What contributes more to longevity and life-long wellbeing, physical

File: 1503753726571.jpg (172KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1000x1500px

Are you a bit dumb, son? Nutrition of course.

If you stop eating, you die. If you eat something poisonous, you die.

Meanwhile, if you spend your whole life lying on a coach eating cookies, it takes longer to die.

Any intelligent answers?

>>9140391
On /sci/? I'm afraid not, this is a LARPing board.

>>9140331
I'd say both but with an emphasis on nutrition, as it is more complex than moving around.

>>9140331
Nutrition is detrimental to longevity. Study after study shows that a calorie deficienct non-diet of literal starvation is how to prent heart lung disease and venture into the 120+ club.

>>9140414
A true master of Big Bang Theory inspired quips.

Genetics. Senescence is an evolutionary problem.

>>9140331
In terms of non extremes physical activity by far. Most detrimental diet effects go completely away when applied to physically active participants with the exceptions being straight up toxins and trans fats.

>>9140331
Getting organ transplants, avoiding dangerous places and driving well count as physical activity, so I guess that one.

you need both, but if you had to pick one I would say activity

>>9140414
This. The less you eat the more you live

Your HGH and BDNF productions boost by many 100's of percents during the phase of not eating for 24hrs, ensuring longevity and boosted neurogenesis. Makes you smarter as you're older

Do not eat too much. That`s the trick.

I am getting big, skeletons remove yourselves for my path to glory

>>9140331
Nutrition is more important than exercise. Long periods of low intensity exercise are better than extreme work outs. Those huge muscular guys don't live long. Could be the roids though.

>>9140372
>If you stop eating, you die

I've not eaten anything, but water and a multivitamin for 9 days.

>>9140331
It is a combination that does it.

>>9140331
What possible scenario could you be in that you have to choose between the two? Do both you mad scientist fuck.

>>9142070
> implying weight lifting isn't good for you

Both are easy enough to obtain so this question is meaningless. Eat nutrient dense foods and keep a low bf% (12-15 is good enough) with a moderate amount of muscles. You can get perfectly fit (and mantain afterwards) in a year as long as you expend 4-5hours per week doing weight lifting and cardio.

Come to /fit/ OP. Just make sure to avoid the autistic height/perfect physique memes. The sticky is a good starting point.

>>9140331
If you really eat shit and do physical activities you won't live long anyway.
On the contrary if you eat well and don't do much, your life expectancy will be only slightly less than optimal.
It's true that avoiding a sedentary life improves your health, but it's more like just walking everyday than anything more demanding.

>>9142070

>Long periods of low intensity exercise are better than extreme work outs.

Nope, short period of high intensity aerobic exercise is more beneficial. Hence why stuff like HIIT is getting popular. Extreme weight lifting is not so good tough, if thats what you mean.

>>9143805

Basically true, but it is more complicated than that. High intensity training is great for glucose metabolism and cardiovascular health. Long training is great for weight loss and lipid metabolism. However if you eat correctly (meaning calorie restricted diet), you will not be fat and your lipid metabolism will be OK. But you still need to train your cardiovascular system.

Therefore calorie restricted diet + high intensity interval training training + moderate weight lifting is the best combination. It is also the most convenient, since you dont need to spend lots of time exercising (few hours per week are more than enough) and in fact you may save some time by eating less.

>>9140414

Calorie deficient =/= nutrient deficient

Become calorie deficient but get enough nutrition is good and healthy, being nutrient deficient leads to starvation and malnourishment.

>>9140331
i remember reading about how body mass has one of the best correlations to longevity. the skinnier you are, the longer you live. something about living on the brink of starvation.

>>9140331
Genetics

Failing genetics, good nutrition AND exercise. If you want to talk longevity, there is a bunch of studies into this recently by University of Southern California following around some people on an island in Italy who all lived past 100 years. Their conclusion was lifestyle filled with walking long distances every week, and nutrition of mainly beans and vegetables with meat only consumed 2-3 days a week. And of course, genetics so you could mimic their diet and lifestyle and still drop dead if that is your genetics.

There is also a lot of research into simulated fasting (not intermittent bullshit fasting) where for 5 days a month, every X months, people were put on diets that simulated fasting by being under 700 calories per day. The result was a huge drop in growth hormone that fuels cancer, and what they described as the body "conserving energy by killing off misbehaving cells" meaning possible cancer cells that were using up energy.

>>9145010
>>9144828
So yes, fasting is well known to have anti-aging and longevity promotion but again this is also down to genetics. and also doesn't mean you need to be pajeet skinny you can be beefcake protein shake inhaling weight lifter but fast on a regular basis for 5 days a month and get the same benefits of a skinny starving pajeet in rural Rajasthan. nb

>>9142094
The reason as to why the thread didn't end here eludes me.

/sci/ - where brains go to die

>>9145159
>implying

>>9141215
i came to say this