my father was in at age 60 (and 61, since medical advances kept him "alive" for a long time)?  The thought of being in that condition for any period of time at any age is like watching the scariest horror movie I can imagine.

This is my view also. I also enjoyed the book and it got me seriously thinking about the quality of life as my grandmother want into an assisted living facility. I really don’t want to end up living for a long time if I need help with everything and I have dementia. Basically all my grandparents have been in their eighties when they have passed away. I read last week an article about a doctor that thought that my country should look into to assisted suicide when you don’t longer have the quality of life due to health reasons or mental reasons. She told that her life had deterioted so much that she could not any longer do anything that brought her you. She could not read or listen to music due to medieval problem  so she would go to switzerland to get the help to die.

We talked about this with a friend of mine that had a mother in their late 80ies with stomach cancer in their last stage and who broke their hip when she got up during the night. She had surgery for her broken hip. My friend told that she didn’t know if to be happy her mother survived the hipsurgery or to hope that she had dies so that she had not need to spend her last weeks with a broken hip and cancer in a drug inducera state.

kpd905

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2029
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #56 on: January 04, 2020, 08:07:16 AM »
Actually life span in the US for the first time is decreasing. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20191127/Life-expectancy-in-the-United-States-steadily-decreasing.aspx  "The National Center for Health Statistics reported that US life expectancy peaked (78.9 years) in 2014 and subsequently decreased significantly for 3 consecutive years, reaching 78.6 years in 2017."

Not really surprising considering that about 2/3 of adults and 30% of children in the US are overweight or obese.  I wonder what the life expectancy would look like for a normal weight person if you could adjust for that.

Fru-Gal

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #57 on: January 04, 2020, 08:39:16 AM »
Quote
Side note – (assuming no major disability/disorder) improving one’s nutrition/physical condition is no different than improving cashflow allocations

Amen. Whether it's physical/mental health or health of the planet, we can apply the same MMM financial concepts to improve non-financial conditions. MMM has been saying it all along (indeed, some suspect that was always his point, but money was the attractor).

"Health is wealth" was our family's mantra long before we had any money (or medical insurance). Even *with* a major disability/disorder, or a planetary environmental disaster, we can and must act. And the irony is that acting gives us agency, and agency feels good. So DOING SOMETHING (taking the train, riding the bike, walking outside, planting food, cleaning the beach, etc.) is joyful.

zinnie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Location: Boston
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #58 on: January 04, 2020, 08:50:44 AM »
I usually put 105 in my calculations, and I never take Social Security into account. I figure that's enough of a buffer.

I'm also not of the mind that I'll never make another dime as long as I live. I'm going to do what I want, but I'm also someone that believes in contributing to society. And solving important problems is often compensated. What I don't plan to do again is work a 40+ hour week job where I have to go to an office and spend countless hours doing something that I don't enjoy or find fulfilling. THAT is the freedom of FIRE, for me.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17374
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #59 on: January 04, 2020, 09:07:07 AM »
Do most people actually think that they will be decrepit dribbling wrecks by 80?

Do most people not know any 80 year olds?
And what’s wrong with being decrepit or dribbling?

Bunch of ageist young whippersnappers. Don’t have the appreciation of a good dribble. Back when I was a boy we knew dribbling. And decrepit? Don’t talk to me about decrepit. Youngsters don’t know a thing about decrepit.

GET OFF MY LAWN!

lol

I do honestly wonder though how many 80+ folks people actually interact with. A lot of my patients in their mid 80s to 90s tend to be more active and vital than my middle aged patients. Why? Because most of the inactive and non vital ones are already dead, so there's a selection factor that actually makes the population quite a bit healthier as it ages.

That particularly healthy population tends to be taken out by cancer, because nothing else gets them, and the number one predictor of dying of cancer is being too healthy to die of anything else. So they tend to be quite healthy and quite active until cancer kills them.
I would say my typical 87-100 year old patient is slim, very physically active even if their movement is limited, and on minimal medications.

The decrepit ones I see are typically in their 60s and 70s, and they started going downhill in their 40s. Sometimes they make it into their 80s, but not usually for very long.

Now, this is just my personal experience of observing thousands of patients in my particular region, and my DH's experience of working in nursing home care in a nearby region, but the common sense of it stands that living quite long will naturally select for the healthier of the population, thereby self selecting for a more vital population among the very old.

So basically, if one expects to live a very long time, they should anticipate being less decrepit, not more.


Fru-Gal

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #60 on: January 04, 2020, 09:15:52 AM »
Wow, fantastic perspective, @Malkynn!

Now, we have several long-term cancer survivors in our family.

Ya know what, I was gonna ask a question that I don't want to know the answer to. So never mind!

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7400
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #61 on: January 04, 2020, 09:25:09 AM »
I think an annuity could be a decent investment but my brief research showed that most lifetime annuities really only go to 110. The well capitalized insurance companies obviously don't want to take the risk of some scientific breakthrough that destroys their actuarial tables by extending everyone's lifespans by decades.

Huh. This is completely new information to me, thank you!

I'm not particularly optimistic either about my personal longevity (based on family history) or the odds of such a major scientific breakthrough, but fascinating to know that someone at an insurance company was thinking through the long tail of possible futures and thought to cap their risk that way.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #62 on: January 04, 2020, 09:33:45 AM »
From the perspective of FIRE (which is presumably why we are here) I don't think this is as much of a 'game changer' as somewhat hyped.

If you go to the FIRE calculators the rate of failure from say 40 years of FIRE to 50 or 60 is pretty slim. FIRE success, due to sequence of returns risk, is decided in the first 15 years. If you make it beyond that, without looking like you got a failure starting year, you basically win for unlimited years.

