86 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

Do you have any evidence to support your theory?

Essentially everything being discussed here regarding life expectancy of paleo people is based on 'theory without evidence'. Thus you have no right to ask me for evidence. Period. Science is about theory first and evidence production later. Tachyons are theoretical particles which are still used to determine mass and speed in physics. And it 'seems' to fit a formula and work to that end. Tachyons have still not been proven to be real, but they are still widely used in physics.

Actually, I also believe that anything that is pro-growth will probably shorten lifespan. What i'm trying to point out tho is the weakness of your argumentation. It's always the same. You discard everything that is not in your favor, and you never give any objective info on why you could be right. You're always speculating, speculating, speculating with no proof what so ever about your speculation.

Welcome to this subject. 95% of which has been speculation and guessing.

I don't want to make any personnal offense. I just think being on this kind of forum, and arguing, ask for a certain opening of the mind and a flexibility. Also, it asks for objective evidence, not just speculation and "I know ppl that did X and got Y".

There is more objective evidence in favor of CR working than the paleo diet working. Look it up. P.S I mean actual studies, not blogs or opinions. If this is what you mean by objective evidence. Just compare a money on long term CR to a monkey not on CR by simply looking at them. You can't get any more objective than SEEING the results with your own eyes. The CR monkey did not visually age, the non-CR monkey did.

What about a CR-paleo? I tho you meant to say that raw-vegan diet were superior to paleo? Obviously CR has benefits, but this is not what was discussed here so far no? I tho we were talking about if paleo-type diet are shortening lifespan per se. Not the caloric content of the diet but the macro- and food choice content.

Many CR people are on mostly raw diets anyway without even realizing it. And on a raw vegan diet it is almost impossible to have any extreme calorie surplus. I just don't get why paleo has to be interjected into everything. Paleo this, paleo that, blablabla. It just seems people are convinced in their egos that meat consumption is necessary for survival, when it is far from the case and that eating meat is actually detrimental to long term health for reasons cited earlier regarding cancer risk and hormone precursor reactions (IGF-1 being the most prominent). Yet people sit here and advocate eating egg omletts loaded with cheeses, pork, and other pro-growth/IGF-1 foods? This is the dumbest thing you can tell people to do for longevity. And I am not from the 'low fat' biased crowd. I advocate moderation in fat and carb consumption, not complete absence of one macronutrient in favor of the other like paleo people keep mistakenly doing. The mistake is in seeing short term results and presuming they equate to longevity when the only diets proven to do that are those predominat on vegetable consumption (Okinawans) and CR! But the evidence in favor of CR gets virtually ignored and ridiculed on this forum because it's not conducive to precious muscle growth and 'manliness'. Well your manliness will backfire in middle age! Just watch.

[niner]

Do you have any evidence to support your theory?

Essentially everything being discussed here regarding life expectancy of paleo people is based on 'theory without evidence'. Thus you have no right to ask me for evidence. Period. Science is about theory first and evidence production later. Tachyons are theoretical particles which are still used to determine mass and speed in physics. And it 'seems' to fit a formula and work to that end. Tachyons have still not been proven to be real, but they are still widely used in physics.
[...]
Welcome to this subject. 95% of which has been speculation and guessing.

TheFountain, I don't think I've ever met someone who had such a profound lack of understanding of science, AND insisted on expounding on it as though they did. You could rectify this by taking some science classes, but it would be quicker and easier to stop making unsupported claims.

[TheFountain]

Do you have any evidence to support your theory?

Essentially everything being discussed here regarding life expectancy of paleo people is based on 'theory without evidence'. Thus you have no right to ask me for evidence. Period. Science is about theory first and evidence production later. Tachyons are theoretical particles which are still used to determine mass and speed in physics. And it 'seems' to fit a formula and work to that end. Tachyons have still not been proven to be real, but they are still widely used in physics.
[...]
Welcome to this subject. 95% of which has been speculation and guessing.

TheFountain, I don't think I've ever met someone who had such a profound lack of understanding of science, AND insisted on expounding on it as though they did. You could rectify this by taking some science classes, but it would be quicker and easier to stop making unsupported claims.

x to the y to the blablablablabla.......

[JLL]

You can't get any more objective than SEEING the results with your own eyes.

I thought seeing things with your own eyes was subjective, but whadya know!

[JLL]

The mistake is in seeing short term results and presuming they equate to longevity when the only diets proven to do that are those predominat on vegetable consumption (Okinawans) and CR!

And how is it that you know the Okinawan diet is predominant on vegetables? There are people who claim it's high in pork. Seeing as you don't trust scientific evidence, I'm forced to conclude that you have actually visited Okinawa and SEEN WITH YOUR OWN OBJECTIVE EYES what they eat, am I right? Because if you haven't, that would just mean that you're a... uh... you're a... moron!

[oehaut]

The mistake is in seeing short term results and presuming they equate to longevity when the only diets proven to do that are those predominat on vegetable consumption (Okinawans) and CR!

Also, most paleo diet are clearly dominant in vegetable consumption.

So we're safe, TheFountain?

My plate is always around 4-5 serving of vegetable(slightly cook) and 100-150g of meat with a big salad (usually spinach) on the side.

I've never really counted it but i'm certainly getting at least 10-12 serving of vegetable a day.

Edited by oehaut, 04 February 2010 - 12:46 PM.

[James Cain]

I absolutely believe that eating patterns contribute to health. I believe that eating bodybuilder style, every three hours, is unhealthy in the long run. In fact, allow me to cast a much wider net that my be eye-opening for numerous people (as it would have been for me, two years ago):

I believe that practically any non-varied, repeated activity leads to chronic stress, and this includes regular/scheduled eating. This also includes what I call repetitive, steady-pace aerobic-style exercises, such as running or street biking.

Humans bodies appear to benefit from variation and acute, short-duration stresses. Numerous sport activities fall in line with this, like martial arts (intense but short periods of sparring, among lots of low stress activity), tennis, hockey, basketball, football, mountain biking, snow skiing, and so on. These stresses can also include intense work stress, but only for short periods -- remember, work stress can be both the positive kind (negotiating for a huge contract) or the negative kind (losing the contract). Life has short-term stresses on numerous kinds. For example, sex is a relatively short term positive stress.

It's the long-duration stresses on our psyche and body that lead to unhealthy manifestations. Don't do duration-based exercises, for god's sake, if health is your priority. And do not eat regularly throughout the day -- in fact, only eat when hungry, and skip meals whenever you want, and even do a 24-hr fast once a week. These acute-style stresses will enhance your health.

I agree with a lot of this. I do think repetitive activity is unhealthy in the long-run, except for maybe walking, but even then it should be varied and intermittent throughout the day. Though I'd rather walk for hours at a time rather than run or doing repetitive factory work (or even typing!). There is a lot of info that shows scheduled meal times (regardless of frequency) entrains digestive response to food and can normalize circadian rhythms. Very similar things with exercise in that the adaptive response and workout performance may be enhanced by exercising at the same time of day. Then again, fasting for 24 hours or even some CR studies show a complete "reset" of the circadian clock.

I think there's variation for both, but since I don't live in a bubble and because I'd rather keep my body's adaptive capability high, I do in fact only eat when hungry and fast once per week. I use to eat every 3 hours back in my more athletic days, and when I was on a higher carb diet. I felt 110% better eating and working out an a regimented schedule. But now that I'm eating basically meat, fat, and veggies I actually feel better if I eat instinctively based on hunger (probably because I can now actually trust my hunger response). Guess there might be more benefit for either depending on what you're more comfortable with.

[James Cain]

Also, most paleo diet are clearly dominant in vegetable consumption.

This is not true. Paleolithic and pre-acricultural food availability varied based on the location of the people. By the sea, more inland, tropical, subtropical, arctic, season of the year, etc. Paleo/pre-agricultural diets can be characterized more by what was most definitely not available (grains, processed foods, dairy, etc.), and can be whittled down to what was available on averave, things such as meats, seeds, fruits, and vegetables. Beyond this generalization there is no specific "paleo" diet that can be prescribed.

Also, if you think vegetables dominated, check into the megafauna and hunting and foraging patterns of various civilizations throughout time. Vegetables, and mostly fruits and tubers, have dominated in a select few cultures, but only because of restricted meat availability. Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is a good collection of these ideas.


EDIT: I'm not opining benefits to any certain dietary practice, just objectively defining paleolithic eating patterns.

Edited by James Cain, 04 February 2010 - 03:20 PM.

[oehaut]

Also, most paleo diet are clearly dominant in vegetable consumption.

This is not true. Paleolithic and pre-acricultural food availability varied based on the location of the people. By the sea, more inland, tropical, subtropical, arctic, season of the year, etc. Paleo/pre-agricultural diets can be characterized more by what was most definitely not available (grains, processed foods, dairy, etc.), and can be whittled down to what was available on averave, things such as meats, seeds, fruits, and vegetables. Beyond this generalization there is no specific "paleo" diet that can be prescribed.

Also, if you think vegetables dominated, check into the megafauna and hunting and foraging patterns of various civilizations throughout time. Vegetables, and mostly fruits and tubers, have dominated in a select few cultures, but only because of restricted meat availability. Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is a good collection of these ideas.


EDIT: I'm not opining benefits to any certain dietary practice, just objectively defining paleolithic eating patterns.

Ok i'm sorry, I didn't express myself well. I meant to say that people our days that practice a paleo type diet are usually emphazing vegetable a lot. Just look around the forum and I doubt anyone here lives on meat and nuts only. I didn't mean to talk about the ''orignal'' paleo diet eaten by our ancestor.

[Sillewater]

I agree with oehaut. Myself I consider I eat a paleo diet, but most of my diet by weight is vegetables. Noone that I know of on this forum eats a high protein diet based on paleo principles.

[TheFountain]

You can't get any more objective than SEEING the results with your own eyes.

I thought seeing things with your own eyes was subjective, but whadya know!

I was using objective in the sense of 'objectify' as in when men foolishly objectify women. Why not then 'objectify' healthy people for the sake of argument? Yea I know I am kind of making up variations of definitions. But life goes on.

Edited by TheFountain, 05 February 2010 - 12:41 AM.

[TheFountain]

Also, most paleo diet are clearly dominant in vegetable consumption.

So we're safe, TheFountain?

I don't think so. Just based on everything I have read and the observable facts and conditions of people in the same age group on either diet I think raw veganism is the best. It could be that raw veganism is paleo without the meat and cooked foods but that would be far too simplistic an explanation since many paleo dieters intentionally overload on fat and some even on protein. The lack of meat consumption seems to contribute to lower growth patterns (as evidenced by the study that shows vegans have lower IGF-1 levels than meat eaters), better skin, which at least deal with the appearance of aging. But I have a hard time seeing how not appearing to age as rapidly than others can mean the complete opposite of this. I can only conclude that the role of growth and IGF-1 levels in senescence is undermined by people on this forum.

[TheFountain]

The mistake is in seeing short term results and presuming they equate to longevity when the only diets proven to do that are those predominat on vegetable consumption (Okinawans) and CR!

And how is it that you know the Okinawan diet is predominant on vegetables? There are people who claim it's high in pork. Seeing as you don't trust scientific evidence, I'm forced to conclude that you have actually visited Okinawa and SEEN WITH YOUR OWN OBJECTIVE EYES what they eat, am I right? Because if you haven't, that would just mean that you're a... uh... you're a... moron!

You're the cynic who claims nothing works for you. Maybe a diet abundant in meat is your problem? But you're a cynical know it all so you probably think, oh nevermind you probably don't think you probably just regurgitate other peoples thinking.

[JLL]

You're the cynic who claims nothing works for you. Maybe a diet abundant in meat is your problem? But you're a cynical know it all so you probably think, oh nevermind you probably don't think you probably just regurgitate other peoples thinking.

I'm sure you have your very own TheFountain dictionary definition for cynicism also, but:

Modern cynicism, as a product of mass society, is a distrust toward professed ethical and social values, especially when there are high expectations concerning society, institutions and authorities which are unfulfilled.

I have extremely low expectations towards authorities and institutions... perhaps you mean skeptic? Which I am, and which everyone interested in science should be. People who are not skeptics are believers, they go on faith instead of evidence. I know you're a true believer. In every post you write you take leaps of faith like you were the Jonathan Edwards of religion.

My diet is not high in meat. And I don't claim to know it all -- you do. You make claims but refuse to provide evidence in support of them. When asked, you go on a tangent about paleo blogs. Every single time.

Now, how is it that you know the Okinawan diet is high in vegetables and low in meat?

[TheFountain]

Every time I mention the study that shows vegans have lower IFG-1 levels than meat eaters, or studies showing prostate enlargment due to DHT levels rising in meat eaters thus raising cancer risk, people here go into a long winded diatribe about how the study doesn't matter or how it is flawed or how this or how that. And then they turn around and speak to me of the rigors of the scientific method shortly after tuning me in to a paleo blog by a doctor which, although possessing a PHD and a high degree of knowledge is NOT a scientist conducting a controlled study! We can dismiss actual studies performed by scientists but we can believe non-studies (essentially opinion pieces) by doctors? This is a testament to the rigors of the scientific method? Make some sense here! Now regarding the who does and doesn't think for themselves bit. I won't even touch it because it is obvious I challenge held beliefs more than the common member. And I may not adhere to the strictest findings but I do formulate my own opinions based on what I have read. Seems very few here do this. Opting instead to just follow the herd. The ones who do not follow the pack know who they are and have my respect.

