2

# Can people live to 130 on Paleo?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created February 24, 2011 at 8:48 PM

So the oldest person ever to live was 121-years-old.

I've heard it will be quite possible that diet can cause people to live between 115 and 130 years. So imagine the world's oldest woman. Would she have lived to be 150? Crazy stuff.

(4994)

on March 10, 2011
at 09:04 AM

Ah thanks very much :)

(2633)

on March 09, 2011
at 05:34 AM

While I agree with the thrust of your point, your math is serisously screwed up. You can't say there are only 100 centenarians per billion based on the whole population. Myself, my wife, our three kids, and 4 grandparents haven't had *the chance* to be centenerains. To do the math properly, you have to determine how many were *born* 100-110 years ago, and of that cohort, how many are still alive. It's certainly less than 1 in 1 million.

(386)

on March 09, 2011
at 03:35 AM

I think this is probably the most "paleo" answer of all the ones I've seen so far in this thread.

(22923)

on March 09, 2011
at 02:21 AM

more worried about quality of life than age. I want to be active in my 80s, 90s,+

(4994)

on February 26, 2011
at 11:16 AM

That would make sense if there were no other factors involved improving the odds, with life expectancy always on the rise and science improving all the time it's really not as simple as "there are 100/1 billion peopl age 110 + now. It's not that black and white.

(-6)

on February 25, 2011
at 09:45 PM

Of course it's ridiculous to expect it. For heaven's sake, DeVany is nearly 74 and for him to have said that is totally ridiculous. As for Helio, he died at 95 and ate pretty much a fruitarian diet. What lesson are you wanting me to gain from that?

(3184)

on February 25, 2011
at 09:35 PM

There are presently about 100 verified human beings over 110 years of age living in the US, Canada, Japan and the EU. That adds up to close to 1 billion people. So fine, 100/1 billion. So 1 person in 10 million will make it that long. There are about another 100 unverified cases around the world, most of those in the US/EU. 1000 is being generous, but even if we say there are 1000 people 110+ in the US/Japan/Canada/EU, we're still looking at 1 in 1 million. It is absurd to talk about it. You have about the same odds of being an NBA player (about 300 from the US/EU/Russia). Could happen, sure.

(105)

on February 25, 2011
at 06:55 PM

A generation ago, people would have called you silly for expecting to remain vigorous into your 70s and 80s, and yet there are plenty of people at that age who are in good shape and engage in regular physical activity (dancing, golfing, gardening, swimming, etc.). Helio Gracie was training jiu-jitsu until he was 95 years old! Given advances in medical technology, I don't think it's ridiculous to expect to be active and healthy at 110, especially if, as is the case for me, I'll have 80 years of scientific advancements that may help me reach that goal.

(105)

on February 25, 2011
at 06:48 PM

Personally, I'd like to live as long as possible. If there were scientific developments that enabled me to live for thousands of years, I'd be all over it.

(3162)

on February 25, 2011
at 05:47 PM

Whales live like 200 years too. So we should all float around, inhale food every waking moment and become morbidly obese.

(15613)

on February 25, 2011
at 03:36 PM

I'm not sure that saying that only 1000 out of 7 billion people have lived to 110 is the right way to look at this. 2.7bn of those 6.7bn live on less than \$2 per day, so realistically that's them out of the picture already. About 85% lived (in 2001) on around \$1200 per year, which is going to rule out most of those as well. As we know, many of the small minority living in wealthy countries still lack the resources to live healthily and of that tiny fraction of people left who could live in a modestly healthy way, most don't.

(15613)

on February 25, 2011
at 02:06 PM

I'm not sure that saying that only 1000 out of 7 billion people have lived to 110 is the right way to look at this. 2.7bn of those 6.7bn live on less than \$2 per day, so realistically that's them out of the picture already. All but a very small minority of the world. About 85% lived (in 2001) on around \$1200 per year, which is going to rule out most of those as well. As we know, many of that small minority living in wealthy countries still lack the resources to live healthily and of that tiny fraction of people left who could live in a modestly healthy way, most don't.

(1197)

on February 25, 2011
at 08:37 AM

My grandad is 81 this year and still plays golf every other day, and my grandma is 80 this year and plays tennis six days a week. I aspire to be like them.

(39831)

on February 25, 2011
at 05:42 AM

I can't help but feel that this attitude grows into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Good luck.

(3184)

on February 25, 2011
at 12:34 AM

I think Jack Lallane probably made similar propositions in his 70s when he was still swimming miles in the ocean towing boats and whatnot. Of course, one could argue that Lallane's bizarre dietary beliefs later in life did him in. He did turn into a fat-o-phobe and probably drank way too fructose from his juicers. I think there is a trade off to being vigorous--it is good for pushing you past the mean life expectancy, but probably short changes you a decade or so in the extreme tail end. I don't ever recall reading about a supercentinarian who was athletic or driven.

(78467)

on February 24, 2011
at 10:08 PM

yeah, maybe this is the only thing which brings us early in the grave

(1591)

on February 24, 2011
at 08:56 PM

Are you asking for science, or is this just you wondering aloud?

(525)
• Views
2.9K
• Last Activity
1286D AGO

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

6

(3184)

on February 24, 2011
at 09:57 PM

No, they cannot. They cannot live to be a 130 period.

There is only one human being that has verifiably lived past 120. And she died at 122 years of age. There is no evidence that any human being has ever lived to 130 years of age. As it is, it is almost impossible to even 110. There are presently about 90 known people on Earth who are 110+. Even assuming we've only found 10% of those, then we're talking 1000 maybe out of 7 billion. That means there is only a 0.0000001% chance that any person will make it to 110. It is more or less meaningless to talk about that tail end of the distribution. It is some sort of combination of genetics, diet, environment and dumb luck. But they're such rare events that you'll never be able to factor out all the confounding factors. And pretty much none of those supercentenarians, so far as I'm aware, was out doing crossfit or doing triathalons or anything like that at 110. They're invariably old, shriveled and, while maybe able to take care of themselves and move around and whatnot, they're not people that scream vitality at that age. It just isn't possible. Period. Doesn't matter what your diet is.

The only thing that is going to get around that hard limit is mastering stem cells and genetic engineering.

That said, will paleo help you maximize your years and, more importantly, your productive years? I sure hope so. If I can still be physically active and have energy in my 70s that would be great. I'm just not expecting once I hit my 80s. Although, by then, I also suspect we'll have figured out how to replace our aging cell lineages with fresh ones and I'll be back in a 20 year old body again in no time.

(1197)

on February 25, 2011
at 08:37 AM

My grandad is 81 this year and still plays golf every other day, and my grandma is 80 this year and plays tennis six days a week. I aspire to be like them.

(78467)

on February 24, 2011
at 10:08 PM

yeah, maybe this is the only thing which brings us early in the grave

(39831)

on February 25, 2011
at 05:42 AM

I can't help but feel that this attitude grows into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Good luck.

(4994)

on February 26, 2011
at 11:16 AM

That would make sense if there were no other factors involved improving the odds, with life expectancy always on the rise and science improving all the time it's really not as simple as "there are 100/1 billion peopl age 110 + now. It's not that black and white.

(15613)

on February 25, 2011
at 03:36 PM

I'm not sure that saying that only 1000 out of 7 billion people have lived to 110 is the right way to look at this. 2.7bn of those 6.7bn live on less than \$2 per day, so realistically that's them out of the picture already. About 85% lived (in 2001) on around \$1200 per year, which is going to rule out most of those as well. As we know, many of the small minority living in wealthy countries still lack the resources to live healthily and of that tiny fraction of people left who could live in a modestly healthy way, most don't.

(15613)

on February 25, 2011
at 02:06 PM

I'm not sure that saying that only 1000 out of 7 billion people have lived to 110 is the right way to look at this. 2.7bn of those 6.7bn live on less than \$2 per day, so realistically that's them out of the picture already. All but a very small minority of the world. About 85% lived (in 2001) on around \$1200 per year, which is going to rule out most of those as well. As we know, many of that small minority living in wealthy countries still lack the resources to live healthily and of that tiny fraction of people left who could live in a modestly healthy way, most don't.

(3184)

on February 25, 2011
at 09:35 PM

There are presently about 100 verified human beings over 110 years of age living in the US, Canada, Japan and the EU. That adds up to close to 1 billion people. So fine, 100/1 billion. So 1 person in 10 million will make it that long. There are about another 100 unverified cases around the world, most of those in the US/EU. 1000 is being generous, but even if we say there are 1000 people 110+ in the US/Japan/Canada/EU, we're still looking at 1 in 1 million. It is absurd to talk about it. You have about the same odds of being an NBA player (about 300 from the US/EU/Russia). Could happen, sure.

(2633)

on March 09, 2011
at 05:34 AM

While I agree with the thrust of your point, your math is serisously screwed up. You can't say there are only 100 centenarians per billion based on the whole population. Myself, my wife, our three kids, and 4 grandparents haven't had *the chance* to be centenerains. To do the math properly, you have to determine how many were *born* 100-110 years ago, and of that cohort, how many are still alive. It's certainly less than 1 in 1 million.

4

(3524)

on February 25, 2011
at 04:59 AM

is this really important? I would be extremely happy to live healthy up some 95 years of age. I mean do we need to live that much longer, like 120 0r 130 years? Longevity is great but is extra-longevity relevant? I am not sure...

(105)

on February 25, 2011
at 06:48 PM

Personally, I'd like to live as long as possible. If there were scientific developments that enabled me to live for thousands of years, I'd be all over it.

3

(1548)

on February 24, 2011
at 09:32 PM

I am not sure. I can say that for once I am not looking at my soon turning 40 as being 2/3's of the way done anymore. Seems like I am not even to the halfway point. At minimum I am not dreading tomorrow anymore. I used to fear getting older.

Even if I die tomorrow, these last couple years have made up for my decades of being sick and miserable. The quality of my life is vastly improved and is continuously improving because of my and my family's health being regained.

2

(4994)

on February 25, 2011
at 01:07 PM

I think it's unhealthy to focus too much on mortality as you can get really hung up on it. Just enjoy being healthy NOW, enjoy NOW because anything can happen to any of us and you don't want to get to 110 and wish you hadn't spent the last 80 years so focussed on the future instead of the present. What will be will be and we can only look after ourselves now like an insurance policy but nothing is guaranteed. Seriously getting deep now but life is such a precious, precious gift and we should FULLY appreciate each day we are given to live.

(386)

on March 09, 2011
at 03:35 AM

I think this is probably the most "paleo" answer of all the ones I've seen so far in this thread.

(4994)

on March 10, 2011
at 09:04 AM

Ah thanks very much :)

2

(219)

on February 24, 2011
at 11:52 PM

Art DeVany has publicly stated that he expects to "remain vigorous" until he's 110.

I have my doubts, to say the least.

(3184)

on February 25, 2011
at 12:34 AM

I think Jack Lallane probably made similar propositions in his 70s when he was still swimming miles in the ocean towing boats and whatnot. Of course, one could argue that Lallane's bizarre dietary beliefs later in life did him in. He did turn into a fat-o-phobe and probably drank way too fructose from his juicers. I think there is a trade off to being vigorous--it is good for pushing you past the mean life expectancy, but probably short changes you a decade or so in the extreme tail end. I don't ever recall reading about a supercentinarian who was athletic or driven.

