LONGECITY

I've recently familiarized myself with the concept of hormesis, or stressing the body to a tolerable degree in order to elicit a beneficial overreaction that improves overall health (e.g. exercise).

 

I've become interested in the idea of a particular, salient nutrient: water. I know that dehydration can cause the release of powerful neuropeptides, such as vasopressin (which if I'm not mistaken wakes you up thirsty in the night?). I also could see water withholding instigating a serious response from the body that, if managed correctly and the stressor releived properly, could yield some sort of remarkable benefit, although I don't know enough about how the body regulates hydration to draw any detailed conclusions about the scenario.

 

Has anyone else looked into this? Are there any studies that could be drawn upon to understand if what I'm getting at would make any medical sense?

There is nothing on it, as far as I know. ..xcept dry fasting, which has not been studied properly at all (compared to human water-fasting, which is not much either). I saw only one study of dry fasting, 5 days, released by Germans in 2011 or 2013. It only deals with basics like electrolytes levels and daily weight loss. Nothing fancy you're talking about.

PS
of course, you realize, if you withhold water (and liquids), you must also fast -- as in not eat. ..at least that was the advice to shipwreck survivors back in the old days.

PPS
you could check out Ramadan studies. This is daily dry fast from sunup to sundown that lasts for a month. In some hot and dry climates it can be very strenuous. There are a lot of Ramadan studies that show benefit for most people, on various health parameters.
Edited by xEva, 20 April 2015 - 09:11 PM.

Waterfasting seems a lot riskier than normal fasting. There is possibility of very serious injury. I'm not sure about the risk-benefit ratio for this one.

from http://drmirkin.com/...zine051808.html

"According to this study, professional bicycle racers have better kidney function than both sedentary people and recreational cyclists. This is very interesting because professional cyclists dehydrate themselves with almost every workout, in spite of the huge amount of fluid they consume. The researchers found that frequent dehydration accompanied by drinking large amounts of water did not cause kidney damage. This repeated stress on the kidneys may even explain why the professional cyclists had better kidney function than the less-active participants."

"According to this study, professional bicycle racers have better kidney function than both sedentary people and recreational cyclists. This is very interesting because professional cyclists dehydrate themselves with almost every workout, in spite of the huge amount of fluid they consume. The researchers found that frequent dehydration accompanied by drinking large amounts of water did not cause kidney damage. This repeated stress on the kidneys may even explain why the professional cyclists had better kidney function than the less-active participants."

 

Pro bike racers who are drinking a lot of water but having huge workouts that dehydrate them is wildly different than a sedentary dry fast that stretches over a much longer time period.  I think the risks of injury outweigh the putative benefits, which are only hypothetical.  The risks are real.  There's a cumulative mountain of corpses that attest to that.

"According to this study, professional bicycle racers have better kidney function than both sedentary people and recreational cyclists. This is very interesting because professional cyclists dehydrate themselves with almost every workout, in spite of the huge amount of fluid they consume. The researchers found that frequent dehydration accompanied by drinking large amounts of water did not cause kidney damage. This repeated stress on the kidneys may even explain why the professional cyclists had better kidney function than the less-active participants."

Pro bike racers who are drinking a lot of water but having huge workouts that dehydrate them is wildly different than a sedentary dry fast that stretches over a much longer time period. I think the risks of injury outweigh the putative benefits, which are only hypothetical. The risks are real. There's a cumulative mountain of corpses that attest to that.

Anyone who is pursuing longevity and does not exercise to sweat point is missing out. Occasional dehydration from such looks to be possibly beneficial. Agreed Extended dry fasting does not seem wise.

Another problem with athletes as reference is selection bias. They are probably more genetically robust than your average joe.