Calorie restriction can help you live longer

[Chanakya]

Thanks!

Are you referring to hormesis? I looked at Wikipedia, and it's a bit of a struggle to differentiate the woo of homeopathy from the science of vaccination. See below.

I'm assuming it may be slightly similar to the processes in fitness known as "progressive overload" and "periodic training".

Dieting is not just when you eat, but what you eat, and how much, and probably more.

In reference to my diet and health, I "fast" for 14 hours overnight, and during the day I eat a vegan diet and track my calorie intake, trying to make sure I eat foods that satisfy me for longer, rather than give me me bursts of sugar causing ups and downs. I take supplements to make up for deficiencies I had as a vegan, and have just had more blood tests as I have low energy and we're working on my low sodium. My low energy makes it hard to focus on new information at times.

I have a bad hip at the moment, but today I ran 1 km to the gym, then did 20 minutes on the leg and arm machines and 5 minutes on the exercise bike. I'm trying to strengthen the muscles around the hip so I don't favour the sore area.

(Threw that in there because I know diet can not be completely separate from fitness, as they both relate to energy.)

Thanks for the interesting topic!

You're welcome, Orphia Nay! Although TBH those thanks, and mine as well, are due entirely to some very informative posts Louden Wilde happened to put up, elsewhere first and later on here. I was just the postman that created a thread around his post, quoted in my OP, more as a reminder to myself and a means to read up some more on this very interesting subject than anything else.

Hormesis, well, apparently yes, this genetic effect does extend, beyond calorie restriction, to exercise and even something like dunking yourself in freezing cold water. And Darat's linked to research on O2 therapy -- no hormesis there, seems a pleasant enough experience -- that might have similar effects. (TBF though, some of the research linked speaks of calorie restriction as the only driver of lifespan enhancement, so I don't know quite what to think, and say, as far as broader hormesis! But the research, such of it as I've seen, seems agreed about the calorie restriction part.)

Kudos to you for getting back to the gym! (Careful, though -- to state the obvious! I'm making do myself with some odd weights lying around the house -- as well as my own odd body weight! -- until this all blows over. Not to discourage you in any way, to be clear: with adequate precaution it's great to start working out properly again!)

 

[Louden Wilde]

True, direct long-term data on humans isn't available yet, to my knowledge, because you need to have a long enough term elapsed for that; but there are proxies (in human trials, I mean, and at the genetic level) that do serve as evidence. Two such proxies have been discussed in the links in this thread.

I'm no expert, nor particularly well-informed on this, and would welcome any information or (technical) arguments that go against these diets, but simply repeating that there's no evidence, even when such are clearly presented, seems ...a curious, and pointless, thing to do. (If on the other hand you wish to discuss or refute that evidence, then I'm all ears.)

Yes, controlled long-term studies on humans would/will be quite difficult (ensuring adherence to protocol and making sure people get adequate nutrition). But the short term studies are strongly suggestive, and we have a solid lead on molecular mechanisms underlying the positive effects of these various types of modulating food intake (e.g. autophagy, insulin sensitivity, reduced markers of inflammation, etc.)

We do have a > 20 year primate study, though - which is about as good as it gets for animal models of humans
Caloric restriction improves health and survival of rhesus monkeys
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5247583/

(note that these studies also involved time-restricted eating). I personally don't think there are any significant safety issues to any of these typically followed regimens. That being said, why not ease into it?

 

[Chanakya]

Yes, controlled long-term studies on humans would/will be quite difficult (ensuring adherence to protocol and making sure people get adequate nutrition). But the short term studies are strongly suggestive, and we have a solid lead on molecular mechanisms underlying the positive effects of these various types of modulating food intake (e.g. autophagy, insulin sensitivity, reduced markers of inflammation, etc.)

We do have a > 20 year primate study, though - which is about as good as it gets for animal models of humans
Caloric restriction improves health and survival of rhesus monkeys
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5247583/

(note that these studies also involved time-restricted eating).

Interesting read, thanks.

I personally don't think there are any significant safety issues to any of these typically followed regimens.

Agreed, that's what it looks like.

Besides, that you conclude that this is safe, and further that you incorporate this into your lifestyle, is itself another data point -- -- because I expect you'd have read way deeper than this much in order to come to this firm conclusion.

That being said, why not ease into it?

No easing required, actually. I'd done it already, and found it very freeing. In terms of convenience, as well as how I felt, energy levels, all that.

Why don't I commit already? Two reasons:

1. I'd like to know, read, understand, a bit more, quite a bit more, to make such a far reaching change on a long term basis.
   
   Aboslutely, happening to come across your post in that other hormesis thread, as well as the discussion here, have gone a good way to bringing me nearer to becoming a convert. This thread was a great start to understanding more about this. But I'm not rushing into this long-term until I'm fully entirely satisfied.
   
   
2. There's one specific question, one specific long-term risk, that I'm queasy about, and that I'd mentioned upthread. Common sense would indicate that our bodies have evolved to, are used to, secreting whatever it secretes to digest food, the usual three times a day. If there's no food to digest at those times, long term I mean, might that cumulatively end up resulting in some kind of adverse effect, I don't know, ulcers or something? Wouldn't want to go out my way to actively court something weird like that some ten or twenty or thirty years from now!
   
   Now sure, I do understand that common sense, especially uninformed common sense, isn't necessarily a reliable guide. Besides, this is akin to proving a negative I guess. Still, when I'm thinking of putting my long-term health on the line, that's something I necessarily need to be fully assured of. Especially since, well, I'm doing well enough, knock on wood, in terms of body weight and health and fitness and all of that -- wouldn't want to disturb that status quo unless I were as close to cent per cent sure as is practicable.
   
   (For all I know such studies may already have been made. If this occurs to me, there's no reason to think that this wouldn't have occurred to those who're experts in this sort of thing. So I guess this second point is a subset of the earlier point, and comes under the head of "Need to know more, read up more, understand more".)

---

Glad I started this thread, and hugely appreciate your posts. I doubt I'd actually have got down to getting to know all of this, certainly not this soon.

 

[Pixel42]

Common sense would indicate that our bodies have evolved to, are used to, secreting whatever it secretes to digest food, the usual three times a day.

That's interesting, because my common sense is saying the opposite - that our bodies more likely evolved to cope with feast and famine; packing as much food away as possible in as short an amount of time as possible when it was available, because it might be quite a while (days even) before the next meal. I don't think three meals a day became "the usual" until the arrival of civilisation. But I'm also speaking from a basis of little or no actual knowledge of the subject.

 

[Louden Wilde]

That's interesting, because my common sense is saying the opposite - that our bodies more likely evolved to cope with feast and famine; packing as much food away as possible in as short an amount of time as possible when it was available, because it might be quite a while (days even) before the next meal. I don't think three meals a day became "the usual" until the arrival of civilisation. But I'm also speaking from a basis of little or no actual knowledge of the subject.

Well put. Eating frequency has likely been uneven for most of our history (i.e. due to availability). I'm struggling to think how we could ever test eating frequency (quantity, quality would be important too) sans records. Good question on meal frequency studies - ensuring people comply is difficult. I do know there has been some interesting journalism on that old "breakfast is the most important meal" putative correlation - I believe it was designed to cell cereal...

FWIW, I'm on the list serve for this group & know people are doing more dramatic/unproven things to increase healthspan/longevity (e.g. injecting themselves with large doses of one of the proteins that may play key role in the rejuvenating effects of young blood).

 

[Chanakya]

That's interesting, because my common sense is saying the opposite - that our bodies more likely evolved to cope with feast and famine; packing as much food away as possible in as short an amount of time as possible when it was available, because it might be quite a while (days even) before the next meal. I don't think three meals a day became "the usual" until the arrival of civilisation. But I'm also speaking from a basis of little or no actual knowledge of the subject.

Well put. Eating frequency has likely been uneven for most of our history (i.e. due to availability). I'm struggling to think how we could ever test eating frequency (quantity, quality would be important too) sans records. Good question on meal frequency studies - ensuring people comply is difficult. I do know there has been some interesting journalism on that old "breakfast is the most important meal" putative correlation - I believe it was designed to cell cereal...

