
Can a Diet That Mimics Fasting Turn Back the Clock? - sjcsjc
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2636710
======
allsunny
I've been trying out fasting over the past 6 months or so. I watched the BBC
documentary (Eat, Fast & Live Longer) and read Jason Fung's book (Complete
Guide to Fasting) and decided I'd see if I could do it; mostly to lose weight
but the health improvements often cited seemed great as well.

For me it turned out it to be easier to do than I thought. I had a mental
barrier in my head that going without a meal or two would put me in some sort
of dangerous state where my body couldn't function. Once I realized that
wasn't the case I was able to plow through increasingly long periods of time
without eating. Things I've noticed:

* being h-angry is a real thing. ;-) Make sure you have a low-stress time window to do the fasting in * drink a lot of water * hunger comes in waves, you'll get to a point where you feel super hungry, it'll usually pass after some time. * maybe it's placebo but I recognize a stronger ability to focus when I'm in the midst of a fasting period * if you get super hungry, just eat. don't beat yourself up over it * i've generally learned to NOT tell people you're fasting, they think you're crazy (immediately they associate it with anorexia, etc) * again, don't forget to drink water

~~~
nothis
I think the mental blockage is the main issue with dieting (what else should
it be, really?). I've seen so many diets that try to be super smart and as a
result complex. They are these "lifestyle" changes, comparable to becoming a
vegan or something and I always figured that this is what dieting _is_ and, as
a result, that I couldn't do it.

Turns out, simply cutting your calorie intake (while generally eating whatever
type of food you like) works out fine and has minimal drawbacks. In fact, I
felt less "bloated" (I know, that's a health food buzzword but it's kinda
real), which more than counter-weighted the lack of comfort food. You also
have to get used to the idea that "hunger" is a normal, everyday feeling and
not an alarm signal (first world problems, right?). Usually, you can actually
still _eat_ whenever you're hungry, anyway, and it even tastes better!

25-50% off is easy. You can eat a full meal, generally, and still be below
your 50% daily calorie intake, there's still room for a snack. All supermarket
foods have calorie labels now and the rest you can look up online and quickly
get a hang for. We all know the worst offenders (chocolate, soft drinks, fried
stuff,...) but once you look it up it forces you to face the reality of it. I
never wrote down any lists, just a rough, rounded number in the back of my
head.

Generally, it was way harder to start than to keep going. After a week or two,
it's easy. Lost 10+ kilos that way over the course of a few months (like 4 or
5?), which put me within my personal weight goal.

~~~
chiefalchemist
In short, cut out the crap and you're most of the way there (to the reduction
total). But if you think of sugar, etc. as necessary and natural then you're
more or less doomed, as you deserve to be.

~~~
E6300
> Glucose is a ubiquitous fuel in biology. It is used as an energy source in
> most

> organisms, from bacteria to humans, through either aerobic respiration,

> anaerobic respiration, or fermentation. Glucose is the human body's key
> source

> of energy, through aerobic respiration, providing about 3.75 kilocalories
> (16

> kilojoules) of food energy per gram. Breakdown of carbohydrates (e.g.
> starch)

> yields mono- and disaccharides, most of which is glucose. Through glycolysis
> and

> later in the reactions of the citric acid cycle and oxidative
> phosphorylation,

> glucose is oxidized to eventually form CO2 and water, yielding energy mostly
> in

> the form of ATP. The insulin reaction, and other mechanisms, regulate the

> concentration of glucose in the blood.

~~~
CuriousSkeptic
Sugar breaks down to equal parts glucose and fructose though. And fructose is
treated very differently from glucose in our bodies.

~~~
jackvalentine
Do you care to elaborate on how they're differently treated?

~~~
midnitewarrior
Glucose is used as fuel, whereas fructose doesn't have a direct pathway to be
used as fuel, it must first be stored as fat.

You then have to have an absence of glucose in your body before you may
metabolize your body fat. This doesn't happen often for most people, hence,
the obesity epidemic from overconsumption of sugar.

That's the short version. The long, detailed version is available from
YouTube, search for Dr. Robert Lustig's videos.

