16 ms·

Live slow, die old: Mounting evidence for caloric restriction in humans

278 points by discombobulate 10y ago

coldcode 10y ago
Interesting but is it worth living being hungry all the time? Are the extra years (you might not get anyway due to illness or accident) on average worth it to you the individual?
- jupiter90000 10y ago
  Maybe... I personally doubt I'll be savoring the sweet 70+ years of age period if I make it there.. but who knows I guess. I'd rather enjoy my life and not worry so much about "one day I'll be glad I deprived myself of so much." There is a balance as others have said too though.
- xapata 10y ago
  > worth living being hungry all the time Some people eat the same thing for breakfast and lunch every day, by choice. Anyone like that would say that hunger is well worth a longer life.
  - btilly 10y ago
    No. Eating the same thing every day says that you do not value putting out energy for variety of taste. It says nothing about your willingness to accept persistent discomfort.
    - xapata 10y ago
      I think there's a strong correlation, judging from the folks I know. Personally, I like variety, but I'm trying to change.
    - gpawl 10y ago
      "persistent discomfort" is not necessary. I know people who swim in open water; it seems too cold for me, but they are not in persistent discomfort. I know people who drink coffee, it's too bitter for me, but they are not in "ersistent discomfort. Pain is the body's way to signal illness or injury, when the pain is signalling inaccurate, the brain can learn to not feel the pain.
      - btilly 10y ago
        From experience, I know that these things are not comparable. Swimming in open water is fine after a few minutes of adjustment. I have learned not just to drink coffee, but to prefer it without sweetener. But I spent over a year at perhaps a 10-15% reduction in calories. Persistent discomfort never went away for me. I was only able to maintain the diet by my constant awareness of concrete and measurable progress towards a specific weight loss goal. I believe that I have more willpower than most, and diets are probably easier for me than most. Yet I doubt that I could live the rest of my life on a calorie restricted diet for the sake of living a bit longer.
        xapata 10y ago
        I find the opposite. When I experience hunger, if I wait for an hour or two I forget that I'm hungry. Just today I was working and skipped breakfast. Around lunch I thought I should get up, but I kept working. I forgot to eat until I had to stop for a meeting at 4:30pm. Suddenly I remembered my hunger and grabbed a banana. I still struggle with overeating when I'm hungry and there's food in front of me.
  - rubber_duck 10y ago
    I eat the same every day - but I still wouldn't do long term calorie restriction - I enjoy being physically strong quite a bit more than potential years in my 80s
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  While hunger pangs may be unpleasant from time to time, I personally have found myself to be at my happiest and most at peace with life when I am consistently losing weight. I have also cut alcohol consumption completely out of my life, unless I am celebrating something. This makes me far, far less likely to not care about my weight and my health, and I have no feelings of regret when I am hungry. But pleasure is easy and ice cream tastes good. Balance is everything.
  - idiot_stick 10y ago
    >But pleasure is easy and ice cream tastes good. Balance is everything. That's why calorie restriction is a thing of beauty; eat what you want within the bounds of a caloric limit. Personally, I eat very light all week (sub 1500 calories), then splurge on the weekend.
    - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
      That's kind of what I did when I was 18. I'd eat a handful of dry cereal, run 5 miles, go to school, then walk uphill for 45 minutes to my job as a produce clerk lifting boxes and stuff, then skip dinner. On the weekends I would eat like a pig and play Oblivion all day. Still, I lost 50 pounds in 2 months. I do not recommend this. My lung popped (but it healed itself) and some of my hair fell out (it grew back) from the loss in protein intake. Like I said before, balance is everything. Still, I do agree it makes sense to be light on the weekdays and splurge on the weekends. After all, there's only so much food you can stuff down your gullet in a span of a couple of days without making yourself sick, regardless of your caloric intake from the previous week.
      - idiot_stick 10y ago
        >Still, I do agree it makes sense to be light on the weekdays and splurge on the weekends. Right. I make no claims about my method being "good". But I work long days, and commute. So I usually don't each during the weekday, then come home and have a great meal. Then TV and bed. I'm sure any benefits come from fewer calories eaten in aggregate.
- ultimoo 10y ago
  Good point. I wonder how effective it would be to drop calorie intake past the age of say 60 years. That way one gets to enjoy a regular calorie intake for most of their life and then sacrifice it in favor of longevity. Hopefully more research on this topic surfaces in the coming years!
  - idiot_stick 10y ago
    >I wonder how effective it would be to drop calorie intake past the age of say 60 years This space is crippled with pseudo-science, but I think the idea is that there could be irrecoverable damage done by that time, and that your old self simply won't heal as well. But I'll bet starting at 60 beats never starting.
- flippyhead 10y ago
  I don't think of it this way. Instead consider that the modern abundance of every type of food is very different from the environment in which our bodies evolved. Our natural/hard-wired cravings are actually harmful in the modern environment. It's less about being hungry and more about being satisfied with considerably less. Anecdotally I can tell you I absolutely feel better when I eat less than when I eat to satisfy whatever craving I might have.
  - GrinningFool 10y ago
    In addition you can - to an extent - eat to satisfy the craving in that you have the food you want. Just ... less.
- idiot_stick 10y ago
  >Interesting but is it worth living being hungry all the time? For most people hunger is a mind set, and eating is a habit.
  - taeric 10y ago
    This just an assertion, or do you have backing data? I'm genuinely curious, as eating is hella fun for me, typically.
    - idiot_stick 10y ago
      >This just an assertion, or do you have backing data? What sort of data? That we (in the West at least) eat far too much? That you won't starve if you skip eating for a day? I also enjoy eating. What I meant was, people, generally, aren't eating because their body requires nourishment, but rather because it's meal time.
      - taeric 10y ago
        Hmmm.. I think I was misreading what you were asserting. I was taking it to meant it is a purely learned behavior. While I can see how it has heavily learned aspects, I'm curious if it is solely a learned thing. More, I'm curious how successful people can change their learned behavior.
    - gukov 10y ago
      Carbs that are quickly digested set you up for a roller coaster of blood sugars. It's the sudden crash of the blood sugar that makes your body tell you that you better grab something sugary again for another dopamine fix. Our bodies are much better at detecting fluctuations compared to absolutes.
    - SketchySeaBeast 10y ago
      http://scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory/2006/10/21/if-i-dont-remember-eating-it-i/ http://scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory/2006/10/21/if-i-dont-re... Amnesiacs who ate a big lunch could eat another large lunch after they forgot the first one. Not perfect, but it helps indicate a leaning towards hunger, satiety, and the mind.
- KVFinn 10y ago
  >Interesting but is it worth living being hungry all the time? A lot of people that do it say they don't really have a problem. They eat a large volume of food with a high nutrient-calorie ratio. Or some people only eat within certain time ranges which they say makes it easy to lower calories without getting extra hungry. Also people they say they feel physically and mentally great when they eat a super healthy and calorie restricted so a little hunger is a mild tradeoff.
- KaiserPro 10y ago
  Short answer: no. Long answer: no, because: For $reasons I accidentally ended up on a calorie controlled diet, something around 1600-1800 a day. This persisted for too long. Basically I felt like I was on the edge of a cold all the time. Anything activity like cycling was utterly draining. The world was very dull and grey indeed. Now, I suspect that what they are talking about here is diet and calorie control (I wasn't eating rice). I doubt it was as extreme as what 1800 kcals a day is for a 6ft3 male. Now, there were other factors that may or may not have contributed to the feeling of utter "urgh" however, I don't see how its fun to like on a calorie controlled diet, unless you grew up with it.
  - gukov 10y ago
    Despite what everybody says, all calories are not equal. Were you eating fast carbs like bread?
  - bitL 10y ago
    If you could, move to a sunny state, it's easier to be on such a diet and full of energy if you are in warmer climate. Once during winter I did keto, daily cold shower, daily HIIT, 3-4x strength training/week and then I lost all energy and got sick for a month. I did the same in summer and it was all great.
    - dokument 10y ago
      Did you take into account your extra energy requirements in the winter? Your body has to keep you warm and this uses energy. It would be interesting to have an app or wearable that could help you keep up with intake based off of your environment (e.g. yesterday you walked n+10 miles and it was cold, you should eat more today than normal).
      - bitL 10y ago
        No, I didn't at that time. An app like one you mention would have to observe you first and see which foods give you what amount of energy, as your body is cherry-picking compatible food to some extent and burning rate is highly individual, probably even depending on your gut bacteria and how they pre-process your food. What works for one person won't for another :(
- bitL 10y ago
  You are likely to get used to it. Try to get up to 3-day fasting on electrolyte water only, one day more at a time. Usually the first day is the worst, then you can fast and even do intense sport normally for a few days (this should also kick start your immunity if you weren't too weak already). Or try to take a restricted ketonic diet for 2-3 months, with one day per week permitting eating whatever you like - you can drop 20-40lbs of fat easily, reducing the amount of "garbage" your body stores in the belly fat (which is created by your body when it can't get rid of some dangerous metabolic products immediately).
  - hughes 10y ago
    Also, talk to your doctor before going 3 days without food.
    - mirsadm 10y ago
      Why? What is a doctor going to tell you? 3 days without food is not dangerous.
      - mywittyname 10y ago
        Dehydration is a concern for people who go prolonged periods without eating as food is a large source of the body's water.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - 10y ago
- throwanem 10y ago
  I've run a couple of uncontrolled n=1 trials on myself with calorie restriction in the past three or so years, and have found that I quickly (ca. 2 weeks) habituate to a lower caloric intake and don't experience hunger pangs unless I forget to eat altogether. Indeed, my current problem is eating enough - I had to consume an additional 900 calories past full yesterday, just in order to meet my 1k/day restriction goal. (Which it is important not to undershoot, as I discovered when I ran -2k for two days running and fell asleep leaning against a train station lamppost on my commute home the second day.)
  - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
    Take it from someone who had to consume as many calories as possible for medical reasons [1]: nothing beats custard for boosting your daily calorie intake. A single glass is almost 1000 calories, and you can learn to chug it pretty easily. [1] I have a chronic autoimmune digestive disease, at one point I couldn't eat enough to keep from dropping weight, was in hospital with intravenous nutrition etc.; I'm pretty much OK now after surgery and new kick-ass meds.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      That's good to know! I used pizza, but custard would be more convenient and perhaps less filling as well. Thanks!
- 40acres 10y ago
  I've found that after a while you can train your body to be more resistant to hunger pangs, if you feel a bit of a pang, get some tea or water. Now obviously if you're really hungry feel free to eat a meal, but I've noticed that my stomach growling doesn't necessarily mean I'm ready for a full meal. Also, I've found that eating food high in fat keeps me satiated. I have an avocado w/ coffee for breakfast (~5:45 AM) and that lasts me until ~1pm.
  - GrinningFool 10y ago
    Hungry is a signal, but it doesn't require action. Or rather, when it is strong enough that it does require action you can tell the difference. Unfortunately, we (US) teach people that it does require action - through advertising, through school nutrition teachings and implementations (meal + 2 snacks in a 7 hour school day, at least for young kids).
- alistairSH 10y ago
  Do Okinawans live hungry? Or, do they just eat foods that have lower caloric value for a given volume, along with a culture of not over-eating?
  - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
    I also think there's lots of confounding variables at play here. TFA says their diet differs from the mainland in several important ways: more vegetables and fish, less white rice and meat, and lower average calorie intake. Both of the first factors are extremely well-documented and uncontroversial dietary improvements, basically in the recommendations of every public health organisation in existence. We also know that being overweight is bad for your health, so as you say, if they're just less overweight than average, nothing much to see there.
- melling 10y ago
  Only you can answer that for yourself. What value is there in running into the weeds debating it? People would rather start "bike shedding" rather than try gain a deeper understanding of the topic.
- joe_the_user 10y ago
  I remember an article about a fellow who was doing caloric restriction in Portland, OR. He was described as going from entirely average build to at the edge of under weight. I personally maintain a weight at the edge of under weight generally consuming a high level of calories (and this is in my 50s). I doubt I could survive calorie restriction. Anyway, maybe it's sour grape but I suspect the whole calorie restriction thing is boondoggle based on ignoring the variety of factors influencing calorie consumption and longevity outside very controlled circumstances. If normal lab mice (or monkeys or some humans) are fat and inactive, calorie restriction might be good for them while it might be very bad for active animals.
- flyinghamster 10y ago
  My own anecdata: Late in 2014, as I turned 50, I stepped on the scale and saw 295 pounds. I knew I had long been overindulging, but I freaked and decided to do something about it. As it was, it was starting to hurt when I walked. First thing to go: snacks. I made a simple rule: don't keep snacks handy. It's way too easy for me to graze. The other thing I did was to greatly reduce my portion sizes. I found a couple of things: first, that if I still felt hungry after finishing a meal, I didn't feel that way a few minutes later. I also noticed that I didn't feel nearly as hungry in general as I thought I would. Keep in mind that restaurant portions often are big enough for two, sometimes three people. If I take half home, there's tomorrow's lunch or dinner. Win-win. Occasional treats are not a bad thing, but I won't let myself fall into the trap of "oh, just one more bag of chips won't do any harm (lather, rinse, repeat)." The first summer, I broke out my long-dormant recumbent trike, fixed the broken spokes, and got it back out for long rides, and I also rode a lot last summer as well. During this time, I found that I needed to eat more to support the rides, but I didn't gain weight, and my rides got faster through the season - very noticeably so last summer. Once it got too cold to ride, I had to readjust my eating habits again, but it still wasn't too difficult. After 28 months of this, I'm down to 195. I'd like to get down to 170, but I'm not going to go nuts trying to hit the target. As it is, my knees and feet are very thankful, and I feel a whole lot better.
  - GrinningFool 10y ago
    I've dropped ~50 lbs in two years nearly the same way, or at least the same net effect: a rather large breakfast every day, no lunch, and medium sized dinner. No snacks during the day, though I often grab something later in the eve. The gap might qualify as intermittent fasting, but I do drink coffee with a fair amount of whole milk & sugar through the mid afternoon. I am not eating any healthier, just less food. For exercise, I started walking my dogs 4-5 nights a week in the evenings for a few miles (think closer to speed walking than regular).[0] I stopped losing weight when I stopped walking so often - the cold is getting to me this year, will resume in the spring. I'm seeing no weight gain though, because I haven't increased the amount of food I'm putting in. Couple of things to add to your observations: I've found that with time, a sensation of 'hungry' is just another sensation that my body reports - it's not an imperative to eat. And as I've adapted to reduced calories, this has largely faded. For the periodic conference or social gathering, I'll and enjoy the excessive amounts of food. For longer events this might cause an uptick of a few pounds, but it settles back to the prior level within a week or two. ---- [0] I know - in the US I should put the period inside of the paren (or quote). But that's illogical. I refuse.
- abandonliberty 10y ago
  Yes, restricting a standard western diet to 25% is can be awful when you're addicted to easy digested and processed foods. Our homeostasis mechanisms did not evolve with those. Your assumption that you will be "hungry all the time" is incorrect. It's quite easy to run a 25% deficit in keto. So easy that difficulty maintaining body weight is a big reason people stop.
- refurb 10y ago
  This is just an anecdote, but as others have mentioned, you kind of get used to being hungry most of the time. A few years back I was getting a ton of exercise and was trying to cut weight. I was burning close to 3000 calories per day and eating around 2000 calories. My observations: (1) you start to pay less attention to the hunger signals over time, (2) food, even bland food, starts to taste really good, (3) this could just be a placebo effect, but I would get really cold when hungry and then feel really warm after I ate, not sure if that was my metabolism increasing after a meal and (4) if I cheated, I could put 3-4 pounds on in a day which I assumed was mostly water and muscle glycogen stores, not fat.
  - ZeroFries 10y ago
    3) might be explained by the bodies conversion of T4 to T3 (active thyroid), which requires glucose.
  - cesnja 10y ago
    I get those cold and warm cycles all the time. It's probably because our bodies are very efficient.
- bcheung 10y ago
  Most people who adopt a ketogenic diet that is lower calorie do not report hunger. In fact, many report less hunger despite consuming significantly less calories. The reason being is that the body becomes more efficient at burning fat so there is always enough energy. That is in contrast to a non-ketogenic diet that has highs and lows of energy corresponding to eating.
- mtw 10y ago
  An alternative that works equally well is intermittent fasting. Every 3 months, you fast for 5 days. Make sure to drink plenty. If you can't fast for 3 days straight, you can also do a 2-days fast every month. See summary of studies: http://outcomereference.com/causes/115-Fasting http://outcomereference.com/causes/115-Fasting
sebringj 10y ago
See about Roy Walford http://www.walford.com/ http://www.walford.com/ for the origins of this. He was able to experiment with humans in the biosphere team.
nacc 10y ago
I have a wild theory about longevity. For all the mammals, increased heart rate correlates with lower life span [0]. But heart rate itself may just be a measurement, and what's important is rate of metabolism - higher metabolism, higher heart rate, lower life span. And vice versa. If we very boldly assume these relationships are causal and predictive to individuals, it follows lower energy consumption -> longer life. Caloric restriction might be one way to do this. However, with lower metabolism, stuff in the body tend to get older. This will make them fail more easily, then you are likely to get sick, which will shorten your life. Therefore the optimal strategy to maximum life expectancy seems to be control metabolism (by exercise / calory intake etc.) to a certain point where you are just unlikely to get sick, then stop. [0] biology.stackexchange.com/questions/20489/is-there-any-relationship-between-heartbeat-rate-and-life-span-of-an-animalH
- bitL 10y ago
  Heart rate is genetic - some people like me and my family have increased resting heart rate even while being athletic (one cousin was a table tennis champ and other highly competitive swimmer, both have increased resting rate). And our genes make us look young (20-30s) even in our 50s, as I can see on my relatives. So different genotypes have different characteristics I guess.
  - sushid 10y ago
    That's interesting. Shouldn't professional athletes have a lower resting heart rates?
- reasonattlm 10y ago
  Rate of living theories are more or less thrown out as not useful at this point in time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate-of-living_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate-of-living_theory These correlations probably have more to do with the membrane pacemaker view of resistance to oxidative damage, and how lipid composition of membranes varies with metabolic demands. Look at birds and bats, for example: tiny, with rapid heart rates, and very long lived in comparison to other species of similar size. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemphyslip.2015.08.008 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemphyslip.2015.08.008
jaggederest 10y ago
As a counterexample, the Minnesota Starvation Experiment found a substantial variety of negative effects from calorie restriction: > Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis as measured using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Indeed, most of the subjects experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depression.[1]:161 There were extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject amputated three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally).[6] Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation.[1]:123–124 The participants reported a decline in concentration, comprehension and judgment capabilities, although the standardized tests administered showed no actual signs of diminished capacity. This ought not, however, to be taken as an indication that capacity to work, study and learn will not be affected by starvation or intensive dieting. There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject's basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experimen...
- Permit 10y ago
  There is a huge difference between a 50%+ calorie deficit and a 17% calorie deficit. The two aren't comparable.
  - abandonliberty 10y ago
    Control period was 3,200, starvation was 1560. This seems high. Most dietary recommendations today are structured around a 2000 calorie diet. Wikipedia mentions that this was a healthy weight diet - they must have been very active and/or large. What calorie deficit is required to obtain 25% weight loss in 6 months?
    - 10y ago
anonu 10y ago
You might live longer on a calorie restricted diet but you might just die of boredom. Seriously, food is amazing. Why would you deny yourself so much of it. I'd be a bigger advocate of intermittent fasting. This has also been shown to improve health and longevity.
- idiot_stick 10y ago
  >I'd be a bigger advocate of intermittent fasting. It's just another method of caloric restriction: forcing your meals into a 6 or 8 hour window, or not eating for a day a week. You're just eating less.
- tluyben2 10y ago
  > Seriously, food is amazing. Why would you deny yourself so much of it You don't have to; I conditioned myself to enjoy all the excellent foods, but to just take less of it. The quality is not in the quantity while I thought all my life it was. There is no 'better' feeling eating an entire cake versus taking 2 bites of the same cake. It took me 40 years to figure that out but he. The main trick was eating very very slow. Do not load the next spoon until your mouth is completely empty. I noticed i'm absolutely full eating a fraction of what I hammered down usually in a fraction of that time. > I'd be a bigger advocate of intermittent fasting. Yes, but stuffing myself in between, depending on your age, doesn't actually work very well. I felt like shit doing that, did not lose too much weight and my brain thought I needed that stuffing. Now I feel fit and healthy doing fasting & eating slowly. Let's see how long I keep it up. I need less sleep too.
Hambonetasty 10y ago
Why the fuck would you want to do that? Being old sucks.
- deleted_soon 10y ago
  I think the implication is that you age slower if you consume fewer calories. So if you adopt CR then you might feel at age 50 how someone on a normal diet feels at age 40, and at 100 you might feel as they do at 80.
  - rubber_duck 10y ago
    Having done it for short periods of time (months) it makes you feel like you're 50 at 20 - drained and weak.
    - tluyben2 10y ago
      Interesting; I feel fitter and need less sleep. What exactly did you do? Maybe it differs from person to person like many things, but i'm curious.
      - rubber_duck 10y ago
        When I want to lose fat I go low calorie high protein (below 2000kcal). I get constant food cravings and I can't even get myself to do anything in the gym, also have a hard time focusing at work. It was considerably better when I wasn't lifting - then you get used to it (I still felt weak) - but weight training + low calorie = very draining.
        tluyben2 10y ago
        But 2000kcal is already well below a male doing normal things during the day; so 2000 + gym with weights would drop that completely out. When I do weights I try to shoot for around 2500 which already sucks compared to what I was used to (which does affect performance but it feels the same so I think overall I benefit?). But when just doing cardio I can go well below 2000 on a day or just not eat at all (only tea + water) and feel sharp, I just choose not to and just do days without any food. I cannot imagine doing every day below 2000 and then going to the gym indeed. That would definitely not be productive and painful, but doing days of weights with 2500 max, other days around 2000 and then some days 0 works fine for me.
reasonattlm 10y ago
Of note, Geroscience is a new popular science of aging online magazine supported by the Apollo Ventures investment fund, devoted to longevity science startups. You should absolutely take a look at their site to see the sort of sea change that has occurred for the perception of aging research in the funding community: http://apollo.vc http://apollo.vc They take a very Hallmarks of Aging view of the causes of aging, which I can quibble with around the edges, but it is good to seem more people putting their money into the game of building ways to treat the causes of aging. The principals at Apollo became involved in this space and raised a fund both because they are enthused by the field of therapeutics to treat aging and want to see it succeed, but also because they recognize the tremendous potential for profit here. The size of the market for enhancement biotechnologies such as rejuvenation treatments is half the human race, every adult individual. Publishing a magazine on aging research is a way to help broaden their reach within the community, find more prospective investments, talk up their positions, and raise the profile of the field as a whole, all of which aligns fairly well with the broader goals of advocacy for longevity science. Many hands make light work, and we could certainly use more help to speed up the growth of this field of research and development.
reasonattlm 10y ago
Some of the more interesting recent research, from the perspective of evidence for meaningful health benefits, and some degree of additional longevity in our long-lived species. Caloric restriction improves health and survival of rhesus monkeys https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14063 https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14063 Will calorie restriction work in humans? http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/aging.100581 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/aging.100581
crudbug 10y ago
2016 Nobel prize was awarded to Yoshinori [0] for his work on Autophagy [1] - Cells eating dead cells and auto-correcting body functions when there is lack of calories/energy in the system. Ancient philosophy also says about fasting 2 days a week. The Autophagy process provides a scientific foundation for those claims. [0] https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2016/press.html https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autophagy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autophagy
- bykovich 10y ago
  To what ancient philosophy are you referring?
  - crudbug 10y ago
    I had the Hindu philosophy of fasting [0] in mind. [0] http://www.yogamag.net/archives/1981/emay81/hindu.shtml http://www.yogamag.net/archives/1981/emay81/hindu.shtml
    - FabHK 10y ago
      I don't think one should give any credence to those ancient theories. Greek philosopher Democritus came up with the theory of atoms, but it was a lucky guess without any evidence at the time.
      - bykovich 10y ago
        Yeah, no one before 1600 knew anything. Thousands of years of compounded experience? Just straight-up garbage.
        literallycancer 10y ago
        Thousands years of experience, and yet medical practitioners wouldn't wash their hands less than two centuries ago. 'Ancient' is a meme, just like 'natural' or 'eastern'.
hartator 10y ago
I wonder what's the best way to apply this to daily life. Restriction at every meal vs alternative day restrictiona vs fasting a few days every once in a while.
stefap2 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tom_Parr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tom_Parr He existed and even thrived on a diet of “subrancid cheese and milk in every form, coarse and hard bread and small drink, generally sour whey”, as William Harvey wrote. … "On this sorry fare, but living in his home, free from care, did this poor man attain to such length of days". Thomas Howard brought him to London to meet King Charles I. Parr was treated as a spectacle in London, but the change in food and environment apparently led to his death.
- bykovich 10y ago
  The third section of this article states that Parr was likely under 70 when he died and that his birth records may have been confused with those of his grandfather.
- vkou 10y ago
  Given the well-documented rarity of modern centenarians [1][2], it's highly likely that Old Tom Parr did not live to be 150 years old - and is much more likely that his documented age is due to errors in recordkeeping. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenarian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenarian [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/world/asia/15japan.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/world/asia/15japan.html
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
leovonl 10y ago
There is mounting evidence that fasting and a few dietary approaches (like the ketogenic diet) are useful tools for dealing with a whole sort of issues, from autoimmune diseases and generally any excessive inflammatory responses (including CHD). Calorie restriction OTOH is something that gives mixed results, and I suspect it may be related to the diet adopted and how it is implemented (ie, LCHF vs LFHC, fasting vs frequent small meals). I suggest anyone interested in food/health to spend some time on google scholar searching about these approaches, it's enlightening.
- todd8 10y ago
  I'm not sure I would describe the available literature as "enlightening"; for me at least, it's quite confusing. I'm just a computer scientist so it's hard to sort through the often contradictory results and claims.
wcummings 10y ago
A low-calorie plant-based diet >much of it from plant-based material like the Japanese sweet potato, their staple food, in contrast with the rice-heavy cuisine of the mainland.
- clock_tower 10y ago
  I get what the author's saying -- that white rice is pure carbohydrates, while sweet potatoes are a healthier mix -- but it's phrased pretty strangely. What exactly is rice, if not a plant?
  - geomark 10y ago
    Isn't glycemic index (GI) an important measure of the potential negative effect of the carbohydrate? Some varieties of rice have a surprisingly high GI. Jasmine rice, for example, has a higher GI than pure glucose, a sad fact for me since it's the favorite rice where I live. Other types of rice have much lower GI. When it comes to sweet potato versus rice, cooking method makes a big difference in GI: Jasime rice = 109, baked sweet potato = 94, boiled sweet potato = 44 [1] [1] https://www.diabetesselfmanagement.com/blog/glycemic-index-confusion/ https://www.diabetesselfmanagement.com/blog/glycemic-index-c...
grondilu 10y ago
Yet as far as know longevity records among humans did not have any particular diet, did they? As caloric restriction is being more and more shown to be the only efficient method to increase longevity, I suppose more and more people will try it and soon enough we'll get to break records. Time will tell.
thomk 10y ago
Eat To Live, by Dr. Joel Fuhrman describes a diet that is low calorie high nutrient and it's a very good, easy read for anyone who is interested. I personally lost 70+ pounds on it: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Eat_to_Live https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Eat_to_Live Health = Nutrients/Calories!
memoryfab_com 10y ago
I actually believe starvation and caloric deficiency has more correlation with inflammation. When you introduce foreign sustenance (food) into your body, it has to spend resources to work through it, absorb it and expel waste. The higher the caloric count the more work it has to do and usually more inflammation from working through it instead of working on recovery. What studies (HMS,Johnhopkins) have shown is exercise (blood flow vital to removing waste and in result inflammation) and sleep (recovery) is equally as if not more important than diet. These focus points are the same in fighting age related diseases: Alzheimers and sleeplessness.
prodmerc 10y ago
Wait just a minute. What if I don't want to live longer? What if I want to live a shorter life full of energy? Everyone is focusing on longevity when quality is probably more important. 120 years as a couch potato would be shit compared to 60 years of being active every day (whether physically or mentally). People are against TRT because it shortens lifespan, while completely ignoring the quality of life improvements, which is just stupid. Give me something to burn fast and bright, not slow and dim, thank you very much.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  I think the idea behind intermittent fasting is to trigger some of the low-calorie processes, and then go back to high-energy diets.
- gwern 10y ago
  > Everyone is focusing on longevity when quality is probably more important. 120 years as a couch potato would be shit compared to 60 years of being active every day (whether physically or mentally). The CALERIE study included a number of questionnaires asking about quality of life issues like libido. While their CR level was moderate, the benefits looked good, attrition was minimal, and they reported little decrease in quality of life.
- svachalek 10y ago
  From what I read of the early caloric restriction studies on animals, it tended to greatly increase the healthy adult portion of the lifespan rather than adding a lot of geriatric time. That was the great hope for the human version too, but all the accounts I've read do indeed sound miserable. I'm curious about fasting though. It's very easy for me to believe that our bodies are designed to go without eating for a while, much like we need to sleep. In nature we wouldn't really have needed any prodding to miss some meals so there wouldn't necessarily be a corresponding drive like thirst or sleepiness. I haven't tried it but personally I've never suffered much from missing a meal or two... seems like it wouldn't necessarily hurt quality of life if you were used to it.
  - aedron 10y ago
ellyagg 10y ago
There's a totally different way to live that also has mounting evidence, and it's a way that sounds a lot more satisfying to me. For awhile now, the "obesity paradox" has been a thing, where segments of the population who are a little heavier than one would expect actually have the best all-cause mortality rates. Recently there's been some pushback on this "paradox", but the one I want to call attention to is here: http://annals.org/aim/article/2499472/relationship-among-body-fat-percentage-body-mass-index-all-cause http://annals.org/aim/article/2499472/relationship-among-bod... The problem with the obesity paradox is that it's been based on the flawed BMI. In this study, they actually did DEXA scans of elderly women's body fat percentage, and those with the highest BMI and lowest body fat percentage had the best all-cause mortality rates. This suggests plenty of calories plus strength training is in the running for a longevity lifestyle. This makes sense intuitively and if one is familiar with the panoply of beneficial physiological effects from exercise on the human body. And, it would not come as a shock to find that increased strength from greater muscle improves, e.g., balance and coordination to prevent accidents in the elderly, nor that increased muscle mass provides a protective tissue reserve for fighting disease without the concomitant downsides of adipose.
- imgabe 10y ago
  This jibes with my own pet theory for longevity. Our bodies evolved in much more demanding conditions than we have now. Wild temperature swings, strenuous work, etc. I think a lot of current diseases are caused by the systems the body developed to deal with these things that now have nothing to do, like an unloaded motor spinning out of control.
  - rixed 10y ago
    > Our bodies evolved in much more demanding conditions than we have now. Why do you think how our body evolved is related to longevity ?
    - nomel 10y ago
      Are you asking why longevity is a desirable trait?
fast_throwaway 10y ago
Dr. Jason Fung, a Canadian Nephrologist is an encyclopedic resource for the impacts of calorie restriction and fasting. While he has a couple (really good) books, the following presentation is a nice overview of his work, findings and results of therapeutic fasting: 'Therapeutic Fasting - Solving the Two-Compartment Problem' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIuj-oMN-Fk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIuj-oMN-Fk
wallace_f 10y ago
Given the inconsistent, even capricious prescriptions coming from nutritional science and medicine, here's three reasons I don't worry too much about nutritional "science." First, n anecdote: 1.) One year I decided to run a marathon, and joined a running group including some elite runners. One was a former state champion. In that particular year he'd run an Iron Man, a marathon, and the Goofy Challenge. That is a big deal. He was carved out of stone. At running clubs, women would surround him. They'd paw at him, giggle as they pointed and touched this man body of steel. After witnessing this for months, once at a pub I saw him order, IIRC: 2 hotdogs, a hamburger meal (with its own sides), and sweet potato fries, which he washed down with several beers. I was shocked. I asked if he always ate that way. He said he just eats what he feels like eating, with one exception: added sugar. So that's what I do. I eat what I feel like, with (3) exceptions. Small portions, no added sugar, and limits on artificial flavours. I've seen great results in energy, mind and physique. It appears my body is actually really well tuned to tell me what it needs without me having to do anything at all--as long as I follow those three rules. 2.) We need to be careful what we call actual science. If you can't rigidly follow the scientific method and test your theory to see if it matches with nature, it's not science. 3.) Nutrition is ridiculously important to our well being. It's more important than sex, shelter, and ego. Our bodies have been evolving for millions of years to learn how to tell us what they require. It's arrogant to declare yourself to know better here without having hard scientific evidence of it. That's what we're seeing now in the "scientific" literature. Butter is no longer a heart risk. Eggs are now healthy. All of the sudden sugar is the devil. Etc.
- cup 10y ago
  I'm guessing you didn't read the article or have a poor understanding of nutritional science. Also, using an anecdote about what an elite runner eats as a rebuttal is nearly farcical. Regarding point 2, I guess you don't see many Physics and Maths fields as "Science"?
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    >I'm guessing you didn't read the article or have a poor understanding of nutritional science. First of all, rebuttals disagreeing with comments by suggesting one hasn't read the article are specifically against the community guidelines here, and ad hominen attacks about a commenter's understanding of a subject are also not appreciated. Math is math. Physics is a science. Theoretical physics specifically, unfortunately, some times can not be tested as expediently as we'd like. Perhaps you'd be more willing to digest it when taken from the horses mouth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
athenot 10y ago
In a similar vein, there's the Greek version of the same thing: - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/magazine/the-island-where-people-forget-to-die.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/magazine/the-island-where-... Discussion on HN: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4692598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4692598 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9025438 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9025438
chatterbeak 10y ago
What's very disturbing is the "fat acceptance" movement. People are scared that young woman will become "anorexic" if told to lose weight, and fatness is glorified. The truth is that about 300,000 people/year die each year in the United States from complications from Obesity[1], and about 150/year die from undereating. The Fat Acceptance movement is killing people. And, in fact, being slightly underweight may be very healthy. [1] https://www.wvdhhr.org/bph/oehp/obesity/mortality.htm https://www.wvdhhr.org/bph/oehp/obesity/mortality.htm
bikamonki 10y ago
Meh, I'll just wait for the iHeart, the iKidney and the iLiver. Surly hope I do not end up with an Android-powered brain b/c my insurance plan does not cover the always reliable and reasonably priced AWS Cognito Plus, while I'm definitely not rich enough to dream about the iBrain 7. Until then, the triple-b diet will do: beer, burgers and bike to work.
beegeezuz 10y ago
Live fast, die young. Quality over quantity. I'm bout dis life bitch.
ziotom78 10y ago
Interestingly, I read about this idea in «Corps et âmes» (1943), a marvellous novel by Maxence Van Der Meersch (a physician). The wife of the main character is able to recover from tuberculosis thanks to a diet with very low calories.

