How’s Your Longevity Outlook?

[audreyh1]

Over the past several decades, people in the US have reduced their intake of meat and fat including saturated fat (as recommended by the guidelines), and replaced with carbohydrates, and we’ve seen an explosion of chronic disease, rapidly increasing since the early 80s. Countries like the UK have followed the US guidelines and experienced the same worsening health results.

US guidelines drive food programs in US schools and hospitals, food assistance programs, and the military, so it’s pervasive. And US dieticians overwhelmingly will counsel their clients to follow the high carb US guidelines, as they were trained to do, regardless of the client’s metabolic impairment. So people become trapped in chronic, progressive diseases that are increasingly treated by drugs.

The original guidelines never had solid scientific evidence behind them, and the situation has improved just a little. Only in 2015 were restrictions on dietary fat and cholesterol dropped.

Personally I think it’s insane that other countries want to follow the US dietary guidelines since we are a very sick nation.

We were far healthier as a nation in terms of chronic disease before the US govt decided that dietary guidelines should be established and were appropriate for everyone.

So either the dietary guidelines are bad, or they are useless. I suppose each of us can decide for ourselves which is true.

 

[Winemaker]

In the long run, we are all dead. Happiness is whatever pleases you, or satisfies your goals in your thought process. Mortgage in retirement, landlording on the side as retirement, SS at 62 or 70, vegan diet vs. caveman, statin or not, 3% or 4% or 4+%, blondes vs. redheads, $2Chuck or Silverado, domestic vs. import, green or fossil fuels, red vs. white, and frugal vs. blow that dough. Please keep the conversations going. I love you all!

 

[audreyh1]

It’s not clear that following a vegetarian diet increases longevity. No difference found between meat eaters, occasional meat eaters, fish only eaters, and strict vegetarians. Did not break out vegans. Very large cohort.

Following extensive adjustment for potential confounding factors there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality for vegetarians versus non-vegetarians [HR=1.16 (95% CI 0.93-1.45)]. There was also no significant difference in mortality risk between pesco-vegetarians [HR=0.79 (95% CI 0.59-1.06)] or semi-vegetarians [HR=1.12 (95% CI 0.96-1.31)] versus regular meat eaters. We found no evidence that following a vegetarian diet, semi-vegetarian diet or a pesco-vegetarian diet has an independent protective effect on all-cause mortality.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28040519/

 

[daylatedollarshort]

It’s not clear that following a vegetarian diet increases longevity. No difference found between meat eaters, occasional meat eaters, fish only eaters, and strict vegetarians. Did not break out vegans. Very large cohort.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28040519/

The nutritionfacts.org doctor likes to point out that vegan can mean eating mostly french fries and beer. It is the plant based part, what people do eat, not what they don't eat, that likely matters the most. In the Blue Zones, areas around the world where people live unusually long lives on average, most are not complete vegans or even vegetarians, but they do eat whole foods, plant based diets. People in all of the blue zones eat eggs about two to four times per week and they eat fats like nuts and olive oil.

 

[robnplunder]

Probably the best thing to do is develop good eating habit that fits one's body and lifestyle, do regular health check up, and continue to make needed adjustments. I try but there are a few things I don't have the determination to change. One is a drink or two per day, usually beer or wine, not the hard stuff. Another is occasional bad food binge - blame DW for buying and munching on bad stuff, e.g, KK donuts. I probably take in too much carbohydrates. My "longevity" guess is about 85 although my younger brothers passed away before 55 due to cancer. DF lived until 82 and I am hoping I can beat that.

 

[braumeister]

 

[cj1717]

I agree. I eat meat, but my wife has been a vegetarian for 35 years. We are definitely aging at different paces and she has NEVER been on a medication (almost 70).

She will outlive me by decades, I predict.

I know this is anecdotal, but it does back up your thoughts.

 

[bjorn2bwild]

This comprehensive, data dense (+ a shorter synopsis) paper lays out the challenge and offers some solutions to the current dismal state of diet advice.

