Life with Hazard Ratios

I read it, and it seems like the core formula is ΔL ≈ ln(1 / HR) × 12.93 years (for U.S. males). It also gives you an easy way to approximate and interpret HR values from health studies, like an HR of 0.90 roughly translates to a little over a year of added life expectancy. Makes it easier to read those papers.

Personally, I found it interesting. But what I'm curious about is this: are there any studies where the lower your exposure to risk, the shorter your lifespan gets?

I've been thinking about this because I recently saw a story about an ultra wealthy guy who tried a reverse aging experiment and ended up with an incurable disease. This person probably had the best diet in the world and received top tier care, so how did he end up with something like that? It makes me wonder, maybe the human body just rejects reverse aging itself. Maybe we're wired to die because that's how species diversify. Just curious.

>so how did he end up with something like that

Is it not possible that the interventions were the cause of the disease? There's a lot about the body we don't understand, if you're mainlining supplements daily and doing blood transfusions on the regular you're messing around with a delicate biochemical balance.

Statistics and other lies.

One interesting point the article touches - there was a study concluding that if you quit smoking at 40 your life expectancy basically equalizes with people who did not smoke in their life. It is an encouraging message that it is never too late to quit. Then again it also sends a different message - you can smoke as you wish in your 20s.

Just yesterday I saw an article on Instagram that they are putting smoked meats and sausages and similar products in the came cancerogenic category as smoking. Which again one one hand states that meats are very bad for you. On the other hand it makes smoking not so bad as you would think? Because people are eating sausages and meats cooked on open fire for thousands of years?

Some guy on Diary of CEO states that rice are basically a poison because they are pure sugar. If you want to live healthy you should definitely drop the rice out of your die. Then again a billion of people eat rice every day. What gives?

We want to have all this information because we want informed decisions in our lives. If we are analytical we even want formulas and graphs just like in this article. What we don't want is to give things to chance and genetics.

Different breeds of dogs have life expectancy difference of ~50%. People of course are not so different in their size but we need to always keep this in mind. You can live as healthy as you like but you always have a ticking bomb in your DNA. What I still am not getting is how much living healthy impacts the outcome versus the genetics. It might be a hopeless fight to e.g. stop eating the brisket if your lungs have an expiry date of 55 years.

I think it was just cancer overall. One kills you lings, another kills you gut, heart and etc.

We know that smoke itself is really really bad for you. Open fire is bad for you.

Sitting around campfire with a glass in your hand and a guitar might be really really bad for you.

To me it sends the message that people who quit smoking tend to live longer than people who don't, but not that the act of quitting smoking had anything to do with anything. Specifically, if someone without the mindset to naturally quit smoking sees that study and quits only to hopefully live longer, they may not benefit nearly as much as someone who actually cares enough to more generally quit harming themselves.