Fasting appears to slow aging

[cosmicalstorm]

Valter Longo is a fascinating person, been following his studies on fasting and cancer for a year and they are great.
I have undertaken four day periods of water only fasting since about a year back and it always makes me feel pretty good afterwards.
The health effects seems to be pretty profound even in those who "only" go low calorie for a few days every month, even if their total calorie intake over time does not change.

Science/Technology
Diet that mimics fasting appears to slow aging
Benefits demonstrated in mice and yeast; three cycles of a similar diet given to humans

Want to lose abdominal fat, get smarter and live longer? New research led by USC’s Valter Longo shows that periodically adopting a diet that mimics the effects of fasting may yield a wide range of health benefits.

In a new study, Longo and his colleagues show that cycles of a four-day low-calorie diet that mimics fasting (FMD) cut visceral belly fat and elevated the number of progenitor and stem cells in several organs of old mice — including the brain, where it boosted neural regeneration and improved learning and memory.

The mouse tests were part of a three-tiered study on periodic fasting’s effects — testing yeast, mice and humans — to be published by Cell Metabolism on June 18.
Fasting’s lifelong effects

Mice, which have relatively short life spans, provided details about fasting’s lifelong effects. Yeast, which are simpler organisms, allowed Longo to uncover the biological mechanisms that fasting triggers at a cellular level. And a pilot study in humans found evidence that the mouse and yeast studies were, indeed, applicable to humans.

Bimonthly cycles that lasted four days of an FMD which started at middle age extended life span, reduced the incidence of cancer, boosted the immune system, reduced inflammatory diseases, slowed bone mineral density loss and improved the cognitive abilities of older mice tracked in the study. The total monthly calorie intake was the same for the FMD and control diet groups, indicating that the effects were not the result of an overall dietary restriction.

In a pilot human trial, three cycles of a similar diet given to 19 subjects once a month for five days decreased risk factors and biomarkers for aging, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer with no major adverse side effects, according to Longo.

Strict fasting is hard for people to stick to, and it can also be dangerous.

Valter Longo

“Strict fasting is hard for people to stick to, and it can also be dangerous, so we developed a complex diet that triggers the same effects in the body,” said Longo, Edna M. Jones Professor of Biogerontology at the USC Davis School of Gerontology and director of the USC Longevity Institute. Longo has a joint appointment at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. “I’ve personally tried both, and the fasting mimicking diet is a lot easier and also a lot safer.”

The diet slashed the individual’s caloric intake down to 34 to 54 percent of normal, with a specific composition of proteins, carbohydrates, fats and micronutrients. It decreased amounts of the hormone IGF-I, which is required during development to grow, but it is a promoter of aging and has been linked to cancer susceptibility. It also increased the amount of the hormone IGFBP-, and reduced biomarkers/risk factors linked to diabetes and cardiovascular disease, including glucose, trunk fat and C-reactive protein without negatively affecting muscle and bone mass.
Cancer cells starved out

Longo has previously shown how fasting can help starve out cancer cells while protecting immune and other cells from chemotherapy toxicity.

“It’s about reprogramming the body so it enters a slower aging mode, but also rejuvenating it through stem cell-based regeneration,” Longo said. “It’s not a typical diet because it isn’t something you need to stay on.”

For 25 days a month, study participants went back to their regular eating habits — good or bad — once they finished the treatment. They were not asked to change their diet and still saw positive changes.

Longo believes that for most normal people, the FMD can be done every three to six months, depending on the abdominal circumference and health status. For obese subjects or those with elevated disease risk factors, the FMD could be recommended by the physician as often as once every two weeks. His group is testing its effect in a randomized clinical trial, which will be completed soon, with more than 70 subjects.

“If the results remain as positive as the current ones, I believe this FMD will represent the first safe and effective intervention to promote positive changes associated with longevity and health span, which can be recommended by a physician,” Longo said. “We will soon meet with FDA officers to pursue several FDA claims for disease prevention and treatment.”
Consult a doctor

Despite its positive effects, Longo cautioned against water-only fasting and warned even about attempting the fasting mimicking diet without first consulting a doctor and seeking their supervision throughout the process.

Water-only fasting should only be done in a specialized clinic.

Valter Longo

“Not everyone is healthy enough to fast for five days, and the health consequences can be severe for a few who do it improperly,” he said. “Water-only fasting should only be done in a specialized clinic. Also, certain types of very low calorie diets, and particularly those with high protein content, can increase the incidence of gallstones in women at risk.”

“In contrast,” he added, “the fasting mimicking diet tested in the trial can be done anywhere under the supervision of a physician and carefully following the guidelines established in the clinical trials.”

Longo also cautioned that diabetes subjects should not undergo either fasting or fasting mimicking diets while receiving insulin, metformin or similar drugs. He also said that subjects with body mass index less than 18 should not undergo the FMD diet.

For the study, Longo collaborated with researchers and clinicians from USC as well as from Texas, Italy and England. The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging.

http://news.usc.edu/82959/diet-that-mim ... low-aging/

[Darth Nostril]

Why have you not been institutionalised yet?

[Darmalus]

Why have you not been institutionalised yet?

There's nothing particularly crazy about claiming health benefits from fasting. There have been lots of evidence for it, even if the exact mechanism is unknown IIRC. This is just another one on the pile.

[Darth Nostril]

This muppet jumps on every "healthy" bandwagon passing.

[cosmicalstorm]

Why have you not been institutionalised yet?

Lol did you read my post while stuffing your face or something? Fasting (starvation on pubmed) is not remotely close to any kind of bunk.

What bandwagon? You mean physical exercise? Eating vegetables and nuts and olive oil?

Fasting is nothing weird and I suspect it will be a core concept in most cancer treatments in the nearby future. Aside from rare cancers that rely on ketone bodies almost every cancer is vulnerable to fasting.

Aging Cell. 2015 Apr 22. doi: 10.1111/acel.12338. [Epub ahead of print]
Interventions to Slow Aging in Humans: Are We Ready?
Longo VD1, Antebi A, Bartke A, Barzilai N, Brown-Borg HM, Caruso C, Curiel TJ, de Cabo R, Franceschi C, Gems D, Ingram DK, Johnson TE, Kennedy BK, Kenyon C, Klein S, Kopchick JJ, Lepperdinger G, Madeo F, Mirisola MG, Mitchell JR, Passarino G, Rudolph KL, Sedivy JM, Shadel GS, Sinclair DA, Spindler SR, Suh Y, Vijg J, Vinciguerra M, Fontana L.
Author information
Abstract

The workshop entitled 'Interventions to Slow Aging in Humans: Are We Ready?' was held in Erice, Italy, on October 8-13, 2013, to bring together leading experts in the biology and genetics of aging and obtain a consensus related to the discovery and development of safe interventions to slow aging and increase healthy lifespan in humans. There was consensus that there is sufficient evidence that aging interventions will delay and prevent disease onset for many chronic conditions of adult and old age. Essential pathways have been identified, and behavioral, dietary, and pharmacologic approaches have emerged. Although many gene targets and drugs were discussed and there was not complete consensus about all interventions, the participants selected a subset of the most promising strategies that could be tested in humans for their effects on healthspan. These were: (i) dietary interventions mimicking chronic dietary restriction (periodic fasting mimicking diets, protein restriction, etc.); (ii) drugs that inhibit the growth hormone/IGF-I axis; (iii) drugs that inhibit the mTOR-S6K pathway; or (iv) drugs that activate AMPK or specific sirtuins. These choices were based in part on consistent evidence for the pro-longevity effects and ability of these interventions to prevent or delay multiple age-related diseases and improve healthspan in simple model organisms and rodents and their potential to be safe and effective in extending human healthspan. The authors of this manuscript were speakers and discussants invited to the workshop. The following summary highlights the major points addressed and the conclusions of the meeting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25902704

Oncotarget. 2015 May 20;6(14):11820-32.
Fasting potentiates the anticancer activity of tyrosine kinase inhibitors by strengthening MAPK signaling inhibition.
Caffa I1, D'Agostino V2, Damonte P1, Soncini D1, Cea M1, Monacelli F1, Odetti P1,3, Ballestrero A1,3, Provenzani A2, Longo VD4,5, Nencioni A1,3.
Author information
Abstract

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are now the mainstay of treatment in many types of cancer. However, their benefit is frequently short-lived, mandating the search for safe potentiation strategies. Cycles of fasting enhance the activity of chemo-radiotherapy in preclinical cancer models and dietary approaches based on fasting are currently explored in clinical trials. Whether combining fasting with TKIs is going to be potentially beneficial remains unknown. Here we report that starvation conditions increase the ability of commonly administered TKIs, including erlotinib, gefitinib, lapatinib, crizotinib and regorafenib, to block cancer cell growth, to inhibit the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway and to strengthen E2F-dependent transcription inhibition. In cancer xenografts models, both TKIs and cycles of fasting slowed tumor growth, but, when combined, these interventions were significantly more effective than either type of treatment alone. In conclusion, cycles of fasting or of specifically designed fasting-mimicking diets should be evaluated in clinical studies as a means to potentiate the activity of TKIs in clinical use.

Cell Stem Cell. 2014 Jun 5;14(6):810-23. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2014.04.014.
Prolonged fasting reduces IGF-1/PKA to promote hematopoietic-stem-cell-based regeneration and reverse immunosuppression.
Cheng CW1, Adams GB2, Perin L3, Wei M1, Zhou X2, Lam BS2, Da Sacco S3, Mirisola M4, Quinn DI5, Dorff TB5, Kopchick JJ6, Longo VD7.
Author information
Abstract

Immune system defects are at the center of aging and a range of diseases. Here, we show that prolonged fasting reduces circulating IGF-1 levels and PKA activity in various cell populations, leading to signal transduction changes in long-term hematopoietic stem cells (LT-HSCs) and niche cells that promote stress resistance, self-renewal, and lineage-balanced regeneration. Multiple cycles of fasting abated the immunosuppression and mortality caused by chemotherapy and reversed age-dependent myeloid-bias in mice, in agreement with preliminary data on the protection of lymphocytes from chemotoxicity in fasting patients. The proregenerative effects of fasting on stem cells were recapitulated by deficiencies in either IGF-1 or PKA and blunted by exogenous IGF-1. These findings link the reduced levels of IGF-1 caused by fasting to PKA signaling and establish their crucial role in regulating hematopoietic stem cell protection, self-renewal, and regeneration.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24905167

Fasting vs dietary restriction in cellular protection and cancer treatment: from model organisms to patients

C Lee1 and V D Longo1

1Andrus Gerontology Center, Department of Biological Sciences and Norris Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Correspondence: Professor VD Longo, Andrus Gerontology Center, Department of Biological Sciences and Norris Cancer Center, University of Southern California, 3715 McClintock Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0191, USA. E-mail: vlongo@usc.edu

Received 6 December 2010; Revised 11 February 2011; Accepted 11 February 2011; Published online 25 April 2011.
Top of page
Abstract

The dietary recommendation for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, as described by the American Cancer Society, is to increase calorie and protein intake. Yet, in simple organisms, mice, and humans, fasting—no calorie intake—induces a wide range of changes associated with cellular protection, which would be difficult to achieve even with a cocktail of potent drugs. In mammals, the protective effect of fasting is mediated, in part, by an over 50% reduction in glucose and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-I) levels. Because proto-oncogenes function as key negative regulators of the protective changes induced by fasting, cells expressing oncogenes, and therefore the great majority of cancer cells, should not respond to the protective signals generated by fasting, promoting the differential protection (differential stress resistance) of normal and cancer cells. Preliminary reports indicate that fasting for up to 5 days followed by a normal diet, may also protect patients against chemotherapy without causing chronic weight loss. By contrast, the long-term 20 to 40% restriction in calorie intake (dietary restriction, DR), whose effects on cancer progression have been studied extensively for decades, requires weeks–months to be effective, causes much more modest changes in glucose and/or IGF-I levels, and promotes chronic weight loss in both rodents and humans. In this study, we review the basic as well as clinical studies on fasting, cellular protection and chemotherapy resistance, and compare them to those on DR and cancer treatment. Although additional pre-clinical and clinical studies are necessary, fasting has the potential to be translated into effective clinical interventions for the protection of patients and the improvement of therapeutic index.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the existing evidence from animal and human studies described, we conclude that there is great potential for lifestyles that incorporate IF or PF during adult life to promote optimal health and reduce the risk of many chronic diseases, particularly for those who are overweight and sedentary. Animal studies have documented robust and replicable effects of fasting on health indicators including greater insulin sensitivity and reduced levels of blood pressure, body fat, IGF-I, insulin, glucose, atherogenic lipids, and inflammation. Fasting regimens can ameliorate disease processes and improve functional outcome in animal models of disorders that include cancer, myocardial infarction, diabetes, stroke, AD, and PD. One general mechanism of action of fasting is that it triggers adaptive cellular stress responses, which result in an enhanced ability to cope with more severe stress and counteract disease processes. In addition, by protecting cells from DNA damage, suppressing cell growth, and enhancing apoptosis of damaged cells, fasting could retard and/or prevent the formation and growth of cancers.

However, studies of fasting regimens have not been performed in children, the very old, and underweight individuals, and it is possible that IF and PF would be harmful to these populations. Fasting periods lasting longer than 24 hr, and particularly those lasting 3 or more days, should be done under the supervision of a physician and preferably in a clinic. IF- and PF-based approaches toward combating the current epidemics of overweight, diabetes, and related diseases should be pursued in human research studies and medical treatment plans. Several variations of potential “fasting prescriptions” that have been adopted for overweight subjects revolve around the common theme of abstaining from food and caloric beverages for at least 12–24 hr on 1 or more days each week or month, depending on the length, combined with regular exercise. For those who are overweight, physicians could ask their patients to choose a fasting-based intervention that they believe they could comply with based upon their daily and weekly schedules. Examples include the “5:2” IF diet (Harvie et al., 2011), the alternate day modified fasting diet (Johnson et al., 2007 and Varady et al., 2009), a 4–5 day fast (Lee et al., 2012 and Safdie et al., 2009), or low-calorie-but high-nourishment fasting-mimicking diets once every 1–3 months followed by the skipping of one major meal every day if needed (V.D.L., unpublished data). One of the concerns with unbalanced alternating diets, such as those in which low calorie intake is only observed for 2 days a week, are the potential effects on circadian rhythm and the endocrine and gastrointestinal systems, which are known to be influenced by eating habits. During the first 4–6 weeks of implementation of the fasting regimen, a physician or registered dietitian should be in regular contact with the patient to monitor their progress and to provide advice and supervision.

Fasting regimens could also be tailored for specific diseases as stand-alone or adjunct therapies. Results of initial trials of IF (fasting 2 days per week or every other day) in human subjects suggest that there is a critical transition period of 3–6 weeks during which time the brain and body adapt to the new eating pattern and mood is enhanced (Harvie et al., 2011 and Johnson et al., 2007). Though speculative, it is likely that during the latter transition period brain neurochemistry changes so that the “addiction” to regular consumption of food throughout the day is overcome. Notably, the various fasting approaches are likely to have limited efficacy, particularly on aging and conditions other than obesity, unless combined with high-nourishment diets such as the moderate calorie intake and mostly plant-based Mediterranean or Okinawa low-protein diets (0.8 g protein/kg of body weight), consistently associated with health and longevity.

In the future, it will be important to combine epidemiological data, studies of long-lived populations and their diets, and results from model organisms connecting specific dietary components to proaging and prodisease factors, with data from clinical studies, to design large clinical studies that integrate fasting with diets recognized as protective and enjoyable. A better understanding of the molecular mechanisms by which fasting affects various cell types and organ systems should also lead to the development of novel, FDA-approved prophylactic and preventive and therapeutic interventions for a wide range of disorders.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 3113005032

OK by the way I do take two supplements right now, MitoQ and C60oliveoil on alternating days (10mg of MitoQ, and 5ml of C60oil, sometimes I skip a few days).
They might be really good, might be bad somehow, I know it's a kind of bet. Time will tell, if I get fucked up by them I will necro my C60 thread.

[Simon_Jester]

The more general point here is that over the past few years, you have shown a profound readiness to believe what other people consistently identify as crackpot notions, conspiracy theories, and the like.

It's not about the merits of fasting, it's that as noted, you've been jumping on an awful lot of bandwagons lately.

[ArmorPierce]

Who cares what else he has posted in the past? Why is it being brought up?

On topic, In my opinion is makes sense that fasting would have health benefits. For one fasting gives your body a little bit of time to recuperate and clean itself out. Being continuously stuffed with food was probably not a state that our ancestors would typically naturally encounter.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Like any diet/health trend, fasting is not a panacea. It will not suddenly make you healthier, or even help you lose weight. There is a reason that many dieticians/nutritionists/personal trainers/doctors will NOT recommend even periodic fasting. Yes, there are situations that it is a useful temporary tool. And, in fact, fasting has not been shown to have any additional benefits over simply adopted a low-carbohydrate diet. The only health purpose of fasting is to establish a caloric deficit. There is nothing magical about a 24-hour fast that differentiates it from simply eating less/healthier at each meal and consuming fewer calories overall.

And, in fact, it is well known that there are many situations where fasting is emphatically a bad idea. For example, if you are obese, fasting will NOT help you lose weight. It is generally only considered a viable weight loss technique for people who are already in decent shape, but need a temporary jump-start to burn a little fat (it is most often used, for example, after the holiday season, when most people eat worse and work-out less, and before the spring workout season begins). The thing you have to realize is that your body's physiological response to a lack of food is to slow down your metabolism and maintain or even BUILD upon your fat reserves. Similarly, it is emphatically idiotic to fast if you have or are at risk for diabetes and similar conditions.

In addition, it is idiotic to point to those cancer studies and come to the conclusion that fasting is healthy. That isn't even close to the point of any of those studies (further, it isn't yet clear how reliable and rigorous those results are; there has not been a single controlled-randomized clinical trial on the subject, only small scale exploratory studies. That doesn't mean the results are necessarily inaccurate, but there is as of yet no scientific evidence they are generalizable). The point of those studies isn't that fasting somehow makes you healthy or helps you heal. The point is that fasting MAY help ameliorate SOME of the side effects of chemotherapy specifically. You are a massive moron if you can't tell the difference between those ideas.

EDIT: One of the papers you linked to appears to make a more direct claim between fasting and anticancer activity, but it is currently hidden behind a paywall, so I won't be able to read that until Monday when I can use the university network to access it. And I do hope that you actually read the paper and aren't just relying on the abstract.

The bottom line is that, like any health trend, you can't just assume that fasting for 24-hours (or any variation thereof, like the popular 16/8 split, etc.) will suddenly make you thinner and healthier. You have to understand the physiological context and your own personal health history to know whether or not it is a good idea. If you want to try it, go ahead. But I object to the implication that it is for everyone. It is something that should be decided on a case-to-case basis, ideally including a discussion with your doctor.

[Simon_Jester]

Who cares what else he has posted in the past? Why is it being brought up?

Mostly because it's been a recurring pattern that some people (i.e. me) are starting to get a bit annoyed by. It's like having that one guy who keeps forwarding chain letters to you. At some point you want to say "Dammit, man, cut it out!"

On topic, In my opinion is makes sense that fasting would have health benefits. For one fasting gives your body a little bit of time to recuperate and clean itself out. Being continuously stuffed with food was probably not a state that our ancestors would typically naturally encounter.

Your body's systems aren't necessarily a perfectly tuned machine adapted to be in a state of perfect health under Stone Age conditions.

At times when there is no food to be had, sure, Stone Agers might be adapted to survive such periods of 'fasting' (i.e. can't get any food). But that doesn't mean it'd actively be good for them. Instead, any features of the human body designed to be activated by prolonged hunger might just be an adaptation to ensure that they don't fall over dead while frantically scrounging up more food.

I mean, our bodies also evolved an immune system that is capable of allergic reactions, and those obviously aren't good for us.

From the point of view of evolution, there's basically no reason you even need to stay alive past forty or so. It might be convenient if a few people in your whole village do, but there's no reason you have to be one of them. So do not assume that evolution has designed your body to give you a healthy, long life if you just do whatever your Stone Age ancestors did. Granted that your Stone Age ancestors lived longer than your Iron Age ancestors, but that's mostly because your Iron Age ancestors had utterly ridiculous and grotesque approaches to public health.

