can a strictly steady repeatable diet delay (or even prevent) aging?

[minaras]

An innocent child would ask:

I think we all agree that life is all about chemical reactions at the end. So lets make an effort forget everything for a moment and focus heartlessly only on the reactions part of the organism. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that these reactions are not arbitrary.

Chemical reactions and Aging.

If the phenotype of an organism is the sum of its chemical reactions, one thing is obvious. That these reactions become different as we age. However, we don’t know whether the initial reactions are programmed to change and lead to the latter ones, or the transition is a result of other events. In other words, is it possible to maintain the same composition of reactions for a long time, thus preventing changes in phenotype, thus preventing further aging?

Answer: In the case our reactions are programmed to change, then things are more complicated. However, in the case that the reactions can be maintained as they are, then it can happen. And below is a possible way to achieve it.

The most important thing is to prevent changes. This can be achieved by providing a certain amount, composition and pace of initial substrates to the reacting system in the form of food. We are only interested in maintaining the system unchanged. We don’t care about the composition of this system, as long as it remains unchanged. This means that any diet that repeats itself every day,( that is providing everyday the same nutrients, in the same manner without any deviations in the routine) can cause the maximum of phenotype preserving in an organism, providing that the diet is viable and supplies all essential elements for life.

Question: Is there any existing evidence that this theory can work in reality?

Answer: A possible evidence can be the fact that the long term maintenance of the same weight (which is achieved by relatively stable food habits) pose an anti-aging effect. On the contrary, frequent changes in body weight accelerate aging.

Additionaly, anyone that tries to lose weight with the help of a specific nutrition, knows that even if he is very compliant to the perfect diet, he must periodically eat something else so as to further make changes in his body, because the body gets used to the diet and resists to further loss. It seems that eating the same food both in quality and quantity tend to cause stabilization of our body’s composition.

[John Cuthber]

"can a strictly steady repeatable diet delay (or even prevent) aging?"

Almost certainly not.

Apart from anything else, the body's dietary needs depend on external factors like the weather, physical activity, illness and (ironically) age.

[dimreepr]

"can a strictly steady repeatable diet delay (or even prevent) aging?"

 

If we could prevent ageing, we’d be immortal, are you sure that’s a good thing?

[Robittybob1]

"can a strictly steady repeatable diet delay (or even prevent) aging?"

 

If we could prevent ageing, we’d be immortal, are you sure that’s a good thing?

Slowing the effects of aging might be a good thing. Look at the difference between the Queen of England and my mum. Both born at the same time and place but a much varied diet since then. I just can't stop thinking the care that the royals take has had a bearing on their longevity, allowing her to have 63 years in the same job!

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

The merit of the outcome is not the topic of the discussion.

[minaras]

"can a strictly steady repeatable diet delay (or even prevent) aging?"

Almost certainly not.

Apart from anything else, the body's dietary needs depend on external factors like the weather, physical activity, illness and (ironically) age.

 

You are right on your point. That’s why I used the term “delay” instead of “prevent”, as not only dietary factors cause changes in the body.

However, despite fluctuations in weather, exercise, illness etc can occur and disrupt the theoretical effect of a steady diet, a steady diet is the best way to every time re-achieve a new temporary equilibrium on a new basis after every unexpected event.

[Strange]

The most important thing is to prevent changes.

 

Evidence?

 

 

Question: Is there any existing evidence that this theory can work in reality?

 

No.

 

 

Answer: A possible evidence can be the fact that the long term maintenance of the same weight (which is achieved by relatively stable food habits) pose an anti-aging effect. On the contrary, frequent changes in body weight accelerate aging.

 

What evidence do you have that long-term maintenance of the same weight produces an anti-aging effect? Some evidence that being consistently obese was healthy would be both interesting and surprising.

 

 

a steady diet is the best way to every time re-achieve a new temporary equilibrium on a new basis after every unexpected event.

 

Evidence?

 

 

Additionaly, anyone that tries to lose weight with the help of a specific nutrition, knows that even if he is very compliant to the perfect diet, he must periodically eat something else so as to further make changes in his body, because the body gets used to the diet and resists to further loss.

