Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The basic idea is that given your age, gender, general health and whether or not you smoke they come up with an age range. According to their statistics, you have a 75% chance of making it to the bottom of the range and only a 25% chance of living past the top. The hard part is figuring out what, if anything, you can do with that sort of information. 25% is still high enough that you should have some semblance of a plan for living past the range. Anyway, I think the approach does make sense. It amazes me how many people talk about their life expectancy like it's the limit and it would be unusual to live beyond it.
I guess I still feel a pretty good predictor, all else being equal, is to look at the age parents passed. Average of two, give or take a few years or so, is probably a very good indicator.
I guess I still feel a pretty good predictor, all else being equal, is to look at the age parents passed. Average of two, give or take a few years or so, is probably a very good indicator.
I have read that genetics accounts for 30% of longevity. My parents, who had me in middle age, both lived to late eighties, but they lived in a less polluted world ( mother born in 1900, father born in 1891 ), and probably a safer one. True, advanced medical technology was not available to them; fortunately, neither needed that.
My feeling is that although the genetic component plays a part, there are all kinds of "wild cards" out there. For example, a very good friend I've known for 45 years , always healthy and health conscious, age 65, is dying of a malignant brain tumor- . His brother died of a coronary at 66. My friend's parents are 89 and 91, not in the greatest health, but cognitively alert, and living in a senior residential facility.
I don't count on reaching any particular age; indeed after working in geriatrics and observing aging relatives,in addition to my parents, I'd say for many, mid eighties is often a time when serious changes occur, and yes, of course, there are exceptions. In discussing this subject with a friend just turning 70, her response is that living "too long" was something her mother, who lived to be 93 often discussed. It was her mother's contention that losing people with whom you share memories was the hardest part of aging. I'm soon to be 73, in good health, but I don't really count on any specific longevity. Life can change in a moment, and for me, the number of years is not as important as the composition of your life.
I have read that genetics accounts for 30% of longevity. My parents, who had me in middle age, both lived to late eighties, but they lived in a less polluted world ( mother born in 1900, father born in 1891 ), and probably a safer one. True, advanced medical technology was not available to them; fortunately, neither needed that.
My feeling is that although the genetic component plays a part, there are all kinds of "wild cards" out there. For example, a very good friend I've known for 45 years , always healthy and health conscious, age 65, is dying of a malignant brain tumor- . His brother died of a coronary at 66. My friend's parents are 89 and 91, not in the greatest health, but cognitively alert, and living in a senior residential facility.
I don't count on reaching any particular age; indeed after working in geriatrics and observing aging relatives,in addition to my parents, I'd say for many, mid eighties is often a time when serious changes occur, and yes, of course, there are exceptions. In discussing this subject with a friend just turning 70, her response is that living "too long" was something her mother, who lived to be 93 often discussed. It was her mother's contention that losing people with whom you share memories was the hardest part of aging. I'm soon to be 73, in good health, but I don't really count on any specific longevity. Life can change in a moment, and for me, the number of years is not as important as the composition of your life.
catsy
Don't disagree with what you've written. Mine was a general observation, which assuming your "life habits" are similar to your parents seems to generally hold true. Still, the reality is longevity is binary: either you're alive or you are not. No 50% living, and if you lose the lottery and get a brain tumor (as you exampled), all bets are off.
On the aging front, my own anicdotal experience (parents) is that 80 was a turning point notwithstanding both lived well into 80's.
I have read that genetics accounts for 30% of longevity. My parents, who had me in middle age, both lived to late eighties, but they lived in a less polluted world ( mother born in 1900, father born in 1891 ), and probably a safer one. True, advanced medical technology was not available to them; fortunately, neither needed that.
My feeling is that although the genetic component plays a part, there are all kinds of "wild cards" out there. For example, a very good friend I've known for 45 years , always healthy and health conscious, age 65, is dying of a malignant brain tumor- . His brother died of a coronary at 66. My friend's parents are 89 and 91, not in the greatest health, but cognitively alert, and living in a senior residential facility.
I don't count on reaching any particular age; indeed after working in geriatrics and observing aging relatives,in addition to my parents, I'd say for many, mid eighties is often a time when serious changes occur, and yes, of course, there are exceptions. In discussing this subject with a friend just turning 70, her response is that living "too long" was something her mother, who lived to be 93 often discussed. It was her mother's contention that losing people with whom you share memories was the hardest part of aging. I'm soon to be 73, in good health, but I don't really count on any specific longevity. Life can change in a moment, and for me, the number of years is not as important as the composition of your life.
catsy
Many folks are still healthy and vibrant at 70. Many of those begin declining notably going into their 80s.
I guess I still feel a pretty good predictor, all else being equal, is to look at the age parents passed. Average of two, give or take a few years or so, is probably a very good indicator.
My dad made it to 85. My mom turns 84 next week. For financial planning, I have to plan to make 90 with a chunk of money reserved for assisted living, and maybe a dementia ward and nursing home care at some point. None of us have an expiration date stamped on our bodies. I'll probably die with a huge chunk of money unspent but that's better than running out of money and needing the expensive private long term care services. There are going to be millions of people in that circumstance where they're broke and homeless needing long term care. Those services are going to be heavily rationed when they're paid for by the government.
I think a lot of people just want to retire early...and so they happen to remember all the people they know who died young.
In general you tend to remember the "surprise" deaths of someone relatively young versus the ones you "expect" to die in their 80's or 90's. We see and remember what we want to. Best not to count on dying too young or you may end up starving to death!
I take after my mother's side of the family. These people live long lives. My mother is 94. Her sister is 97. My uncle on my mother's side was hale and hearty until he dies of pneumonia at 92(should have gotten the vaccine). My grtandmother lived to be 86 while taking insulin shot every day since the 1930's. My other two uncles lived into their late 70's despite suffering with cirrhosis of the liver.
I exercise. I live a vegan diet(basic from the book How Not To Die), although I've been doing it long before that. I live in the way way north where people live much longer. I expect to live into my 90's.
My pension system is going to wish that I would die soon---statistically, not personally.
I have a friend who retired at age 60 after working for Dupont for 35 years. His goal was to live longer on retirement pension from Dupont than he worked. He lived to 96 and made his goal.
The basic idea is that given your age, gender, general health and whether or not you smoke they come up with an age range. According to their statistics, you have a 75% chance of making it to the bottom of the range and only a 25% chance of living past the top. The hard part is figuring out what, if anything, you can do with that sort of information. 25% is still high enough that you should have some semblance of a plan for living past the range. Anyway, I think the approach does make sense. It amazes me how many people talk about their life expectancy like it's the limit and it would be unusual to live beyond it.
Purely hypothetical / entertaining depiction based on a number of posts I've read ratcheer on this here forum: "I know a guy who was working after 65 in order to hit 67 ... he died at his desk when he was 66 years and 364 days old! Darned if I'm gonna work 'till I drop ... I wanna retire at 55!" / sarc
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
