Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Very low calorie diets = longer life? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Read this online but failing to see the logic in it.

    Surely there's a good chance you'd just starve?

    Can you even exercise properly eating so little?

    (This doesn't just mean slim healthy people living longer, I mean those who actually eat a ridiculously low amount of calories)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Calories is what our body needs to survive.

    They help regulate hormones, rebuild cells and gives us energy. Its when you take in too much and use too little does the negatives come.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    My granny is 123 and hasn't eaten for the past 66 years. So yes this sounds legit.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    when i first heard this i thought it was illogical too, but it is true people who eat less up to a certain point live longer,theres an island in japan where they literally eat i think 50% less and there average death age is about 98 i think,i guess its because food is a source of lots of dangerous things,like types cancer and diseases
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Yep, nowadays we move too little compared to the times in the past. Thus we need less calories.

    However, we eat a lot of meat, processed foods which add a lot more calories to people in jobs such as accounting, programming(long sitting sessions) but are not hazardous to people such as builders, geologists and any type of job where you move a lot.

    Now, most of the people if told to eat less will complain that they feel hunger and this is truth. The problem is this: the contents of stomach depending on how full it is, will determine whether you feel hungry or not. Now compare calories if you eat a lot of meat and a lot of veggies. First batch of food has a lot more calories while 400 grams of veggies has only 100+ Yet, when you eat whole bag of frozen veggies, your hunger disappear due to filling your stomach.

    So it follows that if modern person wants to be healthy, eat as much he wants and consume less calories, he must get them mainly from vegetables.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SPB)
    My granny is 123 and hasn't eaten for the past 66 years. So yes this sounds legit.
    Spoon pics or negs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uktotalgamer)
    Spoon pics or negs.
    Lawl aware
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    No idea about I'll continue eating a lot if I want, at least I'll enjoy life more.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think maintaining a healthy weight is the main point here, not necessarily eating less calories.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uktotalgamer)
    Spoon pics or negs.
    Spoon pics? As in pictures of him/her spooning their granny? :erm:

    Very disturbing mental images :yucky:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    There is a theory that this is the case. I have not seen evidence for or against, so I have no idea if it's true, but the theory is that humans have a finite number of heart beats. That sounds insane, I know, but the idea is that there is no 'number' exactly, but that's the best way of describing the theory at face value. If we eat the optimum amount for our bodies, then our metabolism will be at it's highest, our heart beats at a normal rate, we will have lots of energy, lots of toxic substances (free radicals) will be produced and removed very quickly. By eating, say 1000 calories, the metabolism slows down, we have less energy, our heart beats more slowly, and products of metabolism are produced more slowly. This means that less free radicals are produced and the skin won't wrinkle as much, and organs won't experience the damage associated with aging, cancers are less likely to form. In the same way, exercise increases the metabolism and will result in even more free radicals. That's the theory anyway. I think it would be a seriously miserable way to live though. I'd rather not live past 85 and have enough energy to enjoy life! Plus, maybe exercise reduces your lifespan by a minute amount, but with today's worries of diabetes and obesity it is far more likely to increase your lifespan.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Holz888)
    There is a theory that this is the case. I have not seen evidence for or against, so I have no idea if it's true, but the theory is that humans have a finite number of heart beats. That sounds insane, I know, but the idea is that there is no 'number' exactly, but that's the best way of describing the theory at face value. If we eat the optimum amount for our bodies, then our metabolism will be at it's highest, our heart beats at a normal rate, we will have lots of energy, lots of toxic substances (free radicals) will be produced and removed very quickly. By eating, say 1000 calories, the metabolism slows down, we have less energy, our heart beats more slowly, and products of metabolism are produced more slowly. This means that less free radicals are produced and the skin won't wrinkle as much, and organs won't experience the damage associated with aging, cancers are less likely to form. In the same way, exercise increases the metabolism and will result in even more free radicals. That's the theory anyway. I think it would be a seriously miserable way to live though. I'd rather not live past 85 and have enough energy to enjoy life! Plus, maybe exercise reduces your lifespan by a minute amount, but with today's worries of diabetes and obesity it is far more likely to increase your lifespan.
    Lol, either that is the biggest load of pseudo science ever, or these "theorists" have misinterpreted the term "finite number of heart beats".

