don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

"Sex is good, but not as good as fresh, sweet corn." 
~Garrison Keillor
 
"One of the very nicest things about life is the way we must regularly stop whatever it is we are doing and devote our attention to eating." 
~Luciano Pavarotti

We eat to live, not live to eat, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with enjoying food. Au contraire, as the above remarks by Messrs. Keillor and Pavarotti suggest, ingesting delectables is a treasured pleasure for most of us. The ability to enjoy food without much concern for collateral damage, such as girth growth, is one of the best reasons for exercising vigorously on a daily basis. 
 
Well, I regret to advise that a new study has come along that suggests eating fewer calories slows the aging of important body parts, like the heart,  and reduces cancer risks. The clear implication is that we can all add years to our lives by subtracting a bit of life from our years. (See "Low-Calorie Diet Can Slow Aging of Heart, Study Shows," WSJ, January 16, 2006.) Eat more and die sooner happier, or eat less and live longer, in misery. A devil of a choice, I say. 
 
This accursed restricted-diet research reminds me of a remark attributed to Doug Larson: "Life expectancy would grow by leaps and bounds if green vegetables smelled as good as bacon."
 
Though this inverse relationship between calories and longevity has long been suspected (based upon studies with mice and rats), the new research done at Washington University in St. Louis is the first based on human trials. 
 
So, food lovers, want to know what the ideal life-extension daily caloric intake allowance seems to be? A grand total of 1,400 to 2,000 calories daily, and all these calories should be nutritionally balanced calories--not from hot fudge sundaes! Instead, think vegetables, olive oil, beans, whole grains, fish and fruit. The payoff? Heart functions typically about 15 years younger than found in gobbler-type humans. Specifically, "starved hearts" (my term) are more elastic, more "relaxed" between beats and, like Timex watches, "take a lickin and keep on tickin" long after gluttonish hearts have ceased to give time. Literally. 
 
Will these findings be widely embraced? Well, I rather doubt it. Consider what J.B. Priestly wrote on the topic, a view that reflects the love we all have for the multiple pleasures of high calorie, low nutrient but delicious foodstuffs: "We plan, we toil, we suffer - in the hope of what? A camel-load of idol's eyes? The title deeds of Radio City? The empire of Asia? A trip to the moon? No, no, no, no. Simply to wake just in time to smell coffee and bacon and eggs."
 
On the other hand, maybe some of us can do with a few less calories in order to reduce somewhat the effects of "secondary aging from high cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure and other often-preventable conditions." After all, a few quotable characters with a gift for memorable phrases can be cited for this point of view, as well. Consider William Osler, who noted, "We are all dietetic sinners; only a small percent of what we eat nourishes us; the balance goes to waste and loss of energy." Or this Chinese proverb: "The more you eat, the less flavor; the less you eat, the more flavor." 
 
Be well. Always look on the bright side of life.

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the PHYSICAL DOMAIN under the skill area of nutrition. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell