Off Topic Genetics and life span

That's a coincidence. My mother smoked for more than 50 years and died of a burst abdominal aneurysm. She passed at age 75. She also smoked during pregnancy. All you can do is advise and hope they listen. It looks like heredity was a partial cause of your health issues. Most of the time, high blood pressure is caused by poor diet and lack of exercise.
 
Genetics are a factor for sure.

So are exercise, diet, lifestyle, habits, stress, etc.

The more of them are in your favor, the longer you’ll live.

You could be really lucky in a few of those ways and live long despite some really foolish choices. Or you could be unlucky in many ways but still live long because you make great choices where you can.

Either way, it’s not like any one thing “is the reason” or “doesn’t matter.” What matters is how everything comes together in each individual case.
 
Last edited:
You should read "The Longevity Paradox" by Dr, Gundry. He explains in the book that genetics often have little to do with your lifespan. As an example, while in the cashier's line at the grocery store, I often see 250+ lb mothers and dads with lots of fatty meats, potato chips, and soda in their cart. When I look at the 10-14 year-old kids, I see that they, too are overweight/obese.
So if the parents die of heart failure, would the kids be doomed to do the same because of genetics? Nope. People living in the same household, whether they are related or not, tend to have similar health characteristics, good or bad. But in some cases, the children learn about exercise and healthy eating at school, and change their bad habits.
One of my grandmothers lived to be 94, but my mother (her daughter) lived to be 75. Why? My mother smoked for 50 years or more. Genetics had nothing to do with her lifespan.
Genetics often play a part in underlying health problems or "defects" so to speak, which is completely different then lifestyle health problems like what you describe. I totally agree with you that often learned bad health behaviors become generational and that's not really genetics, but that doesn't mean that there aren't genetic health issues that pass down in families either.

I think the big thing here is that it's not all a one answer/single faceted issue. Genetics, lifestyle, mental health, diet, etc. all play a role.
 
Yes, not only tomatoes but also nightshade vegetables (like bell peppers) have high concentrations of lectins in their skin and seeds. I believe cashews and peanuts have high concentrations, as well.
I've seen cashews described as "drupes" and legumes, as well as nuts.

But yes, they are high in lectins:

Eating foods like this can result in painful arthritis. I have no arthritis or age spots. I attribute that to my avoidance of lectins.

That's an interesting site. I'm open to many ideas. Here he talks about the ideal diet being meat and that humans are carnivores.


Here's Annette Larkins who is 79 years old in this video and looks very good for her age. She's been vegetarian for 57 years and raw vegan for 30 years.



And here's Dr. Anthony Chaffee touting the exact opposite diet who says that he only eats meat and water.

Here's an interesting video. I don't agree with every one of his conclusions but there are definitely anti nutrients that are not well understood by the public or even most scientists, such as lectins and oxalates.



So which one is right? LOL!

I appreciate that this Dr. isn't trying to sell a product like most of the online gurus.

Personally, I am mostly eating plants with some dairy and very little meat at the moment.

I'm always interested in learning more about this subject.
 
Last edited:
Don't underestimate the importance of genes!

"I smoke 12 a day," he told Cigar Aficionado in 2015, when he was 109 years old. “But I don't inhale them. It's the good taste. Let your lungs stay clean."


Wait, I know why this man lived to 112. It's because, like Clinton, he did not inhale. :cool:
 
So which one is right? LOL!
Neither. And both. Depends on the person, to some extent.

There's some stuff that tends to be horrible for everyone (e.g. candy, processed foods). But everything else has a healthy mix of good and bad aspects, and different people can react differently to different combinations of foods.
 
Neither. And both. Depends on the person, to some extent.

WAT.jpg
 
One claims the benefit of a raw vegan diet, the other claims the benefit of an exclusively cooked meat diet. Not 80%, 90%; 100% meat diet. These positions cannot be further apart. They can't both be right.
 
One claims the benefit of a raw vegan diet, the other claims the benefit of an exclusively cooked meat diet. Not 80%, 90%; 100% meat diet. These positions cannot be further apart. They can't both be right.
Sorry; I was using a paradoxical illustration and evidently failed. Let me try again.

There are bound to be some rare individuals for whom some kind of extreme diet is best – including all-meat or no-meat.

For most people, though, such diets are terrible ideas, and the best diet will involve a mix of foods – though the exact mix will depend on individual differences in biology.

So, the no-meat and all-meat people are right that both types of foods have significant benefits and some people would benefit from eating one or the other exclusively. And they're wrong in the sense that most people need a mix.

Better?
 
One claims the benefit of a raw vegan diet, the other claims the benefit of an exclusively cooked meat diet. Not 80%, 90%; 100% meat diet. These positions cannot be further apart. They can't both be right.
Maybe they're both wrong.
 
Back