Humans are unlikely ever to live beyond the age of 125, say researchers who claim we are already close to the lifespan limit.
The scientists studied survival data dating back to 1900 from more than 40 countries.
They found evidence of increasing average life expectancy, meaning that over time more people lived to a ripe old age.
Babies born in the US today could expect to live nearly to the age of 79, on average. In comparison, average life expectancy for Americans born in 1900 was only 47.
But the same study highlighted how unusual it was to live beyond 100, regardless of the year in which people were born.
The team calculated that 125 was likely to be the absolute limit of human lifespan due to genetic factors.
Lead researcher Professor Jan Vig, from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, said: "Demographers as well as biologists have contended there is no reason to think that the on-going increase in maximum lifespan will end soon. But our data strongly suggest that it has already been attained and that this happened in the 1990s.
"Further progress against infectious and chronic diseases may continue boosting average life expectancy, but not maximum lifespan.
"While it's conceivable that therapeutic breakthroughs might extend human longevity beyond the limits we've calculated, such advances would need to overwhelm the many genetic variants that appear to collectively determine the human lifespan
"Perhaps resources now being spent to increase lifespan should instead go to lengthening healthspan - the duration of old age spent in good health."
The study, published in the journal Nature, focused on people living to 110 or older between 1968 and 2006 in the US, UK, France and Japan.
Age at death for these super-centenarians rose rapidly between the 1970s and early 1990s but reached a plateau in the mid-1990s.
French woman Jeanne Calment, who died in 1997 aged 122, achieved the longest documented lifespan of any person in history.
The researchers put the current average life span of the oldest individuals on Earth at 115.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel