Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why the aches and pains right around 40?
Replies
-
I'd also add that, based on looking back at historical statistics, evolution doesn't much care if it loses a bunch of mothers and children. It just makes sure to create plenty of extras along the way, so it can waste a few . . . quite a few, historically, in fact.
(Yes, I'm aware I'm anthropomorphizing evolution. It's metaphorical, folks.)
I don't know. From the standpoint of the genes carried by a given mother, a tendency to die in first childbirth seems like a really bad survival strategy. And anthropomorphizing aside, I'm not aware of any argument for evolution as some general force promoting species survival outside of the self-enforcing law of natural selection for genes.1 -
There's also the, if we breed often enough, there will be enough children who survive to help support the family. That implies that a. a bunch of infants and children were dying and b. if children started having children in their teens/preteens then they would have likely been having them into their adulthood as well.
That said, I'm not an anthropologist.
Not if we're talking about 10 to 13 year olds dying in child birth. If you die at 11, you won't be having any children as an adult. And for most of human "history" (not in the sense of a time when there were written records), if the mother died in childbirth, the baby died too.1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'd also add that, based on looking back at historical statistics, evolution doesn't much care if it loses a bunch of mothers and children. It just makes sure to create plenty of extras along the way, so it can waste a few . . . quite a few, historically, in fact.
(Yes, I'm aware I'm anthropomorphizing evolution. It's metaphorical, folks.)
I don't know. From the standpoint of the genes carried by a given mother, a tendency to die in first childbirth seems like a really bad survival strategy. And anthropomorphizing aside, I'm not aware of any argument for evolution as some general force promoting species survival outside of the self-enforcing law of natural selection for genes.
Evolution wants the strongest ones to live, and the weaker ones to die. This may not accord with our human wishes. An individual's genes may be trying to survive (I'm anthropomorphizing again), but it won't happen as reliably for those less well-adapted to whatever the conditions happen to be.
Speaking at a cartoon level of simplification, of course.
I'm not proposing evolution as a general force promoting species survival, but natural selection can produce an effect that looks statistically similar to what would happen if it did, among the currently-surviving species. Part of the downside of anthropomorphizing it is that that implies that I think evolution is purposeful. I don't.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'd also add that, based on looking back at historical statistics, evolution doesn't much care if it loses a bunch of mothers and children. It just makes sure to create plenty of extras along the way, so it can waste a few . . . quite a few, historically, in fact.
(Yes, I'm aware I'm anthropomorphizing evolution. It's metaphorical, folks.)
I don't know. From the standpoint of the genes carried by a given mother, a tendency to die in first childbirth seems like a really bad survival strategy. And anthropomorphizing aside, I'm not aware of any argument for evolution as some general force promoting species survival outside of the self-enforcing law of natural selection for genes.
At what levels selection occurs is actually a fairly open debate in evolution. Obviously all selection ends up recorded via genes and epigenes, but that selection for genes is not a universal opinion. Individual and kin selection both have places in research. For eusocial species there's a fair amount of equivalency between a gene selection explanation and a kin selection model. Both can explain things like an individual dying for a relative or better relatives.
I also believe the death in childbirth is something that became worse with agriculture. Hunter-gatherer lifestyles tends to involve spacing births further apart, reduced risk of disease, and oddly seem to involve more calories for labor than early agriculture.1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »There's also the, if we breed often enough, there will be enough children who survive to help support the family. That implies that a. a bunch of infants and children were dying and b. if children started having children in their teens/preteens then they would have likely been having them into their adulthood as well.
That said, I'm not an anthropologist.
Not if we're talking about 10 to 13 year olds dying in child birth. If you die at 11, you won't be having any children as an adult. And for most of human "history" (not in the sense of a time when there were written records), if the mother died in childbirth, the baby died too.
You're right - my logic made zero sense there. If it was say, people in their late teens, early 20s whose growth plates had closed that would have made significantly more sense.
I would imagine that there has been plenty of research done on this. It is totally not in my field and I have no real desire to research it, but I'm more than willing to bet anthropologists of various subspecialties have researched this extensively.0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'd also add that, based on looking back at historical statistics, evolution doesn't much care if it loses a bunch of mothers and children. It just makes sure to create plenty of extras along the way, so it can waste a few . . . quite a few, historically, in fact.
(Yes, I'm aware I'm anthropomorphizing evolution. It's metaphorical, folks.)
