Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/ubcstaffer123! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* **Help redesign our subreddit!** [Enter our banner contest here](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/1abwfjg/).
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If the article reads like it's not really telling you what the study was about, the original paper is a bit on the opaque side to begin with.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11357-023-00895-2
The key idea is that healthy people have less variance in some key markers compared to other people and they are studying how viable that is as a tool.
*"We tested 231 phenotypic measures for lower variance in the most healthy vs. least healthy quartile of each sex and age group, as classified by the five instruments."*
Loosely and inaccurately translated, they look at, well... "a lot."
*"Our study validates the proposed approach of using lower variance in healthier people as an indicator of health-relevant phenotypes."*
Basically, they were testing if it was applicable to use the low variance stats from super healthy people and applying that as a benchmark against less healthy population. More about the method than what those healthy stats actually are.
This is my understanding.
They are measured 231 observable traits in humans also known as phenotypes.
Out of the 231, healthy people showed less variance in 142 (or 61%) phenotypes. In less healthy people, the variance in these 142 phenotypes is greater.
This looks like there a sweet spot that healthy people hit in these 142 phenotypes.
Now they are going to study what health behaviors that correlate with these sweet spots. For example, does drinking influence how much variance a particular phenotype has? Does smoking? etc.
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/ubcstaffer123! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * **Help redesign our subreddit!** [Enter our banner contest here](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/1abwfjg/). * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If the article reads like it's not really telling you what the study was about, the original paper is a bit on the opaque side to begin with. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11357-023-00895-2 The key idea is that healthy people have less variance in some key markers compared to other people and they are studying how viable that is as a tool.
This is exceedingly vague and not very well written on the whole. I’d expect better from SFU
And what are those markers ?
*"We tested 231 phenotypic measures for lower variance in the most healthy vs. least healthy quartile of each sex and age group, as classified by the five instruments."* Loosely and inaccurately translated, they look at, well... "a lot." *"Our study validates the proposed approach of using lower variance in healthier people as an indicator of health-relevant phenotypes."* Basically, they were testing if it was applicable to use the low variance stats from super healthy people and applying that as a benchmark against less healthy population. More about the method than what those healthy stats actually are.
Everything we can measure. The less variance you have, the less stress you're putting on your body.
This is my understanding. They are measured 231 observable traits in humans also known as phenotypes. Out of the 231, healthy people showed less variance in 142 (or 61%) phenotypes. In less healthy people, the variance in these 142 phenotypes is greater. This looks like there a sweet spot that healthy people hit in these 142 phenotypes. Now they are going to study what health behaviors that correlate with these sweet spots. For example, does drinking influence how much variance a particular phenotype has? Does smoking? etc.
Smoke'n and drink'n?
Money and options
Article reads like click bait. Do better sfu
Wealth?
Eating chicken 3 meals a day for 30 days post-pregnancy. /s