Live to 120 without disease
When you get into longevity, and the study of how long can a human truly live, you have two schools of thought. Ones that say humans can live to around 110 at best, and 80 on average. And then there's a the almost never heard of scientists that say 120 years to 300 years at best.
Is there some distinction of how scientists could vary so widely? Is there something that one set is looking at, and the other set isn't? Or is there something the scientists that say humans live to around what is considered normal human lifespan, that distinguishes them from the other more outrageous sounding 300 years scientists.
Yes, the one that say humans should live to only 80 years, are all paid for by the pharmaceutical companies. They put out research that talk about telomeres that only last for about 60 years. Which, when you do the math, doesn't add up to 80 years, and definitely not 110 years.
So what do the 120 years scientists say? Well, right off the top, they said, with proper nutrition the telomeres can actually be rejuvenated. And the reason that the telomeres only last for 60 years, is that the person has a poor diet.
Now, we're getting somewhere. It doesn't make sense that the telomere only lasts for 60 years, but the average lifespan of a human is 80-100 with a few lasting to 110. Something must be happening to these telomeres to last an extra 20 years.
So the scientists that say telomeres can be rejuvenated, must be telling the truth and they're on to something. But when they say humans should be average 120 years, is rejected. Just so we're clear, the longevity scientists explaining your theory of why people last, on average 20 years longer than your own research says, i.e. 60 years, are right, but if they go on to say 120 years is human lifespan, that's just crazy talk.
Let's back up a bit. 110 is now the accepted human lifespan maximum, by the main stream biologists. But if you backup a bit, you'll find that they went from age 90, and every few years a new human was older, 91, 92, 100. Then they said definitely 105 was the maximum and then people older than that showed up and now it's accepted 110 is maximum.
Let me ask you, knowing that history, do you think 110 is the maximum, or do you guess maybe the 120 years scientists know more. They say 300 is the absolute maximum humans can live. 120 years is their average, that they say humans should be living. And they explain that diet and stress is what's really taking years away from people.
So what is the diet they suggest? Well it's funny you should ask. Lately a lot of medical and nutritional accepted truths have been debunked. For example, salt is thought to be a culprit in all sorts of medical illnesses. But when you actually research salt, they never find salt as a cause of disease. We know that salt is an essential mineral for human life. And, then you accept that salt is an essential to human life, then you look at the salt that the people said was bad.
Lo and behold, they're talking about table salt, which is a refined product and it even has been found to have tiny plastic particles in it, so they stays separated. When you remove that terrible salt from people's diet and replace it with organic sea salt, they find people actually spring to life. Gosh if you add iodine to the sea salt, you truly get people springing to life.
Then let's look at the lifespan of people of different sizes, from skinny to fat. We notice that the heavier you go up the scale, the shorter the lifespan. We also notice that the heavier you go up the scale, the more disease is present. But we also notice that if you go too light, also the shorter the lifespan. But we also notice that much lighter people are light because of a disease that's already present, on average.
Then we look at the longest lived people on earth. We notice a few things. When the harvest was great, they had a shorter lifespan, and when the harvest wasn't so great, they lived longer. This phenomenon is repeated the world over. It seems that starving a bit, helps humans live longer.
In modern terms, that means that intermittent fasting, adds to longevity. When asked to explain it, the scientists say, because instead of working 3 or even 5 times a day, the digestive system only works one, and the lack of energy it takes to run that digestive system is also translated into making the use of nutrition more efficient. That long intestine has more time to think about the nutrition inside of it, to break down the food that was put in it.
Less is more.
So we have the how out of the way, what about the what? What do we eat? The beauty of the modern era, is that we can bring entire nutritional lifestyles to the dinner table now. So they looked at American diet, Mediterranean diet, paleo, keto, carnivore, vegetarian and vegan. Hands down carnivore beat everything. And what's truly amazing is that the meat didn't have to be that special. Also, they found that the nutrition in the meat, because the person was eating only once a day, processed the nutrition in the meat, way more efficiently and found the person didn't need as much nutrition, as was previously thought.
The amount of vitamin C in beef, was enough for the person. Beef has much lower levels of vitamin C than say a bell pepper, which tops the chart of vitamin C, but they found no vitamin C deficiency in the person.
This lead to them looking at carbs. Does the body need carbs? Yes the body needs carbs. But, does the body need extra carbs, as an essential ingredient that you need to eat. And the answer is no. It is not an essential ingredient. Essential means something that you have to eat, that the body does not produce itself. The body produces carbs. It takes protein in the body and turns it into carbs as needed. So the entire train of thought that you need carbs or you will die, is false. So when you look at someone that has been eating carnivore for 30 years, you notice how healthy they are and how healthy they look.
It was said that you don't have to consume meats that are super clean, as in anything special, but you do drastically up your own nutrition by eating meats from cows that, say, fed on clovers all day, had no hormones injected into them, didn't eat grains to fatten them up.
Then they started noticing things about the carnivore eaters. A lot of ailments and diseases started disappearing. Although doctors sent in their findings, there was never a study, that was conducted about this. But doctors sent in thousands of anecdotal evidence. Everything you could possibly think of, has been cured, according to thousands of patients. For stuff that they thought had no cure, their carnivore patients were cured of.
Now, you will excuse me, if I point out that of course there is no study. Why would they study something that doctors are saying patients are reducing or removing their pharmaceutical medication, after going on the diet? Why would they study something that is removing physical conditions? Also, why would they promote a carnivore diet over a vegetarian diet, when they found that vegetarians die just as fast from cancer as those on the typical American diet? Why would they promote a carnivore diet when they discovered plants put out anti-nutrient toxins when eaten raw? This would destroy the vegans and vegetarians. They still promote a plant based diet even after patients with wasting disease show up to their medical practice on vegan/vegetarian diet. And, when they reported it, the AMA said nothing.
The pharmaceutical companies do not want humans living to 120 years without disease, even less so 300 years.
So they say have a good diet and exercise. But, what's the exercise? Yoga? Lifting weights? No, the exercise they mean is walking 1 hour a day. You have to remember humans walked for a very very long time. All of the non Africans migrated for thousands of years out of Africa. No equipment needed. Just walk for an hour a day.
No comments:
Post a Comment