47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4
27

How will we die, if not from the diseases of civilization?

by (9647)
Updated 30 minutes ago
Created August 01, 2010 at 2:31 AM

We've thought a lot about how pre-agricultural paleos died, but what about us?

To make the question more specific I'll ask it this way: Let's say everyone in the United States (or pick your country) goes paleo -- eats a good diet, does the right exercise, gets lots of sleep, and so on. What will be the top five causes of death 80 years from now?

Oh, and if you say "old age," please tell me what that means, exactly. Because I don't think I know.

F4a6fc9f0b701e12cdf2ad5dadaeb2dd
360 · April 07, 2012 at 11:12 PM

I disagree, I believe a keto paleo diet protects against polutants to a huge extent. There are tribes of Indians that have a paleo type diet who are also heavy smokers, yet, are hardly affected by diseases to the heart, lungs, or any cancers.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e
11152 · April 07, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I'm hoping to go out in my sleep, sometime in my 90's.

2f83028f9830b25f7c21109197176d9e
328 · April 07, 2012 at 4:44 PM

I don't drive..but my experience walking, biking, and running tell me I'm very likely to be hit by a car driven by someone texting...

2f83028f9830b25f7c21109197176d9e
328 · April 07, 2012 at 4:42 PM

This is an excellent question. I often wonder this myself...baring accident, what will kill me other than diseases of civilization since those become more prominent as one ages.

65125edd5aafad39b3d5b3a8b4a36bb7
6082 · April 07, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Yeah, lots junk being pumped into the environment, that I doubt going "paleo" will really mitigate to a significant degree.

F5f742cc9228eb5804114d0f3be4e587
7660 · April 07, 2012 at 3:07 PM

I disagree about one thing: It could happen. I just think it will be catastrophic and against our will. And the anarchist in me believes it's a matter of when, not if. (But probably not our lifetime.)

F5f742cc9228eb5804114d0f3be4e587
7660 · April 07, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Doesn't it seem like so many are just sitting around and waiting for it? O_o Your answer really struck a chord.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194
11557 · April 07, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Yeah, hopefully with using our functional time to keep ourselves healthy will increase the quality. I agree that while a lot of people live longer than they would of, it's not always in an optimal state!

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8
5132 · April 07, 2012 at 5:46 AM

That's why useful life = chronological age - time spent in nursing home, hospital, asylum, etc. Useful life = functional life without being invalid or senile. Another reason why the longer expected life of today does not mean our "useful or functional life" has increased. Yes, quantity has increased, but quality?

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc
14877 · April 07, 2012 at 2:34 AM

...or something having to do with our water.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194
11557 · April 07, 2012 at 1:17 AM

Not just the hospitals- the meat industry is doing the BEST job at making the most important antibiotics (like the ones that are medically used exclusively for pregnant women and are incredibly important) totally useless. Support anti-biotic free meat!

5aa057aabe02e83299e1e2137eab05e2
108 · February 26, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Also, I should add, we are not biologically unique among animals. Polar bears, for example, are at the top of their food chain, live in a relatively pristine environment, and eat just what they are meant to eat, and they don't live ....to infinity.

5aa057aabe02e83299e1e2137eab05e2
108 · February 26, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Up a thousand times. Sometimes I think people get really carried away here. This may be a better way of eating,but there is no way to know for really really sure that this is the optimal way. The heavy reliance on coconut oil, for example, the limitless daily supply of foods as-long-as-they-are Paleo, this is not how Paleo man or modern day hunter-gatherers live. And there is no genetic mechanism to select for longevity past the reproductive years. Even though men can reproduce late in life, the femal half of the equation would dilute any genetic longevity mutation.

Medium avatar
2913 · February 19, 2012 at 1:08 AM

re: "Infectious diseases will probably be the leading killer" - Our hospitals are doing an amazing job of breading multiple-resistant strains of everything!

90f66d30d977b07694403b469b3f85c5
1608 · February 19, 2012 at 12:24 AM

I don't think we are designed to slowly weaken, but rather we are not designed to not slowly weaken.

90f66d30d977b07694403b469b3f85c5
1608 · February 19, 2012 at 12:21 AM

My grandpa died in a car accident before I was born. An airbag would've saved him.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194
11557 · February 18, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Your risk will be lower than average for cardiovascular disease, but it won't go away. B/c we don't die from infectious disease at the rate we used to, we live long enough to wear down our hearts as is.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5
18412 · March 16, 2011 at 5:42 PM

acid/base balance theory is not well supported. stephan g and even weston price (the man) wrote about this. also, not only the wapf foundation supports K2. it is a well known fact at this point, and stephan g, masterjohn, kresser, harris support the benefits of K2. also, glycemic index is not very useful, and i certainly wouldn't rely on it for making dietary choices. sorry to pick your answer apart but i felt the need to chime in here.

3a966a805e09d88b0f223f2985392e4f
836 · November 19, 2010 at 2:16 AM

We can't "overpopulate" if we are free. The more thinking, productive people, the more resources and life-improving technologies will be created and discovered. That is why, contrary to the Malthusian estimates, we have been able to support ever larger populations.

35a9207254408c6907f7082640c7bfaa
822 · August 02, 2010 at 11:29 PM

Yes, like "Cardiovascular diseases" and "Ischemic heart disease". If you are eating properly your risk of these will be lower than average. For more info, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_diseases

485bcefe7f1f7a6df1a293a826bf6137
2181 · August 02, 2010 at 8:53 PM

It's not the dangers of nature that kept the population in check and I don't believe that many people died prematurely. It's the advent of agriculture that enabled populations to expand at tremendous rates. If everyone went back to eating paleo, we would run out of food, but I don't think there's any way to reverse the grain-based world. Grains are simply too addictive; that's most likely why they became so prevalent in the first place, despite their being more labor intensive to produce.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad
56616 · August 01, 2010 at 10:34 PM

Old people suck at driving too...

08f65e31fe63fa8c91edcdf8ece35607
220 · August 01, 2010 at 8:46 PM

I would think that the high incidence of death due to car accidents in young people has a lot to do with their limited driving experience as well.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321
1973 · August 01, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Car accidents might kill a lot of young people, but they still will not be a leading cause of death even with CVD & cancer mortality reduced to 50 per 100,000.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321
1973 · August 01, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Melissa the link you added to your post is broken.

0fb8b3d6dcfb279b0f7e050d2d22510f
4625 · August 01, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Then I'm sure some anti big government folks will reduce car safety standards since the number is low (Reagen did) but a massive but not lethal injury will not be good either. Technology will do us in - always have.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad
56616 · August 01, 2010 at 1:52 PM

If we have remove diseases of civilization, yes. It's already a top cause in young people, representing 64% of deaths.

154d799847153f5589f99496a9bdbb71
992 · August 01, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Sure, Chris, but we're talking about removing (what are now) the major causes of death. Motor vehicle accidents does indeed seem like the one the next ones after that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Causes_of_death_by_age_group.png

8e75344356f4a455185ee52da0b90bf2
2614 · August 01, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Agreed. I, myself, ate the very worst SAD diet for over 40 years of my life. After losing 150 lbs and living clean for 20 years I'll probably drop dead of an effing heart attack at 65 and all my friends and family will cluck and shake their heads and murmur "see, we TOLD her all that meat would kill her!" >:#

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321
1973 · August 01, 2010 at 8:35 AM

Ignore the ones that are diseases of civilization?

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321
1973 · August 01, 2010 at 7:55 AM

Um hardly. Car accident mortality is under 16 deaths per 100,000 persons annually. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=car+accident+mortality

D339c39d94d65460e28128174845f423
821 · August 01, 2010 at 5:29 AM

Right-O! They already are a big one!

424563ee2575f0620ea221badabb40d7
272 · August 01, 2010 at 3:10 AM

funny :) I feel a little guilty about laughing, though.

Total Views
2.2K

Recent Activity
218f4d92627e4289cc81178fce5b4d00

Last Activity
42D AGO

Followers
0

Get Free Paleo Recipes Instantly

30 Answers

Ce0b5fd94b1034e96cf710b6f138c29d
17
4089 · August 01, 2010 at 3:04 AM

Eaten by mutant zombie bikers when the world ends in 2012?

Seriously, though, excellent question. I'm inclined to think that cancer due to various environmental factors might still get a lot of us; we may be able to improve our diets to something approximating what Grok ate, but we're still exposed to a lot of nasty chemical crap that he never encountered, and who knows what the longterm effects of eating the SAD for x years before going Paleo might be>

65125edd5aafad39b3d5b3a8b4a36bb7
6082 · April 07, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Yeah, lots junk being pumped into the environment, that I doubt going "paleo" will really mitigate to a significant degree.

F4a6fc9f0b701e12cdf2ad5dadaeb2dd
360 · April 07, 2012 at 11:12 PM

I disagree, I believe a keto paleo diet protects against polutants to a huge extent. There are tribes of Indians that have a paleo type diet who are also heavy smokers, yet, are hardly affected by diseases to the heart, lungs, or any cancers.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1
12
18671 · August 01, 2010 at 3:30 AM

We're not going to die. Surely the singularity will have happened by then. :P

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321
7
1973 · August 01, 2010 at 8:32 AM

We are all going to die from the diseases of civilization as well.

Infectious diseases will probably be the leading killer, follow by CVD and cancer. Maybe we will live a bit longer on average.

With few exceptions, most people eating paleo have 20+ years of damage from SAD under their belt.

Most of us are not going to fully realize the dramatic reductions in CVD & cancer incidence that we see when comparing ourselves to HG + healthy cultures. Inferior diet, lifestyle and environment as archaea pointed out.

William Land's data has CVD incidence dropping to around 25-100 per 100,000 in populations with excellent omega-3 profiles and low processed food consumption (Mediterranean, Inuit, Elderly Japanese).

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/05/eicosanoids-and-ischemic-heart-disease.html

This is a dramatic reduction from the current rate of 200+ per 100,000 but nevertheless still a lot of deaths.

8e75344356f4a455185ee52da0b90bf2
2614 · August 01, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Agreed. I, myself, ate the very worst SAD diet for over 40 years of my life. After losing 150 lbs and living clean for 20 years I'll probably drop dead of an effing heart attack at 65 and all my friends and family will cluck and shake their heads and murmur "see, we TOLD her all that meat would kill her!" >:#

Medium avatar
2913 · February 19, 2012 at 1:08 AM

re: "Infectious diseases will probably be the leading killer" - Our hospitals are doing an amazing job of breading multiple-resistant strains of everything!

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194
11557 · April 07, 2012 at 1:17 AM

Not just the hospitals- the meat industry is doing the BEST job at making the most important antibiotics (like the ones that are medically used exclusively for pregnant women and are incredibly important) totally useless. Support anti-biotic free meat!

35a9207254408c6907f7082640c7bfaa
5
822 · August 01, 2010 at 4:09 AM

The causes of death chart is a good place to start. Ignore the ones that are diseases of civilization.

As the immune system weakens the chances of death from all sorts of exotic things rises dramatically.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321
1973 · August 01, 2010 at 8:35 AM

Ignore the ones that are diseases of civilization?

35a9207254408c6907f7082640c7bfaa
822 · August 02, 2010 at 11:29 PM

Yes, like "Cardiovascular diseases" and "Ischemic heart disease". If you are eating properly your risk of these will be lower than average. For more info, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_diseases

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194
11557 · February 18, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Your risk will be lower than average for cardiovascular disease, but it won't go away. B/c we don't die from infectious disease at the rate we used to, we live long enough to wear down our hearts as is.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3
5
20787 · August 01, 2010 at 3:53 AM

I think humans have a built in expiration date so that the old ones clear out and make way for the new ones with their new ideas. SO I think we are designed to slowly weaken as we get up there in years, even if living a healthy lifestyle. SO I think similar things will still kill us but just not until we get older on average, things like germs, failed organs, injury that we are not able to heal from (injuries that probably would not have killed a younger version of self), cancer, accidents caused by slower reflexes and attention span, etc. Plus the usual things like vehicle accidents will still be there. And there will be some illnesses that straight paleo will not cure, genetic weaknesses, things we don't yet understand well yet, etc. Or maybe it will be like planet of the apes or genetically modified plants will take over the world and kill us all! ;-) -Eva

90f66d30d977b07694403b469b3f85c5
1608 · February 19, 2012 at 12:24 AM

I don't think we are designed to slowly weaken, but rather we are not designed to not slowly weaken.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad
5
56616 · August 01, 2010 at 2:56 AM
154d799847153f5589f99496a9bdbb71
992 · August 01, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Sure, Chris, but we're talking about removing (what are now) the major causes of death. Motor vehicle accidents does indeed seem like the one the next ones after that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Causes_of_death_by_age_group.png

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321
1973 · August 01, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Melissa the link you added to your post is broken.

D339c39d94d65460e28128174845f423
821 · August 01, 2010 at 5:29 AM

Right-O! They already are a big one!

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad
56616 · August 01, 2010 at 1:52 PM

If we have remove diseases of civilization, yes. It's already a top cause in young people, representing 64% of deaths.

08f65e31fe63fa8c91edcdf8ece35607
220 · August 01, 2010 at 8:46 PM

I would think that the high incidence of death due to car accidents in young people has a lot to do with their limited driving experience as well.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321
1973 · August 01, 2010 at 7:55 AM

Um hardly. Car accident mortality is under 16 deaths per 100,000 persons annually. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=car+accident+mortality

424563ee2575f0620ea221badabb40d7
272 · August 01, 2010 at 3:10 AM

funny :) I feel a little guilty about laughing, though.

0fb8b3d6dcfb279b0f7e050d2d22510f
4625 · August 01, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Then I'm sure some anti big government folks will reduce car safety standards since the number is low (Reagen did) but a massive but not lethal injury will not be good either. Technology will do us in - always have.

1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321
1973 · August 01, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Car accidents might kill a lot of young people, but they still will not be a leading cause of death even with CVD & cancer mortality reduced to 50 per 100,000.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad
56616 · August 01, 2010 at 10:34 PM

Old people suck at driving too...

90f66d30d977b07694403b469b3f85c5
1608 · February 19, 2012 at 12:21 AM

My grandpa died in a car accident before I was born. An airbag would've saved him.

2f83028f9830b25f7c21109197176d9e
328 · April 07, 2012 at 4:44 PM

I don't drive..but my experience walking, biking, and running tell me I'm very likely to be hit by a car driven by someone texting...

1d9af5db8833413037be3ac48964714f
4
3789 · April 07, 2012 at 1:44 AM

I follow a paleo approach to eating/living in the hope of not spending years as an incontinent cripple, not really to just have more time alive. I don't care what eventually kills me, as long as it does it clean.

D339c39d94d65460e28128174845f423
4
821 · August 01, 2010 at 5:28 AM

Old age can be quite difficult, but it sure beats the alternative!

D5db204527668aa712504995c0f8f96f
4
551 · August 01, 2010 at 3:42 AM

probably from lack of meat? (or at least, quality meat)

121a16aded2bed8dca492d3c9662ef4c
3
1317 · April 07, 2012 at 2:25 PM

At AHS 2011, Staffan Lindeberg described how a 70-year-old Trobriander went while they were conducting their research. He fell from a tree.

That, if you ask me, is how we're supposed to go. Either by accident or in our sleep. Quickly, in any case, and not the long, dragged-out technologized torture that's supposed to pass for life these days.

F5f742cc9228eb5804114d0f3be4e587
7660 · April 07, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Doesn't it seem like so many are just sitting around and waiting for it? O_o Your answer really struck a chord.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194
3
11557 · April 07, 2012 at 1:30 AM

We will probably die from "diseases of civilization", because they are really mostly "diseases of living to an old age" (obviously the risk factors include lifestyle and genetics, but a certain amount of risk will still remain), because generally the alternative is infectious disease (which can do you in pretty easy too when you reach a ripe old age). Because we can survive child birth, control how many children we have, get vaccinated, and survive injuries and accidents we never could before, it makes sense that we would die from essentially a "wearing out" of the bodily organs and a decreasing immune system.

That being said, quality over quantity man. And sometimes there's no reason why people die. In 4 years of high school, we had 6 young, healthy students die: 1 brain aneurism, 2 different car accidents, 1 freak accident (broken neck from a fall), and 2 different suicides. Devastating for a small community. My parent's best friends (who we call aunt and uncle) lost their first child to a totally undetected major heart defect when she was only 8 months old. My great-grandma lived to be 95, and was the cruelest, most bitter, unhealthy, chain-smoking, biscuit-eating lady you've ever met. My mom's dad is still alive at 85, and he's a life-long institutionalized and imprisoned schizophrenic with relatively severe brain damage from insulin therapy who has been eating government-provided food since the 80's. My other grandpa died at 70, weeks after a diagnoses of pancreatic cancer after a health life of an academic AND a farmer. People die, all the time, for all different reasons.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194
11557 · April 07, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Yeah, hopefully with using our functional time to keep ourselves healthy will increase the quality. I agree that while a lot of people live longer than they would of, it's not always in an optimal state!

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8
5132 · April 07, 2012 at 5:46 AM

That's why useful life = chronological age - time spent in nursing home, hospital, asylum, etc. Useful life = functional life without being invalid or senile. Another reason why the longer expected life of today does not mean our "useful or functional life" has increased. Yes, quantity has increased, but quality?

319cdfcd8ec0467f34a3c5aeb2a5e045
3
296 · February 18, 2012 at 6:31 PM

All I ask is that I don't get hit on my bike by a port-a-potty truck. I just think someday I'm going to do one stupid thing too many, and by that time my body won't be as resilient or quick to heal as it is now. But who knows? My grandmother lived to 100, fell many times and never broke a bone- we joked she must have made of rubber to never break her hip!

5aa057aabe02e83299e1e2137eab05e2
3
108 · February 18, 2012 at 5:45 PM

My FIL was as Paleo as a man could be before anyone knew what it was. Hunter, fisherman, elk and caribou and salmon from Alaska, diet heavy in meats and fats and fresh fresh fish, lots of veggies, few grains of any kind ( Lithuanian, he was a potato eater) Died of stomach cancer at 52. Just sayin.

5aa057aabe02e83299e1e2137eab05e2
108 · February 26, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Also, I should add, we are not biologically unique among animals. Polar bears, for example, are at the top of their food chain, live in a relatively pristine environment, and eat just what they are meant to eat, and they don't live ....to infinity.

3a966a805e09d88b0f223f2985392e4f
3
836 · November 19, 2010 at 2:28 AM

I know what you're getting at--the question could also be framed, "Now that I eat a strict Paleo diet what am I likely to die from?"

-I would still consider cancer your top threat, even though you eat this diet. It's optimal to start the diet when you're in your mother's stomach, so if you lived the standard American life for 30 years that could cause problems down the road. I suggest you get the acid/base balance right, maybe implement occasional intermittent fasting, and stay away from blood sugar spiking tropical and dried fruits.

-Somebody mentioned bone breaks from falls. I somewhat disagree if you're eating the right acid/base balance, getting enough vitamin D from the sun, eat enough magnesium rich foods, and get the important vitamin K2 MK4. The last could be a lifesaver, but I don't see it recommended enough by Cordain, Robb Wolf, et al very much. Moreso from the Weston Price Foundation.

-Accidents are a big issue. Bicycle travel has the most deaths per km traveled, and then it's motorcycle use. The safest thing to do in the USA is to take a bus or train. If you have to drive a car, it's probably best not to drive a compact car. Go for safety features, defensively drive, keep your cool on the road.

-If you look at overall causes of death you don't see Alzheimers and dementia reaching as high as their incidence. Don't quote me but I've read 1 in 2 people have one of those diseases by 80. They "live" with those diseases, but I wouldn't call it much of a life. There's some evidence that Alzheimers might be affected by a high glycemic index and glycemic load diet. I would also avoid antiperspirants and cooking with aluminum cookware and foil. Not sure but I've heard Teflon isn't the greatest either. Maybe somebody can chime in on this one, but I don't think the causes of these two diseases are fully understood.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5
18412 · March 16, 2011 at 5:42 PM

acid/base balance theory is not well supported. stephan g and even weston price (the man) wrote about this. also, not only the wapf foundation supports K2. it is a well known fact at this point, and stephan g, masterjohn, kresser, harris support the benefits of K2. also, glycemic index is not very useful, and i certainly wouldn't rely on it for making dietary choices. sorry to pick your answer apart but i felt the need to chime in here.

70d9359a2086e890a4c3bccb2ba8a8cb
3
2254 · August 01, 2010 at 5:39 AM

Some great suggestions already, but I feel the need to point out that just because paleo folks are less prone to "diseases of civilization" doesn't mean that no-one would die of these anymore if everyone went paleo. While this lifestyle significantly decreases our likelihood of getting coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes and some types of cancer, there are many other factors such as environmental (non-food) toxins, exposure to viruses, and individual genetic susceptibility that may have a causal role. What I'm saying is that while the aforementioned diseases would probably decrease very dramatically, I'm guessing there would still be a low base rate of these especially in an aging population as there we would still be exposed to other disease-causing elements of "civilization" (like the toxins) even with food and exercise taken care of.

424563ee2575f0620ea221badabb40d7
3
272 · August 01, 2010 at 3:14 AM

good question. In addition to Fearsclave's response about cancer, I'd possibly add pneumonia. Ordinary pneumonia is a big killer of the elderly. A very aggressive cancer kills in months or years, pneumonia kills in a day or two. Merely flooding the PT with antibiotics is no guarantee for survival. So after reducing CVD risk and glucose related problems, preserving and strengthening the immune system might be the next top priority.

Medium avatar
2
10176 · February 19, 2012 at 2:51 AM

This will never happen. We will die though. I don't expect that the causes will be much different from what non paleos in our respective societies die from.

Paleo longevity and health depends on the same risk factors as any other human. Obesity increases risk however it is caused, and the same is true of the effects from high blood pressure. Genetic factors cannot be controlled, nor can allergic responses. Emotional health is a complete wild card, as are economics, war/violence, epidemics, disease and accidents.

If everything was controlled for, paleo could add possibly 10 years to lifetime, and we would die from loss of ability to heal from pneumonia, flu and infection, and from loss of mental function in senility and dementia. I think that excessive fat consumption would increase risks for at least some paleo dieters, as would high red meat consumption (colon cancer).

While everyone has (presumably) always wanted to live forever, the ability to live longer than 25-30 years is a distinctly Neolithic development. Hospitals, doctors, abundant food, sanitation and dental care are recent developments which measurably increase longevity, and were designed to do so. Our ancestors diet and lifestyle were not designed with any purpose other than survival both to the next meal and to the next generation.

5aa057aabe02e83299e1e2137eab05e2
108 · February 26, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Up a thousand times. Sometimes I think people get really carried away here. This may be a better way of eating,but there is no way to know for really really sure that this is the optimal way. The heavy reliance on coconut oil, for example, the limitless daily supply of foods as-long-as-they-are Paleo, this is not how Paleo man or modern day hunter-gatherers live. And there is no genetic mechanism to select for longevity past the reproductive years. Even though men can reproduce late in life, the femal half of the equation would dilute any genetic longevity mutation.

F5f742cc9228eb5804114d0f3be4e587
7660 · April 07, 2012 at 3:07 PM

I disagree about one thing: It could happen. I just think it will be catastrophic and against our will. And the anarchist in me believes it's a matter of when, not if. (But probably not our lifetime.)

9bc6f3df8db981f67ea1465411958c8d
2
3690 · August 02, 2010 at 4:31 AM

You made a joke about the end of the world, but I'm not sure the earth can sustain as much people for long with the amount of resources we use in industrialized countries. If survival got even easier and people knew how to eat to live long and healthy lives, we would also have to change the way we interact with nature or we would soon exploit everything and end up killing ourselves by starving the planet.

In caveman's time, life was harsh and a lot of people died at birth, from accidents or from the general dangers and pressure of nature. Now that we don't face those dangers and are able to over-populate, imagine if we also all knew how to live about 20 years longer and the effect it would have.

485bcefe7f1f7a6df1a293a826bf6137
2181 · August 02, 2010 at 8:53 PM

It's not the dangers of nature that kept the population in check and I don't believe that many people died prematurely. It's the advent of agriculture that enabled populations to expand at tremendous rates. If everyone went back to eating paleo, we would run out of food, but I don't think there's any way to reverse the grain-based world. Grains are simply too addictive; that's most likely why they became so prevalent in the first place, despite their being more labor intensive to produce.

3a966a805e09d88b0f223f2985392e4f
836 · November 19, 2010 at 2:16 AM

We can't "overpopulate" if we are free. The more thinking, productive people, the more resources and life-improving technologies will be created and discovered. That is why, contrary to the Malthusian estimates, we have been able to support ever larger populations.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094
2
78422 · August 02, 2010 at 1:07 AM

Falls that lead to cracked bones and infection.

Length of life is secondary to quality of life for me. Quality of life is not just influenced by how healthy you are, as we can see from all the emo teens out there. it has a lot to do with your outlook and especially how you deal with adversity/setbacks. so my mom can still enjoy herself on a vacation to see the sequoias even though she has terminal bone cancer and is going through the ringer daily with side effects from chemo. this is because she can control her emotions to a certain extent and try to make the best out of a bad situation.

2b4f887f5fd32a37c6038eb0aaaf3bf5
2
1648 · August 01, 2010 at 7:10 PM

I'd guess organ failure and infections. As you get older, your whole body just wears out a little, some faster than others, and can't fight things off as well.

But I could imagine living to 115 on a lifetime of a Paleo diet, with pretty full health and mental abilities until the last little stretch. I know my great-grandmother lived to be 100, and lived on her own until she was 95, she lived a pretty healthy life. At the very end she went senile, made it to her 100th birthday, and said that was enough of that.

Actually, I bet we would die because we chose to and we are done with living. There are plenty of stories of people who lost their spouse who died within a year, because they didn't want to go on with out them. I have another grandma who said "I think I'm ready to go to heaven now" and died the following week.

Wouldn't that be nice, to not have to deal with all the hospital bills and struggles of being sick?

0fb8b3d6dcfb279b0f7e050d2d22510f
2
4625 · August 01, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Accidents - you NEVER know what 2 mins into the future will hold for you. I was in a bad car accident in Philadelphia when a cell phone driver ran a red light ( and on the wrong side of the roadway which is why I didn't see him at first) and did me in. My car saved me but anything can happen without warning......................

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8
1
5132 · April 07, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Your heart just gives up. If you're around 90-100, that's how you die. Your heart stops pumping one day. You don't have a heart attack, as in stenosis or thrombosis. Your heart muscle has been pumping for 90-100 years. As a tissue, it atrophies after a century of pumping and not missing the beat. The beat does not go on forever.

