I know just one person over 100 with an actual birth certificate.
Across U.S. states, the total and per capita numbers of supercentenarians dramatically decline right after the introduction of birth certificates (blue line).
Also, have you ever noticed that supercentenarians are more common in areas with more crime, more poverty, and lower average life expectancies?
Here's data for England:
The same pattern of supercentenarian numbers being correlated with poverty holds in (A, D) England, (B, E) France, and (C, F) Japan.
Across countries, you just see the same things over and over, from age heaping to weird correlations, so the conclusion is clear:
Supercentenarian numbers are driven less by regionally exceptional longevity and more by people defrauding pension systems and making up their ages.
Oh, and if you wanted to learn how to live a long life from the "blue zones" in Sardinia, Okinawa, and Icaria, good luck. Those places have low life expectancies and literacy levels, high crime, and lots of poverty.
Their long-lived people are not able to validate their ages.
This also applies to Loma Linda (not all that exceptional of a place).
In fact, across the whole U.S., at least 17% of centenarians were found to be non-centenarians in 2019 when someone just read through two plain-text files and found dates didn't match.
And this also applies to Nicoya, which is riddled with fraudulent ages:
If someone says they know someone super old, ask them: Where were they born? If it's in some place that was poor in the not-too-distant past, then they probably have the wrong age.
Compared to twenty years ago, kids are eating some types of ultraprocessed foods more and some types less🧵
For example, one thing there's proportionally less of is sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. Meanwhile, there's relatively greater sweet snack consumption.
Overall, the ultraprocessed food (UPF) consumption share is up across young ages to similar degrees.
The increase is definitely there, but it isn't dramatic. For example, going from 61% to 67.5% is an 11% increase in twenty years.
The increase in consumption is not differentiated by the sex of children.
In other words, boys and girls are both eating a bit more ultraprocessed food.
People tend to understand it as an indication that earlier generations were a lot less intelligent than we moderns.
Or if they're read up on the literature, they now think things are reversing.
Both are wrong! Take a look at this chart of Norwegian data:
If you don't understand what those tests are like, here are some example questions:
What we see over time with the Flynn Effect (the increase in IQ scores) and the Reverse Flynn Effect (the more recent decrease in IQ scores) is that both are due to something really boring: people interpreting tests differently than they used to.
The study took place in Germany and was centered on the experiences of 107 people aged 21-40 who lived alone and had earnings between €1,100 and €2,600 per month.
The experiment provided them with €1,200 per month for three full years.
Controls (N = 1,580) earned €10 for sticking with the program and another €30 if they made it the whole way.
There was no attrition in the treatment group, but 29% of the control group dropped out by the end of the study.
Many women have found that they get pregnant more easily after getting on GLP-1 drugs.
But women aren't the only ones noticing improved fertility:
There's now clinical trial evidence that GLP-1s improve sperm parameters.
The largest clinical trial published so far on this subject came out in 2023. It involved 110 men aged 18-35 with metabolic hypogonadism being sorted into one of three conditions:
A: The group seeking fatherhood.
B: The group not seeking fatherhood.
C: The group of already-dads.
The men in Group A were explicitly given the fertility drugs urofollitropin three times a week and human chorionic gonadotropin twice a week.