Doubtful it was either. The fact that everyone washed their hands, the sick and immunologically compromised didn't prepare food or partake in regular group activities, and those working manual labor (ie- hands covered in bacteria) didn't handle the food was probably 80% of the reason for their longevity.

Hygiene, lower alcohol consumption, and the regular access to an extensive support system were probably the top 3 factors. Less uncertainty, less stress, fewer serious health/mental issues being ignored - all good things in the long run. I'd expect alcohol to be a major contributor to illness at the time (compromised immune system in an already filthy environment and less social pressure to drink in moderation), so the fact that they didn't drink in excess was probably pretty significant

The article mentions 'meat' three times per week, but then implies that eggs and fish were not considered 'meat', which leads me to think they also didn't consider poultry 'meat' either. No special spices or bizarre rituals, so their diet was probably very similar to the old food pyramid, and less so the new food plate thing. The wealthy saw a very minimal increase in lifespan, which was probably not caused by the addition of spices and honey but living in cleaner, less cramped, and more isolated living conditions.

The only thing surprising about the article was that how NOT special their diet was.

I think both. Poor people died because of lack of nutrients and even calories, while the extremely rich died of gout and diabetes because of excess.

It seems the templar got all the nutrients they needed (feast on large amount of protein once a week, plant based diet the rest of the week) while using moderation most of the week and even a fast once a week.

The article also suggests that better hygiene and protective measures against infection played a role. Infectious disease was a huge case of death in medieval Europe (the plague for ex). The Knights had better hygiene as they learned from Arab doctors, who had superior medical knowledge compared to their European peers

That's a great question, my understanding was that if one survived birth (infant mortality skews average lifespan quite a bit) and had food, one could live about as long as a modern human. From the sound of it, the knights certainly weren't going hungry.

> One source suggests that cooks loaded enough meat onto their plates “to feed two poor men with the leftovers.”

I'm sure that diet and control of food was very important to them, it is for lab mice. I wonder how much things like ritualised hygiene played a part too.

They certainly would've had better nutrition than most people - as I recall from reading about this quite fascinating topic some years ago, the men who joined the Templars were generally quite rich, mostly the sons of the nobility. (They were also required to donate all of their money and land upon joining, which is how the Order became so preposterously wealthy) I would imagine that the rich had much higher life expectancies than average, regardless of whether they joined the Order.

The question is also "Did they live longer?". The article gave the ages of some individual knights as being greater than the average lifespan at the time, which is not incompatible with the average knight's lifespan being the same as the average peasant.

>> Did they live longer because of their diet or because of their reliable access to food?

Nah, they lived longer because of reduced stress. "They were not permitted even to speak to women."