Intermittent caloric restriction is also showing promise. You don't have to starve yourself daily -- just a couple of times a week -- to show some of the same benefits. Perhaps not to the same degree, but far more comfortably.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction#Activity_le...
>Laboratory rodents placed on a CR diet tend to exhibit increased activity levels (particularly when provided with exercise equipment) at feeding time. Monkeys undergoing CR also appear more restless immediately before and after meals.[62] Despite this brief daily period of increased activity overall activity is no higher in CR than AL animals in youth after an initial period of adaptation to the diet.[63] On the other hand, CR has been found to retard the decline in activity that occurs during normal aging: in one study, animals on a conventional diet "showed little activity" by early middle age, while those on CR "were observed to run around the cage and climb onto and hang from the wire cage tops throughout their life spans. In fact, the longest surviving [CR] mouse was observed hanging from the top of his cage only 3 days before he became moribund."
Suppose we can extend human life with Calore Restriction, but at the cost of having to slow person's activity to the point that the overall amout of actions (work, leisure etc.) remains the same as during shorter, more intense life.
Would that still be worth it? What would a person gain through longer lifespan if she was limited to roughly the same amout of activity anyway? Wouldn't competing people gain advantage simply by being able to take advantage of opportunities quicker?