Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Has ANY study shown eating lots of meat is good for longevity and health?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Interesting thoughts. There's also the aspect of getting enough sun exposure and fresh air.

    But really, who knows how long any population will live from now on, since many things in the world have changed since the now-living centenarians where young?
    Take a walk on the wild side.

    Comment


    • #32
      First, you have to back track on definition of terms. No way my diet is "50% meat/eggs."

      My average day is about 40% fat; 30% protein; 30% carbohydrate. That is typically is 2-3 hard boiled eggs and about 5-10 oz of meat. Everything else is fruit and veggies. When you are talking volume, it's mostly veggies. When you are talking nutrient/calorie density, most of it sits in the meat/eggs.

      So, on the first premise, we aren't the same.

      Second, I think that the most interesting thing about longevity studies points to two things: good/high cholesterol levels (i think this keeps hormones working, higher brain function, healthier cells over all, etc), and calorie restriction.

      By the second one, I don't mean only eating 1000 calories a day or whatever stuff some people do. But, I find that by having a sense of the right amount of calories for you, and maintaining that -- with the occasional fasts and such -- this improves longevity.

      before primal, my daily caloric intake was around 1800-2000 calories per day. With primal, it's usually 1500-1700, with the occasional 1800 day (feast days) and the occasional 1200 calorie day (fast days). I've found that my body just naturally goes into this "calorie restriction" -- and in no way am I saying this is the right number for every one.

      I'm just saying that studies show that calorie restriction does increase longevity, and so it's easy enough to find the way that you want to calorie restrict (in a way that works for you), if you want to follow this particular path of longevity.

      Comment


      • #33
        That's so good, zoebird, I just read it to 7 people.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Sihana

          One final thing is that they really believe in smiling and compassion; doing good deeds for everyone. According to one lady I spoke to, it soothes the soul like no else, and the body responds in kind. They really are a nice bunch of people, and I wish I lived in the city proper.
          Oh yeah, don't forget this one. Actually I bet there's a stronger correlation of people helping other people and long life than almost anything else.

          And those who point out that it's not really lots of meat are right. But what if for some of us it is a lot of meat?

          I find the more I eat of meat and fish and eggs the more right I feel. I sometimes go days with very few vegetables. I go weeks with no fruit (this isn't one of them though!) I've never felt better. I eat organ meats like liver and heart and I eat canned salmon with the skin and bones, I slow cook chuck roasts and save the broth (it's all gelatinous) for later. I have Finnish and Swedish ancestry so it's not hard to fathom that maybe somewhere back in there I was related to reindeer herders. And even if that is not true, I had a million allergies as a child so maybe eliminating so many allergenic foods is what makes me feel so good, I don't know. I bought a bikini yesterday so even if I drop dead a few years earlier, if I can wear a bikini and not feel like I want to die of mortification right this second, it might actually be worth it.
          Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Owly View Post
            Too many people focus only on Blue Zone peoples' diets and forget other aspects of their lives. They all live in strong, close-knit communities where elders are highly valued and treated as full members of the community even in very old age. One of the big factors in longevity is social connection and the care and support of people around you.

            I think their food does play a role--mostly whole, fresh foods, prepared in traditional ways. None of these groups are eating a lot of junk, processed foods, or refined sugars. That plays a role right there, sure. But food is not the only factor in health.

            Also, the Sardinians eat a fair bit of meat and seafood.

            But really, a lot of paleo/primal folks don't eat massive quantities of meat. I might eat meat once or twice a day (and I include fish as meat). I tend to eat a lot of eggs, often 4-6 per day either as an egg dish or in other dishes, and I eat loads of vegetables and some dairy in the form of cheese or sometimes whey protein. As a 155 lb woman at about 20% bodyfat, to hit the 0.7g of protein per pound of lean mass per day, I need about 87g, which is quite easy eating an 8-10oz steak and 4 eggs per day plus incidentals like a bit of cheese--add a can of tuna or some leftover chicken at lunchtime and it starts to approach the 1g/lb mark, but I can meet my minimum eating meat just once a day. That's not what I'd define as a "high meat" diet.
            How do you know we need 0.7g of protein per pound of lean mass per day? Whose recommendations are those? These numbers are all over the place that I am not sure who to trust.
            Also, is there a definitive answer that the proteins have to come partially from meat? Can they come from other sources to meet the requirement (whatever it might be)? I am curious because I know people who eat meat once a week or so and they don't have any issues and they would consider your eating meat once a day a "high meat" consumption.

