Granted, this is a small, 31-person, short-term, study, and two of the researchers are known LC advocates, but wow!
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831640/

There's more on the PubMed site about the background to the study, its methods, results, and a discussion.

On Dr. Mercola's site, there's also extensive commentary in lay language.

Great paper, thanks

From the paper:

'The diet included unlimited amounts of certain fats and oils, a restricted amount of protein, and a very limited amount of carbohydrate. Patients were told to eat when they were hungry. Calories were not explicitly restricted; calorie intake was determined only by levels of hunger. Recommended sources of fat included raw nuts and seeds, avocados, olives and olive oil, flax oil and cod liver oil. The intake of protein was told to be limited to approximately 1.0 grams/kg lean body mass per day (increased for exercise to 1.25 grams/day). As a result, most patients were instructed to eat from 50-80 grams of protein per day. Recommended sources of protein included sardines, fish, eggs, tofu, chicken, turkey, wild meats, low-fat cheeses (cottage, ricotta, swiss), seafood, and veggie burgers. Only non-starchy, fibrous vegetables were acceptable: lettuce, greens, broccoli, cauliflower, cucumbers, mushrooms, onions, peppers, sprouts, asparagus, and seaweed. Though not explicitly stated, the general dietary intake as percent daily caloric intake from macronutrients for most people ended up by history to be approximately 20% carbohydrate, 20% protein, and 60% fat. For drinking, 6-8 eight ounce glasses of water and/or herbal tea were recommended. A written handout with a list of acceptable and unacceptable foods was provided.'

Sounds good to me. And, except for the fact that I eat lamb as my red meat of choice now, it's my diet, pretty much. Higher in Omega-3s, and this study was not about omega-3s!

But - I'm still ageing. Oh well.

Well, hopefully we're aging better than our peers? I think I am, for the most part.

Here's to aging well! (I was at the dentist yesterday and when I told the hygienist how old I am she almost dropped her tools!)

hehehe isn't that fun. The other day someone asked my aunt how old I was and she said "32" and the person said "What!, I thought she was 18!!!" That made me feel awesome the rest of the day!

This sounds sort of close to what Dr Davis has been recommending lately.

I refuse to stop basing my diet on 30 percent sour cream. I just won't do it.

This article was published in the Journal for Applied Reesearch :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...report=abstract

"Conclusions:
In the context of an outpatient medical clinic, a high-fat, adequate-protein, low-carbohydrate diet with nutritional supplementation led to improvements in serum factors related to the aging process. Further research regarding this dietary approach and its relationship to aging is in order."

Guess we knew this already. Low carbing extends lifespan! Nice to see how this message (fat is healthy!) begins to spread.

Why are studies like this one never covered in the popular press?

If you go to NCBI, you will find zillions of studies. How to decide which to highlight in the popular press? As far as anti-ageing, calorie restriction is also very effective. Do a search in NCBI and it's just overwhelming how MANY studies have been done on almost anything. It's a fantastic resource, NCBI.

It didn't connect, could you re-link?

Could almost be Optimal except for the avoidance of starch and the excess fiber. And no organ meats listed.

I smell PC ism in the low-fat cheese, tofu, and veggie burgers. Yuk oh.

Sorry that the Mercola link doesn't work any more. I searched the site, using several different keyword combinations, and I couldn't find the commentary, either.

Oh well, thanks.

Here is the Mercola mention:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...n-level-is.aspx

I liked reading the actual study more than reading Mercola's commentary. The actual study is clear about what the scientists have for a hypothesis. The commentary just sort of goes off - supporting what Mercola wants to say, which is that lowering insulin level is key to increasing life, not calorie restriction.

One is not key and the other not. It is not an either-or type thing. IF you can show that calorie restriction plus some mechanism to raise insulin level produces a certain result, then, yes, now, you're talking. But that would be a study, wouldn't it.

Mercola looks for a study about insulin and calorie-restriction and finds one.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...8?dopt=Abstract

It's not the problem that the study is done with mice - it's that the mice have a ' fat-specific insulin receptor knockout (FIRKO)' So, yes, there is no calorie restriction but their 'food intake is normal'.

These mice (who don't gain weight but have normal food intake) have increased 'mean' lifespans (18% increase in life spans). The mean is given, but what would be a table listing the outcomes, a display of the frequencies of the various lifelengths? You know there are going to be mice who live longer and mice who die sooner, but how much longer and how much sooner? And all this, despite having this FIRKO!

What THAT abstract says is: 'Thus, a reduction of fat mass without caloric restriction can be associated with increased longevity in mice, possibly through effects on insulin signaling.'

As in all studies, 'possibly' and 'may' are used to give suggestions for further study. What they say is that 'reduction of fat mass without caloric restriction can be associated with increased longevity in mice... (possibly through...)'

That means that if I exercise the weight off, without calories restriction, I will live longer!