More CR data

[kaypeeoh]

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8998209

The study looked at dogs fed 25% less than the control dogs for their lifetime. The CR dogs lived an extra two years longer than the free-fed controls. Extrapolating from the dogs, it means in humans it would 10-15 extra years of life.

Their finding is that a reduction in choline may be involved. The CR dogs had much less choline in their systems than could be explained by diet. They concluded that CR changed the bacterial flora of the gut, leading to the choline reduction in the blood.

[Whoa182]

Here is a summerization of the actual study which was completed a few years ago: http://www.matthewlake.plus.com/studies/Dog%20study.doc

There were not big statistical survival differences because there were only 24 dogs, when rodents and monkey studies usually contain 60-100 + per group. The 90th percentile only contained 3 dogs unfortunately. Although the Survival curves do look exactly the same as rodents. Plus the dogs were very mildly CR'd too as indicated by the their Body condition score, none were emaciated or really thin . Some interesting stuff in that document so check it out.

[Whoa182]

As I said above, they were nowhere near restricted as they could have been... but quite good results anyway.

Life Long Purina® Study Reveals How to Help Your Dog Enjoy More Healthy Years
Purina® Life Plan™ Makes It Easier to Feed Properly

ST. LOUIS, Mo. (May 6, 2002)—What dog owner wouldn't want more healthy years with his pet? A study from Nestlé Purina PetCare shows pet owners may have the power of longevity in their own hands.

In the first-ever lifelong canine diet restriction study, Purina researchers have proven that a dog's median life span can be extended by 15 percent—nearly two years for the Labrador Retrievers in this study—by feeding to ideal body condition through diet restriction, according to findings published in the current edition of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

The 14-year Purina "Life Span" Study found that dogs that consumed 25 percent fewer calories than their littermates during their lifetimes maintained a lean or ideal body condition*, resulting in a longer median life span. According to experts, the study provides the most significant data to date on the effects of diet restriction as the...

1. First diet restriction study completed for the entire life span of a larger mammal;
2. First completed study to document that diet restriction increases survival time in mammals larger than rodents;
3. First study to achieve these health benefits for dogs with moderate reduction of food intake (25 percent versus the 30 percent to 50 percent typically used in rodent studies)

"We all know that obesity, whether in humans or canines, is generally bad for health," says Dennis Lawler, DVM, Purina scientist and a lead study investigator. "What's exciting about this study is that, for the first time in a larger mammal, we have shown scientifically that by simply feeding to maintain ideal body condition throughout a dog's life, we can increase length of life while delaying the visible signs of aging. That's powerful stuff."
Study Design—A Lifetime of Information

When the study began, 48 eight-week-old Labrador Retriever dogs from seven litters were paired within their litters according to gender and body weight and randomly assigned to either a control or restricted-fed group. The control group was allowed to eat an unlimited, or free choice, amount of food during 15-minute daily feedings. Dogs in the restricted, or "lean-fed," group were fed 75 percent of the amount eaten by their paired littermates.

All dogs were fed the same 100 percent nutritionally complete and balanced diets (puppy, then adult) for the entire period of the study, from eight weeks of age until death—only the quantity was different.

Dogs were weighed weekly as puppies, periodically as adolescents and then weekly as adults. Beginning at six years of age, they were evaluated annually for ideal body condition using the Purina Body Condition System™, a scientifically validated standard used by veterinarians to evaluate body physique in pets to assess weight and health. Other health indicators, including body fat mass, lean body mass, bone mass and glucose, glucose and insulin use, and cholesterol and triglyceride levels were measured annually to assess condition and health.
Study Results...More Healthy Years

Study findings revealed that the median life span of the lean-fed dogs was extended by 15 percent or nearly two years. Median life span (the age at which 50 percent of dogs in the group died) was 11.2 years for the control group versus 13 years for the lean-fed dogs.

By age 10, only three lean-fed dogs had died, compared to seven control group dogs. At the end of the twelfth year, 11 lean-fed dogs were alive with only one control dog surviving. Twenty-five percent of the lean-fed group survived to 13.5 years, while none of the control group dogs lived to 13.5 years.

The study showed that the lean-fed dogs maintained a significantly leaner body condition from 6 to 12 years of age than the control group dogs, with mean body condition scores between 4—5 (ideal) and 6 - 7 (overfed), respectively. On average, the lean-fed group weighed less, had lower body fat, and after a certain age, experienced a two-year delay in the loss of lean body mass as they aged, compared to the control group dogs.

