7

votes

How would you refute: If grains are making us fat why weren't people fatter in 1914?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created April 09, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Just happened across this article from The Atlantic yeterday:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/are-grains-making-us-fat/237030/

The article deduces that grain consumption was quite a bit higher 100 years ago yet people were not fat.

A couple of possible counterpoints come to mind:

1) It's not simply the grains alone that make us fat but grains also in conjunction with large amounts of processed fructose.

2) Grains have changed drastically in this time period though genetic modification and selective breeding.

What does everyone elsse think?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 15, 2011
at 10:45 AM

Plus, grains were not genetically altered.

0fb8b3d6dcfb279b0f7e050d2d22510f

(4645)

on April 23, 2011
at 11:19 AM

The grains we eat today and the grains used for bread and flour is so different from what was used even 30 yrs ago. I avoid grains at every turn and live a far better life than when I mistakingly had them in my diet.

0fb8b3d6dcfb279b0f7e050d2d22510f

(4645)

on April 23, 2011
at 11:17 AM

"We?" I am type II which has wry little in common with Type I. I never give advice to TIs. Most people that talk about diabetes are type II as Type Is will make the distinction right away. But I do not that carbs and grains are carbs is the last thing my body needs. PERIOD. I test and test throughout the day and know first hand what foods do what.

3e0c2c2885a0ba30b474045ba086adaa

(110)

on April 20, 2011
at 11:20 PM

And inflammation means stress to tissues--including pancreatic cells... Type 1 diabetes is now being considered as an autoimmnune condition by some. We actually have a type 1 diabetic right now that has normal blood sugars, off all meds...

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 12, 2011
at 12:37 AM

CR is not the only way RG......activating sirtuins and maximizing the FOXO and PGC-1 pathways.......lots of ways plus you IF and paleo and your telomeres get longer.

7f4c64d6caca80c74a6c2d91efa3259b

(831)

on April 11, 2011
at 03:19 PM

So identical twins (for the sake of argument) eating identical amounts of identical foods, one sitting around doing nothing but Xbox/Playstation/PC whilst the other does lots of physical activity will have more-or-less identical masses and body shapes. Really?

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on April 11, 2011
at 01:09 PM

You should have a look at Taubes to see why this argument doesn't hold water. Basically, if you look at modern and historical examples, labor and activity have no correlation with obesity.

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 10, 2011
at 08:23 PM

If you lack an abundance of calories and do intensive labor, then you are correct, grains will not make you fat. Taubes discussed this point at length--agricultural societies that traditionally subsisted on calorically poor diets and worked very hard were not fat. If you sit around all day and eat 2000+ calories worth of bread a day, you will most likely get fat. Hell, even if you exercise everyday and eat a couple loaves of bread, you'll probably have problems with adiposity. But sure, grains don't=fat, but processed grains genereally=fat. Grains alone just equal inflammation.

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 10, 2011
at 08:17 PM

If longevity is all you care about then you know that you should be doing extreme caloric restriction. Which means like a teaspoon of duck confit. A day. The research is pretty clear on this point. Dramatic reduction of calories, dramatic increase in lifespan. I'm unaware of any experiments showing similar results thus far for regular IFing.

C61399790c6531a0af344ab0c40048f1

on April 10, 2011
at 07:06 PM

I think this is true - how have they measured grains? - have they counted HFCS and all the other 'stuff' that's in processed foods that is made from grains but not listed in the ingredients as such?

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21430)

on April 10, 2011
at 06:07 PM

The two above points (activity levels + cooking with healthy fats) are pretty much what changes the whole thing.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on April 10, 2011
at 11:15 AM

Who says it's grains? (And wheat has a LOT more gluten today than 100 years ago). It's more likely the fructose and (hydrogenated) veg oils. Crisco: invented 1920's. Average US sugar consumption 100 years ago: 5# per person; today: 150# per person. Wheat and grains are a problem, but they are not THE problem in the case of obesity. Scaring people off fat (last 40 years or so) is also part of the problem.

88905cfc5bb098ad3830671a1af373a8

(803)

on April 10, 2011
at 05:30 AM

And while you can be thin and have diseases like diabetes and cancer, I would expect that your body composition would still have to be less than ideal, i.e. "skinny fat."

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 10, 2011
at 04:23 AM

Lol"...........

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 10, 2011
at 04:13 AM

Does niot matter. Longevity is all I care about

9aa2a816c61170cc0183a68be0386ba5

(1702)

on April 10, 2011
at 03:44 AM

"Grain" consumption is sort of arbitrary though - you have to consider that corn is quite literally in EVERYTHING you eat now a days. Perhaps they ate more recognizable grains in 1914, but now EVERYTHING YOU EAT HAS GRAIN IN IT.

A089b683ee0498f2b21b7edfa300e405

(3895)

on April 10, 2011
at 01:52 AM

add to that, that food was cooked in lard or tallow and hydrogenated vegetable fats were still some years away.

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 09, 2011
at 11:27 PM

Correlation is often spurious, but there is a pretty good correlation between obesity and a host of metabolic disorders (and other markers of ill health). There are pretty good mechanistic explanations for this. Yes, you could be thin and really unhealthy, no doubt. Or you could be fat because of a lesion in your ventromedial or arcuate nuclei in your hypothalamus, even though you eat an impeccable "paleo" diet. Clinically and epidemiologically, obesity is really important because it presents with so many other problems. Thin and sick is a clinical minority of cases these days.

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on April 09, 2011
at 10:29 PM

I believe back then grains were sprouted 'naturally', by sitting in silos for a lot longer than occurs now with advanced farm equipment.

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 09, 2011
at 08:05 PM

Umm, average life expectancy for men on Sardinia is 78. Women is 85. It isn't perfectly normal to live to 90. They have approximately 22 centenarians per 100,000, or about twice the rate of an ethnically diverse population like the US. Could be diet, could be genetics. Doesn't matter--human life span is invariably between 70 and 80 for most populations. Getting past that, regardless of diet/genetics is a rare event. Even if diet has a role, you're looking at a 0.0002% chance of living till 100 vs. 0.0001%. Caloric restriction is the only known factor to alter that--anything else, no.

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on April 09, 2011
at 07:39 PM

Harris goes hard ! iLike.

Cc2a43461ec5b2b7ba5d55215ea0f068

(236)

on April 09, 2011
at 06:44 PM

There also weren't mega grain companies out there pushing their product at the time. Yes, they all existed, but their emphasis was on different uses - and breakfast cereal hadn't caught on. All of that is also a product of some pretty insidious stuff that happened in the 20th century.

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 09, 2011
at 05:36 PM

That is the same argument used against hunter-gatherers though. As you are well aware, life expectancy was lower due to childhood illnesses, acute adult infections we could not treat, trauma that could not be treated and the like. I think there is very little evidence maximum life span has evolved much (it hasn't really been subject to much selection)--expectancy and quality of life in old age are the goal posts that move around.

  • 4f61f7c4a8bb1adeb9cf45aa9e3f9e7d

    asked by

    (281)
  • Views
    3.5K
  • Last Activity
    1429D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

18 Answers

best answer

8
47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on April 09, 2011
at 07:02 PM

  • The first thing to notice, which I am surprised McArdle does not, is that her chart shows percentages from calories. If you click through to the (probably absurd and error-ridden) document from the USDA that she cites you can look at the absolute totals (p. 18 on the PDF; here's the link; her chart comes from p. 21 by the way). Basically, according to the USDA, carbohydrate intake stayed the same and everything else increased. This would explain how the percentage of grains can drop: the actual grain intake could have stayed around the same while the total caloric intake increased.

  • Megan McArdle might be happy to read my first point, but I wouldn't use it in an argument; since when do we think that increasing calories alone can account for the obesity epidemic? (Hopefully I can get away with linking to one of my own Paleohacks answers just this once, sorry: here.) Look at p. 18 of the PDF again and see what changed more than anything else since 1909: polyunsaturated fatty acid intake, from 13g a day to 37g a day. Omega 6 anyone?

  • But I wouldn't place too much faith in the USDA report. After all it claims (p. 21 now, where McArdle gets her chart) that the intake of "sugars and sweeteners" has only increased (if you do the math) by about 20% -- in absolute terms, not the proportion. (And that's ignoring the particularly low figure for sweeteners for 1909-1919.) Do we really think that sugar and HFCS intake in the United States has only increased by about 20% in the last 90-100 years? That's preposterous. I would go back and read all the fine print in the USDA report, but what's the point?

  • Even were her data both correct and non-distorted, there would still be the issue that all these points of hers are just observational and no causal link has been established or even suggested. By itself, a decrease in grain from 1914 until now with an accompanying increase in obesity shows nothing. It could still be the case that grain makes you fat. Think of it this way: it might perhaps be the case, again using her assumptions, that if we were eating even more grain we would be even fatter. Nothing about the assumed facts would prevent that.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 15, 2011
at 10:45 AM

Plus, grains were not genetically altered.

5
5b69a02dadcae753771921d913909215

(1457)

on April 09, 2011
at 07:29 PM

Saturated fat wasn't evil back then...

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 10, 2011
at 04:23 AM

Lol"...........

5
3b803506ca7d7b5796bc16ee5b9f11d3

on April 09, 2011
at 05:37 PM

The author oversimplifies from data provided by USDA. I was surprised to see in it that except for the 20's when it's actually lower sugar consumption seems fairly equal or stable since the 30's, that doesn't seem right. But the same data does show a 3-fold jump in the consumption of PUFAs starting around the 50's and accelerating of late. It also seems hard to believe that grain consumption was so much higher then when availability of Pasta, cookies and all manner of processed foods was just not there. But who am I to argue with data from the USDA, I mean, they're not the ones pushing us to consumer more grains are they? (sic).

It's funny also to see the author get into an argument with Dr. Harris, splitting hairs and taking cheap shots at Paleo. From my perception Mr. Archevore totally owned her. But I'm biased.

I agree also with Dr. K above, that life expectancy was much lower. We should also note it was time of WWI. But I disagree about the level of physical activity, as has been noted before that traditionally those who do hard labor, do more physically demanding work, also happen to have more issues with obesity.

C61399790c6531a0af344ab0c40048f1

on April 10, 2011
at 07:06 PM

I think this is true - how have they measured grains? - have they counted HFCS and all the other 'stuff' that's in processed foods that is made from grains but not listed in the ingredients as such?

9aa2a816c61170cc0183a68be0386ba5

(1702)

on April 10, 2011
at 03:44 AM

"Grain" consumption is sort of arbitrary though - you have to consider that corn is quite literally in EVERYTHING you eat now a days. Perhaps they ate more recognizable grains in 1914, but now EVERYTHING YOU EAT HAS GRAIN IN IT.

5
9e036979b78f5da07f4423f88e4f0f91

on April 09, 2011
at 04:14 PM

Was grain consumption really higher in 1914? I doubt this given the amount of processed grain products in our processed foods and how our production of grain has increased as technology has improved the efficiency of American Farmers and Farmers around the world. Also in 1914, the idea of farm subsidies were just a figment in FDR's imagination, and didn't start taking off until the 1930's when farm life was almost unlivable.

Consider the modern day hunter gatherer tribe that recently switched to a modern western diet, how are they doing with western style chronic diseases?

4
A6b2325aefabe3e40c89646e40223f6f

on April 09, 2011
at 05:25 PM

Check out the comments to that article -- there are some excellent refutations, including an extensive back and forth between the author (Megan McArdle) and Kurt Harris.

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on April 09, 2011
at 07:39 PM

Harris goes hard ! iLike.

4
7f4c64d6caca80c74a6c2d91efa3259b

(831)

on April 09, 2011
at 04:57 PM

Oh dear, where to begin:

People were far more active - harder and more physical labour, more walking and less reliance on motor vehicles, fewer labour-saving devices (laundry was hard work, sweep up, scrub floors and so on). Children went out to play till it got dark (ball games, climbing trees, cowboys, soldiers, generally running about for hours) and didn't just park themselves in front of TVs, computers, PlayStations, Xboxes etc. The food was not genetically 'improved' so the nutritional content was significantly different. There was far less reliance on sugary foods and confectionery, and a comparatively non-existent fast-food industry (with associated hard-sell advertising)

A089b683ee0498f2b21b7edfa300e405

(3895)

on April 10, 2011
at 01:52 AM

add to that, that food was cooked in lard or tallow and hydrogenated vegetable fats were still some years away.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21430)

on April 10, 2011
at 06:07 PM

The two above points (activity levels + cooking with healthy fats) are pretty much what changes the whole thing.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on April 11, 2011
at 01:09 PM

You should have a look at Taubes to see why this argument doesn't hold water. Basically, if you look at modern and historical examples, labor and activity have no correlation with obesity.

7f4c64d6caca80c74a6c2d91efa3259b

(831)

on April 11, 2011
at 03:19 PM

So identical twins (for the sake of argument) eating identical amounts of identical foods, one sitting around doing nothing but Xbox/Playstation/PC whilst the other does lots of physical activity will have more-or-less identical masses and body shapes. Really?

4
B4ec9ce369e43ea83f06ee645169cee0

on April 09, 2011
at 04:06 PM

I would also add that in 1914 the grains were more likely to be 'properly' (if there really is such a thing) prepared, meaning soaked in an acidic medium prior to cooking. They didn't have 'instant' anything, and it was socially acceptable to wait for your food, unlike today. Soaking oats overnight for cereal in the morning was just the way you made oatmeal.

The people in 1914 also existed with the attitude of "well if I get a little fat, I just cut down on grains and sugar until I like how I look." They actually had better information at the time at what actually causes us to be overweight and weren't socially pressured to do low fat high carb diets.

My third and last point, I would think they were not as affluent as us so could not afford extra food and sugar was expensive. So this feeds into your first point, since grains and sugar together are much more deadly than just grains (especially properly prepared).

thanks for sharing the article!

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on April 09, 2011
at 10:29 PM

I believe back then grains were sprouted 'naturally', by sitting in silos for a lot longer than occurs now with advanced farm equipment.

3
8f4ff12a53a98f3b5814cfe242de0daa

(1075)

on April 09, 2011
at 06:11 PM

I do not think you can refute that grains can be fine, in terms of weight, in a "clean" diet. The longest lived men in the world (Sardinia, Italy - living over 90 is perfectly normal http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100.html) eat a diet that is basically wheat (bread) and grass-fed sheep cheese. And they do not suffer from obesity/heart disease/ etc.

Perhaps the more major problem in standard american is the poor quality of fats? And the fructose also seems an issue, as the whole thing about fat being unhealthy seems to have been wrong... but that does not mean the trends to poor health incorrect. There is a correlation with pounds of sugar and obesity however.

Eating whole grains probably will not make you healthier (and has not bee all that strongly associated with health, like legumes and vegetables have), but in a modestly active population they do not seem to cause harm. Also see Japan pre-fast food and Kitavins.

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 09, 2011
at 08:05 PM

Umm, average life expectancy for men on Sardinia is 78. Women is 85. It isn't perfectly normal to live to 90. They have approximately 22 centenarians per 100,000, or about twice the rate of an ethnically diverse population like the US. Could be diet, could be genetics. Doesn't matter--human life span is invariably between 70 and 80 for most populations. Getting past that, regardless of diet/genetics is a rare event. Even if diet has a role, you're looking at a 0.0002% chance of living till 100 vs. 0.0001%. Caloric restriction is the only known factor to alter that--anything else, no.

3
A65499f2f8c65602881550fe309cd48c

(3501)

on April 09, 2011
at 04:01 PM

I think that in 1914 people were a lot more active, people weren't eating fast foods, people were still making their meals mostly from scratch, they weren't ingesting the gobs of processed sugars and crap that is in our food today. It's not rocket science. It's common sense. Soon as you step away from sugar, processed foods, fast foods and get your butt away from television and other electronics that have created a generation (or two) of sedentary people, you will lose weight.

2
3e0c2c2885a0ba30b474045ba086adaa

(110)

on April 10, 2011
at 05:38 PM

Don't forget how childbirth and the first few years of life have changed--we now breastfeed less and less and start children on grains before their digestive system is ready to battle it--they're faced with chronic inflammatory problems from day one. These problems can last a lifetime. Then we add in food coloring, transfats, sedentary, high stress lifestyle, copious amounts of xeno-estrogens and estrogens and we a looking at a plethora of metabolic issues that we are understanding more and more, but will never fully understand the implications of in an increasingly toxic and deficient lifestyle. Add in concepts of epigenetics and it's pretty clear there is never really ONE factor involved.

2
Cf5c9ba3c06cf300ae23c52778dfd317

on April 10, 2011
at 03:56 AM

"Total fat contributions from red meat have generally declined throughout the series (table 8). In the early years, red meat contributed around one-third of the fat; however, during the 1990s, this contribution decreased to about one-sixth. In 2004, it was less at 13 percent. Salad oils have made a greater contribution to total fat availability over the series, increasing from 2 percent in 1909-19 to 28 percent in 2004. Although the share of total fat from butter and lard has decreased, it is not enough to offset the percentage associated with increased use of salad oils. Thus, the share of total fat from the fats and oils group has gradually increased from 40 percent in 1909-19 to 59 percent in 2004."

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/publications/foodsupply/foodsupply1909-2004report.pdf

There's your answer.

2
628b1f06b8580fa60793d36c9ee8a91f

(93)

on April 09, 2011
at 08:23 PM

I see that Dr Harris is going for the jugular in the comments on the article which is wonderful. Taking a slightly different approach, is our ONLY consideration whether we are fatter? If I am a thin diabetic, hypertensive, cancer patient, will I be satisfied to know that at least I wasn't fat? BTW - this was my dad when he died at age 52.

So I think the refutation is that health is multifactorial and body composition is but 1 (visible) marker of ones health, and arguably the most superficial. Even if one is able to remain thin with grain/gluten consumption, the other aspects of metabolic derangement that follow are the primary reasons to avoid grains.

Another note - her "pretty" graph does not account for absolute production, only relative production

88905cfc5bb098ad3830671a1af373a8

(803)

on April 10, 2011
at 05:30 AM

And while you can be thin and have diseases like diabetes and cancer, I would expect that your body composition would still have to be less than ideal, i.e. "skinny fat."

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 09, 2011
at 11:27 PM

Correlation is often spurious, but there is a pretty good correlation between obesity and a host of metabolic disorders (and other markers of ill health). There are pretty good mechanistic explanations for this. Yes, you could be thin and really unhealthy, no doubt. Or you could be fat because of a lesion in your ventromedial or arcuate nuclei in your hypothalamus, even though you eat an impeccable "paleo" diet. Clinically and epidemiologically, obesity is really important because it presents with so many other problems. Thin and sick is a clinical minority of cases these days.

2
20c518f9d33b0d04c7a19b8bb7487695

(195)

on April 09, 2011
at 04:26 PM

I grew up in a farm family and we certainly ate grains, but lots of fat and protein. We did not snack, had little store bought treat/junk food. We worked and moved a lot! As people aged they tended to put on pounds, but they were not surrounded by the 24/7 food ads, nor convenience stores. Gas stations didn't sell hot dogs, etc.

2
Medium avatar

(4878)

on April 09, 2011
at 04:18 PM

The grains were also much less toxic, as our current grains are much higher in protein (glutens). This could cause cascading physical issues related to leaky guts and malnutrition.

When I leave the US to live and work in rural neighborhoods, I experience NO gluten intolerance issues which I've attributed to the ancient genes in the flour and corn products, despite eating breads and grains for months at a time. I also, repeatedly, lost about 20lbs in the first month, regardless of the diet (South East Asian vs Peruvian, for instance).

Cc2a43461ec5b2b7ba5d55215ea0f068

(236)

on April 09, 2011
at 06:44 PM

There also weren't mega grain companies out there pushing their product at the time. Yes, they all existed, but their emphasis was on different uses - and breakfast cereal hadn't caught on. All of that is also a product of some pretty insidious stuff that happened in the 20th century.

1
9aa2a816c61170cc0183a68be0386ba5

on April 10, 2011
at 03:17 AM

Heard about this article today on NPR : Egyptians were farmers, ate more grain than meat, and they had heart disease! http://www.npr.org/2011/04/09/135269340/egyptian-mummies-diagnosed-with-clogged-arteries

In 1914, you have to think that people were still eating a lot of meat. Even up until WWII and Vietnam, think about it - housewives making roasts, steak, potatoes. It didn't really get very bad until the 60's when corner markets turned into supermarkets with rows and rows of chips, snacks, frozen foods - and then in the 80's when HFCS started replacing sugar in pretty much EVERYTHING.

0
0fb8b3d6dcfb279b0f7e050d2d22510f

(4645)

on April 10, 2011
at 01:03 AM

it is all about metabolism and the on set of diabetes. Some numbers are as high as 3 out of four people have some sort of metabolism issues that will lead to full blown diabetes at some point. When thew body is correct, grains will not make you fat- other issues not withstanding, but we don't live there anymore.

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 10, 2011
at 08:23 PM

If you lack an abundance of calories and do intensive labor, then you are correct, grains will not make you fat. Taubes discussed this point at length--agricultural societies that traditionally subsisted on calorically poor diets and worked very hard were not fat. If you sit around all day and eat 2000+ calories worth of bread a day, you will most likely get fat. Hell, even if you exercise everyday and eat a couple loaves of bread, you'll probably have problems with adiposity. But sure, grains don't=fat, but processed grains genereally=fat. Grains alone just equal inflammation.

3e0c2c2885a0ba30b474045ba086adaa

(110)

on April 20, 2011
at 11:20 PM

And inflammation means stress to tissues--including pancreatic cells... Type 1 diabetes is now being considered as an autoimmnune condition by some. We actually have a type 1 diabetic right now that has normal blood sugars, off all meds...

0fb8b3d6dcfb279b0f7e050d2d22510f

(4645)

on April 23, 2011
at 11:17 AM

"We?" I am type II which has wry little in common with Type I. I never give advice to TIs. Most people that talk about diabetes are type II as Type Is will make the distinction right away. But I do not that carbs and grains are carbs is the last thing my body needs. PERIOD. I test and test throughout the day and know first hand what foods do what.

0fb8b3d6dcfb279b0f7e050d2d22510f

(4645)

on April 23, 2011
at 11:19 AM

The grains we eat today and the grains used for bread and flour is so different from what was used even 30 yrs ago. I avoid grains at every turn and live a far better life than when I mistakingly had them in my diet.

0
Medium avatar

(5136)

on April 09, 2011
at 06:02 PM

  1. Norman Borlaug- he meant well, as i'm sure Bill Gates did when he bought so much stock in Monsanto.

  2. Real sourdough, where has it gone?

0
Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 09, 2011
at 04:23 PM

The avg lifespan back then too was 52 years old.......so you're thin and make a svelt corpse in a small box......but still dead Pass me the duck confit please.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 10, 2011
at 04:13 AM

Does niot matter. Longevity is all I care about

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 10, 2011
at 08:17 PM

If longevity is all you care about then you know that you should be doing extreme caloric restriction. Which means like a teaspoon of duck confit. A day. The research is pretty clear on this point. Dramatic reduction of calories, dramatic increase in lifespan. I'm unaware of any experiments showing similar results thus far for regular IFing.

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 09, 2011
at 05:36 PM

That is the same argument used against hunter-gatherers though. As you are well aware, life expectancy was lower due to childhood illnesses, acute adult infections we could not treat, trauma that could not be treated and the like. I think there is very little evidence maximum life span has evolved much (it hasn't really been subject to much selection)--expectancy and quality of life in old age are the goal posts that move around.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 12, 2011
at 12:37 AM

CR is not the only way RG......activating sirtuins and maximizing the FOXO and PGC-1 pathways.......lots of ways plus you IF and paleo and your telomeres get longer.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!