[chancho]

This is a great comment and I appreciate the links.

But the caveman explanation for health and nutrition always leaves me cold. Yeah ok we can pretty much gauge what proto-humans ate and why it was good for them, but what if it made them miserable? It's romantic to think that early humans lived in the garden of lo-carb eden, but what if it really fucking sucked? What if they were just plain hugnry all the time, it was miserable and only the strong survived?

Don't get me wrong I think most of the conclusions are right, but I prefer evidence collected from modern people to justify those conclusions. Appealing to evolutionary biology is only valid for survival and reproduction. It doesn't say anything about happiness, fulfillment, etc.

I seem to recall some crackpot theory that low-calorie diets (ie., borderline starvation) increase your lifespan. That would certainly jive with the caveman hypothesis, but does it sound like fun? How miserable are we willing to make ourselves for a few extra years in a nursing home? That's probably a false dichotomy, but you get the point.

[tapp]

> I seem to recall some crackpot theory that low-calorie diets increase your lifespan

Not sure the 'crackpot theory' pejorative is appropriate. Calorie restriction (with adequate nutrition) has been documented to increase both median and maximum lifespan across a number of species. I believe primate studies are in progress now.

I agree that perpetually hungry (and cold) sounds like an unpleasant way to go through life, but that doesn't make the adherents crackpots.

[_grrr]

Calorie restricted diets are known to increase the lifespan of rats by up to 20%. In Japan there is even a philosophy around this: "Hara Hachi Bu – eat until you are 80% full" http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/hara-hachi-bu-...

[beagle3]

> but I prefer evidence collected from modern people to justify those conclusions.

No you don't. You want to reconfirm your bias. (I assume by "Evidence" you mean something that lives up to scientific standards. If it doesn't, I have no idea what you are talking about).

> It doesn't say anything about happiness, fulfillment, etc.

Science almost never has anything to say about these (or anything else which is this subjective).

> I seem to recall some crackpot theory that low-calorie diets (ie., borderline starvation) increase your lifespan.

But that is very well supported by science (on mice and fruit flies; not on humans YET). If you were interested in evidence, you wouldn't call it "crackpot", especially not considering ...

> does it sound like fun? How miserable are we willing to make ourselves for a few extra years in a nursing home?

By this standard, you should be doing booze and drugs all day. I've heard they're really fun (and they cut off those long years of old age!)

I really can't understand people whose thought process can emit things like:

> That's probably a false dichotomy, but you get the point.

"I can't find an example that supports my point. So I'm making one up that is probably wrong. That's totally legit, and we should continue the discussion assuming my made-up example is fact"

[Evgeny]

What if they were just plain hugnry all the time, it was miserable and only the strong survived?

I think the point is that regardles of being miserable, hungry or happy, the bodies adapted to the circumstances. Now what happens if you take the body that is best adapted to being hungry for periods of time and place it in the limitless food environment? Chances are that you will get a very happy and a very overweight person, with a shortened lifespan.

That would certainly jive with the caveman hypothesis, but does it sound like fun? How miserable are we willing to make ourselves for a few extra years in a nursing home?

I think that's a good point and not quite a false dichotomy. There probably are not enough studies to confidently state that "reducing calories by X% lengthens lifespan by Y%" but if the choice is "eat everything that will make me happy" and "be alive from my 80th to 85th birthday", different people would make different choices.

[jamii]

We became optimized for the environment we were in. Thats not the same thing as saying that that environment is optimal for us. We adapted to being cold and wet but chucking out your clothes and umbrella wont make you healthier.

Always remember - poison ivy is natural, pants aren't.

[Evgeny]

Okay, I see the point. It is quite obvious with the pants - "pants keep me warm and protect from poison ivy, therefore they are good for me". With food, not so obvious. "Chips and pizza with coke are tasty and make me happy, therefore they are good for me". Doesn't work the same way. In fact, I can't easily think of any artificial food that is definitely good for humans.

[jamii]

Thats not what I was saying at all. My point is that just because we are adapted to a certain diet doesn't make that diet optimal. Much modern food is undeniably unhealthy but starving yourself because our ancestors were hungry too is scientifically questionable. Nutrition is complicated but there is no reason we can't do better than our ancestors.