Eat,fast, live longer

Another interesting (if not yet reliably useful) food/health documentary last night: Horizon's "Eat, fast, live longer" which reported on recent studies suggesting occasional extreme fasting (~50 cals per day for 4 days every few months) or regular (alternate-day) near-fasting (~400 cals per day) could provide major health benefits, even if people ate normally (or even badly) the rest of the time.

(BBC link here, guardian review here)

This is not the first time I've heard of how low calorie intake is linked with longevity, but until now I only knew about people who were (without a lot of human based evidence) living long term with massively reduced energy intakes, which didn't seem very worthwhile, since even if it did make them live longer, reduced their energy levels so much it was debatable whether they were able to live life at all. The recent research however, though presumably arising from the same evidence, suggests that it might not (just) be consistent reductions in calories that brings benefits, but even short term occasional fasts. There seems to be signs that the body enters a kind of 'repair' mode when starving, and the are hopefuly indicators of how this might reduce or even prevent illnesses such as heart disease or stroke.

While I can't comment on the scientific basis (which was admitted to be only new and limited, albeit promising), there are perhaps a few general common sense points that can be made. My own personal 'gut instinct' is that any diet which matches our evolution, has to make sense; hence modern artificially concentrations of sugars,salt, and fat have to be viewed with suspicion. Beyond this though, as incredibly versatile omnivores, it is probably quite hard to work out what our ideal pre-modern diet actually was. It's likely that life was hard, and resources scarce, so it does make sense that it was largely plant based, since presumably hunting was harder and more unpredictable. However, given that we can consume animal meat, and in certain cultures (eskimos) can survive on it, then I would be wary of excluding it altogether, although it might make sense to limit it. So I would think a balanced diet, with emphasis on plants, sounds like a good idea, and have never seen strong evidence against this.

However, leaving aside the type of food, and focusing on the quantity, such a boom-and-bust cycle of nutrition could also fit well with the latest fasting research, since our bodies would have done well to adapt to (and even make use of) such times of shortage. The problem however, as with all neat evolutionary stories, is it is important to keep in mind the arena in which evolution operates, something which might not align well with modern life expectancies. Evolution works on the fitness of the animal primarily until it procreates, and then perhaps for some while after as it supports its offspring/descendants. The problem is, given that ancient man might only have lived till 30 or 40, and heart attacks and cancer are mainly illnesses of later years (perversely rising cancer rates can be a good thing, since indicates a society living longer), it's very possible that there is nothing evolutionary in us to combat them. This doesn't mean there aren't optimum ways of extending our lifespan, but rather that we are inventing them, not re-discovering them. It might be that the issue is not making the machine run as it should, but finding ways to make it run as it could.

However, this then raises the questionas to whether the same approaches fit all stages of life. It could be that in earlier, fitter, more active years one type of diet is optimum (and matches evolutionary history), but in later years a change of strategy is needed. For example I wonder about the link between growth and cancer. Several times recently I have seen evidence about diets which seem to reduce cancer rates, but perhaps also impact normal cell growth. This of course makes sense, since cancer ultimately is excessive growth, so it is logical that what would stop growth normally, would stop cancer as well. But what is far less from clear is whether this is a desirable thing, under normal healthy circumstances. Like constant restriction of calories, could the cure (limited life) be worse than the disease (risk of limited lifetime). It coudl even be the case that in certain stages of life one approach makes sense (run body at full power, albeit putting under stress) but at other, older, stages another is appropriate (scale back to focus on preservation, not performance). Ultimately of course a balance is needed, but making the judgement needs more evidence and consideration than just jumping on the latest diet that shows (even if verified) improvement in one range of parameters. Better cholesterol, lower glucose levels, are good things, but what else changes, and what are the overall effects? From what I remember, the studies for example (as those mentioned in the film forks over knives) involved people who were already unhealthy - older, obese etc. It is one thing to provide a solution for people who clearly have a problem, it is another to show that solution is applicable to preventthat problem in the first place.

in the spirit of balance and moderation, I therefore think fasting diets sound so extreme that is would be prudent to wait for more evidence. One probably reliable maxim that can be taken is overconsumption, even without obesity, but of meats etc. might be a problem. So probably a safe bet, to limit, but definitely not exclude, meats, ramp up plant elements, and overall keep consumption down and in line with activity. Still, who knows how this research will develop, and all thought about food, is valuable food for thought.