4303a65967884e68bfae59817c227351
1
1881 · April 07, 2012 at 1:01 PM

I'm hoping to go down in a hail of gunfire at some unbelievably outlandish party turned riot thing that gets plastered over the world wide news/interweb. I guess that doesn't seem to be very paleo though.

So, I would also accept one of those epic fights like between Peter Griffen and the Rooster that stems across the world and history.

Whatever it is, I just hope it's badass and people talk about it for years to come.

6714718e2245e5190017d643a7614157
1
10044 · April 07, 2012 at 1:13 AM

Old age is when you get old, duh!!!

218f4d92627e4289cc81178fce5b4d00
1
2933 · February 19, 2012 at 2:57 AM

to quote Robb wolf - Paleo solution Ep 67. I will die from telomere depletion....

So when our cells divide, there are these things, telomeres, which kind of -?????-????? if you think about the wire ties that wrap up like red bags and just kind of plastic bags and stuff, telomeres work a little bit like that. So when our DNA replicates, it gets unwound. And then when it gets wound back, the things that kind of prevent it from just unwinding and freaking out are these telomeres. Different things like stress can accelerate the degradation of telomeres. Each time a cell replicates, there's this thing called a Hayflick limit which you get -?????-????? I think it's 50 total replications, and then your telomeres are pretty much done. And when the telomeres are done, the DNA breaks down, degradation, starts happening really, really rapidly. And I think that that's largely what you see in this centenary. You know these really, really healthy populations that live to the late '90s and beyond. The folks tend to be very, very relatively fit, relative active, sharp mental acuity, and then usually you see about a two to three week downturn, and they're done. And that's a lot of what's happening. When the wheels finally fall off the wagon, you have kind of a system wide meltdown where you've had all the cells in the body -?????-????? the stem cells have been depleted, so we have a pool of stem cell. A lot of them hang out in the adipose tissue. Those guys are kind of hanging out waiting to help repair, damaged or missing cells and tissues in the body.

35ba1f50dad25c85ac1aa2599fe5c5cb
1
2485 · February 18, 2012 at 7:31 PM

In addition to what everyone else has said about paleo not eliminating the diseases of civilization, I'll add a few thoughts about some of my longest lived relatives. My mom's relatives in particular typically live to over 80, my grandfather is currently 93 and still living independently. From looking at their experience (paleo or not) if you manage to dodge the NAD, you're got to worry about falls/injuries, infections and the effects of dementia on your risk of injuries & infections. When you are very elderly your immune system declines and both infections and injuries take much longer to recover from. And while one is resting and recovering, muscle wasting happens at an accelerated rate compared to young people. My grandfather had a minor fall that resulted in a few days of bed rest and then needed physical therapy to get back to walking safely and steadily again. I don't there's any nutritional status that is going to magically make a 90 year old recover from injury like a 30 year old. And in the cases of my elderly relatives who've developed various forms of dementia there is almost always an intersection of dementia, infection and injury when they've passed away.

C4f1a0c70c4e0dea507c2e346c036bbd
0
4111 · April 08, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Robots or zombies. Zombies you have higher chance of survival though.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc
0
14877 · April 07, 2012 at 2:34 AM

Our water supply will become too contaminated with pharmaceuticals and what not and we will become sterile.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc
14877 · April 07, 2012 at 2:34 AM

...or something having to do with our water.

7c9f81d68c78de1a31eab9c91c17b4b8
0
7592 · February 19, 2012 at 3:26 AM

I think the only remaining threat is probably the Zombie Apocalypse.

90f66d30d977b07694403b469b3f85c5
0
1608 · February 19, 2012 at 12:26 AM

Most of us have consumed some of this crap, so obviously we're doomed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omjWmLG0EAs&list=FLKQsb7v7svJn_enthfqvffw&index=9&feature=plpp_video

Answer Question

Login to Your PaleoHacks Account

Get Free Paleo Recipes