Calorie Restriction with Adequate Nutrition

[brazil84]

I was reading that some life-extension buffs eat very little with the idea of extending their lifespans.

It occurs to me that if you eat very little, you will eventually either starve to death or reach an equilibrium where the amount of energy you eat and drink is equal to the amount of energy your body uses. But you would reach such an equilibrium if you maintained your body at some other weight. The main difference, it seems, is that Mr. Calorie Restrictor will need a little less energy since his body is maintaining less fat and muscle than it otherwise would.

Is that the only difference? And if so, why would one expect it to make a big difference in life expectancy? Or is it that fat and/or muscle have some other negative impact on one’s health?

[deltasigma]

Here’s an article that discusses this. Calorie restriction has never been shown to increase lifespan except c. elegans and some other insects used for testing. But there is evidence that it increases production of a class of proteins called sirtuins that have a wide range of activity, including things that would affect aging.

[Smeghead]

@deltasigma

Calorie restriction has never been shown to increase lifespan except c. elegans and some other insects used for testing.

I thought it’s been demonstrated in mice, too, though I can’t remember where I heard that.

[bardos]

Intermittent fasting (IF) seems to be a better bet for optimizing health.

https://www.google.com/search?num=20&safe=off&hl=en&site=webhp&source=hp&q=intermittent+fasting&oq=intermittent+fasting&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i20l2j0l7.1500.4457.0.4672.20.13.0.7.7.2.218.1642.3j9j1.13.0....0...1c.1.21.hp.CkW33qsM_RQ

[lazybratsche]

Off the of my head:

CR has been demonstrated to extend the life span of the laboratory mouse, but I also recall that it doesn’t work for wild mouse populations. Calorie restricted monkeys are healthier but not any longer lived than those who can eat as much monkey chow as they want.

[deltasigma]

@Smeghead

I thought it’s been demonstrated in mice, too, though I can’t remember where I heard that.

Could you be thinking of this (from the article)

In one new study, mice were given a treatment that causes nerve cells in the brain to die. Some mice were then put on a low-cal diet; they lost substantially fewer cells than mice that were fed normally. And the hungry mice also showed higher performance on tests of mental ability.
“Without affecting the animals’ general behavior, the regimen of caloric restriction specifically improved … object recognition memories,” MIT neuroscientist Johannes Gräff and colleagues write in the May 22 Journal of Neuroscience.

[deltasigma]

I can’t edit - the box comes up blank. That quote goes with some interesting info.

Further tests showed that the low-cal diet boosted levels of sirtuin 1, an enzyme implicated by some studies as a factor in enhancing life span. If sirtuin 1 helps protect against nerve cell degeneration, then it stands to reason that raising sirtuin 1 levels would promote a healthy brain. So Gräff and collaborators tried a substance known to activate the gene responsible for making sirtuin 1. That substance, SRT3657, was given orally to mice that had also been given a nerve cell killer. SRT3657 reduced brain damage just as caloric restriction had.
“SRT3657 recapitulated the beneficial effects of caloric restriction against neurodegeneration-associated pathologies and thus might constitute a pharmacological alternative to caloric
restriction,” the MIT scientists wrote.

[naita]

@brazil84

I was reading that some life-extension buffs eat very little with the idea of extending their lifespans.

It occurs to me that if you eat very little, you will eventually either starve to death or reach an equilibrium where the amount of energy you eat and drink is equal to the amount of energy your body uses. But you would reach such an equilibrium if you maintained your body at some other weight. The main difference, it seems, is that Mr. Calorie Restrictor will need a little less energy since his body is maintaining less fat and muscle than it otherwise would.

Is that the only difference? And if so, why would one expect it to make a big difference in life expectancy? Or is it that fat and/or muscle have some other negative impact on one’s health?

I think they also reduce energetic activities. Obviously you can’t take in less than you use for an extended period, but you can reduce what you use along with your intake.