    Firstly, this silly theory has been used for finite number of breaths, finite number of thoughts, finite number of <insert here>. So it's seems to be some sort of old wives tale.

    However, if I were to entertain this idea, yes, due to the laws of physics we will have a "finite" numbers of heart beats, meaning that one day eventually our heart will stop beating. Nothing in this universe lasts forever is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics suggest (or something along those lines). So in that sense when our heart stops beating it will have beated a finite number of beats. But to suggest it in the way this theory states is to suggest that there is a set or pre-determined number of beats that your heart can do, meaning if you have a high heart rate you will use the number up faster. Which is absolute rubbish, because in what way is it possible for your heart to have a pre-determined number of beats? It's not like you are born with a set counter that has 'n' number of beats until you die. Your heart will beat a finite number of times, but the number of times is dependent on how healthy you and your heart is and it's not a set number. A person that goes from a unhealthy to a fit state will probably prolong their life and obviously a person that was once fit and healthy that become unfit and unhealthy may reduce how long they have to live. That means the number of heart beats you have in a life time (if you want to describe it in that sense) can change depending on your health and fitness. However, the idea you are born with 'n' number of heart beats is complete and utter rubbish.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BAD AT MATHS)
    Lol, either that is the biggest load of pseudo science ever, or these "theorists" have misinterpreted the term "finite number of heart beats".

    Firstly, this silly theory has been used for finite number of breaths, finite number of thoughts, finite number of <insert here>. So it's seems to be some sort of old wives tale.

    However, if I were to entertain this idea, yes, due to the laws of physics we will have a "finite" numbers of heart beats, meaning that one day eventually our heart will stop beating. Nothing in this universe lasts forever is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics suggest (or something along those lines). So in that sense when our heart stops beating it will have beated a finite number of beats. But to suggest it in the way this theory states is to suggest that there is a set or pre-determined number of beats that your heart can do, meaning if you have a high heart rate you will use the number up faster. Which is absolute rubbish, because in what way is it possible for your heart to have a pre-determined number of beats? It's not like you are born with a set counter that has 'n' number of beats until you die. Your heart will beat a finite number of times, but the number of times is dependent on how healthy you and your heart is and it's not a set number. A person that goes from a unhealthy to a fit state will probably prolong their life and obviously a person that was once fit and healthy that become unfit and unhealthy may reduce how long they have to live. That means the number of heart beats you have in a life time (if you want to describe it in that sense) can change depending on your health and fitness. However, the idea you are born with 'n' number of heart beats is complete and utter rubbish.
    Yeah, I see your problem, and it's true that it is a misleading way to outline a theory. I think the idea came from the fact that on looking at animals, those with a faster heart rate tend to live for a shorter period of time. The theory also probably assumes that external factors such as smoking, exercise, quality of diet etc are not affecting the individuals (which is too difficult to do). I'd imagine that a lot of the data recorded in the support of the theory (mostly individual case studies from what I've seen) are due to the individuals, as part of their desire to live longer, don't smoke, drink, eat junk food etc
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Holz888)
    Yeah, I see your problem, and it's true that it is a misleading way to outline a theory. I think the idea came from the fact that on looking at animals, those with a faster heart rate tend to live for a shorter period of time. The theory also probably assumes that external factors such as smoking, exercise, quality of diet etc are not affecting the individuals (which is too difficult to do). I'd imagine that a lot of the data recorded in the support of the theory (mostly individual case studies from what I've seen) are due to the individuals, as part of their desire to live longer, don't smoke, drink, eat junk food etc
    Yes, it seems this hypotesis is based more on observed casual relationships rather than actual scientific evidence. Theories that turn casual realtionships into absolute ones can turn out to be very dangerous at times, such as the MMR vaccine/autism theory. Obviously this one would probably do more good than harm, it's just the basis of it seems to a bit scewed.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snowyowl)
    Spoon pics? As in pictures of him/her spooning their granny? :erm:

    Very disturbing mental images :yucky:
    No, a pic of the granny holding a spoon to verify that she's real.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think what's most important is what you eat. You need to make sure you get enough protein, iron, vitamins, etc.
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Holz888)
    There is a theory that this is the case. I have not seen evidence for or against, so I have no idea if it's true, but the theory is that humans have a finite number of heart beats. That sounds insane, I know, but the idea is that there is no 'number' exactly, but that's the best way of describing the theory at face value. If we eat the optimum amount for our bodies, then our metabolism will be at it's highest, our heart beats at a normal rate, we will have lots of energy, lots of toxic substances (free radicals) will be produced and removed very quickly. By eating, say 1000 calories, the metabolism slows down, we have less energy, our heart beats more slowly, and products of metabolism are produced more slowly. This means that less free radicals are produced and the skin won't wrinkle as much, and organs won't experience the damage associated with aging, cancers are less likely to form. In the same way, exercise increases the metabolism and will result in even more free radicals. That's the theory anyway. I think it would be a seriously miserable way to live though. I'd rather not live past 85 and have enough energy to enjoy life! Plus, maybe exercise reduces your lifespan by a minute amount, but with today's worries of diabetes and obesity it is far more likely to increase your lifespan.
    Besides this hypothesis having little rational basis besides pseudoscientific basic extrapolation, epidemiological research seems to contradict this theory since quite simply research has shown that athletes have a longer life expectancy than the average person, and quite specifically, athletes in cardio-heavy activities have the most benefit (greater than those in strength-based sports). Combine that with the high calorie diet typical of an athlete, and the data is quite contrary.

    (Original post by BAD AT MATHS)
    Yes, it seems this hypotesis is based more on observed casual relationships rather than actual scientific evidence. Theories that turn casual realtionships into absolute ones can turn out to be very dangerous at times, such as the MMR vaccine/autism theory. Obviously this one would probably do more good than harm, it's just the basis of it seems to a bit scewed.
    Well, actually the MMR vaccine/autism hypothesis (you all keep using the word theory. Stahp. ) arose because Wakefield fibbed his data. It's continued simply because of post hoc ergo propter hoc logic as you described.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
    Besides this hypothesis having little rational basis besides pseudoscientific basic extrapolation, epidemiological research seems to contradict this theory since quite simply research has shown that athletes have a longer life expectancy than the average person, and quite specifically, athletes in cardio-heavy activities have the most benefit (greater than those in strength-based sports). Combine that with the high calorie diet typical of an athlete, and the data is quite contrary.
    Yeah, that definitely makes sense. I suppose the theory bases itself on individual case studies of people who dedicate their lives to trying to extend their lifespan, without mentioning that case studies are pretty limited in validity and heavily affected by extraneous variables.
    Although you could argue that someone who limits their calories to well under their needs is not an average person, so it is difficult to extrapolate research you described to them. Also, unless the research has accounted for this, athletes are far more likely to care more about their body in other ways such as not smoking, having a very good diet, not drinking which may influence the data.
    However, someone who lives their life with the sole purpose of living for a long time will also be likely to live as healthily as they can which could be an explanation for longer lives observed in 'cronies' (calorie restriction with optimal nutrition) than your average person.
    Anyway, just playing devil's advocate :lol:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Even if it gave me an extra few years, I wouldn't do it. Food is just too nice and I don't think it's worth the trade.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Well the Japanese don't eat a lot of calories and they have a high life expectancy. Also Holocaust survivors despite being starved have had higher life expectancy than Jews who avoided the Holocaust.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.