FWIW, I'm on the list serve for this group & know people are doing more dramatic/unproven things to increase healthspan/longevity (e.g. injecting themselves with large doses of one of the proteins that may play key role in the rejuvenating effects of young blood).

We wouldn't necessarily need to actually track someone for twenty or thirty years. I mean doing that's best of all, sure, but I guess simply knowing clearly and surely about how the digestion process works is probably a pretty good way to know if this eventuality, that I was speaking of, is at all plausible. I'm sure that knowledge is clearly and fairly easily available.

I googled around a bit, and the consensus (of what I found, for what that's worth) is No. People seem to be of the view that gastric secretions come off not like some clockwork, but only when food is actually consumed. So that intermittent fasting, far from causing ulcers, would actually help prevent them. (Although if you're already suffering from ulcers, then that may end up worsening your condition.)

I'm not quoting all of the links I checked, and what's more I'm taking what came up just now via my search with a fistful of salt, because none of these were bona fide research papers or anything. The first few pages, that I went through, threw up fitness websites, and things like reddit and quora, that kind of thing -- essentially, people talking and people selling. So, like I said, pinch of salt. The 'best' I came up with, in a lazy 15-20 min search, was something called ScholarsArk (no idea if they're any good at all). And there was this abstract that says it's safe as far as ulcers, long-term (although it might be more troublesome in the shorter run) -- but that's rats, not people.

 

[Tippit]

I've been fasting for close to two years now. It's probably the second most amazing health discovery I've made in my lifetime, next to reduced lens therapy which I have used to cure my myopia. I started the 8/16 diet after reading Dr. Jason Fung's literature and watching his youtube videos. Initially it was difficult, but if you stop eating frequently and according to a daily schedule your body will stop producing Ghrelin, the hunger hormone, and you will stop feeling hungry at those times.

When I started the diet, I topped the scales at a reasonably healthy 205lbs, and over the course of just a few months I lost roughly 40lbs to 165, and I felt and continue to feel great. I experimented with a few extended fasts, both a juice fast that went for about six days, and some water fasts between 3-5 days, and experienced no ill effects. Having done more research I decided about four months ago to begin OMAD - one meal a day, and the results have been spectacular. I'm 50, but I routinely beat 20 year olds on the basketball court. I don't have any joint pain, inflammation, or stiffness. I sleep better, and have more energy, plus I spend less money on food, less time preparing food, and less time in the bathroom. Perhaps the best thing of all is that I get to eat mostly what I want, and in as big portions that I want, when I decide to eat. It really is all about dramatically lowering your frequency of eating, and NOT about caloric restriction, although I have also tried to moderate my sugar consumption, and carbs in general.

For those of you who have tried this and had some difficulty, it really boils down to Ghrelin. Once that hormone stops being produced, you don't feel hungry anymore, and food ceases to be a concern. For me this took about two to three weeks. If you have a fairly bad diet to begin with, you will probably endure keto flu, and possibly headaches. Once you get past this, and get keto adapted, the real benefits kick in. It also cures type II diabetes, but do NOT try this without doing some research as if you're taking meds there are some serious potential pitfalls.

I have absolutely no doubt that the metabolic benefits of fasting (and OMAD in particular) will result in longevity gains, given the dramatic health benefits I've enjoyed since I started.

 

[Chanakya]

I've been fasting for close to two years now. It's probably the second most amazing health discovery I've made in my lifetime, next to reduced lens therapy which I have used to cure my myopia.

*clears throat, starts to comment on amazing discovery #1, then thinks better of it*

I started the 8/16 diet after reading Dr. Jason Fung's literature and watching his youtube videos. Initially it was difficult, but if you stop eating frequently and according to a daily schedule your body will stop producing Ghrelin, the hunger hormone, and you will stop feeling hungry at those times.

Thanks for bringing this up, Tippit. I've been meaning to look up such literature as I could on the mechanism of how hunger works, in connection with intermittent fasting, but not surprisingly I never did end up doing it!

Hadn't heard of this beast before, this Ghrelin, and googled around a bit (1, 2). And the latter seems to suggest that an empty stomach is what triggers this Ghrelin, so that intermittent fasting actually might increase its production -- and this might, conceivably, both make IF somewhat unpleasant, as well as potentially have long-term ill effects.

