Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are blue zones real? Answering that question is harder then ever

statnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 66 posts

Re: Are blue zones real? Answering that question is harder then ever

#31

Post by Paracompact »

hnfong wrote: post #28
Paracompact wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if it's a feature or a flaw of academia that some topics can so be thoroughly proven/disproven, and yet so many researchers continue to devote their careers to it. Should more effort be given to enforcing existing knowledge and consensus, or is preserving intellectual freedom more important? Granted, I understand Blue Zone stuff is mostly due to marketing incentives...

I can't tell if you think academia is "enforcing existing knowledge and consensus" or "preserving intellectual freedom"... My personal take is that academia is doing very well on the former, and not much on the latter.

It depends on how you think the limited resources to perform research should best be allocated, and whether scientists should become more like doctors or lawyers so far as centralization of credentialing and professional gatekeeping goes. Doctors and lawyers have boards that can actually revoke your ability to practice for falling outside accepted standards. Science deliberately doesn't. Is that good or bad?

Re: Are blue zones real? Answering that question is harder then ever

#32

Post by smt88 »

hnfong wrote: post #29
smt88 wrote: post #13

Blue zones have been utterly, thoroughly debunked. There’s no reason to still ask this question in 2026 unless a new/unusual population or lifestyle is emerging.

This is your personal opinion or general consensus?

Why would it be my personal opinion? Do you think I was the one who did the research debunking them?

If you're too lazy to Google it for yourself, here's a history of the Blue Zone research, how the original "researcher" is profiting off of it, and the careful work that has been done to debunk it: https://www.science.org/content/article/do-blue-zones-suppos...

Re: Are blue zones real? Answering that question is harder then ever

#33

Post by [deleted] »

Paracompact wrote: post #31
hnfong wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if you think academia is "enforcing existing knowledge and consensus" or "preserving intellectual freedom"... My personal take is that academia is doing very well on the former, and not much on the latter.

It depends on how you think the limited resources to perform research should best be allocated, and whether scientists should become more like doctors or lawyers so far as centralization of credentialing and professional gatekeeping goes. Doctors and lawyers have boards that can actually revoke your ability to practice for falling outside accepted standards. Science deliberately doesn't. Is that good or bad?

[deleted]

Re: Are blue zones real? Answering that question is harder then ever

#34

Post by [deleted] »

Paracompact wrote: post #31
hnfong wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if you think academia is "enforcing existing knowledge and consensus" or "preserving intellectual freedom"... My personal take is that academia is doing very well on the former, and not much on the latter.

It depends on how you think the limited resources to perform research should best be allocated, and whether scientists should become more like doctors or lawyers so far as centralization of credentialing and professional gatekeeping goes. Doctors and lawyers have boards that can actually revoke your ability to practice for falling outside accepted standards. Science deliberately doesn't. Is that good or bad?

[deleted]

Re: Are blue zones real? Answering that question is harder then ever

#35

Post by hnfong »

smt88 wrote: post #32
hnfong wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is your personal opinion or general consensus?

Why would it be my personal opinion? Do you think I was the one who did the research debunking them? If you're too lazy to Google it for yourself, here's a history of the Blue Zone research, how the original "researcher" is profiting off of it, and the careful work that has been done to debunk it: https://www.science.org/content/article/do-blue-zones-suppos...

I think you misunderstand. You think blue zones are "thoroughly debunked". And it might be even true that blue zones aren't real.

But I am not seeing any evidence that the general public is aware of this. And thus we need more of the articles "asking" this question so that more people are aware of the issues on it.

FYI, the article you linked basically tells the same story as the topical article. Are you too lazy to read it before commenting?

Re: Are blue zones real? Answering that question is harder then ever

#36

Post by hnfong »

Paracompact wrote: post #31
hnfong wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if you think academia is "enforcing existing knowledge and consensus" or "preserving intellectual freedom"... My personal take is that academia is doing very well on the former, and not much on the latter.

It depends on how you think the limited resources to perform research should best be allocated, and whether scientists should become more like doctors or lawyers so far as centralization of credentialing and professional gatekeeping goes. Doctors and lawyers have boards that can actually revoke your ability to practice for falling outside accepted standards. Science deliberately doesn't. Is that good or bad?

My point is that the scientific establishment is already basically like those boards that can limit your ability to do research unless you have a license.

The "license" is a PhD (from a reputable institution) and publications in a select list of high profile journals.

I'm very curious why you'd think otherwise.

Re: Are blue zones real? Answering that question is harder then ever

#37

Post by [deleted] »

Paracompact wrote: post #31
hnfong wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if you think academia is "enforcing existing knowledge and consensus" or "preserving intellectual freedom"... My personal take is that academia is doing very well on the former, and not much on the latter.

It depends on how you think the limited resources to perform research should best be allocated, and whether scientists should become more like doctors or lawyers so far as centralization of credentialing and professional gatekeeping goes. Doctors and lawyers have boards that can actually revoke your ability to practice for falling outside accepted standards. Science deliberately doesn't. Is that good or bad?

[deleted]

Re: Are blue zones real? Answering that question is harder then ever

#38

Post by Retric »

hnfong wrote: post #36
Paracompact wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on how you think the limited resources to perform research should best be allocated, and whether scientists should become more like doctors or lawyers so far as centralization of credentialing and professional gatekeeping goes. Doctors and lawyers have boards that can actually revoke your ability to practice for falling outside accepted standards. Science deliberately doesn't. Is that good or bad?

My point is that the scientific establishment is already basically like those boards that can limit your ability to do research unless you have a license. The "license" is a PhD (from a reputable institution) and publications in a select list of high profile journals. I'm very curious why you'd think otherwise.

Independent research by non PhD’s does occasionally get published, but it’s really difficult to meet the appropriate standards without a lot of very specific training.

There’s many objects discovered by amateur astronomers for example.

Re: Are blue zones real? Answering that question is harder then ever

#39

Post by adventured »

Aboutplants wrote: post #3

My doctor always says “There are three little things that will give you the best chance at living a long and healthy life. Eat a little better, move around a little bit, and get a little more sleep”

Eat fewer calories. Consume as little added sugar as possible.

You don't have to eat much better. You can trivially supplement. It's far more important to eat less.

Re: Are blue zones real? Answering that question is harder then ever

#40

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

mountainriver wrote: post #14

Blue zones were always just eat healthy, exercise, and having friends. I believe that these things almost certainly help longevity as a number of independent studies into each of these show that, and it’s intuitively obvious

I think you've missed the entire point of TFA.

It is, in fact, highly debatable whether blue zones exist at all. That is, it is highly debatable whether there are any places in the world where longevity is statistically significantly longer than anywhere else.

Newman says (and insists) that the answer is "there are none". Buettner insists "there are". One of them is wrong.

Post reply on HN