View Single Post
  #34  
Old 12-Sep-21, 14:39
Ryan Futuristics Ryan Futuristics is offline
Banned
Points: 8,782, Level: 40 Points: 8,782, Level: 40 Points: 8,782, Level: 40
Activity: 19.0% Activity: 19.0% Activity: 19.0%
Last Achievements
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,118
Thanks: 561
Thanked 1,529 Times in 659 Posts
Default Re: Who would win if they had a fight Jason Statham or Rosie Huntington-Whiteley?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jiminy [Only Registered Users Can See LinksClick Here To Register]
When you get into your mid 40s, it doesn't matter if you've never been injured in your life, you're past your prime. Fact. You don't have the energy (hormones, metabolism changes), or the physical mobility you had in your 20s & 30s.
Not disagreeing with your overall points – but this isn't necessarily a fact.

People don't age with time, but with damage, and the effects of that damage .. e.g. age-related Testosterone decline may be a myth – the Healthy Man study found that when you adjusted for obesity and chronic illness, there's no loss in T, even in men as old as 80s.

Take Chuando Tan (55) or Mike O'Hearn (51) or Tom Cruise doing all of his own stunts at 58 .. These people are all arguably more youthful and capable of being in better shape than most 20-somethings (esp. nowadays with serious falls in T levels in the young).

One study on telomere attrition found that a very small number of people don't appear to age at all, at the cellular level, between 20 and 40 – and by 40, you can easily be 20 years out, either way.

Likewise in females – Deidre Pagnanelli, at 51, has a body very few 20-something females could achieve with any level of gym commitment .. There's a limit (literally, the Hayflick limit), but biological age can basically be a long way off chronological age, and most effects of ageing are really lifestyle effects.





Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ryan Futuristics For This Useful Post: