I was reading an article about low-carb, and it made me wonder, is living longer really a thing to aim for?

[BlackAmericanoNoSugar]

This is the article. I was interested because I have to low-carb to keep my blood glucose in check as I have type 2 diabetes that is getting harder to control as I age. The article basically says that you will live longer if you do a plant based low-carb rather than a meat based one.

I probably won't live an unusually long time no matter what I do as I am physically very similar to my Dad's side of the family who generally die in their late 70s/early 80s. However the women on my Mum's side of the family live forever, my Granny was 95 when she died. But my limited observation is that for the side of the family that die young they have at most a year or 18 months of illness that limits their lifestyle at the end, whereas the ones that live to extreme old age have around a decade of limited mobility, poor eyesight, poor hearing, prone to falls that cause slow to heal injuries and just generally not being independent or comfortable before they die.

So what the article made me think is why does most health research concern itself with how much longer you will live with certain lifestyle choices. I don't think I want to live to extreme old age when a healthy body for a 90 year old is still pretty decrepit.

I haven't read the article, but it is something I say quite often whenever there is new research published about enabling people to live longer.
I want to live well until the end. I don't want to have an 'existence' extended when either my mind or my body is not able to cope.

.... I have a feeling this might lead to debates about euthanasia..... even if not your intention

To me though, I aim for quality of life, so anything I do to be a bit healthier, is to keep me active longer, not to extend my "3 scores years and 10" much more than my body and/or mind can cope with.

Absolutely. Why live longer if you are not well? A lot of people who live longer end up with dementia, I wouldn't like that... I'd rather die at 65 and be healthy until that age

I'm quite pro euthanasia - for me at least even if nobody else would choose it. The older that I get the more unpleasant deaths that I see and the more I think it should be available to me if I want it. For some people just skipping the last 6 weeks of their lives would be a blessing.

I do agree that making changes to improve quality of life is more important to me than living longer. The low carb, for instance, is a pain in the flipping neck but it's what's keeping me from having to inject insulin for another few years, so it's worthwhile.

My health is bad already and I'm young. I have seen people live to 97 and it's grim :(

I have no great answers. But I would like to live to see my children established as adults. My son has autism and it is unclear if he will be able to live independently, so I want to stick around to see him right.

Other than that, my feelings are mixed. My grandparents ‘endings’ give me mixed feelings. Paternal grandparents - grandfather died after a full life and short illness at 81, grandmother the same at 79. Maternal side - grandfather had a wonderful rich life until he died very suddenly at 93. All three seem preferable to my grandmother, who was a ‘young for her age’, active woman until 70, then declined slowly with dementia. Her end was painless and at home after a relatively short illness at 83. But I would rather drop dead at 70 in full flight than endure and impose that decade of dementia on myself and my family.

I believe in enough exercise, a healthy diet and enough relaxation to alleviate stress ..but any ‘live longer’ extreme lifestyles make me feel sceptical and filled with dread to be honest.

I have a bit of a different perspective as I already know I won't live into old age. I'm currently in my latest twenties with incurable cancer. But I think you're absolutely right. With cancer treatments people are obsessed, understandably, with how many extra months they might add to one's life. But quality of life is often forgotten.

I can understand because a lot of the people I know in a similar position have children and want to be there for as long as possible for them, whatever the personal cost.

I don't have children so I don't have that same motivation. Obviously I want to spend time with my loved ones still, but I worry more about dragging out my life with little quality, which I think would be worse for them too, than me dying sooner but more comfortably.

I know people who have declined treatments for these reasons and then others have accused them of "giving up" or "not fighting hard enough" but why should they go through unpleasant and painful treatments just for the chance of a few extra months being weak and unwell, when they could spend their last however-long-they-have-left free of treatment side effects and better able to enjoy it.

My grandmother lived into her nineties and she was miserable for the last few years. She had a condition in her late seventies that would have killed her quickly, probably in her sleep, if it hadn't been successfully treated. I sometimes wonder now, which I know sounds awful, if perhaps it would have been better for her if that had happened rather than then living for years with declining health and mobility, eventually completely housebound and just existing. She would never have considered euthanasia, but she used to tell us often that she was "ready to go" and I used to hope that she would just die in her sleep one night as she so clearly wanted to

I also saw an article on this study, but my take away was different as I read it as concluding that extreme low carb diets, especially those that involved greater consumption of animal fat did not lead to health benefits compared to individuals who ate moderate amounts of carbohydrates. Lots of caveats as it was a longitudinal observational study that relied on participants self reporting, but interesting especially when there has been so much promotion recently of extreme low carb diets.

I do totally agree that a focus on length of life over quality of life can be misplaced. My father died of brain cancer a few years ago having had no (non palliative) treatment because the consultants advised that neither chemotherapy nor radiotherapy would significantly extend his life and both would have horrible side effects (surgery wasn't an option). Although it was terrible news we were all grateful that his last few months were at home in relative comfort rather than in hospital having heroic treatment. Much easier to accept that approach for someone nearing their natural end than a young person I suspect, and I agree that the battle imagery is simplistic and unhelpful. My father didn't fight his cancer, it destroyed him, and nothing he could have done would have affected that outcome. It's very unfair to berate people for making what is the best choice for them, although I expect it's redirected anger/upset about the cancer really.

I agree with ihunt, I took the research to mean you will not live as long on a low carb diet.

But op of course people want to live as long as they can. Because people are resilient. They don’t want to miss out on being with their husband/wife, being with their children, seeing their grandchildren born, seeing them grow up, their milestones. There is always something to keep you going. I find it offensive you’d imply that most people don’t want to live in old age. One set of my grandparents died in their nineties and enjoyed themselves right to the end. The other set died young and missed out on so much. They would have much rather lived.

No one gets to choose how or when they die.

I agree. More emphasis should be put on quality of life.

I've been giving this some though having fairly recently lost my last two grandparents. Looking at then I think around 80 would be about right. One died in his 60s of cancer. That was too young. Two died in their 90s, one of dementia and one of sepsis. Their last few years had not been good at all. One died at 79, having had a good quality of life up until around two months before the end. If I could choose, I would go for the latter rather than aiming for the longevity of the middle two.

My MIL is 88, physically very unwell and also suffering from dementia. She has no quality of life whatsoever, but her GP still has her on medication designed to stop her having a heart attack or stroke in 10 or 20 years time!

Her situation has prompted DH and I to talk about what we might do if we reach that stage. I don't think I'd want to carry on.

My aim is to stay as fit as I can for as long as I can and hope that when I go, I go quickly.

One thing to bear in mind is that this study is reporting on simple mortality and had no measures of illness or quality of life. There is no way of knowing whether the average four years of extra life the moderate carbers had over the low carbers were years of good quality life, but likewise there is nothing to say that the individuals who died earlier died suddenly or had years of ill health first. Really it's just a note of caution about whether low carbing is good for long term health (there are studies showing short term advantages but to date nothing on the medium or long term) especially when the diet is very heavy on animal products. As usual there is a call for more research.