I think people who FIRE are actually MORE likely to succeed into that 120 age range due to the fact that we save and invest early. Even after FIREing it seems like the majority of us cannot stop making money at least accidentally anyway.

I’m slowly coming to the conclusion that a 3% WR and a diversified portfolio across asset classes and countries (heavy equities) is a perpetual money generating machine.

TheAnonOne

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #63 on: January 04, 2020, 09:50:40 AM »
From the perspective of FIRE (which is presumably why we are here) I don't think this is as much of a 'game changer' as somewhat hyped.

If you go to the FIRE calculators the rate of failure from say 40 years of FIRE to 50 or 60 is pretty slim. FIRE success, due to sequence of returns risk, is decided in the first 15 years. If you make it beyond that, without looking like you got a failure starting year, you basically win for unlimited years.

I think people who FIRE are actually MORE likely to succeed into that 120 age range due to the fact that we save and invest early. Even after FIREing it seems like the majority of us cannot stop making money at least accidentally anyway.

I’m slowly coming to the conclusion that a 3% WR and a diversified portfolio across asset classes and countries (heavy equities) is a perpetual money generating machine.

From the perspective of FIRE it probably is. I don't think you even need to get down to 3%. High 3.X% and the tiniest sliver of luck from a starting year perspective should be enough.

Again even 4 or 5% will make it if you expect to generate SOME cash eventually or, include even 50% of your expected SS income.

The "living too long" problem is hardly an issue for folks here on this board. Imagine you are living off of savings, draining accounts like many retirees. It will be an issue for society, but humans are ingenious enough.

DireWolf

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #64 on: January 04, 2020, 12:08:09 PM »
For FireCalc and the like, I've typically used age 95, which I suppose I based on the Trinity Study's 30 year retirement from age 65. No one in my family has even lived that long, but we live in different times. Between my wife and I, we have 3 living parents. 2 have no real serious medical issues, and the oldest of those 2 is already into his 80s. I could see one of them making it to 100. No telling where medicine/treatments could be in a generation.

I'm retired now at 51, and I'll (or a surviving spouse will) have a fairly sizable SS check eventually (I had 35 non-zero years and about 25 or so were at the max). I now have a health issue that will likely end with me dying in the next 10 years, but for planning I couldn't discount the chance of a medical breakthrough. I wanted SS+pension+annuity income to set a floor in case of extreme longevity. So even if the portfolio happens to run dry, there's something there. I've had to do a lot of simulations with me passing early to make sure spouse was in good shape financially.

I used to always use 100% on FireCalc. Once I was diagnosed with what I have, I decided 95% was acceptable. Hunkered down on saving and cutting expenses and got out as soon as I could. So glad I did.

Linea_Norway

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8569
  • Location: Norway
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #65 on: January 04, 2020, 12:42:55 PM »
My father died at age 50 from cancer. My mother is 70 and healthy. All my grandparents reached age 75, including a heavy smoking grandfather and pasdively smoking grandmother. My other grandfather reached 82.

DH)s father is 75 and at good health. His mother died last year in her 70-ies after some years of dementia. She lived very unhealthily. DH is living a lot more healthily than his mother.

I personally think society will collapse in a few decades because of global heating and it`s consequences on many aspects. I don't expect to want to survive for long in a post apocalypse society.

We have saved for the next 20 years, after which we will get our governmental person and a bit of private pension. We rely on that being enough to live off in the future. But those private pensions will only provide for 10 years. We might get two inheritances and we could eat up our house. I am not worrying too much, because of the possible collapse.

MissNancyPryor

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
  • The Stewardess is Flying the Plane!
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #66 on: January 04, 2020, 12:52:29 PM »
I am going to expire precisely at age 97. 

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #67 on: January 04, 2020, 01:23:21 PM »
Do most people actually think that they will be decrepit dribbling wrecks by 80?

Do most people not know any 80 year olds?
And what’s wrong with being decrepit or dribbling?

Bunch of ageist young whippersnappers. Don’t have the appreciation of a good dribble. Back when I was a boy we knew dribbling. And decrepit? Don’t talk to me about decrepit. Youngsters don’t know a thing about decrepit.

GET OFF MY LAWN!

lol

I do honestly wonder though how many 80+ folks people actually interact with. A lot of my patients in their mid 80s to 90s tend to be more active and vital than my middle aged patients. Why? Because most of the inactive and non vital ones are already dead, so there's a selection factor that actually makes the population quite a bit healthier as it ages.

That particularly healthy population tends to be taken out by cancer, because nothing else gets them, and the number one predictor of dying of cancer is being too healthy to die of anything else. So they tend to be quite healthy and quite active until cancer kills them.
I would say my typical 87-100 year old patient is slim, very physically active even if their movement is limited, and on minimal medications.

The decrepit ones I see are typically in their 60s and 70s, and they started going downhill in their 40s. Sometimes they make it into their 80s, but not usually for very long.

Now, this is just my personal experience of observing thousands of patients in my particular region, and my DH's experience of working in nursing home care in a nearby region, but the common sense of it stands that living quite long will naturally select for the healthier of the population, thereby self selecting for a more vital population among the very old.

So basically, if one expects to live a very long time, they should anticipate being less decrepit, not more.

Spot on. That’s been my observation as well. Folks who are really old and active seem to be doing just fine until right before they die.  It’s the folks in their 60s and 70s who look like they’re going to keel over. I first started noticing it in nursing homes; a lot of the folks in the ones I’ve been in are surprisingly young. There weren’t a lot of really old people. Instead I see them out walking around my (very transitional) neighborhood. They’re survivors.

