Science  permalink

Low Calorie diet ...

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 13 of 13
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Princess Anne (U7991547) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    ... who wants to live longer healthier? Then the answer might be in a low low calorie diet or calorie restricted diet (CRON), www.medicalnewstoday...
    Mice live 50% longer, humans can too, couple that with the increase in population women giving birth at 80, 90 year old men running off with teenagers. And a cheaper shopping bill (well not in the long run of course). And no more beer!

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Sir Bernard Quatermass (U1732830) on Saturday, 4th September 2010

    Low cal and live longer has been around for a long time. Maybe 10 or more years ago I heard someone talking about it on the radio and he said after an interview, (name of the advocate of this system) is 72 years old. If I told you he was 84 years old, you'd believe me.

    I worked with a 62 year old. He did not diet but ate little and exercised a lot. He was as fit as a forty year old, but if I showed you a picture of him without telling you his age, you'd have said mid-70's or older.

    You don't live longer. You just look like you have when you finally die.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by yellowcat (U218155) on Saturday, 4th September 2010

    Sat, 04 Sep 2010 21:09 GMT, in reply to Sir Bernard Quatermass in message 2

    It may work on people - it has been shown to work in various other animals.
    I for one enjoy my food and would not want to live on such a diet even if I could live a little longer.

    Maybe if the biochemistry could be cracked we could live longer without having a restricted diet.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Sir Bernard Quatermass (U1732830) on Monday, 6th September 2010

    When I see very old people, even the alternative looks good. Death is just a sleep you do not wake up from while being daily abused in an old folk's home can be hell on Earth.

    There is something in genes. I worked with a 57 year old and when he went to pick up a 52 year old fellow worker after a hip operation, the nurse said to the 52 year old: "Your son has come to take you home". He looked older than his age, though slim, while the edging on fat 57 year old looked about 40.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by StuartG (U14275984) on Monday, 6th September 2010

    Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:02 GMT, in reply to Sir Bernard Quatermass in message 4

    'daily abused in an old folk's home' In how many homes does that happen?
    StuartG

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by yellowcat (U218155) on Monday, 6th September 2010

    There is something in genes. 
    while the edging on fat 57 year old looked about 40. 

    Two points there, taking the last first having a bit of extra fat will fill out the wrinkles, making you look a bit younger.

    You are correct, there is something in genes. It has been found that beneficial genetics are the main factor in having a long, healthy life to the point that good genes were able to more than compensate for things like being a bit over weight or moderate smoking:


    >>Researchers led by Paola Sebastiani, PhD, a professor of biostatistics at the BU School of Public Health and Thomas Perls, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the BU School of Medicine and a geriatrician at Boston Medical Center, built a unique genetic model that includes 150 genetic variants, known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). They found that these 150 variants could be used to predict if a person survived to very old ages (late 90s and older) with a high rate of accuracy.

    In addition, the team's analysis identified 19 genetic clusters or "genetic signatures" of exceptional longevity that characterized 90 percent of the centenarians studied. <<

    www.sciencedaily.com...

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by leodis (U1633262) on Monday, 6th September 2010

    I've spent some time recently doing my family tree. My mother's & my father's families are from opposite sides of the country, one a port, the other inland, and most did farm work or worked in mills and mines when they got going. Women married had about 9 or 10 children.

    In the 1700s and 1800s, almost without exception, they lived till their late 70s and 80s. If they made it through childhood diseases (and a fair few didn't) there was hardly anyone who died in their 40s and 50s (so no apparent early heart attacks). Bear in mind the diet of those days was high fat, plenty of butter and beef dripping etc, and they had plenty of exercise with their physical jobs. Nobody was overweight.

    Once we get into the 1900s and some of my ancestors moved into cities, pollution kicked in from the mills, etc., there is nobody on my family tree who lived longer than 70 yrs of age... same diet, same manual jobs... and the size of the families went down dramatically too.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by leodis (U1633262) on Monday, 6th September 2010

    msg 5:
    There is low-level abuse in many old people's homes on a regular basis. Sometimes it is neglect of the people in care, sometimes malicious and lazy behaviour.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by StuartG (U14275984) on Monday, 6th September 2010

    Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:52 GMT, in reply to leodis in message 8

    Perhaps I've been lucky, but they are inspected at irregular intervals, and they will inspect on receipt of a complaint.
    www.carehomeguides.c...
    www.housingcare.org/...
    StuartG

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by elderberry (U13512571) on Monday, 6th September 2010

    Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:49 GMT, in reply to leodis in message 7

    1700s and 1800s, almost without exception, they lived till their late 70s and 80s./.../

    Once we get into the 1900s and some of my ancestors moved into cities, pollution kicked in from the mills, etc., there is nobody on my family tree who lived longer than 70 yrs of age... same diet, same manual jobs... 


    Perhaps only the healthiest ones survived childhood in the earlier times, and so lived longer?

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by listener (U10967204) on Monday, 6th September 2010


    Now then quotes, don't start getting all logical on the science board, that'll never do.

    smiley - smiley

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by leodis (U1633262) on Monday, 6th September 2010

    msg 10:

    I don't suppose we'll know if the young people in my family who died in the 1800s and 1900s had infectious ailments (short of paying for all their death certificates, which I am not very keen on doing).

    But given the great ages and fat-rich diet of the ones who survived, and that is in two different families in different parts of the country, I wonder if both sides of my family have natural low cholesterol levels? Although they should still be living into their 80s if that were the only thing.

    My cholesterol is extremely low, something which impressed my doctor. Perhaps I inherited it from both sides of the family? That and an apparently robust system generally, I hope.

    Apart from the pollution which is apparently seeing people off at a younger age, of course. Or maybe it's the stress of modern living. But something changed in the 1900s.

    Has anyone else found this on their family trees?

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by leodis (U1633262) on Tuesday, 7th September 2010

    Not so far, eh?

    Report message13

Back to top

About this Board

This was the BBC Radio 4 messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

The Radio 4 messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Other BBC Messageboards

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.