Agree. I reduced my magnesium supplement purchases because of this app. $$
1 Like
I think that might be a misperception…if the average lifespan was lower than now, it was due to infant mortality, infections, etc. There were plenty of older people around; the trick was to survive past early childhood.
1 Like
I think this is missing the point. We have evolved to thrive with certain foods, but not others. For example while our brains are large, our digestive system is way small compared to other primates; we can get away with this due to our bodies being optimized for nutrient- and calorie-dense foods rich in fat. We are not built to get by eating leaves and seeds.
But you have a good point about evolution being focused on getting into the reproductive years. I’d also say the food that optimizes health in one’s 20s and 30s will optimize one’s healthspan throughout life. It may not, however, optimize one’s lifespan.
1 Like
I think the theory of antagonistic pleiotropy would argue that most of the things (including diet) that optimize health in your primary reproductive years, are likely to be counterproductive to healthy longevity.
Fast growth, (ie. lots of IGF-1/GH and mTOR-stimulating foods) will be great when you’re young as it helps you get large and strong quickly, which is all the better to fight off predators and to win in mating competition.
And all the rapamycin studies, that increase lifespan from 10% to 27%+ suggest that reduced mTOR (and reduced mTOR-promoting nutrition) is a good thing after some age…
So really - if you believe that “the food that optimizes health in one’s 20s and 30s will optimize one’s healthspan throughout life” then it seems to me, you shouldn’t take rapamycin.
While dozens of studies show that lower mTOR results in significantly longer and healthier lifespans (from the rapamycin data), the idea that a mTOR-stimulating diet (i.e. carnivore diet) is going to promoting healthy longevity is the exact opposite approach.
How can people rationalize the two?
To me - it doesn’t seem possible to believe both of these statements:
A. An mTOR stimulating (i.e. high meat/protein) diet is the best diet for healthy longevity
and
B. Rapamycin which reduces mTOR will increase healthy longevity.
I can see the argument that a higher protein diet results in a stronger old age, and potentially a better healthspan.
Full Open Access Paper: The antagonistic pleiotropy of insulin‐like growth factor 1 - PMC
6 Likes
I think the biggest shift in numbers is a reduction in infant mortality for which we need the proportion of deaths at each age, but i dont have those figures.
Unfortunately the genes that will win out for mating nowadays are those that give you mad photo filtering skills to make sure you can get enough swipes on dating apps.
I jest.
But not really.
I’m glad I dated and married before the digital age. My genes wouldn’t have survived otherwise.
I hear that all the women nowadays want 6 foot tall millionaires. I’m only 5’11". 
5 Likes
blsm
#212
@Beth, I’ve used cronometer for 11 years and find it quite useful.
I’ve personally settled on a minimally processed omnivorous diet (transitioned from carnivore) and notice it’s way easier for me to get more micronutrients eating that way and I feel better. I’m about to take a Micros Class at the end of the month to optimize my nutrition even more.
I’m diet agnostic though and believe everyone should eat what works best for their personal goals and lifestyle.
5 Likes
Beth
#213
THIS, exactly, THIS.
I get where people are coming from, but for the life of me, I’ve never understood why people hold out diets when people died at 25 as the answer to a long healthy life.
3 Likes
Beth
#214
Yeah, I got sucked into the whole AG1 hype and it turns out I don’t need one thing in those bags sitting on my shelf!
I also assumed I wasn’t getting enough leucine etc based on what the world was telling me 24/7 (vegan), but on most days, that was happening naturally. Having said that, do I still choke down protein shakes anyway because the world tells me I’m wrong, sigh, I sure do.
3 Likes
I guess I haven’t done a good job expressing myself. I never said a carnivore diet would increase longevity. I tried to say that it would benefit healthspan at any age but possibly not be optimal for lifespan, e.g., a typical modern 60 yr old will have lower background levels of inflammation and possibly less chance of sarcopenia as they age vs. the SAD or other high-carb diets. Why I think it possibly wouldn’t be the way to go for optimizing lifespan includes your very important points about mTOR stimulation, plus my own concerns about elevated ApoB over a long period of time.