I joke about ageism but I did something recently that’s unusual for me. Joined an organization because of something they were working to change in the culture. I joined AARP, primarily because of what they’re doing to address ageism. And what I like is that they’re approaching it from both ends of the age spectrum. I remember how it used to drive me nuts as a very young man when I couldn’t do “x” because I didn’t meet some arbitrary age requirement. It’s complete BS. If you can do the task, who cares what the date is on your birth certificate?

I do plan on being around long enough to embarrass my kids well into their middle age and my wife well into her 80s. So, arrange finances accordingly.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #68 on: January 04, 2020, 02:36:56 PM »
Do most people actually think that they will be decrepit dribbling wrecks by 80?

Do most people not know any 80 year olds?
And what’s wrong with being decrepit or dribbling?

Bunch of ageist young whippersnappers. Don’t have the appreciation of a good dribble. Back when I was a boy we knew dribbling. And decrepit? Don’t talk to me about decrepit. Youngsters don’t know a thing about decrepit.

GET OFF MY LAWN!

lol

I do honestly wonder though how many 80+ folks people actually interact with. A lot of my patients in their mid 80s to 90s tend to be more active and vital than my middle aged patients. Why? Because most of the inactive and non vital ones are already dead, so there's a selection factor that actually makes the population quite a bit healthier as it ages.

That particularly healthy population tends to be taken out by cancer, because nothing else gets them, and the number one predictor of dying of cancer is being too healthy to die of anything else. So they tend to be quite healthy and quite active until cancer kills them.
I would say my typical 87-100 year old patient is slim, very physically active even if their movement is limited, and on minimal medications.

The decrepit ones I see are typically in their 60s and 70s, and they started going downhill in their 40s. Sometimes they make it into their 80s, but not usually for very long.

Now, this is just my personal experience of observing thousands of patients in my particular region, and my DH's experience of working in nursing home care in a nearby region, but the common sense of it stands that living quite long will naturally select for the healthier of the population, thereby self selecting for a more vital population among the very old.

So basically, if one expects to live a very long time, they should anticipate being less decrepit, not more.

Spot on. That’s been my observation as well. Folks who are really old and active seem to be doing just fine until right before they die.  It’s the folks in their 60s and 70s who look like they’re going to keel over. I first started noticing it in nursing homes; a lot of the folks in the ones I’ve been in are surprisingly young. There weren’t a lot of really old people. Instead I see them out walking around my (very transitional) neighborhood. They’re survivors.

I joke about ageism but I did something recently that’s unusual for me. Joined an organization because of something they were working to change in the culture. I joined AARP, primarily because of what they’re doing to address ageism. And what I like is that they’re approaching it from both ends of the age spectrum. I remember how it used to drive me nuts as a very young man when I couldn’t do “x” because I didn’t meet some arbitrary age requirement. It’s complete BS. If you can do the task, who cares what the date is on your birth certificate?

I do plan on being around long enough to embarrass my kids well into their middle age and my wife well into her 80s. So, arrange finances accordingly.

I've only got experience with my family.  All the men on mom's side have died of heart problems before 60.  On the other side, my father and uncle have both reached 70 now, but both have had multiple heart attacks.  My grandmother and both great aunts lived into their late 80s, but all three developed dementia at some point in their 70s and were unable to recognize anyone they knew by 80.  On my dad's side my grandmother was doing great until she was struck by a car at 85 and broke her hip.  She never really recovered from that and declined physically and mentally until she passed away in her early 90s.

Maybe being closely involved with care for the two eldest women in my family has warped my view of things, but my experience is not as rosy a picture as yours.

Bernard

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 247
  • Age: 66
  • Location: Ojai Valley, Calif.
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #69 on: January 04, 2020, 03:13:25 PM »
I personally think society will collapse in a few decades because of global heating and it`s consequences on many aspects. I don't expect to want to survive for long in a post apocalypse society.

I agree. In about 1,000 years, temperatures in Norway in the summer will be on the level that folks in Arizona now have in the winter. It will be hard to adapt for Norwegians and Eskimos, no doubt. But there's a way to avoid that: higher and more taxes, something Norwegians are used to.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17374
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #70 on: January 05, 2020, 07:01:14 AM »
Do most people actually think that they will be decrepit dribbling wrecks by 80?

Do most people not know any 80 year olds?
And what’s wrong with being decrepit or dribbling?

Bunch of ageist young whippersnappers. Don’t have the appreciation of a good dribble. Back when I was a boy we knew dribbling. And decrepit? Don’t talk to me about decrepit. Youngsters don’t know a thing about decrepit.

GET OFF MY LAWN!

lol

I do honestly wonder though how many 80+ folks people actually interact with. A lot of my patients in their mid 80s to 90s tend to be more active and vital than my middle aged patients. Why? Because most of the inactive and non vital ones are already dead, so there's a selection factor that actually makes the population quite a bit healthier as it ages.

That particularly healthy population tends to be taken out by cancer, because nothing else gets them, and the number one predictor of dying of cancer is being too healthy to die of anything else. So they tend to be quite healthy and quite active until cancer kills them.
I would say my typical 87-100 year old patient is slim, very physically active even if their movement is limited, and on minimal medications.

The decrepit ones I see are typically in their 60s and 70s, and they started going downhill in their 40s. Sometimes they make it into their 80s, but not usually for very long.

Now, this is just my personal experience of observing thousands of patients in my particular region, and my DH's experience of working in nursing home care in a nearby region, but the common sense of it stands that living quite long will naturally select for the healthier of the population, thereby self selecting for a more vital population among the very old.

So basically, if one expects to live a very long time, they should anticipate being less decrepit, not more.