[Ziggy Stardust]

To add to what Simon said, modern humans are very different from our Stone Age ancestors. Yes, the time frame is so small that there hasn't been any major "evolutionary shift" (or whatever you want to call an arbitrary amount of built up genetic change), but one of the reasons humans are such a successful species is because of our quickly and readily our bodies adapt to new environments and new conditions. Saying that our ancestors did X so our bodies can do X is all well and good, but that does not mean X is currently optimal. See, for example, the thrifty gene/phenotype hypothesis, for which there is a decent body of physical evidence (although, admittedly, it is not scientific consensus).

[Lagmonster]

The OP's behaviour is less atypical than that of people objecting, I'll wager. People are often desperate to maintain continuity of consciousness indefinitely (I didn't say "die" because plenty of people are willing to do even that if they think it'll make them psychologically immortal); moreso if the quality of their lives is good.

The one thing I WILL say is that if he is doing his 'water fasting' at home, he absolutely SHOULD be institutionalized, because that should be done under the supervision of someone other than a YouTube video. Even the guy in his own article said that it was a batshit crazy idea unless recommended and supervised by a physician.

[Simon_Jester]

The OP's behaviour is less atypical than that of people objecting, I'll wager. People are often desperate to maintain continuity of consciousness indefinitely (I didn't say "die" because plenty of people are willing to do even that if they think it'll make them psychologically immortal); moreso if the quality of their lives is good.

His desire to avoid death is perfectly normal and commendable.

I just wish, for his sake, that he'd apply a little more skepticism to the claims of cranks before uncritically altering his own lifestyle based on [insert fad here].

To add to what Simon said, modern humans are very different from our Stone Age ancestors. Yes, the time frame is so small that there hasn't been any major "evolutionary shift" (or whatever you want to call an arbitrary amount of built up genetic change), but one of the reasons humans are such a successful species is because of our quickly and readily our bodies adapt to new environments and new conditions. Saying that our ancestors did X so our bodies can do X is all well and good, but that does not mean X is currently optimal. See, for example, the thrifty gene/phenotype hypothesis, for which there is a decent body of physical evidence (although, admittedly, it is not scientific consensus).

Right. Plus, the majority of us have very different physical needs than our Stone Age ancestors, so trying to meet them in the same way may not work very well.

For instance, in the Stone Age there really wasn't anything stopping us from getting twelve hours of sleep a day, since for most hunter-gatherer lifestyles you can do all the work and food collection that needs doing in that amount of time. You'd better be able to, because it's impossible to get much of anything done after dark, and for much of they ear in much of the world there's a good deal less than twelve hours of good daylight in the day.

Very few people nowadays have the luxury of sleeping for twelve hours a day while leading anything that resembles a normal life.

In the Stone Age, very few people had responsibilities that required you to sit still- physical activity was basically a must. The idea that a person could even live without getting extensive, exhausting physical exercise on a regular basis would be totally foreign to a Stone Ager.

Many people nowadays live in roles where they have to go well out of their way to get useful exercise, and where they cannot do productive work at the job that puts food on their table and a roof over their head, while getting exercise at the same time.

[General Zod]

I guess all those starving children in Africa must be immortal by now.

[cosmicalstorm]

The OP's behaviour is less atypical than that of people objecting, I'll wager. People are often desperate to maintain continuity of consciousness indefinitely (I didn't say "die" because plenty of people are willing to do even that if they think it'll make them psychologically immortal); moreso if the quality of their lives is good.

The one thing I WILL say is that if he is doing his 'water fasting' at home, he absolutely SHOULD be institutionalized, because that should be done under the supervision of someone other than a YouTube video. Even the guy in his own article said that it was a batshit crazy idea unless recommended and supervised by a physician.

I have carefully introduced fasting with water, salt and epsom salt into my life over the past year. I stop eating at sunday evening and start eating on wendesday or thursday. It's pretty unproblematic, the worst thing that ever happened was I got a headache that passed after I ate some salt. I do it once every month, or sometimes once every second month to keep my IGF-1 levels at bay.
The man in the first article says it should only be done under doctors supervision and I think that is a good idea, but a part of me also suspects that he is wording himself very cautiously due to the sensitive nature of his work (making the FDA approve a new therapy, the FDA are very strict about claims being made, as 23andme learned the other year.)

