Starving for Life: If you keep up on matters of health, fitness, and longevity - like I do - you will have the sense that the Next Big Thing is going to involve a concept called Caloric Restriction. Caloric Restriction posits that a severe reduction in caloric intake is directly correlated with increased longevity.

Now, before you take that to mean you'll live longer if you watch your weight and give it a big fat DUH!, just listen.

Caloric restriction has nothing to do with weight and in fact, has nothing to do with fitness. Caloric Restriction is based on research done in animals of all sorts, from microscopic all the way up to dogs and monkeys. Oversimplified, it involves taking large numbers of the creatures feeding group A a controlled healthy low-fat diet of X calories and feeding group B exactly the same food but maybe only 60% of group A's portions and then adding non-caloric supplements (vitamins) for added nutrition. In all these species the result is that the calorie restricted group lived significantly longer and exhibited less sign of age related diseases. Extrapolating from this to human life spans, we would be looking at 140 years or so.

A couple of news reports on the research can be found here and here.

This will be extremely difficult research to duplicate in humans, since our behavioral differences are virtually uncontrollable from individual to individual. But, as I read it, the supposition is this:

Joe Schmoe is man of average height (5'9") and weight (say 160-ish) and leading a sedentary life he would by all estimates expend about 2000 calories a day. Now if instead of 2000 calories, Joe Schmoe cut his intake to 1300 calories a day (and took the need supplements so as not to be malnourished) his weight would undoubtedly drop significantly (probably to around 120 or so - bone skinny) but it would stabilize at some point, i.e. he wouldn't starve to death. The result of this would be that his expected life-span would increase dramatically and he would be less likely to suffer from caner and arthritis and many other age-related maladies.

The underlying theory is that the actual intake of food and processing of calories by your body affects aging. One human believer in this process is quoted in a 6/3 Wall Street Journal article (I can't link it, it subscribers only) as saying "Every calorie you eat is a second off your life." Of course, the guy is six feet tall and 115 pounds.

I don't want to make this out as a crackpot theory, there is an awful lot of evidence and good solid scientific research going into this. It's not Junk Science, but there are a lot of unaddressed concerns.

For example, a diet so restricted in calories pretty much prevents any sort of strenuous regular physical activity; the fuel just isn't available for your body to do anything. That leads to this question. Does our sedentary, 1300 calorie/day Joe Schmoe have a longer life expectancy than a 2000 calorie a day Joe Schmoe who exercises to expend an extra 700 calories a day to net out to the same 1300 calories? Is Joe better off sitting and starving or eating and being fit?

Anyway, it's not like I'm going to give up eating and drinking. A) I'm not convinced that there aren't other forces at work here besides caloric intake and B) I don't have the willpower even if I was convinced.

But keep on eye on this. The research done here may pay off in making existing foods healthier or understanding the aging process better.