Spot on. That’s been my observation as well. Folks who are really old and active seem to be doing just fine until right before they die.  It’s the folks in their 60s and 70s who look like they’re going to keel over. I first started noticing it in nursing homes; a lot of the folks in the ones I’ve been in are surprisingly young. There weren’t a lot of really old people. Instead I see them out walking around my (very transitional) neighborhood. They’re survivors.

I joke about ageism but I did something recently that’s unusual for me. Joined an organization because of something they were working to change in the culture. I joined AARP, primarily because of what they’re doing to address ageism. And what I like is that they’re approaching it from both ends of the age spectrum. I remember how it used to drive me nuts as a very young man when I couldn’t do “x” because I didn’t meet some arbitrary age requirement. It’s complete BS. If you can do the task, who cares what the date is on your birth certificate?

I do plan on being around long enough to embarrass my kids well into their middle age and my wife well into her 80s. So, arrange finances accordingly.

I've only got experience with my family.  All the men on mom's side have died of heart problems before 60.  On the other side, my father and uncle have both reached 70 now, but both have had multiple heart attacks.  My grandmother and both great aunts lived into their late 80s, but all three developed dementia at some point in their 70s and were unable to recognize anyone they knew by 80.  On my dad's side my grandmother was doing great until she was struck by a car at 85 and broke her hip.  She never really recovered from that and declined physically and mentally until she passed away in her early 90s.

Maybe being closely involved with care for the two eldest women in my family has warped my view of things, but my experience is not as rosy a picture as yours.

Lol, my view isn't rosy, my point is that decrepitude tends to happen much younger than most people realize, and those who live very long tend to be the ones that are much much healthier. How is it rosy that I pointed out that the super seniors, those 85+, tend to be much healthier because everyone less healthy is already dead?

How is it rosy that I said that these people are typically more vital than my middle aged patients? What does that say about the observable decline that I see so early in people?

I have some really vital patients in their 80s who are actually full time caregivers to their own children.

Having a vision of steady decline until dribbling decrepitude in your 80s and beyond just isn't accurate. That doesn't make reality rosy.

teen persuasion

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1226
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #71 on: January 05, 2020, 03:16:06 PM »
I plan to at least 105 (many programs won't let me go any higher).

My maternal great aunt lived to 102.  My father and mother are both healthy and active, dad nearly 90 and mom 10 years younger.  They both have active, healthy siblings well into their 90s.

One of our favorite patrons at work is 100.  She is mentally sharp as a tack, and a sweetheart (who tells it's like it is).  She's now using a walker for stability, but she's determined to get around under her own power.  We were thrilled when she made sure to attend the library's 90th birthday celebration this past summer.  We don't see her as often as in the recent past (when she was still driving herself) but we make sure to find a way to bring any requested new books to her house for her.  I want to be Virginia when I grow up.

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5206
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #72 on: January 06, 2020, 10:18:15 AM »
I am not sure if living a very long life, in good health, is a boon or a curse.

In the last 9 generations in our family (I don't know of details before that), all males have lived past 97, and the females seem to die in 80s.

Grandpa seemed quite miserable in the 15 years he spend after Grandma died at 80. All his friends were dead.  And then their children started dying out. He was very healthy for a 90+-year-old, but hard of hearing.

He always complained about having nobody to talk to!

Come to think about it, I am not sure I will be very happy in that situation either!!

Now, if everyone lived past 100 then that would likely be different!

I think multigenerational family units would decide if a boon or a curse. Regarding my great grandfather, my mother told me that he confessed after he reached mid, late 80's that he was lonely. His wife was dead and all his friends and contemporaries were gone as well.  OTOH my grandmother lived first with my family and then with my aunt and uncle. She was surrounded by family and lived a productive life until the end (kept up with housekeeping, her crocheting and her garden until literally the day before she died).

The funny advice my yiayia told me (she kept considering moving down to live with her sister, but her sister at age 92 developed some health problems so yiayia decided to stay put).  She kicked herself that she didn't make a decision earlier and told me:
"If you want to do something, do it before you are 90! Otherwise it might be too late." 
« Last Edit: January 06, 2020, 10:27:23 AM by partgypsy »

coynemoney

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #73 on: January 06, 2020, 12:29:17 PM »
I plan on completing the Centenarian Olympics (https://sdbj.net/centenarian/) with at least a few mill in the bank.

stoaX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Location: South Carolina
  • 'tis nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #74 on: January 06, 2020, 01:17:20 PM »
I project out to age 100 to make sure the stash is sufficient.  Even though it is statistically unlikely that I will live that long, it provides some margin for peace of mind.  Also, I need the stash to last long enough for whoever lives the longest - me or Mrs. StoaX. 

In a decade or so I may look into an annuity to cover the unlikely event that we live past 100. 

dougules

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2899
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #75 on: January 06, 2020, 02:47:36 PM »
I project out to age 100 to make sure the stash is sufficient.  Even though it is statistically unlikely that I will live that long, it provides some margin for peace of mind.  Also, I need the stash to last long enough for whoever lives the longest - me or Mrs. StoaX. 

In a decade or so I may look into an annuity to cover the unlikely event that we live past 100.

You don't necessarily need an annuity.  Mutual funds with a conservative safe withdrawal rate will cover you indefinitely. 

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #76 on: January 06, 2020, 04:40:52 PM »
We each have a pension with Cola’s so don’t worry about money. On any forum most people assume and plan to 100 that I have been on. It makes me laugh when you look at actual numbers of how long people live.  I have lost 4 friends with very healthy lifestyles between ages 59-67 all to cancer.  At 65 I hope to have 20 more years. 

stoaX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Location: South Carolina
  • 'tis nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #77 on: February 09, 2020, 02:24:35 PM »
I project out to age 100 to make sure the stash is sufficient.  Even though it is statistically unlikely that I will live that long, it provides some margin for peace of mind.  Also, I need the stash to last long enough for whoever lives the longest - me or Mrs. StoaX. 

In a decade or so I may look into an annuity to cover the unlikely event that we live past 100.

You don't necessarily need an annuity.  Mutual funds with a conservative safe withdrawal rate will cover you indefinitely.

Yup, agreed.   And Cassie is certainly right that planning for age 100 is, statistically speaking, overkill.

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5206
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #78 on: February 09, 2020, 03:27:05 PM »
Do most people actually think that they will be decrepit dribbling wrecks by 80?

Do most people not know any 80 year olds?
And what’s wrong with being decrepit or dribbling?

Bunch of ageist young whippersnappers. Don’t have the appreciation of a good dribble. Back when I was a boy we knew dribbling. And decrepit? Don’t talk to me about decrepit. Youngsters don’t know a thing about decrepit.

GET OFF MY LAWN!

lol

I do honestly wonder though how many 80+ folks people actually interact with. A lot of my patients in their mid 80s to 90s tend to be more active and vital than my middle aged patients. Why? Because most of the inactive and non vital ones are already dead, so there's a selection factor that actually makes the population quite a bit healthier as it ages.

That particularly healthy population tends to be taken out by cancer, because nothing else gets them, and the number one predictor of dying of cancer is being too healthy to die of anything else. So they tend to be quite healthy and quite active until cancer kills them.
I would say my typical 87-100 year old patient is slim, very physically active even if their movement is limited, and on minimal medications.

The decrepit ones I see are typically in their 60s and 70s, and they started going downhill in their 40s. Sometimes they make it into their 80s, but not usually for very long.

Now, this is just my personal experience of observing thousands of patients in my particular region, and my DH's experience of working in nursing home care in a nearby region, but the common sense of it stands that living quite long will naturally select for the healthier of the population, thereby self selecting for a more vital population among the very old.

So basically, if one expects to live a very long time, they should anticipate being less decrepit, not more.

Also, heart. Both my great grandfather and grandmother (died 94, 92 years of age) living their regular life either day of death or day before death, considered to be doing fine by their doctors, but their heart went into failure. I don't know how common that is.

Found an infographic
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-youre-most-likely-to-die-at-every-age-2018-6#heres-a-map-of-what-to-watch-out-for-from-age-0-to-65notice-that-most-deaths-that-occur-before-age-45-are-likely-to-be-caused-by-accidents-1


 
« Last Edit: February 09, 2020, 03:29:12 PM by partgypsy »

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17374
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #79 on: February 09, 2020, 04:21:45 PM »
Do most people actually think that they will be decrepit dribbling wrecks by 80?

Do most people not know any 80 year olds?
And what’s wrong with being decrepit or dribbling?

Bunch of ageist young whippersnappers. Don’t have the appreciation of a good dribble. Back when I was a boy we knew dribbling. And decrepit? Don’t talk to me about decrepit. Youngsters don’t know a thing about decrepit.

GET OFF MY LAWN!

lol

I do honestly wonder though how many 80+ folks people actually interact with. A lot of my patients in their mid 80s to 90s tend to be more active and vital than my middle aged patients. Why? Because most of the inactive and non vital ones are already dead, so there's a selection factor that actually makes the population quite a bit healthier as it ages.

That particularly healthy population tends to be taken out by cancer, because nothing else gets them, and the number one predictor of dying of cancer is being too healthy to die of anything else. So they tend to be quite healthy and quite active until cancer kills them.
I would say my typical 87-100 year old patient is slim, very physically active even if their movement is limited, and on minimal medications.

The decrepit ones I see are typically in their 60s and 70s, and they started going downhill in their 40s. Sometimes they make it into their 80s, but not usually for very long.

Now, this is just my personal experience of observing thousands of patients in my particular region, and my DH's experience of working in nursing home care in a nearby region, but the common sense of it stands that living quite long will naturally select for the healthier of the population, thereby self selecting for a more vital population among the very old.

So basically, if one expects to live a very long time, they should anticipate being less decrepit, not more.

Also, heart. Both my great grandfather and grandmother (died 94, 92 years of age) living their regular life either day of death or day before death, considered to be doing fine by their doctors, but their heart went into failure. I don't know how common that is.

Found an infographic
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-youre-most-likely-to-die-at-every-age-2018-6#heres-a-map-of-what-to-watch-out-for-from-age-0-to-65notice-that-most-deaths-that-occur-before-age-45-are-likely-to-be-caused-by-accidents-1


 

It's not uncommon to have a very diseased heart but have absolutely no signs that would show up in routine medical exams, which is how heart attacks out of nowhere tend to happen.

G-String

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #80 on: February 09, 2020, 04:34:21 PM »
My dad just turned 70 and looks and acts like he's in his 40's. He's still very active, bicycles year round including in winter. I'm very impressed with my parents at their age. But they're very health conscious.

Dave1442397

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Location: NJ
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #81 on: February 09, 2020, 05:39:18 PM »
I just read this book - https://www.amazon.com/Future-Faster-Than-You-Think/dp/B07TSQF4RX/ref=sr_1_1?crid=39H05TFOK69G6&keywords=the+future+is+faster+than+you+think&qid=1581294923&sprefix=the+futture+i%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-1

I do think we're on the verge of sweeping changes that will improve medical care and increase longevity while keeping us healthy and active.

sixwings

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #82 on: February 09, 2020, 09:12:50 PM »
I just read this book - https://www.amazon.com/Future-Faster-Than-You-Think/dp/B07TSQF4RX/ref=sr_1_1?crid=39H05TFOK69G6&keywords=the+future+is+faster+than+you+think&qid=1581294923&sprefix=the+futture+i%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-1

I do think we're on the verge of sweeping changes that will improve medical care and increase longevity while keeping us healthy and active.

yup. I'm 32 in a wealthy country, as long as I continue to stay fit, active and healthy I expect that I will be 100 minmum. Possibly 150, small outside chance of longer than that. (Rich)People being born now probably longer than that.

