Apr 4, 2006 2:07pm

Starvation Diet

If you’re worried about living longer, there’s one approach doctors have been a bit nervous about recommending: starving yourself to death.

For decades now, there’s been anecdotal evidence about longevity and so-called “caloric restriction” (I don’t make up such euphemisms), but until now there was no demonstration it worked in people.  It certainly did in animals; mice who were kept on high-nutrition but very low-calorie diets lived longer.  So did many other species.

Now a team from LSU has a paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association, showing what its authors regard as promising results.  Here’s how our medical unit summarized it:

“In a randomized controlled trial, 48 overweight people were assigned either to a control group or some form of calorie restriction (as low as 890 calories per day) for 6 months. Results showed that those receiving calorie restriction not only reduced their fat mass and body weight but also reduced fasting insulin levels, body temperature and energy expenditure. According to anti-aging theories, low fasting insulin levels and body temperature are considered biomarkers of longevity, and lower energy expenditure correlates with decreased DNA damage and increased longevity.”

Intrigued?  Appalled?  Our medical folks polled other researchers, and got some understandably skeptical responses.

Dr. Darin Deen (Albert Einstein Medical College): “Unfortunately, this study looked at biomarkers, not at actual longevity…therefore it is hard to attach any particular significance to it.”

Dr. Keith-Thomas Ayoob (also at Einstein): “The study is just too short to draw meaningful conclusions.”

Dr. Eleftheria Maratos-Flier (Beth Israel Medical Center, Boston): “The group here was overweight. We already know that diet and weight loss are good for overweight people.”

Dr. John Messmer (Penn State): “The cynic might say, ‘Sure you may live longer, but why bother if I can’t eat?’"  Other doctors weighted in similarly.

Dr. Jennifer Caudle, who often helps us with medical information, has more HERE.  (Thanks to Roger Sergel, Joanna Schaffhausen and the rest of our medical unit for their research.) 

We’ve done-—or considered and finally dropped-—stories about caloric restriction over the last few years, and I’ll confess that for lack of clear evidence that it was good for people, they made us uncomfortable.  How might a piece affect people with eating disorders?  Or was the subject irrelevant to most Americans, who would never consider keeping themselves to 900 calories a day? 

The study was part of a large project called CALERIE, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging.  It has studies going at LSU, Duke, Tufts, and Washington University in St. Louis.  An editorial attached to today’s paper says the study will certainly get people talking.  Perhaps over dinner.

–Ned

User Comments

I’ve seen various news reports about the starvation diet over the years. With no studies on actual longevity, I suppose I must take the cynic’s position on this: with a reduced-calorie diet, you don’t actually live longer, it just seems that way.

Posted by: chuck | April 5, 2006, 8:19 am 8:19 am

It would be interesting to see what 900 calories people limit themselves to. 900 calories of salad? 900 calories of Hershey bars? A reasonable mix of the two?

Posted by: Chris | April 5, 2006, 8:44 am 8:44 am

I happened on this while looking at ABC News site and thought I would say that my mother-in-law is the perosn you are talking about. She lives on a restricted diet. She will eat on a special occassion, but carefully plans how to balance out any indulgence. She was 90 years old on Feb 28 and she takes no medication. She walks as much as she can even up to a couple of miles a day.

Posted by: Gail EuDaly | April 5, 2006, 6:41 pm 6:41 pm

I’ve been on a caloric-restriction diet for years, without any apparent problems. I believe I don’t age as quickly as most people. I let nature be my guide. I eat anything I want, but I eat less than most people. Our ancestors evolved the ability to survive for days at a time on little or no food. To eat 3 meals per day is not natural, and is an abomination to nature. Most days I eat only one normal-sized meal. I’ll fast for 12, 16, 18, 24, 30 or more hours at a time. People need to understand that most people shouldn’t be eating 3 well-balanced meals everyday. Also forget the myth that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Your most important meal is either the one you’re having or the next one you’ll have. Yours, Randal Bean

Posted by: Randal Bean | April 6, 2006, 8:59 am 8:59 am

I must say; I have been on a very low calorie diet for awhile with no visable side effects. I know when I need more to eat because exercise becomes more tiring. So I grab a little snack and continue on. Now I have less stomach problems and less sugar-related mood swings. I have found that eating less keeps me thinking about food less. I never thought that would happen! In fact, this may be the first diet plan that I will be able to continue on!

Posted by: Sarah Baggett | April 9, 2006, 11:57 am 11:57 am

l want to know what the slowing of the earth has also got to do with global warming.
As the earth slows it does not generate as much magnetism so the poles are getting weaker.
This means that solar rays penertrate our atmosphere at a greater rate.
l want to know if we are fighting global warming as well as solar rays that are now heating our planet faster. l think now that birds are not using their usual migration paterns. This shows why we have more winds as the UV warmer the earth.
ls this true ?
Tell the world the truth

Posted by: STEVE | April 14, 2006, 5:42 pm 5:42 pm

Funny how you start this off by saying you can live longer by starving yourself to “death”. Somewhat of an oxymoron wouldn’t you say?

Posted by: Mike | April 21, 2006, 10:34 am 10:34 am

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.