278 points by discombobulate 10y ago

Interesting but is it worth living being hungry all the time? Are the extra years (you might not get anyway due to illness or accident) on average worth it to you the individual?

jupiter90000 10y ago
Maybe... I personally doubt I'll be savoring the sweet 70+ years of age period if I make it there.. but who knows I guess. I'd rather enjoy my life and not worry so much about "one day I'll be glad I deprived myself of so much." There is a balance as others have said too though.
xapata 10y ago
> worth living being hungry all the time Some people eat the same thing for breakfast and lunch every day, by choice. Anyone like that would say that hunger is well worth a longer life.
- btilly 10y ago
  No. Eating the same thing every day says that you do not value putting out energy for variety of taste. It says nothing about your willingness to accept persistent discomfort.
  - xapata 10y ago
    I think there's a strong correlation, judging from the folks I know. Personally, I like variety, but I'm trying to change.
  - gpawl 10y ago
    "persistent discomfort" is not necessary. I know people who swim in open water; it seems too cold for me, but they are not in persistent discomfort. I know people who drink coffee, it's too bitter for me, but they are not in "ersistent discomfort. Pain is the body's way to signal illness or injury, when the pain is signalling inaccurate, the brain can learn to not feel the pain.
    - btilly 10y ago
      From experience, I know that these things are not comparable. Swimming in open water is fine after a few minutes of adjustment. I have learned not just to drink coffee, but to prefer it without sweetener. But I spent over a year at perhaps a 10-15% reduction in calories. Persistent discomfort never went away for me. I was only able to maintain the diet by my constant awareness of concrete and measurable progress towards a specific weight loss goal. I believe that I have more willpower than most, and diets are probably easier for me than most. Yet I doubt that I could live the rest of my life on a calorie restricted diet for the sake of living a bit longer.
      - xapata 10y ago
        I find the opposite. When I experience hunger, if I wait for an hour or two I forget that I'm hungry. Just today I was working and skipped breakfast. Around lunch I thought I should get up, but I kept working. I forgot to eat until I had to stop for a meeting at 4:30pm. Suddenly I remembered my hunger and grabbed a banana. I still struggle with overeating when I'm hungry and there's food in front of me.
- rubber_duck 10y ago
  I eat the same every day - but I still wouldn't do long term calorie restriction - I enjoy being physically strong quite a bit more than potential years in my 80s
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
While hunger pangs may be unpleasant from time to time, I personally have found myself to be at my happiest and most at peace with life when I am consistently losing weight. I have also cut alcohol consumption completely out of my life, unless I am celebrating something. This makes me far, far less likely to not care about my weight and my health, and I have no feelings of regret when I am hungry. But pleasure is easy and ice cream tastes good. Balance is everything.
- idiot_stick 10y ago
  >But pleasure is easy and ice cream tastes good. Balance is everything. That's why calorie restriction is a thing of beauty; eat what you want within the bounds of a caloric limit. Personally, I eat very light all week (sub 1500 calories), then splurge on the weekend.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    That's kind of what I did when I was 18. I'd eat a handful of dry cereal, run 5 miles, go to school, then walk uphill for 45 minutes to my job as a produce clerk lifting boxes and stuff, then skip dinner. On the weekends I would eat like a pig and play Oblivion all day. Still, I lost 50 pounds in 2 months. I do not recommend this. My lung popped (but it healed itself) and some of my hair fell out (it grew back) from the loss in protein intake. Like I said before, balance is everything. Still, I do agree it makes sense to be light on the weekdays and splurge on the weekends. After all, there's only so much food you can stuff down your gullet in a span of a couple of days without making yourself sick, regardless of your caloric intake from the previous week.
    - idiot_stick 10y ago
      >Still, I do agree it makes sense to be light on the weekdays and splurge on the weekends. Right. I make no claims about my method being "good". But I work long days, and commute. So I usually don't each during the weekday, then come home and have a great meal. Then TV and bed. I'm sure any benefits come from fewer calories eaten in aggregate.
ultimoo 10y ago
Good point. I wonder how effective it would be to drop calorie intake past the age of say 60 years. That way one gets to enjoy a regular calorie intake for most of their life and then sacrifice it in favor of longevity. Hopefully more research on this topic surfaces in the coming years!
- idiot_stick 10y ago
  >I wonder how effective it would be to drop calorie intake past the age of say 60 years This space is crippled with pseudo-science, but I think the idea is that there could be irrecoverable damage done by that time, and that your old self simply won't heal as well. But I'll bet starting at 60 beats never starting.
flippyhead 10y ago
I don't think of it this way. Instead consider that the modern abundance of every type of food is very different from the environment in which our bodies evolved. Our natural/hard-wired cravings are actually harmful in the modern environment. It's less about being hungry and more about being satisfied with considerably less. Anecdotally I can tell you I absolutely feel better when I eat less than when I eat to satisfy whatever craving I might have.
- GrinningFool 10y ago
  In addition you can - to an extent - eat to satisfy the craving in that you have the food you want. Just ... less.
idiot_stick 10y ago
>Interesting but is it worth living being hungry all the time? For most people hunger is a mind set, and eating is a habit.
- taeric 10y ago
  This just an assertion, or do you have backing data? I'm genuinely curious, as eating is hella fun for me, typically.
  - idiot_stick 10y ago
    >This just an assertion, or do you have backing data? What sort of data? That we (in the West at least) eat far too much? That you won't starve if you skip eating for a day? I also enjoy eating. What I meant was, people, generally, aren't eating because their body requires nourishment, but rather because it's meal time.
    - taeric 10y ago
      Hmmm.. I think I was misreading what you were asserting. I was taking it to meant it is a purely learned behavior. While I can see how it has heavily learned aspects, I'm curious if it is solely a learned thing. More, I'm curious how successful people can change their learned behavior.
  - gukov 10y ago
    Carbs that are quickly digested set you up for a roller coaster of blood sugars. It's the sudden crash of the blood sugar that makes your body tell you that you better grab something sugary again for another dopamine fix. Our bodies are much better at detecting fluctuations compared to absolutes.
  - SketchySeaBeast 10y ago
    http://scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory/2006/10/21/if-i-dont-remember-eating-it-i/ http://scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory/2006/10/21/if-i-dont-re... Amnesiacs who ate a big lunch could eat another large lunch after they forgot the first one. Not perfect, but it helps indicate a leaning towards hunger, satiety, and the mind.
KVFinn 10y ago
>Interesting but is it worth living being hungry all the time? A lot of people that do it say they don't really have a problem. They eat a large volume of food with a high nutrient-calorie ratio. Or some people only eat within certain time ranges which they say makes it easy to lower calories without getting extra hungry. Also people they say they feel physically and mentally great when they eat a super healthy and calorie restricted so a little hunger is a mild tradeoff.
KaiserPro 10y ago
Short answer: no. Long answer: no, because: For $reasons I accidentally ended up on a calorie controlled diet, something around 1600-1800 a day. This persisted for too long. Basically I felt like I was on the edge of a cold all the time. Anything activity like cycling was utterly draining. The world was very dull and grey indeed. Now, I suspect that what they are talking about here is diet and calorie control (I wasn't eating rice). I doubt it was as extreme as what 1800 kcals a day is for a 6ft3 male. Now, there were other factors that may or may not have contributed to the feeling of utter "urgh" however, I don't see how its fun to like on a calorie controlled diet, unless you grew up with it.
- gukov 10y ago
  Despite what everybody says, all calories are not equal. Were you eating fast carbs like bread?
- bitL 10y ago
  If you could, move to a sunny state, it's easier to be on such a diet and full of energy if you are in warmer climate. Once during winter I did keto, daily cold shower, daily HIIT, 3-4x strength training/week and then I lost all energy and got sick for a month. I did the same in summer and it was all great.
  - dokument 10y ago
    Did you take into account your extra energy requirements in the winter? Your body has to keep you warm and this uses energy. It would be interesting to have an app or wearable that could help you keep up with intake based off of your environment (e.g. yesterday you walked n+10 miles and it was cold, you should eat more today than normal).
    - bitL 10y ago
      No, I didn't at that time. An app like one you mention would have to observe you first and see which foods give you what amount of energy, as your body is cherry-picking compatible food to some extent and burning rate is highly individual, probably even depending on your gut bacteria and how they pre-process your food. What works for one person won't for another :(
bitL 10y ago
You are likely to get used to it. Try to get up to 3-day fasting on electrolyte water only, one day more at a time. Usually the first day is the worst, then you can fast and even do intense sport normally for a few days (this should also kick start your immunity if you weren't too weak already). Or try to take a restricted ketonic diet for 2-3 months, with one day per week permitting eating whatever you like - you can drop 20-40lbs of fat easily, reducing the amount of "garbage" your body stores in the belly fat (which is created by your body when it can't get rid of some dangerous metabolic products immediately).
- hughes 10y ago
  Also, talk to your doctor before going 3 days without food.
  - mirsadm 10y ago
    Why? What is a doctor going to tell you? 3 days without food is not dangerous.
    - mywittyname 10y ago
      Dehydration is a concern for people who go prolonged periods without eating as food is a large source of the body's water.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - 10y ago
throwanem 10y ago
I've run a couple of uncontrolled n=1 trials on myself with calorie restriction in the past three or so years, and have found that I quickly (ca. 2 weeks) habituate to a lower caloric intake and don't experience hunger pangs unless I forget to eat altogether. Indeed, my current problem is eating enough - I had to consume an additional 900 calories past full yesterday, just in order to meet my 1k/day restriction goal. (Which it is important not to undershoot, as I discovered when I ran -2k for two days running and fell asleep leaning against a train station lamppost on my commute home the second day.)
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  Take it from someone who had to consume as many calories as possible for medical reasons [1]: nothing beats custard for boosting your daily calorie intake. A single glass is almost 1000 calories, and you can learn to chug it pretty easily. [1] I have a chronic autoimmune digestive disease, at one point I couldn't eat enough to keep from dropping weight, was in hospital with intravenous nutrition etc.; I'm pretty much OK now after surgery and new kick-ass meds.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    That's good to know! I used pizza, but custard would be more convenient and perhaps less filling as well. Thanks!
40acres 10y ago
I've found that after a while you can train your body to be more resistant to hunger pangs, if you feel a bit of a pang, get some tea or water. Now obviously if you're really hungry feel free to eat a meal, but I've noticed that my stomach growling doesn't necessarily mean I'm ready for a full meal. Also, I've found that eating food high in fat keeps me satiated. I have an avocado w/ coffee for breakfast (~5:45 AM) and that lasts me until ~1pm.
- GrinningFool 10y ago
  Hungry is a signal, but it doesn't require action. Or rather, when it is strong enough that it does require action you can tell the difference. Unfortunately, we (US) teach people that it does require action - through advertising, through school nutrition teachings and implementations (meal + 2 snacks in a 7 hour school day, at least for young kids).
alistairSH 10y ago
Do Okinawans live hungry? Or, do they just eat foods that have lower caloric value for a given volume, along with a culture of not over-eating?
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  I also think there's lots of confounding variables at play here. TFA says their diet differs from the mainland in several important ways: more vegetables and fish, less white rice and meat, and lower average calorie intake. Both of the first factors are extremely well-documented and uncontroversial dietary improvements, basically in the recommendations of every public health organisation in existence. We also know that being overweight is bad for your health, so as you say, if they're just less overweight than average, nothing much to see there.
melling 10y ago
Only you can answer that for yourself. What value is there in running into the weeds debating it? People would rather start "bike shedding" rather than try gain a deeper understanding of the topic.
joe_the_user 10y ago
I remember an article about a fellow who was doing caloric restriction in Portland, OR. He was described as going from entirely average build to at the edge of under weight. I personally maintain a weight at the edge of under weight generally consuming a high level of calories (and this is in my 50s). I doubt I could survive calorie restriction. Anyway, maybe it's sour grape but I suspect the whole calorie restriction thing is boondoggle based on ignoring the variety of factors influencing calorie consumption and longevity outside very controlled circumstances. If normal lab mice (or monkeys or some humans) are fat and inactive, calorie restriction might be good for them while it might be very bad for active animals.
flyinghamster 10y ago
My own anecdata: Late in 2014, as I turned 50, I stepped on the scale and saw 295 pounds. I knew I had long been overindulging, but I freaked and decided to do something about it. As it was, it was starting to hurt when I walked. First thing to go: snacks. I made a simple rule: don't keep snacks handy. It's way too easy for me to graze. The other thing I did was to greatly reduce my portion sizes. I found a couple of things: first, that if I still felt hungry after finishing a meal, I didn't feel that way a few minutes later. I also noticed that I didn't feel nearly as hungry in general as I thought I would. Keep in mind that restaurant portions often are big enough for two, sometimes three people. If I take half home, there's tomorrow's lunch or dinner. Win-win. Occasional treats are not a bad thing, but I won't let myself fall into the trap of "oh, just one more bag of chips won't do any harm (lather, rinse, repeat)." The first summer, I broke out my long-dormant recumbent trike, fixed the broken spokes, and got it back out for long rides, and I also rode a lot last summer as well. During this time, I found that I needed to eat more to support the rides, but I didn't gain weight, and my rides got faster through the season - very noticeably so last summer. Once it got too cold to ride, I had to readjust my eating habits again, but it still wasn't too difficult. After 28 months of this, I'm down to 195. I'd like to get down to 170, but I'm not going to go nuts trying to hit the target. As it is, my knees and feet are very thankful, and I feel a whole lot better.
- GrinningFool 10y ago
  I've dropped ~50 lbs in two years nearly the same way, or at least the same net effect: a rather large breakfast every day, no lunch, and medium sized dinner. No snacks during the day, though I often grab something later in the eve. The gap might qualify as intermittent fasting, but I do drink coffee with a fair amount of whole milk & sugar through the mid afternoon. I am not eating any healthier, just less food. For exercise, I started walking my dogs 4-5 nights a week in the evenings for a few miles (think closer to speed walking than regular).[0] I stopped losing weight when I stopped walking so often - the cold is getting to me this year, will resume in the spring. I'm seeing no weight gain though, because I haven't increased the amount of food I'm putting in. Couple of things to add to your observations: I've found that with time, a sensation of 'hungry' is just another sensation that my body reports - it's not an imperative to eat. And as I've adapted to reduced calories, this has largely faded. For the periodic conference or social gathering, I'll and enjoy the excessive amounts of food. For longer events this might cause an uptick of a few pounds, but it settles back to the prior level within a week or two. ---- [0] I know - in the US I should put the period inside of the paren (or quote). But that's illogical. I refuse.
abandonliberty 10y ago
Yes, restricting a standard western diet to 25% is can be awful when you're addicted to easy digested and processed foods. Our homeostasis mechanisms did not evolve with those. Your assumption that you will be "hungry all the time" is incorrect. It's quite easy to run a 25% deficit in keto. So easy that difficulty maintaining body weight is a big reason people stop.
refurb 10y ago
This is just an anecdote, but as others have mentioned, you kind of get used to being hungry most of the time. A few years back I was getting a ton of exercise and was trying to cut weight. I was burning close to 3000 calories per day and eating around 2000 calories. My observations: (1) you start to pay less attention to the hunger signals over time, (2) food, even bland food, starts to taste really good, (3) this could just be a placebo effect, but I would get really cold when hungry and then feel really warm after I ate, not sure if that was my metabolism increasing after a meal and (4) if I cheated, I could put 3-4 pounds on in a day which I assumed was mostly water and muscle glycogen stores, not fat.
- ZeroFries 10y ago
  3) might be explained by the bodies conversion of T4 to T3 (active thyroid), which requires glucose.
- cesnja 10y ago
  I get those cold and warm cycles all the time. It's probably because our bodies are very efficient.
bcheung 10y ago
Most people who adopt a ketogenic diet that is lower calorie do not report hunger. In fact, many report less hunger despite consuming significantly less calories. The reason being is that the body becomes more efficient at burning fat so there is always enough energy. That is in contrast to a non-ketogenic diet that has highs and lows of energy corresponding to eating.
mtw 10y ago
An alternative that works equally well is intermittent fasting. Every 3 months, you fast for 5 days. Make sure to drink plenty. If you can't fast for 3 days straight, you can also do a 2-days fast every month. See summary of studies: http://outcomereference.com/causes/115-Fasting http://outcomereference.com/causes/115-Fasting

