Great answer. Thank you.
Those dudes who play with lab rats swear that caloric restriction increases the lifespans of animals but that seems very counter-intuitive to me; I tend to look at food as nutrients and health-promoters and eat as much as I want until I'm full. Is the stuff they feed rats terribly unhealthy and the less of it the better or is food just inherently life-shortening? I've been reading a few guys like Dr. Ron Rosedale and Ray Peat who say that the more insulin is secreted in a lifetime, the shorter the lifespan, and the more polyunsaturates we consume, the less healthy we'll be (and the more insulin we will secrete too) so I'm thinking that they were just feeding rats the typical sucrose, corn starch and soybean oil feed and maybe that doesn't apply to good food. They also say that we want to have fast metabolisms and eat a lot/burn a lot. Here it says that caloric restriction reduces testosterone, but Mark was just lauding the hell out of higher testosterone so there's a contradiction. Also here they claim that hyper-metabolic mice live longer and they think it has to do with more efficient mitochondria. Mark and Robb Wolf have mentioned that you don't want to have too high a metabolism or you age yourself prematurely, but that also seems iffy. I personally like being hyper-metabolic! Maybe another explanation is that both hyper-metabolism and caloric restriction decrease body fat which releases more cytokines and stresses the heart? Anyway I'm just blindly speculating and rambling here. I guess my formal question is: what do you think caloric intake has to do with longevity and what kind of a metabolic action do you think is ideal?
Last edited by Stabby; 06-23-2010 at 06:48 PM.
Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.
Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!