2475 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

Well I'm sure he has great genes, tho' after reading his thoughts, interviews and so on it seems that dude was always very conscious about self preservance/health. He mentioned a few times that the shape he is in and the vigour at his current age is "A dream come true"... I guess he had a dream - to be "in the game" for as long as possible...

I really wish people would stop perpetuating the 'genes' argument already, especially when it comes to people who choose to commit themselves to something. Saying it's 'genes' is kind of insulting to the personal integrity of the individual who makes the choice. It makes it sound like they don't have to work hard to get what they want. Or that somebody else who works just as hard won't get there.

Look I love this thread, but there is a huge deficit of statistical understanding/analysis present in its theme. You could rename this thread "A collection of outliers". It's easy to say these people committed themselves to being in shape, but the truth of the matter is that for every person shown here, there are 1000's of other people who did the same thing, or even more, and don't look nearly as good (or are dead already!). If this thread was going when Jeanne Calment was 95, she would probably be posted and remarked upon. We would say how good she looks, and try breakdown here lifestyle/regimen for hints behind her youthfulnes and vitality. The point is Jeanne Calment is probably just literally 1 in billions who could have done anything--like say smoke for 100 years--and get away with it to 120 years and beyond.

I'm not hating on this thread. Anecdote is powerful, and sometimes all we have to work on. I base many of my decisions on anecdote when the hard science is right down the line or not yet robust enough. But this thread is Sampling Bias in its highest form.

On the contrary the anecdote is the genes argument, there is absolutely zero studies showing a correlation between people who look better and 'genes'. Every single person I have either known or known of, when making maximun effort with diet, exercise and supplementation, looks better than most people their ages.

I think genes do contribute; some people just look older at a given age than their peers based purely on their genetic predisposition. Likewise, some people look younger ("baby face") despite an average or below average lifestyle. That said, beyond a certain age, lifestyle probably comprises most of the "looking younger" effect. I'd reckon that after 30 years of age, lifestyle begins to make huge contributions to one's appearance. If you started with good genetic predisposition, lifestyle will take that effect even further.

If this is true it certainly has not been proven by any long term study. This 'genes' argument always surprises me coming from such stringent scientific minds. It's kind of a myth really when you think about it. Where did the myth begin? I have seen pictures of my father when he was my age, he looked about 5 years older due to smoking, drinking and probably not eating right.

Of course it hasn't been "proven", but we are only beginning to unravel the human genome.

We know the genetic predisposition towards cholesterol levels, fat and carbohydrate metabolism, fasting glucose, sex hormones, etc. We know the genes for hair thickness, eye color, skin color, etc. We know there are genes for collagen production, eye shape, nose shape, etc. Is it so hard to believe there are combinations of genes that predispose someone to look younger or retain the youthful look? In fact, neoteny has been cultivated in other animals through domestication (dogs, cats), so it obviously has a genetic basis.

Whether or not it is harder to believe it does not change the fact that there is no direct correlation to looking younger/older at specific ages that have been proven. Let us say that someone 'looks like' their parents because of a hypothetical genetic predisposition to having a certain shape face, nose, eye color, etc. It does not necessarily follow that the aging pattern of that individual will be identical to their parents. These, to me, are separate biological events than a predisposition toward a specific hair color, eye color, etc.

With regard to your neoteny in animals reference. Completely different genetic complexity level. There have been cases of two human dwarves giving birth to normal children with normal growth patterns, as well as the reverse. Plenty of normal couples give birth to children with abnormal birth defects, down syndrome, etc. So on this basis not everything can be deduced to this hypothetical culprit of genetics (though in some instances specific gene pairings have been hypothesized to be the cause of specific defects). That is, random genetic occurrences which are not completely explicable do occur. So why can't we control the rate at which certain (hypothetical) genetic characteristics unfold? Such as the rate at which one ages? It seems pretty clear to me that we can at least partially control some of these would be factors.

Edited by TheFountain, 18 January 2011 - 05:16 AM.

