Reply to The crisis coming that is taboo to talk about

Forum Index » Eldercare

Reply to "The crisis coming that is taboo to talk about"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]There’s a correlation between the gene that allows long fertility (older natural pregnancy) and the gene linked to longevity.

My mom has me in her mid 40s as a “whoops” baby.  She’s in her 90s and basically fine health-wise.  Her mom had her in her 30’s as a first baby, and she had no dementia at all until well past 100. So genetics plays a role.  
[/quote]

Your reference to "the gene" is nonsense. Nobody has identified such gene(s). The rest is far from settled although there are indications that having a few children is better for women's longevity than none or many children.

[/quote]

Grandma had 7, last at 42. Is alive at 97. Go figure. My Mom, her daughter, died at 72 quick cancer. It’s a crapshoot.[/quote]

Here's one of the studies, although there are several more that can be easily found online.  My family members were involved in one of the earliest big studies regarding super-longevity and that correlation was one of their notable findings, so I have followed the research that grew out of it a bit.  They haven't identified a specific gene, but there's a strong correlation found in multiple studies and the hypothesis is that there is a gene or combination of genes that basically slows the aging process resulting in longer fertility as well as delayed dementia and longer life.  I agree with PP that cancer is a total wildcard, though.  The relative that was involved in the study had a mother who died at 80 due to breast cancer (before it was really treated) -- without the breast cancer, maybe she would have lived to be 100, like her mother and her daughters.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270889/[/quote]

NP.  I'm familiar with this research.  I think it is important to point out that, historically, women who were getting and staying pregnant in their 40s were doing so without any artificial reproductive technology.  They got pregnant on their own, and they stayed pregnant on their own.  So yeah, for those women, this probably was true.

Today, it is a very different story.  Science allows many of us to have children far later than we otherwise would have.  In other words, you're going to have a lot of older parents walking around who don't have whatever mystery gene there might be that will help with their longevity.[/quote]

IVF does not help with age that much. when egg quality is an issue (age) IVF is powerless. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics