Severe Calorie Restriction as a Lifestyle : Low-Carb War Zone : Active Low-Carber Forums

Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

OzSlimmer

Sat, Oct-16-04, 07:42

Lisa N

Sat, Oct-16-04, 07:49

I'm not sure that calorie restriction actually helps people live longer or if it just makes it seem like it. :lol:

I've heard of this strategy before, but I have to ask myself if living an extra 20 years of deprivation would be worth the deprivation?
Another thought that comes to mind is that it's possible that these people are all suffering from eating disorders and using the "science shows we'll live longer if we don't eat" smokescreen as a means of legitimizing it.

potatofree

Sat, Oct-16-04, 08:16

I wonder about that too. How many "healthy" eating styles would fall under that heading? It, to me, appears to be like a chicken-and-the-egg type thing where people with eating disorders pick up a tiny bit of science and find a "home" there. If you pick an eating plan with elements of your disorder, just like Lisa said, you can use it as a smokescreen.

I know binge eaters who claim to be doing CAD, anorexics and bulemics who take Atkins to the extreme, living on the fat fast and claiming they're too "metabolically resistant" to lose on induction when they already have a very low body weight...

Actually, I was suprised to find that one of the red flags for ED is the elimination of entire groups of food as being "bad". Whether it be fat or carbs....

mps

Sat, Oct-16-04, 10:50

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-05/bpl-cmh052804.php
Could mice hold the secret to longer life?

Scientists from the University of Aberdeen, the Aberdeen-based Rowett Research Institute and the Medical Research Council (MRC) in Cambridge have made a major breakthrough in understanding how metabolism affects lifespan.

In a seven-year study of mice they found that those with the highest metabolic rate lived the longest, raising the prospect that the effect could be mimicked in humans.

Scientists have long thought that a high metabolic rate was linked to a shortened life-span. The present discovery turns this century old belief on its head and changes dramatically our understanding of the regulation of life-span.

Metabolism is the means by which nutrients are broken down to smaller building blocks and chemical energy, which are used to make new body materials and to do work.

The researchers discovered that the most metabolically active 25% of the mice studied, far from having shorter life-spans, in fact lived 36% longer than the least active. If the same effects are mimicked in humans then the finding would imply that a higher metabolic rate could add an extra 27 years to the average human lifespan.

When the muscles of the most metabolically active mice were examined, they were found to contain factors that increased their metabolism by making it less efficient.

Although the scientists do not yet fully understand how these factors work, it is suspected that while the make the metabolism less efficient, on the positive side they reduce the generation of toxic by-products called "oxygen free radicals".

mio1996

Sat, Oct-16-04, 16:12

My whole point was - why live another 20 years (if that is the case which I'm still severely doubtful on) if you have to be HUNGRY for another 20 years? Part of life is enjoying food and company and LIVING.

I've often said that if my heart explodes tommorrow, at least I've been thin and happy while keeping full of rich food. That may sound extreme, but its all about quality of life for me. The good health is a wonderful side effect, though. I was never free of hunger until lc'ing, and that alone makes it work for me. No more hunger pangs! Woohoo!

AtkinsBOY1

Wed, Nov-24-04, 19:23

I just read another portion control thread and it reminded me of this:

I was just reading an article in the newspaper today about this new sect of people called the CR group. They severely restrict calories based on the fact that they think it increases their lifespan. They eat one meal a day (usually just a salad and a piece of chicken - no dressing). They do this not because they want to be thin but because they think that eating that few of meals put your body into a survival mode that will increase their lifespan.

My whole point was - why live another 20 years (if that is the case which I'm still severely doubtful on) if you have to be HUNGRY for another 20 years? Part of life is enjoying food and company and LIVING.

Here's the link below - the article is long so I decided not to include it here.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/14/1097607366308.html

Firt of All thats not true. My parewnts are both doctors and they said what they are doing is becoming anxeix and actually they will die very soon bystarinving their body to death. My step mom does biochemisrty ans she says that salad has not enough nutiets to live on and many people die everry year trying to do stupid things like that. You will by no means live an extra year a matter affact you cholsetrol will go up becuase that happens to many anerxiots and you will bhecome messed up. Even if you take supplemnts its by no menas halty. Wheres your fat wers protein those are the key componets of living a haelty life. Follow atkins Eat meat, butter, veggies, fruits and you will ive a far healthier life than those peolple. I dont care what the newspaper says guess what my parents are doctors and they said and go do reaserch salad has not enoguh nutrients to live on. Its funny we disscused this in chem class today. And my teacher said it is impossibble tolive in lettuce if you do survive you would lose a ton of muslce mas and you will become so unhealty and you will die. So by no means dont do som4ething so stupid. :p

carrottop

Wed, Nov-24-04, 22:10

Some points:

1. We do not know that the people who do this are hungry. We can speculate that they may be crazy.

2. The studies start the mice out from birth. These people did not have that advantage.

3. If they try to do this with their children, they will be arrested.

4. The scientists did not test the IQ's of the mice. What is good in theory for the metabolism may not be good for the brain.

Nancy LC

Thu, Nov-25-04, 14:22

chaih20

Wed, Dec-08-04, 22:55

As long as they're getting enough nutrients than I guess we couldn't say its bad for them per se, but at the same time, I give little credit to the theory that they will live longer. the above post made a good point-- these animal studies started out from birth and their metabolisms never had to adjust to a lower level of eating, they simply always ate that way. The other thing, appetite is a brain chemistry function, and your body is self-regulating. Why would our bodies be telling us we are hungry if its better for us to not eat? Human beings are evolutionary creatures like any others so why would we have genes that give us this brain chemistry function? If human being survived better (I.E. LONGER) on lower calories, we would not have this mechanism. It could be argued that people don't reprodice after a certain age, like 45, or so, and therefore no lifespan-increasing genes would matter after that age (because evolution is the direct result of which species can reproduce successfully and survive to create the next generation) but that would only be the case for females. Males can make a kid much older. and maybe there was some 72 yr old neanderthal still having kids way back when. I don't know. Just, instinctively, something tells me this deprivation diet isn't right. Our bodies are like they are for a reason-- they are most efficient this way, and they survived best this way :yum: , and our hunger mechanism is just as much a part of our physical bodies as our hands and eyelashes.

Duparc

Wed, Dec-29-04, 19:05

Calorie restriction has been producing interesting results since research started on it around 1935. The research is continuing today on higher animal forms and the results continue to be interesting. Researchers have experimented too with older animals and have increased their average life-span and brought about considerable health benefits. There is little doubt that CR will probably have considerable benefits to those who follow it.

There is a problem with CR as it currently exists, and there is a difference between CR and LC, but not such a great difference.

The late Dr Roy Walford who was one of the latest pioneers in the CR arena put his reputation on-the-line when he wrote the book, 'The 120 Year Diet'. He followed the results of his research yet died prior to his 80th birthday having suffered from some neurological problem for around 3 years prior to his death. I do not wish to be unkind to his reputation but with his demise occurring around the average human time for death, then he, figuratively speaking, shot himself in the foot!

The trouble with CR is that it was highjacked by vegetarianism. To my knowledge, the great man's diet had leanings in this direction and I wonder if that was the cause of his ill-health and his apparent earlier demise. I am not seeking to discredit him. His research was, indeed, fascinating and continues to be so.

LC dieting has been known for considerably much longer but the little research done on it was discredited by its critics. Unlike CR where funds were readily available for research, LC became the Ugly Sister and was denied research funding.

More interestingly, the results arising from today's research on LC prompted, presumably by the influence of Robert Aitkins is showing more enhanced benefits than that of CR.

One needs to remember that our species survived through 10,000 years of the Ice Age when carbs were probably non-existent. Look at the life-styles too of the Eskimos prior to the recent influence of Western society.

My suspicion is that Roy Walford's demise was probably brought about by a high-carb diet that kept his insulin levels high. The current message seems to be, the lower the carbs the better the results.

Roy Walford was also known to have exercised regularly. If my recollection is correct he liked jogging. While one is tempted to exercise when energy levels are high, I still harbour doubts about the necessity for it.

Arctic explorers today apparently use up 12,000 calories in a day's trekking and use butter as their main dietary source to replace the lost energy. Slowly, the message is beginning to percolate through the conservatism of the medical profession that a diet high in fat and protein, and low, very low, in carbohydrates may possess health benefits.

Dodger

Thu, Dec-30-04, 09:46

Duparc,

I went to the Wolford web site ( http://www.walford.com )and found two days worth of sample menus. Day 1 was 1524 calories and did include 2 oz of salmon. Day 2 was 1472 calories and 3 oz of chicken. Both days were very low fat and high in carbs, around 200 gm net (lots of whole grains).

There are lots of people who are low-carbing that eat around 1500 calories per day. I expected Wolford's diet to be lower than that. With the high carbs, I would also expect the insulin level to be high.

While not vegetarian, it is low in animal fats and would be short in essential fatty acids. The diet is full of healthy sounding words that are the core of many vegetarian diets; whole-wheat, mixed grains, fresh juice, falafel, sprouts, tahini, sun-dried , etc.

If I was surviving on 1500 calories, I would be very hungry on his diet. If I did 1500 calories on low-carb, I would be much happier.

Duparc

Tue, Feb-01-05, 18:54

Hi Mike,

You might be interested to know that I was a vegetarian for 17 years which ended with having an emergency quadruple by-pass! That was in 1990. Bacon and eggs, fried in beef-dripping each morning since, and the abandonment of all fats except saturated, restored me to full health. Today, at the age of 74 I am in excellent health and do not suffer from any aches nor pains nor am I on prescription medication. I still have a healthy libido and do a workout occasionally with weights. Two years ago I remarried and continue to believe that I have a future (there won't, however, be any children on this occasion).

Need more be said? Stay on course!

arctica

Wed, Feb-02-05, 06:59

Duparc, you are a great encouragement to me. I have been doing low carb for three weeks now -- am hypoglycaemic and feel the best I have felt in years. My clothes are looser, my face is thinner and the energy levels have soared. I am only 49 but now I feel like I could live until I am 100 at least. My husband's family is originally from Scotland. I am an American, but living in the UK. I powerwalk between 5 to 8 miles a day and do yogalates with a resistance band.

fluffybear

Wed, Feb-02-05, 11:23

I watch the TODAY show every morning and honestly I can't say that I ever saw a fat 100 year old on there. Calorie restriction does NOT neccessarily mean you are starving yourself your entire life. It just means you are eating a little below the average intake of calories. For instance if you should eat 2500 calories a day to maintain your ideal weight, then eat 2000. That is not such a huge reduction that you couldn't enjoy life. I rarely hear thin people complain about being hungry. It is usually heavy people who are always hungry. I believe it is because even though they are eating too much, it is not the right foods. In fact I saw an article that said one of the reasons obese persons have bad health is because they are literally starving themselves of the proper nutrients. At over 250 lbs. I felt awful all the time myself. I have ust recently cut my calories down to below 2000 a day. Not that I actually count them, but when I put what I've eaten down on FITDAY, it says my daily caloric intake is between 1500-1800 calories.

serrelind

Wed, Feb-02-05, 14:46

I agree with fluffybear. I think extreme of anything just isn't healthy. I will buy the theory that you live longer with calorie restriction. Metabolizing food is demanding to the body as well as being an inflammatory process. Years of that will shorten one's life. However, living on 400 cals a day is damaging to the body as well. So I agree that you can lenghten your life by eating less, but not extremely less...

Serre

Duparc

Wed, Feb-02-05, 19:03

I see that some of you are focused on calorie restriction. What would you say if it was said that on a LC diet, this is not necessary. Atkins is one form of LC dieting but of course there are variations.

I am on a strict (or severe) LC diet and not for the purposes of longevity. Simply, I desire to maintain the best of health for as long as possible (and to continue loving my wife too) and LC dieting appears to be producing the results. Previously, from the late 60s when Dr Richard Mackarness (prior to Atkins) was on the throne I took-up LC dieting (known then as the stone-age diet) for weight loss purposes and over the intervening years returned to it to maintain weight (except for the period when I was a vegetarian). Over the past 6 years I've been on it more frequently and with the blossoming research that it is currently receiving and the beneficial results that are arising from this, I have decided to attempt to see how long I can remain on strict LC and to observe the results.

