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.

    - 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.

Fair enough. I personally wouldn't even try CR - I don't have enough willpower to be slightly hungry for the rest of my life. I'm trying to incorporate some Intermittent Fasting in my life though, since it has some similar benefits.

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.

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.

“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...

I guess his doctors are too kind to tell him that he's senile as hell.

They can't be both right.

We're omnivores. I would be surprised if there weren't multiple diets that led to health.

It's not impossible to be both right, given a sufficiently diverse human genotype pool, but rather hard to imagine really.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t....

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.

They are looking for solutions to get healthy so they can enjoy life in the ways you are presenting.

So far the 2 main camps claiming to have the solution to everything are pushing 2 completely opposed strategies, none of them seemingly more proven than the other...

If you exercise more, you burn more of course. Supposing that your body has no idea how much energy its consuming, and thus the 'what you eat' part of the equation is independent of the 'what you burn' is simply ridiculous.

Those diseases, the diseases of western civilization wont go away by simply exercising more. Exercise more, you eat more, you don't lose your fat weight, you won't reverse those diseases.

He lived to 96 ... his brother Norman LaLanne lived to 97.

Wait, banana peels?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

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.

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.

Of course you can, just don't swallow.

/troll

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthorexia_nervosa

These questions unfortunately remind me of a few people I know:

* Does their diet make it difficult for them to eat anywhere but at home, distancing them from family and friends?

* Has the quality of their life decreased as the quality of their diet increased?