Re: Women's longevity linked to avoiding risky habits

"Nelson J. Navarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "Stupendous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >
> > > There could be confounding factors that are hard to accomodate. For
>  example,
> > > most everyone is probably aware of an example of a married couple,
>  together
> > > for 40 or 50 years, and then the husband dies, and the wife subsequently
> > > loses her "will to live" or becomes depressed and doesn't take care of
>  her
> > > health anymore, etc., and dies shortly thereafter. This situation may
>  skew
> > > the data in favor of men.
> >
> > This is quite an amazing comment to make considering it is men who are
> > much, much more likely to commit suicide.
> 
> Huh? Please elaborate on what's "amazing" about my statement. Why should
> "suicide" by men matter?
> 

Suicide by men should matter because it may as you put it "skew the
data" in favor of women. Read what you are saying. You think that if
men do things and it affects how long they live it is okay to call it
a biological trait and yet if women do the same thing oh it must be
because of men and so it can't be counted. This is a strange and new
type of reasoning to me. It makes perfect sense if you disregard the
whole *logic* thing.


> > > Another confounding factor: drugs. If anti-diabetic drugs (and perhaps
>  ACE
> > > inhibitors and statins as well) have an antiaging effect (and it appears
> > > that they do), then that has to be factored into the study. If more men
>  than
> > > women take these drugs, or begin taking them at an earlier age, that may
> > > skew the data in favor of men. Was this considered and controlled for? I
> > > doubt it.
> >
> > Can anyone say "wild extrapolation"?
> 
> There's noting "wild" about it.
> 
>  Besides it's women who take tons
> > of supplements and are at the doctor's door every second day.
> 
> I'm not going to debate with you how many angels can dance on the head of a
> pin. I don't pretend to know how many women take supplements compared to
> men, or what they take, or how often they visit the doctor, etc.

Well I will pretend to know that because I do know it from research
and statistics about how often each of them visited the doctor and
went for health checks and took supplements etc.
 
> I'm taking the position here that women have a biological advantage of
> somewhat slower aging, compared to men, during a part of their lives.

I am not aware of this although I'm not saying it's not true. I wish
you would tell me what you are speculating and what is taken to be
true in the scientific community.

> It is
> therefore reasonable for me to speculate that more men would generally be
> treated for things like hypertension, hyperlipidemia, etc., at a younger
> chronological age than women would be. Since the drugs the men would take
> would likely include ACE inhibitors, statins, and insulin sensitizers (drugs
> that appear to reduce all-cause mortality), this would tend to slew the data
> in favor of men.

Oh please. You cannot be actually suggesting that these drugs really
do slow the aging process significently. If the opinion of doctors
worldwide thought they did then either we would all be taking them or
there would be some sort of conspiracy afoot. Fishing the internet is
not always the best way to obtain information.