            Comment


            • #36
              The body needs protein and fat - Remove either of these you die.
              Last edited by Dirlot; 07-01-2012, 04:08 PM.
              Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
              PS
              Don't forget to play!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Tercio View Post
                But you can't just look at some photos and conclude that these people live long and healthy life. I actually haven't seen any studies discussing Massai longevity. I would love to read them. Same goes for Inuits.
                Last edited by KathyH; 07-01-2012, 04:34 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by KathyH View Post
                  But you can't just look at some photos and conclude that these people live long and healthy life. I actually haven't seen any studies discussing Massai longevity. I would love to read them. Same goes for Inuits.
                  I once read the Massai only had a life expectancy of 45, but that is largely irrelevant, since they don't have the same simple things we have. (antibiotics being the most important.)

                  I think one of the things that scares me is that we have to reference groups like the Massai and Inuit when trying to validate our why of eating with some kind of factual basis. At least I can somewhat relate to an Okinawan lifestyle or especially the Loma Linda lifestyle, but the Massai and Inuit are simply so far from what we know as life that to me, their story just means very little.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
                    Oh yeah, don't forget this one. Actually I bet there's a stronger correlation of people helping other people and long life than almost anything else.

                    And those who point out that it's not really lots of meat are right. But what if for some of us it is a lot of meat?

                    I find the more I eat of meat and fish and eggs the more right I feel. I sometimes go days with very few vegetables. I go weeks with no fruit (this isn't one of them though!) I've never felt better. I eat organ meats like liver and heart and I eat canned salmon with the skin and bones, I slow cook chuck roasts and save the broth (it's all gelatinous) for later. I have Finnish and Swedish ancestry so it's not hard to fathom that maybe somewhere back in there I was related to reindeer herders. And even if that is not true, I had a million allergies as a child so maybe eliminating so many allergenic foods is what makes me feel so good, I don't know. I bought a bikini yesterday so even if I drop dead a few years earlier, if I can wear a bikini and not feel like I want to die of mortification right this second, it might actually be worth it.
                    Great point.

                    If we enjoy life more eating this lifestyle, but it doesn't extend our life, was it still worth it? I say yes. However, if it ends up shortening our lives or we wend up with the same end of life diseases at early ages like people eating the SAD, that would certainly be a different story.

                    I am still paleo, but I'm definitely reconsidering my meat content and thinking about bringing it down.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by zoebird View Post

                      So, on the first premise, we aren't the same.

                      Second, I think that the most interesting thing about longevity studies points to two things: good/high cholesterol levels (i think this keeps hormones working, higher brain function, healthier cells over all, etc), and calorie restriction.

                      By the second one, I don't mean only eating 1000 calories a day or whatever stuff some people do. But, I find that by having a sense of the right amount of calories for you, and maintaining that -- with the occasional fasts and such -- this improves longevity.

                      before primal, my daily caloric intake was around 1800-2000 calories per day. With primal, it's usually 1500-1700, with the occasional 1800 day (feast days) and the occasional 1200 calorie day (fast days). I've found that my body just naturally goes into this "calorie restriction" -- and in no way am I saying this is the right number for every one.

                      I'm just saying that studies show that calorie restriction does increase longevity, and so it's easy enough to find the way that you want to calorie restrict (in a way that works for you), if you want to follow this particular path of longevity.
                      The cholesterol part is a bit misleading. The Okinawans centenarians had a higher cholesterol level than your typical Okinawan, but that doesn't mean it was even close to the level of your typical Paelo follower. From what I see on the forums, it wouldn't shock me if our average total cholesterol was over 225 or even closer to 250. (Not that I am saying that is BAD necessarily, just that it's like MUCH higher than a traditional Okinawan.)

                      I like your take on things, however, and I agree. I'm a 200 lbs male and I find myself consistently eating less than 2000 calories a day right now. (On days I'm not active, as low as 1500.) I feel like just eating non industrially processed foods and eating natural foods is one thing that all these cultures had in common.

                      Also, I think stress is a huge deal. Not how much you have, but how you handle it. Many of the people who lived past 100 had endured far more stressful situations than most of us can ever dream, but they handled it in a way that allowed them to move on and endure life with a smile.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by bob loblaw View Post
                        I once read the Massai only had a life expectancy of 45, but that is largely irrelevant, since they don't have the same simple things we have. (antibiotics being the most important.)

                        I think one of the things that scares me is that we have to reference groups like the Massai and Inuit when trying to validate our why of eating with some kind of factual basis. At least I can somewhat relate to an Okinawan lifestyle or especially the Loma Linda lifestyle, but the Massai and Inuit are simply so far from what we know as life that to me, their story just means very little.
                        You don't have to. Read any study on grains and whole grains and you can see how bad they are. If you compare grains to unfiltered cigarettes whole grains simply add the filter. Better for you yes, but in no way good for you and this is shown in study after study.

                        You can see the change in eating in the past couple of generations. Your grandma (or great grandma) can tell you grains will make you fat. Farmers know it is the best way to fatten livestock. The staple around many tables used to be meat and two veg until Nixon needed a way to find cheep food for America.

                        Heck the "Mediterranean" diet has very little to do with how people in the Mediterranean eat which has a much bigger emphasis on fish, and lots of veg. Funny enough which is a lot like the french eat except they like adding in some fine butter filled pastries with an emphasis on the butter.

                        Of course it is hard to tell how many Primal peeps there are but there is a large community of Primal eaters that could be used in a study but big agra will never go for that. I have never heard a complaint about eating primal except from people who where so addicted to the sugar and grains that they were very ill with carb flu or couldn't overcome their addiction.
                        Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
                        PS
                        Don't forget to play!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          The okinawan diet apparently has 10 servings of fruit/veggies (i easily do that, considering what a serving is), and then their cholesterol levels are "around 180" or "between 180 and 200" as i've seen in different reports.

                          The questions that arise about these particular cholesterol levels is whether or not they are "extrapolate-able." Cholesterol levels change in women throughout life -- with higher cholesterol levels during menarche, pregnancy, and menopause. And, cholesterol -- in general -- decreases as we age. And, some populations have lower cholesterol in general, nearly regardless of diet. So it may also be unique to okinawans, and not necessarily smething that says "everyone must always maintain okinawan levels of cholesterol in order to stay healthy."

                          I had my medicals done two years ago (pre-primal) and will have them done again this year (on account of immigration paperwork). I cannot remember my numbers from two years ago, but I do know it was over 160, because I worked hard to get those numbers up there (my lowest cholesterol levels as a vegan, with secondary symptoms of neurological problems was around 100. By adding in animal products, I was able to greatly boost my health.)

                          I cannot say that I am "the perfect primal" really -- or that my cholesterol is exemplary, but from the outside, someone might say 'she's 160-180 -- perfect under the okinawan standard!"

                          The real question isn't, though what the cholesterol level is, but really, what the inflammation level is related to it. People on SAD have higher homocystine levels than okinawans, as well are more "sticky cholesterol" which comes directly from processed grain and trans fat consumption (according to Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill by Udo Erasmus). But, if we were to test paleo homocystine levels and overall arterial health -- we might notice that it is the same as the okinawans, even if the cholesterol of the average westerner is 20 pts or more higher (say, over 200).

                          This is not to say that the okinawan study is at all flawed, it just begs the question of the roll in cholesterol in overall health. And what I find interesting about the okinawan study is tht they show that without hormone replacement therapy and similar, okinawans also have a higher sex hormones which tend to keep them younger. We know that cholesterol levels are related to sex hormone production, and thus having this 180-200 cholesterol level well into the senior years (when it tends to drop for most seniors in general) is relevant to this aspect of their 'youth' and vigor.

                          That being said, I would say that my diet actually quite closely matches the okinawan, and similarly that my health does. I would reckon that my cholesterol is probably between 160-180 (at least I hope so), that I have low homocystine levels, and also that I overall have clear arteries (i've had no tests to prove this last one though). And, I'm much younger than an okinawan 100 yr old, so. .. yeah.

                          Here is a source about it.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Sihana
                            I do not know about the Massai, but a good bit of the Inuit population has already moved to a CW diet, and is now experiencing the effects of it. Finding enough people to even perform such a study is difficult enough, funding such a study is even harder.
                            EXACTLY! But I don't understand why people on this forum use Inuits as an example of a society that thrives on meat.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by bob loblaw View Post
                              I once read the Massai only had a life expectancy of 45, but that is largely irrelevant, since they don't have the same simple things we have. (antibiotics being the most important.)

                              I think one of the things that scares me is that we have to reference groups like the Massai and Inuit when trying to validate our why of eating with some kind of factual basis. At least I can somewhat relate to an Okinawan lifestyle or especially the Loma Linda lifestyle, but the Massai and Inuit are simply so far from what we know as life that to me, their story just means very little.
                              That's exactly my point. People here keep referring to Massai and Inuits and I don't understand why.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by KathyH View Post
                                EXACTLY! But I don't understand why people on this forum use Inuits as an example of a society that thrives on meat.
                                It's because the prevailing wisdom is that you will die horribly eating too much meat. Yet they subsisted for hundreds of years on an almost exclusively meat diet.

                                I love the two basic food groups: meat and vegetables. I eat lots more of both of them on primal than I did before, cutting out all of the bulk 'filler' carbohydrates that made things cheaper.
                                Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                                Griff's cholesterol primer
                                5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                                Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                                TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                                bloodorchid is always right

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X