Longevity is the New Luxury – Part 3
- Dr. Sahila
- 5 days ago
- 6 min read
In Part 1, we explored how longevity has become the ultimate mark of vitality and success — a goal that will define human aspiration in the coming decades. In Part 2, we examined the genetic factors influencing longevity and how they shape our biological potential. In this third part, we’ll uncover why modern medicine, despite its technological advances, remains incapable of truly creating longevity.
Before diving deeper, let’s clarify a key distinction: lifespan versus health span. Lifespan refers to the total number of years a person lives, while health span represents the period during which one remains healthy, active, and free from chronic disease. Our focus, therefore, should be on extending health span, not merely lifespan — because when we enhance health span, longevity follows naturally. The reverse, however, is rarely true. Living to 80 or 90 means little if those final decades are spent without energy, vitality, or independence.
What does independent living in old age mean?
It can broadly divide into Basic ADL and Instrumental ADL
Basic ADLs: (Activities of Daily Living)
Bathing or showering
Dressing
Toileting
Eating
Getting in and out of bed or a chair
Walking
Instrumental ADLs (IADLs):
Managing finances
Preparing meals
Shopping
Housekeeping
Taking medications
Using the telephone
Driving or using public transportation
The most recent data from the CDC's National Health Interview Survey estimates that about 20% to 22% of adults aged 85 and older require assistance with basic ADLs like eating, bathing, dressing, or walking. For the 75–84 age bracket, the percentage needing help with ADLs drops to around 7–9%.
A review of studies on Blue Zone centenarians who are 100 years of age, found that 81% of their daily activities were of moderate intensity, highlighting a high level of physical functioning for their age.
As you recall from Part 2 of my blog, my mother lost her ability to perform both basic and instrumental activities of daily living (ADL and IADL) soon after being diagnosed with brain cancer at age 58 — despite receiving every standard form of treatment available. She remained alive with external support until 65. From the perspective of modern medicine, this would be considered a success — seven additional years of survival post-diagnosis. But as someone who witnessed her suffering firsthand, I know she never wished to live in a state of dependency, devoid of dignity or vitality. Her journey is a painful reminder that the true goal should not be merely to prolong life, but to preserve the quality of it. This distortion in measuring success — where extended survival is mistaken for meaningful living — is what medicine refers to as lead-time bias, a common pitfall in evaluating outcomes of cancer treatments.
Lead-time bias, is a systematic error that occurs in medical research, particularly in studies evaluating screening programs and drug trials. It is the phenomenon where the early detection of a disease through screening or treating a disease, rather than through the onset of symptoms, creates the misleading impression that a person's survival has been prolonged, even when the course of the disease and the time of death are not changed or has not added any quality of life thereafter.
In his book Outlive, Dr. Peter Attia eloquently explains why this bias exists in modern medicine — and why the current healthcare system often fails to extend true health span.
The Riverbank Method of Longevity
Imagine a river where, every day, countless swimmers are struggling and drowning. Doctors, nurses, and healthcare teams heroically dive in to rescue them — saving lives through surgeries, medications, and critical care. Yet, despite their tireless efforts, more swimmers keep falling into the river. Why? Because no one is standing on the opposite riverbank to stop people from falling in to begin with.
Modern medicine operates from the rescue side of the river — skilled at saving lives once disease strikes, but less focused on preventing people from “falling in.” True longevity science belongs on the opposite bank: identifying risks early, strengthening the body’s natural defenses, and preventing disease before it begins.
As a health coach and wellness expert, my work focuses on opposite side of the river — preventing people from falling in and equipping them with the tools to stay afloat if they do. The goal isn’t just survival, but resilience — to live long, strong, and self-reliant, without dependence or disability.
This analogy helps us see how modern medicine often approaches chronic illness from the wrong side of the riverbank—intervening only after the “swimmer” has already fallen in and begun to drown. In other words, it focuses on managing disease once it has taken hold, rather than preventing it from occurring in the first place.
By contrast, health coaches and wellness experts like me stand on the preventive side of the riverbank—teaching people how to eat, move, breathe, and manage stress effectively so they never enter the dangerous waters unprepared. This fundamental difference explains why modern medicine excels at keeping patients alive for longer periods, but often merely extends the process of dying—a phenomenon known as slow death.
It’s important to acknowledge that in cases of acute or rapid illnesses—such as accidents, heart attacks, pregnancy complications, or infections like COVID—modern medicine has achieved remarkable success in saving lives through innovation and technology. However, when it comes to chronic diseases, it typically intervenes only after significant damage has occurred, resulting in what’s known as lead-time bias—the illusion of extended survival without true improvement in health span.
This means that modern medicine excels at preventing rapid deaths and at the same time, prolonging slow deaths. In other words, it is highly effective at managing disease once it appears—using treatments, pills, and surgeries to delay the inevitable progression—yet it rarely intervenes early enough to prevent disease from developing in the first place.
Modern medicine’s strength lies in saving lives from acute threats: vaccines, antibiotics, emergency procedures, and surgical innovations have spared millions from sudden death. However, its focus remains on extending lifespan, not enhancing health span—largely because the system engages patients only after symptoms arise.
Many physicians recognize this limitation. Guidance on exercise, nutrition, or stress management is rarely reimbursed by insurance companies, making preventive care both undervalued and underutilized. Even when doctors wish to help, time constraints and insurance policies often restrict them to reactive treatment rather than proactive wellness.
As a result, the modern healthcare system—comprising hospitals, pharmaceutical industries, and insurance providers—remains structured around lifespan extension. The crucial question, then, is this: who is truly working to extend our health span?
YOU (if you wish to)
This brings us to an important distinction — proactive preventive medicine versus preventive medicine.
Preventive medicine is a well-established branch of modern healthcare aimed at reducing disease incidence and maintaining population health. It includes broad strategies such as lifestyle modification, immunization, health screenings, prophylactic treatments, policy changes, and community health education. Its focus is largely systemic — designed for the general population.
Proactive preventive medicine, on the other hand, takes prevention a step further. It emphasizes maintaining health before disease has a chance to develop by using personalized, continuous, and self-driven approaches. This model relies on regular health assessments, early biomarker testing, optimized nutrition, structured exercise, and targeted stress management — all tailored to the individual’s unique physiology and risks.
While both models share the same goal — disease prevention — the difference lies in who drives the effort. Preventive medicine is typically system-directed, implemented by healthcare providers or public health policies. Proactive prevention, however, is self-directed, driven by the individual’s motivation and commitment to long-term wellness by partnering with a concierge physician like me.
For example, when a person quits smoking following their doctor’s advice, that’s preventive medicine. But when the same individual independently chooses to quit, enrolls in a structured wellness program such as my Chakra Chariot Program, and actively builds a healthier lifestyle — that’s proactive prevention in action.
This means that proactive preventive medicine is designed for individuals who are truly focused on longevity — those who seek independence from doctors, pharmaceuticals, and even the once-glorified health insurance systems. When I first arrived in the United States in 2002, conversations about health revolved around finding the best insurance plans, convincing employers to choose the right coverage, and comparing monthly premiums. Fast forward to the post-COVID era, and those discussions feel almost obsolete. The focus has shifted dramatically — from insurance coverage to disease prevention, from managing illness to building resilience before disease ever strikes.
To know where you stand book a free consultation with me at link below.