What about with an autopsy? Is there any way to determine someone's age postmortem?
You can open up a centenarian's brain and you'll see some areas that look like that of a 50-year-old or of a 110-year-old. You can have variation in the basic process of aging, called senescence, in different parts of the same body. You can look at someone's teeth after they die to evaluate their age, but I'm not sure if Dosova has any.
What are some other signs that help indicate someone's age?
Older people usually have dementia, which is cognitive decline due to aging, of one form or another. When they tested Jeanne they thought she had dementia, because she was very quiet, but it turned out she just spoke an obscure dialect of French. She was remarkably intelligent and alert and could remember things way back in her life. She remembered meeting Vincent van Gogh in southern France, for example, and remembered songs from early childhood. Later in life, she was largely blind, deaf and bedridden—the things that went wrong with her just happen to most of us at a younger age. But she did ride a bicycle until she was 100.
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
27 Comments
Add CommentWonderful article, despite the "bad news" that we all can't live to be 150.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know people who claim this or that will extend your age: over-dosing vitamins is big among this crowd. The only thing they're extending is the seller's profit margin. In fact, I gauge a person's age (and how close they are to senility) by the claims they make about living beyond maximum average age.
I don't think people consider the drawbacks to living into your hundreds. You're likely to lose all your family and friends that you've been close to, even very likely to see your children all die. The important places and things in your life are all most likely to be gone. And even if you're in wonderful health for someone that old, I'm sure there are a lot of aches and pains and other problems that would come with having a body that old!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI disagree, Rogeregon. The point this article makes is that these individuals enter into the very same aches and pains as everyone else, just at an older age; they have a longer youth. Moreover, life is a gift and the precious few blessed with such a lengthy life are blessed. I'm sure they gain new friends and enjoy life with great-great-grandchildren.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a student of history and one aspect that's overlooked is extreme longevity during eras like the Middle Agtes. The 13th century French historian, Sir Jean de Joinville, lived into his 90s and was both hardy and quick-witted for most of his life. The same can be said for Sir Morgan ap Maredudd, leader of a Welsh uprising in 1294-95, who was forgiven and lived to a ripe old age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've done extensive research into the career of an English knight of the Hundred Years War, SirJohn Sully (1281-1387 or 1388) who, as you can see, lived to at least 106. He was a West Country man of Devon, Dorset and Somerset, and his favorite manor, Iddesleigh, Devon --which I've visited--is so steep he probably got lots of exercise. (Useful for longevity, along with good genes.)
Although physically feeble at the very end of his life, John Sully served as a knight from about 1306 to 1the end of his life and was often out of England as a respected officer of the Black Prince. Although chosen Sheriff of Cornwall, military duties took him away to France. Later, he was able to attend Parliament as Knight of the Shire for Dorset.
His career is amazing! At 41, in 1322, he seems to have been one of the rebels against Edward II, imprisoned for it. Rehabilitated in Edward III's reign, he fought at Crecy and Calais, won a notale mention for valor at Poitiers in 1356 (at 74) and was chosen as 39th or 40th Knight of the Garter in 1362 or 63 (aged about 81). This was England's highest honor but no mere honorific, since it was an era when the Garter knights formed a formidable tournament team, fighting in mock-battle melees, bashing and slashing! Sir John's last known bsttle was at Najera in 1367 (at 85) but since he remained on active duty until about 1377, he may have craved more action. At age 95, he FINALLY decided to retire, and I hope he wasn't bored from lack of activity.
How do we know this? Couldn't there have been 3 or more generations of John Sullys, all knighted? Thankfully, a court case of 1386 required depositions from the eldest living knights of England, including our John Sully and another West Country centenarian, Sir John Chideock. All deposers had to give a brief biography of their career, so we can be sure he was about 105 when he gave testimony at his home in Iddesleigh. Worn out physically he may have been, but his deposition is feisty and opinionated. His mind was clear!
I'll bet historians of Rome, Greece, the Dark Ages, and post-Medieval times could give similar stories!