2

(39831)

on February 24, 2011
at 09:45 PM

I think the percentage of the population that already has a predisposition toward being, say, a supercentenarian on the SAD would likely live even longer. Some percentage of us are probably genetically or environmentally (outside of diet) doomed to a much shorter life. A lot of defeatists will say something to the effect of, "well, you could get hit by a bus tomorrow, so being healthy is pointless." To that I say, "proper nutrition ensures that my bones, immune system, muscles etc. are optimized to better cope with such a disaster and thus my chances of survival are far better." Besides, if I am to be smashed to bits by a meteor in 10 years, I would very much like to hardly ever get sick, to never really feel tired, and just to be as healthy and vibrant as possible until the end, whenever that is.

That being said, I personally refuse to accept mortality. As soon as you do, you've given up.

1

(7314)

on March 09, 2011
at 02:55 AM

I think it's possible to live to 130 if you've got good genes and everything goes smoothly. Longer than that though, and you'd need some sort of medicine/technology (which I want to do as a career) because some of your major organs just wear out by this time. Theoretically paleo could get you there, but there are so many other factors that it's almost just luck.

1

(3761)

on February 25, 2011
at 04:01 PM

What a bummer that would be. I don't want to be old for that long.

1

(3162)

on February 25, 2011
at 01:01 AM

I think a genetic disposition for dealing well with emotional stress and low-level physical inflammation will give you better odds than any conscious lifestyle choice.

0

(600)

on March 09, 2011
at 03:57 AM

This maybe kinda of topic. But I think death is a part of life and thats a good thing. It's how we all eat so much meat and vegetables of course. I think we should try to embrace this part of life. Eat paleo because it makes you feel good now. I have been with my share of people in there last days. By working with sick people in a care setting, being close to a community with a high incidence of HIV, and aging and illness of family members. The ones the fair the best except death for what it is and enjoy the love they have around them. In the paleo community there seams to be a high number of former vegan/vegetarians. To make the change from vegan to paleo I would think one would have to come to terms with death and it's place in life. I think death is a beautiful thing in the right setting I only wish I could have a sky burial.

0

(17969)

on March 09, 2011
at 02:00 AM

All I have to say is that diet designed by science should beat diet assumed because it's what's available. We have access to the scientific literature and the resources to pick whatever we want to eat. I see no reason why we cannot live that long if everything (including non-dietary factors) goes right.

0

(1293)

on February 25, 2011
at 02:59 PM

ANYONE who says he/she expects to be vigorous at 110 is delusional. To EXPECT that? LOL.

(105)

on February 25, 2011
at 06:55 PM

A generation ago, people would have called you silly for expecting to remain vigorous into your 70s and 80s, and yet there are plenty of people at that age who are in good shape and engage in regular physical activity (dancing, golfing, gardening, swimming, etc.). Helio Gracie was training jiu-jitsu until he was 95 years old! Given advances in medical technology, I don't think it's ridiculous to expect to be active and healthy at 110, especially if, as is the case for me, I'll have 80 years of scientific advancements that may help me reach that goal.

(-6)

on February 25, 2011
at 09:45 PM

Of course it's ridiculous to expect it. For heaven's sake, DeVany is nearly 74 and for him to have said that is totally ridiculous. As for Helio, he died at 95 and ate pretty much a fruitarian diet. What lesson are you wanting me to gain from that?

0

(78467)

on February 24, 2011
at 10:09 PM

when you look at the oldest people, like bluezones or people interview to their birthday. you find similiarities.

One thing in common is ordered life and beliefs. some drink a little bit alcohol by time

eat less, plant based diet, less meat, comunity happyness, and a lot other nice things

-1

(-6)

on February 25, 2011
at 09:42 PM

It is totally ridiculous to EXPECT it, just as Kirik said. Come on, people.

Helio died at 95, my friend. 95 ain't 110 by a loooooooong shot!

-1

(78467)

on February 25, 2011
at 11:53 AM

maybe learn from other animals

"They are one of the world's longest-living animals, with an average lifespan of 100 years or more. The Madagascar radiated tortoise Tu'i Malila was 188 at death in Tonga in 1965"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_tortoise

(3162)

on February 25, 2011
at 05:47 PM

Whales live like 200 years too. So we should all float around, inhale food every waking moment and become morbidly obese.