6 ms·

So we need to do two things?: 1. Move a lot more (twice as much). What would this entail in today's society? Fitness? 2. Eat twice as much as we do now and fo

So we need to do two things?: 1. Move a lot more (twice as much). What would this entail in today's society? Fitness? 2. Eat twice as much as we do now and focus on fish, fruits and vegetables?

Normal_gaussian 9y ago
And drop the consumption of sugars significantly
coldpie 9y ago
If you ignore the garbage information on the Internet, the advice is pretty consistent going back decades. Exercise as much as possible. Eat an appropriate amount of food. In other words, if you are overweight, eat less. Eat whole foods, preferably cooked by yourself or another human with your interests in mind. It's not rocket science. But it is hard, since it goes against many of our instincts and marketing and societal pressures.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  > Exercise as much as possible Well, within reason. But most are busy enough that this works out the same.
pja 9y ago
Doubling calorie needs is hard if you have a sedentary job in the modern world. Walk / Cycle to work every day at a fast pace (1 hour total). Play some kind of sport daily at lunchtime / after work (1 hour). You’ve just used an extra 1000 calories or so. Congratulations: you’re almost half way to your goal of doubling your daily calorie output. Plus you still need to spend time doing all the other stuff to keep your life going outside work. It can be done, but modern life guides people to a constant sedentary lifestyle. Drive to work, sit at home in the evenings watching TV etc etc.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
kingmanaz 9y ago
3. Reduce the number of people on earth to 19th century levels.
lucozade 9y ago
> So we need to do two things TBH we only need to do one thing which is to ignore the article. As stated in other comments, the authors' life expectancy premise is horribly flawed to such an extent that it is hard to make the case that it isn't deliberate. If you use the correct data, the only sensible conclusion you can make is that, for life expectancy at all ages, it's a hell of a lot better living now (in the UK at least) compared to living in the late 19C (in the UK). Whether or not there were dietary benefits then versus now, I have no idea. Maybe there were but they are heavily swamped by medical and other considerations. What I do know is that this article adds nothing to the body of knowledge that would determine that.

So we need to do two things?: 1. Move a lot more (twice as much). What would this entail in today's society? Fitness? 2. Eat twice as much as we do now and focus on fish, fruits and vegetables?

Normal_gaussian 9y ago

And drop the consumption of sugars significantly

coldpie 9y ago

If you ignore the garbage information on the Internet, the advice is pretty consistent going back decades. Exercise as much as possible. Eat an appropriate amount of food. In other words, if you are overweight, eat less. Eat whole foods, preferably cooked by yourself or another human with your interests in mind. It's not rocket science. But it is hard, since it goes against many of our instincts and marketing and societal pressures.

Chris2048 9y ago
> Exercise as much as possible Well, within reason. But most are busy enough that this works out the same.

pja 9y ago

Doubling calorie needs is hard if you have a sedentary job in the modern world. Walk / Cycle to work every day at a fast pace (1 hour total). Play some kind of sport daily at lunchtime / after work (1 hour). You’ve just used an extra 1000 calories or so. Congratulations: you’re almost half way to your goal of doubling your daily calorie output. Plus you still need to spend time doing all the other stuff to keep your life going outside work. It can be done, but modern life guides people to a constant sedentary lifestyle. Drive to work, sit at home in the evenings watching TV etc etc.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

kingmanaz 9y ago

3. Reduce the number of people on earth to 19th century levels.

lucozade 9y ago

> So we need to do two things TBH we only need to do one thing which is to ignore the article. As stated in other comments, the authors' life expectancy premise is horribly flawed to such an extent that it is hard to make the case that it isn't deliberate. If you use the correct data, the only sensible conclusion you can make is that, for life expectancy at all ages, it's a hell of a lot better living now (in the UK at least) compared to living in the late 19C (in the UK). Whether or not there were dietary benefits then versus now, I have no idea. Maybe there were but they are heavily swamped by medical and other considerations. What I do know is that this article adds nothing to the body of knowledge that would determine that.