Also keep in mind, the video makes the point that an ideal carnivore-ish diet is actually moderate protein (25%-35% of calories from protein), because you’re choosing the fattiest cuts of meat and supplementing with other fatty things like butter, cream, etc.
I think the average person on the SAD would benefit greatly in healthspan by going carnivore-ish as described in the video. That doesn’t mean it’s the best diet possible for either healthspan or lifespan. Personally I have never gone even close to carnivore in my life.
3 Likes
SNK
#216
That’s where your reasoning falls off a cliff. There is no scientific study nor even a somewhat qualified opinion that says following of a certain diet will make one live to only 25, 30 or even 50. However, there is many things in modern diet that would impact one’s health and ultimately their longevity.
One thing that seems to be most agreed upon (when it comes to diet and health) is rather the amount and quality of food we eat as opposed to the type of food/diet we consume. To that end even in some very old books wise people (how dare I say wise men, because that would not be all inclusive 
) were advocating against gluttony and for eating less to stay healthy. so, as far as I am concerned the calorie intake is absolutely number one driver of health, and the quality of food being number two(natural versus processed). The rest of it doesn’t even come close to those two. There are plenty of cases where people on mostly protein diet live long and healthy lives (i.e sheep shepherds in the mountains of Bulgaria) or people in blue zones that consume plenty of vegetables and even protein (mainly fish).
So, the debate on which diet is best for health and longevity is nowhere near to be settled. there is claims (*by people) that a carnivore diet has saved their life (i.e. Michaela Peterson) and then there is claims that an all-vegetarian diet even cured cancer. Therefore, the discussion about type of diet on these forums is at best futile and at worst useless.
My advice is eat anything your heart desires so long as it is natural and in moderate quantity. I’m looking forward to my 12 OZ buttery steak for lunch, followed by one pint of butter pecan ice cream for dinner(about 1800 calories in total). Anybody has a problem or thinks I’ll drop dead tomorrow morning (because of my food choices)?.
2 Likes
Beth
#217
For clarity, there is nothing you said that I am in disagreement with, and I am in no way suggesting that ANY diet would cause one to die at 25. The point is there is no way to know if a particular diet pattern would produce a long healthy life for most people if not enough people were living to an old age for that premise to be tested.
I don’t think there is one dietary pattern that needs to be followed. I guess I would question carnivore if I gave what others eat much thought. There will be people who swear what they do helps them, and for them, it probably does. People allergic to peanuts will say a non peanut diet saved their life and everyone should avoid peanuts.
I imagine not eating highly processed foods is a better option for most people.
I happen to be vegan for ethics, but I also cleaned up my diet to minimize its contribution to my heart disease and to be supportive of gut health. I do believe less saturated fat is better in this regard, but for one who has no predisposition to heart disease, they might be able to eat all the sat fat they want.
My husband eats the polar opposite of how I do and grew up on fast food…he has zero plaque and will most likely outlive me. One of the fittest people I know. Doesn’t mean his method won’t prematurely kill someone with less fortunate genes.
3 Likes
There is a good reason why gluttony is a “sin” 
4 Likes
AnUser
#219
I’m just speculating, but could the reason why there is associations for vegetables be because of a phenotype NOT related to healthy user bias, but instead people who like vegetables? Or who like fruit? Or whatever?
It’s a phenotype that wants variety in taste in a meal, compared to someone who wants to only eat a frozen pizza or whatever. The reason why this phenotype improves health is unclear however.
I’m thinking about this partly because compliance is terrible for diets and I somehow have a hard time believing that the people eating this way do so because it’s healthy. @AlexKChen what is this phenotype?
I’m happy to eat fish (just had grilled salmon last night, and “canned wild salmon” the day before). But do you think this is simply increasing omega-3 intake as a portion of total fat intake? — ie could this be “replicated” with, say, 10g daily of krill oil? Or do you think there something else or more complex) going on?