In addition, according to observations of the researchers, the control dogs exhibited more visible signs of aging, such as graying muzzles, impaired gaits and reduced activity, at an earlier age than the lean-fed dogs.

The study provides some insight to human health as well.

"This study is significant for human as well as canine health because it's the first study completed in a larger mammal that proves the significant power that diet restriction wields in extending life and delaying the markers of aging," says Dr. Richard Weindruch, University of Wisconsin professor of medicine and expert in the diet restriction field. "From this study, we can extrapolate that large mammals, including humans, can potentially live healthier and longer through diet restriction."
Purina® Life Plan™

The Purina "Life Plan" Study reveals the crucial role ideal body condition plays in health and longevity. However, obesity remains the number one nutritional problem among dogs. Studies have documented that at least 25 percent of dogs in the U.S. may be overweight.

To help maximize their dogs' health, dog owners should learn how to recognize the signs of obesity and feed to ideal body condition. To help pet owners do this, Purina developed the Purina® Life Plan™, a comprehensive approach applying specific breed size and lifestage guidelines, the Purina Body Condition System and feeding instructions to its packaging. The Purina Life Plan enables pet owners to feed to their individual pet's ideal body condition from puppyhood through the senior years.

"There are many factors that go into determining ideal body condition, from the size of your pet to his age to his breed, and it can be difficult for pet owners to do it on their own," says Aine McCarthy, DVM.

Lean or ideal body condition refers to the evaluation of body physique in pets as an indicator of their overall health and well-being, generally falling into three categories: too thin, ideal and too heavy.

* Too Thin: Ribs are highly visible.
* Ideal Body Condition: Can feel and see outline of ribs. Dog has a waist when viewed from above. Belly is tucked up when viewed from the side.
* Too Heavy: Dog has no waist when viewed from above. Belly is rounded when viewed from the side.

[kaypeeoh]

"The study showed that the lean-fed dogs maintained a significantly leaner body condition from 6 to 12 years of age than the control group dogs, with mean body condition scores between 4—5 (ideal) and 6 - 7 (overfed), respectively. On average, the lean-fed group weighed less, had lower body fat, and after a certain age, experienced a two-year delay in the loss of lean body mass as they aged, compared to the control group dogs.

In addition, according to observations of the researchers, the control dogs exhibited more visible signs of aging, such as graying muzzles, impaired gaits and reduced activity, at an earlier age than the lean-fed dogs."

Hmm, the control group ate too much and died younger.
Q: What other species would fit that pattern?
A: Look in the mirror.

[waywardsis]

Interesting...but gotta add that it would be more impressive if the dogs weren't being fed "100 percent nutritionally complete and balanced diets" of corn, wheat, mechanically separated chicken, etc. Is it less calories, or less crap (species-inappropriate foods) that makes the difference? I honestly would like to know. We won't know until someone does a study using food that is natural to the species under investigation. Here's hoping.

Til then...I'm IFing!

[Whoa182]

Is it less calories, or less crap (species-inappropriate foods) that makes the difference?

For average lifespan I would agree that diet composition is very important, although that isn't actually slowing down aging, just preventing disease and getting more of the species being tested to reach closer to their maximal lifespan. Its never been proven that the type of food changes maximum lifespan though. See this graph (http://deanpomerleau.tripod.com/CR/CR_lifespan_graphs.jpg) (save as and zoom in). If you start at the bottom right you see it that 80% of ad libitum (20% CR) lands around by 1.20 (20% increase in lifespan) and so on... It goes up until the animals are on the brink of true starvation. There are two important components of the diet though. When animal experiments are done usually protein and fat have to be increased, and remove junk carb containing foods.

However, you must appreciate that researchers like DR Roy Walford carefully done his studies so that the ad lib control group lived a LONG LIFE. If the control group is short lived, then the CR effect would look even more significant. Then appreciate that the CR animals live to 'un-natural' lifespans. If you ever see a study that have short lived controls, then its worthless, whatever you're looking at (diet, supplements etc etc..). The mice for example were able to conceive at ages equivalent to 90 HUMAN YEARS. Remarkable IMO.

He also achieved the same effect by feeding the rodents every other day.

