Well, I confess I didn't watch the video yet--I may or may not, since every other week somebody comes out with a new anti-aging hypothesis--but I wanted to share a criteria I use when weighing the credibility of one op those guys.
I simply look at them and see if they look younger than their real age. If they do NOT, and indeed do not significantly look younger (10 years or more) then I do not even bother with reading or listening to their ideas.
Why? The proof is in the pudding, as I always say regarding health gurus. Or alleged ones. LIke me, a lifelong athlete, marital arts instructor, runner. I think I eat a pretty much optimal diet. Whenever I read one of those "New Superfoods for Health!" articles, almost always I am already partaking in most of them. I run 25 miles a week and usually win my age group in races. I am routines gauged at being ten years younger than I really am. My resting hr is about 52. So I am a tough audience for these guys and their new-fangled anti-aging notions.
It's like how I used to laugh at Deprak Chopra. One of his books, something about how not to age ever! His pic on the front, and there he was, looking every bit if not more of his (then) 60 years. LOL. See, to me, a case like this is just tossed out a priori if the author does not seem to be benefitting from his preaching tactics.
Is this too harsh on my part?
Edited by Velocity_Boy, 16 March 2017 - 06:22 PM.
"It's a good idea for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every morning before breakfast. It keeps him young."