Most "tips" for living longer are pretty obvious stuff: eat healthy, don't work too much, stay fit, go on lots of vacations, maybe don't be a popular rock musician aged 27. It turns out that not only are some of these popular beliefs full of shit, but the real longevity indicators are things you probably wouldn't guess in a hundred years, even if you managed to live that long.
Starting kids in school as early as possible sounds like a great idea for a number of reasons: it works their brain muscles at a crucial point in development when they're rapidly learning, teaches them to socialize with other kids and, most importantly, gets the little bastards the hell out of the house for a few hours.
Daddy needs his "pretend my life isn't ruined" time.
They might complain about getting up early and doing homework, but they'll thank us when they're older ... or if they're older. We say that because an extensive 90-year study found that kids who start school really early live shorter lives.
Researchers think the fact that kids are developing so fast at that age is exactly why it's a terrible idea to start them too early. There's a huge difference between 5- and 6-year-olds; on average, 6-year-olds are going to be much bigger, and 5-year-olds much less socially advanced. Throw them into the same classroom and they're going to find it hard to relate to each other in a way that doesn't involve the taking or giving of wedgies.
"You deserve this because you're different from me."
By analyzing the lives of thousands of test subjects from the 1920s onward, the researchers found that being ostracized as a kid leads to lifelong emotional problems, which leads to unhealthy behavior, which leads to a shorter lifespan. In fact, starting age is so important that you don't even have to be a full year younger than your classmates to be screwed for life. In countries like Australia, Norway and the U.K., where there's a mandatory starting age, the kids whose birthdays fall in the summer are less likely to get good grades and go to college than their classmates. All because of when their birthday is.
"You kids can achieve anything, unless you were born in July."
So if you want your kids to get a head start on everyone else, bear in mind that you're also giving them a head start on dying (starring Steven Seagal). But hey, at least we're talking about a thing you can change. Unlike ...
There are several disadvantages to being the youngest son: You are clothed with everyone else's hand-me-downs, you get less attention than your brothers got when they were your age and you live in a house where practically everyone else can kick your ass. But as your brothers rub their saliva-soaked fingers in your ears and punch you in the shoulder, one thing you can always hang over their heads is that you're less likely to get cancer of the balls. A recent study concluded that older sons have a much higher risk of getting testicular cancer than their younger brothers.
So take advantage of that edge in size while you still can.
The study analyzed over a million men in the Danish Cancer Registry and found that later-born sons were 20 percent less likely to get this type of cancer than most people, as opposed to firstborn sons, who have a 25 percent higher chance of having their balls attacked by the big C than their brothers. Other factors didn't seem to make a difference, so apparently this is something that's settled in the womb.
The theory is that the first son gets the pristine uterus, and so gets bathed in larger amounts of estrogen, which, being the opposite of testosterone, doesn't exactly agree with your balls. The good news is that the survival rates for testicular cancer are around 95 percent, so relax. No, seriously, please relax, because another study says that if you're a firstborn, you're also more likely to die from a heart attack.
Look, kittens. (Don't die reading this article.)
A similar study found that firstborns have a much greater chance of developing coronary heart disease, and this one goes for both men and women. Of the 348 CHD sufferers included in the study, 49 percent turned out to hit leadoff in the familial batting order. Unlike the cancer thing, this has nothing to do with their mom's womb and everything to do with the fact that, scientifically speaking, oldest siblings tend to be assholes.
"That's right, son. Mommy's next try will be exactly like you, only 30 percent less shitty."
Researchers think that firstborns are more likely to develop "type A" personalities, and aggressive perfectionists tend to be unlucky in the heart attack sweepstakes. And speaking of which ...
Want to beat heart attacks? Have a larger butt.
A recent study found that if a woman has a "pear-shaped" physique, then she has less of a chance of suffering from metabolic and heart diseases. It's not just a matter of buying a crate of Fritos and sitting on your ever-expanding ass for a week; rather, it's about having a genetic predisposition to grow fat on your butt and thighs instead of your stomach and other places.
You can save time by just adding fatty food directly to your butt.
Oxford's Dr. Konstantinos Manolopoulos studied the properties of the type of fat stored in large posteriors. Manolopoulos (Greek for "cannot lie") discovered that this specific type of fat is better at permanently absorbing fatty acids, keeping them away from your arteries and lowering the chances of them getting clogged. What this adds up to is that women with "the big butt gene" are less likely to die from heart attacks.
The same study concluded that Jennifer Lopez will outlast the heat death of the universe.
Manolopoulos also found that body fat in the lower half of our anatomy (which he inexplicably failed to call "booty fat") releases beneficial hormones that fight diseases like diabetes.
The fact that middle-aged men tend to gain weight in the waist and middle-aged women tend to gain it in the thighs might explain why men are more likely to have heart attacks than women. Meanwhile, the fact that rappers tend to desire big old asses might explain why Sir Mix-A-Lot was so apologetic about liking big butts. Singing a song mocking girls without life-expectancy cushions in their back pockets is just mean.
Above: A scale replica of Methuselah's ass.
Rich people generally have it made when it comes to life expectancy. You need a six-figure budget if you want to shop at one of those earthy grocery chains that sells nonprocessed fresh food. Those of us on more modest budgets are just thankful Taco Bell now comes wrapped in a big Dorito, since it allows us to hit the two most affordable foods for the price of one. And it probably can't hurt that rich people get to spend weeks decompressing on tropical vacations while we get to vacation at the least polluted body of water within driving distance.
Good ol' Lake Syphilis.
Actually, vacations are one way the 99 percent get to cosmically even the score with the rich guys jet-setting around the globe. It turns out that if you're a frequent enough flyer, your jaunts to the tropics come with the benefit of large doses of radiation.
And it's not even the good, spider-related type of radiation.
Every time you fly in an airplane, your body is exposed to a small amount of radiation that can add up over time and, in some cases, increase cancer risk. And no, this has nothing to do with those new scanners they use to take a peek at your junk. Those are perfectly safe. We're talking about cosmic radiation. As in the kind that stars and the sun are constantly bombarding our planet with.
"Take that, you dicks."
Most of it gets filtered out by the atmosphere by the time it gets to you on the ground, but at a high altitude it's much more potent: According to radiation expert Robert J. Barish, if you fly more than 85,000 miles a year, you should qualify as a radiation worker.
That means that if a businessman has to fly from New York to Tokyo once every couple of months, he's absorbing more radiation than most people whose jobs are to work with radioactive equipment.
But with worse food.
And if flying is not just a part of your job, but the whole thing, you have it even worse: According to the statistics, pilots and flight attendants are more likely to die of cancer. Airlines in Europe are required to inform crew members about the dangers of in-flight radiation, but not in the U.S. ... as if the Fantastic Four somehow gave us all the impression that cosmic radiation is harmless.
Dammit, Stan Lee.
Being higher than everyone else isn't always harmful, however ...