If you feed mice less food than they normally eat, they tend to live longer.
This mostly consistent finding is the basis for a lot of tech bro biohacks about eating less food.
But is it really healthy to under-eat?
But now we have new data from a human study.
I sayattemptingbecause the average calorie restriction was more like 12% than 25%.
The researchers used two different blood tests for DNA methylation, which is supposed to decrease as you age.
One of the tests found no difference between the calorie restrictors and the control group.
Can it really be healthy to under-eat?
Its not that they want to live longer, its that theyre afraid of looking and feelingold.
Likewise, the enthusiasm for caloric restriction feels misplaced to me as well.
If eating less can make you skinny and maybe not get old, wouldnt that be cool?
But as weve discussedbefore, its not realistic to dietforever, is it?
Personally, I enjoy being strong, and I eat a lot of food.
As Ive gotten stronger, Ive gotten bigger, and that makes me happy.
We all tend to lose muscle as we age, which in severe cases is a phenomenon calledsarcopenia.
In rodents, where most of the research has been done, there are stilltons of questions remaining.
For example, some strains of rodents show little to no benefit from caloric restriction.
Some studies have shown problems with bone loss and with delayed wound healing.
Are you really going to bet your entire lifestyle on studies with mixed results?
What if youre hungry?
What if you have no energy?
What if it sucks?
Are you just going to keep it up another 50 years and hope youre on the right track?
Im not going to, anyway.
If were choosing biohacks for longevity, Ill take those.
