
Eating in 10-hour window can override disease-causing genetic defects - clumsysmurf
https://www.salk.edu/news-release/eating-in-10-hour-window-can-override-disease-causing-genetic-defects-nurture-health/
======
SwellJoe
I've been on an intermittent fasting schedule (I usually do 16/8) for about a
year and a half. I lost some weight during the first several months, but have
leveled off to a reasonable weight (which is probably 10 pounds heavier than
I'd like, but ~25 pounds lighter than when I started intermittent fasting).

Overall, I don't see any dramatic changes. Lots of people claim to see a
significant difference, usually positive, in energy, strength, mood, sleep,
etc. But, I generally think all of those metrics are "about the same" for me.
Maybe I'm mildly more energetic because of carrying less weight around. But,
I'm also at the age where the effects of aging begin to be noticeable...so,
maybe just maintaining levels is progress?

Nonetheless, after several years of research into the topic, and related
topics like caloric restriction, a couple of years ago I was convinced that
the evidence was compelling enough to make it part of my life and started
reducing my eating period each day until I was comfortable with 16 hours of
fasting each day (sometimes I'll do 20 or 24, if I'm busy and feel OK). I
recommend it to people who ask about it, but not because it's a magical cure
for all that ails you. I just think the evidence is strong enough to be worth
the minor trade-offs. It isn't a risky decision (with the caveat that it
probably isn't appropriate for people with diabetes or hypoglycemia or
similar)...none of the science indicates negative results, and nearly all of
it indicates positive results to one degree or another. It's pretty much like
any other diet decision, e.g. eat more vegetables because you'll probably live
longer, not because it'll cure cancer or make you an Olympic athlete.

~~~
DoreenMichele
_But, I 'm also at the age where the effects of aging begin to be
noticeable...so, maybe just maintaining levels is progress?_

The thing is we can't clone you multiple times and treat each replica of you
differently, so we have no idea if you would be terribly sick or something by
now if you had made other choices.

I'm always fascinated by anecdotes about fasting, etc. But it's actually
incredibly hard to isolate one dietary factor and draw firm conclusions about
cause and effect.

From what I gather, large scale longitudinal studies are our best data for
diet in humans and they conclude things like "A handful of nuts a day is good
for you."

~~~
lhl
It's actually not as hard as you think for experimental design to show strong
causitive effects - I think randomized controlled trials (in animal and then
human models) and meta-analysis are much more effective than epidemiological
studies (which don't have effective controls, often don't appropriately
correct for other factors, or are specific enough to target specific lines of
inquiry and allow spurious conclusions to be drawn).

I've just started doing my own research digging through the literature in
PubMed and there's a huge amount of research over the past decade especially
that's really advanced our understanding of nutrition and metabolism (that
sadly, has yet to get full traction in conventional wisdom/popular science).

Just a few examples from my collection on fasting (at this point I'm tracking
hundreds of publications covering a whole range of different aspects of
nutritional science, and this is only over the course of a couple weeks of
research):

Nørrelund, Helene, K. Sreekumaran Nair, Jens Otto Lunde Jørgensen, Jens
Sandahl Christiansen, and Niels Møller. “The Protein-Retaining Effects of
Growth Hormone During Fasting Involve Inhibition of Muscle-Protein Breakdown.”
Diabetes 50, no. 1 (January 1, 2001): 96–104.
[https://doi.org/10.2337/diabetes.50.1.96](https://doi.org/10.2337/diabetes.50.1.96).

Bhutani, Surabhi, Monica C. Klempel, Reed A. Berger, and Krista A. Varady.
“Improvements in Coronary Heart Disease Risk Indicators by Alternate-Day
Fasting Involve Adipose Tissue Modulations.” Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) 18,
no. 11 (November 2010): 2152–59.
[https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2010.54](https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2010.54).

Harvie, Michelle N., Mary Pegington, Mark P. Mattson, Jan Frystyk, Bernice
Dillon, Gareth Evans, Jack Cuzick, et al. “The Effects of Intermittent or
Continuous Energy Restriction on Weight Loss and Metabolic Disease Risk
Markers: A Randomised Trial in Young Overweight Women.” International Journal
of Obesity (2005) 35, no. 5 (May 2011): 714–27.
[https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2010.171](https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2010.171).

Chaix, Amandine, Amir Zarrinpar, Phuong Miu, and Satchidananda Panda. “Time-
Restricted Feeding Is a Preventative and Therapeutic Intervention against
Diverse Nutritional Challenges.” Cell Metabolism 20, no. 6 (December 2, 2014):
991–1005.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2014.11.001](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2014.11.001).

Rothschild, Jeff, Kristin K. Hoddy, Pera Jambazian, and Krista A. Varady.
“Time-Restricted Feeding and Risk of Metabolic Disease: A Review of Human and
Animal Studies.” Nutrition Reviews 72, no. 5 (May 1, 2014): 308–18.
[https://doi.org/10.1111/nure.12104](https://doi.org/10.1111/nure.12104).

Fontana, Luigi, and Linda Partridge. “Promoting Health and Longevity through
Diet: From Model Organisms to Humans.” Cell 161, no. 1 (March 26, 2015):
106–18.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.02.020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.02.020).

I should add that the evidence was so strong for certain behaviors that I have
changed my diet (VLCHF + 16+:8IF) and n=1 shows immediate improvements in
weight, energy, mental clarity, and even skin health. Somewhat unexpected
because I wasn't eating that badly according to common wisdom (and have
maintained a moderate overweight, but stable weight for the past 3+yrs).

~~~
DoreenMichele
I've been doing this for more than 17 years. Some thoughts:

1\. Anything that makes a real change will have side effects. Some of those
side effects can be negative. For people not familiar with the concept of a
healing crisis, this can be a confusing fact. They can end up temporarily
feeling worse and conclude this is a bad thing rather than a temporary stage
of a process headed in the right direction.

2\. Prescribed medicine typically has a long list of provisos and side
effects. If you have a serious condition, prescribed medicine trades short
term gains for long term costs. Doctors claim credit for the short term gains,
then blame the long term costs on your condition or age rather than on long
term drug use. You need to be leery of the possibility that you are doing the
same sort of thing and crediting any positive changes to this dietary change
and dismissing any negative changes as coincidental or due to something else.

3\. I've seen people post questions to a discussion forum along the lines of
"What are non drug alternatives for treating X issue? I would like to
participate in a drug trial and they won't accept patients taking this drug. I
need to get off it to qualify." So people doing stuff like that are
confounding the results of the trial and will report changes in symptoms and
attribute them to the drug being tried rather than attributing them to getting
off some other drug and using non drug alternatives.

4\. In practice, it's quite hard to isolate one specific dietary factor
because dietary changes typically involve at least two factors. If you add
some new food to your diet and eat the same calories, it displaces some other
food. You can't say for certain if the changes are due to adding the new food
or removing what was replaced. If you are experimenting with your own diet, it
helps to start with supplements, make one and only one change at a time and
track things somehow. This makes it possible to get some idea of what effect X
is having.

5\. It's a moving target. If you are calcium deficient and add calcium to your
diet, this may be exactly what you need to start feeling better. Initially,
more calcium may be better. If your mental model boils down to "more calcium
is better," you may wind up resolving the deficiency and then enter a
situation where you are actually consuming too much calcium. This can lead to
problems that you may not attribute to consuming high levels of calcium
because you already decided "more calcium is better." You may develop new
issues and utterly fail to relate them to consuming high levels of calcium.

6\. People have a really hard time mentally modeling the road not taken. It
isn't completely impossible, but people tend to be bad at it. If you have a
specific diagnosis and you know the usual course of the condition, you can
compare your health to the typical outcome and make some inferences, but it
isn't absolutely conclusive. This is why twin studies are valued: We can't
make two copies of you, but if there are already two people with identical
genes, that's the closest we get to that.

7\. Life is chemistry and there can be myriad other factors being overlooked.
I try hard to track not only diet, but how much I walk, environmental factors,
etc. I've done this for years and I still find myself blindsided at times and
struggling to pinpoint why X is happening currently.

Most people aren't going to be able to read hundreds of studies. If you can
and that gives you a mental model that makes sense to you, awesome. That
doesn't actually strike me as a convincing rebuttal. It strikes me as more
evidence that it's actually rather challenging to figure out dietary stuff.
You won't solve it by reading an article or two.

~~~
lhl
I agree that it's really complex and not straightforward, especially since
there are so many unknowns, confounding factors, and since so much is
different from person to person (microbiota, genetic and especially epigenetic
factors, the effects of hormesis, etc) but at the same time, just because it's
complex doesn't mean that science (or individuals) should throw their hands up
and say "well, there are no conclusions that can be made about human diet" as
that seems to be patently untrue.

Also, just because people can't read hundreds of studies doesn't mean that
they aren't out there, or that haven't been done (tens of thousands of
studies, of all kinds, which taken together _do_ point to much more specific
things than "eat some nuts"), or that it's excusable when medical
professionals make recommendations that are contradicted by the preponderence
of scientific evidence.

------
browsercoin
Is it possible that with economic affluence of the West, overconsumption is
harmful?

It used to be that there would be days where our ancestors would not be able
to bring home any meat so fasting probably was built in as part of our
metabolism process.

It was only in the past 100 years that we've seen mass produced sugary food
and drinks.

Like the diet difference is painfully obvious when you go to Japan's 7-11.
Healthy stuff all around compared to deep fried fast food.

Some days I will only eat 1 meal, and I honestly feel great. The biggest
difference being I have way more energy and just feel "light".

These days I've converted to mostly Korean food consisting of rice and veggie
side dishes incl kimchi of course. I've lost 4kg within 3 weeks just by
changing diet.

Of course can't resist the burger and fries once in a while....but eating
primarily Korean food because I'm Korean I realize is the wise choice....our
ancestors have been eating the same stuff for millenias so it's probably
"right" for my metabolism.

there's a study that showed East-Asian men living in North America have high
rate of prostate related issues which has traditionally never been prevalent
in East Asia...and also the rise of American fast food chains have
collectively made the world a lot less healthier with the increase of diabetes
and obesity.

~~~
sddfd
> our ancestors have been eating the same stuff for millenias so it's probably
> "right" for my metabolism.

There might be a genetic factor here. The other thing is that the food habits
of our ancestors were more thought out than we think. It might be that what
they have been eating is not only better because of genetics, but more healthy
in general than the terrible foods we can buy everywhere today.

~~~
browsercoin
Absolutely. It's fascinating how different dietary cultures develop and adapt
to their environment in a surprisingly efficient manner. Nothing is wasted.
Need to store meat for long periods of winter? Smoke it. Need it on the go?
We'll use the left over bits to make sausages. What? You need side dishes that
doesn't go bad for a long time? We'll pickle it, store it under ground to
ferment it. Huh, you are throwing away all that extra cabbage roots from
making kimchi? Put that in a soup or 시락국 containing high levels of Omega-H3
from the broth containing tiny fishes.

------
allforJesse
Interesting how this time restricted eating seems to differ from perspectives
in the intermittent fasting community.

Intermittent Fasting folks tend to espouse avoiding caloric intake for long
periods of time every day, but they're fine with black coffee/tea (since it
doesn't trigger an insulin response). But here Dr. Panda seems to believe that
even coffee would compromise the fasting window:
[https://youtu.be/iywhaz5z0qs?t=1h15m15s](https://youtu.be/iywhaz5z0qs?t=1h15m15s)

There goes that 7am cup of coffee...

~~~
mark_l_watson
I just signed up and installed their iOS app. You are correct: drinking coffee
or tea in the morning starts the non-fasting period. This will be rough for me
because I usually have coffee at 5:30am, read or study for 90 minutes, then
have breakfast and go to work. I will shift my morning coffee to when I have
breakfast.

I have been non-fasting and fasting with an even split of 12 hours / 12 hours
per day, so this will be an adjustment.

