Weston-Price conspiracy poll

[PaleoPhil]

OK, I never thought I'd say this, having had past run-ins with vigorous advocates of Weston Price, WAPF and raw dairy, but the anti-WAP paranoia seems to be getting out of hand and doesn't seem destined to calm down unless we put whatever fears might underly it to rest. So I've created this poll so people can anonymously indicate their views and we can determine whether "many" here really do defend everything that Price wrote or did. I suspect there won't be a lot of unqualified supporters, but we may find that the fears are justified and that I should perhaps consider joining in the complaining about Price defenders.

I tried to put a bit of humor into the poll to lighten the mood, so don't take the categories too literally--just select the answer that matches the spirit of your views.

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/hot-topics/eating-cooked-meat-leads-to-lower-ages-serum-than-eating-carbs!!!/msg16905/#msg16905

Look, the evidence re Neolithic times is indeed clear-cut but that is solely because we have more archaeological evidence the closer we go to our present day, that's all(ironically, many palaeoists here, despite that, like to defend Weston-Price who heavily championed Neolithic diets). ....

I do hope you are not including me in that claim of unnamed "palaeoists" who "like to defend" Weston Price, some of whose views I have disagreed with frequently and vociferously in the past, here and elsewhere and whose arrogant, dogmatic self-declared promoters have brought me close to rage in the past. You admitted in an earlier post that you yourself at times have cited some of his work that you agree with. That doesn't mean you agree with him on everything or are defending him. So please stop using any language that in the slightest implies that about me or any unnamed "palaeoists." If you think someone has promulgated an unqualified defense/praise of Price, then please specify who and cite examples. Otherwise it is just broad-brush slander of "many" in this forum. (How ironic, BTW, that the PaNu doctor implied this forum was too ANTI-dairy).

I can understand if you fear that the forum might be taken over by WAP and other raw dairy advocates, which is one of the main reasons I left a past Paleo forum and made this my new home (how ironic that I have been criticized here for being too PRO Price!). Maybe this poll can help figure out whether fears along these lines are justified.

[goodsamaritan]

what's all the fuss about?

[carnivore]

what's all the fuss about?

Agree. Price brings us some valuable information even if his view was distorded, like all of us.

[TylerDurden]

I tried to put a bit of humor into the poll to lighten the mood, so don't take the categories too literally--just select the answer that matches the spirit of your views.

Yes, I see you've deliberately loaded the poll , wordwise to favour your own views!

I do hope you are not including me in that claim of unnamed "palaeoists" who "like to defend" Weston Price, some of whose views I have disagreed with frequently and vociferously in the past, here and elsewhere and whose arrogant, dogmatic self-declared promoters have brought me close to rage in the past. You admitted in an earlier post that you yourself at times have cited some of his work that you agree with. That doesn't mean you agree with him on everything or are defending him. So please stop using any language that in the slightest implies that about me or any unnamed "palaeoists." If you think someone has promulgated an unqualified defense/praise of Price, then please specify who and cite examples. Otherwise it is just broad-brush slander of "many" in this forum. (How ironic, BTW, that the PaNu doctor implied this forum was too ANTI-dairy).

In that statement  I was clearly including you as well as many, many other rawists and palaeos who blindly agree with most or all of what Weston-Price stated(and, IMO, our 2 views re Price couldn't be more different with me being c.80% against price, and you 80% in favour(ie minus dairy, grains and carbs, but pro everything else). It was high time that I made serious points about the general fraudulent nature of Weston-Price. I mean, I have managed to convince quite a number of people over time that Aajonus was right in a few aspects(the raw one  and a number of other issues) and wrong on many others(eg:- dairy, overeating etc.). Now it was easy to convince people re Aajonus because of all that nonsense of his re being converted by coyotes, but it's much harder to demolish the whole fake Weston-Price = mythology even though much of his claims are very Aajonus-like in their lack of substance.

Also, I have no problem with devotees enthusing about the supposed  wonders of Weston-Price in the weston price forum but this is a raw, palaeo forum and promotion of cooked foods or non-palaeo foods has no place in the other forums.

[PaleoPhil]

In that statement was clearly including you as well as many, many other rawists and palaeos who blindly agree with most or all of what Weston-Price stated(and, IMO, our 2 views re Price couldn't be more different with me being c.80% against price, and you 80% in favour

First you said I "blindly agree with most or all of what Weston-Price stated," then you said that I'm "80% in favour" and you are "80% against price" (and therefore 20% in favor, apparently). How can I "blindly agree" with Price if I disagree with him at least 20% of the time (and I believe more, but I don't want to get drawn into a pointless debate about percentages)?

(ie minus dairy, grains and carbs, but pro everything else).

I haven't even discussed everything Price covered, so how do you know whether I support "everything else" or even that my ratio of support is the same as what I've discussed here? You've developed a habit of characterizing my views in ways which would require reading my mind, and making assumptions and accusations based on your apparent mind-reading abilities. I propose that you cannot actually read my mind or anyone else's and I request that you please stop making assumptions about my views and misrepresenting them. Please represent your own views and I'll represent mine.

it's much harder to demolish the whole fake Weston-Price = mythology even though much of his claims are very Aajonus-like in their lack of substance.

I understand (and I suspect that much of the reason that the WAP movement has such staying power is the funding behind it) and support your vigilance against potential takeover of this forum by that movement, but please don't take it out on me or other members here who are not part of the WAP movement. I think some of your bullets are hitting innocent bystanders instead of people who are truly more interested in lecturing to us about the benefits of raw dairy or whole grains or promoting the WAPF or Aajonus than sharing and learning about RPD (the only possible example of this I've seen recently was Raw in Florida, and I hold open the possibility even now that he was not, because you're example is teaching me more about the pitfalls of jumping to conclusions and making assumptions and his posts caught me at a bad time when I was not in the mood for what he was preaching--so it's possible I may have over-reacted).

Also, I have no problem with devotees enthusing about the supposed  wonders of Weston-Price in the weston price forum but this is a raw, palaeo forum and promotion of cooked foods or non-palaeo foods has no place in the other forums.

I am not a "devotee" of WAP and I have never enthused "about the supposed wonders of Weston price." I have not started threads in the WAP forum because I do not support him or the WAPF and the very idea of it frankly makes me gag, though I will post there if there's a topic of interest to me (and I don't always pay attention to the subforum). I've also tried not to get into the habit of debating WAP and raw dairy proponents because I've found them generally (though not all) impervious to reason, as I mentioned before. I only do what you do--cite accounts and views from him when it provides possible explanations or corroborates the other scientific evidence I've found and/or my own experience. I don't expect opponents of the WAPF like you or me to do much posting in the WAP forum. In other words, in my searches for explanations of the experiences of myself, hunter-gatherer people, etc., I've come across a variety of accounts and evidence, some of which include Price's stuff. If you think I find 80% of it valuable instead of 20% that is hardly reason for implying I'm "blind" about it. Unfortunately, the research on Paleo and near-Paleo and raw diets is sparse, and none of the diet experts/gurus/researchers are perfect, so we use what is available. If you know of a perfect guru that is right about everything regarding diet and provided all the research we will ever need, let me know.

It was partly this forum's recognition that dairy was NOT a staple food in Paleo times and is NOT part of a truly Paleo/ancestral diet (unlike the WAP followers, the views of the PaNu doctor and some at other Paleo and low carb forums) that attracted me to it (along with Lex Rooker's writings, the raw approach, GoodSamaritan's charm, rare information on Instincto and , etc.). I don't have any gurus, but if you want to accuse me of being a devotee of a guru, the closest thing I have to one would be Lex Rooker. I've learned a lot from him, he has been very generous, and I owe him a lot. Ironically, one of the areas where my diet differs from Lex's is that he occasionally eats butter, whereas I completely abstain from all dairy products. That doesn't sound like a blind devotee of WAP to me.

Speaking of Aajonus, I was called a "d**che bag" for disagreeing strongly with a raw-dairy proponent and follower of Aajonus. How can I be both a blind supporter of the raw dairy crowd and be such a critic of theirs to the point of being a d**chebag? This suggests the truth lies somewhere in between. Extreme characterizations of fellow posters are unproductive. I don't want this forum taken over by raw dairy advocates of WAP and Aajonus either, but I don't think broad brush generalizations is the way to go about it. I prefer reasoned, evidence-based debate on specific matters.

If this is your forum, then you have the right to do with it as you wish, of course. I'm just trying to be helpful by making suggestions that people can take or leave, as well as try to explain my views in light of some mischaracterizations.

So far the poll indicates that no one here is a 100% "blind" follower of Weston Price.