Despite all of the work that has been done in nutrition science, a healthy diet still cannot be defined professionally in a way that experts agree on—anything more specific than “eating with prudence” introduces controversy. Dietary guidelines are always argued over ferociously, and the relative merits of commonly consumed nutrients have been debated for decades (1, 2). This confusing state is not surprising when almost every single nutrient has been associated with almost any outcome in peer-reviewed publications (16). For example, not only have most nutrients been associated with cancer risk but most of the nutrients have published reports of increased risk in 1 study and decreased risk in another (17). Nutrition science has become an epidemic of questionable results. Meta-analyses of retrospectively compiled data suffering from biases and selective reporting do not necessarily make things better……..……….
A large majority of human nutrition research uses nonrandomized observational designs, but this has led to little reliable progress. This is mostly due to many epistemologic problems, the most important of which are as follows: difficulty detecting small (or even tiny) effect sizes reliably for nutritional risk factors and nutrition-related interventions; difficulty properly accounting for massive confounding among many nutrients, clinical outcomes, and other variables; difficulty measuring diet accurately; and suboptimal research reporting. Tiny effect sizes and massive confounding are largely unfixable problems that narrowly confine the scenarios in which nonrandomized observational research is useful. Although nonrandomized studies and randomized trials have different priorities (assessment of long-term causality compared with assessment of treatment effects), the odds for obtaining reliable information with the former are limited. Randomized study designs should therefore largely replace nonrandomized studies in human nutrition research going forward.

Note HR = Hazard Ratio, RR = Relative risk

Tiny effects create big controversies that cannot be settled easily. A recent example is the International Agency for Research on Cancer monograph that classified processed meat as fully proven to be carcinogenic (class 1) and red meat as a probable carcinogen (class 2A) (21). The HR for overall cancer risk may be ∼1.01–1.02/serving (100 g) of red or processed meat. Even for colorectal cancer risk, where the observed effect is the strongest, a maximum HR of 1.18/50 g processed meat (22) is too small to avoid residual uncertainty given the other problems that we discuss below…………
Assuming the meta-analyzed evidence from cohort studies represents life span long causal associations, fora baseline life expectancy of 80 years - eating 12 hazelnuts daily (1 oz) would prolong life by 12 years (ie, 1 year per hazelnut), drinking 3 cups of coffee daily would achieve a similar gain of 12 extra years, and eating a single mandarin orange daily (80 g) would add 5 years of life. Conversely, consuming 1 egg daily would reduce life expectancy by 6 years, and eating 2 slices of bacon (30 g) daily would shorten life by a decade, an effect worse than smoking. Could these results possibly be true? Authors often use causal language when reporting the findings from these studies (eg, “optimal consumption of risk-decreasing foods results in a 56% reduction of all-cause mortality”). Burden-of-disease studies and guidelines endorse these estimates. Even when authors add caveats, results are still often presented by the media as causal. These implausible estimates of benefits or risks associated with diet probably reflect almost exclusively the magnitude of the cumulative biases in this type of re-search, with extensive residual confounding and selective reporting. Almost all nutritional variables are correlated with one another; thus, if one variable is causally related to health outcomes, many other variables will also yield significant associations in large enough data sets.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6054237/


http://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/jama_Ioannidis_2018_vp_180095.pdf


PS - Looks like I had a font malfunction, I don't see an easy way to fix it other than re-posting.

 

[aja8888]

We were far healthier as a nation in terms of chronic disease before the US govt decided that dietary guidelines should be established and were appropriate for everyone.

[/QUOTE

Anyone who spends an hour in any Walmart on a Saturday afternoon can see the results of this country's poor health epidemic.!

 

[daylatedollarshort]

The chart in this link has what American eat vs. USDA recommended foods. Regardless of meat consumption, most people eat too many processed foods and not enough vegetables, especially leafy greens. And that is compared to the current USDA guidelines, which are much less whole foods and plant based than Blue Zone or Mediterranean diet recommendations would be.

Our thoughts are that if we eat like everyone else we'll get Alzheimer's and other age related diseases at rates like everyone else, so we're trying to eat more like the Loma Linda residents and improve our odds of staying healthy longer. We've starting having older friends we saw at a play or in one case even had dinner with a week or two before not remember who we were, so it has kind of worked like the a diet version of the scared straight program for us, through instead of giving of a life of crime we're giving up the chicken nuggets for kale.