I don't know. From the standpoint of the genes carried by a given mother, a tendency to die in first childbirth seems like a really bad survival strategy. And anthropomorphizing aside, I'm not aware of any argument for evolution as some general force promoting species survival outside of the self-enforcing law of natural selection for genes.
At what levels selection occurs is actually a fairly open debate in evolution. Obviously all selection ends up recorded via genes and epigenes, but that selection for genes is not a universal opinion. Individual and kin selection both have places in research. For eusocial species there's a fair amount of equivalency between a gene selection explanation and a kin selection model. Both can explain things like an individual dying for a relative or better relatives.
I also believe the death in childbirth is something that became worse with agriculture. Hunter-gatherer lifestyles tends to involve spacing births further apart, reduced risk of disease, and oddly seem to involve more calories for labor than early agriculture.
Settled agricultural lifestyles were adopted because they increased food security, thus decreasing periods of food scarcity that can induce temporary infertility. Increased fertility would naturally tend to increase death in childbirth, absent medical advances to counteract the increased opportunity for death in childbirth.
I wasn't denying kin selection. I was questioning the idea that evolution is a force that favors early death (prior to reproduction) as a way to promote the survival of the (ever-evolving, and hence on its way to becoming a different) species as a whole.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'd also add that, based on looking back at historical statistics, evolution doesn't much care if it loses a bunch of mothers and children. It just makes sure to create plenty of extras along the way, so it can waste a few . . . quite a few, historically, in fact.
(Yes, I'm aware I'm anthropomorphizing evolution. It's metaphorical, folks.)
I don't know. From the standpoint of the genes carried by a given mother, a tendency to die in first childbirth seems like a really bad survival strategy. And anthropomorphizing aside, I'm not aware of any argument for evolution as some general force promoting species survival outside of the self-enforcing law of natural selection for genes.
Evolution wants the strongest ones to live, and the weaker ones to die. This may not accord with our human wishes. An individual's genes may be trying to survive (I'm anthropomorphizing again), but it won't happen as reliably for those less well-adapted to whatever the conditions happen to be.
Speaking at a cartoon level of simplification, of course.
I'm not proposing evolution as a general force promoting species survival, but natural selection can produce an effect that looks statistically similar to what would happen if it did, among the currently-surviving species. Part of the downside of anthropomorphizing it is that that implies that I think evolution is purposeful. I don't.
The other downside of anthropomorphizing is that it can lead to confusing the cause and the result. By speaking about the result "wanting" something, it's easy to be drawn into thinking that the result was actually the cause.
I think it makes more sense, and is clearer, to talk about natural selection as the force ("cause" -- although a more complete picture would include mutation and environmental change as causes) and evolution as the result. Natural selection leads to survival of the genes that produce the individuals best fitted to survive and reproduce in a specific environment or environments (allowing for migration or times or relatively rapid environmental change). If the surviving pool of genes differs from the earlier pool sufficiently, evolution occurs.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'd also add that, based on looking back at historical statistics, evolution doesn't much care if it loses a bunch of mothers and children. It just makes sure to create plenty of extras along the way, so it can waste a few . . . quite a few, historically, in fact.
(Yes, I'm aware I'm anthropomorphizing evolution. It's metaphorical, folks.)
I don't know. From the standpoint of the genes carried by a given mother, a tendency to die in first childbirth seems like a really bad survival strategy. And anthropomorphizing aside, I'm not aware of any argument for evolution as some general force promoting species survival outside of the self-enforcing law of natural selection for genes.
Evolution wants the strongest ones to live, and the weaker ones to die. This may not accord with our human wishes. An individual's genes may be trying to survive (I'm anthropomorphizing again), but it won't happen as reliably for those less well-adapted to whatever the conditions happen to be.
Speaking at a cartoon level of simplification, of course.
I'm not proposing evolution as a general force promoting species survival, but natural selection can produce an effect that looks statistically similar to what would happen if it did, among the currently-surviving species. Part of the downside of anthropomorphizing it is that that implies that I think evolution is purposeful. I don't.
The other downside of anthropomorphizing is that it can lead to confusing the cause and the result. By speaking about the result "wanting" something, it's easy to be drawn into thinking that the result was actually the cause.
