The debate over the age records — both sides, and what holds either way.
The Blue Zones are five places — in Sardinia, Okinawa, Ikaria, Nicoya and Loma Linda — described as having unusually many people living into their nineties and beyond. The idea became books, a Netflix series and a brand. Whether those places really have exceptional longevity is now argued in public, by researchers on both sides.
Demographer Saul Newman has argued that records of extreme age cluster where record-keeping was poor. In his work, counts of people over 110 in US states fell sharply after birth certificates were introduced, and recorded birthdates bunch on days divisible by five — patterns he links to error and, in places, pension fraud. The work won a 2024 Ig Nobel prize. It was circulated as preprints.
Blue Zones researchers say the ages in the original areas were checked against civil registers and church records going back to the 1800s, and that the critique looked at larger regions than the Blue Zones themselves. A 2025 paper in The Gerontologist (Austad & Pes, “The validity of Blue Zones demography: a response to critiques”) argues the original age claims meet rigorous standards. Newman’s reply: if the first record is wrong, every later record copies it perfectly.
The debate is about whether these places live longest — not about whether the habits are good for you. Those habits have their own studies, and we grade them one by one: the Blue Zones habits, graded.
“Blue Zones” and “Power 9” are trademarks of Blue Zones, LLC. This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by Blue Zones, LLC; we name the research only to grade it.