Slows glaucoma: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep33950
Effects in long-lived mice: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2013.06.009
Protective of the aging heart: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2009.10.003
Benefits without calorie reduction: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1035720100
In nematodes, looking at signaling: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07583
And so on. There is a lot more out there on this topic:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=alternate+day+fast...
Researchers still have a very long way to go in order to understand the calorie restriction and intermittent fasting responses completely. In order to do that one pretty much as to have a complete map of cellular biochemistry. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen; decades is a very reasonable expectation, I think, based on watching progress in understanding sirtuins over more than a decade, which is just one very thin slice of a very large problem. Practical rejuvenation based on repair of damage after the SENS vision (such as via clearing senescent cells) will be a going concern well before researchers can fully explain calorie restriction in the context of age-related changes and cause and effect in the operation of mammalian biochemistry.
This seems flaky:
"Since May 2003 we have experimented with alternate day calorie restriction, one day consuming 20-50% of estimated daily caloric requirement and the next day ad lib eating, and have observed health benefits starting in as little as two weeks, in insulin resistance, asthma, seasonal allergies, infectious diseases of viral, bacterial and fungal origin (viral URI, recurrent bacterial tonsillitis, chronic sinusitis, periodontal disease), autoimmune disorder (rheumatoid arthritis), osteoarthritis, symptoms due to CNS inflammatory lesions (Tourette's, Meniere's) cardiac arrhythmias (PVCs, atrial fibrillation), menopause related hot flashes." (Emphasis mine.)
Are they still talking about mice? Or experiments on people?
I have long believed, due entirely to anecdotal evidence, that restricting calories and eating less is one of the best ways to add years to your life. It seems that eating is inherently stressful for the body. Though obviously necessary, eating is something that we should strive to minimize. Any more than necessary, and the stress induced from digestion, and inflammatory molecules, damages the body and undermines our ability to fight infection.
This sort of result has been showed repeatedly. We really need more (and better) nutrition education. The level of obesity and overeating in our society is astounding. I'd be surprised if most people could even implement basic calorie counting.
A more interesting study if there has ever been one conducted under close clinical supervision is to follow centenarians (100+ years) eating habits.
This is the study that comes close -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone
> The subjects were in a residence for old people, and all were in perfect health and over 65.
Just a guess, but if we evolved as hunter-gatherers, meals would likely have been much less predictable, particularly in Northern winters. So perhaps our metabolisms are tuned to an irregular intake and the regular breakfast/lunch/dinner timing just throws it off.
In case anyone's interested, I did a 10-week IF experiment that yielded mixed results.[1]
All of the participants in this study were over the age of 65. I'm curious what the effects of fasting would be for someone younger? I'm 26 and want to do everything I can to improve my lifespan. Most longevity research seems to target older generations.
Do I have to starve myself now or is there an age where the benefits really start to kick in?
I'm almost 45. Guessing that it's too late for me to adopt this?
Also, If i had adopted it at ~20 years old, would that mean I could have potentially lived up to ~140 years old? That seems an extreme lifespan extension.
Does anyone have experience with this? I can't imagine eating a "similar amount" with one day being healthy, low-calorie foods and the other day being junk food can be good for your health.
Every about weight loss should mention sleep. Every study should control for it, a mere hour a day can do wonders to your well being
> Restricting caloric intake to 60-70% of normal adult weight maintenance requirement prolongs lifespan 30-50% and confers near perfect health across a broad range of species.
Am I the only one for whom this ends all kind of warnings?
First, how can eating less than required to maintain mass be healthy? Second, "confers near perfect health" seems like a hell of a claim.
I tend to fast out of laziness and drink coffee, snack on nuts to supplement afternoon drowsiness. Then eat way too much in the evening.
A nutritionist friend of mine has been doing this for years. At least it doesn't have any negative site effects.
This is bad news for bodybuilders. How long does poor Arnold have left? I mean pro bodybuilders are eating around 4000 calories just to _maintain_ their weight at about 200lbs. Eating anything less than that and you're getting smaller. Let's not even talk about powerlifters..
Put simply digestion is one of the most expensive tasks for the body. It makes sense that giving the whole digestive system a break will free up energy in other parts of the body.
This paper seems to be from 2006?
I read from somewhere that even 16 hours is enough for the benefits of Intermittent fasting.
Has anyone done studies with Buddhist monks in Vipassana tradition? They have rule not to eat after midday. Obviously many of them cheat different ways but if you can find the hardcorce monks and monasteries, you would have several thousands (possibly tens of thousands) subjects who have already been following the regime for several decades.