That said, my conjecture in the paragaraph above -- and conjecture is all it is -- isn't borne out by my own experience. When I'd tried out this fasting thing, it isn't as I spent the day with my tongue hanging out, counting seconds till my evening meal. Exactly the opposite. So my own experience does bear out what you are saying.

Of course, both your experience, and mine, are simply anecdotal. It would be nice to have actual research that backs up this statement. Would you happen to have access to such? (Even if you don't, you did great to bring this up. No reason why I myself shouldn't be able to search something out, eventually -- or someone else reading this and having access to such speak out on this, perhaps.)

When I started the diet, I topped the scales at a reasonably healthy 205lbs, and over the course of just a few months I lost roughly 40lbs to 165, and I felt and continue to feel great. I experimented with a few extended fasts, both a juice fast that went for about six days, and some water fasts between 3-5 days, and experienced no ill effects. Having done more research I decided about four months ago to begin OMAD - one meal a day, and the results have been spectacular. I'm 50, but I routinely beat 20 year olds on the basketball court. I don't have any joint pain, inflammation, or stiffness. I sleep better, and have more energy, plus I spend less money on food, less time preparing food, and less time in the bathroom. Perhaps the best thing of all is that I get to eat mostly what I want, and in as big portions that I want, when I decide to eat. It really is all about dramatically lowering your frequency of eating, and NOT about caloric restriction, although I have also tried to moderate my sugar consumption, and carbs in general.

For those of you who have tried this and had some difficulty, it really boils down to Ghrelin. Once that hormone stops being produced, you don't feel hungry anymore, and food ceases to be a concern. For me this took about two to three weeks. If you have a fairly bad diet to begin with, you will probably endure keto flu, and possibly headaches. Once you get past this, and get keto adapted, the real benefits kick in. It also cures type II diabetes, but do NOT try this without doing some research as if you're taking meds there are some serious potential pitfalls.

I have absolutely no doubt that the metabolic benefits of fasting (and OMAD in particular) will result in longevity gains, given the dramatic health benefits I've enjoyed since I started.

Great! I'm happy this worked for you.

It did for me as well, when I'd tried it out. I went up directly with the once-a-day thing, and never had the slightest difficulty. High energy levels, general feeling of well being, all of those things you mention -- and best of all was the sheer convenience.

 

[Tippit]

*clears throat, starts to comment on amazing discovery #1, then thinks better of it*

Negative comments about my experience don't concern me. What concerns me is that I went from about 20/300 vision, to 20/30 vision now, with only slight and constantly improving astigmatism. I would be willing to bet any amount of money you would like to put up on this - it works. I have numerous old prescriptions and pairs of old glasses that prove my prior condition, and I can be tested to show that no surgery has occurred. And for you abstract thinkers out there, yes, all of the conclusions that we must necessarily draw, are true. The idea that myopia is a genetic condition is a big lie, and eyeglasses are essentially a scam. You can read the thread I started on this topic for more info. RLT (reduced lens therapy) isn't as important overall as I think fasting has been, but the shock and sheer joy of regaining my most important sense has been more impactful, and that's why I rank that #1.

Hadn't heard of this beast before, this Ghrelin, and googled around a bit (1, 2). And the latter seems to suggest that an empty stomach is what triggers this Ghrelin, so that intermittent fasting actually might increase its production -- and this might, conceivably, both make IF somewhat unpleasant, as well as potentially have long-term ill effects.

I think that's nonsense. I don't know exactly what triggers the production of Ghrelin, but Fung seems to think that it has something to do with frequency of eating, and eating at specific times of day. In my experience, it serves as a sort of counterfeit hunger signal, which, when brought under control, allows you to eat only what you need as opposed to what you want, without feeling hungry or grouchy all the time. It's also worth mentioning that apparently THC, the active ingredient in marijuana triggers the production of Ghrelin, so there is a scientific explanation for "the munchies".

That said, my conjecture in the paragaraph above -- and conjecture is all it is -- isn't borne out by my own experience. When I'd tried out this fasting thing, it isn't as I spent the day with my tongue hanging out, counting seconds till my evening meal. Exactly the opposite. So my own experience does bear out what you are saying.