------
rsync
The most important - and as yet, unanswered - question I have about fasting
is: are the benefits (if they exist) the result of _absolute fasting_ or is
_relative fasting_ just as effective ?

If I require an extra 600 calories per day due to exercise, but I "fast" by
cutting caloric intake by 15%, do I receive a comparable benefit to someone
who does not exercise but also cuts their caloric intake by 15% ?

All evidence seems to point to exercise regimens as providing quite pronounced
longevity benefits - equal to or greater than what we expect from fasting. But
this is counterintuitive since exercise - and the calories it requires -
represent an absolute increase in total metabolism.

So if we each fast our way down to the same trim and lean low calorie
existence, but you are consuming 2000 of your previous 2500 calories and I am
consuming 2400 out of my previous 3000 calories (assuming we are the same
size, weight, etc.) who gets more longevity benefits ?

~~~
reasonattlm
Valter Longo's research is essentially aiming to answer some of these
questions. He was looking for the 80/20 point at which reduction in calories
produces much the same outcome as fasting. His current position is expressed
by the fasting mimicking diet; you might go read the papers in which he
outlines trial results and the data that forms the basis for the diet.

From a gene expression in mice point of view, none of it is exactly the same.
Different but overlapping patterns of change for calorie restriction,
isocaloric intermittent fasting, intermittent fasting with calorie
restriction, methionine or other protein restriction, etc, etc. All different.

Also, all the data on exercise shows it does little to life span in comparison
to calorie restriction, while both are vaguely comparable when considering
healthspan. There are plenty of papers on this topic to read. Again,
completely different set of changes and benefits.

------
reasonattlm
From an HN audience perspective, perhaps the most interesting thing going on
here in recent years is the way in which Longo's group managed to break out of
the funding ghetto of aging research for this one part of the field by
figuring out the plan and establishing the relationships to productize the
research. This pulled in new money and support that allowed them to make good,
new steps in quantifying the effects of reduced calorie intake. The cost is
that we now have another set of marketing drones extracting rent from the
regulatory capture /intellectual property morass for telling people to eat
less, but you can decide for yourself whether this is clever hacking of a
hopelessly corrupt system or adding to the problem.

------
jcoffland
I've had great success with a pretty severe dieting routine. I eat a
reasonable (800-1,000 calories) dinner as my only meal but also allow myself a
cappuccino in the morning and all the carrots, celery and fresh fruit I want
throughout the day. The main benefit for me is that it does not take a lot of
thought. I can drop 4 lbs a week this way without any apparent negative health
effects.

For reference, I'm a 41 year old male, in good health, weighing just under
200lbs at 6'3". I'm a software/hardware engineer so I spend much of my day
sitting indoors.

~~~
xutopia
How long do you do this for?

~~~
jcoffland
A few weeks at a time when I need to lose some weight.

------
greggman
> There were no adverse effects on quality of life

Does quality of life have some specific medical meaning? I'd say not being
able to eat as much would be a huge reduction in quality of life for myself
and many people in know. No I don't massively over eat like many Americans but
I love eating and cooking and going out to dinner. Trying to keep calories at
or below 2000 is hard enough. I can't imagine having to try to enjoy even
less.

~~~
d8421l01vv4r
From
[https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glv057](https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glv057)

 _We found no significant adverse effects of CR [calorie restriction] on a
broad range of quality of life variables including mood, self-reported hunger,
sexual function, and cognitive function, using validated measures of all
constructs. These results are shown in online Supplementary eTable 3._

> Trying to keep calories at or below 2000 is hard enough.

How much of a reduction from your baseline usage is 2000 kcal per day?

------
projectramo
Okay, this is a small little trick but I found the easiest thing to do is to
not eat in the morning. I can easily not eat till 10am without feeling hungry.
Sometimes 11 without effort.

And then I stop eating early in the day... say 8pm or 9pm.

