4 ms·

This brings to mind the hypothesis that extreme calorie restriction during youth extends lifespan. Finland 75-80 years ago was not a paradise of plentiful food,

by User23 6y ago

This brings to mind the hypothesis that extreme calorie restriction during youth extends lifespan. Finland 75-80 years ago was not a paradise of plentiful food, for that matter neither was most of Western Europe. I know the calorie restriction work has been replicated in the lab with animal models, but of course a human study would face most likely insurmountable ethical challenges.

xupybd 6y ago
Yes but overtime access to food has increased. I would have expected the study to go the other way if your hypothesis is correct.
nabla9 6y ago
I'm almost certain that this is not true. At least results presented here don't support that theory. People who are now 75-80 had much better nutrition than generations before them. Life expectancy in Finland is projected to increase even more in the future. Calorie restriction starts to make sense only after adulthood. Prenatal, natal and child nutrition and calorie availability is probably the most important thing extending lifespan.
- User23 6y ago
  80 years ago was 1940. There was some widespread activity at the time that interfered with food availability.
  - nabla9 6y ago
    Expected lifetime of those who were born during the war decreased relative to previous and following generations. Finland had a famine 1867-1868. After that expected lifetime started to increase. There was a dip in generations born around civil war and then again during the Winter War and WWII. After that life expectancy continued to increase. Source: Expected lifetime of population by year of birth. https://www.stat.fi/org/tilastokeskus/elinajanodote.html https://www.stat.fi/org/tilastokeskus/elinajanodote.html
- carlmr 6y ago
  >People who are now 75-80 had much better nutrition than generations before them. I think we have to separate the quality of the food (vitamins, fiber, protein, sodium, etc.) from the quantity that was available, and when. You can have the lack of food in certain periods in Finland in the last 75-80 years, e.g. due to WWII. At the same time it's possible to have better food quality in the same period, due to increased globalization, since Finland probably never had so much access to fruits and vegetables in winter as it does in the last 80 years.
dghughes 6y ago
Wasn't that the theory based on results of people who lived through the 1930s US Great Depression. The lack of food actually improved life expectancy. https://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290 https://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290 >Population health did not decline and indeed generally improved during the 4 years of the Great Depression, 1930–1933, with mortality decreasing for almost all ages, and life expectancy increasing by several years in males, females, whites, and nonwhites. For most age groups, mortality tended to peak during years of strong economic expansion (such as 1923, 1926, 1929, and 1936–1937). In contrast, the recessions of 1921, 1930–1933, and 1938 coincided with declines in mortality and gains in life expectancy.
- User23 6y ago
  Indeed. And as it happens my father is a member of that cohort. He's still alive and has looked 20 years younger than he is for his entire adult life.
  - gumby 6y ago
    > He's still alive and has looked 20 years younger than he is for his entire adult life. Must have been awkward as a child.
    - mod 6y ago
      > his entire adult life
      - ekianjo 6y ago
        so at 20 as an adult he looked like a baby?
- nabla9 6y ago
  Decreased smoking and alcohol used might be the reason. Pregnant women smoking and drinking was common.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
daniel957 6y ago
This brings to mind the hypothesis that humans during the hunter-gatherer phase were better off health-wise without the adoption of agriculture.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  Agriculture made humanity a lot more resilient to changes in food supply. Maybe this has negative consequences at the individual level but as a species level it's pretty clear which one is more favorable.
  - lovecg 6y ago
    I don’t buy this. It’s not like humans had a species-wide conference and decided to adopt agriculture. It must have taken lots of tiny steps, each one somehow beneficial to the individuals taking them. The end result is not a guarantee either — we only think it was beneficial to the species because it survived. There could have been other “good ideas” in the area of food production that lasted for a hundred or a thousand years and then got wiped out in a single unfortunate event.
    - ekianjo 6y ago
      You dont need to buy it. Humans who relied on agriculture thrived in numbers or at least survives compared to the ones who relied on other means.
      - daniel957 6y ago
        Your first comment made sense but this one just sounds like you’re making stuff up. Did you read the hypothesis? It’s been around since the 80s. https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-worst-mist...
  - unishark 6y ago
    > Agriculture made humanity a lot more resilient to changes in food supply. Maybe this has negative consequences at the individual level but as a species level it's pretty clear which one is more favorable. Sounds like it would be a trade-off then, not a clear favorite, depending on what you're optimizing for. Especially when we can afford to focus on maintaining health at an individual level too.
ashtonkem 6y ago
Calorie restriction during childhood has catastrophic effects on health, height, cognitive ability, and general mortality. Many of the detrimental effects are permanent, and calorie loss during childhood also explains a lot of the childhood fatalities during the Middle Ages, as a hungry person is much more likely to succumb from disease or a mid-level injury. So, it depends on what you mean by “youth”. If you include anything below the 20s or so, then the answer is a strong, emphatic no.
waihtis 6y ago
Anecdata from my own grandparents (am Finnish) - diets were a bit less in calories, but also much simpler in nature. Finland has changed dramatically in the last 20 years, but say up to 1990's we didn't really have McDonalds, imported food, etc. My grandfather is now over 90 years old, and his and my grandmothers diet has mainly been: 1) meats of different kind, sourced of course from grocery shops but also in a significant portion from nature (hunting) 2) fats, definitely of the saturated kind (animal + butter) 3) potatoes. There were no salads, olive oils or anything deemed healthy by the modern standards on their plates. There were also no hamburgers, chips (or crisps if you're British), no coke (Coke arrived in Finland in the Olympic year 1952 - but it was deemed unhealthy VS orange soda, maybe by the benefit of the local soda company's marketing) and the main sugary treat was licorice candy and the occasional chocolate. In summary, lower meal frequency would definitely be true, but also a diet with much more "close to source" ingredients.
mtts 6y ago
While that generation lived long and fairly healthy lives (possibly because the weaker members of it were weeded out by the war) the current generation of seniors certainly looks and behaves much differently. My grandparents at 65 looked and behaved old. My parents at 65: much less. (Yes, anecdata)