~~~
coldtea
> _This will be rough for me because I usually have coffee at 5:30am, read or
> study for 90 minutes, then have breakfast and go to work._

Or you can ignore their advice (others advice otherwise anyway), and still
drink coffee as part of your fasting...

It's not like any of this is particularly scientific...

------
crehn
Completely anecdotal, but I had some digestive issues for a few weeks, fasted
for two days, and everything returned to normal.

------
throwaway66666
I 've spent 3.5/4 years eating nothing except on the weekends (my undergrad).
So I would go for 2-5 days at a time without food. Not because of fasting fads
or anything, I didn't even know what fasting was. I was just from a very poor
family and if I wanted to go for vacations with my friends or party in the
weekend or buy a computer I had to save every penny I could. (that's how I
bought my first laptop etc). I would eat properly during holidays and the
summer only at my parent's home.

I was very skinny, but somehow still had fat. Sometimes I bought pants from
the women's section or I would take pants to my mom to sew the waist tighter,
because I was so thin I couldn't find clothes that fit me (I have some
pictures of me wearing my 108lb girlfriend's pants stashed somewhere). I
exercised a bit but seeing me without a shirt you could tell I had manboobs
and a tiny-lil bit of a potbelly and no abs at all, not even the skinny ones.

At some point I developed fainting on sight of blood. I would brush my teeth,
and if I scratched my gum and blood came out -- I had to run to the bed asap
before passing out. To this day I don't know if I was just afraid of blood
(blood doesn't affect me anymore), or I had gotten so weak I was actually
nearing total collapse. Blood tests were surprisingly fine I just had low
iron.

Looking at that period back, I 'm trying to see if the advertised benefits
applied to me. I didn't get sick much, but I don't get sick in general.
Aging... well what can you say to an 18-22 year old about aging. My libido was
low which makes sense I guess. Energy, regular levels. I don't know, I was
just a very thin dude, fasting or not, no major epiphanies or amazement. I
suppose it's amazing that one can survive fine, no suffering, going for so
long without food, but it wasn't better than eating.

I am very surprised at how people swear by it. Maybe life is much worse when
you eat 3 meals per day? I don't know, nowadays (early 30s) I eat 2 meals and
exercise a lot and I 'm pretty content. I think for me, exercise did the trick
that elevated both my mood and my energy levels.

Would I do the crazy 5-day 4 year fast again? If I was young and "hungry"
sure, but it's definitely miserable. Food can be a great social thing to do
with friends, and a cool experience especially when trying new dishes and
restaurants. The huge food diversity in SF spoiled me.

Edit: back then I was very ashamed of my fasting and try to hide it from
friends etc. A few weeks ago I was shocked when a coworker told me he was
doing a 7 day water-only fast. We 've come a long way!

~~~
oh_sigh
It sounds like you were just starving yourself. I'm going to guess that you
weren't eating 2-5 days worth of food whenever you chose to eat?

I'm sorry but going that long without eating just doesn't make any sense. Did
you/your family only have the ability to buy/acquire one meal at a time or
what?

~~~
throwaway66666
No, I was living alone while going to school. I would starve myself so I could
save more money. What is the difference between X day fasts and what I did?

I am not trying to claim that fasting doesn't work, just noting my personal
experience. For me it certainly worked in the sense that I saw the fakeness of
"if you don't eat for X days you get super hungry or weak/sick/you die", I was
perfectly ok.. but not amazing.

~~~
oh_sigh
The difference is that fasters aren't intentionally calorie restricting, they
are just time restricting their eating. It sounds like you may have been
starving yourself(getting fewer calories than you needed), and also time
restricting yourself.

------
sharmi
How does 10 hours of eating and 14 hours of fasting translate to humans? The
life span of a mouse is much smaller than humans amd their metabolic rate is
higher, 4 times that of humans. So I wonder if that would mean a much longer
eating window and fasting window for humans.

