From: office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk   
      
   On 01 Sep 2021, Michael Trew wrote   
   > On 8/31/2021 4:58 PM, Questor wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 02:09:52 -0000 (UTC),   
   >> Howard  wrote:   
      
   >>> When The Mary Tyler Moore Show premiered in 1970, Ed Asner was   
   >>> 41. He was just slightly older than actors like Seth Rogan or   
   >>> Jonah Hill are today, but he looked much older.   
   >>>   
   >>> Part of it may be baldness, except there are present day bald   
   >>> actors who are older but who don't look similarly old. Keegan   
   >>> Michael Key, for example, is 50, and Jason Statham is 54.   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't think it was his pudginess -- Seth Rogan and Jonah Hill   
   >>> also tend toward portly, but I think that tends to make them   
   >>> look younger, if anything. And seeing as Asner acted for another   
   >>> 50 years, his general demeanor at 40 wasn't gimpy or achy at all   
   >>> back in 1970.   
   >>>   
   >>> Wilford Brimley and Art Carney are two other actors who played   
   >>> advanced senior citizens in their 50s. Did actors just look   
   >>> naturally older in the past? Was it a function of lighting and   
   >>> makeup? Or do actors today tend to take advantage of surgery,   
   >>> botox, etc. that happens to be extremely natural looking?   
   >>>   
   >>> Or, was it just the case of a bad sample on my part? I know Jack   
   >>> Benny, for example, was known for looking 39 well past his 39th   
   >>> birthday, so I may simply be selecting bad examples to compare.   
   >>   
   >>> Re: Why Did Ed Asner Look So Old?   
   >>   
   >> Genetics, life style (particularly over time), cultural bias,   
   >> random factors?   
   >   
   > I agree.  I've noticed, many times, that people 70+ years ago look   
   > "older" than people appear to look today.  On top of all else, I   
   > think that the way they dress and compose themselves compared to   
   > people today seems to factor into it.  I have a picture of my   
   > grandparents here, he was in his early 40's, grandma in her late   
   > 30's.  I would have place them easily at late 40's and early 50's,   
   > had I not known them and the date it was taken.   
      
   In a similar vein, my wife and I (aged 73 and 69; no children) have   
   noticed that those of our friends who have fully embraced the   
   traditional roles of grandparents in their 50s or 60s -- looking   
   after the grandkids, playing the "really-really-old" role with the   
   grandkids -- seem to have aged differently than friends without kids   
   or grandchildren.   
      
   It struck us that the "we're grandparents now" cohort seemed to   
   display more degenerative health symptoms;  move more slowly; and are   
   a bit slower on the uptake than the "not grandparents" group.   
      
   This may well be a coincidence-- and we could be noticing things in   
   that group while just not seeing it in the no-grandkids group -- but   
   when we discussed it a while back, we'd both noticed what looked like   
   a correlation.   
      
   I don't think this is a modern thing, though:  when we discussed it,   
   we could both remember single or childless aunts, uncles, and   
   parents' friends from 50 or 60 years ago who seemed more active than   
   the traditionally-generationed families.   
      
   --   
   Cheers, Harvey   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)