I think it makes more sense, and is clearer, to talk about natural selection as the force ("cause" -- although a more complete picture would include mutation and environmental change as causes) and evolution as the result. Natural selection leads to survival of the genes that produce the individuals best fitted to survive and reproduce in a specific environment or environments (allowing for migration or times or relatively rapid environmental change). If the surviving pool of genes differs from the earlier pool sufficiently, evolution occurs.
Whichever way we speak of it, die-off - potentially a substantial die-off - is an integral part of the process.
My point was that the mechanisms at work are neutral to how many die (or live) along the way. If women sexually mature "too young", and breed, and die because their bodies aren't ready for childbirth . . . that's just how things work. As long as some individuals live, the species survives. Substantial die-off is not a counter-argument to the idea that we can potentially get our breeding out of the way when younger, and that (after a certain point) there isn't much survival advantage to hanging on to elders, so maybe that's why the elders' bodies start breaking down.
This being - I thought - a casual conversation about "aches and pains at 40", and whether/why they happen, rather than a deeply technical discussion of natural selection, I'd imagined that a more casual, metaphorical phrasing would be acceptable, particularly if I pointed out that I was knowingly anthropomorphizing something that doesn't actually take conscious, purposeful actions.
Evidently, I was wrong. Apologies! :flowerforyou:
0 -
cmriverside wrote: »
Thanks for that cheerful and uplifting message.
~signed, 65 is the new 40
Co-signed as 75 is the new 50 4 -
The OP has a point - throughout most of human evolution lifespan was briefer. @lynn_glenmont is accurate about pre-industrial humans living almost as long as modern humans IF they manage to survive certain chokepoints. But humans didn’t evolve in the Middle Ages; we evolved over millions of years, and those people did not live anything like the length of time modern people do.
However, there’s a bit of evidence which weighs on the other side of the argument. Humans have menopause, unlike other mammals. And the only evolutionary reason for women to stop being able to have children yet keep living is that the wisdom of older women is more likely to keep babies alive than the same women continuing to have more babies, despite the risks inherent in childbirth. Other female mammals continue to be fertile when they are old and fragile, because the chance of popping out one more baby is more likely to result in those genes surviving, even if the risk to the mother is high. For people, it’s more effective if an old and wise female contributes to society in other ways. So we actually evolved to STOP having babies past a certain age. Think how valuable old people must be to the survival of the species for that to happen.
In other words, the elderly, in the human species, did not just live past the age when evolutionary forces acted on the emergence of humans - they were part of that evolution. Human old people have evolved to have specific functions within human society, unlike the elderly of other species.5 -
I think most people tend to lean towards 'just so' stories to explain certain phenomena with natural selection- but afaik we have no idea if prehistoric peoples had aches and pains (or what age they got them) because we can't ask them! I broke several bones as a child, I'm sure if I was a prehistoric person without current medical technology to set and heal bones I would have a lot of pain my whole life from having jacked up bones. I tend to agree that it's probably more about sedentary lifestyles than any grand biological plan to dispose of us once we exit peak fertility. My grandpa is 80 years old and he still goes into tight crawl spaces to do house repairs with no problem, because he's been active his whole life and never stopped moving. I started having wrist, arm and back aches at 21 because I got a job sitting at a computer 8 hours a day and would sit on my computer even more after that.1
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »This was a discussion I had with a client just a few days ago. He wasn't overweight, he walked daily and did some minimal bodyweight exercise occasionally. He asked if I knew why aches and pains in joints, etc. start to really pick up around age 40 or so.
So just going back to my learning of physiology, the human body really hasn't changed for thousands of years. If we're looking at it objectively, like any other animal we instinctively look to procreate to carry our genes down line. In the early human years on Earth, all we did was what other animals did. Females start to have periods about 10-13 years old. Obviously at that time, they can get pregnant. Males are also high in testosterone around the same age. IF the goal was to just rear children and feed them, then this would be a good age because there's less complications with birth and one is still young enough and fleet enough to gather/kill for food and feed the family. Ev en today, most people's peak physical performance was in their teens and into their mid 20's or so. Without medical intervention, what is the average human life expectancy barring being killed by accident or murder back then? Probably right around 40-45 years old (a guess). So by the time you hit 40, the body is getting worn out. You don't run as fast and you likely don't see as well either. If you're the male leader of the group and can't lead as well, normally a younger male will challenge and likely beat you out. And so on and so on.
Of course now with medical intervention and technology, along with understanding how cells work, better option for food for complete nutrition (not just berries and freshly killed meat), and physical exercise, we've obviously been able to extend human life expectancy to much much higher years. But also look at how much less physical one becomes and how much more fragile we are in those later years.
So why 40? IMO (and based on evidence) it's because the human body likely wasn't made to last too much longer than that naturally.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You're forgetting (or just not realizing) that there's a higher risk of cephalopelvic disproportion (in short, the infants head being larger than their mother's pelvis) with people of small stature. Most 10-13 year olds fit that bill as they haven't stopped growings. This can, quite logically, lead to major complications and death to both the mother and the infant.
In short, 10-13 years old is not an optimal time for a girl to give birth.
Also seems an age based on modern nutrition. I'm not sure about time of first menses in traditional cultures, but I believe records for the USA in the 1800s put the age more at 16.
Not sure how true this is but I've heard girls tend to get their periods around the time they hit 100 pounds. So one possible explanation for girls getting periods earlier on average is better nutrition and more childhood obesity.2 -
happytree923 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »This was a discussion I had with a client just a few days ago. He wasn't overweight, he walked daily and did some minimal bodyweight exercise occasionally. He asked if I knew why aches and pains in joints, etc. start to really pick up around age 40 or so.
So just going back to my learning of physiology, the human body really hasn't changed for thousands of years. If we're looking at it objectively, like any other animal we instinctively look to procreate to carry our genes down line. In the early human years on Earth, all we did was what other animals did. Females start to have periods about 10-13 years old. Obviously at that time, they can get pregnant. Males are also high in testosterone around the same age. IF the goal was to just rear children and feed them, then this would be a good age because there's less complications with birth and one is still young enough and fleet enough to gather/kill for food and feed the family. Ev en today, most people's peak physical performance was in their teens and into their mid 20's or so. Without medical intervention, what is the average human life expectancy barring being killed by accident or murder back then? Probably right around 40-45 years old (a guess). So by the time you hit 40, the body is getting worn out. You don't run as fast and you likely don't see as well either. If you're the male leader of the group and can't lead as well, normally a younger male will challenge and likely beat you out. And so on and so on.
Of course now with medical intervention and technology, along with understanding how cells work, better option for food for complete nutrition (not just berries and freshly killed meat), and physical exercise, we've obviously been able to extend human life expectancy to much much higher years. But also look at how much less physical one becomes and how much more fragile we are in those later years.
So why 40? IMO (and based on evidence) it's because the human body likely wasn't made to last too much longer than that naturally.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You're forgetting (or just not realizing) that there's a higher risk of cephalopelvic disproportion (in short, the infants head being larger than their mother's pelvis) with people of small stature. Most 10-13 year olds fit that bill as they haven't stopped growings. This can, quite logically, lead to major complications and death to both the mother and the infant.
In short, 10-13 years old is not an optimal time for a girl to give birth.
Also seems an age based on modern nutrition. I'm not sure about time of first menses in traditional cultures, but I believe records for the USA in the 1800s put the age more at 16.
Not sure how true this is but I've heard girls tend to get their periods around the time they hit 100 pounds. So one possible explanation for girls getting periods earlier on average is better nutrition and more childhood obesity.
It's not just menarche that's occurring earlier though, it's puberty in general (which doesn't start with menarche).2 -
7 years ago i needed a back op and my consultant asked if i'd had any incidents when i was in my childhood or early twenties. I was surprised by this but he explained that our body can deal with issues from childhood but around the age of 40 the body cannot cope with these so well and appear as such symptoms. Think of falling from a tree or a horse or car crashes etc. you might think you've got away Scot-free as a child but this will show later in life.2
-
My bad I read that wrong. No, I never suggested he see a doctor, because through most of my assessments with clients, they usually all have aches and pains somewhere. As of now that we've been together about 2 weeks now, he's already stated that his aches have subsided significantly and that he's enjoying what he's learning. Great thing is that I see him every other day (on his own) in the gym do the program I put together for him.lynn_glenmont wrote: »
Oh I know the majority of my aches and pains are just from wear and tear. I tennis elbow and golfers elbow, patellar tendinitis in my left knee, a little biceps tendinitis and just the old "getting out of bed" creaks and cracks. So they're not unexplained.lynn_glenmont wrote: »This was a discussion I had with a client just a few days ago. He wasn't overweight, he walked daily and did some minimal bodyweight exercise occasionally. He asked if I knew why aches and pains in joints, etc. start to really pick up around age 40 or so.
So just going back to my learning of physiology, the human body really hasn't changed for thousands of years. If we're looking at it objectively, like any other animal we instinctively look to procreate to carry our genes down line. In the early human years on Earth, all we did was what other animals did. Females start to have periods about 10-13 years old. Obviously at that time, they can get pregnant. Males are also high in testosterone around the same age. IF the goal was to just rear children and feed them, then this would be a good age because there's less complications with birth and one is still young enough and fleet enough to gather/kill for food and feed the family. Ev en today, most people's peak physical performance was in their teens and into their mid 20's or so. Without medical intervention, what is the average human life expectancy barring being killed by accident or murder back then? Probably right around 40-45 years old (a guess). So by the time you hit 40, the body is getting worn out. You don't run as fast and you likely don't see as well either. If you're the male leader of the group and can't lead as well, normally a younger male will challenge and likely beat you out. And so on and so on.
Of course now with medical intervention and technology, along with understanding how cells work, better option for food for complete nutrition (not just berries and freshly killed meat), and physical exercise, we've obviously been able to extend human life expectancy to much much higher years. But also look at how much less physical one becomes and how much more fragile we are in those later years.
So why 40? IMO (and based on evidence) it's because the human body likely wasn't made to last too much longer than that naturally.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Did you by any chance suggest he see a doctor to rule out a medical cause for this onset of unexplained aches and pains? Autoimmune diseases spring to mind, but I'm sure there are lots of other potential medical issues this could be a symptom of.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
??? But you weren't talking about your aches and pains, you were talking about a client's aches and pains. Unless "asking for a client" is the new "asking for a friend"?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
Lol, I KNOW from breakdancing in my younger years that there were falls or mishaps that affect me now.lucycopsey wrote: »7 years ago i needed a back op and my consultant asked if i'd had any incidents when i was in my childhood or early twenties. I was surprised by this but he explained that our body can deal with issues from childhood but around the age of 40 the body cannot cope with these so well and appear as such symptoms. Think of falling from a tree or a horse or car crashes etc. you might think you've got away Scot-free as a child but this will show later in life.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'd also add that, based on looking back at historical statistics, evolution doesn't much care if it loses a bunch of mothers and children. It just makes sure to create plenty of extras along the way, so it can waste a few . . . quite a few, historically, in fact.
(Yes, I'm aware I'm anthropomorphizing evolution. It's metaphorical, folks.)
I don't know. From the standpoint of the genes carried by a given mother, a tendency to die in first childbirth seems like a really bad survival strategy. And anthropomorphizing aside, I'm not aware of any argument for evolution as some general force promoting species survival outside of the self-enforcing law of natural selection for genes.
At what levels selection occurs is actually a fairly open debate in evolution. Obviously all selection ends up recorded via genes and epigenes, but that selection for genes is not a universal opinion. Individual and kin selection both have places in research. For eusocial species there's a fair amount of equivalency between a gene selection explanation and a kin selection model. Both can explain things like an individual dying for a relative or better relatives.
I also believe the death in childbirth is something that became worse with agriculture. Hunter-gatherer lifestyles tends to involve spacing births further apart, reduced risk of disease, and oddly seem to involve more calories for labor than early agriculture.
Settled agricultural lifestyles were adopted because they increased food security, thus decreasing periods of food scarcity that can induce temporary infertility. Increased fertility would naturally tend to increase death in childbirth, absent medical advances to counteract the increased opportunity for death in childbirth.
I wasn't denying kin selection. I was questioning the idea that evolution is a force that favors early death (prior to reproduction) as a way to promote the survival of the (ever-evolving, and hence on its way to becoming a different) species as a whole.
Well, actually there are certain instances where someone can die prior to reproduction to increase kin survival - that's kind of what kin selection and altruism is about.
There is, for example, a tendency for certain offspring that are not developing fast enough to just completely shutdown and die. That's part of what happens with runts of the litter. This seems, when looked at straightforward, counter to natural selection, but it isn't. What happens is that in a species with genes that kills runts early, it frees up resources for healthy siblings who tend to have those same genes, and they go on to flourish.
Potentially, a similar mechanism could happen in human fertility, but I'll grant, it doesn't seem very likely.
