Thoughts about Fitness. Part 3.

During the darkest years of the Great Depression, from 1929 - 1933, Americans living in the midwest were subjected to a famine of nearly biblical proportions.  It was the great 'dust bowl', with crops failing over huge swathes of landscape.  It was also one of the few times in history where such an intense famine hit a first world country with good doctors and records.  Hence, we know something surprising about it.  During a period of mass starvation, where people seemed to struggle to exist, life expectancy actually increased.  And not just a little - by 6 years.  

A couple of years ago, I lost a bunch of weight (about 50 pounds in 4 months), and wrote a couple of blogs about both the ideas and practices that helped me do this.  In the 2nd of those blogs, I made the following comment:

"It turns out, hunger can be incredibly good for you.  Various research suggests it acts as a natural anti-depressant, increases alertness, and can be good for learning."

I have a confession to make.  I was exaggerating a bit.  I had found a couple of studies online, but not that much.  Mostly I had felt the benefits of hunger, so I blogged about them.  Since then, I've come across some really interesting stories, and hard science, to take my understanding a lot further.  I had speculated that hunger could be good for you, and suggested that, from an evolutionary perspective, we would have benefitted "if hunger helped improve our vision and hearing", but even my wildly unscientific blog did not suggest that hunger could make you live longer.  Could there be a link between the famine of the 1930s Great Depression and increased life expectancy?

A recent BBC Horizon programme looked into this very question.  According to Professor Valter Longo at the University of Southern California, a clue lies in a group of South American people most of us would call midgets.  They actually suffer from a rare condition, but the clue lies not in their height, but how they die.  Or rather, how they don't die. They don't die from cancer, diabetes or cardiovascular disease.  Despite the fact that they smoke and drink and live just as unhealthily as the rest of us, they don't die from the 'big three'.

As it turns out, the condition they have means they have very low production of Insulin-like growth hormone 1 (IGF1).  The fascinating part is what IGF1 does in all of us, not just the midgets.  When we have a normal amount of IGF1, our body is in drive mode, and produces lots of new cells to cope with the demands of every day living.  However, with low levels of IGF1 our body stops producing new cells and - this is the fascinating bit - starts repairing the cells we already have.  With low IGF1, DNA damage is more likely to get fixed.  The theory goes in people with low IGF1, like our short South American friends, their cells are constantly repairing themselves which prevents certain diseases from ever developing. 

I was blessed with a gene pool filled with cancer, alzheimer's and cardiovascular disease.  Every single day my parents, in their early 70s, break a new family record for longevity.  If there's a way to get my cells to repair one another, I probably need it.  So what affects IGF1, and can I reduce my IGF1 production?

As you probably deduced, food plays a big part.  The food which seems to accelerate IGF1 production the most is protein.  So that's meat, my favourite food group.  Great.  But it turns out that all food stimulates IGF1 production, so to get really low levels of IGF1, the BBC programme recommends fasting.  So all my other favourite food groups.  Wonderful.

I've never fasted from food before.  My usual excuse is that I'm too busy, but in truth, I've never seen the point.  If fasting actually helps my body repair itself... I can see a point.  The typical 65-year old in America today takes 8 drugs a day.  Modern medicine is amazing, but living to 70 or 80 is abnormal for most of us.  In all likelihood, old age will be a regiment of drugs, side effects and regular visits to the doctor.  To me, this sounds even less wonderful than fasting.


The very tiny, minuscule, silver lining to the massive grey cloud is that fasting is being studied by loads of scientists and there are quite a few being recommended:

• The old-fashioned way: four days without food, several times a year.  You can have all the water you want, and up to 50 calories per day.  Apparently, day 1 is the hardest, and day 2 isn't that bad.  
• Alternate day fasting.  Eat anything you want on day 1 (so far, so good), eat 1 small meal on day 2 of about 500 calories.  Repeat.  This one is fantastic because you really can eat anything you want on day 1, you just have to keep to the single meal on day 2.  It seems easier, but you really have to keep on alternating... like, forever.
• The Five-Two Fast.  Five days of normal eating, followed by 2 days of 600 calories a day.  The beauty of this one is that you can choose the same two days each week, and just work it into your normal life.

None of them are easy, I suspect.  I've loosely had a few weeks of doing the Five-Two, but in truth I'm still on the sidelines.  I don't guess the point is being easy.  Whether we suffer now, by fasting, or later, in other ways, seems to be the choice.

And this is where we get to a final big idea about fasting.  In addition to the benefits of lower IGF1, and the reduced risk of aging-related illnesses, in addition to the benefits of losing weight and feeling good (when you're not fasting), there's something else.  According to Dr Mark Mattson from the National Institute on Aging, fasting appears to lower one's likelihood of contracting Alzheimer's and dementia.  According to the BBC programme, "Sporadic bouts of hunger actually triggers new neurons to grow.  It seems that fasting exercises your gray matter in ways that exercise strengthens your muscles."

So fasting is really, really good for you.  

In my original Fitness blogs two years ago, I proposed skipping lunch every day, as mankind has done for most of our history.  As I write this, I've skipped about 70% of my lunches for the last couple of years.  I've still got the 32-inch waist, and I'm still feeling fit and healthy.  The question is, does being hungry for an hour or two each day qualify as fasting... does this count?  I don't know, but I thought I'd mention it here as I know a few people who read this blog are doing two meals a day, and it seems there's a decent chance it's making us healthier, too.