• Neato
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2863 months ago

    More people using sunscreen and lotion on the regular prevents skin damage. More people are eating healthy, working less physically demanding jobs. Also there’s a pretty huge bias with seeing pictures of older people and seeing them as older than they actually look. It has to do with seeing older styles of clothing and how people tend to keep their core styles longer. This makes people in the present see past photos as “older people” regardless of how young the faces look.

    Also the microplastics are preserving us from the inside out. We’re all deli-wrapped now.

      • Tar_Alcaran
        link
        fedilink
        783 months ago

        And everything around us smokes less too.

        In 1950 cars had basically no emission standards, factories didn’t either, and a LOT of people heated their homes with coal or wood.

      • @Fester@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        263 months ago

        Specifically, top panel man is smoking, bottom panel isn’t. That’s why they look like that. Mystery solved.

      • @Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        183 months ago

        It’s very much the smoking. That V Sauce video about it being clothing wasn’t convincing. Comparing just faces negates that possible perception issue. And when constrained to only faces people in the past still look older.

      • @SexWithDogs
        link
        13 months ago

        I believe it. I was buying smokes without an ID by the time I was 17.

    • Ech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      183 months ago

      Each cell wrapped for our protection.

    • Xanthrax
      link
      fedilink
      103 months ago

      Can’t destroy my body and skin if I don’t go outside.

        • @misspacific@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          113 months ago

          yeah i’m in my 30s and i get routinely carded at events and people place me in my late 20s still.

          a lot of it is genes, but i also: have a good skin care routine, use sunscreen every day, rarely drink alcohol, and use nicotine rarely. those are big factors that shouldn’t be discounted.

          • Instigate
            link
            fedilink
            43 months ago

            Does nicotine specifically cause skin damage? Obviously smoking tobacco does, but I’m not sure it’s necessarily the nicotine component that causes the skin damage. There’s thousands of chemicals in tobacco beyond nicotine and I haven’t yet seen a study that shows that nicotine in isolation impacts skin condition.

            • @misspacific@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              3
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              inhaling carcinogenic smoke to get nicotine would age you more, but nicotine itself also has adverse effects by constricting blood vessels, which would affect how much oxygen and nutrients are able to reach the dermal layer. this would also affect hair follicles.

              here’s some decent sources for more reading:

              E-cigarettes containing nicotine cause blood clotting and make small blood vessels less adaptable

              NIH-funded studies show damaging effects of vaping, smoking on blood vessels

              it’s certainly possible that the ecigarettes used in the testing here may have altered the results, but it’s not looking pretty.

              • Instigate
                link
                fedilink
                13 months ago

                Thanks four the sources. So there’s evidence that nicotine impacts blood vessels, but not yet that that impacts skin condition? That makes sense, nicotine use in isolation hasn’t been around all that long yet. As I mentioned, that specific link doesn’t appear to have been studied yet to the best of my knowledge, but I don’t have access to journalistic databases that I used to.

                • @misspacific@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  2
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  well, not quite, but you have the gist.

                  nicotine patches and gum have been around for quite awhile, and the blood vessel constriction is a fact, and therefore, it will affect skin/hair health.

                  it’s just to what degree. clearly, it’s more with analog cigarettes where you’re sucking on literal smoke.

          • @brbposting@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            13 months ago

            You using good ole sunscreen (chemical) or the newfangled stuff (physical)? Sad to hear the former carries risks.

            But the physical can’t be convenient… sigh, convenience :)

        • @Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          93 months ago

          It’s funny to me that this works for both types of HRT; I’m a trans guy in my mid 30s and still occasionally get carded when I buy alcohol. I was hoping HRT would make me look my age, but 15ish years on and it hasn’t happened yet. And might not ever, because my dad looked decades younger than he was up until his death. Good problems to have, I guess?

        • Madlaine
          link
          fedilink
          83 months ago

          29 pre-hrt here. I hope it will be as magic as you say.

          Gotta relive all the years I missed to dysphora; looking a bit youmger couldn’t hurt -

          • It’s great, because a lot of other trans people are also reliving their younger years that they missed out on lol, so you have a lot of opportunities for fun stuff with other trans people!

  • @Sekrayray@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    763 months ago
    1. Smoking
    2. Smoking
    3. Smoking

    There are already a lot of good answers but I want to highlight this. Chronic tobacco smoke causes increased aging due to multiple mechanisms. Moreover, environmental tobacco exposure from second hand and third hand smoke prior to the 1990s was MASSIVE. So even if you didn’t smoke you got insane daily exposures to the same chemicals.

      • @Kalothar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Nah, stop equating vaping to smoking, it’s a bad-faith argument compared to something we know it’s extremely toxic for a fact.

        Studies on vaping have been Inconsistent at best, popcorn lung was related to a flavoring that isn’t used at all now and was only limitedly used before.

        So like I get the easy joke, but it is misinformation at this point

        Edit: okay, guys stop assuming I’m talking about nicotine. I’m just talking about vaping (vaporizer) vs smoking (combustion). I’m also 31 years old and have never smoked or vaped nicotine myself, it’s not a personal habit of mine.

          • @Kalothar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            4
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I mean, I was just talking about vaping itself. Also nicotine isn’t a known carcinogen, it’s just a highly addictive chemical.

            So yes, nicotine is still nicotine. But tabacco has a lot more in it than just that. So not sure what your point is?

            Edit: typo

        • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ
          link
          fedilink
          5
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Nicotine is a vasoconstrictor and reduces blood flow to the skin, likely reducing the availability of nutrients to keep your skin healthy.

          Nicotine is nicotine.

          Sorry about your habit. It’s a hard one to break (been there), but don’t ignore known science to justify it in your head just because there isn’t a full in depth study.

          • @Kalothar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Um, I have never consumed nicotine knowingly in my life, so there isn’t a personal bias. As I said before this, I never mentioned nicotine that was the other guy.

            • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              When you say vaping, the default assumption is you’re talking about vaping nicotine. Of course nicotine free vapes cannot be equated to smoking lmao. That’s on you for not specifying.

      • @Sekrayray@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        23 months ago

        Slightly educated guess medical opinion here?

        As far as risk is concerned:

        Smoke>>>vape>nothing.

        Vaping will definitely have adverse effects we start cataloging more in 10-30 years. My guess? Likely some form of lung disease (maybe more of a restrictive pattern due to the microparticles in vapes—I could see if being like silicosis or pneumoconioses) and some forms of cancer.

    • @irish_link@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      23 months ago

      No… I hate to tell you this but you are completely wrong. I smoked since i was 18 and even grew up with parents that smoked. I eventually stopped daily smoking when i was 25 years old. I only smoke every once in a while when i get together with my friends. About 2-3 packs a year now if we have to put a number on it.

      I am not even 40 yet and I TOTALLY HAVE HAIR, TRUE MAN I DO. I HAVE HAIR, AND LOTS OF IT. “I have the most hair anyone has ever seen” end sentence with index and thumbs together touch each hand in an ‘okay sign’ pointing at each other

      • @Sekrayray@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        13 months ago

        I mean you basically don’t smoke then. Most of the effects of smoking are based on pack-years, which is the number of years you’ve smoked a pack per day. So two packs a day for 10 years? 20 pack years.

        You have barely any pack years, and you stopped so young that the adverse effects are definitely reversed (10 years of cessation to reverse risk of lung CA/COPD).

        • @irish_link@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          13 months ago

          Yeah, I am glad I essentially stopped. (In case you couldn’t tell I was joking with my tone)

          Glad you are bringing up some of these points because most people don’t actually realize it ages you.

          All real talk aside it’s now time to start rewatching Cowboy Bebop. Hahaa

    • @viralJ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      393 months ago

      Also, because of increased healthy lifestyle awareness, we are actually ageing slower than we used to. The clue is in the cigarette the top cartoon smokes. Today we smoke less, we exercise more, we use more sunscreen and we eat healthier, all allowing our bodies to produce more firm collagen in less damaged skin cells.

    • @grrgyle@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      143 months ago

      Appropriate username.

      Also with names. Like picture a Mildred or even a Vicky, and you probably conjure up a person of a certain demo

    • 🇰 🔵 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I smoke, just turned 39, and people still regularly guess I’m in my early 20’s. Frankly, I’m surprised we don’t look older considering how much stress can cause visible aging. Where are the 13 year olds that look 102?

  • @AgentGrimstone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    45
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    We’re a lot sadder now, so we don’t smile much. The lack of smiling saved us from face wrinkles which keeps us looking young.

  • @DaddleDew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    373 months ago

    It is because when you look back to old pictures of people from when they were younger, the people in it have clothing styles and hairstyles that we today associate with older people.

    Look up a video on YouTube from VSauce called “Did people used to look older?”. They explain this phenomena well.

    • @Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      263 months ago

      That argument isn’t convincing. Crop photos to compare people to negate the clothing perception. People in the past still look older after doing so.

      • @oatscoop@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        03 months ago

        Film of the era also made people look older. Old film is sensitive to UV light, which exaggerates/makes visible “flaws” in skin you wouldn’t see or notice otherwise.

        • @Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          153 months ago

          I’ve watched that video and seen it reposted dozens of times. Michael talks about doctors finding people are aging slower in the intro. Then goes down a completely different path to claim most of this is due to clothing and style perception. Veering off into some weird pseudoscience junk even.

          What he could have done is check medical studies of twins that prove smokers age faster. Overlay smoking rates then and now. Come to the medically accepted reason for why this phenomenon exists.

          • @DaddleDew@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            -1
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            If you’ve truly watched that video then it must be a long time ago and are remembering it wrong. Because it does say exactly what you’re saying early on in the video, explaining the studies that show how people are now younger from a medical point of view. You then clearly see that the age difference reported in the study from a medical point if view is not nearly wide enough to explain the magnitude of the difference of we perceive in real life.

            This is why video then shifts away from the purely medical perspective towards the more subjective reasons that could affect how we perceive people’s age. Of course it’s not gonna be backed by medical research to support this because the other reasons for this phenomena has absolutely nothing to do with medical science. Medical science doesn’t give a shit about the evolution of fashion in haircuts, makeup and clothing. But that doesn’t mean that it cannot have an effect on people’s perceptions of other’s age. It is obvious in the examples provided in the video that this has a far greater effect on the perception of someone’s age than the medical explanation alone.

            The meme itself is obviously about people’s perception of people’s age, which is affected by both medical and subjective factors like the evolution of fashion. Trying to pretend that only the medical factor counts is, essentially, ignoring the other half of the argument just to make yourself sound right.

            • @Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              43 months ago

              Let’s play a game then. I know people right now today. Who dress and have facial hair nearly the same as Richard Dreyfuss in this image. They’re all late 30’s or early 40’s.

              Go ahead and let me know how old you think he looks. And yes he was a smoker.

              • @DaddleDew@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                -23 months ago

                Ah yes. Cherry picking an example of recurring fashion. That definitely proves that fashion and style never changes or evolves ever. /s

  • @Pulptastic@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    263 months ago

    Perspective. You were a kid in the 80s and they looked way old. Now you’re in your 40s and those little whippersnappers look like the babies they are.

  • @BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    213 months ago

    Lots of good answers here. Another minor one is Hollywood bias - older male actors got starring roles in romantic films. Random example, Cary Grant was 59 when he played the lead role in Charade opposite Audrey Hepburn who was 34.

    Add to that the low quality of TV broadcasts, different styles of filing and lighting in movies, and less subtle use of makeup and people in film and TV from stuff from the 90s back have an other-world quality to them if you look back at that compared to the high definition world were in now. Even older magazines and pictures can be available at lower quality to us on the Internet than at the time, as we don’t get to see the true originals but lower quality scans on the Internet compared to modern digital photographic.

    It’s amazing looking at old film from the 1800s that has been well kept or restored - not just people but the whole world actually looks real unlike what we’re used to.

    We’re so used to looking at history in low definition or the artificiality of old fashioned TV/movie techniques and biases.

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
      link
      fedilink
      English
      123 months ago

      Plus everything has filters on it now. Movies, online and magazine pictures, even the selfies you take at home have heavy anti-aging filters. After looking at all your selfies, go look at an actual mirror and you’ll be surprised at how rapidly you aged.