Agriculture also increases fertility by not requiring a child be capable of keeping up with the tribe. This changes the general minimum spacing between births from 4 years in hunter-gatherers to 2 years.1 -
Lol my co worker and I were just commenting that 40 seems to be the start of our slowing down. She's 42 im 38. To be fair having kids at 32 and 36 took a lot out if me, especially the last one. I just don't sleep in like I used to, exercise like I used to, more stress. It would be interesting to see if people in their 40s that don't have kids, how they feel.2
-
Forty ?!?
Get Off My Lawn !!!
.4 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »I'd also add that, based on looking back at historical statistics, evolution doesn't much care if it loses a bunch of mothers and children. It just makes sure to create plenty of extras along the way, so it can waste a few . . . quite a few, historically, in fact.
(Yes, I'm aware I'm anthropomorphizing evolution. It's metaphorical, folks.)
The birth canal issue? New research is questioning if natural selection explains birth canal issues or if it is genetic drift. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/birth-canals-are-different-all-over-world-countering-long-held-evolutionary-theory
Not specifically birth canal. Intending more to speak to the point that early motherhood is dangerous to mother and child (which it possibly is). History suggests that while we humans think maternal/child mortality a sad outcome to be avoided, history cheerfully rolls on despite pretty terrible results in that arena for centuries, possibly millennia.
If we breed early, and some of us survive, and someone survives long enough to raise those children who survive, until they can reach breeding age, we have a sustainable species, and sustainability in the stronger genetic lines as well.
The "wearing out" hypothesis for 40+ aches and pains has some credibility, in that scheme. Perhaps we moderns are living longer than needful (from an evolutionary standpoint), I dunno. As an individual (who is not a longevity/geriatric-health researcher), I think it's suboptimal to shift focus, more than fleetingly, from "what can I do to stay strong and healthy as long as possible" to "why am I having more aches and pains at 40". It's amusing to discuss, though.
I believe you're correct about earlier menses in the modern era, though. I haven't followed it closely, but had the impression that there's a lot of debate about why.
Edited: typo
As someone waaay older than you at 68, I endorse the bolded.
On a more serious note, I feel very good most of the time. Not quite as good as at 40 or 30. But, I've have been fortunate to not have had any injuries or health conditions that have caused aches and pains.
Probably good genes. Despite not very good habits in the 2 generations before mine, they had mostly good health and longevity. Exercising regularly for most of my life, eating a nutritious diet, sleeping well and lot's of good relationships and connectivity are all factors.
My point is, I guess, that imbedded in Ann's post, in the part bolded especially, is the indication of both an attitude and life structure help to keep many degenerative diseases and conditions at bay. Not all the time. There is an element of luck and good genes that come into play too.
But, if we are habitual and intentional with the things we can control, like exercise, nutrition and (to some degree) sleep. And, do all we can to recognize and reduce stress in our lives, we can stack the odds in our favor.3 -
I turned 40 a few months ago.
OP - thanks for nothing
For all those EVEN OLDER THAN ME (gasp), thanks for your positive posts demonstrating that there is still hope past the big four-oh!
3 -
We have a hard time letting go as we age. My mom past away this past July due to a fall and fracturing some ribs. My mom was 93. She walked really slow, couldn't hear (even not well with hearing aids), had major arthritis, and each movement looked very challenging. I'm glad my mom was with us so long, but the last 10 years were with difficulty and I always feared for her when she and my dad went out on their own. We today are outliving our bodies thanks to the knowledge of science and medicine, but sometimes I wonder SHOULD we doing that? Health care costs are high NOT because of the younger generation, but because of the cost it takes to take care of the elderly. Our planet is overpopulated in some places and we put such a premium on food agriculture at the expense what the process may be doing to harm our planet. I don't know. I think people would love to live long lives, but I believe they also want to live lives that aren't burdening to others.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
Understood and appreciated but we're really not overpopulated. The entire world's population would fit into the great State of Texas. As an advocate for children and seniors, we need the older generation. I'm from an agricultural, farming, ranching area and the younger generations no longer want to take care of land. They leave for the big cities and a different kind of career. The farms and ranches are being sold off, turned into dude ranches and super expensive homes for retirement communities. People need to eat but good animal husbandry is hard to find these days. It's the older generation that knows how to work the cattle and take care of the land. These places are going by the way of the dodo. I have no idea what people plan to eat when they can't simply go to the store and pick up their grassfed premium beef and vegetables.4
-
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions