PDA

View Full Version : Eat Less, Live Longer?



maktub
08-02-2002, 11:59 AM
This is the 2nd article in about a year that I have read on this.

taken from: http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/02/less.is.better.ap/index.html


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Science has known for 70 years that lab mice and rats live longer if they eat less food. Now, for the first time, researchers have evidence that the same may be true for people.

In a study appearing Friday in the journal Science, George S. Roth and colleagues at the National Institute on Aging say they have preliminary evidence that biological markers that help rodents live much longer than normal may have the same effect on humans.

Even if the evidence proves to be correct -- which is not certain -- it is unknown how much longer people might live.

The biological markers -- lower temperature, lower insulin levels and a steady level of a steroid hormone called DHEAS -- all occur in restricted-diet rodents that live about 40 percent longer than other rodents on a normal diet, Roth said. The same biological markers have now been found in men who are living longest in a continuing study in Baltimore on human aging.

"This means that the biological characteristics of animals that are on calorie-restricted diets seem to apply to longevity in people," Roth said.

But Roth cautioned that the results should be considered "preliminary" and that nobody should start starving in hopes of living longer. Instead, he said, the study gives only tantalizing hints that are worthy of further investigation about helping people to extend life.

Other experts said the study offers new hope about science some day finding ways to slow aging and extend life.

"The study doesn't absolutely prove anything, but it suggests that the same mechanisms that operate in calorie-restricted animals can operate in humans," said Stephen R. Spindler, a human life span researcher at the University of California, Riverside. "It increases the likelihood that we will find pharmaceuticals that will mimic this effect."

Roth and his co-authors drew their preliminary conclusions from the combination of studies on aging rodents, a 15-year study on aging monkeys, and the continuing project called the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, which follows the life span of people.

The monkey study, conducted at the National Institute of Aging, is designed to test the longevity effects of calorie restriction on a subhuman primate that is closer biological relative to humans than are rodents.

The study started in 1987, but Roth said that since Rhesus monkeys can live for 25 years, it may take four or five years more before the results are final. Statistically, at least half of the monkeys will have to complete their normal life span before the data is considered significant, said Roth.

The same is true of the Baltimore study on aging people.

But Roth said he and his team gathered preliminary conclusions by looking at early trends in the deaths of both the monkeys and the men. The researchers also divided men in the Baltimore study into two groups based on measurements of the key biomarkers _ temperature, insulin and DHEAS levels -- that were characteristic of the superaged lab rodents.

Roth said the men whose biomarkers were similar to those of the calorie-restricted, long-lived rodents were dying at a much slower rate than were men with other biomarker measurements.

Roth said none of the Baltimore study's men is known to be on restricted diets, but clearly some are enjoying the same life span benefit that calorie restriction gave the laboratory animals. Researchers are not sure why.

"Whatever it is, they have those biological characteristics and they seem to live longer," said Roth. "It looks like that if you have any one of those markers, it is good for a couple of extra years."

In the monkeys, Roth said those on reduced feeding since the study started are dying at a rate that is about half that of the monkeys receiving a full food ration. He said all of the animals are fed the same nutritionally balanced food, but the longer-lived group gets 30 percent less.

Although the findings suggested that a diet restriction of 30 percent or 40 percent could extend life, Roth said, "This is not practical for most people" and could be unhealthy.

Instead, he said the aging studies may lead to finding drugs that could mimic the effects and life span benefits of calorie restriction.

Spindler agreed, saying the study by Roth and his colleagues "gives us reason to hope."

Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

NateDogg
08-02-2002, 01:25 PM
The premise makes sense. The less you eat...to a point of course...the less hard your body has to work to process food. Therefore less wear and tear is caused. I would rather eat more and look better while I am here though :D

Budiak
08-02-2002, 03:46 PM
Eat more, live BIGGER.

Raven Blade
08-02-2002, 04:14 PM
Eat more. Wait for science to save us with drugs.

nightop
08-02-2002, 06:00 PM
I agree with Nate... If you want to be bigger and a healthy lifestyle that often meanins a balanced diet of caloric excess... we all die someday, there is no need to worry about this.

NateDogg
08-03-2002, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by Raven Blade
Eat more. Wait for science to save us with drugs.

LMAO, as I was typing what I had written before, this is pretty much what I was thinking. The thought in my head was actually, "they'll come up with something."

body
08-03-2002, 07:04 AM
its never been proven in humans.

rats do not live as long so easier to prove in.

plus by under eating. You may live longer, but the quality of life is lower. eg you bruise more easily, get more colds etc.

nightop
08-03-2002, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by NateDogg


LMAO, as I was typing what I had written before, this is pretty much what I was thinking. The thought in my head was actually, "they'll come up with something."

Better medical knowledge and drugs are great up to a point.... God made us mortal.

NateDogg
08-03-2002, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by body
its never been proven in humans.

rats do not live as long so easier to prove in.

plus by under eating. You may live longer, but the quality of life is lower. eg you bruise more easily, get more colds etc.

I did say "to a point". Of course if you do not eat enough you will have problems, but on the other hand, eating 4000-5000 calories a day is going to cause problems eventually too.

zwarrior99
08-03-2002, 06:26 PM
Life is to short to live it in starvation. I say live it big and free! With the finest girls.

maktub
08-03-2002, 08:09 PM
plus im sure even though most of us eat more than the average person the food we eat is better for us and prolly takes less work to break down than a big mac fries and a coke. I dunno i dont really worry bout it but it kinda sticks in the back of my mind because one of the reasons I switched my diet was to be healthier and if im hurting my body then... .. .. but then I refer back to what I said above.

Raven Blade
08-03-2002, 09:47 PM
God made us mortal. Science needs to hurry up and make us immortal.:evillaugh

nightop
08-04-2002, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by Raven Blade
God made us mortal. Science needs to hurry up and make us immortal.:evillaugh

bah !! God also created eternity :) its up to us to choose where we spend it bro.

body
08-04-2002, 05:02 AM
Originally posted by NateDogg


I did say "to a point". Of course if you do not eat enough you will have problems, but on the other hand, eating 4000-5000 calories a day is going to cause problems eventually too.

the longer lives claim to eat about75% of the kcals required normally.

also its not a bb diet, as its high in fat and low in protein.

off point - but saturated fats cause the least thermic effect of the macro-nutrients. so they have got good new going for them!
but protien has the highest thermic effect so you eat less of this.

ECA is even worse, however your not going to be fat so will not need it.

ryuage
08-04-2002, 09:13 AM
what if we drink all our calories? :thumbup:

body
08-04-2002, 10:08 AM
drinking kcals if i remeber correctly normally increase the speed of up take relative to the solid food version.

this will increase insulin levels more quickly. so you will be a bit hotter for a short while. where as the solid food will give more sustained energy so you will get the same over all thermic effect but over a longer peroid.

to answer the question of which will give a greater free radical production and decrease life span?

Some one else can answer that as I am not sure. it might make no difference.

raniali
08-05-2002, 12:03 PM
I think that some of the basis behind this research is that 'high blood sugar and high insulin levels have been shown to be the largest causes of rapid aging.'

I would like to see studies done between low calorie 'normal' diets, and low/med/or hi cal keto diets on longevity. THAT would be interesting.