[Skötkonung]

Well I'm sure he has great genes, tho' after reading his thoughts, interviews and so on it seems that dude was always very conscious about self preservance/health. He mentioned a few times that the shape he is in and the vigour at his current age is "A dream come true"... I guess he had a dream - to be "in the game" for as long as possible...

I really wish people would stop perpetuating the 'genes' argument already, especially when it comes to people who choose to commit themselves to something. Saying it's 'genes' is kind of insulting to the personal integrity of the individual who makes the choice. It makes it sound like they don't have to work hard to get what they want. Or that somebody else who works just as hard won't get there.

Look I love this thread, but there is a huge deficit of statistical understanding/analysis present in its theme. You could rename this thread "A collection of outliers". It's easy to say these people committed themselves to being in shape, but the truth of the matter is that for every person shown here, there are 1000's of other people who did the same thing, or even more, and don't look nearly as good (or are dead already!). If this thread was going when Jeanne Calment was 95, she would probably be posted and remarked upon. We would say how good she looks, and try breakdown here lifestyle/regimen for hints behind her youthfulnes and vitality. The point is Jeanne Calment is probably just literally 1 in billions who could have done anything--like say smoke for 100 years--and get away with it to 120 years and beyond.

I'm not hating on this thread. Anecdote is powerful, and sometimes all we have to work on. I base many of my decisions on anecdote when the hard science is right down the line or not yet robust enough. But this thread is Sampling Bias in its highest form.

On the contrary the anecdote is the genes argument, there is absolutely zero studies showing a correlation between people who look better and 'genes'. Every single person I have either known or known of, when making maximun effort with diet, exercise and supplementation, looks better than most people their ages.

I think genes do contribute; some people just look older at a given age than their peers based purely on their genetic predisposition. Likewise, some people look younger ("baby face") despite an average or below average lifestyle. That said, beyond a certain age, lifestyle probably comprises most of the "looking younger" effect. I'd reckon that after 30 years of age, lifestyle begins to make huge contributions to one's appearance. If you started with good genetic predisposition, lifestyle will take that effect even further.

If this is true it certainly has not been proven by any long term study. This 'genes' argument always surprises me coming from such stringent scientific minds. It's kind of a myth really when you think about it. Where did the myth begin? I have seen pictures of my father when he was my age, he looked about 5 years older due to smoking, drinking and probably not eating right.

Of course it hasn't been "proven", but we are only beginning to unravel the human genome.

We know the genetic predisposition towards cholesterol levels, fat and carbohydrate metabolism, fasting glucose, sex hormones, etc. We know the genes for hair thickness, eye color, skin color, etc. We know there are genes for collagen production, eye shape, nose shape, etc. Is it so hard to believe there are combinations of genes that predispose someone to look younger or retain the youthful look? In fact, neoteny has been cultivated in other animals through domestication (dogs, cats), so it obviously has a genetic basis.

Whether or not it is harder to believe it does not change the fact that there is no direct correlation to looking younger/older at specific ages that have been proven. Let us say that someone 'looks like' their parents because of a hypothetical genetic predisposition to having a certain shape face, nose, eye color, etc. It does not necessarily follow that the aging pattern of that individual will be identical to their parents. These, to me, are separate biological events than a predisposition toward a specific hair color, eye color, etc.

With regard to your neoteny in animals reference. Completely different genetic complexity level. There have been cases of two human dwarves giving birth to normal children with normal growth patterns, as well as the reverse. Plenty of normal couples give birth to children with abnormal birth defects, down syndrome, etc. So on this basis not everything can be deduced to this hypothetical culprit of genetics (though in some instances specific gene pairings have been hypothesized to be the cause of specific defects). That is, random genetic occurrences which are not completely explicable do occur. So why can't we control the rate at which certain (hypothetical) genetic characteristics unfold? Such as the rate at which one ages? It seems pretty clear to me that we can at least partially control some of these would be factors.

I'm not trying to infer that just because your dad looks older than his given age, that you will also look older. There seems to be a lot of confounding details in your parent's aging, such as lifestyle (smoking, specifically). I won't deny that lifestyle plays a massive role in how we age, but so does genetics. Together, the two create a "symphony" effect. And like you said, the two often interact... lifestyle has been "proven" to change epigenetic expression.

http://www.pnas.org/...05/24/8369.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm....cles/PMC549181/

But some people are given better genes from birth
http://www.time.com/...2001090,00.html

[TheFountain]

Well I'm sure he has great genes, tho' after reading his thoughts, interviews and so on it seems that dude was always very conscious about self preservance/health. He mentioned a few times that the shape he is in and the vigour at his current age is "A dream come true"... I guess he had a dream - to be "in the game" for as long as possible...

I really wish people would stop perpetuating the 'genes' argument already, especially when it comes to people who choose to commit themselves to something. Saying it's 'genes' is kind of insulting to the personal integrity of the individual who makes the choice. It makes it sound like they don't have to work hard to get what they want. Or that somebody else who works just as hard won't get there.

Look I love this thread, but there is a huge deficit of statistical understanding/analysis present in its theme. You could rename this thread "A collection of outliers". It's easy to say these people committed themselves to being in shape, but the truth of the matter is that for every person shown here, there are 1000's of other people who did the same thing, or even more, and don't look nearly as good (or are dead already!). If this thread was going when Jeanne Calment was 95, she would probably be posted and remarked upon. We would say how good she looks, and try breakdown here lifestyle/regimen for hints behind her youthfulnes and vitality. The point is Jeanne Calment is probably just literally 1 in billions who could have done anything--like say smoke for 100 years--and get away with it to 120 years and beyond.

I'm not hating on this thread. Anecdote is powerful, and sometimes all we have to work on. I base many of my decisions on anecdote when the hard science is right down the line or not yet robust enough. But this thread is Sampling Bias in its highest form.

On the contrary the anecdote is the genes argument, there is absolutely zero studies showing a correlation between people who look better and 'genes'. Every single person I have either known or known of, when making maximun effort with diet, exercise and supplementation, looks better than most people their ages.

I think genes do contribute; some people just look older at a given age than their peers based purely on their genetic predisposition. Likewise, some people look younger ("baby face") despite an average or below average lifestyle. That said, beyond a certain age, lifestyle probably comprises most of the "looking younger" effect. I'd reckon that after 30 years of age, lifestyle begins to make huge contributions to one's appearance. If you started with good genetic predisposition, lifestyle will take that effect even further.

If this is true it certainly has not been proven by any long term study. This 'genes' argument always surprises me coming from such stringent scientific minds. It's kind of a myth really when you think about it. Where did the myth begin? I have seen pictures of my father when he was my age, he looked about 5 years older due to smoking, drinking and probably not eating right.

Of course it hasn't been "proven", but we are only beginning to unravel the human genome.

We know the genetic predisposition towards cholesterol levels, fat and carbohydrate metabolism, fasting glucose, sex hormones, etc. We know the genes for hair thickness, eye color, skin color, etc. We know there are genes for collagen production, eye shape, nose shape, etc. Is it so hard to believe there are combinations of genes that predispose someone to look younger or retain the youthful look? In fact, neoteny has been cultivated in other animals through domestication (dogs, cats), so it obviously has a genetic basis.

Whether or not it is harder to believe it does not change the fact that there is no direct correlation to looking younger/older at specific ages that have been proven. Let us say that someone 'looks like' their parents because of a hypothetical genetic predisposition to having a certain shape face, nose, eye color, etc. It does not necessarily follow that the aging pattern of that individual will be identical to their parents. These, to me, are separate biological events than a predisposition toward a specific hair color, eye color, etc.

With regard to your neoteny in animals reference. Completely different genetic complexity level. There have been cases of two human dwarves giving birth to normal children with normal growth patterns, as well as the reverse. Plenty of normal couples give birth to children with abnormal birth defects, down syndrome, etc. So on this basis not everything can be deduced to this hypothetical culprit of genetics (though in some instances specific gene pairings have been hypothesized to be the cause of specific defects). That is, random genetic occurrences which are not completely explicable do occur. So why can't we control the rate at which certain (hypothetical) genetic characteristics unfold? Such as the rate at which one ages? It seems pretty clear to me that we can at least partially control some of these would be factors.

