THE IMPOSSIBLE CLAIM?

Of course you can't tell when any individual will die, but there have been studies done on whole populations which suggest that certain diets and foods can have an effect overall on life expectancy, which is calculated over a whole population.

Yea Mark, Con has expressed it far better than I able

I think that medical advice such as this is designed to help people to possibly increase their chances of living longer. This research might indicate the higher probability.

Take for an example, the cig smoking habit. Does anyone in this day and age think that smoking helps you live longer if you continue doing it?

Quite a number of years ago a well-known surgeon and cardiologist addressed a medical association convention in Boston and it made all the newspapers and news broadcasts. He said, in essence, this: if you do exactly what I tell you to, starting from the age of being weaned, I can guarantee you will live to at least 100, barring unforseeable trauma. But I can't imagine why you'd want to live that long if you had to live the kind of austere life I'd prescribe.

It's not only about diet; it must also include regular physical exercise. The only remaining problem may be some unforeseen disease or dementia early in one's life. Otherwise, I think the best policy is do everything in moderation.

My weakness is ice cream and chocolate.

I understand the potential for a healthier lifestyle to be beneficial to an organism, but have a niggle with the (loose-term) usage and suggestivety thereof by advertisers. One cannot lay claim to any 'mortality' addition/deduction without first knowing 'EXACTLY' at what point said organism's death ensues.
We can only judge an organism's point of death in hindsight.

If I were to jump into a lava-flow it would not reduce my chances of a 'longer life', it would kill me - So, would you say - They, who don't jump into lava-flows, will live a longer life? And that they 'died earlier than they 'should have''?

Anyone who doesn't jump from a 50 story building roof will live longer.

Suicides seems to shorten life spans.

"Longer" than what? If they were destined to die 'at the moment suggested - Floor-Impact-Trauma' then they would not have endured beyond that point anyhow.?

Note that some people have had multiple deaths
(meaning periods of no EKG, no EEG and no respiration for a while,
sometimes around an hour).

It is theoretically possible for a competent M.D.
to issue multiple death certificates for the same person
dated at different times. It is a historical fact that people
have re-animated after having been medically declared dead.

No.
No organism has 'multiple' (physical) deaths.
Death is the cessation of life 'completely, not 'in-part'.
How physicians redefine it - Doesn't alter its meaning.

And Wikipedia has done it better still...

"Life expectancy is a statistical average of the number of years a human is expected to live; this will vary according to region and era. In the Bronze and Iron Age life expectancy was 26; the 2010 world average was 67.2. In Swaziland the average is 49.42 years; in Japan it is 82.6 years. The combination of high infant mortality and deaths in young adulthood from accidents, epidemics, plagues, wars, and childbirth, particularly before modern medicine was widely available, significantly lowers the overall life expectancy. "

'Expectancy'...?
Never 'assume' for assumption is biased by 'your' interpretation of reality alone.
And yet, we do.
But advertising should not factualise its assumptions, because it subliminalises false-realities and indoctrinates falsehoods.

I don't know where Mark Noble saw advertising which suggests that e.g. certain diets or substances will make people "live longer", but many countries have laws regulating advertising (or distributing material which amounts to advertising) which makes claims of curing diseases or improving or promoting health, extra longevity, etc. A food sold as or promoting such outcomes would be considered like a patent medicine and subject to the same restrictions.

All one can say is that scientific studies have shown that life expectancy for most populations has increased and continues to do so, however the reasons are varied and quite hard to separate out. The European Food Information Council says:

"...when judged by changes in life expectancy, health in our modern society is improving all the time and is not, as is often suggested, getting worse. Progress in medical care, better living conditions and hygiene, better food supply, improved nutrition and the importance of physical activity can be associated with this development."

You misunderstand. Life expectancy is a statistical term; it means, quite simply, the statistical chance a person has of dying before their next birthday, and this chance is calculated from the known death rates, of millions of people, for all ages. Without it, life insurance as we know it would be impossible.

Maybe I should have been more specific in my use of 'advertisers'. I am directing it moreso toward media, than the marketplace.
Magazine columns, news broadcasters, etc.

Anyway - The 'terms' are widely used 'preprogrammed' by the global populace - You've heard them, likely used them.
I just think them to be an inaccurate and suggestive directive that stems correct-thinking in such areas.

I don't misunderstand.
'Expectancy' is derived from 'expectation' and relies upon an assumed (assumption) outcome - An abstraction.

Expectancy is in this context a technical term with a specific defined meaning . The "expectation" is that felt by e.g. a life insurance company and is in regard to the number of (let's say) men who are 40 years old this year, who will die at ages 41, 42, 43, 44, and so on. This can be predicted quite accurately by working backward from the (actual, real, checkable) death statistics, covering millions of people, that governments collect. Accurately enough for life insurance to be profitable, and for governments to make plans regarding pensions, care of the elderly, composition of the workforce, etc. It is not the expectations of the durations of their own lives held by individuals. This is the point I am trying to get across.

or a cross town bus

That assertion is false.

No one said it is "in part". That came from u.


U r the one re-defining it.
I stand by the old definition, to wit:
no EKG, no respiration, and no EEG for a few minutes.

In many cases, it has lasted up to around an hour
before human life returned.