The levels of fraud aren't that rampant. Focusing on life expectancy in those regions still seems to have some valid correlation. It was a mistake from the beginning to try to focus on outliers (people living over 100).

Part of the research shows that when you drop the outliers these regions have a lower than average life expectancy.

Yeah, it does show that for some of the areas, but not others. The problem with these population studies is they do not give you answers, only new variables. In my view, the whole blue zone study is moot, at least in the way it is typically applied. What it does give us are new variables to study. Those smaller studied can control for variables that the population level cannot. They can also apply those studies to populations of different decent (genetics).

The glass of wine recommendation has had many studies done and the results are conflicting.

The eating guidelines like heavy in plants, mederteranian, eating to 80% full all have multiple studies showing benefits over the typical western diet and especially the typical American diet. It's a no brainer that if you want to live a long life you have a better chance of doing that if you have a reduced risk of heart attack, stroke, diabetes, etc.

Most of these guidelines are based on the same sort of flawed population-level studies that can't control for many other aspects. For example, the "Mediterranean diet" is consumed in countries that have all sorts of other specific lifestyle differences that are just as likely to influence health and longevity - siesta, a general tendency not to stress or work in exaggerated amounts, a month or more of vacation per year, significant sun exposure, good social healthcare, and many others. All of these together have certain (mild) effects on longevity and health, but there is virtually no way to isolate any one from all of the others.

There are also many studies that suggest other kinds of diets are beneficial, and many populations that consume significantly different diets and have even better health than the average person around the Mediterranean. For example, inuit populations also display generally low obesity and risks of heart attack, stroke, diabetes etc - while consuming almost the opposite of a Mediterranean diet or of plant heavy diets.

"For example, inuit populations also display generally low obesity and risks of heart attack, stroke, diabetes etc - while consuming almost the opposite of a Mediterranean diet or of plant heavy diets."

That doesn't seem to be true.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30578133/

The studies backing up specific diets are not population level, but rather specific study groups. And yes, there are other healthy diets too.

Right, I have no problem with dietary recommendations that are inspired by "blue zones" and then validated with research in other populations.

so no correlations between lifestyle and longevity? doubt

There are it's just the outlier blue zones where people are supposed to be reaching very hugh maximum ages at a surprising rate that are probably not real. There are still plenty of correlations between healthier lifestyles generally you just shouldn't attempt to live past 100 by emulating what people in an alleged blue zone do.

That is no way shape or form invalidates any actual link between lifestyle and longevity. It just means you can't simply assume that any given example of longevity, or data indicating longevity, must be due to lifestyle.

There is correlation (and maybe even causal relation) between lifestyle and longevity. It's just the lifestyle in those "Blue Zones" is not different from the lifestyle of surrounding areas (or as in Okinawa - gradient points in the wrong direction), so cannot serve as the sure way to longevity.

> what they ended up finding was a great tool for spotting pension fraud

I mean, that’s not nothing, y’know?

i mean there are studies that show good socialization leads to longer life expectancy so you're not wrong