We really can't even imagine where healthcare will be at in 2090. Like, people from the 1950s couldnt imagine the healthcare that we have now. Further, AI/machine learning is really just starting to take off in medical care as data becomes easier to gather, analyze and interpret. The growth in medical tech is going to be exponential (for rich people/countries). 

Lucky13

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 131
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #83 on: February 09, 2020, 09:39:39 PM »
I've been thinking a lot about this. I'm not sure I want longer than 30 years in retirement. If I can have 30 years happy healthy financial sound retirement, I will feel very grateful. If I can start in my mid-forties instead of my mid-sixties, so much the better!  I expect my money to last until I'm 80 and beyond, but as for my motivation, energy, mental faculties, that's going to decline for sure, knowing myself and my family history.

2sk22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1487
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #84 on: February 10, 2020, 07:14:03 AM »
Along the path I found that Maslow was close… but we can do so much better.  In order to live a happy life I need, in the following order to seek to always improve upon:
Physical
- Sleep
- Nutrition
- Exercise
Mental
- Problem Solving
- New knowledge
- Acts of Creation
Spiritual
- Community & family (giving and taking, along with expanding to folks of differing backgrounds)
- Internal (meditation & nature)
- Integrity
Financial
- Applying Valuism to today
- Looking to tomorrow (goals are Fi & provide children with the tools to live their own lives outside of the societal norm).

This is a fantastic summary of objectives - aligns quite closely with my own. Is this an original formulation ?

Sugaree

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1665
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #85 on: February 10, 2020, 07:23:04 AM »
Right now, my projections have my money lasting until I'm 102.  One side of the family is made up of fairly long-lived people (85-90) and the other, not so much.  So, it's kind of a crapshoot as to which genes I got.  I'm trying to keep my health in check and hope for the best. 

vand

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
  • Location: UK
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #86 on: February 10, 2020, 07:36:52 AM »
Some nice charts illustrating the progression of life expectancy:

https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7400
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #87 on: February 10, 2020, 07:44:27 AM »
Some nice charts illustrating the progression of life expectancy:

https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy

A useful website but for anyone reading definitely make sure to scroll all the way through. The first charts look more hopeful. The later ones illustrates the problem with expecting current trends in increasing life expectancy to continue or accelerate going into the future.

Life expectancy at birth has doubled in the last two centuries. But in the last 150 years (as far back as we have the more granual data), life expectancy for someone who has already made it to age 70 has only increased by about 6 years.



Most of the increase in life expectancy to date has resulted from a big decrease in how many people die before age 50.

Much Fishing to Do

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #88 on: February 10, 2020, 07:52:44 AM »
I think for the very early retiree, it makes almost no difference to your thinking -- planning for 50 years is basically the same as planning for forever on a practical level. So I'm planning on living forever. Now if you're 65, there's a big difference between planing on 15 years or 30 years.


+1

Before considering FIRE I always thought the 4% SWR rule of thumb was pretty uninspiring & ridiculous to even consider (if retiring at 65 withdrawing 4%/year from an invested 60/40 I have a 95+% chance of not running out of money?  Why wouldn't I just put it in something that guarantees growth with inflation and I know it will last till I'm 90, which I always considered well beyond my life expectancy as I've never heard of a family member of mine living beyond that yet).  When researching FIRE I'd see how just reducing this to something closer to 3-3.5% gave you more of a perpetual safe rate...to me that was much more interesting & helpful to know, both because of retiring early and now realizing more that future healthcare advancements may possibly make my family history not as convincing that I will not see 90 or 100.


vand

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
  • Location: UK
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #89 on: February 10, 2020, 07:54:21 AM »
I project out to age 100 to make sure the stash is sufficient.  Even though it is statistically unlikely that I will live that long, it provides some margin for peace of mind.  Also, I need the stash to last long enough for whoever lives the longest - me or Mrs. StoaX. 

In a decade or so I may look into an annuity to cover the unlikely event that we live past 100.

You don't necessarily need an annuity.  Mutual funds with a conservative safe withdrawal rate will cover you indefinitely.

Yup, agreed.   And Cassie is certainly right that planning for age 100 is, statistically speaking, overkill.

Define overkill..

If planning for 100 is overkill then so too is using a 4% drawdown rate for your portfolio. It's two sides of the same coin..

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17374
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #90 on: February 10, 2020, 08:44:11 AM »
Some nice charts illustrating the progression of life expectancy:

https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy

A useful website but for anyone reading definitely make sure to scroll all the way through. The first charts look more hopeful. The later ones illustrates the problem with expecting current trends in increasing life expectancy to continue or accelerate going into the future.

Life expectancy at birth has doubled in the last two centuries. But in the last 150 years (as far back as we have the more granual data), life expectancy for someone who has already made it to age 70 has only increased by about 6 years.



Most of the increase in life expectancy to date has resulted from a big decrease in how many people die before age 50.

This is exactly what I see with my patient population.

Most of my middle aged patients are not healthy enough to live to 100, and if they do, it won't be with bones, joints or organs that work all that well. And I work in an affluent area where regular medical care is the norm.

I see very, very, very few patients whom I would describe as having a balanced and healthy lifestyle.

The degree of repair that technology would have to be able to pull off to dramatically extend their lives would be Star Trek level.

