Ad Widget

Collapse

"Long-term" effects of Primal Diet

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • iniQuity
    replied
    Originally posted by ASC View Post
    There are examples of certain groups of people that live long lives despite eating lots of the things that are unhealthy according to a primal diet. Take the Asian population for example. Any time I'm in China town I see lot of very old Asians that are still walking around and active. I'm Asian and my grand parents both lived into their 90's. They both ate lots of rice as a staple of their diet. If I'm lucky, I will hopefully live into my 90's also.

    So on one hand, "playing it safe" might be eating a diet like the Asian population so that hopefully I will living as long. On the other hand, there is eating a primal diet that seems to be much healthier, but the long term effects have yet to be seen. (When I say long-term, I mean the effects when a person who lives into their 60's, 70's, and 80's having eating primal for the majority of his/her life.)

    Why take the gamble? If I'm trying to live longer than my grandparents, who both died in their 90's, then perhaps I can live to be 100 years old. But what if there are longer term health conditions caused by a primal diet that only become apparent after 20 or 30 years eating that way. That might cause me to die at 50 or 60 years old. The cost/benefit ratio just doesn't seem to add up.

    Note: I really love eating primal. But recently, it just seems like it's not worth the gamble.
    Holy fucking shit.

    Leave a comment:


  • RitaRose
    replied
    Oh, crap.

    Yes, even if we say "But (insert population here) people eat tons of carbs and soy, and they're healthy!", then we have to talk about how white rice is not the same as grains or pasta, and that tofu is more of a condiment in that culture, not a meat substitute, and look at how much fish they're eating, and when was the last time you saw a (insert population here) family eat a pasta dinner and then completely finish off a monstrous frosted cake afterward.

    It's the big picture. It's the culture as a whole.

    Leave a comment:


  • cori93437
    replied
    Jack Lalanne, though decidedly LOW fat as a ?Ovo-Pescatarian? with a preference for raw veg, is very well known for saying "if man made it, don't eat it"!

    He eschewed animal fats, meat, and dairy, but I still have to love him for that saying!

    Leave a comment:


  • Neckhammer
    replied
    So eat like your grandparents....but eat like they did 70-90 years ago, not today. That'll likely be close enough to Primal to keep you fairly well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Neckhammer
    replied
    Originally posted by ASC View Post
    There are examples of certain groups of people that live long lives despite eating lots of the things that are unhealthy according to a primal diet. Take the Asian population for example. Any time I'm in China town I see lot of very old Asians that are still walking around and active. I'm Asian and my grand parents both lived into their 90's. They both ate lots of rice as a staple of their diet. If I'm lucky, I will hopefully live into my 90's also.

    So on one hand, "playing it safe" might be eating a diet like the Asian population so that hopefully I will living as long. On the other hand, there is eating a primal diet that seems to be much healthier, but the long term effects have yet to be seen. (When I say long-term, I mean the effects when a person who lives into their 60's, 70's, and 80's having eating primal for the majority of his/her life.)

    Why take the gamble? If I'm trying to live longer than my grandparents, who both died in their 90's, then perhaps I can live to be 100 years old. But what if there are longer term health conditions caused by a primal diet that only become apparent after 20 or 30 years eating that way. That might cause me to die at 50 or 60 years old. The cost/benefit ratio just doesn't seem to add up.

    Note: I really love eating primal. But recently, it just seems like it's not worth the gamble.
    Do we have to rehash the absurd issues with epidemiological studies and why many statistics about health regarding a particular population can be skewed. Everything from not being truthful on the little form your given to not accounting for other healthful or unhealthy lifestyle or environmental factors. Its been done already in many places including right here in the "Asian Paradox" just look em up.

    Leave a comment:


  • ASC
    replied
    Originally posted by Apex Predator View Post
    I think your question is backwards, since primal doesn't introduce new foods. More accurately, the question you seem to be asking is "Does gluten, seed oils, excessive fructose, pesticides, unfermented soy, etc. somehow prolong life?"
    There are examples of certain groups of people that live long lives despite eating lots of the things that are unhealthy according to a primal diet. Take the Asian population for example. Any time I'm in China town I see lot of very old Asians that are still walking around and active. I'm Asian and my grand parents both lived into their 90's. They both ate lots of rice as a staple of their diet. If I'm lucky, I will hopefully live into my 90's also.

    So on one hand, "playing it safe" might be eating a diet like the Asian population so that hopefully I will living as long. On the other hand, there is eating a primal diet that seems to be much healthier, but the long term effects have yet to be seen. (When I say long-term, I mean the effects when a person who lives into their 60's, 70's, and 80's having eating primal for the majority of his/her life.)

    Why take the gamble? If I'm trying to live longer than my grandparents, who both died in their 90's, then perhaps I can live to be 100 years old. But what if there are longer term health conditions caused by a primal diet that only become apparent after 20 or 30 years eating that way. That might cause me to die at 50 or 60 years old. The cost/benefit ratio just doesn't seem to add up.

    Note: I really love eating primal. But recently, it just seems like it's not worth the gamble.

    Leave a comment:


  • RitaRose
    replied
    Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
    I wonder which one had the diet that was closer to the Primal Blueprint?
    Umm... wait! Just give me a minute and I'll get this one! Ooh, it's tough! I'm gonna say...

    Leave a comment:


  • sbhikes
    replied
    Well, you could live to an old age and look like Jack Lalanne:

    Or you could live to an old age like Ancel Keys:

    I wonder which one had the diet that was closer to the Primal Blueprint?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chaohinon
    replied
    You can play with the macros all you want, but I don't see how you could ever want to step outside the "eat real food" paradigm, except for planned cheats.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    You don't even need to ponder about the paleolithic for an answer to this question; just look to modern day hunter gatherers. The Kitavans, for example:

    "The oldest living person during the survey was a 96 year-old woman, and during a previous visit a vital 100 year-old man was interviewed. There is no evidence to suggest that the people who died before the age of 60 are the ones who would have otherwise suffered from cardiovascular disease."

    TheKitavaStudy

    Leave a comment:


  • iniQuity
    replied
    Humans are animals, with me so far? Now, can you think of ANY wild animal that purposely changes its diet, to a decisively shittier one later in life, with the intend to PROLONG it's life?

    no?

    case closed.
    Last edited by iniQuity; 04-04-2012, 04:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • cori93437
    replied
    The average life span of "Cave man" was aprox. 13 years, upper-paleolithic man(10-15k years ago) approx. 18 years, Romans (circa approx 275 BC) 26 years ... "The average life span is the average age at which 50 percent of a given population has died", likely the result of many deaths in infancy and childhood, as well as from accidents and war during youth, etc... The life expectancy at birth is also quite different from the life expectancy if one reaches say the 15th year... for instance upper-paleolithic life expectancy at birth was approx 33 yrs... but if that individual reached their 15th birthday they gained an additional 39 years... to an average of 54 years total.

    Now... understand... these numbers say absolutely nothing of Maximum lifespan. It is well documented that Romans did indeed live to quite respectable old ages, (if they were lucky and avoided disease and dangers) fairly healthfully... and they actually gained two years LESS advantage after reaching 15 than the Upper-Paleo examples did.

    Also, just one question .... is there a better option?
    Last edited by cori93437; 04-04-2012, 03:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Neckhammer
    replied
    Originally posted by Apex Predator View Post
    I think your question is backwards, since primal doesn't introduce new foods. More accurately, the question you seem to be asking is "Does gluten, seed oils, excessive fructose, pesticides, unfermented soy, etc. somehow prolong life?"
    Haha....very nicely put.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apex Predator
    replied
    Originally posted by ASC View Post
    I've been mostly eating primal for about a year now and it's gone very well. But some questions are still lingering in my mind and I'm really starting to question if I should continue to eat this way.

    Our ancestors evolved eating a particular way and what they ate is likely closer to what is best for our bodies. However, our ancestors only lived to perhaps 30 years old or so. Since we are living far past this age, how do we know that primal eating is optimal for us past the age of 30?

    It's possible that certain types of foods don't take a toll on us until later in life and that our ancestors never reached an age where they would come across these issues.

    In the end, is there any evidence that eating primal is optimal into our older years?
    I think your question is backwards, since primal doesn't introduce new foods. More accurately, the question you seem to be asking is "Does gluten, seed oils, excessive fructose, pesticides, unfermented soy, etc. somehow prolong life?"

    Leave a comment:


  • jakey
    replied
    i think you're getting hung up on how life expectancy is calculated. life expectancy was lower in the paleolithic due to the incidence of infant mortality, viruses & infections, and becoming a sabertooth tiger's breakfast.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X