PDA

View Full Version : Which diet will make you live longer?



Raj
05-10-2003, 04:16 AM
:p ......just wondering? Out of all the cutting diets and bulking diet which diet is the best for overall health and longetivity? I mean which is best for the long run?.......

Raj

restless
05-10-2003, 04:28 AM
The cutting diet. Calorie restriction has been proven to increase lifespan by as much as 30 % in all animals researched, including chimps, and seems to work just the same way in humans.

On the other hand,
fasting alternated with overfeeding periods (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993668) is supposed to have the same benefits.

Silverback
05-10-2003, 04:35 AM
:withstupi

Raj
05-10-2003, 04:49 AM
thanks for the link...interesting information

Raj

restless
05-10-2003, 05:22 AM
I didn't realise you were asking about which specific diet would be healthier. That I can't really answer. It's like they say, the best diet is a diet with a adequate amount of essential fatty acids, sufficient protein (and here I mean more than the RDA) and lot's of green vegetables and some fruit.

Being fat seems to be what really screws you up. If you think about it, during evolution our bodies never had to deal with the problems brought by old age, sedentarism and obesity since life span was somewhat reduced comparing to what we can expect to live today. Our only concern was getting enough calories to survive and for a few million years we didn't really have a regular feeding schedule like we do now and thus we evolved and adapted to be as efficient as possible in mantaining/increasing bodyweight in order to make it trough famine periods. Now, this adaptation is probably not doing us any good in conjunction with modern lifestyle. But I digress. Interesting things we're discovering now in the field of nutrition, I tell you.

restless
05-10-2003, 05:23 AM
ops, double post.

Ironman8
05-10-2003, 07:36 AM
You know what makes you healthy?

Excercise
Don't eat yourself senseless
Try to avoid trans and hydrogenated fat

Easy as that :p

restless
05-10-2003, 08:16 AM
But add calorie restriction on top of that and you might extend lifespan up to 40%. It sounds tempting to me. Let's see how this evolves....

Ironman8
05-10-2003, 08:33 AM
Instead of a calories restriction, why don't you just excercise and stay active? Back then, people had to work hard, and they were in great shape, and they didn't have to restrict there calories.

Right now, a majority of people are just sitting around doing nothing, with little or no excercise. On top of that, look at all the fast food places in America.

Believe me, you don't have to restrict calories to be healthy. IMO, that would have more negative affects than "healthy affects".

Scythian_Blade
05-10-2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Ironman8
Instead of a calories restriction, why don't you just excercise and stay active? Back then, people had to work hard, and they were in great shape, and they didn't have to restrict there calories.

Right now, a majority of people are just sitting around doing nothing, with little or no excercise. On top of that, look at all the fast food places in America.

Believe me, you don't have to restrict calories to be healthy. IMO, that would have more negative affects than "healthy affects".

Good point, and that is how a lot of us would like to go about it in the longrun. You could certainly make the argument that your quality of life is better. But is it the best for longevity?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think part of the reason the cutting diet has been shown to extend lifespan markedly is that a number of biological processes are slowed down considerably (ultimately biological aging is slowed). Metabolism is slowed over a very long timeframe. From a simplistic standpoint, your body just doesn't have to work as hard/do as much total physical work (reduces stress overall).

If you just increase your activity level and kept eating a lot, you wouldn't achieve this metabolic slowdown and you would be looking at a different situation. I'd like to think you could live just as long either way, but I don't know if current research supports this.

steveo
05-10-2003, 10:50 AM
I don't care if I die so I'll be going out bulking.

restless
05-10-2003, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Ironman8
Instead of a calories restriction, why don't you just excercise and stay active? Back then, people had to work hard, and they were in great shape, and they didn't have to restrict there calories
Right now, a majority of people are just sitting around doing nothing, with little or no excercise. On top of that, look at all the fast food places in America.

You are missing the point. I didn't intend to diminish your advice, which was good, but I'm pointing out that the latest scientific evidence all points out to calorie restriction as the one mean to increase life span and improve all health indicators. Like Scythian_Blade pointed out, metabolic slowdown and consequent lower body temperature, coupled with low insulin and fasting blood glucose levels are thought to be the determinant factors at play here. Exercise sure plays a important role in health, but that's a different story.


Believe me, you don't have to restrict calories to be healthy. IMO, that would have more negative affects than "healthy affects".

Well, your opinion goes against all recent scientific discoveries supported by recent research in this field.

restless
05-10-2003, 01:36 PM
And don't forget we're talking about a possible life expectancy of around 120 years for a human that spends most of his adult life on a calorie restricted diet. What's interesting is this discovery about alternated fasting and overfeeding periods, which is somewhat similar to the typical hunther gatherer diet, were there's an abundance of calories in hunting days, with calorie restriction untill the next sucessfull hunt, is that the mice didn't lose any weight and showed most of the same physiological changes as the calorie restricted group. At least theoretically, this could mean that one might be able to bulk up to achieve a reasonable muscularity level and then use a similar protocol to maintain weight, with a low bodyfat, and possibly harvesting the benefits of calorie restriction. Eventually I'll try this out.

bradley
05-10-2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Ironman8
Back then, people had to work hard, and they were in great shape, and they didn't have to restrict there calories.


Well this is halfway correct. As restless pointed out, people did not have to restrict their calories because calories would be restricted for them due to various things like seasonal changes etc. There are periods where food would be abundant and then periods when food was scarce. This would essentially be restricting calories although not in the sense that we think of now.

Scott S
06-22-2003, 04:18 PM
Wow... another 40 years when I'm already old? Sounds great!! Sign me up! :rolleyes: