113 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

Just curious. Do Paleo dieters tend to look older or younger by their 30s-40s than vegetarian/moderate carbohydrate consumers? Anyone have comparison pics? All I have are these famous people to cite.

Jared Leto at age 38 (vegetarian/Moderate carb consumer).
http://4.bp.blogspot...heSauceRR02.jpg
I think leto looks about 15 years younger than he is, on average.

Mark sisson. (paleo dieter) At 50
http://blog.kir.com/...mark sisson.gif
I think mark looks his age facially.

Note: before people attack me for posting two individuals who are 13 years apart in age I want to point out that these are the only references I had for strict vegetarian VS strict paleo dieter. And I was not comparing these two based directly but based on their age versus how young/old they may appear in relation to those of the same age groups, on average. And I am referring to overall look of age not the body, but the face. I think Mark sissons body looks about 17 years younger than it is, but sorry, I think his face looks its age. Whereas I think Jared letos face and body look about 15 years younger than his age.

Edited by TheFountain, 27 March 2009 - 04:55 PM.

[immortali457]

I've read Mark really loves the sun.

[Skötkonung]

That is a hard comparison to make between individuals because other aspects of lifestyle (such as sun exposure) contribute to skin aging. I also don't think Mark has been on a Paleo diet his whole life - he started in his late 30s or early 40s. Before that, he was on a high carb runners diet.

Genetics plays a huge role too. I have a high school friend who looked in his mid-to-late 20s when we wereboth 16. I doubt our diets were that much different then.

People say I look quite young and I have been on a paleo-type diet for the better part of six years. I wouldn't say its my diet though, it probably has more to do with my intense need for sun protection and the fact that baby faces run in my family. I'm 26, by the way.

[kai73]

That is a hard comparison to make between individuals because other aspects of lifestyle (such as sun exposure) contribute to skin aging. I also don't think Mark has been on a Paleo diet his whole life - he started in his late 30s or early 40s. Before that, he was on a high carb runners diet.

Genetics plays a huge role too. I have a high school friend who looked in his mid-to-late 20s when we wereboth 16. I doubt our diets were that much different then.

People say I look quite young and I have been on a paleo-type diet for the better part of six years. I wouldn't say its my diet though, it probably has more to do with my intense need for sun protection and the fact that baby faces run in my family. I'm 26, by the way.

Looking younger is mainly genetic IMO. When i was 24, people was giving me 18, when i was 30 people was giving me 22-24, now i am 35 and people give me 27-28. And personally i didn't like it till now. Cause girls tend to be attracted by older guys amd when i was 22-25 it wasn't easy to date girls of my age, even if now it's better since i can date girls of 20-25 easily.

I ate shit (dairy products, biscuits, icecreams) did no exercise nor used any sunscreen...till 3 years ago. I have a friend who instead was doing bodybuilding, eating healthy...and now he is 35 and people give him 37-40...

Maybe CR and eating healthy helps (i am actually doing slight CR, eating healthy which means mainly paleo, bodybuilding...).

Eating paleo means eating lot of fruit and veggies so i guess it surely helps the skin (raw carrot, tomato souce, spinach, broccoli, blueberry are all known to improve skin to some extent).

[immortali457]

Marks hair is the bomb though...lol

[yucca06]

If you have the genetics, but don't do anything to stay young, You'll become as old as the other people. Like junk food or no physical exercise at all...

You pay too much attention with the diet, however. Eat enough vegetables and fruits, NO processed foods, and it's enough. No need to worry with the amount of prots/carbs/fats...I always have had a high carbs diet (but low GI), high prots (bodybuilding+running), and now vegan for 1-2 years.

And the sun is not ONLY an ennemy. I've never used sunscreens all my life, and I get exposed 6 months/12 every year...but only 45mn to 1h max every time I do that. If you don't burn, you get vit.D benefits + no aging skin.


Here's a pic taken 10mn ago, I'm 43 :

http://www.hiboox.fr...3ecf7b.jpg.html

Maybe some of you will say I look 50 ?

Edited by yucca06, 28 March 2009 - 05:45 PM.

[kai73]

If you have the genetics, but don't do anything to stay young, You'll become as old as the other people. Like junk food or no physical exercise at all...