I'm not trying to infer that just because your dad looks older than his given age, that you will also look older. There seems to be a lot of confounding details in your parent's aging, such as lifestyle (smoking, specifically). I won't deny that lifestyle plays a massive role in how we age, but so does genetics. Together, the two create a "symphony" effect. And like you said, the two often interact... lifestyle has been "proven" to change epigenetic expression.

http://www.pnas.org/...05/24/8369.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm....cles/PMC549181/

But some people are given better genes from birth
http://www.time.com/...2001090,00.html

I would not classify them as 'better genes' just different genes. I think it is up to each individual to learn how to work with their situations. There is an optimal biological state, within said parameters, that almost everyone can live within I think, if they exercise, eat right, supplement, stay away from exacerbating agents, etc.

I mean let us say that, for instance, it is a correct inference that some people have better 'muscle genes' for example. Does 'better' really compute? Does having rounder muscles than the next guy really mean you are in better health or have 'better genes' or simply different genes? Remember that most body building comes down to aesthetics. It doesn't necessarily mean these guys (or girls) are healthy than non-body builders. Even if they are 'genetically predisposed' to having slightly rounder or more full muscles than someone else.

But I also insist that this does not deduce to them looking younger/older than someone else with less round/full muscles and that these are, still, different genetic structures at work.

Edited by TheFountain, 18 January 2011 - 07:08 PM.

[VidX]

nice quoting




























>:-(

[e Volution]

^^ yeh srsly...

[mikeinnaples]

As you can see - the difference is very big. One looks like a 40, another like a teen, tho' both of them are hormonized to eyeballs (testosterone, gh, etc...), and Alexay actually started hormonization even earlier I guess, as he was a freak at 18 already)... It seems that some people just have a "baby face" no matter what...

They are both pretty disgusting looking to be honest. I just don't understand the point of doing this to yourself. They may be able to lift way more weight than me, but I guarantee you I am in vastly overall better shape than both of them and I am 14 years older.

[VidX]

As you can see - the difference is very big. One looks like a 40, another like a teen, tho' both of them are hormonized to eyeballs (testosterone, gh, etc...), and Alexay actually started hormonization even earlier I guess, as he was a freak at 18 already)... It seems that some people just have a "baby face" no matter what...

They are both pretty disgusting looking to be honest. I just don't understand the point of doing this to yourself. They may be able to lift way more weight than me, but I guarantee you I am in vastly overall better shape than both of them and I am 14 years older.

Well you can't understand a bodybuilder if you are not one. I'd give an analogy of some other subculture of a body transformation/modification (piercing, tattoo, etc..).. you just need to be the part of it, to have the same mindset to be able to understand it (for ex. a person who hasn't walked at 240lb at 7-8bf, depending on height, of course, he won't ever understand "the rush", the feeling, it's uncomparable and unexplainable, but it can be very very addictive, trust me... Bodybuilders, even being one, are probably most happy persons I've ever met, like - permanently happy, as long as you are "In shape", the world smiles to you and you smile t the world haha.. as I said - it's a "head" thing..). And it's not about "health" at that level. I mean - most guys even at that level are surprisingly healthy, but it's not a goal.
Tho' - there's no need to try to understand it, to each his own.. Anyway, I was referring to the face in this case.

Edited by VidX, 19 January 2011 - 09:35 PM.

[Brafarality]

Kind of cliched at this point (almost monthly in People, Us, Prevention, etc.), but slideshows like this are a good snapshot of the rank and file preserved celebrities. These lists almost never include the best of the best (Leto, Mirren, de Paul, Maccio, etc), since the best examples are usually not 'of the moment' or currently relevant, but these lists usually give a pretty decent sample and are just cool:
Over 40 and Fabulous

Edited by Brafarality, 20 January 2011 - 10:13 AM.

[mikeinnaples]

Well you can't understand a bodybuilder if you are not one. I'd give an analogy of some other subculture of a body transformation/modification (piercing, tattoo, etc..).. you just need to be the part of it, to have the same mindset to be able to understand it (for ex. a person who hasn't walked at 240lb at 7-8bf, depending on height, of course, he won't ever understand "the rush", the feeling, it's uncomparable and unexplainable, but it can be very very addictive, trust me... Bodybuilders, even being one, are probably most happy persons I've ever met, like - permanently happy, as long as you are "In shape", the world smiles to you and you smile t the world haha.. as I said - it's a "head" thing..). And it's not about "health" at that level. I mean - most guys even at that level are surprisingly healthy, but it's not a goal.
Tho' - there's no need to try to understand it, to each his own.. Anyway, I was referring to the face in this case.

Don't make assumptions. There was a point in my life when I was 20 years old and 230 at 8% body fat and my life was the USMC and the gym. It was strictly an ego thing for me back then. Speaking from both perspectives, and because of both perspectives, I no longer understand why people want big/bulky when lean/agile is so much better overall ...especially from the community in these forums. Speaking from pure physique alone, trading in Arnold's body for Bruce Lee's was the best thing I ever did. (Just an example, not saying I was up to the standards of those two icons).

[VidX]

Don't make assumptions. There was a point in my life when I was 20 years old and 230 at 8% body fat and my life was the USMC and the gym. It was strictly an ego thing for me back then. Speaking from both perspectives, and because of both perspectives, I no longer understand why people want big/bulky when lean/agile is so much better overall ...especially from the community in these forums. Speaking from pure physique alone, trading in Arnold's body for Bruce Lee's was the best thing I ever did. (Just an example, not saying I was up to the standards of those two icons).

Well you haven't been then (not the weight, but in the "Mindset" of a bodybuilder..). There's no way back. I haven't seen a single person in 10+ years that was able to "roll back" his mind after becoming bigorexic (dysmorphic). Well ok, maybe you are an exception, but it's like anorexia overall - just with many up-sides and little down-sides.. For me a true mindset of bodybuilding is a whole philosophy, a certain lifestyle, a discipline of the mind (R.Robinson, K.Greene, Arnold.. comes into a mind, when talking about that kind of drive/state of mind)... But once again - to each his own...

Edited by VidX, 20 January 2011 - 01:59 PM.

[VidX]

Jared Leto brother Tomo, he's 40 already. Doesn't look nearly as that imho:

[JohnD60]

Fresh meat! I get a kick out of judging people.

RE: Tomo. Not seeing it, at least not from this pic. To me he looks like a 40 year old guy wearing goofy clothes trying desperately to look younger than he is. His receding hair line dominates his image in my opinion. And the five o'clock shadow doesn't help.

Here is a side by side of Susan Lucci. She would have been 33 in the earlier pic and 62 in the later pic. She was on Oprah recently (didn't see it) and said she has not had p/surgery, but I (and others more knowledgeable on the subject than I) don't find it credible. IMO she has had at least a neck lift and a brow lift. I think botox and fillers are a given. I think when attractive celebrities say they haven't had p/surgery they mean they haven't had p/surgery to alter their appearance, and that they don't consider surgery to maintain their appearance to be p/surgery.

Edited by JohnD60, 11 February 2011 - 05:32 PM.

[VidX]

Well I don't see 40yos often with such a smooth and fresh skin..

[JohnD60]

He looks younger in the second pic. In the second pic I would say he looks like a 35 year old guy with heavy eye makeup (it hides the hollows above and below the eyes), which if you don't notice would lead you to believe he is 30. His brows are at a markedly different angle then they were when he was younger, which leads me to conclude he has a lot of botox in his forehead and temples and/or he has had some surgical eye work.

[VidX]

CT once again.. Damn she's hot..
41
http://imagecdn.bodybuilding.com/img/user_images/growable/2011/01/22/90535/progresspic/1FZttyyqgjgXur3mXNxtSchKw29wJ31170.jpeg

Edited by VidX, 15 February 2011 - 11:21 PM.

[JohnD60]

She is attractive, hard to tell how old she is in that posture. Is she well known?
I want to imbed photos of someone I know (he is 50), but I want to reserve the option to remove them in the future, and I can't figure out how to do that, so I will just post these links to photobucket:
My link1
My link2

[Dorho]

This might be the dumbest thing I've done in a while, but I couldn't resist it. So here I am:



How old do I look?

