A similar problem arose during the development of the new, 12-month old Geroscience Healthspan Forum ” namely that:
Compliance is a major problem so why bother studying Healthspan? Since most patients do not comply, with even the best Tx’s for increasing human healthspan, we would not expect to see any general increase in healthspan in the total population.
The best answer that we could come up with is that:
“Yes ,any index of increased healthspan will not be measurable but, smaller, individual groups who do comply will see their healthspan increase”
As complex as determining what allows the outliers to live so long is to determine, along with information on what they die of may be of value to extending healthspan”.
Incidentally, who wrote this criticism & where was it published?
On Jun 21, 2014, at 10:32 PM, Leonid Gavrilov wrote:
I would greatly appreciate your advice on how to respond to this
criticism of longevity studies:
==============”The uniqueness of people with exceptional longevity and the
focus on tail event longevity limits the overall value of longevity
studies because living to 100 is a rare event. Animal studies
including genetic animal studies as well as human studies suggest that,
short of dramatic medical advances that increase longevity for a large
proportion of the population, living beyond 100 years old is largely a
random event. A random event still has causes; it merely suggests
that a large number of factors may exert an impact individually or
jointly. The usefulness of identifying longevity factors is
limited. Even if some longevity factor is more represented among
centenarians, this information may be of limited use because the
probability of a centenarian among people with this particular longevity
factor is still so small. Many unknown factors could be at
Please advise. Thank you!