 

[RAE]

The nutritionfacts.org doctor likes to point out that vegan can mean eating mostly french fries and beer. It is the plant based part, what people do eat, not what they don't eat, that likely matters the most. In the Blue Zones, areas around the world where people live unusually long lives on average, most are not complete vegans or even vegetarians, but they do eat whole foods, plant based diets. People in all of the blue zones eat eggs about two to four times per week and they eat fats like nuts and olive oil.

If you are interested at all, Chris Kresser took an in-depth look at all the studies over the years that compared longevity between people that followed a vegetarian diet, and omnivores. Here is what he found:

Here’s what we can conclude based on the existing research:

1. While the average vegetarian may live longer than a “SAD omnivore,” there is no evidence that they live longer than more health-conscious omnivores.
2. Studies showing health benefits of vegetarian diets are highly susceptible to the healthy-user bias, and their findings are not generalizable to the wider population.
3. Diet and lifestyle factors such as exercise, alcohol intake, smoking, BMI, sleep, and fruit and vegetable consumption play a strong role in predicting lifespan independently of whether meat or animal products are consumed.

https://chriskresser.com/do-vegetarians-and-vegans-live-longer-than-meat-eaters/

So, I would be very careful in ascribing the longevity of the Loma Linda residents (or any so-called Blue Zone people) to vegetarianism (or a "plant-based diet", however that is defined). It's very hard to control for all of the various lifestyle factors involved, as Kresser discusses in the article.

Eating mostly whole/real foods, whether you are a vegetarian or an omnivore, is almost certainly going to make you healthier than someone who eats a lot of processed foods (typical Western SAD diet) - we can agree on that point.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

If you are interested at all, Chris Kresser took an in-depth look at all the studies over the years that compared longevity between people that followed a vegetarian diet, and omnivores. Here is what he found:

Here’s what we can conclude based on the existing research:

1. While the average vegetarian may live longer than a “SAD omnivore,” there is no evidence that they live longer than more health-conscious omnivores.
2. Studies showing health benefits of vegetarian diets are highly susceptible to the healthy-user bias, and their findings are not generalizable to the wider population.
3. Diet and lifestyle factors such as exercise, alcohol intake, smoking, BMI, sleep, and fruit and vegetable consumption play a strong role in predicting lifespan independently of whether meat or animal products are consumed.

https://chriskresser.com/do-vegetarians-and-vegans-live-longer-than-meat-eaters/

So, I would be very careful in ascribing the longevity of the Loma Linda residents (or any so-called Blue Zone people) to vegetarianism (or a "plant-based diet", however that is defined). It's very hard to control for all of the various lifestyle factors involved, as Kresser discusses in the article.

Eating mostly whole/real foods, whether you are a vegetarian or an omnivore, is almost certainly going to make you healthier than someone who eats a lot of processed foods (typical Western SAD diet) - we can agree on that point.

There's always going to be individual bloggers or some outliers with different ideas on what is healthy than mainstream, evidence based medical researchers. Chris Kesser is a Licensed Acupuncturist and Integrative Medical counselor, whatever the last part means. It is easy to find web sites and articles to support any opinion on diet. Personally, I'm going with the advice from sites like the American Institute for Cancer Research and MD Anderson Cancer Center (plant based, limit red meat) over an individual acupuncturist or keto blogger with financial interest in keto products.

https://www.mdanderson.org/prevention-screening/manage-your-risk/diet.html

WHO says red meat is classified as a Group 2A carcinogen which means they think it probably causes cancer.

The Blue Zone researchers have many habits identified for good health in addition to diet and they recommend plant based, not total vegan or vegetarian.

 

[ncbill]

With most of us in the U.S. either overweight or obese I suspect the main benefit of either strict vegetarian or strict low-carb eating is how calorie restriction is easier than with the SAD.

 

[msieweke]

France has high cancer rates. I looked at that when we started researching the plant based diets to see how the standard French diet compares.

In that table France has a lower cancer rate than the US, but that's no recommendation. France seems to be split out by regions, and it's the "metropolitan" region that has highest cancer rate. The cancer rate varies greatly by region. The rate is higher in the north, which may or may not be related to vitamind D or diet.

France has higher incidence of cigarette smoking and drinking, and lower selenium in the soil and food than the US. These could also influence cancer rates.