~~~
yostrovs
The sun and the moon spin at rates independent of the lifespan of the animal
in question.

~~~
sharmi
Yes, but the effect of food restriction have more pronounced effect in mice vs
humans. So, we cannot expect the same efficacy in humans when fasting for the
same periods.

""" Fasting of mice for 48 h (which causes ∼20% weight loss) or starvation of
human volunteers for up to 4 d (which causes <2% weight loss) """

[1]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28059587](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28059587)

------
Mikho
There is more detailed research as to food consumption patterns. Basically
fasting for around 16 hours a day is good for health. From the evolutionary
perspective--that invested in a human body 200K years--the way we eat today is
really broken. And our body can't adapt to a new pattern even during 1000
years. Not to mention like 50. A human body during 200K years was not prepared
to eating a lot. It needs to store energy and to use stored energy. That's a
natural cycle and different function that our body needs to execute. Nowadays
we just store energy 24/7.

"Emerging findings from studies of animal models and human subjects suggest
that intermittent energy restriction periods of as little as 16 h can improve
health indicators and counteract disease processes. The mechanisms involve a
metabolic shift to fat metabolism and ketone production, and stimulation of
adaptive cellular stress responses that prevent and repair molecular damage."

Here is the link:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250148/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250148/)

Also here are patterns of daily and weekly food consumption from this
research:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250148/figure/...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250148/figure/fig03/)

------
scottlocklin
I picked it up from Martin Berkhan's leangains. It was a lot easier than
counting calories for long term maintenance, and it kept the lard off. It made
sense to me from an evolutionary point of view; cavemen don't eat "3 square
meals" before attacking wooly mammoths, and virtually every religion in the
world includes a rigorous fasting period, which, IMO emulates hunter gatherer
eating patterns.

For me, the main side effect is I feel a lot more alert, and I waste less time
during the day, as preparing and eating food takes up less of it. You know
that sleepy feeling you get after a huge breakfast or lunch that makes you
reach for an extra cup of coffee? It is no longer a problem. Hunger pangs were
an issue for the first two days I did this, and haven't been since then. Oh
yeah, and I also feel REALLY FULL when I've eaten too much. Keeping your gut
empty from time to time helps you to self regulate.

I think I won the genetic lottery as far as aging goes, and I exercise and try
to not eat too much junk food, but "so far so good."

------
stochastic_monk
I’ve experimented with intermittent fasting, carb cycling, and a variety of
other methods.

Intermittent fasting’s benefits for me are primarily the lack of distraction
and fluctuations in my blood glucose level. I found that consuming protein or
fats in the morning does not affect the latter benefit. It seems to me that
it’s more about a diet that’s easy to stick to than dramatically altering
one’s metabolism.

Lately, I’ve become more serious about strength training and have given up on
it because my caloric needs have skyrocketed (I found myself losing weight at
over 3000 calories a day.) and I need to eat frequently to recover.

However, I would not hesitate to recommend it to anyone who isn’t an athlete,
and to the latter I’d still suggest experimenting.

------
nickjj
I'm kind of surprised this isn't the default for most people.

For example let's say you eat dinner at 6-7pm and then goto bed at 11pm. After
that you wake up around 7am and then maybe eat breakfast an hour or 2 later.

At this point you've gone from about 7pm to 8am or 9am without eating (~13-14
hours) but it fits pretty well into a schedule.

Wouldn't you have to really go out of your way to deviate from that? Of course
you would adjust the numbers based on how late you goto bed and rise in the
morning, but the ratios would be about the same -- maybe even more fasting if
you sleep longer than 8 hours.