by User23 6y ago

xupybd 6y ago

Yes but overtime access to food has increased. I would have expected the study to go the other way if your hypothesis is correct.

nabla9 6y ago

I'm almost certain that this is not true. At least results presented here don't support that theory. People who are now 75-80 had much better nutrition than generations before them. Life expectancy in Finland is projected to increase even more in the future. Calorie restriction starts to make sense only after adulthood. Prenatal, natal and child nutrition and calorie availability is probably the most important thing extending lifespan.

User23 6y ago
80 years ago was 1940. There was some widespread activity at the time that interfered with food availability.
- nabla9 6y ago
  Expected lifetime of those who were born during the war decreased relative to previous and following generations. Finland had a famine 1867-1868. After that expected lifetime started to increase. There was a dip in generations born around civil war and then again during the Winter War and WWII. After that life expectancy continued to increase. Source: Expected lifetime of population by year of birth. https://www.stat.fi/org/tilastokeskus/elinajanodote.html https://www.stat.fi/org/tilastokeskus/elinajanodote.html
carlmr 6y ago
>People who are now 75-80 had much better nutrition than generations before them. I think we have to separate the quality of the food (vitamins, fiber, protein, sodium, etc.) from the quantity that was available, and when. You can have the lack of food in certain periods in Finland in the last 75-80 years, e.g. due to WWII. At the same time it's possible to have better food quality in the same period, due to increased globalization, since Finland probably never had so much access to fruits and vegetables in winter as it does in the last 80 years.

dghughes 6y ago

Wasn't that the theory based on results of people who lived through the 1930s US Great Depression. The lack of food actually improved life expectancy. https://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290 https://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290 >Population health did not decline and indeed generally improved during the 4 years of the Great Depression, 1930–1933, with mortality decreasing for almost all ages, and life expectancy increasing by several years in males, females, whites, and nonwhites. For most age groups, mortality tended to peak during years of strong economic expansion (such as 1923, 1926, 1929, and 1936–1937). In contrast, the recessions of 1921, 1930–1933, and 1938 coincided with declines in mortality and gains in life expectancy.

User23 6y ago
Indeed. And as it happens my father is a member of that cohort. He's still alive and has looked 20 years younger than he is for his entire adult life.
- gumby 6y ago
  > He's still alive and has looked 20 years younger than he is for his entire adult life. Must have been awkward as a child.
  - mod 6y ago
    > his entire adult life
    - ekianjo 6y ago
      so at 20 as an adult he looked like a baby?
nabla9 6y ago
Decreased smoking and alcohol used might be the reason. Pregnant women smoking and drinking was common.
redis_mlc 6y ago

daniel957 6y ago

This brings to mind the hypothesis that humans during the hunter-gatherer phase were better off health-wise without the adoption of agriculture.

ekianjo 6y ago
Agriculture made humanity a lot more resilient to changes in food supply. Maybe this has negative consequences at the individual level but as a species level it's pretty clear which one is more favorable.
- lovecg 6y ago
  I don’t buy this. It’s not like humans had a species-wide conference and decided to adopt agriculture. It must have taken lots of tiny steps, each one somehow beneficial to the individuals taking them. The end result is not a guarantee either — we only think it was beneficial to the species because it survived. There could have been other “good ideas” in the area of food production that lasted for a hundred or a thousand years and then got wiped out in a single unfortunate event.
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    You dont need to buy it. Humans who relied on agriculture thrived in numbers or at least survives compared to the ones who relied on other means.
    - daniel957 6y ago
      Your first comment made sense but this one just sounds like you’re making stuff up. Did you read the hypothesis? It’s been around since the 80s. https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-worst-mist...
- unishark 6y ago
  > Agriculture made humanity a lot more resilient to changes in food supply. Maybe this has negative consequences at the individual level but as a species level it's pretty clear which one is more favorable. Sounds like it would be a trade-off then, not a clear favorite, depending on what you're optimizing for. Especially when we can afford to focus on maintaining health at an individual level too.

ashtonkem 6y ago

Calorie restriction during childhood has catastrophic effects on health, height, cognitive ability, and general mortality. Many of the detrimental effects are permanent, and calorie loss during childhood also explains a lot of the childhood fatalities during the Middle Ages, as a hungry person is much more likely to succumb from disease or a mid-level injury. So, it depends on what you mean by “youth”. If you include anything below the 20s or so, then the answer is a strong, emphatic no.

waihtis 6y ago

Anecdata from my own grandparents (am Finnish) - diets were a bit less in calories, but also much simpler in nature. Finland has changed dramatically in the last 20 years, but say up to 1990's we didn't really have McDonalds, imported food, etc. My grandfather is now over 90 years old, and his and my grandmothers diet has mainly been: 1) meats of different kind, sourced of course from grocery shops but also in a significant portion from nature (hunting) 2) fats, definitely of the saturated kind (animal + butter) 3) potatoes. There were no salads, olive oils or anything deemed healthy by the modern standards on their plates. There were also no hamburgers, chips (or crisps if you're British), no coke (Coke arrived in Finland in the Olympic year 1952 - but it was deemed unhealthy VS orange soda, maybe by the benefit of the local soda company's marketing) and the main sugary treat was licorice candy and the occasional chocolate. In summary, lower meal frequency would definitely be true, but also a diet with much more "close to source" ingredients.

mtts 6y ago

While that generation lived long and fairly healthy lives (possibly because the weaker members of it were weeded out by the war) the current generation of seniors certainly looks and behaves much differently. My grandparents at 65 looked and behaved old. My parents at 65: much less. (Yes, anecdata)