Blue Zones Turn Out to be BS
Published 9.17.2024: Sadly, the Blue Zones (areas of the globe where people were thought to be longer-lived) turns out to have been a "just-so" story, or more precisely, a major long term pension fraud.
Turns out that the best way to live to 110 is to not report your death at 86 and allow your family to continue to collect government money. It helps if you don't have a birth certificate (or if the second world war destroyed all the records). I had heard this before, but with the 2024 awarding of the Ig Noble Awards (the researcher that discovered the truth of the Blue Zones won one) the lack of evidence behind the Blue Zones is being disseminated far and wide.
Netflix recently had a (I think it's the second) special about the Blue Zones, and Dan Buettener starred in it. He's the author who "discovered" the Blue Zones for National Geographic, and has been living off that discovery for years, writing books, giving talks and starring in documentaries. And it's all (apparently) bull feces.
I admit I was taken in by the just-so story, and I bought the Blue Zones book. I've also watched a number of specials and videos about the Blue Zones. So I guess you could say that I was "all in." This is the first time I've heard that the Blue Zone data didn't add up, but this is the first time that the results are being touted widely.
We didn't alter much of what we'd been doing as a results of my reading and watching. Eating a lot of vegetables (whether or not one is vegan or vegetarian) has loads of data showing it's the healthiest way to eat. And living a less stressful life is a no brainer too. Most of the "data" Buettener presented made sense, except that he obviously never fact checked the actual age of the people or the state of record keeping.
Ah well. I suppose in a way it's better, now instead of forcing yourself to live in a way you don't actually like, people can live as they want. Longevity can be enhanced (I DO believe that) but genetics plays a role too. And not everyone thrives on a diet of vegetables. I think that's why we never made any major adjustments as a family. I made adjustments, but never imposed them on anyone else.
So where does that leave Dan Buettener in all this? People who have a way to make money (I was going to call it a grift, but I have no evidence that he knew what he was spouting was false) often find it hard to switch gears. His whole career (as far as I know) was based on the Blue Zones. If they don't exist, what does he do now. His health advice wand't bad, but his hook was that people follwoing it lived longer. What if they don't?
Turns out that the best way to live to 110 is to not report your death at 86 and allow your family to continue to collect government money. It helps if you don't have a birth certificate (or if the second world war destroyed all the records). I had heard this before, but with the 2024 awarding of the Ig Noble Awards (the researcher that discovered the truth of the Blue Zones won one) the lack of evidence behind the Blue Zones is being disseminated far and wide.
Netflix recently had a (I think it's the second) special about the Blue Zones, and Dan Buettener starred in it. He's the author who "discovered" the Blue Zones for National Geographic, and has been living off that discovery for years, writing books, giving talks and starring in documentaries. And it's all (apparently) bull feces.
I admit I was taken in by the just-so story, and I bought the Blue Zones book. I've also watched a number of specials and videos about the Blue Zones. So I guess you could say that I was "all in." This is the first time I've heard that the Blue Zone data didn't add up, but this is the first time that the results are being touted widely.
We didn't alter much of what we'd been doing as a results of my reading and watching. Eating a lot of vegetables (whether or not one is vegan or vegetarian) has loads of data showing it's the healthiest way to eat. And living a less stressful life is a no brainer too. Most of the "data" Buettener presented made sense, except that he obviously never fact checked the actual age of the people or the state of record keeping.
Ah well. I suppose in a way it's better, now instead of forcing yourself to live in a way you don't actually like, people can live as they want. Longevity can be enhanced (I DO believe that) but genetics plays a role too. And not everyone thrives on a diet of vegetables. I think that's why we never made any major adjustments as a family. I made adjustments, but never imposed them on anyone else.
So where does that leave Dan Buettener in all this? People who have a way to make money (I was going to call it a grift, but I have no evidence that he knew what he was spouting was false) often find it hard to switch gears. His whole career (as far as I know) was based on the Blue Zones. If they don't exist, what does he do now. His health advice wand't bad, but his hook was that people follwoing it lived longer. What if they don't?
Longevity is the key
Having asked the question, I went and did a brief Google search to see if he'd made any (published) comment since the Ig Noble Awards were announced. And I came up empty. Which doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means that in the less than three minutes I searched I didn't find it.
What I did find indicates that Buettener has positioned himself as a longevity researcher, and is still using what he learned by talking to older humans to make recommendations. Even in the documentary, his focus was less on the individual, and more on identifying a general habit that should be followed to achieve longevity.
"Longevity" is a hot topic, with retreats and TEDx presentations being given or planned on the topic. None of which is surprising, Buettener is hardly the only person looking into the topic, and most are doing more scientific work (Buettener's results were always observational, and therefore weak.)
Longevity (absent a drug, and I know there are people who think again is an actual disease) comes down to genetics, eating well (especially bean, which are not expensive), living well (having enough money), getting decent sleep, avoiding too much stress, keeping moving (exercising). Beyond that it's luck. Do what you can and enjoy life, don't worry about trying to mimic the lives of people in a given Blue Zone is my takeaway.
I will say that making the focus "longevity" rather than achieving a particular number was a good move. "Healthspan" vs lifespan seems to be the new watch word. It's not how long you live if your final years are miserable. And for too many of my relatives, their final years are miserable.
Which suggests that I would need to define miserable, because I think it's different for people. Miserable to me means that I wouldn't be able to move around and do for myself. Miserable might also mean being dependent on drugs… but then again maybe I'm extrapolating from my current anti-drug position. if it meant me staying alive, i'd probably take it. On the other hand, I've watched elderly relatives by miserable when they lost their independence. Yes, they were still alive, but they were not happy. Not an easy or simple question to answer.
What I did find indicates that Buettener has positioned himself as a longevity researcher, and is still using what he learned by talking to older humans to make recommendations. Even in the documentary, his focus was less on the individual, and more on identifying a general habit that should be followed to achieve longevity.
"Longevity" is a hot topic, with retreats and TEDx presentations being given or planned on the topic. None of which is surprising, Buettener is hardly the only person looking into the topic, and most are doing more scientific work (Buettener's results were always observational, and therefore weak.)
Longevity (absent a drug, and I know there are people who think again is an actual disease) comes down to genetics, eating well (especially bean, which are not expensive), living well (having enough money), getting decent sleep, avoiding too much stress, keeping moving (exercising). Beyond that it's luck. Do what you can and enjoy life, don't worry about trying to mimic the lives of people in a given Blue Zone is my takeaway.
I will say that making the focus "longevity" rather than achieving a particular number was a good move. "Healthspan" vs lifespan seems to be the new watch word. It's not how long you live if your final years are miserable. And for too many of my relatives, their final years are miserable.
Which suggests that I would need to define miserable, because I think it's different for people. Miserable to me means that I wouldn't be able to move around and do for myself. Miserable might also mean being dependent on drugs… but then again maybe I'm extrapolating from my current anti-drug position. if it meant me staying alive, i'd probably take it. On the other hand, I've watched elderly relatives by miserable when they lost their independence. Yes, they were still alive, but they were not happy. Not an easy or simple question to answer.