We are getting better and better at keeping people alive to their max potential age, but I have yet to see anything that is actually extending that potential.

The big killers aren't killing us as young, but our lifestyles are wearing out our parts faster.

It's not at all impossible, but it's in the same realm of the kind of technological advancement we would need to combat climate change without addressing our carbon rich lifestyle.

Fru-Gal

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #91 on: February 12, 2020, 08:35:55 PM »
Quote
The big killers aren't killing us as young, but our lifestyles are wearing out our parts faster.

Can you explain? Sedentary lifestyles? Do you mean *disuse* or atrophy are wearing out our parts?

Aside from cancer, which is primarily a disease of the aged.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17374
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #92 on: February 13, 2020, 05:15:54 AM »
Quote
The big killers aren't killing us as young, but our lifestyles are wearing out our parts faster.

Can you explain? Sedentary lifestyles? Do you mean *disuse* or atrophy are wearing out our parts?

Aside from cancer, which is primarily a disease of the aged.

Disuse, use, diet, smoking, alcohol, other drugs, chronic inflammation, etc, etc.

I remember having an "aha" moment with my sports medicine doctor when a CT scan of my injured shoulder revealed degeneration in my upper spine, I was 33.
I asked "should I be concerned?"
And he said "not really, that's normal for your age and how much you exercise"
I said "are you saying that my moderate level of exercise is damaging my spine?"
Him "yep, it's normal wear and tear, especially when there's weight lifting involved"
Me "just to be clear, this would be better if I didn't lift weights?"
Him "absolutely?"
Me "So should I stop lifting weights?"
Him "Oh definitely not, your spine will wear out a lot faster in a different way if you don't do weight bearing exercise"
Me "So it's a matter of choosing the lifestyle that wears out my spine the slowest?"
Him "Pretty much"

Life wears out all of your parts, your bones, yours joints, your circulatory system, and your organs.

Also, I would say that your assessment that cancer is primarily a disease of the aged is not quite accurate. Many many many of my younger patients have had cancer. I got cancer at 28, DH at 41.

Sure, more people get cancer older, but that's just because everyone will get cancer if they live long enough. I always say, the number one cause of cancer is failing to die of anything else first. People develop a lot more cancer cells than they realize, but the immune system deals with them first. It's just a matter of time before one of those gets past the goalie though, especially since T cell function worsens over time as well.

Yep! The immune system itself wears out.

Hearts get enlarged, blood vessels get stiffer, pancreases can stop working properly, gallbladders can get sludgy or get stones, as can kidneys, uteruses fall right out of vaginas, cartilage degrades, bones turn to Swiss cheese, nerves get inflamed, brains get all sorts of problems, vision degrades, skin thins and dries out, etc, etc

I did the first two years of med school and one by one, we went over each component of the body and how it breaks down over time. Basically, you hit 25 and then it's just a race against time trying to slow the breakdown of every single part of you.

Getting old isn't something that happens to old people, it starts in their 20s and is heavily modulated by lifestyle in middle age. With our population having an epidemic of midlife habits that promote chronic inflammation, it's not really looking good on the wear and tear front.

I see very very few optimally healthy middle age patients. I even get a little excited when I see a good blood pressure reading. I'm regularly seeing elevated blood pressures in late 20s patients.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2020, 05:17:41 AM by Malkynn »

dodojojo

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 806
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #93 on: February 13, 2020, 07:34:15 AM »
i plan out to 100.....Mom turns 98 this month.....I do not expect to live as long as she has for a couple of reasons (1) I have no children - so I won't have the support system she has, (2) I don't think I've lived as healthy a life she has....but there is longevity on both sides of the family, although there is heart disease on both sides.   My biggest concern is living 10-20 years in poor health.   Or even worse - dementia.   My mother is in a long term care facility, she has very slight dementia, but some of the folks there really make me fear for my future......we treat our pets more humanly than our elderly.   By that, I mean that we keep people alive much longer than their quality of life dictates.

Because I will have to pay for many of the services I do for my mother, I have built that in to my projected costs.   I also assume, that since I don't have a bulldog of a daughter, my outcome of any health issue will not be as positive as my mother's.    (okay, this has gotten depressing for me)

My financial plan is to convert some of my assets to annuities when I get closer to 80, to lessen the risk of running out of money, but also, to lessen the risk of not being able to manage my money.   

I worry alot about what will happen to Canada's universal health care.   I don't see the current system sustainable as the boomers age.    (for non-Canadians - prescriptions are nearly free for those over 65 (small co-pay), doctors, hospitals are free, basic long term care is very affordable)

Wow, had to double-triple check this wasn't my post.  Other than not being Canadian, I'm in the same boat. 

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5206
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #94 on: February 13, 2020, 08:55:27 AM »
This article made me think of this thread. https://nationalpost.com/news/world/historys-oldest-woman-a-fraud-theory-says-122-year-old-jeanne-calment-was-actually-a-99-year-old-imposter

I think they need more proof to say she is a fraud. At the same time no one has yet touched her record. So us living naturally to 100, 110?  I think that will always be exceedingly rare, unless there is some kind of medical/technological/genetic change in the way we live our lives. Which honestly I am kind of against, because it would create a two tier society (those who live natural lives, and those who can afford to live unnaturally extended lives). 


