Throwing gasoline on the fire?

[Elegy]

A light and lasting starvation is good for the body - that is the conclusion of a long-term test performed at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center. The test started in 1989, when two rhesus apes, Canto and Owen, where put on two separate diets. While Owen received a completely normal diet containing 885 calories a day, Canto received a very strict diet with a 50 percent lower calorie intake. In addition to that, the apes have lived under the exact same terms in regards to daily excercise, sleep and vitamin intake. During the 18 years past sice then, the apes have aged completely differently, and today Owen looks significantly older than Canto. While Canto har en thick shiny fur and tight skin, Owen's fur is dull and his skin is older and wrinkly. Besides this, Owen moves significantly slower than Canto and has been afflicted by significantly more diseases. The tests show that a calorie-lacking diet inhibits the usual aging process in apes and thus englongens the animal's life. Scientists are now going to study if the case is the same for humans. The method also seems to have a preventing effect on the development of serious diseases, for example Alzheimers, Parkinsons and cancer.

Yes, this is exactly what the modern anorexic teenagers need to hear.

[Roph]

I think I'd rather just eat normally and die earlier :/

I know this totally skinny girl who hates eating, she looks gross cause she's so skinny.

[Arrow]

Well, it was only a 50 cal difference, and it had a significant difference. I would think they just set the standard dietary requirements too high in the first place.

[Elegy]

50 percent calorie difference.

[cobragamer]

Ok that is a big jump well I say as long as it does not urt you phisically or mentally then it might not be so bad. But the thing is even with nearly the same Genetic code it might effect us differently. Plus in the section you gave us did they test them mentally?

[Nightwolf]

This is pointless, first of all the word "significally".....STOP USING THAT SCIENTISTS, YUO USED IT 5 TIMES FFS.


Secondly, who cares what we're eating, we all have to die, and i say, if you really love your life SOOOO MUCH that you will eat lesser food, leaving out all those tasty....delicous....mouth watering...hunger sense tickling foods, then do so.

I'm going with Silverline, i'd rather enjoy the food and die earilier.

=D
BUT I'LL MARRY HALO FIRSTER.

[Blizzard]

I totally agree. Life without joy is not even worth of living longer. Better live short, but happy.

[Deliciously_Saucy]

Yeah, I remember hearing about this some time ago. They've done it with mice too, keeping them on the verge of starvation their entire lives lead to a much longer one. I don't see why a disease should cover the truth being released.

[landofshadows]

Sorry to disagree, as I know anorexia is a very bad illness.  I think your being a little extreme.  All the experiment is showing is you can be a healthy by not sticking to the quota set by an independent study.

Back in the days that food was not slapped on a shelf with a price on and we had to hunt or forage for food most would have been malnourished yet they had enough energy to hunt.

It's like many tribal, native and aboriginal people their diets are much smaller than our own yet they can run faster, stay looking younger and so fourth than our selves.  May be burning off excessive amounts (more than the body needs to function) is unhealthy, but then taking that to the other extreme and not having enough can do you harm also.

[Nightwolf]

Disagree Los, those guys eat less food cuz its not there lifestyle, its sorta a force thingy. They HAVE To.
They;re nomadic type, they  roam around in food n shelter, but they spend their whole life running for food, so they get used to it, eating or not eating.

It's not like he won't eat a burger if you give him one.

unless i made it ;-;

[Deliciously_Saucy]

Disagree again, it comes down to evolution, yes they would eat more with the given opportunities, but evolution has set them to the proper settings to run correctly on the environment. The wide spread feasibility of getting food is not a good thing in a society without control, especially when done in a quick timeline.

We feel excessive hunger, and crave fatty food because it is not readably available in our natural settings. With the excessive cravings we hunt this food down, but only get a small portion (compared to our cravings) in order to still want more. Because there was only small amounts of certain foods available, we needed to crave it more in order to feel it worthy in hunting it down.

Our hunger and wantings are not suitable to our current environment, we should crave heavily vegetables and fruit as meals, while only wanting chocolate on the odd occasion, it's one of the negative effects of NS not being applicable to us anymore.