The reason for me is health in general + my supplement experiment with MitoQ and C60-olive oil. If those things are actually damaging somehow, maybe this increased chemoresistance seen in the cancer-trials will benefit me

I guess all those starving children in Africa must be immortal by now.

Longer periods of starvation will shorten your life. Strawman?

Like any diet/health trend, fasting is not a panacea. It will not suddenly make you healthier, or even help you lose weight. There is a reason that many dieticians/nutritionists/personal trainers/doctors will NOT recommend even periodic fasting. Yes, there are situations that it is a useful temporary tool. And, in fact, fasting has not been shown to have any additional benefits over simply adopted a low-carbohydrate diet. The only health purpose of fasting is to establish a caloric deficit. There is nothing magical about a 24-hour fast that differentiates it from simply eating less/healthier at each meal and consuming fewer calories overall.

And, in fact, it is well known that there are many situations where fasting is emphatically a bad idea. For example, if you are obese, fasting will NOT help you lose weight. It is generally only considered a viable weight loss technique for people who are already in decent shape, but need a temporary jump-start to burn a little fat (it is most often used, for example, after the holiday season, when most people eat worse and work-out less, and before the spring workout season begins). The thing you have to realize is that your body's physiological response to a lack of food is to slow down your metabolism and maintain or even BUILD upon your fat reserves. Similarly, it is emphatically idiotic to fast if you have or are at risk for diabetes and similar conditions.

In addition, it is idiotic to point to those cancer studies and come to the conclusion that fasting is healthy. That isn't even close to the point of any of those studies (further, it isn't yet clear how reliable and rigorous those results are; there has not been a single controlled-randomized clinical trial on the subject, only small scale exploratory studies. That doesn't mean the results are necessarily inaccurate, but there is as of yet no scientific evidence they are generalizable). The point of those studies isn't that fasting somehow makes you healthy or helps you heal. The point is that fasting MAY help ameliorate SOME of the side effects of chemotherapy specifically. You are a massive moron if you can't tell the difference between those ideas.

EDIT: One of the papers you linked to appears to make a more direct claim between fasting and anticancer activity, but it is currently hidden behind a paywall, so I won't be able to read that until Monday when I can use the university network to access it. And I do hope that you actually read the paper and aren't just relying on the abstract.

The bottom line is that, like any health trend, you can't just assume that fasting for 24-hours (or any variation thereof, like the popular 16/8 split, etc.) will suddenly make you thinner and healthier. You have to understand the physiological context and your own personal health history to know whether or not it is a good idea. If you want to try it, go ahead. But I object to the implication that it is for everyone. It is something that should be decided on a case-to-case basis, ideally including a discussion with your doctor.

Did you even read the article in the main post? This is new information and it specifically states that this will be of use to vast parts of the population including the obese. Those who can do it that is, and this actually seems easier than longer periods of caloric restriction that most people, me included, find awful.

To add to what Simon said, modern humans are very different from our Stone Age ancestors. Yes, the time frame is so small that there hasn't been any major "evolutionary shift" (or whatever you want to call an arbitrary amount of built up genetic change), but one of the reasons humans are such a successful species is because of our quickly and readily our bodies adapt to new environments and new conditions. Saying that our ancestors did X so our bodies can do X is all well and good, but that does not mean X is currently optimal. See, for example, the thrifty gene/phenotype hypothesis, for which there is a decent body of physical evidence (although, admittedly, it is not scientific consensus).

Thankfully this reserach was not carried out on stone age humans. Some parts of it comes out of the various paleo-related theories about diet (that I do not necessarily believe in). These theories (dont eat like a pig, do eat a lot of stuff that grows and has not been cultivated into sugar-bombs theories as I would sloppily label them) are now confirmed by a lot of different trials.

Off topic:

Maybe I am all bonkers? I think the current immigration politics of the EU in general and Sweden in particular will be remade quite dramatically as they are unsustainable and I hope I am wrong.
I believe that there might be a larger war between Russia, the baltics and possibly even NATO. And sometimes I post something interesting, but I'm open to criticism, I find it healthy to post on this board to get feedback. So not to fall into self selecting internet conspiracy hole.