I found that to be very sustainable and easy in the long run. YMMV.

~~~
joekrill
Do you work out or exercise at all? I can't see that working for folks that
do. Or do you take any medications that might inhibit your hunger? For example
Adderall tends to be an appetite suppressant.

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
You would be amazed at how much of the feeling of hunger is actually
habituated, not your body actually needing energy.

A horrible experiment you could do, but should not, is to set an alarm for 1
AM. Get up and go eat some cookies or ice cream, and then go back to bed for 3
weeks.

Even if you have NEVER woken in the night because of hunger, you will now be
EXTREMELY hungry every night, and naturally wake up to eat.

It was my experience that after skipping breakfast for about a month, I now
never even desire it. I do get my recommended Total Calories for the day each
day, which is what makes it easier to adapt.

------
brad0
It's annoying that there isn't enough research on calorie restricted diets to
conclusively show the benefits and drawbacks.

~~~
learc83
Diet research is expensive because people are terrible at self reporting.
Especially with something like calorie restriction.

To get good data you really need to monitor people 24 hours a day.

~~~
miguelrochefort
> To get good data you really need to monitor people 24 hours a day.

Unfortunately people love their privacy too much to make that happen.

~~~
mikhailt
I doubt it has to do with privacy, have you seen how many selfies are out
there with food shots and stuff? Plus, such studies could be funded to give
people money for tracking this.

I believe the problem isn't with privacy but just that it is difficult to keep
notes of what you eat daily. Make a product that makes monitoring what you eat
very easy to do and you can get more data that's solid. What Apple did with
HealthKit did in fact help, we just need more of that. I know a buddy who lost
weight easily because of a smartwatch (Apple Watch) that he uses to monitor
his input because it is so easy and quick.

~~~
miguelrochefort
People should be more serious about nutrition. It's impossible to track and
test nutrients if you're not disciplined about it.

Ideally, you would only eat what you (or a coach, or an app) planned to eat.
Most people should have a nutrition routine where they eat the same thing
every day or week. Eating for pleasure should be the exception, not the norm.
Tracking only the 5% of food that's not part of your routine would be a lot
easier (especially if packaged and provides a bar code).

~~~
goldfeld
No, people should be less neurotic about their nutrition, eat less, and let
go. Don't over think it or put up barriers to health.

~~~
miguelrochefort
Most people are not qualified to feed themselves.

------
_arvin
A few years ago I had some downtime and nothing going on, so I decided to try
a water fast for three days as a sort of detox/cleanse after doing some
research.

The first 24-36 hours were definitely the toughest, but then the hunger
feeling just went away. It was sort of liberating in a sense that I didn't
feel "dependent" on food for those three days; the key being to stay plenty
hydrated. However, if you're currently working or going to school, I wouldn't
recommend it. Save it for a time where you're mentally ready to take on that
challenge. Coupled with low-stress and lots of rest, the results were pretty
remarkable.

And from the article and science standpoint of it, it makes sense; the less
your body has to spend time digesting food (say every couple hours with
snacks/meals), the more your immune system can work and more time for the body
to naturally repair itself. This is also why I try to avoid eating late at
night.

~~~
cgh
There is no science to support the notion of detoxifying or cleansing[1]. Not
eating does not cause your body to repair itself. There is no relationship
between the time taken for digestion and your immune system. It's not like
your body can only do one thing at a time.

By all means, if fasting makes you feel good or whatever then continue to do
it. Just realise that none of your stated claims of its physical benefits are
true.

[1]
[https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/05/detox-m...](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/05/detox-
myth-health-diet-science-ignorance)

~~~
mojoe
Not eating absolutely causes the body to repair itself -- there are many peer-
reviewed journal articles covering animal and human clinical trials that
demonstrate this (a google scholar search returns huge numbers of results, but
here are just a couple examples:
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413115...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413115002247),
[https://news.usc.edu/63669/fasting-triggers-stem-cell-
regene...](https://news.usc.edu/63669/fasting-triggers-stem-cell-regeneration-
of-damaged-old-immune-system/)).

~~~
JPLeRouzic
The words were: "as a sort of detox/cleanse" There are things your body cannot
do, for example eliminating a molecule longer than some threshold.

That is why the pharma industry insists on using small molecules and why beta-
amyloids (and others) are a huge problem.