Read this from Roy Walford:

Heres part of it

"Foreword
Dr. Roy Walford

I have spent most of my professional life researching the relationship between level of caloric intake and longevity.
Year after year I would witness the dramatic results of calorie restriction in my laboratory at the University of California-Los Angeles. The animals eating a normal diet would start turning gray, their hair would start falling out, their bones would get brittle, they would start moving more and more slowly, and then they would stop moving forever. While these changes were taking place in the one group, there was a group of mice next to them going through something entirely different. This other group was on the CR (calorie restriction) diet. These animals retained an astonishing youth and vitality. At an age when most of the mice eating the normal diet were dead--a human equivalent of eighty-five or ninety years--nearly all of the mice on the CR diet were alive and, indeed, thriving! The females were even able to conceive! The aging process was slowed so dramatically that many of the mice on the CR diet lived to be a human equivalent of over 140 years, some even beyond 150 years!
I was well aware of Clive McKay's seminal research on dietary restriction, in the 1930s at Cornell University. His rodents were put on their regime early in life, one in which they were severely and abruptly restricted. Much has transpired since Dr. Richard Weindruch and I postulated and proved in my laboratory that adult-onset CR in mice, if done gradually, would trigger the health benefits described above."

[Whoa182]

The difference between slowing down aging and disease prevention.


http://www.matthewlake.plus.com/images/Disease%20prevention,%20slowing%20aging.JPG

The top one is what happens when you retard aging. The bottom pic shows what happens when you try to eliminate disease without affecting the aging process.

[K Walt]

Here's what I'm wondering from all this CR stuff.

IF. . . IF CR is such a wonderful way to prolong life, why is it that we always hear that paleolithic man, who probably spent a LIFETIME in caloric restriction, due to the uncertainty and harshness of paleolithic life, had a lifespan that was 'nasty, brutish, and short.'

The 'know-it-alls' always say 'don't try to eat like paleolithic man because he only lived to be 30 years old. Although he was certaintly CRing by today's standards. If CRing is the fountain of youth, what did he do wrong?

And how is it that cultures in Africa, Indonesia, and the Amazon who live a life of CR, at the blissfully perfect rate of 1400 or so calories a day, why do THEY die so young?

"Oh," they say, "But that is not Optimal nutrition. Cronies go for Caloric restriction with optimal nutrition.' Which of course, in the CRONIE's practice, is virtually impossible without modern technology and human-invented foods.

I have a hard time believing that the human machine is DOOMED to die at age 30 or 40, except for the invention of digital scales, nutritional websites, modern hybridized foods, whey isolates (which Whoa swears by). It seems odd to think we were engineered to operate optimally only under conditions that we have only able to achieve in the last five years or so. Before that, we were killing ourselves. Before Whoa, that is.

If eating VERY LITTLE were the secret to long life, then the poorest, most starving nations of the world would have the longest life spans. Which they clearly do not. Are they not eating like Whoa? Are they not restricting calories? What are they doing wrong?

CR is a modern, industrial, yuppie conceit that is virtually impossible for 99% of humans in the world. (Except, Whoa, for your godlike Okinawans.)

[Nancy LC]

IF. . . IF CR is such a wonderful way to prolong life, why is it that we always hear that paleolithic man, who probably spent a LIFETIME in caloric restriction, due to the uncertainty and harshness of paleolithic life, had a lifespan that was 'nasty, brutish, and short.'
I think Jared Diamond,historian and author of "Guns, Germs and Steel" would differ with you on 'nasty, brutish and short'. (http://anthropology.lbcc.edu/handoutsdocs/mistake.pdf)

People who are starving don't have the "ON" part of "CR" going on, i.e. Optimal Nutrition.

[Whoa182]

IF. . . IF CR is such a wonderful way to prolong life, why is it that we always hear that paleolithic man, who probably spent a LIFETIME in caloric restriction, due to the uncertainty and harshness of paleolithic life, had a lifespan that was 'nasty, brutish, and short.'


Calorie Restriction produces some problems, such as the ability to withstand coldness... I mean, It feels like I gotta wear gloves in summer-like weather!
Also there is the less ability to hunt and defend oneself. Also the 100% or more of every micronutrient has to be met (no deficiencies). Getting plenty of protein is so important, especially for immunity. Without a generous amount of micronutrients CR doesn't work. Plus we have antibiotics, shelter and so on. We have a much easier life!