Is this a scientific website, or a tabloid? First of all, the oldest woman to give birth was 66, not 70...and that was using donated eggs. Second, the questions asked were leading questions. "Can someone live to be a supercentenarian" is NOT the same as "Can someone live to be 130"? You asked "is it possible" that Ms Dosova had given birth at 54, and got one response. Suppose you had instead asked: "Does the claim that this woman gave birth at 54 make the claim to 130 more or less likely?" The answer may well have been different: and with good reason. While late fertility has been shown to be correlated with longevity, a much more likely explanation is that both claims are incorrect. Studies have found that extreme age claims are correlated to regions with high illiteracy rates. A person who is inaccurate once is more likely to be inaccurate again than a person who is accurate the first time. Also, large generation gaps have often been explained by impostership: a scheme whereby a second person assumes the identity of the first. Imposter schemes often involve pension fraud. This is one of these situations that can be easily grasped intuititively, but is hard to put into words. Let's put it this way: when a story has multiple anomalies, the chances are increased that something about the story doesn't add up. Sort of like the pieces of a puzzle...when they don't fit together, something is wrong. And something is definitely wrong here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's start with:
A. If this were true, why did this not come out in 1997, when someone born in 1880 took the title?
B. This claim is so far ahead of anything ever proven...eight years beyond Calment, 16 years beyond the current Guinness titleholder...it simply doesn't fit as reliable data.
C. This claim comes from a region known for poor recordkeeping, low rates of literacy, and a tradition of age inflation
D. There has never been a proven case where a woman gave birth at 50 or older and lived to 110+. Thus, Olshansky's answer is incorrect.
E. People often confuse answers because there are multiple correlations, with multiple causes. Just like a roller-coaster ride, the positive or negative effects vary over points in time. While it's true that slower-aging individuals are more likely to live longer and that slower-aging individuals are more likely to delay loss of fertility, it's also true that no or low-fertility individuals tend to live the longest. The two oldest women of all time each had just one child, while the two oldest men of all time each had zero children.
Having a child at 54 and living to 130?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome points to ponder:
1. Statisticians have estimated the odds a birth of living to
age 115: 1 in 2 billion
age 120: 1 in 10 billion
age 130: 1in a trillion
2. Consider that in the UK, since birth registration began in 1837, no one has yet exceeded 115 years. In Sweden, since 1749 (when birth records were required for everyone) not a single person has been recorded to have lived more than 113 years.
3. To try to clarify further what I was saying:
Longevity among mammalian species is generally controlled by genes...the lab mouse record is just 4 years; the record for a dog is 29; for a cat, 38. Gorillas have lived into their 50s; chimps into their 60s; elephants to at least 78. The human record is 122, and the oldest dated whale was 211.
A study of demographics shows that for well-observed species, the oldest age records tend to be highly clustered: thus several dogs have reached 29 years, but none 30.
There is some interspecies variation, however...some individuals age at a faster rate than others. There are some interesting cross-sections between longevity and fertility:
1. older mothers, longevity? slower-aging individuals tend to keep their fertility longer (past 40) and are more likely to reach age 100. But these are above normal, but not extreme, numbers. For example, Rose Kennedy gave birth to Ted at age 41, and lived to 104.
however:
2. high-fertility, short-life strategy versus low-fertility, long-life strategy:
http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/article.asp?id=298
Animals under less selection pressure (such as bats, or opossums on an isolated coastal island) tend to live longer and reproduce less than those under greater selection pressure
3. Persons born to young mothers more likely to live to 100...
http://www.thecentenarian.co.uk/babies-young-mums-have-twice-chance-of-reaching.html
This is the "optimization" route: the mothers at their peak tend to produce the most genetically-fit children
4. U-curve: however, children born to mothers over 37 also tend to live longer than those aged 25-36. This is like a roller-coaster rebound; it doesn't quite reach the initial peak. The comeback is caused because less-fertile mothers drop out of the dataset at this point (heterogeneity of frailty)
Now, returning to the question: does a claim to have given birth at 54 make the claim to be 130 more or less likely to be true? The answer is less...but all the above information is a red herring. The real question is a yes or no question...
As far as I know if humans were to live very long they would born fewer children. Natality goes down. Organism with a short life has more offspring while the longer they live their offspring would be less. I think it is so. Something I read in a scientific article. Maybe they ment if the individual lived 500 years. :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether we live to be 70 or 170 does not really matter as long as we remain in good health. However I am inclined to agree with RogeregonWhat is the point of living very long and outliving your children and grandchildren.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndeed , I would not want to be old enough to be a "freak" who recalls events that are considered well beyond livilg memory{Iimagine someone who can remenber the days before the first motor car was invented.
Why do we consider living long a "blessing" ? [Xcalibra28]. Why is it a blessing to postpone the inevitable that we are going to die one day? Is it because we find it difficult to imagine our "non-existence" (SA mind, October/November 2008). Even those who believe in an "afterlife" would have to concede that "afterlife" is a very different kind of "existence" from the one that we know. Why is it so difficult for those reading the scientific American to imagine that they probably will not exist [in any "form'] in say 30-70 years time? After all most readers of the online Sciam probably did not exist 70 years ago or so!
With that sentiment, thanda1, why not just put yourself out of your misery today? No human can experience everything this world has to offer in one lifetime. People with an added 30-40 years have more opportunity to live life. Perhaps cynics disagree. Someone such as myself, who savors every day, find this prospect amazing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswow, thats wonderful! it doesnt matter how old you live to though, as long as your life is fulfilling
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishow old are you next year?? because i have been looking at the age limit that might be possabile?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisO mankind! If you are in doubt about the Resurrection, then verily! We have created you (i.e. Adam) from dust, then from a Nutfah (mixed drops of male and female sexual discharge i.e. offspring of Adam), then from a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood) then from a little lump of flesh, some formed and some unformed (miscarriage), that We may make (it) clear to you (i.e. to show you Our Power and Ability to do what We will). And We cause whom We will to remain in the wombs for an appointed term, then We bring you out as infants,[] then (give you growth) that you may reach your age of full strength. And among you there is he who dies (young), and among you there is he who is brought back to the miserable old age, so that he knows nothing after having known. And you see the earth barren, but when We send down water (rain) on it, it is stirred (to life), it swells and puts forth every lovely kind (of growth).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisO mankind! If you are in doubt about the Resurrection, then verily! We have created you (i.e. Adam) from dust, then from a Nutfah (mixed drops of male and female sexual discharge i.e. offspring of Adam), then from a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood) then from a little lump of flesh, some formed and some unformed (miscarriage), that We may make (it) clear to you (i.e. to show you Our Power and Ability to do what We will). And We cause whom We will to remain in the wombs for an appointed term, then We bring you out as infants,[] then (give you growth) that you may reach your age of full strength. And among you there is he who dies (young), and among you there is he who is brought back to the miserable old age, so that he knows nothing after having known. And you see the earth barren, but when We send down water (rain) on it, it is stirred (to life), it swells and puts forth every lovely kind (of growth).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRamses the Great lived to be 91, pretty good for a guy who was born in 1279 BCE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat discussion. I like the analysis about it being unlikely... the benefits of this discussion tend towards exercise of our minds, more than being able to prove or disprove this case of claimed super-longevity. Martin Luther King, apparently knowing there were plots against his life, in his last speech before being assassinated indicated "Longevity has its place... [but] I am not afraid of any man". Doesn't that sum it up?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to know: Is there a bio-chemical "pac-man" that can eat up the hydrocarbons left behind from auto exhaust?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthanks,
don
IS THERE A BIO-CHEMICAL "pac man" that can eat up the hydrocarbons left behind automobiles?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe patriarchs recorded in Genesis lived 800 years and more. What is key to long life is not region, water, food, vitamins, etc, etc. What is KEY is connection to the Source of Life, whatever name you wish to give it. Within an electrical circuit there is flow from the generator back to the generator via the ground. Break the circuit and everything that was connected in the circuit stops, there is no flow. If we are not grounded to the Source the flow of vital force is broken. Like a dead sea, toxins build up, stagnation, decay, disease and death are the result.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuantum physics is beginning to discover that all of life (animate and inanimate) is composed of the same building blocks of vibrations, wave lengths, frequencies, energy oscillating from a non-physical to physical matrix and back again.
