Stuff like this way more obvious if you start to think about it. Is putting your body in a safe bubble to live optimal? Does nurture always beat nature? Of cour

Stuff like this way more obvious if you start to think about it. Is putting your body in a safe bubble to live optimal? Does nurture always beat nature? Of course not. Some amount of stress and physical challenge MUST be optimal (defined as reduce aging). What USC just did here is pick a solid guess in the range of fairly optimal. For the fasting parameter, (of many to choose from that cause stress or physical challenge) again with heuristics, we can first drill down to a sub-parameter of "being fairly hungry". Given the previous logic, this variable must be a component of slowing aging. Now if you had to guess from 1 day to 50 days or even 250 days, what would you guess is the optimal time of "being fairly hungry" to reduce aging? Mostly people would probably guess 2-10 days using the heuristics of "one day is just too little to have an effect" and "15+ days just cant be safe for you body." I'm surprised I hadn't heard about a study like this before. What I am not surprised by is that the optimal range is right in the middle of the optimal range from simple heuristics. The next heuristic you can tack on is timing between fasts. Using the same logic you will get very close to the timing between fasts USC is suggests.