For every organism that has been studied (dogs, cats, insects, monkeys, even yeast) if you reduce the caloric intake by 30% you extend the lifespan by 30%. Seems like our cells are only programmed to process a certain amount of calories before they wear out.
So let's take this as a given. Less calories, more years. How many of us would actually cut back dramatically on calories? I'm not sure I would. In fact, I suspect more people would be motivated by how they look in a swimsuit than their lifespan. That is, right up until they face the end. Then they will wish they'd passed up the french fries and the chocolate malts.
That's called perspective. Or maybe relativity.
At what point is this true? Surely someone who is already taking in too few calories to sustain their bodies cannot further reduce their intake and still lengthen their lifespan.
ReplyDeleteWell yes, that's true. I'm sure this is an average. I think there's been some research to suggest that 1700-2000 calories daily provides significant benefits. But I've read about people who survive on much less and live very long lives. But your point is right: There are limits to the theory.
ReplyDeleteI question this as well. I know that I need more calories than most people my size, especially when I'm breastfeeding and/or training. Reducing my intake by 30% might increase my lifespan, but it would probably decrease my chances for a successful marriage, as I get very grumpy when I'm hungry. Aren't we all going to have the option to live forever soon anyway?
ReplyDelete