Summary: It's always more complicated than a single statistic would imply.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

In that table France has a lower cancer rate than the US, but that's no recommendation. France seems to be split out by regions, and it's the "metropolitan" region that has highest cancer rate. The cancer rate varies greatly by region. The rate is higher in the north, which may or may not be related to vitamind D or diet.

France has higher incidence of cigarette smoking and drinking, and lower selenium in the soil and food than the US. These could also influence cancer rates.

Summary: It's always more complicated than a single statistic would imply.

I am unclear on what your point is. I doubt the major cancer non-profits are basing their plant based diet recommendation on any single statistic. The nutrition guidelines from the French government (2011 version) are here and are more or less similar to the U.S. government and cancer research groups guidelines.

Their updated version is here and even more plant based - https://www.foodnavigator.com/Artic...s-legumes-and-wholegrains-in-dietary-guidance

 

[audreyh1]

WHO says red meat is classified as a Group 2A carcinogen which means they think it probably causes cancer.

That was the IARC* arm of the WHO, and is very controversial considering that many large studies have shown no such evidence. Even the WHO distanced themselves affirming that red meat can be part of a healthy diet.

Meanwhile, it said red meats were "probably carcinogenic" but there was limited evidence.

The WHO did stress that meat also had health benefits.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-34615621

The relative possible cancer risks may look impressive, but the absolute risks are quite small. The evidence was limited with lots of confounding factors.

*Eating Red Meat Causes Cancer? Not Exactly.

Some background: The IARC has so far reviewed more than 900 agents for carcinogenicity and only one was found to be not carcinogenic. Other carcinogens or probable carcinogens identified by IARC? Coffee and wine (alcohol).

It's important to understand exactly what this designation means. It does not mean that consuming red meat will give you cancer. It means that one or more compounds found in a very diverse category of foods (one that includes everything from fast food burgers to grass fed bison) has the potential to cause cancer. It says nothing about how much or what type of meat increases your risk of cancer, what the magnitude of that risk might be, or the extent to which other foods in your diet offset that risk.

In fact, a meta-analysis of 27 studies recently published in Journal of the American College of Nutrition concludes that the association between red meat consumption and cancer is, in fact, rather weak. And as more studies tackle this question, the accumulated evidence is becoming weaker, not stronger. Part of this may reflect the fact that the ways in which we raise, process, and eat meat have changed in the decades since the earliest data were collected.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/eating-red-meat-causes-ca_b_8373194

 

[RAE]

WHO says red meat is classified as a Group 2A carcinogen which means they think it probably causes cancer.

The Blue Zone researchers have many habits identified for good health in addition to diet and they recommend plant based, not total vegan or vegetarian.

Maybe you didn't read the article I linked to (?), because one of its main points was that there are many possible factors that could contribute to longevity, beyond whether one eats meat or not.

With regard to the WHO and their statement about read meat: many well-qualified nutrition researchers, and even MDs/oncologists, have taken issue with that pronouncement since it was issued. Here is one such comment, from Dr. Colin Champ, who is a respected research oncologist at the University of North Carolina, who specializes in the relationship between diet and cancer:

"Meat consumption has taken the lion’s share of blame when it comes to a food with the potential to cause cancer. Most often, eating meat is linked to a purportedly higher risk of colon cancer specifically. However, much like Doll and Armstrong’s worldwide epidemiologic study, the link has only been inconsistently shown in population studies.
Adding insult to injury, many sources reporting on the health issues of red meat and a potential link to cancer often quote a report from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). What is often missed is that this WHO report is no study at all, but rather the viewpoint of a group of individuals.
Furthermore, even the authors of the report describe that the few randomized trials available have found no link between red meat consumption and colon cancer. Several randomized studies have assessed the ability of a low-fat, high-fiber, and low red and processed meat diet to reduce precancerous adenomas, known as colon polyps. All revealed no reduction in polyps in the dietary intervention arms.
New England Journal of Medicine 2000: Lack of effect of a low-fat, high-fiber diet on the recurrence of colorectal adenomas [moderate evidence] Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2007: The Polyp Prevention Trial continued follow-up study: No effect of a low-fat, high-fiber, high-fruit, and -vegetable diet on adenoma recurrence eight years after randomization [moderate evidence]
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1994: A randomized trial of a low fat high fibre diet in the recurrence of colorectal polyps [moderate evidence]
Journal of the National Cancer Institute: Baseline dietary fiber intake and colorectal adenoma recurrence in the wheat bran fiber randomized trial [moderate evidence]
' data-footnote-identifier="7" data-footnote-number="7">7
Adding further insult to injury, these low-fat groups were randomized against a western diet arm, yet still revealed no benefit. Adding further difficulties to this potential link is the fact that red meat and processed meat are entirely different entities and should not be conflated. For instance, a meal containing beef from grain-fed cows versus wild game meat results in a markedly different physiologic response, with the grain-fed meat increasing several markers of inflammation.
British Journal of Nutrition 2010: Differences in postprandial inflammatory responses to a “modern” v. traditional meat meal: a preliminary study [weak evidence; evolutionary consideration] ' data-footnote-identifier="8" data-footnote-number="8">8
Furthermore, there are actually some compelling mechanisms revealed in animal studies that could (at least in theory) explain why charring or burning meat, which creates nitrosamines, could, once ingested, expose the bowels to carcinogens.
European Journal of Cancer Prevention 1997: N-nitroso compounds and man: sources of exposure, endogenous formation and occurrence in body fluids [overview article] ' data-footnote-identifier="9" data-footnote-number="9">9
However, this points toward burnt food as the carcinogen, and not necessarily meat or red meat. The potential of burnt food to become carcinogenic in the colon is a major reason why the colon cancer-red meat link has been studied so vigorously. Yet, even this association has yielded a potential overall increased risk of colon cancer under 1%.
PLoS One 2011: Red and processed meat and colorectal cancer incidence: meta-analysis of prospective studies [very weak evidence] ' data-footnote-identifier="10" data-footnote-number="10">10
While we know that meat in the diet provides a plethora of vitamins and minerals, its relationship with cancer remains backed by weak and conflicting evidence. Meat contains a significant number of vitamins and nutrients to aid the body in repair and recovery. Thus, for those seeking a complete diet, purposefully excluding meat to reduce their risk of cancer is not backed by substantial evidence and could even lead to inadequate nutrition."

 

[daylatedollarshort]

This might be of interest on the longevity topic -

Food Fight Erupts at Top Nutritionists Gather to Define What is Healthy Eating: https://www.statnews.com/2015/11/24/nutrition-diet-healthy-foods/

Their consensus statement from the conference is here. We're going more or less with those consensus recommendations.

"It endorsed a hefty 2015 report by the the federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which recommends a diet high in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, low- or non-fat dairy, seafood, legumes, and nuts. The report also recommends moderate alcohol intake and low consumption of red and processed meats, sugar, and refined grains."

 

[mpeirce]

We're going more or less with those consensus recommendations.

Some of us choose a different path. Can't you just leave it at that.

 

[audreyh1]

There is no consensus on diet and health.

Much dietary advice is directly contradicting.

I think that’s very clear from this thread.

There is no one single diet that is optimally healthy for every human.

An individual has to do their own research (which ultimately means reading some of the science rather than swallowing media sound bites), and make their own choices, and observe their own personal health outcomes.

Don’t even bring sustainability into the equation - that just raises the conflicting science and opinions to a power of two.

 

[pdxgal]

My instincts are to respect the omnivore heritage of humans and the majority the presentations and papers I have read indicate that is very compatible with good health.

I also don’t believe that lowering total cholesterol or LDL benefit older adults - certainly not older women. As I reach 60, I will feel safer with a somewhat higher total cholesterol and LDL as I believe it’s protective, as long as my triglycerides are low and my HDL high. So I don’t know about using lower total cholesterol and LDL as markers of future health/longevity.

+1. So much of the conventional wisdom/advice is based on studies that did not include women. Our bodies are different from men's!