------
acconrad
Calorie restriction diets don't make sense to me the way they are phrased.
Reduce calories by 20-50%...of what. My current calories? Of the RDA 2000?
Cause the thing is the logical conclusion of this prescription is you eat
approaching zero calories. If you're in a negative energy state you lose
weight. Then your body adapts. Then what....restrict by _another_ 20-50%?
Maybe I'm missing something but the way metabolisms work is any calorie level
you set the body will adapt to, and that number is different for every single
person.

~~~
jimrandomh
2000 calories is _not_ an RDA; the average American needs significantly more,
and spreading the impression 2000kcal is an RDA is dangerous. Actual calorie
needs depend on age, height, weight, and activity level, and are calculated
using the Harris-Benedict equation.

~~~
dpark
It's not an RDA but the average American probably does land close to 2000
calories/day. Don't forget that half of Americans are women and that most
Americans are sedentary.

~~~
jghn
anecdata of a single point, but I'm pretty typical. Early 40s male, fairly
sedentary lifestyle. Whenever I try to figure out my baseline caloric level by
keeping track of calories and watching how my mass increases or decreases, I
always end up in the upper 2Ks.

Despite being overweight I'll grant you that my metabolism might be on the
fast side, but I'm certainly not exercising the calories away.

~~~
burger_moon
That seems odd. I'm in my 20s and do bodybuilding. I have a very dialed in
eating schedule. My maintenance is around 2700-2800 calories but I lift 6 days
a week plus cardio. I find it very odd that you could maintain weight at >2500
calories living a sedentary life and not having a clean diet.

~~~
pandaman
Depends on the body size. Unless you are doing heavy physical labor, most
energy is spent on maintaining body temperature and running regular chemical
reactions in the body. Both depend on the amount of the body to heat up and to
react in.

------
havella
Some tricks I've tried: \--> Start the fast in the early evening before a long
day of flight travel. Seems easier and convenient to avoid bad airport/flight
food. \--> Don't do it as a regular scheduled event. \--> Eat according to
your physical activity. Some days where Im just working in the computer I
don't eat much. \--> Do frequent random 10pm - 2pm next day fasts.

------
40acres
I've experimented with Keto many times, the first time I lost about 15lbs
(granted I was working a warehouse job at the same time so that had a lot to
do with it). Every subsequent time I've tried Keto I've developed a nasty rash
on my back which has caused me to break out of ketosis though.

~~~
rthomas6
Today is my third day on Keto and I feel like crap right now. Apparently this
is pretty normal and it goes away, and it has something to do with too low
sodium intake. This comment has no real point, I just wanted to share.

~~~
saryant
When I do keto I make sure to drink at least one cup of bone broth every day,
generally with some extra salt thrown in.

Whenever I do that, I manage to avoid keto flu.

------
GreaterFool
This was mentioned on HN not too long ago:
[https://prolonfmd.com/](https://prolonfmd.com/) (fasting mimicking diet). If
they'd ship to where I live I'd try it. Always happy to try new things that
could potentially benefit.

~~~
js2
That URL is mentioned in the article. The site requires you to fill out a
survey to see the cost. For the curious:

 _1-2 boxes: $299 per box

One box of ProLon is a 5-day total diet replacement. No extra food purchases
needed for those days.

3-6 boxes: $250 per box

Using three boxes of ProLon over a three month period replicates the clinical
trial protocol.

Price includes shipping, sales tax charged only in CA._

~~~
nothis
Holy overpriced batman! Are they feeding you with gold dust or something?

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
If you want to try this the frugal way, check out what this guy did.

[https://www.quantifiedbob.com/2016/04/fasting-mimicking-
diet...](https://www.quantifiedbob.com/2016/04/fasting-mimicking-diet/)

------
chiefalchemist
There was a article a couple months back about fasting (3 days) and how it
triggers a reboot of the immune system.

I think if you stop looking at calorie restriction as restriction, and instead
consider it normal (i.e., the ideal the body prefers) then the current normal
is essential over-eating.

That that a step further and consider such excess unnecessary stress on the
body and it's various subsystems, things fall into place.

Factor in the various chemicals in today's food and it's not crazy to think
we're eating ourselves ill - both from quantity and (lack of) quality (i.e.,
chemicals).

Pardon the editorial, but God only knows what GMOs do, to the body and the
gut, under these circumstances.

~~~
jcoffland
> Pardon the editorial, but God only knows what GMOs do, to the body and the
> gut, under these circumstances.

I agree with most of what you said but the jury is still out on GMOs. GMOs are
not just one thing either. Some may prove to be bad for us and others
beneficial. The biggest problem with the anti-GMO campaign is that it's
driving force is a general distrust of science rather than facts.

~~~
chiefalchemist
Perhaps. But the problem with the pro-GMO side is you can't say something is
safe when you haven't fully tested it. Specifically, I'm speaking about gut
bacteria - in humans and up and down the food chain.

We are in the early days of knowledge about the gut, and how it effects the
entire system. So it's just not possible to test for safety. Sure you can eat
it. You don't die. That doesn't mean you should.

GMOs are about yield and farming. They're not about humans, nutrition, and the
gut. That's the context that can not be dismissed.

~~~
jcoffland
If you really think gut bacteria are important then maybe you should go get a
stool transplant. We just don't know and the immediate assumption that GMOs
are guilty until proven innocent is both uninformed and counterproductive.

------
nbardy
I fasted for the first time after seeing some research on the benefits. Once I
realized it's safe I figured, why not try and see how it affects me. I noticed
a definite improvement in stress over the week following and now I try to fast
once every 3 weeks if it fits into my schedule. Everyone reacts so differently
to different diets I've found the most benefit from trying whatever I can and
being mindful about the changes. We've become a little too obsessed with the
one fits all approach to health.(e.x. Soylent) There is benefit to finding
general guidelines through research, but a little self experimentation goes a
long way.

------
didibus
I naturally fast once in a while. I almost always skip breakfast and eat twice
a day. I was always curious why we eat 3 times a day, when we feed most pets
twice a day.

Normally, once a month I'll have a lazy day, where I only eat from 6pm to
midnight. I'll still have two meals, just closer to each other, one at 6pm,
one at say 11pm before sleeping. Next morning I'll skip breakfast again.

That's just the way it works out for me. Not actually trying. Good to know
this might in fact be healthy.

------
novaleaf
I eat breakfast and lunch, basically eat whatever I want between 8am and 2pm,
and only water outside those hours. It was hard for my stomach to adjust for
the first week (hunger pains) but no problems since

------
sjcsjc
I posted the following as a reply a few weeks ago, but it might interest some
people so I'll re-post it here.

Caveat - this is my interpretation of the various research pieces I've come
across. I might be wrong.

It seems that having some period of starvation that is beneficial. Overall
calorie intake is less relevant. Decreased overall caloric intake may actually
be bad (can't find a link for this at the moment).

Benefits appear to include decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes
and metabolic syndrome, possible decreased cancer risk, and decreased risk of
neurological disease. Also longer life expectancy in some animals, as yet
unproven in humans.

Even fasting for short periods regularly appears to be beneficial [5]

Three main reasons - autophagy, ketosis and decreased inflammation.

Autophagy, a kind of intracellular recycling operation, is increased by, inter
alia, starvation [1]. It seems likely that most of the benefits of fasting
derive from this. Valter Longo is a key researcher into this. Of particular
interest to me is his work on fasting coupled with chemotherapy. [2]

Ketosis occurs when all your glucose and glycogen (a polymer of glucose) are
used up, and you burn fat instead. Mark Mattson is a key researcher into this.
Ketosis appears to have a neuroprotective action [3]

Decreased inflammation - chronic inflammation appears to be a cause of all
sorts of problems, and fasting appears to decrease it.

