One of the longest questions of humans is how long we will live. This raises the question of how much our lifespan is formed by our environment and choice, and the degree of our genes in advance.
A recent study published in a famous journal Natural medical staffE We tried to quantify the relative contributions of the environment and lifestyle of our age and how long we live.
The discovery has been noticeable and suggests that our environment and lifestyle play a much larger role than the genes in determining our longevity.
What researchers did
This study used the data of the data. British biobankThe UK’s large -scale database includes in -depth health and lifestyle data of about 500,000 people. The available data includes information on genetic information, medical records, imaging and lifestyles.
The separate part of this study used data from the sub -set of more than 45,000 participants who suffered from blood samples.Protein profile ring“.
Proteomics profile ring is a relatively new technology that examines how the protein of the body is to identify human age at the molecular level over time. By using this method, researchers were able to estimate how quickly the individual’s body is actually aging. This is called a biological age, unlike chronological age (or alive).
Researchers evaluated 164 environmental exposure and genetic markers for the participants’ diseases. Environmental exposure included initial life factors such as lifestyle selection (e.g. smoking, physical activity), social factors (for example, living conditions, household income, employment status), and weight of childhood.
Then we found the connection between genetic and environmental diseases and 22 major age -related diseases (eg coronary arteries and type 2 diabetes), mortality and biological aging (determined by protein profile ring).
Through this analysis, researchers estimated the environmental factors of aging and death and the relative contributions of genetics.
What did they find?
As for the mortality rate related to disease, as we expected, age and sex explained a significant amount of about how long people lived. However, major discoveries have contributed to less than 2% of genetic factors, while environmental factors accounted for about 17% of their lifespan changes.
This discovery is very clear in terms of parenting of the “Natural Cultivation” discussion. It suggests that environmental factors have a much greater impact on health and longevity than genetics.
Unexpectedly, this study showed different mixes of environment and genetic effects on other diseases. Environmental factors had the greatest impact on lungs, heart and liver disease, but genetics played the greatest role in determining the risk of human breast cancer, ovary and prostate cancer and dementia.
Environmental factors that have the biggest impact on early death and biological aging include smoking, socioeconomic status, physical activity and living conditions.
Interestingly, the taller at age 10 turned out to have a short life. This may seem surprising, but the reason is not completely clear, but this is as follows: Previous study Finding bigger people is more likely to die early.
At the age of 10, the maternal smoking (when wearing a tobacco smoking in the late pregnancy or when it is a newborn) has also been shown to be shortened.
Perhaps the most amazing discovery in this study was the lack of association between the markers of biological aging, as determined by the protein profile ring. This flies in a wide range of evidence that shows an important role. Dietary pattern In the risk and lifespan of chronic diseases.
But there are many plausible explanations about this. The first can lack statistical power in some of the studies that see biological aging. In other words, the number of people studied is so small that it can see the effect of researchers on the diet’s true effect on aging.
Second, this research is likely to be relatively poor, and the quality of this study, which is self -reported and measured only at one point, is likely to limit the ability for researchers to see associated. Third, the relationship between diet and longevity is likely to be complicated, so it can be difficult to separate the diet from other lifestyle factors.
Therefore, despite this discovery, it is still safe to say that the food we eat is one of the most important pillars of health and longevity.
What other limits should we consider?
In this study, the main exposure (e.g. dietary therapy) was measured only at a single point of time and did not track over time, resulting in potential errors in the results.
Also, because this was an observation study, we cannot assume the connection between causal relationships. For example, living with a partner is related to longer life, which does not mean that a person will live longer. There may be other factors that explain this connection.
Finally, it is possible that this study has underestimated the role of genetics in life. It is important to recognize genetics and the environment is not separated. Rather, health results are formed by interaction, and this study may not have completely captured the complexity of this interaction.
The future is in your hands
It is worth noting that there are various factors such as household income, housing ownership and employment status related to aging diseases that were not necessarily within individual control. This emphasizes an important role in solving the social decision factors of health so that everyone has the best opportunity to live a long and healthy life.
At the same time, the result provides a message that grants the authority that the longevity is largely formed by our choice. This is a good news unless you have a good genes and want them to have heavy lifting.
Ultimately, the results of this study strengthen the concept that we can inherit certain genetic risks, but it seems to be more important in how we eat, move, and our relationship with the world how healthy and how long we live.
Hassan VallyAssociate professor, DEAKIN University
This article has been published conversation According to Creative Commons License. Read Original article.
