random thoughts, doubts

If your interest doesn't fit anywhere else, leave it here.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

I'd say calorie restriction also means less ingestion of toxins, which can contribute to a longer (and possibly healthier life).
The average lifespan does increase, but the question is whether those years are healthy years or not.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

Oscar wrote:I'd say calorie restriction also means less ingestion of toxins, which can contribute to a longer (and possibly healthier life).
The average lifespan does increase, but the question is whether those years are healthy years or not.
The links I posted talk about intermittent fasting not CR.

Rats (and there have even been some primate studies) live longer when giving there normal amount of calories but are only fed every other day. This means if they are given x calories they get 2x every other day.
jfk
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun 12 Nov 2006 20:08

Post by jfk »

johndela1 wrote: Rats (and there have even been some primate studies) live longer when giving there normal amount of calories but are only fed every other day. This means if they are given x calories they get 2x every other day.
Interesting. I heard on the radio about research conducted in this area. According to one speaker, small periods of fasting which starve the body and are essentially detrimental, in the long run prepare the body to better cope with chronic disease.

However this is a dubious conclusion, I mean how could they really prove this. Perhaps the fasting induced the chronic disease in the first place? It's like Oscar mentioned, living a long life of poor quality is hardly something to strive for.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

johndela1 wrote:The links I posted talk about intermittent fasting not CR.
I wasn't directly reacting to the articles. ;)

But I did read through the first article about the experiment.
Some concerns:

1. The mice were fed a cooked diet, thus the AL mice were likely to eat more than they'd need, stretch their stomachs, keeping insulin levels higher, etc. The NIH-07 diet they were fed is apparently known to promote diabetes (Scott et al, 2002).

2. Even though the general (fasting) insulin and glucose levels seem to be lower, a) they're not that much lower than those of the LDF group and b) the results were gotten after a 14 hour fasting, so there is no record of the insulin peak in the IF, just the lower level of the in-between.

3. Concerning longevity, the IF mice have the highest IGF-1 levels. The article itself states: "...rats with a moderate reduction in IGF-1 levels live longer, whereas those with a greater decrease in IGF-1 levels have a reduced life span (20). The latter results suggest that there is an optimal level of the GH-IGF-1 axis to maximize survival in mammals.". So, not necessarily a good result there.

All in all not an experiment from with one would want to draw too premature conclusions, I'd say.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

First of all, do you agree that the question of "is IF beneficial" extremely important and potentially offers massive benefits to our length of life and overall health?


If not, no need to read any further...

if so:

The way I see it is like this:

You have two groups of mammals. They both are give a certain amount of calories to be fed per week. One group is fed a predetermined amount every day. The other gets double that every other day. The group that eats double every other day has better insulin/glucose response and lives longer.
All in all not an experiment from with one would want to draw too premature conclusions, I'd say.
To ignore the experiment seems just as bad, though. I don't' see that there is neutral ground, so to speak. You either see IF as beneficial or you see IR as not beneficial.

Maybe, I am over simplifying, but not considering IF as something that has proven benefits seems ignorant to me.

If IF could really give us similar benefits to calorie restriction, I think it is worth studying further. If I did an experiment with rats following a raw diet, would that be of great value?
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

johndela1 wrote:If I did an experiment with rats following a raw diet, would that be of great value?
If you cover my point 2b as well, then I think it could be an interesting experiment.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

jfk wrote:It's like Oscar mentioned, living a long life of poor quality is hardly something to strive for.
What do you mean by poor quality?
Post Reply