 Now we're on to the biological immortality. This is Michael Rose. This is not Ira Glass. He's an evolutionary biologist at the University of UCAL, Irvine. Strangely enough, he and Art Devaney, both, if you're familiar with who Art Devaney is, they're both there. They never interacted. That's problematic. Humanities. We'll never see the social sciences. We'll never see the natural sciences, liberal arts. They all stay away from one another, unfortunately. First, what biological immortality is? Not. It's not Greek-like immortality, or to put it another way, one does not simply stop aging. If we define biological, or sort of biological mortality, it's the changes in the structure and functions of humans with the passage of time that does not result from disease or gross accidents. Read that. Everyone good? So, if right conditions, you can live indefinitely, but if you can be rescued from biochemical, cellular, and physical accidents that befall us. It's a betrayal of your own body in a supposedly ideal environment. It happens at every level at the genome, in the cells, the way the organs fit together and at tissues. Natural selection starts giving a damn. Your body is pretty damn good at getting you to child birthing years. And then after that, everything goes to hell in a hand basket if you're not taking care of yourself. That's why it's a tragedy when a 45-year-old gets cancer, but it's not unexpected. It is a heinous tragedy when a 9-year-old gets cancer because they shouldn't, and this is the reason why. Natural selection is pretty good about getting you there, but it's not perfect. So, if you can go backwards in terms of evolutionary time, diet, and environment, you're doing better off here. This doesn't mean, you know, hitting your wife or girlfriend over the head with a club, dragging them by their hair, that type of stuff. We're talking diet. We're trying to mimic a physiological state like that of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. So, you're talking about, these are very poor over the age of 35, grains, grasses, milk. As I said, your child, I mean, all of you, gosh, think about going through puberty. You'd sort of like frozen macaroni, eating it frozen. It didn't matter. I grew up watching infomercials on Sunday morning, and I'd take an entire tub of cream cheese and eat it with pretzel sticks, right? It doesn't matter. Calories, growth, great. You know, it'll do it. It'll do it. But when you get old, your body is, you're turning over tissue nearly as quickly. Things are going awry. You need to give it some support. The problem is the industrial part. High sugar, high process, highly advertised, Twinkies. Problem is agriculture, you know, 35 to 40 rice, grain, corn, they're very, very novel. Because it takes about a million years to adapt fully. So in a million years, we will be agriculturally adapted. None of us in this room are going to get there, but we might as a human race be there. So that's why Egypt, Iraq, East Asia, they're better suited and, you know, honkeys like me. That's why we're good with milk. Northern Europeans great with milk, bad with grains, relatively great with milk. You know, nobody today will get there. And they're going to show up in middle age because of that natural selection. So what are we talking about here, other than the banana crazed monkey here? Lots of evidence from 4 million to 1 million years. We eat roots with fruits, nuts and berries, just like primates. And then we take the gamble. We come down from the trees. We reduce the size of our stomach. Our brain gets bigger. Our brain gets bigger. We need more calories. So you get like Captain Orangut Tang here, spearfishing. And you thought we came up with it. A common ancestor figured out, ah, and that's the end of it. That's a pretty cool little photo there. Take up hunting, supplementing with the fruits, nuts and berries. And most hunter-gatherer populations still support their animal intake this way. Why is this familiar? Malibu Mark Sisson says so. And, you know, a whole bunch of other people as well. But the point is that it's not that far off. And if you can move closer to this or to what Dave is going to tell you about tomorrow with his dietary recommendations, you're going to be way better off moving much closer to biological immortality. And I want you to understand too, it's a fool's errand to attempt to prove one complete diet over another is healthier. And I underline, underscore, circle, complete, meaning all the essential nutrients are present and accounted for, because then you get people saying, ah, three more grams of starch will kill you. Rather, I would suggest that you look to see which has the lowest potential anti-health agents and adjust to that. I'm a facts and evidence guy. That's the thing that makes sense to me. You know, those are the things that are going to kill you. Once you're to a level of health, as I defined earlier, you improve your functional capability with the strength training, right? So to review, I told you why you should strength train. How it affects your body systems and how to leverage your diet to create this biological immortality. They all fit together to simplify that entire presentation. Three points. Train, but do not over train with weights and this takes care of everything. You avoid your stress, you know, it's everything will figure itself out over time. And you eat the way Mark Sisson told you to, or close to it, pretty much.