[TylerDurden]

People are hardly going to claim they're fanatical devotees of Weston-Price, especially when the relevant statement is worded in that dodgy way.As for my points re Weston-Price, as WP represents a cooked Neolithic diet, he isn't really a suitable reference re the multitude of  RVAFers' frequent dodgy claims over the years of the supposed perfect health of native tribes - plus, he is so fraudulent in his claims that I have always made sure to only accept those few claims of his which have also been verified/corroborated by other scientists/anthropologists.

As for the current spat, I was more concerned with a number of rawists' comments, not  just yours. So far, I've come across a few people actually claiming supposed  health benefits for grainfed meat, lightly-cooked meat and pasteurised butter(all definite no-nos on an RPD forum)I quite understand that some people will react at different levels to others with regard to particular foods(I, for example, seem to have no problems with raw and(most) cooked carbs but have great problems with cooked animal fat) - but, just because I can handle most cooked carbs with few or no side-effects does not mean I can remotely justify claiming that cooked carbs are healthy for me or anyone else - same applies to the issue of cooked meats.

As for this forum, it belongs solely to Goodsamaritan or the RPD community depending on one's view. As for issues re you, I have none as I find your style of argument a lot less wearing(and, unusually, more scientific) than many other people I've argued with re the cooked/raw issue. I simply get rather worked up when there are mentions re supposed health benefits for cooked meats or raw dairy or similiar gunk - indeed, one of the reasons why I'm a member of these RPD forums is to avoid the frequent praises of dairy/lightly-cooked meats that I would get on other raw forums.

[razmatazz]

the definition of fraud:
 a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual.

While i may disagree with some of Price's views, I certainly do not think he was anywhere near fraudulent. He visited isolated groups of people in a quest to find the causes of tooth decay/disease, and noticed that primitive peoples eating their traditional diet had far less decay/disease than typical westerners at that time. It isn't his fault that even grain and dairy eaters happened to be healthier than typical westerners, who can blame him for seeing them as healthful? And after analyzing the components of the diets and finding them far higher in certain nutrients than typical western diets, who can blame him for advocating raw grassfed dairy which is high in nutrients and relatively accessible by americans at the time? I don't think he was out to deceive people, what would he have gained? He was just doing research. He didn't know about the fact that grain is not an ideal food for humans, or that archeological evidence shows that paleolithic humans ate mostly meat and dairy is relatively new in the human diet.
I';m grateful that he did the research and wrote a book about it so people could learn about the importance of animal fats. I'm also grateful to the WAPF because if it wasn't for me stumbling across their site who knows when I would have realised how vital animal fats are?

Sure, not all their views fit in on these forums but weston price and the WAPF do a damn lot to try and get people to eat REAL food and educate people on the benefits of animal fat/cholesterol.
So I really don't see the fuss about them, and insulting them outright just because they have a few things wrong is harsh IMO because they also do a whole lot right.

[PaleoPhil]

People are hardly going to claim they're fanatical devotees of Weston-Price, especially when the relevant statement is worded in that dodgy way.As for my points re Weston-Price, as WP represents a cooked Neolithic diet, he isn't really a suitable reference re the multitude of  RVAFers' frequent dodgy claims ....

If you can reference his work, I can reference it.

As for the current spat, I was more concerned with a number of rawists' comments, not  just yours. So far, I've come across a few people actually claiming supposed  health benefits for grainfed meat, lightly-cooked meat and pasteurised butter

Yes, but as compared to what? You keep leaving out that part of the equation. Some foods are less unhealthy than others and some people are less harmed by certain foods than others. I agree with you that grassfed meat is preferable to grainfed, raw preferable to lightly-cooked and suet/marrow preferable to butter, but that doesn't mean that people lie when they claim that their health improved by eating less candy and soda pop, say, and more lightly-cooked meat. Both sides of the equation need to be examined: what is being eaten now vs what was eaten before. Examining only the current diet in isolation is useless when speaking of improvements, because it doesn't tell us what the person was eating before.

just because I can handle most cooked carbs with few or no side-effects does not mean I can remotely justify claiming that cooked carbs are healthy for me or anyone else - same applies to the issue of cooked meats.

Right, but you could say that they had "few or no side-effects" for you and other people shouldn't then castigate you for promoting cooked carbs as healthy. I haven't noticed anyone claiming that cooked meats are healthier than raw meats, or equally healthy. Can you cite a single example of this?

As for issues re you, I have none as I find your style of argument a lot less wearing(and, unusually, more scientific) than many other people I've argued with re the cooked/raw issue.

Thanks, my writing has actually been criticized a couple of times in the past for being OVERLY scientific--too coldly rational. I do try to put some heart into it now and then, but since I love science I took this mainly as a complement (as would Spock ).

