Your Grandma may be old, but that doesn't mean you will be.

[Mart 'n' Al]

Here's an interesting article.

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/11/06/health/genetics-longevity-study/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F

Many of my researched ancestors did well, but two of my grandparents only got to 65, while the other two got to over 85.  Now in my early 60s, this article cheered me up.

Martin

[jillruss]

I think the whole basis of the research is questionable.

Fatal accidents shouldn't come into it at all - pure chance, unless we're straying into Final Destination country!

Both my grandfathers died relatively young but I put that down to what they endured during WW1. Neither was killed during the war but one was badly gassed and the other suffered a facial gunshot wound.

My great grandmother died of anaemia after childbirth - at a ridiculously early age. That just wouldn't happen now. And what about all those poor women over the ages who have died in childbirth, and the poor men who died in battle?

I'm sure a small amount of attention has to be paid to inherited genes which might make a family more susceptible to a specific disease but mostly, I think its down to nurture, environment and pure happenstance.

[Pheno]

Also suspect if, as suggested, research was based on Ancestry pedigrees indicating longevity in families.  Well we all know how spurious some of these trees are, and who is to say if each pedigree they used was actually genetically related - about from the spurious info that some contain there might also be several with non-paternal events.

Pheno

[polarbear]

Looks this was the basic plan....

https://www.calicolabs.com/news/2015/07/21/

And as was already mentioned, there are problems with trees. Wonder how they anonymized them.

PB

[mazi]

So ancestry have released some info. from all the trees they have to a company totally funded by Google.

I am glad my tree is not there and I use Google as little as possible.

Mike

[Mart 'n' Al]

They are interesting comments.  We've heard of the 'born in 1795 and marrying in 1910' stories.  They must skew the stats.

Martin

[DavidG02]

Ignoring the Ancestry and looking at the genetics there is some basis to 'long living genes'

There is a family in South Australia - The Fuss Family - that have been regularly reported on as long livers.

There is also a Nobel Prize to the team that discovered and analysed telomerase particles that have a function in aging

[Billyblue]

Statisticians say that we die sometime between the ages our parents died.

My billy Blue was 99 when he died; my dad, his g-g-grandson, was 101 when he died.
Maybe just coincidence.
When I was trying to get a mortgage, the insurance guy at first refused because I was over 60.
Then he asked my parents' ages when they died - when I said almost 88 (mum) and 101, he said 'Sign here.  You'll probably live till you're 90.'

So at least the insurance companies must believe in the theory     

Dawn M

[groom]

Statisticians say that we die sometime between the ages our parents died.

If that happened regularly wouldn't that mean that as generations go on, they would be dying younger and not living longer? 

GGGG grandparents die at  70   and 80   so son dies at 75
GGG   grandparents die at  65   and 75   so son dies at 70
GG grandparents die at 60 and 70  so son dies at 65
GP die at  55 and 65  so son dies at 60
Parents die at 50 and 60 so you die at 55.