 

Nonsense. Weight loss is purely about calories in versus calories out.

[Prometheus]

Generally there is reason to believe that diet can affect the aging process. Both a Mediterranean diet and dietry restriction (without malnutrition) increase longevity. But the mechanisms are not well understood and such is the subject of much dietetic research.

 

 

Question: Is there any existing evidence that this theory can work in reality?

Answer: A possible evidence can be the fact that the long term maintenance of the same weight (which is achieved by relatively stable food habits) pose an anti-aging effect. On the contrary, frequent changes in body weight accelerate aging.

 

 

That is not evidence, not even a possible one. It's a hypothesis though - how would you propose to test it?

[dimreepr]

Nonsense. Weight loss is purely about calories in versus calories out.

 

 

Not so. Calories out is much less important than the ‘type’ of calories in; few would argue that 200 calories of assorted nuts is far better than 200 calories of refined sugar.

[John Cuthber]

 

You are right on your point. That’s why I used the term “delay” instead of “prevent”, as not only dietary factors cause changes in the body.

However, despite fluctuations in weather, exercise, illness etc can occur and disrupt the theoretical effect of a steady diet, a steady diet is the best way to every time re-achieve a new temporary equilibrium on a new basis after every unexpected event.

That is plainly silly.

If the weather is hot you need to drink more water to replace that lost through sweating.

So a constant diet would either be short of water in hot weather or it would have too much water in cold weather.

 

 

Not so. Calories out is much less important than the ‘type’ of calories in; few would argue that 200 calories of assorted nuts is far better than 200 calories of refined sugar.

Not in terms of weight loss; they are as good or bas as eachother.

[dimreepr]

Not according to this.

[Prometheus]

Not sure a wiki page of a film helps the point, but i agree. A calorie is a measurment of energy, but that food containing energy first needs to be absorbed into the body. Eating a large amount of fibre with a meal reduces the amount absorbed. So when we sit down and count the calories in a meal, that might not be the actual number absorbed.

 

Huh - tried to find references to back that up, but googling 'calories' is a minefield for another day.

[John Cuthber]

You seem to have cited a wiki article about a film.

Do you have a more robust evidence base?

[dimreepr]

Huh - tried to find references to back that up, but googling 'calories' is a minefield for another day.

 

 

 

Which is why I cited the wiki page, however, the film is very informative and well worth watching.

 

 

Do you have a more robust evidence base?

 

 

 

I may have time tomorrow, John, I have little doubt the evidence is there but it will require a good dig.

[StringJunky]

The difference between the two foods is how they affect the Glycaemic Index (GI). A high GI food will cause sharper insulin spikes,; you'll have more sharply defined periods of satiety and hunger. I think this promotes bingeing because, metabollically, you are burning-and-crashing instead of a smoother ebb-and-flow with a low GI diet.

[imatfaal]

Dimreeper and Stringjunky - you are conflating two issues; the calorie balance and the ability to comfortably maintain that calorie balance.

 

To lose weight you need to burn some of the stored body fat - you will only do that consistently if the energy in is less than the energy expended. Unless your diet is externally controlled many people find it difficult to reach and maintain this weight loss imbalance; it can be made a lot easier if you eat the correct foods to make you feel full, to make you more active, to maintain a higher metabolic rate etc. This is where food types, GI etc come into play.

 

But the bottom line is that no matter what form the calories arrive in you need to have a calorie debt to lose weight.

 

nb - a crash reduction in calories might well cause catabolism of muscle which is really bad news. But a moderate reduction below that which is needed will cause you to lose weight. Unless you are excreting/defecating out energy rich stuff (which some pills try to cause) then if you are eating more than required you will put on weight

[John Cuthber]

There are, it seems, (at least) two schools of thought about Calorie counting in food.

One takes account of the fact that, for example, digesting nuts takes some energy while digesting sugar takes much less.

The other relies on calculating essentially the heat produced by burning them.

 

If you take the former approach then it's almost tautologically true that 200 Calories is 200 Calories.

 

I think that most of us would accept that (for most people, most of the time ) 200 Calories worth of nuts would be a better option since it would also add some fibre, minerals and vitamins to the diet.

If, on the other hand, you are allergic to nuts...

[Strange]

I heard a while ago (weeks ago on the radio, so no references) about a study where they put people in large calorimeters and measured the exact calories in (all foods) and out (all heat and waste materials). Any weight gain or loss was purely due to the difference between the two.

 

It may well be that people (in the US particularly*) consume too much sugar. And for various complex reasons this may cause them to consume more calories. For example, it seems that a sugary snack may be less satisfying than one higher in fat or protein.

 

(*) When I lived in the US, I was shocked at the sugar levels in almost everything. It seems to have developed as a way of proclaiming things as "low fat" even though they are no lower in calories and may be more likely to cause diabetes or obesity. From what I have read (not much!) recent research seems to suggest that the modern "fat-phobia" is not supported by the evidence.

[Endy0816]

Generally there is reason to believe that diet can affect the aging process. Both a Mediterranean diet and dietry restriction (without malnutrition) increase longevity. But the mechanisms are not well understood and such is the subject of much dietetic research.

 

 

 

That is not evidence, not even a possible one. It's a hypothesis though - how would you propose to test it?

Yeah different means of dietary restriction are the ones I've heard of. Need a way to manage it without loss in quality of life.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

(*) When I lived in the US, I was shocked at the sugar levels in almost everything. It seems to have developed as a way of proclaiming things as "low fat" even though they are no lower in calories and may be more likely to cause diabetes or obesity. From what I have read (not much!) recent research seems to suggest that the modern "fat-phobia" is not supported by the evidence.

Not that anyone will care about my opinion greatly, but I have to second that.

I'm happy to eat golden syrup and brown sugar sandwiches if there's nothing else to put on the bread and I always have at least 3 sugars in a cup of coffee, but even i found many US breakfast cereals to be over sweetened when I visited.

 

On the other hand, the thing that really struck me in terms of the local diet was the size of the portions.

 

BTW, I realise this is a bit OT, but as far as I can tell, the OP's question has been answered.

Edited June 18, 2015 by John Cuthber

[StringJunky]

Calorie restriction with a view to prolonging longevity makes sense if you surmise that the body has a certain developmental path and at the end of it you die. If you can take longer to reach that point of development by calorie restriction/lower metabolism your chronological age should be higher than if you promote development by increasing the energy supply.

 

I think fish live longer if they are fed less, but the difference in that they are poikilothermic, vs our endothermic metabolism, blurs that a lot probably.

[imatfaal]

Calorie restriction with a view to prolonging longevity makes sense if you surmise that the body has a certain developmental path and at the end of it you die. If you can take longer to reach that point of development by calorie restriction/lower metabolism your chronological age should be higher than if you promote development by increasing the energy supply.

 

I think fish live longer if they are fed less, but the difference in that they are poikilothermic, vs our endothermic metabolism, blurs that a lot probably.

 

I think that full trials have taken place with mice and the results show a significant retardation of the aging process for those groups with restricted calorie intake. There is anecdotal evidence that this is replicated in humans - but a well-controlled test is hard to envisage actually happening.

[cladking]

Let me answer in a few hundred years.

[StringJunky]

Let me answer in a few hundred years.

If you reach 120, that'll do.

 

 

I think that full trials have taken place with mice and the results show a significant retardation of the aging process for those groups with restricted calorie intake. There is anecdotal evidence that this is replicated in humans - but a well-controlled test is hard to envisage actually happening.

I think people in Okinawa, Nippon live on a relatively calorie-restricted diet, they have a high proportion of centenarians apparently.

[MonDie]

The opening poster is thinking about homeostasis, the maintaining of constant internal conditions.

 

 

Calorie restriction with a view to prolonging longevity makes sense if you surmise that the body has a certain developmental path and at the end of it you die. If you can take longer to reach that point of development by calorie restriction/lower metabolism your chronological age should be higher than if you promote development by increasing the energy supply.

 

That's absurd. Then somebody who spent life starving should live very long. They wouldn't have enough calories to exercise, so they would develop poor immune function, poor brain function, poor circulation, low bone density, etc.

SJ was very, very bad.