Read the following from a good paper on CR rebutting the 2-3 year ONLY life gain

"When this concept is evaluated against the
existing rodent data on CR, we find that the
evidence refutes this prediction, thereby providing
a modus tollens refutation of the WH itself. For
whereas ~60% CR can be survived by animals in
the sheltered environment of the laboratory, and
whereas pushing the organism down to this same
level of CR leads to an inversely proportional
extension of healthy LS relative to milder CR, it is
clear that the resulting phenotype would be incompatible
with survival in the wild. For example,
severely CRed animals display inhibited wound
healing (Harrison et al. 1984), reduced sprinting
capacity (Hopkin 2003), and a combination of
reduced body fat and lowered core temperature
which would greatly increase vulnerability to
cold—a cause of death which already claims an
extremely high percentage of mice. Longitudinal
field studies in Wales and Scotland report 80–
90% mortality in typical winters, increasing to
95% in colder years, on islands where death from
predation is only a very minor cause of death
(Berry and Scriven 2005; and personal communication,
RJ Berry). Indeed, even AL-fed rodents
in the climate-controlled conditions of the laboratory
are vulnerable to death from hypothermia
resulting from simple wetness following cageflooding
consequent to water-bottle accidents
(Armed Forces Institute of Pathology 2001)."

If the core arguments leading to the WH were
sound, organisms would not be able to retain the
ability to further decelerate biological agingbeyond a level of CR that the organism should not
be statistically able to survive in the field. And
considering the high level of extrinsic mortality to
which wild-living M. musculus is already exposed
(field studies find that the median LS of such
mice is ~130 days, and 90% mortality is suffered
by ~280 days (Phelan and Austad 1989), the reasoning
supporting the weather hypothesis must
deny that there is any evolutionary purpose
served by specifically retaining the ability to reduce
their intrinsic mortality rate when the resulting
phenotype will make death due to extrinsic
causes a near certainty.
Yet evolution has equipped rodents not only
with the ability to survive, under laboratory conditions,
reductions in caloric intake well below
what could be survived in the wild, but to
continue, in monotonic fashion, to reduce their
rate of aging as calories are reduced to such
levels. It may be argued that the ability to survive
such severe levels of CR is retained to deal with
occasional severe downward fluctuations in energy
availability during a period when average
caloric intake is higher. This seems unconvincing,
both because existing adipose and other tissue
could still be cannibalized for such brief periods
without special adaptation, and because it is
unclear how a further deceleration of the rate of
aging for so transient a period could appreciably
increase fitness during or after the famine’s end."

I can give a link out to the paper for those interested, it is really a good read.

And how is it that cultures in Africa, Indonesia, and the Amazon who live a life of CR, at the blissfully perfect rate of 1400 or so calories a day, why do THEY die so young?

The ability for CR to extend lifespan was found in the 1930's. It wasn't that long ago that scientists believed that CR altered the development of the animal, delayed it, and thus extended lifespan. Simply because they just could not get it to work in ADULT animals. This however was wrong, and it was later shown that CR works at any age but under certain conditions.

1) Too fast weight loss reduces lifespan (gradual CR 10%, 30% then to 50% after many months was needed)

2) Reducing calories reduces micronutrients. This was another factor why CR didn't work, so supplements are needed, or very high nutrient dense food to compensate. However, CR groups live longer when nutrients come from food rather than using supplements. So feeding the CR group the same as the control group would usually shorten lifespan.

The two above are why CR worked in adult animals. It simply doesn't work with vitamin and especially mineral deficiencies, which can be found in the populations you mention.

If eating VERY LITTLE were the secret to long life, then the poorest, most starving nations of the world would have the longest life spans.

Its been as high as 50 centenarians per 100,000 in okinawa, in some areas of okinawa its equal to 240+ centenarians per 100,000. This compared to around 10 per 100,000 for western countries. If you look at okinawans they were severely stunted in their growth. Their calorie intake averaged 1500k/cal a day in the 1950's. Now its around 1900k/cal a day, so they're not CR'd at all. They were only mildly CR'd for approx half their adult lives and women there have the longest life expectancies in the world, lowest deaths from cancer and heart disease in the elderly population (not the younger ones!). They also had an increases in maximum lifespan. Unfortunately they have been De-CRing since the 1960's so it really underestimates the CR effect.

You can see what their diet consisted of here: http://www.matthewlake.plus.com/images/okinawa1949-1993.JPG
They ate around 1100g of sweet potatoes a day.