I simply get rather worked up when there are mentions re supposed health benefits for cooked meats or raw dairy or similiar gunk - indeed, one of the reasons why I'm a member of these RPD forums is to avoid the frequent praises of dairy/lightly-cooked meats that I would get on other raw forums.

Right, same here. Another thing I tend to agree with you on is that the consensus does probably come closer to your views more often than mine--as with the overwhelming consensus that most fruits and vegetables make for extremely healthy staple foods for everyone or nearly everyone. I happen to think that we may be on the cusp of a revolution in thinking on some of these topics that may lead to new and different majority opinions, though some very powerful interests will weigh against some of these changes. It will be fascinating to see how it all plays out.

[van]

  I am sure we all have read that the zero carbers are proclaiming their health improvements due to mostly quieting the insulin yoyo and hence allowing the body to normalize due to the absence of hormonal swings and the fallout from those swings.  Thus it is most interesting to me the research that goes on regarding longevity as directly related to keeping insulin in check.  There are volumes written about just that.  It was hard for me to move close let alone even read that literature when I was eating my share of raw carbs.  The word dissonance applies.     My opinion is that a great amount of overall healing can occur when the body isn't subjected to constant hormonal stress.  Thus whether one eats cooked or grainfed, (except for the imbalance of fatty acids)  that healing can still occur on a hormonal level.    But then there's long term.  I am really interested to see in ten  or so years the state of health claimed by Charles.   And I am just as interested to see the state of health of someone who maintains a high fruit diet or subjects themselves to insulin demands for years and years; as I have done.  For the literature all point to eventual insulin resistance being the real culprit.    Let me know if I haven't written with enough clarity to express myself clearly.

[goodsamaritan]

It's easy to see people on high carb cooked diet for years and years.  Rice is a staple food of every meal in the Filipino culture.  My paternal grandfather recently died at 99 years old.  He was lucid and strong and his mind was clear since he did no drugs (unlike my grandmother).  He was overweight though.

[van]

 Right.  I should have added that my grandmother and her father lived to 100 and 105.  And I doubt very seriously that they abused their bodies like I did with all the health fads I went through, which primarily were cleansing diets loaded with fruits and juices.  They kept moderation in place and grew up with whole foods.  Thus I come back to insulin resistance.  That resistance can be brought on at a very young age due to diet.  Everyone is different, and everyone develops Insulin resistance at a different rate.   Just one factor, though. 

[TylerDurden]

Yes, but as compared to what? You keep leaving out that part of the equation. Some foods are less unhealthy than others and some people are less harmed by certain foods than others. I agree with you that grassfed meat is preferable to grainfed, raw preferable to lightly-cooked and suet/marrow preferable to butter, but that doesn't mean that people lie when they claim that their health improved by eating less candy and soda pop, say, and more lightly-cooked meat. Both sides of the equation need to be examined: what is being eaten now vs what was eaten before. Examining only the current diet in isolation is useless when speaking of improvements, because it doesn't tell us what the person was eating before.

It is simply wrongheaded to assume that, if something is "less unhealthy" than something even worse, that the former  is healthy in any way.

Right, but you could say that they had "few or no side-effects" for you and other people shouldn't then castigate you for promoting cooked carbs as healthy. I haven't noticed anyone claiming that cooked meats are healthier than raw meats, or equally healthy. Can you cite a single example of this?

It is enough that people have defended the consumption of cooked meats as being supposedly healthy(re mention of "health benefits". That's not good. It's sort of a slippery slope, once people start claiming that lightly cooked meats aren't all that bad(re claims of little or no side effects), newbies get the wrong message and assume that cooking is OK or even healthy(re constant mentions by multitudes of RVAFers of supposed perfect health in WP-inspired tribes) and so on. As a result, while I myself have little or no issues with most raw and cooked carbs, I'm always at pains to make it clear also that nutritional deficiencies and related issues easily occur on a high carb diet.

[/quote]

[PaleoPhil]

It is simply wrongheaded to assume that, if something is "less unhealthy" than something even worse, that the former  is healthy in any way.

Which is why I'm not assuming that. I carefully stated "less unhealthy," that is not the same thing as healthy and I have never claimed otherwise. I think this is where you're misunderstanding me and the other posters. You're assuming we mean "healthy" when we talk about "less unhealthy" foods, but I am not and I don't assume that anyone else is. I sometimes make mistaken assumptions myself, so I'm not trying to be critical, just trying to explain.

It is enough that people have defended the consumption of cooked meats as being supposedly healthy(re mention of "health benefits". That's not good. It's sort of a slippery slope....

OK, I understand the slippery slope argument. Thanks for explaining your viewpoint. I think I'll try to leave most of the 100% raw vs. some cooked debate between you and Dr. Harris, as it actually is not a huge deal to me either way (I'm trying to attain 100% raw right now, but if it should, heaven forfend, ;-) turn out that I do better eating some cooked meat I'll adapt as necessary) , and you two seem to be better informed on this subject and more passionate about it than me.

BTW, the poll is a bit more positive toward WAP than I expected (though not enough to conclude there's a significant threat to the forum, IMO), so I'll try to give you a break by not citing him if I can avoid it.

[TylerDurden]

Which is why I'm not assuming that. I carefully stated "less unhealthy," that is not the same thing as healthy and I have never claimed otherwise. I think this is where you're misunderstanding me and the other posters. You're assuming we mean "healthy" when we talk about "less unhealthy" foods, but I am not and I don't assume that anyone else is. I sometimes make mistaken assumptions myself, so I'm not trying to be critical, just trying to explain.

I am not concerned with your own personal choices as many of us have to compromise and sometimes one is forced to make a choice between just two different kinds of very  unhealthy foods and choose the least worst etc.. I was just up-in-arms over the mention of so-called "health benefits" claimed re pemmican, originally.

[invisible]

I understand what you're saying Tyler, but then we have to consider the definition of healthy. Is any food healthy? since fasting brings health could one say that all food is unhealthy if eaten beyond the minuscule amount needed to simply survive.

[TylerDurden]

I understand what you're saying Tyler, but then we have to consider the definition of healthy. Is any food healthy? since fasting brings health could one say that all food is unhealthy if eaten beyond the minuscule amount needed to simply survive.

Well, there is increasing evidence to indicate that the major benefit of fasting isn't so much re caloric restriction but mainly the fact that NOT eating cooked foods greatly lowers the levels of heat-created toxins in the human body(as it allows the body extra time to get rid of previous loads of such toxins). So it's not a valid comparison. Plus, fasting doesn't by itself really label all foods as unhealthy, merely an excess of foods.

[invisible]

Well, there is increasing evidence to indicate that the major benefit of fasting isn't so much re caloric restriction but mainly the fact that NOT eating cooked foods greatly lowers the levels of heat-created toxins in the human body(as it allows the body extra time to get rid of previous loads of such toxins).

I really have no idea where your claims come from. Despite reading all the information I have come across I have not found a study comparing calorie restricted cooked and raw diets with non calorie restricted raw and cooked diets? The research at the moment is all about calories and nothing but calories really

I do though somewhat agree with the claim. The body works in a strange way, and I feel that calories from raw foods don't stimulate the production of aging hormones and chemicals like insulin and leptin as much as cooked foods - but I don't have anything to solidly prove this.

fasting doesn't by itself really label all foods as unhealthy, merely an excess of foods.

Now we must define 'excess'. If we can live without it is it excess?  

[TylerDurden]

I really have no idea where your claims come from. Despite reading all the information I have come across I have not found a study comparing calorie restricted cooked and raw diets with non calorie restricted raw and cooked diets? The research at the moment is all about calories and nothing but calories really

Just google online for scientific studies which focus on "low AGE diets". There are several which show that reducing AGE-levels improves symptoms and scientists do seem to acknowledge that caloric restriction(which is effectively the same as "eating less cooked food" given the study's focus on a cooked diet) lowers AGE-levels(eg:-

http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=fulltext&file=000217817

)

Granted no study has yet compared raw+ caloric restriction with cooked+caloric restriction etc.

[Raw Kyle]

I think you're right about calorie restriction Tyler. But the whole "being less unhealthy doesn't mean healthy" thing I disagree with. Humans, as well as animals, eventually die. No one has ever shown me a credible account of immortality. So everything everyone has ever tried, including paleo and raw paleo back in actual paleo times, eventually leads to organ failure or some kind of break down in the body and death. In that sense, all you can do when you have a choice is make the less unhealthy one, which by definition is the more healthy one. Less unhealthy and more healthy are the same thing, and "healthy" is all relative. Nothing is perfectly healthy, in the sense that nothing you do in the world of diet, exercise, or whatever will lead to endless perfect health. You can only do what leads to the least breakdown in your health, or the most preservation and building of health for the longest time, either way you want to look at it. But in the end it's the same thing.

[invisible]

Just google online for scientific studies which focus on "low AGE diets". There are several which show that reducing AGE-levels improves symptoms and scientists do seem to acknowledge that caloric restriction(which is effectively the same as "eating less cooked food" given the study's focus on a cooked diet) lowers AGE-levels(eg:-

http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=fulltext&file=000217817

)

Granted no study has yet compared raw+ caloric restriction with cooked+caloric restriction etc.

No doubt there are some overlapping benefits, but reducing AGEs is not the reason calorie restriction works. No one is totally sure how it works but in my opinion it's not from reducing toxins or chemicals from external sources but rather the benefits are derived from the body itself simply running slower - living in slow motion. As raw kyle said the body eventually breaks down regardless of what you eat or what you do. The body doesn't need any external chemicals or toxins to suffer damage. Normal metabolism ages the body in not fully understood ways. I think that the choice of food can reduce the amount of damage metabolic process has on the body but simply not possible to stop all damage (aging).

[TylerDurden]

No doubt there are some overlapping benefits, but reducing AGEs is not the reason calorie restriction works. No one is totally sure how it works but in my opinion it's not from reducing toxins or chemicals from external sources but rather the benefits are derived from the body itself simply running slower - living in slow motion. As raw kyle said the body eventually breaks down regardless of what you eat or what you do. The body doesn't need any external chemicals or toxins to suffer damage. Normal metabolism ages the body in not fully understood ways. I think that the choice of food can reduce the amount of damage metabolic process has on the body but simply not possible to stop all damage (aging).

I don't see how caloric restriction can benefit the body in ways other than speeding up the removal of toxins. For one thing, caloric restriction is very harmful in and of itself, with people doing long-term serious caloric restriction suffering from severe muscle-weakness/issues and general fatigue/ill-health , which would not help prolong lifespan in and of itself, quite the contrary. For example, lifespan/aging has been directly correlated to the extent of muscle in the body(in other words, the more developed the muscles are through exercise, the lower the risk re mortality). So, IMO, the issue re lowering AGEs and other heat-created toxins seems more relevant than the claimed more efficient use of nutrients.

[William]

Calorie restriction/IF works well when I can remember to eat only when hungry, and not from habit. I think the reason for success is that it takes more time for proper digestion/assimilation/detoxing than we usually give ourselves.
I do not believe that our bodies break down regardless of what we eat, if true, there would be no point in eating what we guess is raw paleo.
Normal metabolism may very well age our bodies, but "normal" means everybody does it. I try for right, rather than normal.

I've managed to stop at least one "aging" process, that was hair loss, reversing aging is now the plan.

IIRC all those studied by WAP ate some carbohydrates, so of course they died and were not perfect.

[TylerDurden]

What I find interesting re lifespan is (middle-aged) RVAFers routinely mentioning that they look and feel biologically c.10 years younger after doing such diets for several years. That makes sense as heat-created toxins such as AGEs are routinely linked to age-related diseases(most of which involve some sort of inflammation).

[razmatazz]

Calorie restriction/IF works well when I can remember to eat only when hungry, and not from habit. I think the reason for success is that it takes more time for proper digestion/assimilation/detoxing than we usually give ourselves.
I do not believe that our bodies break down regardless of what we eat, if true, there would be no point in eating what we guess is raw paleo.
Normal metabolism may very well age our bodies, but "normal" means everybody does it. I try for right, rather than normal.

I've managed to stop at least one "aging" process, that was hair loss, reversing aging is now the plan.

IIRC all those studied by WAP ate some carbohydrates, so of course they died and were not perfect.

raw paleo may slow down body breakdown which is why there IS a point in eating raw paleo. Nevertheless our bodies DO eventually break down and we die...that is what is supposed to happen. You can't reverse aging and live forever (yet) , especially not through diet alone...



as for calorie restriction, i was under the impression it prolongs life because it reduces insulin levels (all long-lived humans have one thing in common - low insulin), the body is more efficient/less toxins accumulate as eating less puts less strain on the body, and also, the body goes into "preservation mode" allowing you to live longer so you will have the chance to reproduce

[William]

raw paleo may slow down body breakdown which is why there IS a point in eating raw paleo. Nevertheless our bodies DO eventually break down and we die...that is what is supposed to happen. You can't reverse aging and live forever (yet) , especially not through diet alone...

Such certainty! None of this is yet proven.