Hacker News Reader

I don't disagree with the point that the article significantly overstates the facts. But calorie restriction has been extensively studied in many species, not just rodents. I don't think there's much evidence to say that there's no benefit if you start late, even in rodents; just that the earlier the better, and how much better depends on the species. There's some recent evidence that suggests the opposite (starting too early has no additional benefit) in primates,

  Comparative analysis reveals that eating less beneficial in
  adult and older primates but is not beneficial for younger
  animals. This is a major departure from prior studies in
  rodents, where starting at an earlier age is better in
  achieving the benefits of a low-calorie diet.

  -- http://news.wisc.edu/calorie-restriction-lets-monkeys-live-long-and-prosper/

Also, I think once the conversation turns to specifics like autophagy or especially hand-wavy stuff like "regenerating the immune system" (as in the topic article), the hard facts are already in the rearview mirror.

Smaller creatures live longer. Citation needed.

Elephants live for 60 years. Mice live for 3. Life expectancy is clearly not a function of size alone, so you probably need to back up that claim that they lived longer because they were stunted.

I'm pretty sure OP was referring to smaller creatures of the same species.

Again, OP is claiming that the property of 'smallness' is a causative factor to increased life expectancy. This is a way more dubious claim than calories being a causative factor.

For example, birds are the opposite: larger birds generally live longer than smaller birds.

Actually, the more I think about it, it's the same with lizards. And primates and most mammals. And pretty much every species besides a small subset of domestic canines that have undergone artificial selection in the past millennia.

Yeah, I suspect that with dogs that overbreeding is a bigger issue. We have a Bernese Mountain Dog, they don't have a good health profile, for example all the "large chested breeds" are at risk of "bloat" or gastric torsion. If this isn't caught quickly then it's fatal (blood supply to the stomach is interrupted). This is something that happens through artificial selection for size, i suspect that it is rare in wolves.

Many reptiles are indeterminate growers (meaning they'll keep growing as long as long as they are alive) so of course the largest ones live the longest. Birds and mammals, however, pretty much all have determinate growth as far as I know.

Similarly, humans are getting more long-lived and taller at the same time.

The question is whether smaller humans live longer, and we should have plenty of data on that. Here's a study published in the Western Journal of Medicine that cites "FINDINGS SUGGESTING THAT SHORT STATURE IS HEALTHIER": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071721/

e.g. "The researchers, Willcox etal, did not attribute this superior health to genetics because when younger Okinawans migrate to mainland Japan, Hawaii, or the United States, they soon acquire the chronic diseases of the host population. The Okinawans are shorter and weigh less than mainland Japanese, and men aged 87 to 104 years average 145.4 cm (4ft 9 in) and 42.8 kg (94lb)."

Good job! I don't know your history but speaking from a lifetime of yo yo ing with much more success in recent years, the calorie restriction very likely will need to be permanent. I have found again and again that there is no such thing as maintenance eating for me. If I am not actively trying to lose weight I am gaining weight

We'll see, I guess. I've also been making resistance exercise a regular part of my life and am building up muscle mass. I'm hopeful that a larger lean body mass when this is all over will make weight maintenance easier.

"It's just giving your body a 24 hr period to engage in autophagy and clear out some of the junk; you make up the calories on the other days."

Very true. People don't realize that calories don't "reset' after the day ends. Net calorie gain/loss is best measure on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. If you stay under target for 3 days then binge two full pizzas, you aren't actually going to lose anything.

That's not exactly true, if you actually fast for 3 days, even two pizzas won't make up for the lost calories of a 3 days fast, and it's very likely won't be able to eat 2 pizzas in one go..

I know, I fast regularly (I'm days 2 of a 5 day one at the minute) and I do eat quite a lot when I'm not fasting, and despite what everyone will tell you, I don't 'put back the weight immediately' -- even if I have a nice binge dinner on day 5.

In fact, after quite a few years of fasting very intermittently (I do perhaps 4 a year), I know I can't eat as much as I used to, and I don't 'creep' up as I used to when I started. I'm a LOT dryer than I was, and I can still enjoy a 32 ounce steak (!) when I feel like one.

True, but this article is in reference to IF, not extended fasting. Generally IF is done daily, with a feeding window of 8-10 hours and the other 14-16 are for fasting.

Not many people incorporate 2-3 day fasts into their diet.

At least averaging out means it's easier to account for those pizzas in th eocming days. But wait, that's just ordinary calorie-controlled dieting, not sexy enough for a book...!

> allows me to fast from Noon to breakfast the next day with minimal hunger.

Do you eat your breakfast at 4 AM?

You can train hunger response. I used to fast for a full 24 hours, water only. It was difficult at the beginning, but a few months in and I wouldn't even feel all that hungry. The bouts of hunger that would come only lasted an hour or so, then I would be fine. This benefit has continued, even though I haven't purposefully fasted for years. Not eating just generally doesn't bother me anymore. If I'm in a rush to get to lunch, it's usually because I want to get out of the office for a bit...

I am one of those people who never get hungry. I don't fast, but don't eat breakfast, skip lunches once in a while. Usually have a large dinner. I am not skinny but slightly overweight, according to BMI (25.1).

But when I purposefully eat as much as possible on vacations (trying out all of the famous places, you know), then for next week or two I get hungry all the time. It takes a lot of time before I could get back to my normal eating schedule. I really don't care one way or other but my busy schedule just get in the way of regular lunches.

Also I have been going to same doctor for last decade and he says my health is as great as of someone 15 years younger than me.

> Do you eat your breakfast at 4 AM?

No, I eat when I sit down at my desk at work at 9 AM. It's part of my routine. I'm just busy in the morning so while I'm aware of being hungry I just do my stuff and my commute until I can sit down and enjoy my breakfast sandwich and black coffee.

I get a box of the frozen turkey sausage, egg, and cheese sandwiches at Costco and just grab one as I leave the house each morning.

Great. So I'm hungry and miserable but it's fine because I get to experience it for several extra years!

I've been doing intermittent fasting for over half a year now and am anything but miserable. If you drink enough you won't be very hungry. The big positive for me though is that I'm more awake and figured without breakfast. That more than makes up for me for the occasional wave of hunger.