[4] is a good general review

[1]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831538/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831538/)

[2]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3608686/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3608686/)

[3]
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165017308...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165017308001045)

[4]
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413113...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413113005032)

[5]
[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/861319](http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/861319)

Use sci-hub for paywalled papers.

~~~
MicroBerto
Experimenting with the keto diet for my YouTube endeavors and one thing I
didn't expect is how much better my joints would feel.

Prediction: the keto diet will soon come under HEAVY fire from mainstream
media, journals, and lobbyist health organizations under the pressure of
certain agriculture and pharma groups. Just wait for it.

~~~
dpark
Why would "keto" come under fire now? I'm pretty sure that diet already peaked
and is on the decline.

~~~
doh
The whole food industry is based around carbs [especially here in US, where
you have corn syrup even in meat]. The dietary recommendations in US are still
based around eating low fat [0] instead of massively limiting carbs.

However study after study shows that "keto" and IF (intermittent fasting) is
probably the way to go. So now it's a pretty uphill battle. Seems like
millennials are pushing for change more quickly and many massive corporations
are changing directions, but slowly. So I think we will see a massive dietary
change in next 20-30 years, but it's going to be a battle.

[0]
[https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/executi...](https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/executive-
summary/)

~~~
dpark
> _especially here in US, where you have corn syrup even in meat_

What?

> _However study after study shows that "keto" and IF (intermittent fasting)
> is probably the way to go._

Eh, I don't know about that. Some studies indicate that keto helps some
people. But like every other diet, adherence is low. And for the most part,
the evidence is that what most people need is to just eat a reasonable amount
of something approximating real food.

IF is entirely unrelated to keto.

> _So I think we will see a massive dietary change in next 20-30 years_

I'm extremely doubtful. I'm doubtful we'll even significantly cut the junk
intake. I have no expectation that keto will actually become common.

~~~
doh
>> especially here in US, where you have corn syrup even in meat > What?

I meant meat products, like sausages, bacon, ...

> And for the most part, the evidence is that what most people need is to just
> eat a reasonable amount of something approximating real food.

I'm talking about the impact of the diet in overall, e.g.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1325029/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1325029/)

> I have no expectation that keto will actually become common.

I'm not talking about keto but dietary changes overall.

~~~
dpark
> _I meant meat products, like sausages, bacon, ..._

So like everywhere else, then? Sugar in cured meats is not exclusively an
American phenomenon.

> _I 'm talking about the impact of the diet in overall, e.g.
> [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1325029/*](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1325029/*)

I don't really understand your point. The fact that keto helps with diabetes
isn't very relevant to a lot of the population.

> _I'm not talking about keto but dietary changes overall.*

? The topic was about keto being "under fire".

~~~
doh
> So like everywhere else, then? Sugar in cured meats is not exclusively an
> American phenomenon.

Not exclusively but definitely most prevalent in US

> I don't really understand your point. The fact that keto helps with diabetes
> isn't very relevant to a lot of the population.

A lot of population, like 10%? [0]. And this is just one of many. It's not
only form of help but prevention. Meaning, it's much healthier for people to
do keto, than anything else.

> ? The topic was about keto being "under fire".

And I made a comment on overall dietary change. We don't know what a long time
on keto will cause, but I believe people are much more eager to experiment and
see than they used to.

[0] [http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-
basics/statistics/](http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/)

------
Tharkun
I've tried intermittent fasting as a weight control strategy. Unfortunately I
discovered that fasting increased the frequency of my migraines. Fasting
probably isn't for everyone.

------
sireat
I keep seeing advice in the comments to skip breakfast and how great it is.

What about the common folk advice of "eat a hearty breakfast by yourself,
share a lunch with friends and give dinner to your enemy"?

~~~
mswen
The key as I understand it is a period of fasting [no eating] for 16 to 20
hours a day. Your saying would work because the last thing you eat would be
around midday and you wouldn't eat again until morning.

I think that many people find it easier to extend their overnight fast by
skipping breakfast rather than dinner in the evening. In the United States it
is also true that breakfast tends to be more of a solitary meal and dinner
more of a communal meal. So by skipping breakfast one is not as out of sync
with family and friends who want to include you in dinner plans.

------
paulcole
Probably not, but it can help us feel like we have some control over our own
inevitable death.

------
peter_retief
yes

