I often find myself wondering about the point where "negative aging" starts- that is, the point where every birthday ceases to mean new developments and gains, and instead ushers in decline.
It's obvious that 20 is a more physiologically desirable age to be than 15- a 20 year old will be more advanced physically and mentally, without seeing any declines in health.
It's also obvious that 60 is a less physiologically desirable age to be than 20- there have been clear declines in almost all facets of life.
Take the following standards- health, fitness, energy, appearance, immunity, metabolism, cognitive agility, and regenerative ability
At what age have you started the detrimental aging process in at least one facet? When does the turning point begin?
I've always imaged it to be around 21, with very slow decline between 25 with a few facets improving, and than 25 being the start of universal decline where everything begins to go downhill.
Does this sound right? Do you think a 23 year old has 100% of the health and fitness as their 20 year old self? Or have they perhaps developed even beyond their 20 year old self?
asked bypaleohacks (78467)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on February 19, 2013
at 06:17 PM
I was a chubby kid, so now- my late 30s- is my pinnacle. I hope Art DeVany is right. He thinks adults don't really go downhill much if they aren't on the SAD and medications. He points out animals who die of old age in the wild stay pretty healthy right up until about two weeks before death. I can definitely improve some stats further by working out.
That said, yes I know, if I had known about paleo since childhood I probably would have had an awesome decade in my 20s. Of course, if my parents had known about paleo they wouldn't have fed me soy milk and other abominations they mistakenly thought were healthy, and eight would have been a pretty awesome year.