That's missing the point. If this technique can result in longer lives for people with both good diets and not, it is a genuinely novel innovation in human life span that can't be replaced with better diet alone.
It could well be that this protein is good for you when you’re young but not that good for you when you are older.
For example, young people might encounter more new infection sources, and thus need a faster/stronger responding immune system. This protein might be evolved for giving you that, with a side effect of having too strong an immune system at older age.
Evolution may not yet have found a solution that turns down its production at later age, or it might have evolved it at some time, but found its benefits do not outweigh the cost of maintaining the necessary control mechanism.
It’s far from a given that having more humans live to old age has evolutionary benefits.
What happens when you eliminate the "good inflammation" in those with bad diets? Then what? There's likely going to be unintended consequences, naturally. My point, eliminating one symptom usually means eventually creating another.
It's not missing the point. The point is that a lot of people live with chronic inflammation caused by poor lifestyle choices and that results in many diseases later in life, including Alzheimer's.
The point is that chronic inflammation is bad. The comment I'm replying to isn't recognizing that it's just saying "oh inflammation is fine because it's a response to injury" which is very much missing the point.
How much of the consequences of a poor life style can be mitigated by simply reducing the chronic inflammation response by the body?
I'd love it if cheap shitty food wasn't bad for me. At the end of the day a calorie is a calorie and many animals handle the stuff that shortens our life with no problem.
Look at it another way, if dogs can't eat chocolate but humans can, is the problem with chocolate or with dogs?
A calorie is certainly not just a calorie. Different foods are metabolized differently and affect the body in different ways, regardless of otherwise equal caloric values. Take fructose, glucose, and ethanol as an example.
The problem there is with dogs, and has nothing to do with calories. Dogs (and many other animals) are simply not able to tolerate chocolate like humans can. Conversely, humans can't tolerate eating rancid meat and cat poop, but dogs can eat those things easily and not get sick. Lots of substances are poisonous to certain species, and non-poisonous to other species.
Also, the reason chocolate is unhealthy isn't because of the cacao plant, it's because of all the added sugar used to make it taste good, since raw cacao (or cocoa, which you get after cooking it) is horribly bitter.
If you can prove this .. which things specifically is this linked to? There is a lot of completely terrible nutrition "science" out there.