Edited by TheFountain, 05 February 2010 - 09:21 AM.

[mike250]

People who are not skeptics are believers, they go on faith instead of evidence.

Just because you are not a skeptic doesnt mean you are a believer necessarily. You could decide that there is nothing to believe or otherwise, that there is nothing you can know either way.

[JLL]

People who are not skeptics are believers, they go on faith instead of evidence.

Just because you are not a skeptic doesnt mean you are a believer necessarily. You could decide that there is nothing to believe or otherwise, that there is nothing you can know either way.

You're right, there is a third option: some call it agnosticism, I call it stupidity

[mike250]

People who are not skeptics are believers, they go on faith instead of evidence.

Just because you are not a skeptic doesnt mean you are a believer necessarily. You could decide that there is nothing to believe or otherwise, that there is nothing you can know either way.

You're right, there is a third option: some call it agnosticism, I call it stupidity

more like cowardice and refusal to think.

[Sillewater]

The Diet of the World’s Longest-Lived People and Its Potential Impact on Morbidity and Life Span Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1114: 434–455 (2007).
69% Sweet Potatoes
19% Rice, Wheat, Barley
6% Legumes
<1% Fruit

A survey of the dietary nutritional composition of centenarians. Chinese Medical Journal 2001, 114 (10):1095-1097
55% Sweet Potatoes
15% Grains
9% Beans
9% Vegetables
<1% Fruit

Environment and gender influences on the nutritional and health status of Korean Centenarians. Asian J Gerontol Geriatr 2008; 3: 75-83
249g of Carbs
45g of Protein
20g of Lipids

Which is similiar to the Okinawan and Uyghur diet.

It seems to me when I was traveling around China and Korea the people would always say that the Okinawan or Korean centenarian diet was always very high in meat, however the studies always show something different (except for the Okinawans where some claimed that they actually did consume a lot of pork). I think this has to do with the fact that on holidays and such these cultures all consume pork, and that's what the locals recall when thinking about their diets. These three populations of centenarians all consume on average 1500 calories btw.

From all the studies I have seen centenarian diets (at least in Asian societies) are always very high in carbohydrate, low in protein, and low in fat.

Personally I don't do so well on a high carb diet, but maybe that's because I'm not calorie-restricted. For those of us who are ad-lib (to a degree), low-carb is probably best. I understand that a calorie restricted diet is the only way to extend maximum lifespan as far as we know, but what about us who don't want to CR. Which diet is best?

Edited by Sillewater, 06 February 2010 - 04:14 AM.

[niner]

The Diet of the World’s Longest-Lived People and Its Potential Impact on Morbidity and Life Span Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1114: 434–455 (2007).
69% Sweet Potatoes
19% Rice, Wheat, Barley
6% Legumes
<1% Fruit

A survey of the dietary nutritional composition of centenarians. Chinese Medical Journal 2001, 114 (10):1095-1097
55% Sweet Potatoes
15% Grains
9% Beans
9% Vegetables
<1% Fruit

Environment and gender influences on the nutritional and health status of Korean Centenarians. Asian J Gerontol Geriatr 2008; 3: 75-83
249g of Carbs
45g of Protein
20g of Lipids

Which is similiar to the Okinawan and Uyghur diet.

Personally I don't do so well on a high carb diet, but maybe that's because I'm not calorie-restricted. For those of us who are ad-lib (to a degree), low-carb is probably best. I understand that a calorie restricted diet is the only way to extend maximum lifespan as far as we know, but what about us who don't want to CR. Which diet is best?

They're probably all CR; the Korean one is 1356 kcal(!) The first two seem to be extremely low in lipids. They are all low in protein, which we know is good for longevity. All of these diets are diets born of poverty. If these people had huge herds of animals, they probably wouldn't be eating like this, but they can grow sweet potatoes in their backyards. It's harder to grow lipids or proteins. This is pretty interesting information, at any rate. If these nutritional breakdowns are accurate, and I would suspect that they are at least close, then they do tend to shoot down the "carbs = killers" concept, not that I think anyone here exactly thinks that. At least it suggests that we can consume low GI carbs in moderation without inviting megadeath. The question is, given that we have more resources than these people did, can we improve upon their diet via the addition of exotic lipids, nutrient-dense plant materials, and supplements? My guess would be that we could, but if we don't maintain their CR status, we won't see the kinds of longevity benefits that might ultimately be possible. If not doing CR, just keep the protein low; within reason the balance between carbs and lipids might not be so critical after all.

Edited by niner, 06 February 2010 - 05:34 AM.

[mike250]

The Diet of the World’s Longest-Lived People and Its Potential Impact on Morbidity and Life Span Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1114: 434–455 (2007).
69% Sweet Potatoes
19% Rice, Wheat, Barley
6% Legumes
<1% Fruit

A survey of the dietary nutritional composition of centenarians. Chinese Medical Journal 2001, 114 (10):1095-1097
55% Sweet Potatoes
15% Grains
9% Beans
9% Vegetables
<1% Fruit

Environment and gender influences on the nutritional and health status of Korean Centenarians. Asian J Gerontol Geriatr 2008; 3: 75-83
249g of Carbs
45g of Protein
20g of Lipids

Which is similiar to the Okinawan and Uyghur diet.

It seems to me when I was traveling around China and Korea the people would always say that the Okinawan or Korean centenarian diet was always very high in meat, however the studies always show something different (except for the Okinawans where some claimed that they actually did consume a lot of pork). I think this has to do with the fact that on holidays and such these cultures all consume pork, and that's what the locals recall when thinking about their diets. These three populations of centenarians all consume on average 1500 calories btw.

From all the studies I have seen centenarian diets (at least in Asian societies) are always very high in carbohydrate, low in protein, and low in fat.

Personally I don't do so well on a high carb diet, but maybe that's because I'm not calorie-restricted. For those of us who are ad-lib (to a degree), low-carb is probably best. I understand that a calorie restricted diet is the only way to extend maximum lifespan as far as we know, but what about us who don't want to CR. Which diet is best?

They're probably all CR; the Korean one is 1356 kcal(!) The first two seem to be extremely low in lipids. They are all low in protein, which we know is good for longevity. All of these diets are diets born of poverty. If these people had huge herds of animals, they probably wouldn't be eating like this, but they can grow sweet potatoes in their backyards. It's harder to grow lipids or proteins. This is pretty interesting information, at any rate. If these nutritional breakdowns are accurate, and I would suspect that they are at least close, then they do tend to shoot down the "carbs = killers" concept, not that I think anyone here exactly thinks that. At least it suggests that we can consume low GI carbs in moderation without inviting megadeath. The question is, given that we have more resources than these people did, can we improve upon their diet via the addition of exotic lipids, nutrient-dense plant materials, and supplements? My guess would be that we could, but if we don't maintain their CR status, we won't see the kinds of longevity benefits that might ultimately be possible.

it seems like a trade-off to me

[wieder]

The Diet of the World’s Longest-Lived People and Its Potential Impact on Morbidity and Life Span Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1114: 434–455 (2007).
69% Sweet Potatoes
19% Rice, Wheat, Barley
6% Legumes
<1% Fruit

A survey of the dietary nutritional composition of centenarians. Chinese Medical Journal 2001, 114 (10):1095-1097
55% Sweet Potatoes
15% Grains
9% Beans
9% Vegetables
<1% Fruit

Environment and gender influences on the nutritional and health status of Korean Centenarians. Asian J Gerontol Geriatr 2008; 3: 75-83
249g of Carbs
45g of Protein
20g of Lipids

Which is similiar to the Okinawan and Uyghur diet.

It seems to me when I was traveling around China and Korea the people would always say that the Okinawan or Korean centenarian diet was always very high in meat, however the studies always show something different (except for the Okinawans where some claimed that they actually did consume a lot of pork). I think this has to do with the fact that on holidays and such these cultures all consume pork, and that's what the locals recall when thinking about their diets. These three populations of centenarians all consume on average 1500 calories btw.

From all the studies I have seen centenarian diets (at least in Asian societies) are always very high in carbohydrate, low in protein, and low in fat.

Personally I don't do so well on a high carb diet, but maybe that's because I'm not calorie-restricted. For those of us who are ad-lib (to a degree), low-carb is probably best. I understand that a calorie restricted diet is the only way to extend maximum lifespan as far as we know, but what about us who don't want to CR. Which diet is best?

You are making the same mistake that the researches tend to do... in that you think since the holiday meals are "rare" that you shouldn't include them as major factors in their metabolic nature. This is because we have this flawed view of metabolism on a 24 hourish cycle... not on an also longer term monthly and even yearly cycle. The fats these cultures consumed on their holidays were *crucial* to their success.

To try to emulate their diet and not include the holiday style meals as well is to fundamentally change the nature of the biological response. And one would be hard pressed to reasonably expect to get similar results.

[Sillewater]

You are making the same mistake that the researches tend to do... in that you think since the holiday meals are "rare" that you shouldn't include them as major factors in their metabolic nature. This is because we have this flawed view of metabolism on a 24 hourish cycle... not on an also longer term monthly and even yearly cycle. The fats these cultures consumed on their holidays were *crucial* to their success.

To try to emulate their diet and not include the holiday style meals as well is to fundamentally change the nature of the biological response. And one would be hard pressed to reasonably expect to get similar results.

That is actually quite an interesting idea I did not consider. Now I would like to know how often they celebrated with such holiday meals, but I mean could one day of gorging sustain them for 1 month or more, I highly doubt it but then again human metabolism is complex so I probably don't know what I'm talking about.

Also here's some posts regarding the Life Expectancy Issue:
Paleo Life Expectancy - He has an interesting thought experiment in there that makes sense.

[e Volution]

It's the long-duration stresses on our psyche and body that lead to unhealthy manifestations. Don't do duration-based exercises, for god's sake, if health is your priority. And do not eat regularly throughout the day -- in fact, only eat when hungry, and skip meals whenever you want, and even do a 24-hr fast once a week. These acute-style stresses will enhance your health.

Duke, what are your thoughts on a more varied approach to fasting and eating? I understand you have fallen into the lunch&dinner or one meal and snacking type pattern of eating that seems to be common amongst people eating paleo style, myself included (no coincidence here this is also the 'average' hunter gatherer pattern of eating), with the occasional 24-hour fast like you mentioned. What do you think about varying this further and throwing in longer fasts for 36 or even 48 hours intermittently? Moderate activity during some fasts, low others, etc?

[Sillewater]

I just wanted to say that based on the studies I posted above if we estimate the bodyweight of centenarians to be 50kg, then based on their protein intake in the studies it would be 1g/kg/day.

[Sillewater]

They're probably all CR; the Korean one is 1356 kcal(!) The first two seem to be extremely low in lipids. They are all low in protein, which we know is good for longevity. All of these diets are diets born of poverty. If these people had huge herds of animals, they probably wouldn't be eating like this, but they can grow sweet potatoes in their backyards. It's harder to grow lipids or proteins. This is pretty interesting information, at any rate. If these nutritional breakdowns are accurate, and I would suspect that they are at least close, then they do tend to shoot down the "carbs = killers" concept, not that I think anyone here exactly thinks that. At least it suggests that we can consume low GI carbs in moderation without inviting megadeath. The question is, given that we have more resources than these people did, can we improve upon their diet via the addition of exotic lipids, nutrient-dense plant materials, and supplements? My guess would be that we could, but if we don't maintain their CR status, we won't see the kinds of longevity benefits that might ultimately be possible. If not doing CR, just keep the protein low; within reason the balance between carbs and lipids might not be so critical after all.

Looking at some anthropomorphic data for various centenarians. If you plug in their data into an RMR calculator the average centenarian RMR is ~1300 kcal if not less. How many calories restricted do you have to be to realize the benefits of CR?

[oehaut]

They're probably all CR; the Korean one is 1356 kcal(!) The first two seem to be extremely low in lipids. They are all low in protein, which we know is good for longevity. All of these diets are diets born of poverty. If these people had huge herds of animals, they probably wouldn't be eating like this, but they can grow sweet potatoes in their backyards. It's harder to grow lipids or proteins. This is pretty interesting information, at any rate. If these nutritional breakdowns are accurate, and I would suspect that they are at least close, then they do tend to shoot down the "carbs = killers" concept, not that I think anyone here exactly thinks that. At least it suggests that we can consume low GI carbs in moderation without inviting megadeath. The question is, given that we have more resources than these people did, can we improve upon their diet via the addition of exotic lipids, nutrient-dense plant materials, and supplements? My guess would be that we could, but if we don't maintain their CR status, we won't see the kinds of longevity benefits that might ultimately be possible. If not doing CR, just keep the protein low; within reason the balance between carbs and lipids might not be so critical after all.

How many calories restricted do you have to be to realize the benefits of CR?

I think as little as 10% is enough to bring some benefits, and it's looks like a dose-reponse, so the more restricted you are, the better your longevity, as long as optimal nutrition is conserved.