20 ms·
Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)
- norswap 10y ago> Restricting caloric intake to 60-70% of normal adult weight maintenance requirement prolongs lifespan 30-50% and confers near perfect health across a broad range of species. Am I the only one for whom this ends all kind of warnings? First, how can eating less than required to maintain mass be healthy? Second, "confers near perfect health" seems like a hell of a claim.
- dsego 10y agoCalorie restriction prolongs life, it's been proven in studies on animals.
- dao- 10y ago> First, how can eating less than required to maintain mass be healthy? Define healthy? They may lose muscle mass / strength but still get sick less and live longer. In my mind it makes some sense that slowing down your metabolism moderately could make your body "last" longer... but this is just me trying to make sense of things and I'm far from an expert.
- coldtea 10y ago>First, how can eating less than required to maintain mass be healthy? Because you don't need to maintain the full adult mass you carry. In the end you'll find a new balance, albeit skinnier. It's not like you'll end to 0 pounds. In other words, the "normal adult weight maintenance" target weight is not that normal, and not optimally healthy.
- hamilyon2 10y agoEvery about weight loss should mention sleep. Every study should control for it, a mere hour a day can do wonders to your well being
- johndoe4589 10y agoPut simply digestion is one of the most expensive tasks for the body. It makes sense that giving the whole digestive system a break will free up energy in other parts of the body.
- Jaruzel 10y agoI'm almost 45. Guessing that it's too late for me to adopt this? Also, If i had adopted it at ~20 years old, would that mean I could have potentially lived up to ~140 years old? That seems an extreme lifespan extension.
- zardo 10y agoThe subjects were all over 65, if anything you're too young.
- jwhitlark 10y agoThis paper seems to be from 2006?
- alderz 10y agoYes, my bad. I have edited the title.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- rawfan 10y agoA nutritionist friend of mine has been doing this for years. At least it doesn't have any negative site effects.
- zeamaize 10y agoThis sort of result has been showed repeatedly. We really need more (and better) nutrition education. The level of obesity and overeating in our society is astounding. I'd be surprised if most people could even implement basic calorie counting.
- CalRobert 10y agoIn addition to education, just having less miseducation would be a start. I suspect part of the problem is that if anyone ever admits to skipping breakfast they're shamed and guilted about as much as if they'd started the day by doing lines of cocaine. The breakfast nazis are out in force, and they push this idea on people when they're very young (even though breakfast is mostly a scam made to sell sugary grains). Anecdata, but I only started to lose weight and feel healthier when I switched to only eating when I was hungry. Most of my eating had been to adhere to US social norms or combat boredom (while not great, diet soda worked to fight the latter until I got used to the idea that I didn't need to be consuming stuff). For all the "education" out there, "you don't have to eat if you're not hungry" is shockingly rare advice.
- jackvalentine 10y agoHaving tried implementing calorie counting... how exactly do you do it? You either cook everything yourself and weigh every ingredient. Or you buy totally packaged meals (Lite 'n Easy, etc), or you buy fast food (And even then, the calorie counts in fast food are... inaccurate at best). If I go to the corner shop and get a sandwich I have no idea what's in it and there is no accurate way to estimate. While it's good to be aware just how energy dense foods are (like muffins... aka breakfast cakes) there is no method that I'd consider both achievable for the average person to consistently do AND accurate enough to be considered 'counting' as opposed to washy estimates.
- dsego 10y agoI had success with a smartphone app (loseit) and estimating. You really don't need to be more precise. Lost 3-4 kilos in a month. Doing a rough calculation will often do the trick, that one sandwich could be 400-500 calories, and you had two beers, which is already 400-500. A weight losing calculator suggested you can eat about 2000 calories that day. So that's already half o your daily intake. But if you go run or cycle for an hour you can eat maybe 300-400 more. Keeping track breaks the bad eating habits.
- reasonattlm 10y agoSlows glaucoma: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep33950 https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep33950 Effects in long-lived mice: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2013.06.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2013.06.009 Protective of the aging heart: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2009.10.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2009.10.003 Benefits without calorie reduction: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1035720100 https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1035720100 In nematodes, looking at signaling: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07583 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07583 And so on. There is a lot more out there on this topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=alternate+day+fasting https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=alternate+day+fast... Researchers still have a very long way to go in order to understand the calorie restriction and intermittent fasting responses completely. In order to do that one pretty much as to have a complete map of cellular biochemistry. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen; decades is a very reasonable expectation, I think, based on watching progress in understanding sirtuins over more than a decade, which is just one very thin slice of a very large problem. Practical rejuvenation based on repair of damage after the SENS vision (such as via clearing senescent cells) will be a going concern well before researchers can fully explain calorie restriction in the context of age-related changes and cause and effect in the operation of mammalian biochemistry.
- dualogy 10y ago> In order to do that one pretty much as to have a complete map of cellular biochemistry. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen; A point well worth emphasizing. Probably would help if more people interested in such stuff (whether academics or private enthusiasts) started to recognize the importance of the biochemical side and striving for an ever more complete understanding of it, rather than piling epidemiological and observational long-term "study" upon study.. these are valuable, too, granted, but just like in software development, I suspect there's a lot of castles being built on profoundly muddy/slippery/incomplete foundations
- rubicon33 10y agoI have long believed, due entirely to anecdotal evidence, that restricting calories and eating less is one of the best ways to add years to your life. It seems that eating is inherently stressful for the body. Though obviously necessary, eating is something that we should strive to minimize. Any more than necessary, and the stress induced from digestion, and inflammatory molecules, damages the body and undermines our ability to fight infection.
- RobertoG 10y ago"It seems that eating is inherently stressful for the body." I don't think that's the proper way to think about it. It's more probably that what is going on is that fasting was unavoidable for our ancestors, and the body evolved for that to be a period where some kind of repair action was activated. Without fasting something doesn't happen. That something is probably related to autophagy.
- sigi45 10y agoWhatever it ist or whatever effect it might have, it doesn't matter. We are living longer than ever. Why bothering? Life a normal life, do a little bit of sports, try to reduce stress etc. Will not change my diet or eating habbits.
- dualogy 10y ago> It seems that eating is inherently stressful for the body. Broadly speaking, somewhat accurate, but in the details it can vary greatly. Digestability, resources required to be mobilized for certain foods vs others (enzymes, how much stomach acid & how often etc), and certainly insulin among other "signaling hormones" are crucial factors. In mammals insulin especially is almost always a quite potent "stress/damage" agent ---observe the capacity of human pets to develop diabetes (not exactly something a wolf in the wild could ever catch, even when absent abundance of prey animals munching some berries or fallen apples in the applicable very short season)--- even wild pigs are nowhere near as fat as our agri-breeds, and practically all mammals given abundance of their preferred natural food choices, eat a high-fat diet (in herbivores this is effected by a radically more potent microbiome of bacteria and other microorganisms converting cellulose and most-not-all other carbohydrate into chiefly short-chain fatty acids, plus synthesization of some vitamins/etc for that mammal) --- my point? "Eating is doubly stressful for humans" if we consider the foods we have invented since the dawn of agriculture, namely (A) quickly and easily digested carbohydrate loads (B) available year-round, and (C) 24/7 --- a real triple-whammy for the mammal. OTOH we're quite robust mammals (systemic damage only really gets noticed/troublesome with age! it's amazing the assaults human bodies can handle for so many decades, whether we're talking foods or other substances) on the whole IMHO and we're quite a bit "better at fasting" in a way (we can utilize more ketones for longer and more efficiently esp our brains, no other mammal could fast as long as we can, indeed if you're 200-300+lbs with a handy source of just-the-water-soluble-vitamins you can easily fast a year, as an interesting pre-1971 study investigated before "ethics guidelines for research" were.. "cultivated") which could well mean that it has less pronounced / fewer of such "benefits" as is the case for MICE! Well now.. what was my point just now..
- wapz 10y agoDoes anyone have experience with this? I can't imagine eating a "similar amount" with one day being healthy, low-calorie foods and the other day being junk food can be good for your health.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- scottharveyco 10y agoThe idea is to still eat healthy food on both days but one day you just eat less. So one day you might only have dinner and the next day you will have 3 or 4 meals all of which are still made up of healthy foods.
- kbart 10y agoHigh-calorie doesn't necessary mean unhealthy and/or junk food.
- vannevar 10y agoThis seems flaky: "Since May 2003 we have experimented with alternate day calorie restriction, one day consuming 20-50% of estimated daily caloric requirement and the next day ad lib eating, and have observed health benefits starting in as little as two weeks, in insulin resistance, asthma, seasonal allergies, infectious diseases of viral, bacterial and fungal origin (viral URI, recurrent bacterial tonsillitis, chronic sinusitis, periodontal disease), autoimmune disorder (rheumatoid arthritis), osteoarthritis, symptoms due to CNS inflammatory lesions (Tourette's, Meniere's) cardiac arrhythmias (PVCs, atrial fibrillation), menopause related hot flashes." (Emphasis mine.) Are they still talking about mice? Or experiments on people?
- nabla9 10y agoI read from somewhere that even 16 hours is enough for the benefits of Intermittent fasting. Has anyone done studies with Buddhist monks in Vipassana tradition? They have rule not to eat after midday. Obviously many of them cheat different ways but if you can find the hardcorce monks and monasteries, you would have several thousands (possibly tens of thousands) subjects who have already been following the regime for several decades.
- dalore 10y ago16 hours of not eating is enough to put your body into ketosis. Perhaps it's related. I know there are health benefits to being in ketosis and eating a keto diet.
- RobertoG 10y agoDo you have any citation about that? For some reason, I suppose I read it somewhere, I though that for ketosis you need 36 hours.
- df3 10y agoAll of the participants in this study were over the age of 65. I'm curious what the effects of fasting would be for someone younger? I'm 26 and want to do everything I can to improve my lifespan. Most longevity research seems to target older generations. Do I have to starve myself now or is there an age where the benefits really start to kick in?