~~~
coldtea
> _Wouldn 't you have to really go out of your way to deviate from that?_

Depends on the country and culture. In these here parts we still go to work at
8am or 9am, but we dine at 10pm or later (going to a restaurant at 11pm is
very common, and similarly for eating at home).

~~~
nickjj
What time do you get home from work?

That sounds like an unreasonably long day if you have to be in work by 8am but
you're still at a restaurant at 11pm.

I'm from the US btw. I happen to do freelance work but most people I know work
from about 9am to 5pm where they leave the house around 8:30am and are home by
5:30pm or 6pm at the latest.

Eating breakfast at 8am and dinner at 7pm is normal for them, or sometimes
they skip breakfast at home and eat something small at work.

~~~
coldtea
> _What time do you get home from work?_

Depends on the job. Office jobs are nominally 9-5 but it's easy for employees
to stay until 7pm or so in some places. Retail shops (anything from butchers
and grocery places to supermarkets and shoe shops and electronics shops) close
at 8-8:30pm (they usually open around 9am or a little later) -- but those have
shifts too (e.g. those working there don't stay all day from 9am to 8:30pm,
unless they're the owners).

Some places (usually the self-run ones) also close around 2:30/3:00pm and open
again at 5:30pm or so.

> _That sounds like an unreasonably long day if you have to be in work by 8am
> but you 're still at a restaurant at 11pm._

Not "still at the restaurant at 11pm" \- it's first sitting down at the
restaurant at 11pm (they'd leave at 12:30 - 1am or so). They I guess you sleep
for 6-7 hours or so and wake at 7 or 8.

------
actuator
I have tried eating with long gaps in between but somehow that leads me to
lose a lot of muscle mass as well. Recently I was trying it again with an
overall caloric deficit but sufficient amount of protein intake but I lost
both fat and muscle in 1:1 ratio even with regularly working out.

I don't know if that was just because of caloric deficit or long gaps in
between. I have seen the 5-6 evenly spaced out meals in a day work the best
for me if I want to maintain/put on muscle mass.

------
dixonge-2
I keep reading the study to verify, but the wording is wishy-washy. I can find
no numbers that they actually measured the calories taken in by the mice who
had access to food ad libitum (24/7). If those numbers aren't measured, you'll
never know if the time-restricted mice ate the same calories. Let me know if
you can find those calorie intake numbers anywhere...

~~~
dixonge-2
and here's what happened when Panda tracked actual humans - "Even though the
participants didn’t change the content of their diet, Panda confirms that
reducing the hours they ate resulted in the reduction of about 20 percent of
calories, which may be one reason why they were able to lose weight."

So it's the calories after all. Regardless, if _any_ technique (well, almost
any) helps you cut calories without having to 'count' them, then that's still
a win!

------
tluyben2
If it would work on humans, I guess I am good; I cannot (i am never hungry
that early) eat before 10am and I cannot sleep if I eat after 8 pm.

------
laurex
The comparison was between rats who could eat anytime and rats eating within a
10 hour window. What makes 10 hours the magic? Could it be 11, 12, 14 hours?
Is it better if the window is 6 or 8 hours? Would it be different on a day in
which the sun shone for 16 hours or 12 his? There is clearly something there
but 10 hours seems arbitrary.

------
sytelus
Better way to state this is: Make sure you have 14hr period where you are not
consuming any food (i.e. fasting period).

------
djrogers
In mice.

Whose genes have been altered.

And who show no adherence to a circadian rhythm.

Not exactly relatable, is it?

~~~
scotty79
Humans too I guess:

[https://www.surrey.ac.uk/news/changes-breakfast-and-
dinner-t...](https://www.surrey.ac.uk/news/changes-breakfast-and-dinner-
timings-can-reduce-body-fat)

------
leptoniscool
Is it better to eat in the morning or night for humans?

~~~
abledon
Middle of the day for largest meal. Try to eat less before bed so liver can
detox instead of digest food while u sleep. Also if your a man try working on
peacock pose each morning 30 mins before eating (up to 5 mins) to boost
digestion , if woman be careful when menstruating