Another interesting marker of longevity came from the longitudinal nun's study. It found a correlation (admittedly not causation!) between high linguistic ability early in life and longer life. As a kid I was a passionate reader, grammar nerd, and crossword puzzler (still am), so I found this finding encouraging

 

[RIGM]

I found the definitive answer to this whole question:

https://youtu.be/D2fYguIX17Q

I had several, final thoughts for this thread. I wonder if early mortality is more closely related to obesity. The explosion of obesity and the sedentary lifestyle in our society certainly can’t be good. Related to this, all carbs are not equal: there are a lot of hidden calories in many traditional carb-centric products. Oils do have more than twice the calories per gram than carbs or protein. Added to baked goods, they can add pounds quickly and give carbs a bad name. Certainly all carbs (all meats, etc.) are not equal. A bad experience with carbs could have been due to bad carbs (not trying to elicit a response here).

I originally posted this thread because there was another thread on joint health. I wasn’t trying to poke a finger in the eye of the LC crowd. I just wanted to share my knee experience and I believe diet choices had a role in my good results.
- high carb diet with some meat all my life, morphing into vegan 7 years ago
- painful knees in 40’s, 50’s, now almost completely gone (about the time I went vegan)
- no calorie, quantity or time restrictions on my eating; sustainable way to eat for life; in fact, with increase in exercise (below) I almost can’t eat enough
- zero medications - only one supplement, B12, which I can’t get naturally
- no blood testing / monitoring / restricting calories / adjusting diet
- only semi-active in my 30-50’s (due to work and knees); now training for an Ironman (and feel better than at any other time in my life)
- BMI throughout life has been a steady 18-19

It seems to work for me, and if LC works for you, then that’s great.

LC or plant-based, we each will make our own choices. If not accepting of the other position for ourselves, we certainly still can remain committed to keeping an open mind and seeing where the science leads.

 

[Rianne]

I agree. I eat meat, but my wife has been a vegetarian for 35 years. We are definitely aging at different paces and she has NEVER been on a medication (almost 70).

She will outlive me by decades, I predict.

I know this is anecdotal, but it does back up your thoughts.

I would go "full on vegetarian" but am concerned about enough protein. What does your wife use for protein, beans/rice, nuts/seeds...does she eat dairy? I eat so little meat but worry about protein. I'm healthy, low BP, great a1c, heart blood work-up excellent, liver function excellent.

 

[RIGM]

Assuming we need or want a goodly amount of protein (see article linked below), as I do for muscle recovery now that I’m training, there are some good sources: Costco sells “Vega,” a plant based protein drink mix. One serving gives 20 grams of protein. Any serving of legumes will give 6-13 grams of protein. A one ounce serving of walnuts, a small handful, has about 4 ounces of protein. I put soy milk on cereal, on oatmeal and in my Vega shake; one cup has 7 grams of protein. My brand of Raisin Bran has 5 grams per serving. Most other plants I eat daily add to the total (e.g., a serving of green peas, 5 grams; chickpea pasta, 14 grams, oats 3-7 grams, etc.).

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/how-much-protein-do-you-need-every-day-201506188096

That article makes it sound like the optimal amount needed is (of course) still open to debate.

My wife is “vegan-like,” (her words) eating mostly vegan with an occasional serving of fish. It does help that we’re 99% eating the same way.

 

[Rianne]

Assuming we need or want a goodly amount of protein (see article linked below), as I do for muscle recovery now that I’m training, there are some good sources: Costco sells “Vega,” a plant based protein drink mix. One serving gives 20 grams of protein. Any serving of legumes will give 6-13 grams of protein. A one ounce serving of walnuts, a small handful, has about 4 ounces of protein. I put soy milk on cereal, on oatmeal and in my Vega shake; one cup has 7 grams of protein. My brand of Raisin Bran has 5 grams per serving. Most other plants I eat daily add to the total (e.g., a serving of green peas, 5 grams; chickpea pasta, 14 grams, oats 3-7 grams, etc.).

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/how-much-protein-do-you-need-every-day-201506188096

That article makes it sound like the optimal amount needed is (of course) still open to debate.

My wife is “vegan-like,” (her words) eating mostly vegan with an occasional serving of fish. It does help that we’re 99% eating the same way.

Good source. One major benefit I noticed of >vegetables, fruits, beans/rice, nuts/seeds is bowel movement regularity. Often, I do not eat later than 5pm because I'm more comfortable sleeping. This type of "fasting" clears and rests the colon/digestive system. I must say regularity, I mean daily, has changed how I feel. Processed foods constipate even though there's fiber on the label. Water + natural fiber works wonders.