sebringj 10y ago

See about Roy Walford http://www.walford.com/ http://www.walford.com/ for the origins of this. He was able to experiment with humans in the biosphere team.

nacc 10y ago

I have a wild theory about longevity. For all the mammals, increased heart rate correlates with lower life span [0]. But heart rate itself may just be a measurement, and what's important is rate of metabolism - higher metabolism, higher heart rate, lower life span. And vice versa. If we very boldly assume these relationships are causal and predictive to individuals, it follows lower energy consumption -> longer life. Caloric restriction might be one way to do this. However, with lower metabolism, stuff in the body tend to get older. This will make them fail more easily, then you are likely to get sick, which will shorten your life. Therefore the optimal strategy to maximum life expectancy seems to be control metabolism (by exercise / calory intake etc.) to a certain point where you are just unlikely to get sick, then stop. [0] biology.stackexchange.com/questions/20489/is-there-any-relationship-between-heartbeat-rate-and-life-span-of-an-animalH

bitL 10y ago
Heart rate is genetic - some people like me and my family have increased resting heart rate even while being athletic (one cousin was a table tennis champ and other highly competitive swimmer, both have increased resting rate). And our genes make us look young (20-30s) even in our 50s, as I can see on my relatives. So different genotypes have different characteristics I guess.
- sushid 10y ago
  That's interesting. Shouldn't professional athletes have a lower resting heart rates?
reasonattlm 10y ago
Rate of living theories are more or less thrown out as not useful at this point in time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate-of-living_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate-of-living_theory These correlations probably have more to do with the membrane pacemaker view of resistance to oxidative damage, and how lipid composition of membranes varies with metabolic demands. Look at birds and bats, for example: tiny, with rapid heart rates, and very long lived in comparison to other species of similar size. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemphyslip.2015.08.008 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemphyslip.2015.08.008

jaggederest 10y ago

As a counterexample, the Minnesota Starvation Experiment found a substantial variety of negative effects from calorie restriction: > Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis as measured using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Indeed, most of the subjects experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depression.[1]:161 There were extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject amputated three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally).[6] Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation.[1]:123–124 The participants reported a decline in concentration, comprehension and judgment capabilities, although the standardized tests administered showed no actual signs of diminished capacity. This ought not, however, to be taken as an indication that capacity to work, study and learn will not be affected by starvation or intensive dieting. There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject's basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experimen...

