If y'all are on other social media, you've seen this:
http://newrisingmedia.com/all/2013/9/30 ... ive-longerGiven that the study was 1.5 years ago, I'm not sure why it's getting so much attention now. As usual, popular media coverage is rather inaccurate.
Here's the press release published by the actual scientific institute:
http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/arch.../1309 ... b/index_ENWhat's actually interesting about this -- not bacon, which is not mentioned in this Swiss study -- is that it directly attacks the whole "antioxidants for health" mantra which the American vitamin industry has been pushing. It's part of a growing trend of evidence than an excess of antioxidants may actually bad for you and accelerate aging, and that "free radicals", as alarming as they sound, aren't actually bad for you.
There's been more relevant studies (i.e. on mice and rats instead of roundworms) which show that excesses of two antioxidants, vitamins A and E, are bad for long-term health. So knowing that increasing B3, an oxidant, is good for long-term health -- if it can be proven on an animal more like humans -- shows even more that current popular vitamin regimens are just wrong.
Not that bacon being high in niacin is bad news for bacon-lovers, of course.