- rando444 10y agoIntermittent fasting / calorie restriction has a wide range of health benefits, and give your age, there's no reason not to start now.. provided of course that you're getting a proper amount of calories in your diet for your activity level. Most longevity research targets older people because they are the group that is most interested.. and unfortunately by that time it's mostly too late to do anything significant, so of course the best thing is to start now. If anything you'll benefit more by starting now, because as you get older your body becomes more difficult to change (for lack of a better phrase) At any rate, forget the research, focus on yourself. The most important thing you can do is get regular exercise. Use your body, let your body naturally work it's way to better health. A sedentary lifestyle will kill you quicker than anything else. Second most important thing (IMHO) is trying to limit the amount of stress in your life. Get out of stressful situations, focus on yourself, meditate, don't let yourself get bothered by things that you can't change or aren't worth your time. This is not only good for yourself mentally, but will help your immune system, lower your body's inflammation levels, etc. If you do these things you'll be well on your way to living a long healthy life. Then you can add whatever other health recommendations come along your way, olive oil, the occasional glass of red wine, etc.
- df3 10y agoThanks for this encouraging reply!
- mikekchar 10y agoKeep in mind that this was a study of 60 individuals all in the same old age home. I haven't read the study (just the abstract), but it seems possible to me that the study is biased by having selected the participants based on the results rather than as a random sample. For example, let's say I look at 1000 old age homes and find one in which all the residents are healthier than other old age homes. Then I find some unusual behaviour in the old age home and attribute that to the increased health. This is classical biased sampling. It's like looking at all the classrooms in the US and picking the one with the best grades. Then noticing that there is a higher than normal occurrence of the letter "M" in the students' names. Finally we conclude that using the letter "M" in your child's name will lead to a better outcome in their schooling. Like I said, I haven't read the paper, but I've seen so many similar studies with biased sampling (or with absolutely no mention of their sampling techniques) that I'm highly suspicious. While it is interesting (and possibly merits further study), I don't think you will find an answer to your question in your lifetime, unfortunately. Experiments that would provide good results will take a long time, if they are ever even attempted.
- clishem 10y ago> The subjects were in a residence for old people, and all were in perfect health and over 65.
- HeavenBanned 10y agoIf this is true, how would we incorporate this into eating habits for children from birth to death? How much of a public health campaign would be required? I'm only skeptical because we just barely changed the "11 servings of bread" pyramid...so, who knows.
- kk_cz 10y agoas a father of very young kids I sometimes feel like they are already aware of this. Some days they literally don't want to eat anything (even a food that they described as their favorite the day before), while on other days it's sometimes hard to believe how much can such a small human ingest.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- roystonvassey 10y agoIn case anyone's interested, I did a 10-week IF experiment that yielded mixed results.[1] [1]http://telegra.ph/My-experiment-with-IF-03-09 http://telegra.ph/My-experiment-with-IF-03-09
- Icedcool 10y agoThanks for sharing. I've taken up 24 hour fasts once a week, and have seen a ton of benefits. From increased mental clarity, to weight loss, and body overall feels better. I kicked it off because I'm big into taoism and it supports my practices. You could try intermittently adding cold showers to support your weight loss. (The benefits of cold showers I've seen are a ton, and I'm not totally sold on that it is consistently good for everyone.) Or you could attempt ketosis style diets on the days you are fasting. That would be as simple as when you are intermittently fasting, to eat fats only, instead of protein or grains. Good luck!
- roystonvassey 10y agoThanks! I've tried cold water baths in the past too but not with IF. I should but from a weight loss maximisation objective, it appears ketosis is the way to go. Planning to start and document that beginning April.
- laichzeit0 10y agoThis is bad news for bodybuilders. How long does poor Arnold have left? I mean pro bodybuilders are eating around 4000 calories just to _maintain_ their weight at about 200lbs. Eating anything less than that and you're getting smaller. Let's not even talk about powerlifters..
- tonyedgecombe 10y agoArnold is 69 and looks in pretty good shape to me. When you get to that age lack of muscle mass is probably a bigger issue.
- Mandatum 10y agoI tend to fast out of laziness and drink coffee, snack on nuts to supplement afternoon drowsiness. Then eat way too much in the evening.
- plaguuuuuu 10y agoNuts are extremely calorie dense. They're also very healthy, but yeah - lots of calories.
- Mandatum 10y agoWell I can't exactly eat 2000 calories (unless it's a super calorie dense) in a single meal, but there's at least a period of 14 hours in between eating (aside from coffee).
- kbart 10y agoCoffee can have up to several hundred calories[0] if drank with sugar, milk, syrups etc., so that doesn't say much. 0. https://www.thestreet.com/story/12846402/4/ranked-the-10-highest-calorie-drinks-at-starbucks.html https://www.thestreet.com/story/12846402/4/ranked-the-10-hig...
- Mandatum 10y agoDrink mine black, thanks though.
- dannylandau 10y agoA more interesting study if there has ever been one conducted under close clinical supervision is to follow centenarians (100+ years) eating habits. This is the study that comes close -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone
- 11thEarlOfMar 10y agoJust a guess, but if we evolved as hunter-gatherers, meals would likely have been much less predictable, particularly in Northern winters. So perhaps our metabolisms are tuned to an irregular intake and the regular breakfast/lunch/dinner timing just throws it off.