Permit 10y ago
There is a huge difference between a 50%+ calorie deficit and a 17% calorie deficit. The two aren't comparable.
- abandonliberty 10y ago
  Control period was 3,200, starvation was 1560. This seems high. Most dietary recommendations today are structured around a 2000 calorie diet. Wikipedia mentions that this was a healthy weight diet - they must have been very active and/or large. What calorie deficit is required to obtain 25% weight loss in 6 months?
  - 10y ago

anonu 10y ago

You might live longer on a calorie restricted diet but you might just die of boredom. Seriously, food is amazing. Why would you deny yourself so much of it. I'd be a bigger advocate of intermittent fasting. This has also been shown to improve health and longevity.

idiot_stick 10y ago
>I'd be a bigger advocate of intermittent fasting. It's just another method of caloric restriction: forcing your meals into a 6 or 8 hour window, or not eating for a day a week. You're just eating less.
tluyben2 10y ago
> Seriously, food is amazing. Why would you deny yourself so much of it You don't have to; I conditioned myself to enjoy all the excellent foods, but to just take less of it. The quality is not in the quantity while I thought all my life it was. There is no 'better' feeling eating an entire cake versus taking 2 bites of the same cake. It took me 40 years to figure that out but he. The main trick was eating very very slow. Do not load the next spoon until your mouth is completely empty. I noticed i'm absolutely full eating a fraction of what I hammered down usually in a fraction of that time. > I'd be a bigger advocate of intermittent fasting. Yes, but stuffing myself in between, depending on your age, doesn't actually work very well. I felt like shit doing that, did not lose too much weight and my brain thought I needed that stuffing. Now I feel fit and healthy doing fasting & eating slowly. Let's see how long I keep it up. I need less sleep too.

Hambonetasty 10y ago

Why the fuck would you want to do that? Being old sucks.

deleted_soon 10y ago
I think the implication is that you age slower if you consume fewer calories. So if you adopt CR then you might feel at age 50 how someone on a normal diet feels at age 40, and at 100 you might feel as they do at 80.
- rubber_duck 10y ago
  Having done it for short periods of time (months) it makes you feel like you're 50 at 20 - drained and weak.
  - tluyben2 10y ago
    Interesting; I feel fitter and need less sleep. What exactly did you do? Maybe it differs from person to person like many things, but i'm curious.
    - rubber_duck 10y ago
      When I want to lose fat I go low calorie high protein (below 2000kcal). I get constant food cravings and I can't even get myself to do anything in the gym, also have a hard time focusing at work. It was considerably better when I wasn't lifting - then you get used to it (I still felt weak) - but weight training + low calorie = very draining.
      - tluyben2 10y ago
        But 2000kcal is already well below a male doing normal things during the day; so 2000 + gym with weights would drop that completely out. When I do weights I try to shoot for around 2500 which already sucks compared to what I was used to (which does affect performance but it feels the same so I think overall I benefit?). But when just doing cardio I can go well below 2000 on a day or just not eat at all (only tea + water) and feel sharp, I just choose not to and just do days without any food. I cannot imagine doing every day below 2000 and then going to the gym indeed. That would definitely not be productive and painful, but doing days of weights with 2500 max, other days around 2000 and then some days 0 works fine for me.

reasonattlm 10y ago

Of note, Geroscience is a new popular science of aging online magazine supported by the Apollo Ventures investment fund, devoted to longevity science startups. You should absolutely take a look at their site to see the sort of sea change that has occurred for the perception of aging research in the funding community: http://apollo.vc http://apollo.vc They take a very Hallmarks of Aging view of the causes of aging, which I can quibble with around the edges, but it is good to seem more people putting their money into the game of building ways to treat the causes of aging. The principals at Apollo became involved in this space and raised a fund both because they are enthused by the field of therapeutics to treat aging and want to see it succeed, but also because they recognize the tremendous potential for profit here. The size of the market for enhancement biotechnologies such as rejuvenation treatments is half the human race, every adult individual. Publishing a magazine on aging research is a way to help broaden their reach within the community, find more prospective investments, talk up their positions, and raise the profile of the field as a whole, all of which aligns fairly well with the broader goals of advocacy for longevity science. Many hands make light work, and we could certainly use more help to speed up the growth of this field of research and development.

reasonattlm 10y ago

Some of the more interesting recent research, from the perspective of evidence for meaningful health benefits, and some degree of additional longevity in our long-lived species. Caloric restriction improves health and survival of rhesus monkeys https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14063 https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14063 Will calorie restriction work in humans? http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/aging.100581 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/aging.100581

crudbug 10y ago

2016 Nobel prize was awarded to Yoshinori [0] for his work on Autophagy [1] - Cells eating dead cells and auto-correcting body functions when there is lack of calories/energy in the system. Ancient philosophy also says about fasting 2 days a week. The Autophagy process provides a scientific foundation for those claims. [0] https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2016/press.html https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autophagy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autophagy

bykovich 10y ago
To what ancient philosophy are you referring?
- crudbug 10y ago
  I had the Hindu philosophy of fasting [0] in mind. [0] http://www.yogamag.net/archives/1981/emay81/hindu.shtml http://www.yogamag.net/archives/1981/emay81/hindu.shtml
  - FabHK 10y ago
    I don't think one should give any credence to those ancient theories. Greek philosopher Democritus came up with the theory of atoms, but it was a lucky guess without any evidence at the time.
    - bykovich 10y ago
      Yeah, no one before 1600 knew anything. Thousands of years of compounded experience? Just straight-up garbage.
      - literallycancer 10y ago
        Thousands years of experience, and yet medical practitioners wouldn't wash their hands less than two centuries ago. 'Ancient' is a meme, just like 'natural' or 'eastern'.

hartator 10y ago

I wonder what's the best way to apply this to daily life. Restriction at every meal vs alternative day restrictiona vs fasting a few days every once in a while.

stefap2 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tom_Parr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tom_Parr He existed and even thrived on a diet of “subrancid cheese and milk in every form, coarse and hard bread and small drink, generally sour whey”, as William Harvey wrote. … "On this sorry fare, but living in his home, free from care, did this poor man attain to such length of days". Thomas Howard brought him to London to meet King Charles I. Parr was treated as a spectacle in London, but the change in food and environment apparently led to his death.

bykovich 10y ago
The third section of this article states that Parr was likely under 70 when he died and that his birth records may have been confused with those of his grandfather.
vkou 10y ago
Given the well-documented rarity of modern centenarians [1][2], it's highly likely that Old Tom Parr did not live to be 150 years old - and is much more likely that his documented age is due to errors in recordkeeping. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenarian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenarian [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/world/asia/15japan.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/world/asia/15japan.html

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

leovonl 10y ago

There is mounting evidence that fasting and a few dietary approaches (like the ketogenic diet) are useful tools for dealing with a whole sort of issues, from autoimmune diseases and generally any excessive inflammatory responses (including CHD). Calorie restriction OTOH is something that gives mixed results, and I suspect it may be related to the diet adopted and how it is implemented (ie, LCHF vs LFHC, fasting vs frequent small meals). I suggest anyone interested in food/health to spend some time on google scholar searching about these approaches, it's enlightening.

todd8 10y ago
I'm not sure I would describe the available literature as "enlightening"; for me at least, it's quite confusing. I'm just a computer scientist so it's hard to sort through the often contradictory results and claims.

wcummings 10y ago

A low-calorie plant-based diet >much of it from plant-based material like the Japanese sweet potato, their staple food, in contrast with the rice-heavy cuisine of the mainland.