The Japanese longevity is amazing, given the amount they drink and smoke, and often go out late with their “salaryman” teams….
SNK
#221
Yes, there is something else more complex going on when you actually eat the fish especially salmon and/or trout and that is WAY, WAY and WAY better to eat the actual fish than supplement with fish oil. Take it from me as I have an autoimmune issue and it is very easy for me to note the effects (good or bad) of foods i eat or even supplement. To that end, every time I eat salmon or trout (always wild caught and fresh from a local shop with its own fishing crew/boat btw) all my body’s aches and pains disappear, and I get a sense of well-being and tranquility that I NEVER get from krill oil or other fish oil supplements. Again, I must emphasize that fish needs to be fresh (the way you know is by looking at the fish gills and if they are red the fish is fresh, if they are pale red or orangey looking fish is not fresh) and MUST be wild caught. Farm raised fish/salmon does not give me the same effect, nor does fish oil supplements.
2 Likes
Really interesting, @SNK . We can use you for a litmus test or the canary. Do you have a thought as to what the difference may be between krill oil and fresh caught salmon? – a single compound? A lack of something bad?
SNK
#223
I have a guess but no science person here . my guess is that oil is simply oil and has nothing in it other than the omega-3 and whatever else there is in oil form. whereas Fish (salmon and trout mainly and wild caught only) have way, way and way more other minerals and nutrition elements from antioxidants (one being astaxanthin) to iodine and several other minerals to best protein make up and many vitamins and other good stuff. When it is all combined in one delicious 12 OZ baked piece, it does some magic which I don’t quite know what, but it has the most amazing effect that i get from any other food, including but not limited to no inflammation at all. My number two food that has maybe about 50% of the good effect of the above is organic steak, and my number three with about 30-40% of the good benefit from salmon/trout is organic flax seeds. I also get positive effects from onions and garlic (garlic being my number 4superfood). In addition, I get positive effects (nowhere as good as with the top three foods) from most vegies especially the cruciferous ones and get some positive (little) from berries. No other foods or fruits give me such positive effects with some foods such as hard cheeses, wheat and legumes being bad (mainly inflammatory). so there you have it.
1 Like
Healthy Japanese dietary pattern is associated with slower biological aging in older men: WASEDA’S health study
Aging is the greatest risk factor for numerous diseases and mortality, and establishing geroprotective interventions targeting aging is required. Previous studies have suggested that healthy dietary patterns, such as the Mediterranean diet, are associated with delayed biological aging; however, these associations depend on nationality and sex. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the relationship between dietary patterns identified through principal component analysis and biological aging in older men of Japan, one of the countries with the longest life expectancies. Principal component analysis identified two dietary patterns: a healthy Japanese dietary pattern and a Western-style dietary pattern. Eight epigenetic clocks, some of the most accurate aging biomarkers, were identified using DNA methylation data from whole-blood samples. Correlation analyses revealed that healthy Japanese dietary patterns were significantly negatively or positively correlated with multiple epigenetic age accelerations (AgeAccel), including AgeAccelGrim, FitAgeAccel, and age-adjusted DNAm-based telomere length (DNAmTLAdjAge). Conversely, the Western-style dietary pattern was observed not to correlate significantly with any of the examined AgeAccels or age-adjusted values. After adjusting for covariates, the healthy Japanese dietary pattern remained significantly positively correlated with DNAmTLAdjAge. Regression analysis showed that healthy Japanese dietary pattern contributed less to epigenetic age acceleration than smoking status. These findings suggest that a Western-style dietary pattern may not be associated with biological aging, whereas a healthy Japanese dietary pattern is associated with delayed biological aging in older Japanese men. Our findings provide evidence that healthy dietary patterns may have mild beneficial effects on delayed biological aging in older Japanese men.
Open Access Paper:
3 Likes
