Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kretinsky | Hacker News Reader

40 is older than 20. You then don't have the same resistance to stress, lack of sleep, muscles regenerate slower, and you often start to have health problems. Believe me, most parents have back problems at some point, especially if you're not sending your child to daycare.

No wonder, armies around the world won't hire a 40 years old, and prefer youngsters in their early 20's: their body is still intact.

View on HN

I had my child at 41 (I'm the mother), and I see none of these issues, and my son has been over 10kg for quite some months now. My early-30s colleague on the other hand complained of back pain already in her pregnancy.

Age is not the death sentence you seem to think it is; on the contrary, if someone in early 40s doesn't have the energy/fitness to handle a child, they should see a doctor.

(I also got pregnant within a couple of months of trying, as did a neighbour of similar age. Personal biology trumps statistics.)

I'm not saying it's a "death sentence", just that physically, your body tends to deteriorate with age. The situation isn't a binary one: being young, your body is much more forgiving, which eases parenting, especially if you want to have more than one child.

So yeah, it's better to start having children early than late. It doesn't mean that you'll be crippled in bed because you had them late (aside from the fertility issues).

Also, Hacker News is essentially composed of well-off, western people working in white collar jobs. Of course, those people will have easy and healthy lives; I wouldn't say the same for a mason or a cashier, and those people exist.

If you think being a parent is as physically grueling as combat then I'd suggest you either meet some parents or get into some fights because you have a serious misunderstanding of one or the other.

In any case, outside of the extremes there really isn't much physical difference between 40s and 20s unless you have health issues or you don't exercise. I'm 45 and lift about what I did when I was 25. My cardio is better (boxing, muay thai) and I don't need as much sleep as I used to when I was a kid. You don't want to step in the ring with a guy in his 20s/30s because your reaction times are ~80-150ms slower but that has very little impact on your ability to change a diaper.

Step outside, touch some grass, and meet people in the real world.

I have a 1 year old toddler at home weighting 12 kg, so thanks, but I have a direct experience of it. It's a pleasure to be a father, but yeah, lifting him, the stroller, waking up at night, while having to provide for the whole family isn't a walk in the park physically.

I'm really happy for you that you are entitled with enough time and money to lift/box/muay thai/cardio - I personally have to keep the bank account loaded enough to make ends meet, while I'm not at home helping with the daily chores. I did a lot of sport in the past though, I was a competitive rower in my home country, and I kept a very strong cardio out of it.

Anyway, why not a bit of skin in the game and test your theory about "no physical difference between 40s and 20s"? For instance, by marketing a health insurance in the US, where the premiums are the same for this age category? I hear that it's a good business, so why wouldn't you try? https://www.valuepenguin.com/how-age-affects-health-insuranc...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com