Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don’t think there is any question that the typical diet in the States is quite unhealthy. We also know that a really bad diet, statistically, will shorten average lifespan. And I don’t want to discuss on this thread whether diet needs to improve and how to do it. We know it needs to be improved. And we’ve made it clear in other threads how we each would like to see it changed.
I want to discuss here whether or not those who want diet forced and legislated are perhaps over-inflating the diet aspect of longevity. As I said, we know it’s a factor, but are they taking it to an unrealistic extreme. If we got a control group who ate only lettuce and carrots and spinach, etc (only ‘healthy’ things), how much would the average lifespan increase from ‘regular’ eaters (I’m not talking about 600 pound basket cases, I mean just ‘normal’ sized people with fairly ‘normal’ diets).
The motivation for this thread is a story that I just read on the internet. The oldest woman in the world just died. She was 115 years old. When asked (before she died of course ) about her diet, she said something about consuming her favorite foods: bacon, fried chicken and ice cream. She complained often, however, that the bacon served to her was too soft.
I know this is anecdotal, but the woman lived to 115 for crying out loud! Obviously, from her words, she didn’t live on spinach and bean sprouts. In my own extended family, most all of my aunts and uncles lived or are now into their eighties (or at least seventies). None of them were ever into health foods. They ate the typical diet for this country at the time: meat, potatoes, eggs, greasy foods fried in a frying pan... their whole lives. A good number of them had some other unhealthy habits as well. Again, I know it’s anecdotal. But...
Point of debate: We all know that diet is a factor, but do you think that genetics plays a far greater role in longevity than the healthy diet crowd is willing to admit?
(note: again... I’m not discounting a healthy diet. I’m just wondering if we are ignoring a perhaps bigger factor and unjustly over exaggerating the ills of having an order of fries or a Coke on the odd Tuesday)
Yes. My mother's doctor told me that you inherit your longevity from your mother, and you can expect to live about 5 years older than your mother. That puts me on a course for 102, but I think I'd like to decline that invitation to indignity.
Furthermore, my mother was a depression era mom with her own kitchen garden, and I learned my eating habits from her---which have served me well.
I don't know that it's more important than the healthy diet crowd is willing to admit, just that unlike diet, genetics are a risk factor that can't be controlled.
It really doesn't matter how much of a role genetics plays compared to diet or even just genetics alone. If genes determine 75% of your risk for developing heart disease while diet and excercise determine the other 25% you can choose to say that 25% does or doesn't matter enough for you to make lifestyle changes that reduce your risk but that other 75% isn't changing either way. Some people will make all the "right" choices and still die from diseases we consider largely preventable because genetics have made their risk that high while others will make all the "wrong" choices and not die from those same diseases because genetics have made their risk that low. We all have risk factors for various diseases but our only choice is how much risk we're willing to assume based on factors we can control.
If you are 5% more likely to have a stroke because you eat pizza once a week, will you stop eating it? What if you are 15% less likely to have a heart attack because you ate a salad 3 times a week? If chocolate increased your risk of cancer by 40%, would you give it up? What it really comes down to is at what point does the risk (or reward) become significant enough for you enough to alter your lifestyle? That's not something we can legislate because the risks (and rewards) vary by the individual.
Its has been well documented that our species lost some of its longevity when we switched from primarily a vegetable and fruit diet, to a more meat based diet. This shortened our life spans, and it took many hundreds of years for us to adjust to. I honestly believe our bodies haven't adjusted to it, just our science has allowed drugs to help combat the effects our bodies take on us for doing this.
Now I'm not a vegetarian, I love meat, I eat it at almost every meal. However, our portions of meat on those meals have increased dramatically.
I don't agree with government regulation into our diet. I believe its about personal choice, and we should leave that up to the consumer. However, the average consumer isn't properly educated on the choices they have.
For instance, did you know that if you are going to eat a high fat meal, comprised mostly of fatty substances and meat, it should be breakfast? That allows you to jump start your day, and provides energy throughout the day. Then lunch should be thrown out completely. Eat snacks throughout the day. This keeps your energy level higher, and allows your body not to be hungry. Eating one big meal in the middle of the day only slows your body down. Eat some fruit, nuts, and a salad for lunch. I'm not talking about McDonalds or Wendys salad either, they are covered in high fat salad dressing. Then for supper, you should eat a easily digestable meal, with a small amount of meat, with large portions of vegeys.
Thats what our bodies were primarily designed for. I hear people throughout the day saying, "I'm so tired" and their attitudes get worse throughout the day because of it. We should understand our bodies, how they work, and whats best for them.
Sure, a sports car can run on 87 octane gasoline, but it'll do much better on 93. Similar situation with the body. The proper fuel helps it run better.
I believe longivity is based on science, which is diet and genetics combined. There will always be people who shorten their life expectancy because of self-inflicted lifestyle but, the body cells quit reproducing after 120 years regardless and, as such, that's curtains. I'm curious, though, as to when we will reach perfection as that will be the point that cloning will be necessary. Don't want to regress now, do we?
Its has been well documented that our species lost some of its longevity when we switched from primarily a vegetable and fruit diet, to a more meat based diet. This shortened our life spans, and it took many hundreds of years for us to adjust to. I honestly believe our bodies haven't adjusted to it, just our science has allowed drugs to help combat the effects our bodies take on us for doing this.
Now I'm not a vegetarian, I love meat, I eat it at almost every meal. However, our portions of meat on those meals have increased dramatically.
I don't agree with government regulation into our diet. I believe its about personal choice, and we should leave that up to the consumer. However, the average consumer isn't properly educated on the choices they have.
For instance, did you know that if you are going to eat a high fat meal, comprised mostly of fatty substances and meat, it should be breakfast? That allows you to jump start your day, and provides energy throughout the day. Then lunch should be thrown out completely. Eat snacks throughout the day. This keeps your energy level higher, and allows your body not to be hungry. Eating one big meal in the middle of the day only slows your body down. Eat some fruit, nuts, and a salad for lunch. I'm not talking about McDonalds or Wendys salad either, they are covered in high fat salad dressing. Then for supper, you should eat a easily digestable meal, with a small amount of meat, with large portions of vegeys.
Thats what our bodies were primarily designed for. I hear people throughout the day saying, "I'm so tired" and their attitudes get worse throughout the day because of it. We should understand our bodies, how they work, and whats best for them.
Sure, a sports car can run on 87 octane gasoline, but it'll do much better on 93. Similar situation with the body. The proper fuel helps it run better.
I don't dispute anything you have said here, although I think it may be a bit too general. I do question whether our most distant ancestors were meat or plant eaters. I would think that meat was in the game very early. I would also think that it came in a form that none of us care to eat today--insects, worms, small game, etc. I'm sure plants played a big part too. I would guess mostly wild berries and edible plants that we don't even use today. (although we could--acorns for instance: did you know acorns used to be a primary source of food in some cultures?)
However, the problem I have with fruit and vegetables (of the type we eat today) in those early humans is that I can't see how most folks would have access to such food. Vegetables, and especially fruit, are very delicate as far as plants go. They would thrive only in temperate or warm climates and even at that, only at certain times of the year. What about the rest of the year? Fresh vegetables were not an option. And what about people who lived farther north or south? True, we later developed methods of preserving fruit and vegetables (which today is condemned as bad—and was once the only way to survive!). But still, I don't see how oranges or bananas (common fruits of today), for instance, played any part at all outside of tropical climes.
Although it's kind of cool that I can go to the store and get a mango where I live, it's not exactly 'efficient' from an ecological perspective. And of course, early humans didn't have that luxury. I think that the diet of early humans would have to be very diverse, depending on the local climate. Personally, I would think that it might be ecologically wise to move in that direction again--to let the land surrounding us dictate what sorts of foodstuff would be most practical in our areas. And there is a bit of a movement in this direction. For instance, if I lived in the south, lot's of oranges, bananas, tropical things, rice, etc; if I lived in more temperate climates, more grains, oats, corns, breads, berries, hearty plants, etc (this would suit me perfectly). If you are way north, meat would have to be a bigger portion of your diet. You know... that old saying about working with nature.
I don't dispute anything you have said here, although I think it may be a bit too general. I do question whether our most distant ancestors were meat or plant eaters. I would think that meat was in the game very early. I would also think that it came in a form that none of us care to eat today--insects, worms, small game, etc. I'm sure plants played a big part too. I would guess mostly wild berries and edible plants that we don't even use today. (although we could--acorns for instance: did you know acorns used to be a primary source of food in some cultures?)
However, the problem I have with fruit and vegetables (of the type we eat today) in those early humans is that I can't see how most folks would have access to such food. Vegetables, and especially fruit, are very delicate as far as plants go. They would thrive only in temperate or warm climates and even at that, only at certain times of the year. What about the rest of the year? Fresh vegetables were not an option. And what about people who lived farther north or south? True, we later developed methods of preserving fruit and vegetables (which today is condemned as bad—and was once the only way to survive!). But still, I don't see how oranges or bananas (common fruits of today), for instance, played any part at all outside of tropical climes.
Although it's kind of cool that I can go to the store and get a mango where I live, it's not exactly 'efficient' from an ecological perspective. And of course, early humans didn't have that luxury. I think that the diet of early humans would have to be very diverse, depending on the local climate. Personally, I would think that it might be ecologically wise to move in that direction again--to let the land surrounding us dictate what sorts of foodstuff would be most practical in our areas. And there is a bit of a movement in this direction. For instance, if I lived in the south, lot's of oranges, bananas, tropical things, rice, etc; if I lived in more temperate climates, more grains, oats, corns, breads, berries, hearty plants, etc (this would suit me perfectly). If you are way north, meat would have to be a bigger portion of your diet. You know... that old saying about working with nature.
I think you'd be surprised by the number of wild edible plants there are.
Early humans did eat meat, I don't dispute that. However, the amount of meat they ate was in much less of a supply then what we have today. I have seen some estimates that show the amount of ancient mans diet that was meat, somewhere in the 10 to 20% range. I've seen some lower, but I don't really buy it.
You've got to remember, we didn't have refrigerators, or ways of keeping meat for long periods of time in large amounts. You could smoke it, dry it, but still, the amounts kept were small. It was much easier to store and keep grains, which was what our diet consisted of primarily.
For instance, Beer wasn't designed originally for getting drunk, it was a way to keep processed grain longer. It was a staple of many cultures diets. Man has been growing grains (corn, wheat, barely, rice, etc.) for many thousands of years. The story of Cane and Abel is thought to be about the early struggle between mans farming culture, and the older hunter gatherer cultures clashing. Of course we know that the farmers one out, and began the first part of our modern civilization.
Interesting read, check it out. Man has been growing food since about 10,000 years ago. Before that our numbers were very small, which is explained by the fact that there just wasn't enough natural veggies and fruit to go around. Thats why we migrated with the weather. Once we found out how to grow food, we conqured the world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) about her diet, she said something about consuming her favorite foods: bacon, fried chicken and ice cream. She complained often, however, that the bacon served to her was too soft.