Virtuous Behaviors Sanction Later Sins

People are quick to treat themselves after a good deed or healthy act:

"the study, published in the journal Addiction, is the first to examine the health ramifications of the licensing effect, but others have shown its influence on moral behavior. In 2009 a study found that reminding people of their humanitarian attributes reduced their charitable giving. Last year another experiment showed that when individuals buy ecofriendly products, they are more likely to cheat and steal.
"Sometimes after we behave in line with our goals or standards, it's as if our action has earned ourselves some moral credit," says psychologist Nina Mazar of the University of Toronto, an author of the green products study. "This credit can then subsequently be used to engage in self-indulgent or selfish behaviors without feeling bad about it."

 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=license-to-sin


While I think it is already clear that morality relies on feeling ‘good’ about something (but this is not to denigrate it, just to point out it’s mechanism is tied to our emotions ) maybe these findings indicate that the emphasis is more about feeling good about oneself, as opposed to feeling good about any particular action. I.e. it is not at the low level of individual moral choices that the emotional drives work, but at the higher level of our overall self-image, whether we see ourselves as ‘good’ people. Seen in this way, maybe if one boosts one’s self-perception, by for example giving to charity, or making an effort to recycle, then there is temporarily less drive to boost it any further. This ‘I’ve done my bit’ approach is of course insidious, since can lead to a slippery slope of moral abrogation, and it is our actions in all moral spheres that matter.

Are there any possible solutions? If this really is the case  then the most effective one might be to try to make the right actions less ‘special’  but instead consider them basic minimum of what we should do, and hence less  ‘boosting’ individually to our overall image. So for example if green behavior is the exception, then it might lead to excessive moral self-congratulation, whereas if it is the norm, then this effect is limited. Nobody feels particularly good about not having dropped litter, since it is just expected, and such ‘baseline’ attitudes need to be expanded. Of course ‘norms’ rely on society at large, and are slow, and hard, to change. Incidentally this is perhaps another argument against the ‘makes no difference’ response, since even if the action itself (recycling one’s own waste) results in no tangible effects, it has a social effect by serving as an example, and might help change the norms so that eventually enough people act so as to make a difference (and of course arguing against it has an even greater corrosive negative effect, since it also contributes to what the ‘norm’ will be).

But what can the individual do? As suggested in the report self-awareness seems the best candidate to try compensate for the ‘license to sin’ effect. Knowing that we are predisposed to such behavior may make us analyze each future choice that bit more, and by centering our focus on the now and not the past, our self-perception will be perhaps less biased by the good things we’ve done previously.

"You may be able to avoid the pitfall simply by remembering that the feeling of having "earned it" leads down a path of iniquity."
 
Hopefully this will work, since to twist the famous phrase, it seems all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to have done some good before.

debatable disgnoses...the new DSM

While I'm all for quantitative measuring methods, I too have serious concerns about the DSM, and while it is hard to generalize, would think that there can be too much 'medicalization' of mental problems.The dangers are (a) that some kind of amazing level of balanced happiness is then considered both normal and achievable and that (b) those who can't achieve it are then considered 'sick', which generally implies external remedies are necessary. This is I think detrimental to both the 'well' and the truly 'sick'.
But, it is a complicated area, since of course as a materialist I am fully convinced that all behaviours originate from the chemical/neuronal status of the brain, and from this perspective, any mood can be changed. The problem is to manually force a change is to intervene in an amazingly complex and normally efficiently self-regulating system, and while sometimes the situation merits this, until the techniques are more developed (and their mechanisms properly understood) then I think it is not appropriate unless the person involved has serious problems coping with daily life. Life shouldn't be hell,but there's no reason to think it should be all rosy either...

"Hundreds of thousands of people will be labelled mentally ill because of behaviour most people would consider normal, if a new edition of what has been termed the psychiatrists' diagnostic bible goes ahead, experts are warning."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/09/us-mental-health-manual

• Psychiatrists and psychologists in the UK are speaking out against the publishing of DSM-5, an updated version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual that categorises every type of mental disorder, including some that the psychologists say should not exist. 
• Under the DSM-4, last revised 12 years ago, children who argue and refuse to obey parents can be classified as having oppositional defiant disorder."
•  "Til Wykes, professor of clinical psychology at Kings College London, said: "The proposals in DSM-5 are likely to shrink the pool of normality to a puddle with more and more people being given a diagnosis of mental illness." "