~~~
Franciscouzo
Everything you said sounds like bullshit, do you have any source to back it
up?

~~~
abledon
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0072577/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0072577/)

Through an evolution lense we evolved to not be eating huge meals in the
middle of the night. When the liver doesn’t have to work on digestion it can
better focus on the myriad of other tasks it’s responsible for.

As for mayurasana, I doubt any pharma company is going to drop 500 Gs to
perform a double blind random controlled study with >1000 participants , but
just try it for a month: [http://www.hathayogamysore.com/asanas/mayurasana-
the-peacock](http://www.hathayogamysore.com/asanas/mayurasana-the-peacock) “””
Benefits of The Peacock (Mayurasana) 1\. Because of the pressure on the
abdomen,the blood is directed towards the digestive organs.as the intra-
abdominal pressure is increased,the abdominal viscera is toned 2\.
Liver,pancreas,stomach and spleen are invigorated.The nerves and muscles
connected with the kidneys and intestines are revitalised. 3\. Sluggishness of
the liver or hepatic torpidity disappears. “””

It’s dangerous for women because the intense pressure and slight inversion can
mess up their menstrual process during the height of it (3day span usually).
Sadly no pharma studies are available on this (what company would drop money
on studying that !)

~~~
Broken_Hippo
Governments would pay for it. As would health insurances. It is in their own
benefit that they study this sort of thing. "Big pharma companies" won't
because that is honestly outside their field of study, which is the
development of pharma products. It seriously isn't worth taking money away
from better treatments for malaria or cancer to study it. However,
universities and goverments and health insurance companies would be
interested. The first is because some universities are research centers and
the other two are interested in lowering their costs for health care. Simple
solutions are good for these groups.

And about the woman stuff? I don't buy it. Of course they would drop money on
it - at the same rate they drop money on menstral studies, anyway (it isn't as
much as some other things, but they do study such things). Part of the
menstral process is contributed by muscle cramps and gravity. Lying down in
general will sometimes make things slow down, especially on the last day or
two. Once the person is upright, the person might simply have a heavier flow
those days. Without studies, this sort of advice is simply founded in
superstition.

------
zeroimpl
Did the mice which had access to food 24/7 eat more overall than the mice with
restricted food access?

If so, then the study seems useless because the results can entirely be
explained as excessive eating leads to health problems.

I don't see anything in the article saying how they controlled for quantity of
food consumed.

~~~
jayzee44
No the article said that's both groups consumed the same number of calories
per day.

~~~
zeroimpl
Thanks. I didn't read it carefully enough the first time but I see that
mentioned now.

------
m3kw9
Just don’t eat too much

------
neuro_imager
I'm not sure how well this translates to humans.

~~~
onetimemanytime
I doubt they would do these experiments unless, one way or another, they also
apply to us. They are not trying to make mice live longer :)

~~~
Broken_Hippo
Actually, studies in mice don't always pan out to humans. There are flaws in
mouse studies and sometimes the results in humans are wildly different. But
mice are cheap, bread readily, and are a great starting point for laboratory
tests.

------
projectramo
Another major victory in mankind’s long quest to render mice immortal.

~~~
ainar-g
For anyone wondering about what's wrong with mouse testing, here is a funny
but informative video on the subject[1]. One highlight:

>After a drug is confirmed as safe and efficacious in preclinical studies, it
is tested in healthy human volunteers for first in man trials. In 2006, a
phase I clinical study was conducted for a CD28 superagonist antibody TGN1412
in six human volunteers. After very first infusion of a dose 500 times smaller
than that found safe in animal studies, all six human volunteers faced life-
threatening conditions involving multiorgan failure for which they were moved
to intensive care unit

Source[2].

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvJHq2FJPDM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvJHq2FJPDM)

[2]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964774/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964774/)

~~~
Angostura
Which shows that mice are an imperfect model, not that they don't have
substantial value.

~~~
anoncoward111
Right? It's like, "Woman dies from water overdosw during radio contest,
therefore all water consumption is at very least unhealthy"