You pay too much attention with the diet, however. Eat enough vegetables and fruits, NO processed foods, and it's enough. No need to worry with the amount of prots/carbs/fats...I always have had a high carbs diet (but low GI), high prots (bodybuilding+running), and now vegan for 1-2 years.

And the sun is not ONLY an ennemy. I've never used sunscreens all my life, and I get exposed 6 months/12 every year...but only 45mn to 1h max every time I do that. If you don't burn, you get vit.D benefits + no aging skin.


Here's a pic taken 10mn ago, I'm 43 :

http://www.hiboox.fr...3ecf7b.jpg.html

Maybe some of you will say I look 50 ?

you look 60

seriously, i would give you 32-35 max. congratz.

[Matt]

Roger Heske looks fairly young for his age. 41 years old


I think he eats 80:10:10 RAW FOOD diet

and clearly carbs are not making him fat!

Edited by Matt, 31 March 2009 - 11:39 PM.

[TheFountain]

Roger Heske looks fairly young for his age. 41 years old


I think he eats 80:10:10 RAW FOOD diet

and clearly carbs are not making him fat!

I think if he gained some fat/collagen in his face yes, otherwise he can pass for 32-35 at the youngest facially, but definitely 19 physically. You have to remember sunken features give the appearance of age. And his cheeks are quite sunken.

[Skötkonung]

Roger Heske looks fairly young for his age. 41 years old


I think he eats 80:10:10 RAW FOOD diet

and clearly carbs are not making him fat!

But his diet does make him look emaciated (this could be due to inadequate caloric intake or the lack of protein). He has a sunken face, poor muscle tone, and a small frame. The latter two make him look like a teenager, although not for reasons that I would consider healthy as he is physiologically much older. Teenagers look that way because they are still developing and growing. He is a grown man and should probably have a more robust frame.

Then again, who I am to judge. Maybe those qualities are more important in a modern world.

[Matt]

He doesn't look emacitated...

[JLL]

You pay too much attention with the diet, however. Eat enough vegetables and fruits, NO processed foods, and it's enough. No need to worry with the amount of prots/carbs/fats...I always have had a high carbs diet (but low GI), high prots (bodybuilding+running), and now vegan for 1-2 years.

Argh. Too much attention compared to what? Why is avoiding processed while eating vegetables and fruits enough and necessary? What do you need fruits for? Do you think AGEs (from processed foods) are worse than fructose (from fruits)? Why do you first say there's no need to worry about the amount of carbs and then say the carbs you eat have a low GI - wouldn't high GI carbs be just as good then?

And the sun is not ONLY an ennemy. I've never used sunscreens all my life, and I get exposed 6 months/12 every year...but only 45mn to 1h max every time I do that. If you don't burn, you get vit.D benefits + no aging skin.

Photodamage occurs whether you burn in the sun or not. There's just no way around that. I don't blame people for enjoying the sun, but saying that it won't age the skin is just false.

[yucca06]

Argh. Too much attention compared to what?

Maybe my english is not so good, sorry (I'm french)
I just wanted to say that you can eat paleo or 80/10/10 or whatever you want, it's not really important. Distribution of macronutriments is not the thing you really have to pay attention. If you eat high GI carbs, hydrogenated fats, too much roasted animal proteins (AGE)...you CAN'T be healthy and look young.
You can eat like eskimos (80% of cals from fats, 20% from RAW fish foods) or traditionnal indians (70-80% carbs, no animal prots at all) and be healthy in both cases.
NATURE of nutriments is the key. Not distribution.

Why is avoiding processed while eating vegetables and fruits enough and necessary? What do you need fruits for?

Maybe bioavailable polyphenols, vitamins, and some other stuff inside we don't ever know what it is...Did you ever seen 1 diabetic in all the history of human being because of eating too many fruits in his diet ? You can be fat if you ingest too many cals (fruits also, yes)...but not if you get 100% of your maintenance diet from fruits

Do you think AGEs (from processed foods) are worse than fructose (from fruits)?

Much, much, much , much, much more. Isolated fructose added in processed food isn't fructose from fruits and doesn't have the same effects at all. Studies about fructose with conclusions about fruits are totally stupid, because they don't study fruits, but an isolated compound only. And they don't even care with glycemic charge also...

Why do you first say there's no need to worry about the amount of carbs and then say the carbs you eat have a low GI - wouldn't high GI carbs be just as good then?

I talked only about quantities, not the nature of the carbs (ie. high/low GI). The low GI is too avoid insulin spike, so you have also to avoid large quantities of animal prots (rich in leucine : insulinemic) and all dairy products. Yes, you know : I'm vegan.


Photodamage occurs whether you burn in the sun or not. There's just no way around that. I don't blame people for enjoying the sun, but saying that it won't age the skin is just false.

I must admit you're right. But I still believe it's stupid to get exposed if you can't get the best of the sun (vit D), so I don't use sunscreens, and I never stay more than 1 hour to avoid burning. My skin is still also very "young" without wrinkles, but it's certainly because of my high anti oxydant intake (specially Glisodine and idebenone in this case) and home made facial lotions to rehydrate my face (apricot kernel oil, coco oil, essential oils...)

Edited by yucca06, 01 April 2009 - 12:31 PM.

[TheFountain]

Argh. Too much attention compared to what?

Maybe my english is not so good, sorry (I'm french)
I just wanted to say that you can eat paleo or 80/10/10 or whatever you want, it's not really important. Distribution of macronutriments is not the thing you really have to pay attention. If you eat high GI carbs, hydrogenated fats, too much roasted animal proteins (AGE)...you CAN'T be healthy and look young.
You can eat like eskimos (80% of cals from fats, 20% from RAW fish foods) or traditionnal indians (70-80% carbs, no animal prots at all) and be healthy in both cases.
NATURE of nutriments is the key. Not distribution.

Why is avoiding processed while eating vegetables and fruits enough and necessary? What do you need fruits for?

Maybe bioavailable polyphenols, vitamins, and some other stuff inside we don't ever know what it is...Did you ever seen 1 diabetic in all the history of human being because of eating too many fruits in his diet ? You can be fat if you ingest too many cals (fruits also, yes)...but not if you get 100% of your maintenance diet from fruits

Do you think AGEs (from processed foods) are worse than fructose (from fruits)?

Much, much, much , much, much more. Isolated fructose added in processed food isn't fructose from fruits and doesn't have the same effects at all. Studies about fructose with conclusions about fruits are totally stupid, because they don't study fruits, but an isolated compound only. And they don't even care with glycemic charge also...

Why do you first say there's no need to worry about the amount of carbs and then say the carbs you eat have a low GI - wouldn't high GI carbs be just as good then?

I talked only about quantities, not the nature of the carbs (ie. high/low GI). The low GI is too avoid insulin spike, so you have also to avoid large quantities of animal prots (rich in leucine : insulinemic) and all dairy products. Yes, you know : I'm vegan.


Photodamage occurs whether you burn in the sun or not. There's just no way around that. I don't blame people for enjoying the sun, but saying that it won't age the skin is just false.

I must admit you're right. But I still believe it's stupid to get exposed if you can't get the best of the sun (vit D), so I don't use sunscreens, and I never stay more than 1 hour to avoid burning. My skin is still also very "young" without wrinkles, but it's certainly because of my high anti oxydant intake (specially Glisodine and idebenone in this case) and home made facial lotions to rehydrate my face (apricot kernel oil, coco oil, essential oils...)

But your skin still exhibits great loss of collagen and elastin which lends for an older appearance. This would be attributable to sun damage which leads directly to advanced collagen loss. I would say you could pass for 38 at the youngest, but that is what an average 38 year old looks like.

[Skötkonung]

He doesn't look emacitated...

I don't know...he looks quite similar to this photo on the wikipedia page for emaciation. Sure he is healthier, I'm not drawing any parallels there, but I think his body type is similar.

 emaciated.jpg   57.02KB   15 downloads

Compare that to a paleo diet with similar exercise regimens (mostly body weight and sporadic cardio) and you get a much more robust physique. Mark Sisson is a good example as their exercise regimens look similar from reviewing both websites:

http://www.thelivinl...mark-sesson.jpg

[Matt]

Well I think Rogers BMI is above 18.5, 15 and below is emaciated. Plus most Raw foodists are on a mild CR diet.

[Matt]

As for teh guy you linked to, yes hes in good shape but I think he has a little more fat, and I don't particularly like that bulked up shape anyway. If anything I would prefer physique similar to bruce lee. Who himself was quite a low weight between 125-135 lbs at around 5ft 7" . Roger quite a bit away from being in the 'emaciated' range. Ask him yourself for his stats by his youtube chanenl or something.

Bruce lee fight


But I guess its just opinion on what looks better, I think a more leaner physique looks better than a hugely oversized bulked up one.

Edited by Matt, 01 April 2009 - 10:01 PM.

[Skötkonung]

Well I think Rogers BMI is above 18.5, 15 and below is emaciated. Plus most Raw foodists are on a mild CR diet.

Don't know about 18 BMI being healthy, according to this chart he is underweight. BMI really isn't that accurate though, my BMI is 25.5 but I do bodybuilding and maintain a low body fat percentage. That chart says I am overweight, which I am obviously not. According to some books I have read on our paleolithic ancestors, I am of average "paleo" weight given my activity levels. Interestingly, Bruce Lee has a BMi of 25 (160lbs at 5'7) which is the same as Mark (175lbs at 5'10). If Roger is doing CR, then that would explain the low weight.

Back to the original question regarding vegetarians (raw foodists included) and paleo diets: if raw foodists tend to practice CR, wouldn't they look younger? If you concede the paleo diet is biologically and anthropologically optimal, then at best one could expect to have increased health span. If you are restricting calories to slow the aging process, then you would obviously look younger than someone on a paleo type diet as you are increasing actual lifespan.

I think what helps Roger look young is the quality of his skin. According to his website he lives in the NE which is probably somewhat equvialent to the UK in terms of weather and UV levels. Mark, on the other hand, lives in California, which is similar to Spain. That difference in weather makes all the difference in terms of skin health and aging- especially when you are naturally fair.

Edited by Skotkonung, 02 April 2009 - 01:18 AM.

[TheFountain]

Compare that to a paleo diet with similar exercise regimens

How about just comparing it to a higher calorie intake? Don't make it seem like paleo dieters hold the patent on muscle development. There are lots of huge body builders who consume quite a few carbs.

[Matt]

In most of the movies Bruce Lee did he definitely was NOT 160 lbs for most of his career, that was the heighest weight he attained. Bruce Lee's weight has been said by many sources to be around 135 lbs, and in 'enter the dragon' it was 125 lbs. See "Bruce Lee the Art of Expressing the Human Body" book

"True to his philoso~
phy of jeet kune do, Lee began
a shedding process, discarding
those exercises he felt to be
unnecessary in order to get the
utmost out of the minimumLee's
definition of "simplicity."
Lee cut back on the weights
and the extra protein drinks
until his weight stabilized at a
chiseled 136 pounds."


I also didn't Say Roger had a bmi of 18 or 18.5. I said He's certainly above that. http://rogerhaeske.com/

Most raw foodists are consuming fewer calories, but not to the level of CRON. At least not all of them. A study on Raw foodists found over 10% of them to be underweight when consuming a raw food diet, which indicates lower calorie intake. And at WUSTL it was measured, raw foodists consume around 2000k/cal per day

Edited by Matt, 02 April 2009 - 08:08 AM.

[Skötkonung]

Compare that to a paleo diet with similar exercise regimens

How about just comparing it to a higher calorie intake? Don't make it seem like paleo dieters hold the patent on muscle development. There are lots of huge body builders who consume quite a few carbs.

Yeah but I haven't seen a huge bodybuilder on a 80:10:10 diet. A high protein diet is cornerstone to the bodybuilding lifestyle.

[TheFountain]

Compare that to a paleo diet with similar exercise regimens

How about just comparing it to a higher calorie intake? Don't make it seem like paleo dieters hold the patent on muscle development. There are lots of huge body builders who consume quite a few carbs.

Yeah but I haven't seen a huge bodybuilder on a 80:10:10 diet. A high protein diet is cornerstone to the bodybuilding lifestyle.

Actually, a higher calorie diet is required to be huge, a medium to high protein diet is required to be muscular. It's not that the guy matt pointed out isn't muscular, he just isn't huge. If you click on his other videos he is actually quite muscular.

http://www.youtube.c...re=channel_page

But I still think his face looks mid to late 30s at best, because of the sunken features. Calorie restriction is bad for really looking younger, period.

Edited by TheFountain, 04 April 2009 - 03:24 AM.

[Skötkonung]

Compare that to a paleo diet with similar exercise regimens

How about just comparing it to a higher calorie intake? Don't make it seem like paleo dieters hold the patent on muscle development. There are lots of huge body builders who consume quite a few carbs.

Yeah but I haven't seen a huge bodybuilder on a 80:10:10 diet. A high protein diet is cornerstone to the bodybuilding lifestyle.

Actually, a higher calorie diet is required to be huge, a medium to high protein diet is required to be muscular. It's not that the guy matt pointed out isn't muscular, he just isn't huge. If you click on his other videos he is actually quite muscular.

http://www.youtube.c...re=channel_page

But I still think his face looks mid to late 30s at best, because of the sunken features. Calorie restriction is bad for really looking younger, period.

The definition of "muscular" is: Having well-developed muscles. I would not consider him muscular as his BMI is likely on the low spectrum of healthy. His amount of muscle is likely average at best while his caloric deficit from being on a raw diet and medium activity level have trimmed away the excess fat. Remember, the camera always adds weight.

Edited by Skotkonung, 06 April 2009 - 05:11 AM.

[wydell]

I am not sure a medium to high protein is required to be muscular. I would describe myself as muscular (I posted a pic in a low protein thread) and I have been somewhat low on protein. Maybe low - mid protein. Though I have only been doing this for about 8 weeks. Muscle mass and weight is still basically the same.

[wydell]

Well, I am guessing that calorie restriction may make some people look older and some people look older

Matt posted a video of 50 something year old british guy. He did look good for his age. I think the same could be said of the CR divorce attorney in another posted video.

My metabolism is finally slowing at age 40, so I can start eating less without losing weight. If it slows enough, I might get to CR. I am not close yet.

[Matt]

David Fisher. He is 51 and many people guessed his age to be mid to late late 30's (this is guess before they told us his age). Joseph also over 50 looks like hes in his early 40's in my opinion, and friends have said the same. CR will make you look younger, especially if starting from a young age where you haven't had fluctuations in weight, and signs of aging haven't already really started. Personally I look younger now at almost 25 than I did when I was in high school at 15-16 years of age. I think weight loss on some people can make them look younger not older. I tend to see more younger looking skinny people that young looking fat people (excluding people with awful habits that result in low weight).

Edited by Matt, 07 April 2009 - 05:37 PM.

[Skötkonung]

I am not sure a medium to high protein is required to be muscular. I would describe myself as muscular (I posted a pic in a low protein thread) and I have been somewhat low on protein. Maybe low - mid protein. Though I have only been doing this for about 8 weeks. Muscle mass and weight is still basically the same.

I assume you gained that muscle while on a medium protein diet. According to your "protein = aging " thread, you did not start limiting protein until relatively recently. It may be that maintaining muscle mass is easier on a low protein diet than building muscle mass, at least in a fashion that does not include high caloric intake or a large increase in body fat.

[wydell]

I am not sure a medium to high protein is required to be muscular. I would describe myself as muscular (I posted a pic in a low protein thread) and I have been somewhat low on protein. Maybe low - mid protein. Though I have only been doing this for about 8 weeks. Muscle mass and weight is still basically the same.

I assume you gained that muscle while on a medium protein diet. According to your "protein = aging " thread, you did not start limiting protein until relatively recently. It may be that maintaining muscle mass is easier on a low protein diet than building muscle mass, at least in a fashion that does not include high caloric intake or a large increase in body fat.

Your assumption is correct. I gained muscle mass on a medium protein diet, not on a low protein diet. What you say could in fact be true.

[Skötkonung]

I am not sure a medium to high protein is required to be muscular. I would describe myself as muscular (I posted a pic in a low protein thread) and I have been somewhat low on protein. Maybe low - mid protein. Though I have only been doing this for about 8 weeks. Muscle mass and weight is still basically the same.

I assume you gained that muscle while on a medium protein diet. According to your "protein = aging " thread, you did not start limiting protein until relatively recently. It may be that maintaining muscle mass is easier on a low protein diet than building muscle mass, at least in a fashion that does not include high caloric intake or a large increase in body fat.

Your assumption is correct. I gained muscle mass on a medium protein diet, not on a low protein diet. What you say could in fact be true.

That could be a solution to the methionine problem: cycle it to build muscle and aid in recovery. Limit it when not active or not required. Hmm

[kismet]

Whether the diet is high, mid or low protein (as compared to other macronutrients) is completely irrelevant. Caloric surplus and 1.5-2g/kg protein is the only meaningful requirement. Just wanted to correct this huge misunderstanding.