Fasting isn't easy. Especially when you're beginning, and especially on your first and second days of fasting. Given enough discipline and time (again roughly 2-3 weeks in my case), you stop feeling miserable and hungry, and you essentially stop living to eat and start eating to live.

Of course, both your experience, and mine, are simply anecdotal. It would be nice to have actual research that backs up this statement. Would you happen to have access to such? (Even if you don't, you did great to bring this up. No reason why I myself shouldn't be able to search something out, eventually -- or someone else reading this and having access to such speak out on this, perhaps.)

My anecdotes are important to me, as they represent my observations in life. Observations don't necessarily have to be subject to the scientific method to be important and useful. Fung, who I referenced, sources all of the studies he refers to in his books. I've been doing this for about two years now with fantastic results, so I no longer need to be skeptical of it.

 

[Chanakya]

Negative comments about my experience don't concern me. What concerns me is that I went from about 20/300 vision, to 20/30 vision now, with only slight and constantly improving astigmatism. I would be willing to bet any amount of money you would like to put up on this - it works. I have numerous old prescriptions and pairs of old glasses that prove my prior condition, and I can be tested to show that no surgery has occurred. And for you abstract thinkers out there, yes, all of the conclusions that we must necessarily draw, are true. The idea that myopia is a genetic condition is a big lie, and eyeglasses are essentially a scam. You can read the thread I started on this topic for more info. RLT (reduced lens therapy) isn't as important overall as I think fasting has been, but the shock and sheer joy of regaining my most important sense has been more impactful, and that's why I rank that #1.



I think that's nonsense. I don't know exactly what triggers the production of Ghrelin, but Fung seems to think that it has something to do with frequency of eating, and eating at specific times of day. In my experience, it serves as a sort of counterfeit hunger signal, which, when brought under control, allows you to eat only what you need as opposed to what you want, without feeling hungry or grouchy all the time. It's also worth mentioning that apparently THC, the active ingredient in marijuana triggers the production of Ghrelin, so there is a scientific explanation for "the munchies".



Fasting isn't easy. Especially when you're beginning, and especially on your first and second days of fasting. Given enough discipline and time (again roughly 2-3 weeks in my case), you stop feeling miserable and hungry, and you essentially stop living to eat and start eating to live.



My anecdotes are important to me, as they represent my observations in life. Observations don't necessarily have to be subject to the scientific method to be important and useful. Fung, who I referenced, sources all of the studies he refers to in his books. I've been doing this for about two years now with fantastic results, so I no longer need to be skeptical of it.

Hm. So, you're saying, Dr Jason Fung's lectures/articles/books on IF have impressed you, and implementing this over two years have resulted in dramatic benefits, and you're wholly entirely sold on the idea. But you don't seem to have access to actual research on this. Nor do you seem to lay much store on structured scientific research per se, electing to go with personal, anecdotal evidence instead.

Fair enough. Can't say I agree with your approach; but, unlike many on this forum, I myself don't hold that burden of proof necessarily follows the making of a claim. That is, when it comes to positions, it is certainly the position about which a claim is made that needs to be supported with evidence; on the other hand, when it comes to people, to specific persons, then I guess it is more a case of the burden of proof vesting with whoever chooses to heft it, with whoever actually cares enough about some issue to seek out what evidence there is. Which is whole separate discussion, of course, but my point is, I've bookmarked the search page on Dr Jason Fung, and I'll check out at leisure what the man has to say. Thanks for raising this.

 

[Tippit]

Hm. So, you're saying, Dr Jason Fung's lectures/articles/books on IF have impressed you, and implementing this over two years have resulted in dramatic benefits, and you're wholly entirely sold on the idea. But you don't seem to have access to actual research on this. Nor do you seem to lay much store on structured scientific research per se, electing to go with personal, anecdotal evidence instead.

I gave you a reference, which is enough for you to find the research yourself. You can also use google scholar for access to peer reviewed studies. I didn't provide any links to IF studies because I don't need them, and I'm not obligated to provide them on a forum on demand, not because I don't have "access" to them. Reading Fung's books was enough, I tried the experiments on myself, and they worked. If you're skeptical of my claims, that's your problem, not mine.