Here is some more from that paper I mention above;

The effects of CR on mortality in humans have
also been the subject of a controlled trial. Vallejo
1957 assigned 120 nonobese residents of an elder
care home on either a control diet of 2300
kilocalories, or an intervention in which days on
this diet were alternated with an 885 kiloalorie
menu of fruit and milk, for an average of 1593
kilocalories/day for 3 years. In that time period,
the control group spent a total of 219 days in the
infirmary, and 13 deaths occurred, while the
corresponding figures in the CR group were 123
days and 6 deaths respectively. These results are
all the more striking when one considers the
reasonable expectation that an elderly, presumably
frail study cohort might have adapted poorly
to CR (as is seen under suboptimal conditions in
older rodent populations (Weindruch andWalford
1982; Rae 2004).


Finally, the Okinawan longevity phenomenon
is strikingly consistent with the hypothesis of the
human translatability of the rodent CR data, and
thus of PP. Okinawa enjoys the highest life
expectancy in Japan, and an exceptionally high
incidence of centenarians, which may constitute
an operational definition of extension of maximum
LS in humans, as is 10th-decile survivorship
in rodents (an endpoint chosen to avoid outlier
effects). In 1977, the incidence of centenarians
per 100,000 population over the age of 65 in
Okinawa was 37, vs e9.9 in most prefectures and
e1.9 in Japan’s north (Kagawa 1978). In 2000,
Okinawa continued to enjoy an advantage in
extreme longevity, with 202.8 centenarians per
100,000 elderly, with the runner-up prefecture
(Kochi) at 113.4 and the national average at
approximately 58.2 (Shibata 2004). Okinawans
also enjoy markedly reduced incidence of atherosclerosis,
ECG abnormalities, and hormonedependent
cancer mortality (Suzuki et al. 2001)
and delayed age-related incidence of dementia
(Willcox et al. 2001), relative to the rest of Japan.
While these data are ecologic in nature, there
is evidence that the phenomenon is primarily of
environmental rather than genetic origin. The
incidence of centenarians in Okinawan expatriate
communities is far lower than that on the island
itself, e.g., 5.32-fold lower in Brazil (Moriguchi
1999), and successive generations of Okinawans
born during and after the period of rapid
Westernization consequent to American military
occupation of the island after World War II haveincreasingly displayed the expected poor health
(Todoriki et al. 2004; Willcox 2005).
The only credible explanation of the Okinawan
longevity phenomenon which has been
advanced is that it is a natural experiment in
CR. Okinawa is a striking exception to the
general finding that life expectancy follows social
gradient. It has been the poorest prefecture in
Japan, yet enjoys the highest life expectancy of a
nation leading the world.

On the other hand, it is clear that the imposition
of energy restriction on the Okinawan
population has been relaxed considerably in the
postwar period with rising standards of living and
the effects of American military occupation
(Todoriki et al. 2004; Willcox 2005), so that the
high incidence of centenarians and low incidence
of age-related disease seen in Okinawa may be
the result of CR imposed for only the first half of
the lifespan.

[LilithD]

My worry about this is that pictures I've seen of Walford, his wife and other CRs (especially men) look absolutely awful! They don't look healthy and strong enough to lead a normal life.

[Whoa182]

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8998209

The study looked at dogs fed 25% less than the control dogs for their lifetime. The CR dogs lived an extra two years longer than the free-fed controls. Extrapolating from the dogs, it means in humans it would 10-15 extra years of life.


Just wanted to correct this part. Actually the control group got their food restricted into a couple years into the study. Thus resulting in only a 17% reduction in caloric intake for the CR group. This resulted in a lifespan extension of... wait for it.... 16% :agree: Exactly whats seen in rodents (10% ~ CR results in 10% ~ increase in lifespan, 20% ~ CR results in 20% ~ increase in lifespan and so on.

Ive got 4 papers on this particular study looking at different things. Almost all dogs were eventually Euthanized after careful evaluation of their health. Only 1 if I remember correctly have diabetes in the control group. Quite a lot had Osteoarthritis and was put down as cause of death. This is more of a species specific thing, many dogs suffer from this condition and otherwise i'm sure more dogs would have lived sometime longer. Unlike rodent studies where they die at their own time, you can't leave dogs in a bad condition.

Anyway the papers are interesting, just send an email to me if you want the PDF files.

