Walford, Reihard, and the World of Longevity

[Over43]

It seems that we often tunnel vision on a few diet genres here. Usually No S v. Low Carb, which might be just fine since some low carbers are pushier than network marketers who live down the road.

Once in a while Dean Ornish comes up, I discovered John McDougall last week, and there has been talk of Julia Child, the French, Wheat Belly, and even the Twinkie Diet (which I might like to try someday owing to my known love for those spongy little cakes of creamy filled goodness...).

One approach I found fascinating a few years back was the longevity diets. The principal, or most well known proponent for longevity diets was Roy Walford. He was the author of the Beyond the 120 Year Diet. It was an interesting read and I pick it up still, now and then, and read parts of it.

The basic premise is we poison ourselves with calories. (Or, calorie poisoning, a term used by Peter Voss.)

As we who have followed No S for any length of time know that Reinhard is onto something. Fewer calories, according to Walford' s research equals better health, and possibly, a significant longer life. So, lowering our calories as we do when we are locked in on No S, might produce the same outcome. It will of course take decades to determine if calorie restriction works on humans, but research shows it has worked for other life forms, mice doubled their life spans.

Mice aren't humans, and some researchers suspect this type of eating could lead to medical problems, or conditions, but for me it is an interesting theory.

[Minkymoo]

I suspect the kind of calorie restriction they are talking about is rather more extreme than the very mild restrictions of No S. I wouldnt want an extra long life that is full of joyless restriction!
I also think the whole 'food is poison' concept could be very dangerous thinking for some people who were fighting eating disorders (the under eating kind!)

[ZippaDee]

I wouldnt want an extra long life that is full of joyless restriction!

AMEN!!

[Thalia]

I think there's a fairly recent large study that showed no increased longevity (not to mention the total misery factor!).

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/aug2012/nia-29.htm

[Over43]

I agree that it is miserable, and the results might be dubious (even though the efficacy, NIH aside, is hard to determine for humans due to our built in longevity), and even Walford warned about anorexia, it is still an interesting theory for me.

Obviously No Sers don't restrict their energy intake as much as a CRON er, but a mild calorie restriction should result in a modest increase in our mortality rate.

I think, if the coming generation might not live longer than their parents due to overeating, then we should live a bit longer because of our decreased food intake.

[oolala53]

Not to mention that having the income to live for 120 years will change the retirement age.