I also have access to google scholar studies which prove that hyperoptic defocus, that is, the optical effect of wearing eyeglasses actually causes myopia, that myopia is a refractive state, and that it can actually be reversed. This proves that retail optometry is literally junk science that is destroying people's eyesight. This truth doesn't seem to prevent retail optometry from making billions. I can also link to a litany of peer reviewed studies about drugs which are the subjects of class action lawsuits, and which are demonstrably unhealthy, but which were supposedly vetted by "science", except, not really though, right?

Fair enough. Can't say I agree with your approach; but, unlike many on this forum, I myself don't hold that burden of proof necessarily follows the making of a claim. That is, when it comes to positions, it is certainly the position about which a claim is made that needs to be supported with evidence; on the other hand, when it comes to people, to specific persons, then I guess it is more a case of the burden of proof vesting with whoever chooses to heft it, with whoever actually cares enough about some issue to seek out what evidence there is. Which is whole separate discussion, of course, but my point is, I've bookmarked the search page on Dr Jason Fung, and I'll check out at leisure what the man has to say. Thanks for raising this.

My approach is to do what works for me, which may or may not require me burying my head in peer reviewed literature. As for everything else you wrote, I totally agree. The "burden of proof" in this instance is only mine should I choose to accept it. The reality is that I have little-to-nothing to gain or lose from any claims I make on a forum, in this case, you may be the one with something to gain, so the burden is on you to do your own due diligence. Fasting isn't really a subject about which experimentation comes with a lot of risk either way.

 

[Chanakya]

I gave you a reference, which is enough for you to find the research yourself. You can also use google scholar for access to peer reviewed studies. I didn't provide any links to IF studies because I don't need them, and I'm not obligated to provide them on a forum on demand, not because I don't have "access" to them. Reading Fung's books was enough, I tried the experiments on myself, and they worked. If you're skeptical of my claims, that's your problem, not mine.

I also have access to google scholar studies which prove that hyperoptic defocus, that is, the optical effect of wearing eyeglasses actually causes myopia, that myopia is a refractive state, and that it can actually be reversed. This proves that retail optometry is literally junk science that is destroying people's eyesight. This truth doesn't seem to prevent retail optometry from making billions. I can also link to a litany of peer reviewed studies about drugs which are the subjects of class action lawsuits, and which are demonstrably unhealthy, but which were supposedly vetted by "science", except, not really though, right?



My approach is to do what works for me, which may or may not require me burying my head in peer reviewed literature. As for everything else you wrote, I totally agree. The "burden of proof" in this instance is only mine should I choose to accept it. The reality is that I have little-to-nothing to gain or lose from any claims I make on a forum, in this case, you may be the one with something to gain, so the burden is on you to do your own due diligence.

I'm afraid your clearly less than sound grasp of what skepticism entails -- or else it could of course be that you do understand it fully well, but yet reject it yourself, for reasons best known to you -- is what leads you to make unsupported and potentially dangerous comments like the following:

Fasting isn't really a subject about which experimentation comes with a lot of risk either way.

To be clear, I'm glad this has worked for you, and wish you good health in future also. And further, I'm glad you've brought up a reference point that I've every intention of following up on, because I happen to be interested.

But I don't think it's safe, generally speaking, to rush into conclusions like that without clear evidence.

(And if you're going to claim that you did/do have evidence for all of the things you claim, then I don't see why you wouldn't share those, although obviously you're under no compulsion.)

 

[Louden Wilde]

new (free) review article entitled Fasting: How to Guide

Abstract:
Fasting potentials are the most interesting topics in the Nutritional Era. Fasting consists of the catabolism of lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates to maintain blood glucose levels in a normal range. The action mechanisms of fasting were firstly understood in minor organisms and later in humans. Nutritional interventions of caloric restriction could attenuate age-associated epigenetic alterations and could have a protective effect against cellular alterations, promoting longevity and health span. While most fasting studies point out the weight and fat mass decreases, it is important to define specific guidelines for fasting and non-fasting days to enhance adherence, minimize the dropout rates of the interventions, and maximize body composition improvement. Although the panorama of evidence on fasting and caloric restriction is wide, there is a lack of a safe fasting protocol to guide physicians in its prescription. The main goal is to identify a how to use guide, a major posology of fasting, inserted within a huge dietetic personalized strategy leading to an optimal and healthy nutritional status