Secret to longevity? walk every day. Up until 3 or so years ago I didn't drive. I've always been told I look younger than my years (and younger than my twin sister).  Once I got a car and stopped walking every day, my body literally felt older, started gain around my waist, like accelerated aging. So now I am deliberately trying to get more physical activity in, get back to where I was.   My dad who is a healthy 87 year old, used to run, then jog, now does a combination of weight bearing activities and walking which he always has done. When he visits his brother in florida, every day literally walks for hours. He stays at a small island and basically walks around the island. He walks to some place to get a newspaper and read with a cup a coffee. Then walks back. But each leg is a 1-2 hours long. Anyways I just strongly feel living in communities or neighborhoods where you can walk to places is more humane and sensible than places you have to drive everywhere. I hate sprawl
« Last Edit: February 13, 2020, 09:08:50 AM by partgypsy »

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17374
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #95 on: February 13, 2020, 06:21:34 PM »
Thanks for the explanation. Yes I know cancer hits young people too, that's come up in our family and it was/is fucking awful.

Since you are a doctor, and based on other things you have written (so sorry to hear about your cancer) your perspective is accurate for many. Do you agree there is a selection bias in the population you are seeing in the first place? Genetics accounts for a lot too.

I have an unconventional, evidence-based philosophy about aging, but realize most people don't want to hear it. Health wealth is like stealth wealth, I guess.

I've gone around the sun more times than most give me credit for. A few decades ago I had no idea how great I'd feel now.  It's like a secret weapon. Compound interest for the body and mind.

Oh here I go again banging on about it. I hope my words inspire someone.

No, I don't agree that there is a selection bias in my treatment population that would predispose them to being less healthy. In fact, I would expect the opposite based on the population compared to national averages.

Beyond that, I really can't tell what you are trying to say in your reply other than that you don't seem to agree with what I'm saying, which is fine, you do you, I'm glad you feel optimally healthy.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #96 on: February 15, 2020, 02:15:31 PM »
Quote
The big killers aren't killing us as young, but our lifestyles are wearing out our parts faster.

Can you explain? Sedentary lifestyles? Do you mean *disuse* or atrophy are wearing out our parts?

Aside from cancer, which is primarily a disease of the aged.

Disuse, use, diet, smoking, alcohol, other drugs, chronic inflammation, etc, etc.

I remember having an "aha" moment with my sports medicine doctor when a CT scan of my injured shoulder revealed degeneration in my upper spine, I was 33.
I asked "should I be concerned?"
And he said "not really, that's normal for your age and how much you exercise"
I said "are you saying that my moderate level of exercise is damaging my spine?"
Him "yep, it's normal wear and tear, especially when there's weight lifting involved"
Me "just to be clear, this would be better if I didn't lift weights?"
Him "absolutely?"
Me "So should I stop lifting weights?"
Him "Oh definitely not, your spine will wear out a lot faster in a different way if you don't do weight bearing exercise"
Me "So it's a matter of choosing the lifestyle that wears out my spine the slowest?"
Him "Pretty much"

Life wears out all of your parts, your bones, yours joints, your circulatory system, and your organs.

Also, I would say that your assessment that cancer is primarily a disease of the aged is not quite accurate. Many many many of my younger patients have had cancer. I got cancer at 28, DH at 41.

Sure, more people get cancer older, but that's just because everyone will get cancer if they live long enough. I always say, the number one cause of cancer is failing to die of anything else first. People develop a lot more cancer cells than they realize, but the immune system deals with them first. It's just a matter of time before one of those gets past the goalie though, especially since T cell function worsens over time as well.

Yep! The immune system itself wears out.

Hearts get enlarged, blood vessels get stiffer, pancreases can stop working properly, gallbladders can get sludgy or get stones, as can kidneys, uteruses fall right out of vaginas, cartilage degrades, bones turn to Swiss cheese, nerves get inflamed, brains get all sorts of problems, vision degrades, skin thins and dries out, etc, etc

I did the first two years of med school and one by one, we went over each component of the body and how it breaks down over time. Basically, you hit 25 and then it's just a race against time trying to slow the breakdown of every single part of you.

Getting old isn't something that happens to old people, it starts in their 20s and is heavily modulated by lifestyle in middle age. With our population having an epidemic of midlife habits that promote chronic inflammation, it's not really looking good on the wear and tear front.

I see very very few optimally healthy middle age patients. I even get a little excited when I see a good blood pressure reading. I'm regularly seeing elevated blood pressures in late 20s patients.

Malkynn- This is the stuff That I like reading from you the most. I’m deeply curious about this chronic inflammation thingy. What is causing it and how are people addressing it? (Other than poorly).

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #97 on: February 15, 2020, 04:26:22 PM »
Yes, I would also like to know what lifestyle habits contribute to chronic inflammation and general accelerated ageing (other than the very obvious ones - smoking, excess drinking, high sodium intake, insufficient exercise etc)

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17374
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #98 on: February 15, 2020, 06:11:53 PM »
Yes, I would also like to know what lifestyle habits contribute to chronic inflammation and general accelerated ageing (other than the very obvious ones - smoking, excess drinking, high sodium intake, insufficient exercise etc)

Beyond the basics? Fucked if I know, that's definitely not my area of expertise. I just know it's really, really, really exceptionally hard to get people to engage in even the most basic of health habits consistently. So getting the basics down is a pretty big win.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
Re: Are we all underestimating Life Expectancies? Are you planning for 100+?
« Reply #99 on: February 15, 2020, 06:25:18 PM »
Yes, I would also like to know what lifestyle habits contribute to chronic inflammation and general accelerated ageing (other than the very obvious ones - smoking, excess drinking, high sodium intake, insufficient exercise etc)

Beyond the basics? Fucked if I know, that's definitely not my area of expertise. I just know it's really, really, really exceptionally hard to get people to engage in even the most basic of health habits consistently. So getting the basics down is a pretty big win.

Truth. When I was an EMT, I saw a lot of that. Like: “you’re diabetic. Maybe downing most of a bottle of whiskey wasn’t the best idea.”  Or never taking your blood pressure meds, what could go wrong?