We were created in the image and likeness of God. Our God is a consuming fire. We are spirit sparks of the One Flame. In the beginning was the Word... the fiat was given "Let there be Light and there was light". Everything in creation is composed of God's Light, Energy, Consciousness and has Innate Intelligence. God's thoughts and intentions set the patterns for all that was to be fulfilled. He gave us free will and a divine plan to fulfill, it is not pre-destination or pre-determination. We choose to be or not to be whatever we want to be. God, nor His Angels, nor any of the hosts of heaven may not interfere with our freewill choices UNLESS we COMMAND AND DEMAND their assistance by determined and persistent prayer, calls, fiats, invocations, mantras, decrees, heartfelt imploring, intense desiring according to the Will of God.
He placed His sacred flame, a 3-fold flame, within our hearts which is our Seat of Authority and our key to the Kingdom of Heaven (The Kingdom of God is within you proclaimed Jesus). But long ago the connection was broken when in pride and defiance of God we proclaimed our unworthiness to be God in manifestation and to return to Him in the full Majesty, Power and Glory of the Divine Sons and Daughters that we are. St. Paul said, "are ye so foolish, having begun in spirit are ye now made perfect in the flesh?"
Part of Jesus' mission was to re-establish our connection to God via his Sacred Heart Flame (he saved us) and he prophecied that these things he did we would also do and more... as we developed our full potential as he did when he returned to OUR FATHER, MY GOD and YOUR GOD. We are made of the same stuff. We are ONE. Ascending to God, we are alive forevermore.
Carlton 22 : According to the Bible King Solomon had hundreds of wives, so colossal old age is not the only attribute blind faith is said to give. But who would want to live 600 years with 600 wives. And just think about the birthday presents for all the tens of thousands of descendants! No; I tend to suspect the Bible authors of wishful thinking...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: Solomon's wives: Do you think he wore them out?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut seriously eco-steve. blind faith? If it can't be proven of what value is it? The scientific method is based on being able to replicate an experiment and get the same or similar result.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe advice that was given: seek and you will find, ask and it will be given to you, knock and the door will be opened to you is applicable. There is a scientific way to look at it.
Until the transatlantic cable was laid it took weeks for communication to cross the ocean. Then wireless and now satellite make communication instantaneous. It took a long time and many people working at it to get what we have today.
We have to work at re-developing the connection interdimensionally to higher planes of existence that we long ago broke, in times before recorded history. We once had tremendous powers and abilities and lifespans that numbered in the thousands of years in a much more refined state of existence. Three groups of souls known as Root Races, having a common purpose and destiny, have successfully evolved on planet earth in the full potential of their Christ identity and ascended back to God and are now immortal beings fulfilling an even higher destiny and purpose (not just lying around playing harps). The planet is meant to host only one Root Race at a time. At the time of the Fourth Root Race occurred the fall of Lucifer and one third of the angels of heaven fell with him. They were cast into the lower octaves or planes of existence related to the physical which are the etheric, mental, emotional and physical planes (the 4 lower bodies of man). They influenced the souls of the 4th Root Race to so misuse their energy and powers, creating great negative karma, that God had to reduce the Light and Energy given to them in order to prevent their self-destruction. The Three-Fold Flame of the heart was reduced to one eighth of an inch and their lifespans were likewise shortened. The Fifth and Sixth Root Races took embodiement and suffered the same conditions and they are all still embodying in cycles. That is why the planet feels so overcrowded. Because of the disobedience to God, God could no longer directly interact with them. He therefore sent certain advanced souls to teach and guide them. Jesus was one such. His particular mission in part was to re-establish a connection from our hearts to God's via his own Sacred Heart Flame. Meditation, prayers, supplications, mantras, fiats and decrees while centering in our own heart flame are the means by which we re-establish and strengthen our connection to God. It takes effort.
Over thousands of years new dispensations of mercy were granted to the evolving souls of the 4th, 5th and 6th Root Races. Different teachers were sent to different groups of souls with a teaching they could comprehend and this formed the major world religions. Their are commonalities in all of them. Each was based on one of the Seven Major Chakras (the seven churches) in the body of man. A chakra is to the etheric body what an organ is to the physical body. A chakra is like a stepdown transformer for the high frequency energy of God so that it does not "blow us away" but can nourish our souls and 4 lower bodies (we do not live by bread alone). Chakras can also get distorted and diseased.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn order to gain reunion with God we need to 1) balance our karma 2) balance and grow our Three-Fold Flame 3) fulfill our dharma, our divine purpose, blueprint and plan 4) go through the process of the Resurrection and 5) ascend back to God in the ritual of the ascension whereby the soul and it's identity is permanently fused with God as an immortal being.
It used to be that we needed to balance 100% of our karma. But with the advent of the Aquarian Age, in the early 20th century, the dispensation was granted that only 51% (1%more than half) was needed for us to ascend. The remaining 49% of our karma could then be balanced from the ascended state. To further assist mankind in accelerating the balancing of karma another dispensation was granted and that is the knowledge and use of the Violet Flame (a purple-pink color). The Violet Flame is closest in vibration to the physical and has the power to change, to transmute negatively qualified energy back into light so that it can return to God, re-establish the flow, and be stored in our treasure house in heaven. The negative energy that has been stuck here in the lower octaves putrifies and densifies and is the cause of all pollution and problems as it clogs up the space between the atom and electron slowing the rate of spin of the electron.
Try this scientific experiment. Give the following mantra out loud and with the full fervor of your heart for an uninterrupted period of 15 minutes daily. "I am a being of Violet Fire, I am the Purity God desires." What it means is this, I am (God in me is, the name of God "I AM THAT I AM" was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai) a being of Violet Fire (our God is a consuming fire and this is one attribute of that fire), I am (God in me is) the Purity God desires (diety sires). Report back the changes you experience after one year.
Don't journalists have memories, or sceptical intelligence? Such reports occur several times a year, always in parts of the world where literacy rates were low and demographic record-keeping poor to non-existent in what would have been their youth and middle-age if the claims were true. What is the evidence that the 1926 document actually refers to this individual? Absolutely zero, I'll bet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI we (humankind) decide to combat aging, I am sure we will succeed. Some people already pursue that goal. Aubrey de Grey is one, and he thinks the first person to live to be 1000 years old may be alive today, maybe even as old as 50-60 years-of-age. I wish people and society would recognize the advantages of living a long time in good health, so that a greater effort could be put into the anti-aging research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome positive effects of combating aging:
1. Saves lives
2. Eliminates a lot of suffering due to age related diseases
3. People who know they will live a long time will behave more morally because their long-term gain will matter more than their short-term gain
4. Society doesn't have to spend as much money on health care for the old
5. People may continue to work well beyond normal retirement age
Indeed it may be possible that late life fecundity may well be a cause and not an effect of longevity. This may well be the single factor accounting for the disparity in life expectancy figures between men and women. The hormonal changes accompanying conception might have an element of preservation in them that have not been considered heretofore; not statistically anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe greatest benefit to be derived from longevity is probably synthesis. (As an aside let me also point out that a person whose cells lose their regenerative capacity over a millennium rather than a century will not look like a centenarian at 100 years, they should look like ten, or at least like 20 since the decline might not begin until the end of development). So such a person should maintain their mental capacities well into their 8th century (theoretically). Since memory is probably a function of arrangements in neurons rather than number, the human brain should well be able to handle the 10 fold increase in data that would have to be accessed, arranged, and (most difficult) re-arranged. Synthesis is the process of coming up with new arrangements out of old data which according to Hegel, (then Engels), is an infinite process: "Thesis, antithesis, synthesis." (Unfortunately the notoriety of Communist dictatorships have brought this very important axiom into undeserved disrepute.) All this suggests that with increasing age and increasing range of data held in a single brain, that man's productivity should see a geometric increase in knowledge as longevity increases ... increasing at an increasing rate. This should bring about a paradigm shift in the existence of man, possibly before the end of the next century. All our predictions for the future of man may well be grosslly undervalued for this reason.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are many longevity claims in the world. To find an accurate and verified list of currently living supercentenarians please check
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.livingsupercentenarians.com