[K Walt]

My worry about this is that pictures I've seen of Walford, his wife and other CRs (especially men) look absolutely awful! They don't look healthy and strong enough to lead a normal life.


I agree. It's almost like CR is really life in slow-motion. It's not longer, just slower and more drawn out. They often claim 'renewed' energy, but I'm guessing that's just a perception. They must sit a lot to be able to survive on low energy inputs. Can't be a vigorous hunter, nor engage in exuberant sport, dancing or celebration as a long-time CR. Plus you can only live where it's hot.

Not for me, but if the CRONies like it. . .

[kaypeeoh]

My worry about this is that pictures I've seen of Walford, his wife and other CRs (especially men) look absolutely awful! They don't look healthy and strong enough to lead a normal life.

Westerners (American and European) have had this rind of subcutaneous fat for long enough that it has become standard. So in comparison the very lean seem unhealthy. When I see someone who is quite lean with prominent veins my first thought is he must be sick or have HIV or something as serious.

Photos taken during the 20's and 30's show most everyone was lean. Sure, there was the Depression but more than half of the U.S. was employed all through it and able to feed their families. Those people led a physical life. They didn't sit around playing computer games much during the Depression. ;-)

I think If CR fails, it's when they eat too little protein to maintain physical strength. Those Okinowans (sp?) look lean but muscular. I assume their physicality keeps the bones from becoming brittle as they age. That plus the abundant sunshine keeping Vit D levels high.

[Angeline]

Thanks for that article Nancy it was really interesting and basically confirmed a lot of what I thought about our ancestors. They did not live nasty brutish lives, but had rich healthy lives. People always seem to think that our Paleolithic ancestors had difficulty feeding themselves. They forget that our ancestors were just as smart and ingenious as we are now. Hunting and gathering was their job. A job that they learned from infancy from the best teachers and practiced all their lives. Do you not think they would excel at it? In a rich environment our hunter-gatherer ancestors problem probably had to do minimal work in order to feed the tribe. Modern tribes show us that. They also show us that farming is much harder than hunting-gathering.

Of course, this is an environment rich with food. If suddenly there is no food to be had, even the best hunter will come up empty. What is the most likely cause of a sudden depletion? Apart from a climatic change, or a major drought, the most like cause would be overpopulation. And that's exactly what pushed people to agriculture, according to the article Nancy linked to. Which really makes a lot of sense.

The only thing that would impact their capacity for feeding themselves, apart from changes in the environment like droughts, would be overpopulation and that's exactly (according to the article Nancy linked to) what happened.

And people always quote the 20 year life span, forgetting that this is an average. Men and woman had the same potential lifespan as modern people, just that their live was more dangerous. If you survived childhood, you had a much better chance of living to be older, assuming you didn't die in childbirth, or from infection, or from an accident.

[Nancy LC]

Boy, you want to see people who had nasty brutish short lives, just look at the the early settlers of America. But even some of them managed to do beat the odds, Ben Franklin lived to be quite old.

Glad you liked the article, Angeline! You might want to read Jared Diamond's book, "Guns, Germs and Steel".

[kaypeeoh]

Boy, you want to see people who had nasty brutish short lives, just look at the the early settlers of America. But even some of them managed to do beat the odds, Ben Franklin lived to be quite old.

Glad you liked the article, Angeline! You might want to read Jared Diamond's book, "Guns, Germs and Steel".

So....how many photographs of Ben Franklin have you seen? :-) I imagine in the revolutionary era that corpulence was a sign of wealth and prestige and only available to the elite few. So he may have been painted to look heavier than he actually was? Just a guess.

[Whoa182]

Interesting table here:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/SurvivalCRdogs.jpg

[bluesmoke]

So....how many photographs of Ben Franklin have you seen? :-) I imagine in the revolutionary era that corpulence was a sign of wealth and prestige and only available to the elite few. So he may have been painted to look heavier than he actually was? Just a guess.

You can't argue with a true believer. Nyah Levi

[kaypeeoh]

Um, what I've seen is the true believer tends to have little sense of humor. My comment to Nancy was meant as a joke, amigo.

[Nancy LC]

So....how many photographs of Ben Franklin have you seen? :-) I imagine in the revolutionary era that corpulence was a sign of wealth and prestige and only available to the elite few. So he may have been painted to look heavier than he actually was? Just a guess.
I wasn't really talking about his weight so much as his longevity. He lived into his mid-80's if I recall correctly.