clock_tower 10y ago
I get what the author's saying -- that white rice is pure carbohydrates, while sweet potatoes are a healthier mix -- but it's phrased pretty strangely. What exactly is rice, if not a plant?
- geomark 10y ago
  Isn't glycemic index (GI) an important measure of the potential negative effect of the carbohydrate? Some varieties of rice have a surprisingly high GI. Jasmine rice, for example, has a higher GI than pure glucose, a sad fact for me since it's the favorite rice where I live. Other types of rice have much lower GI. When it comes to sweet potato versus rice, cooking method makes a big difference in GI: Jasime rice = 109, baked sweet potato = 94, boiled sweet potato = 44 [1] [1] https://www.diabetesselfmanagement.com/blog/glycemic-index-confusion/ https://www.diabetesselfmanagement.com/blog/glycemic-index-c...

grondilu 10y ago

Yet as far as know longevity records among humans did not have any particular diet, did they? As caloric restriction is being more and more shown to be the only efficient method to increase longevity, I suppose more and more people will try it and soon enough we'll get to break records. Time will tell.

thomk 10y ago

Eat To Live, by Dr. Joel Fuhrman describes a diet that is low calorie high nutrient and it's a very good, easy read for anyone who is interested. I personally lost 70+ pounds on it: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Eat_to_Live https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Eat_to_Live Health = Nutrients/Calories!

memoryfab_com 10y ago

I actually believe starvation and caloric deficiency has more correlation with inflammation. When you introduce foreign sustenance (food) into your body, it has to spend resources to work through it, absorb it and expel waste. The higher the caloric count the more work it has to do and usually more inflammation from working through it instead of working on recovery. What studies (HMS,Johnhopkins) have shown is exercise (blood flow vital to removing waste and in result inflammation) and sleep (recovery) is equally as if not more important than diet. These focus points are the same in fighting age related diseases: Alzheimers and sleeplessness.

prodmerc 10y ago

Wait just a minute. What if I don't want to live longer? What if I want to live a shorter life full of energy? Everyone is focusing on longevity when quality is probably more important. 120 years as a couch potato would be shit compared to 60 years of being active every day (whether physically or mentally). People are against TRT because it shortens lifespan, while completely ignoring the quality of life improvements, which is just stupid. Give me something to burn fast and bright, not slow and dim, thank you very much.

RangerScience 10y ago
I think the idea behind intermittent fasting is to trigger some of the low-calorie processes, and then go back to high-energy diets.
gwern 10y ago
> Everyone is focusing on longevity when quality is probably more important. 120 years as a couch potato would be shit compared to 60 years of being active every day (whether physically or mentally). The CALERIE study included a number of questionnaires asking about quality of life issues like libido. While their CR level was moderate, the benefits looked good, attrition was minimal, and they reported little decrease in quality of life.
svachalek 10y ago
From what I read of the early caloric restriction studies on animals, it tended to greatly increase the healthy adult portion of the lifespan rather than adding a lot of geriatric time. That was the great hope for the human version too, but all the accounts I've read do indeed sound miserable. I'm curious about fasting though. It's very easy for me to believe that our bodies are designed to go without eating for a while, much like we need to sleep. In nature we wouldn't really have needed any prodding to miss some meals so there wouldn't necessarily be a corresponding drive like thirst or sleepiness. I haven't tried it but personally I've never suffered much from missing a meal or two... seems like it wouldn't necessarily hurt quality of life if you were used to it.
- aedron 10y ago

ellyagg 10y ago

There's a totally different way to live that also has mounting evidence, and it's a way that sounds a lot more satisfying to me. For awhile now, the "obesity paradox" has been a thing, where segments of the population who are a little heavier than one would expect actually have the best all-cause mortality rates. Recently there's been some pushback on this "paradox", but the one I want to call attention to is here: http://annals.org/aim/article/2499472/relationship-among-body-fat-percentage-body-mass-index-all-cause http://annals.org/aim/article/2499472/relationship-among-bod... The problem with the obesity paradox is that it's been based on the flawed BMI. In this study, they actually did DEXA scans of elderly women's body fat percentage, and those with the highest BMI and lowest body fat percentage had the best all-cause mortality rates. This suggests plenty of calories plus strength training is in the running for a longevity lifestyle. This makes sense intuitively and if one is familiar with the panoply of beneficial physiological effects from exercise on the human body. And, it would not come as a shock to find that increased strength from greater muscle improves, e.g., balance and coordination to prevent accidents in the elderly, nor that increased muscle mass provides a protective tissue reserve for fighting disease without the concomitant downsides of adipose.

imgabe 10y ago
This jibes with my own pet theory for longevity. Our bodies evolved in much more demanding conditions than we have now. Wild temperature swings, strenuous work, etc. I think a lot of current diseases are caused by the systems the body developed to deal with these things that now have nothing to do, like an unloaded motor spinning out of control.
- rixed 10y ago
  > Our bodies evolved in much more demanding conditions than we have now. Why do you think how our body evolved is related to longevity ?
  - nomel 10y ago
    Are you asking why longevity is a desirable trait?

fast_throwaway 10y ago

Dr. Jason Fung, a Canadian Nephrologist is an encyclopedic resource for the impacts of calorie restriction and fasting. While he has a couple (really good) books, the following presentation is a nice overview of his work, findings and results of therapeutic fasting: 'Therapeutic Fasting - Solving the Two-Compartment Problem' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIuj-oMN-Fk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIuj-oMN-Fk

wallace_f 10y ago

Given the inconsistent, even capricious prescriptions coming from nutritional science and medicine, here's three reasons I don't worry too much about nutritional "science." First, n anecdote: 1.) One year I decided to run a marathon, and joined a running group including some elite runners. One was a former state champion. In that particular year he'd run an Iron Man, a marathon, and the Goofy Challenge. That is a big deal. He was carved out of stone. At running clubs, women would surround him. They'd paw at him, giggle as they pointed and touched this man body of steel. After witnessing this for months, once at a pub I saw him order, IIRC: 2 hotdogs, a hamburger meal (with its own sides), and sweet potato fries, which he washed down with several beers. I was shocked. I asked if he always ate that way. He said he just eats what he feels like eating, with one exception: added sugar. So that's what I do. I eat what I feel like, with (3) exceptions. Small portions, no added sugar, and limits on artificial flavours. I've seen great results in energy, mind and physique. It appears my body is actually really well tuned to tell me what it needs without me having to do anything at all--as long as I follow those three rules. 2.) We need to be careful what we call actual science. If you can't rigidly follow the scientific method and test your theory to see if it matches with nature, it's not science. 3.) Nutrition is ridiculously important to our well being. It's more important than sex, shelter, and ego. Our bodies have been evolving for millions of years to learn how to tell us what they require. It's arrogant to declare yourself to know better here without having hard scientific evidence of it. That's what we're seeing now in the "scientific" literature. Butter is no longer a heart risk. Eggs are now healthy. All of the sudden sugar is the devil. Etc.

cup 10y ago
I'm guessing you didn't read the article or have a poor understanding of nutritional science. Also, using an anecdote about what an elite runner eats as a rebuttal is nearly farcical. Regarding point 2, I guess you don't see many Physics and Maths fields as "Science"?
- wallace_f 10y ago
  >I'm guessing you didn't read the article or have a poor understanding of nutritional science. First of all, rebuttals disagreeing with comments by suggesting one hasn't read the article are specifically against the community guidelines here, and ad hominen attacks about a commenter's understanding of a subject are also not appreciated. Math is math. Physics is a science. Theoretical physics specifically, unfortunately, some times can not be tested as expediently as we'd like. Perhaps you'd be more willing to digest it when taken from the horses mouth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

athenot 10y ago

In a similar vein, there's the Greek version of the same thing: - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/magazine/the-island-where-people-forget-to-die.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/magazine/the-island-where-... Discussion on HN: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4692598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4692598 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9025438 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9025438

chatterbeak 10y ago

What's very disturbing is the "fat acceptance" movement. People are scared that young woman will become "anorexic" if told to lose weight, and fatness is glorified. The truth is that about 300,000 people/year die each year in the United States from complications from Obesity[1], and about 150/year die from undereating. The Fat Acceptance movement is killing people. And, in fact, being slightly underweight may be very healthy. [1] https://www.wvdhhr.org/bph/oehp/obesity/mortality.htm https://www.wvdhhr.org/bph/oehp/obesity/mortality.htm

bikamonki 10y ago

Meh, I'll just wait for the iHeart, the iKidney and the iLiver. Surly hope I do not end up with an Android-powered brain b/c my insurance plan does not cover the always reliable and reasonably priced AWS Cognito Plus, while I'm definitely not rich enough to dream about the iBrain 7. Until then, the triple-b diet will do: beer, burgers and bike to work.

beegeezuz 10y ago

Live fast, die young. Quality over quantity. I'm bout dis life bitch.

ziotom78 10y ago

Interestingly, I read about this idea in «Corps et âmes» (1943), a marvellous novel by Maxence Van Der Meersch (a physician). The wife of the main character is able to recover from tuberculosis thanks to a diet with very low calories.