Alternating Fast Extends Life?
FuturePundit takes a look at research indicating that alternate-day fasting may produce the same life-extension benefits for mice as calorie restriction:
A new study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, raises such a possibility. It shows that healthy mice given only 5 percent fewer calories than mice allowed to eat freely experienced a significant reduction in cell proliferation in several tissues, considered an indicator for cancer risk. The key was that the mice eating 5 percent fewer calories were fed intermittently, or three days a week.
What is encouraging about the findings is that the reduction in cell proliferation from that intermittent feeding regimen was only slightly less than that of a more severe 33 percent reduction in calories. Until now, scientists have been certain only of a link between a more substantial calorie reduction and a reduction in the rate of cell proliferation.
Randall speculates:
Would even shorter fasting periods provide any benefit? It would be interesting to see if any benefit could be derived by eating very day but having at least 12 hour stretches every day when no food is consumed. That might be more achievable. Don't eat before bedtime and then entirely skip breakfast and make lunch be the first meal of the day.
In the past, I've thought about using an approach like this for achieving weight loss. And I've lamented that simple calorie restriction is too difficult. I wonder if something like what Randall is suggesting could be made workable?
Comments
In the past scientists and doctors have tried to explain the benefit of calorie restriction simplistically: you run an engine too hard, and it will wear out faster.
Then came the news about SIR2
http://www.speculist.com/archives/000835.html
and now this news. Apparently it's not as simple as running an engine too much, and that's good news for anybody who'd like to live a long time. If we can pinpoint what happens during fasting that promotes long life and make it happen without fasting, then we're getting somewhere.
I'm not sure fasting is an effective long-term weight loss system. Most of what I've read encourages dieters to eat more often. Smaller, lower carb portions as much as 6 times a day.
Posted by: Stephen Gordon![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.blog.speculist.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 18, 2005 01:49 PM
I'm not sure fasting is an effective long-term weight loss system.
Really? My understanding is that fasting, if you stick with it, is unbeatable. (Rimshot.)
Most of what I've read encourages dieters to eat more often. Smaller, lower carb portions as much as 6 times a day.
That kind of pattern keeps blood sugar up and keeps metabolism burning at optimal rates. But it's as unnatural a pattern as carb restriction. Not that I think that 3-meals a day is necessarily our natural pattern, either. There's just such a compelling logic to beginning, middle, end that it's no wonder we adopted it.
Still, I wonder what kind of pattern our hunter-gatherer ancestors observed? I imagine it was seasonal, with periods of eating five or six times a day punctuated with periods of going a couple or three days without eating.
Posted by: Phil Bowermaster![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.blog.speculist.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 18, 2005 03:42 PM