He doesn’t count calories or believe in extreme caloric restriction as a way to extend life.
Not only has caloric restriction been shown to work in mammals (including primates), but it has known mechanisms of action. That's some hefty evidence to ignore.
But he does believe that excess weight is a sure way to abbreviate it, and reprimands friends, acquaintances and even strangers who are heavy.
Sure, the rinds and peels — which he explains by saying that the parts of fruits most directly sun-kissed are bound to harbor the most energy — may be a little strange.
This makes it clear he has no idea what he's talking about.
This is interesting, however. Let's think about it for a minute.
- Caloric restriction has been shown to work. Caloric
restriction would most likely result in individuals
being at least slightly underweight.
- Underweight have higher mortality in the old age.
Mildly overweight need not worry.
>> He doesn’t count calories or believe in extreme caloric restriction as a way to extend life.
Not only has caloric restriction been shown to work in mammals (including primates), but it has known mechanisms of action. That's some hefty evidence to ignore.
Well, at 87, it's a bit late to start calorie restriction, anyways.
On the contrary. The outer shell/skin of any live aerobic organism is most exposed to oxidative stress (21% O compared to cells inside the body -3%) hence the anti-oxidant defenses are most expressed exactly there. They are also most exposed to solar radiation ("sun-kissed") which makes perfect sense when you review the most active antioxidants -dark-green leafy veggies and dark-colored berries (anthocyanin). Calorie Restriction works by inducing NO (AMPK) and lowering core body temperature thus reducing the inflammatory impact of exogenous agents- nutrients,viruses,environmental stressors etc and also by reducing the endogenous thermogenic hormones (insulin, leptin, estrogen,norepinephrine etc.
Indeed, he speaks so loudly at times, and in such a declamatory manner, that it cows people, who sometimes assume they’ve angered him. “When I open my mouth,” he noted, “the room rings.”
“I’ll match wits with anybody,” he says. “I don’t care if they have the top degree in the world.” He notes that everyone on his research campus’s board is a Ph.D. or an M.D. But he, the high-school dropout, presides over the meetings.
Some folks are just healthier. It's a single data point. Who knows if it has anything to do with his diet? Staying fit and avoiding tobacco are proven to extend life. His specific dietary restrictions? Meh, who knows?
My grandmother lived to 95, and was very healthy into her early ninties. Her diet, while generally good, made plenty of room for curries and lager, and she liked to get pretty sloshed on her birthdays. Single data points: Useless.
It is interesting that him, and other rich men like Kurzweil are choosing plant-base diets instead of the Taubes, paleo crowd-pushed meat and fat diets.
Eat when you're hungry. Stop when you're full. Laugh often. Play (physically) more than occasionally. Drink and be merry. Stop worrying. You'll live forever.
And even if you only live a short while, it's better than living a boring life for a slightly longer while.
I don't think that the paleo crowd is really pushing a high fat and meat diet like you say. Taubes' views could almost be more easily lumped in with those of Atkins followers than of paleo eaters. Different people have different feelings about it but in general paleo eating is more centrally about eliminating the consumption of processed sugars, excessive sodium, gluten, and lactose. Vegetables and fruits make up a significant portion of the diet and eating leaner game meats and fish is usually encouraged over the more fatty factory farm meats. The idea is basically just that things that have relatively recently become cornerstones of our diet, whether due to technological advances or otherwise, might not be so good for us because we didn't evolve with exposure to anything like them. It comes down to making choices like having an orange instead of a bowl of ice cream, some roasted asparagus instead of a buttery dinner roll, or a nice cut of rabbit instead of a 70% lean hamburger with melted cheese. That seems like a fairly reasonable stance on diet to me, regardless of whether or not you buy the evolutionary rationale.
What if they're both right, but not for the same population? It doesn't sound unreasonable that different people with different metabolisms would benefit from different diets.
“I went back in my mind: what am I not eating enough of?” he told me. Definitely not fruits and vegetables: he crams as many as 20 of them, including pulverized banana peels and the ground-up rinds of oranges, into the smoothies he drinks two to three times a day
Whenever a thread comes up about someone taking a sincere interest in nutrition and making difficult sacrifices to try to enjoy a better life, you start to see people come out and mock it and make jokes and assert a certain "well I'm having more fun" type superiority.
Well, I'm not so sure about that. Most of the people I know who work to live really healthy have the guts to go counter-cultural/counter-mainstream in other ways too. They live good lives filled with adventure, have lots of fun, live healthier, and on average die later. Smoking is cool - I used to love good tobacco. Red meat is amazing. I used to love good steaks. But funny enough, the net pleasure you have after quitting that stuff doesn't really go down. It's hard to do, but you really do live better across the board if you're willing to put in the initial willpower and sacrifices.
I'm not so sure if I agree with what you're saying. I have few vices. I cook everything from scratch, don't smoke, rarely eat red meat and have a very nutritious diet. My main vices are a lack of exercise and alcohol (as I like to make cocktails, learn new ones and experiment I probably drink more of them than most).
Exercising more would probably give me more enjoyment, but at the opportunity cost of what I'm doing instead. Cutting out alcohol will no doubt extend my life (after all, alcohol is a fairly poisonous chemical to start off with) cutting it out would reduce the net pleasure I get not just from drinking cocktails, but introducing new ones to others and watching the pleasure they get from experiencing them.
You can't consistently make great cocktails if you're teetotal anymore than you can consistently cook incredible meat dishes if you're vegetarian as there's no direct feedback mechanism.
I'm not saying that the net pleasure doesn't go down in all cases, but there are definitely some. I'm sure giving up mountain climbing can extend life, but there's a drop in pleasure for a mountain climber too.
Being fit and feeling good about myself is a better feeling than anything I have derived from food. I love me some delicious food, but not at the expense of my health.
I think for most people, if these extreme measures brought them another 50 years it may be worth the effort of being perfectly disciplined. But even if he is onto something, which may think they are using conflicting methods, it's probably going to buy him an extra few years over just being healthy without being obsessive.
[+] [-] AngryParsley|15 years ago|reply
Not only has caloric restriction been shown to work in mammals (including primates), but it has known mechanisms of action. That's some hefty evidence to ignore.
But he does believe that excess weight is a sure way to abbreviate it, and reprimands friends, acquaintances and even strangers who are heavy.
The latest studies (http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/293/15/1861.abstract) show underweight and obese people have higher mortality in old age. The mildly overweight need not worry.
Sure, the rinds and peels — which he explains by saying that the parts of fruits most directly sun-kissed are bound to harbor the most energy — may be a little strange.
This makes it clear he has no idea what he's talking about.
[+] [-] Evgeny|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stjohn|15 years ago|reply
Not only has caloric restriction been shown to work in mammals (including primates), but it has known mechanisms of action. That's some hefty evidence to ignore.
Well, at 87, it's a bit late to start calorie restriction, anyways.
[+] [-] default|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _b8r0|15 years ago|reply
I propose that we check on him on his 125th birthday to find out. If he's dead, then you're right. If he's alive, then you're wrong.
[+] [-] julian37|15 years ago|reply
“I’ll match wits with anybody,” he says. “I don’t care if they have the top degree in the world.” He notes that everyone on his research campus’s board is a Ph.D. or an M.D. But he, the high-school dropout, presides over the meetings.
This guy must be fun to work for...
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] burgerbrain|15 years ago|reply
I guess his doctors are too kind to tell him that he's senile as hell.
[+] [-] rwmj|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] postfuturist|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ZoFreX|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickpp|15 years ago|reply
They can't be both right.
[+] [-] TheEzEzz|15 years ago|reply
We're omnivores. I would be surprised if there weren't multiple diets that led to health.
[+] [-] quickpost|15 years ago|reply
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t....
[+] [-] snprbob86|15 years ago|reply
Eat when you're hungry. Stop when you're full. Laugh often. Play (physically) more than occasionally. Drink and be merry. Stop worrying. You'll live forever.
And even if you only live a short while, it's better than living a boring life for a slightly longer while.
[+] [-] foob|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] helentoomik|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patrickgzill|15 years ago|reply
He lived to 96 ... his brother Norman LaLanne lived to 97.
[+] [-] phil|15 years ago|reply
Wait, banana peels?
[+] [-] stjohn|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MikeCapone|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lionhearted|15 years ago|reply
Well, I'm not so sure about that. Most of the people I know who work to live really healthy have the guts to go counter-cultural/counter-mainstream in other ways too. They live good lives filled with adventure, have lots of fun, live healthier, and on average die later. Smoking is cool - I used to love good tobacco. Red meat is amazing. I used to love good steaks. But funny enough, the net pleasure you have after quitting that stuff doesn't really go down. It's hard to do, but you really do live better across the board if you're willing to put in the initial willpower and sacrifices.
[+] [-] _b8r0|15 years ago|reply
Exercising more would probably give me more enjoyment, but at the opportunity cost of what I'm doing instead. Cutting out alcohol will no doubt extend my life (after all, alcohol is a fairly poisonous chemical to start off with) cutting it out would reduce the net pleasure I get not just from drinking cocktails, but introducing new ones to others and watching the pleasure they get from experiencing them.
You can't consistently make great cocktails if you're teetotal anymore than you can consistently cook incredible meat dishes if you're vegetarian as there's no direct feedback mechanism.
I'm not saying that the net pleasure doesn't go down in all cases, but there are definitely some. I'm sure giving up mountain climbing can extend life, but there's a drop in pleasure for a mountain climber too.
[+] [-] zacharyz|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stjohn|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JacobAldridge|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robryan|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] burgerbrain|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elai|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nazgulnarsil|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sayemm|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 6ren|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]