Edited by Dorho, 16 February 2011 - 11:50 AM.

[Dorho]

VidX: As far as I could tell, she could be in her mid 30s. Who is she?

JohnD60: he looks about his age. The ears, jaw shape and receded hairline are the three most noticeable features that distinguishes him from younger folks.

EDIT: typo

Edited by Dorho, 16 February 2011 - 09:58 AM.

[VidX]

Idk, 25^^ maybe?

She's chickentuna, a popular girl on bb'ing boards.


Here's a dude I posted a few years ago. He's almost 43 in this pic:

Edited by VidX, 16 February 2011 - 11:48 AM.

[Dorho]

Women with tad more body fat look softer and cuter imo... but she's definitely worked hard to achieve the kind of look she wanted.

The guy looks like a freak, like a 16 year old geek's head had been transplanted to a steroid abuser's body.

[Dorho]

Kind of cliched at this point (almost monthly in People, Us, Prevention, etc.), but slideshows like this are a good snapshot of the rank and file preserved celebrities. These lists almost never include the best of the best (Leto, Mirren, de Paul, Maccio, etc), since the best examples are usually not 'of the moment' or currently relevant, but these lists usually give a pretty decent sample and are just cool:
Over 40 and Fabulous

The most striking person on the list imo is Angela Bassett:


She's 52 years old. If someone said she's 32, I'd had no hard time believing it. Not only does she look attractive, but she also has this aura of youthful vigor to her.

[mikeinnaples]

Dorho, guessing the age of your Pic, I would say mid 30's.

Women with more body fat may be softer, but not always hotter. That girl is fine example of a smoking hot ripped chic. I would take her surfing with me any day

[JohnD60]

JohnD60: he looks about his age. The ears, jaw shape and receded hairline are the three most noticeable features that distinguishes him from younger folks.

I understand the comment about the 'receded hairline'. But I am in the dark on 'jaw shape' and 'ears', please elaborate.

Good technique with the camera in the mirror, but your bathroom needs better lighting. Heavy shadows make age estimation difficult, but I will guess 35.

[JohnD60]

She's chickentuna, a popular girl on bb'ing boards.

yes, she looks much younger than 41 in the yellow bikini photo, I would estimate 33. Most impressive to me is that she has low body fat, but retains good skin collagen in the face. The large majority of women 35+ with low body fat loose the fat in their faces, and project a tired, wrinkled look.

[VidX]

I'd think she's in the 24-27 age range if I'd meet her in a club. I think her body in tight clothes should look twice as impressive in reality.

[VidX]

Some people were dissing james41 guy at the regimens section of his alleged "unproved claims", but geez... I look and then I look again.. and it's so difficult to believe Andy is 35 already:

[mikeinnaples]

Some people were dissing james41 guy at the regimens section of his alleged "unproved claims", but geez... I look and then I look again.. and it's so difficult to believe Andy is 35 already:

Well a few things:

1. The poster you mentioned claimed to do the same thing with chemical castration and by messing around at extreme levels with hormones. Not the same as Andy.

2. I can still see Andy's age despite the voice and size. I can't quite put a finger on it, but his eyes look old and he is very out of place (aside from something being 'off' with his appearance. If I met him on the street I would think he was a late 20's to early 30's chunky, butchy lesbian.

[Dorho]

Considering that the average for the three guesses about my age is 7 years higher than my real age, I'm definitely on the right forum :D

I think the perceived age largely affects what kind of clothing style suits one the best so that made me more assured that my quite formal style in public is a good choice.

[mikeinnaples]

I think the perceived age largely affects what kind of clothing style suits one the best so that made me more assured that my quite formal style in public is a good choice.

Clothing style can affect perceived age as well.

On a side note, I am not so proud to say that I can go from looking 10 years younger than I am to 10 years older simply by changing my what I wear and not shaving one morning.

[VidX]

Yeah.. one should dress what one likes.. I hate when ppl try to "categorize" clothes by a chronological age.