 

[Roboramma]

Louden (addressing you specifically because you seem to pretty informed on the topic), my understanding is that the life extension effects of calorie restriction seem to diminish with the size of the animals studied: so very effective in mice and a wide range of other animals of that size and smaller, where life (and health)spans increase as much as 50%, much less effective in dogs, not much clear effect in monkeys, and very ambiguous results in people. Still some evidence of an effect in people, so may be worth doing and certainly worth continued study.

Approximately correct?

 

[Roboramma]

double post

 

[casebro]

Louden (addressing you specifically because you seem to pretty informed on the topic), my understanding is that the life extension effects of calorie restriction seem to diminish with the size of the animals studied: so very effective in mice and a wide range of other animals of that size and smaller, where life (and health)spans increase as much as 50%, much less effective in dogs, not much clear effect in monkeys, and very ambiguous results in people. Still some evidence of an effect in people, so may be worth doing and certainly worth continued study.

Approximately correct?

If calorie restriction worked for people, the starving children in India would live a looong time. They don't.

A study should be easily doable, probably everything is in wiki? Avg calorie consumption in countries, avg life span in those countries, correlataion is_____?

 

[Roboramma]

If calorie restriction worked for people, the starving children in India would live a looong time. They don't.

A study should be easily doable, probably everything is in wiki? Avg calorie consumption in countries, avg life span in those countries, correlataion is_____?

Calorie restriction and malnourishment are very different things.

I'm pretty sure that, like people, malnourished mice live shorter lives too. But calorie restriction works because they are given fully adequate nutrition.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Many (most? ) obese people are malnourished..

 

[Tippit]

If calorie restriction worked for people, the starving children in India would live a looong time. They don't.

First, as someone who has done this for a few years now, "calorie restriction" is not recommended. The "eat less move more" approach to losing weight is a long term failure, because it assumes a one-compartment model for calories that doesn't exist in reality. Do not, I repeat, do not, count calories, or abstain from eating to satiety when you're hungry. It only serves to slow your metabolism, and make you cold and miserable.

Do eat a ketogenic, or at least a low-carbohydrate diet, and eat infrequently (fast, but eat to satiety, once or twice a day). The reason for this is that of the three macronutrients, carbs, proteins, and fats, carbohydrates trigger the production of the most insulin by far, with (healthy, monounsaturated or polyunsaturated) fats resulting in the least insulin production. Insulin is the fat regulating hormone, and the high-carb western diet and frequency of eating, and snacking results in an abundance of insulin in the body, which results in insulin resistance, and thus more fat storage.

The starving kids in India are malnourished, not fasting, a profound difference.

A study should be easily doable, probably everything is in wiki? Avg calorie consumption in countries, avg life span in those countries, correlataion is_____?

Calories are irrelevant, frequency of eating and the ratio of insulin-triggering macronutrients that you consume, is. Read Dr. Jason Fung for more information.

 

[catsmate]

new (free) review article entitled Fasting: How to Guide

Abstract:
Fasting potentials are the most interesting topics in the Nutritional Era. Fasting consists of the catabolism of lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates to maintain blood glucose levels in a normal range. The action mechanisms of fasting were firstly understood in minor organisms and later in humans. Nutritional interventions of caloric restriction could attenuate age-associated epigenetic alterations and could have a protective effect against cellular alterations, promoting longevity and health span. While most fasting studies point out the weight and fat mass decreases, it is important to define specific guidelines for fasting and non-fasting days to enhance adherence, minimize the dropout rates of the interventions, and maximize body composition improvement. Although the panorama of evidence on fasting and caloric restriction is wide, there is a lack of a safe fasting protocol to guide physicians in its prescription. The main goal is to identify a how to use guide, a major posology of fasting, inserted within a huge dietetic personalized strategy leading to an optimal and healthy nutritional status

Nutrients is not exactly a well regarded journal. Indeed MDPI is not well thought of as a publisher.