Other than from full-cream milk I do not take any other known carbs and have not done so for almost 4 months. It has not produced any adverse effects. I feel good but then I have always felt good. One difference is that I do have more energy. My blood sugar level, which prior to LC was in the prediabetic level, is now lowered to within the normal range. My BP is around the 115/65 range. I have no difficulty doing anything physical.

Saturated fat is reputed to be nutritious and gives flavour to meals. Saturated fat has also a high satiety level and the more taken the less hungry one will be. Protein, of course, is essential. Think of this (but few will agree with it) if we eat red meat preferably from meadow fed animals, including the bone marrow and organs, then our bodies will be getting all the nutrition it requires. My diet consists of read meats, saturated fats, eggs, hard cheese, milk, and double cream; that's all; and I am never hungry. I take the usual beveridges of tea, coffee, and cocoa (made from plain powder).

Initially there can be a problem with constipation but that soon passes. Coconut can assist in overcoming this problem. Brain fog at the very early stages and a desire for carbs can be another problem but this can be overcome with l-glutamine.

Who knows, tomorrow, I may be dead, but, today, healthwise, I help the elderly across the road!

Saturated fat in the diet is essential and so too is red meat. The balance between red meat (protein) and fat is the key to weight loss. If the saturated fat is too high in relation to the protein, weight will be maintained. If the protein is as high as the fat intake then weight-loss is more likely to occur. It is the balance between those two that matters, that is, after the carbs are removed. The only problem with LC dieting is its unsocial aspect when it comes to dining out.

Counting calories does not come into the equation and neither does longevity. Good health and having that 'feel good' factor everyday, does.

Samuel

Wed, Feb-02-05, 21:34

Calorie restriction does NOT neccessarily mean you are starving yourself your entire life. It just means you are eating a little below the average intake of calories. For instance if you should eat 2500 calories a day to maintain your ideal weight, then eat 2000. That is not such a huge reduction that you couldn't enjoy life.
Let us do some math first. let us assume that your ideal weight is 150 lbs and the amount of calories necessary to supply your energy needs is 2500 calories.

Now if you force yourself to eat 2000 calories a day you will be giving your body 500 calories less than it needs. Mathematically, you should be losing 1 lb each 7 days. If you maintain this situation for a year and a half you will lose more than half of your weight and will not be able to survive if you continue.

How about if you reduce your calorie intake by merely 100 calories? You will reach the same critical weight in less than 7 1/2 years. How about if you reduce it by only 25 calories / day? Same thing should happen in less than 30 years. So, mathematically, even the smallest amount of reduction of your calorie intake will take you to death one day!

I know you don't notice that reducing your calorie intake can take you that far, if it can take you anywhere! So something is wrong and I can tell you what it is.

Your body understands that he is the boss. He expects you to do nothing except obeying his commands. How much body fat you should have is determined and maintained by himself. The only thing he expects you to do, is to eat whenever he makes you feel hungry.

So each time you force yourself to eat less at one meal, your body tries to make you more hungry at the next meal in order to compensate. If you resist, it will make you more hungry the next day or the next week. If you can still resist, it will use more of its powers to maintain your weight at the weight he has set for you. Here are some of these powers:

(1) He can over-digest or under-digest food as he sees necessary.
(2) He can change your metabolism to any amount he wants.
(3) He can use major part of your calorie intake to make body fat with leaving you with less energy to live with.

So, eating less for life time is useless. Eating considerably less for a short time (low calorie diet) can make your body decide to use your body fat for energy so you lose weight. Don't let that make you think that you can ever be in command. There is a historic reason for that and once you end your low calorie diet your body will restore your fat back.

The only two tricks which you can use to make your body assigns less weight for you are low carbing and excercising. Let us stop here before this post gets too long.

Samuel

Wed, Feb-02-05, 22:31

Other than from full-cream milk I do not take any other known carbs and have not done so for almost 4 months. It has not produced any adverse effects. I feel good but then I have always felt good. One difference is that I do have more energy. My blood sugar level, which prior to LC was in the prediabetic level, is now lowered to within the normal range. My BP is around the 115/65 range. I have no difficulty doing anything physical.

When Dr. Atkins started this diet, the allowed carb intake was only 5 carbs. He has been criticized badly for not telling people to eat vegetables. He then changed the carb allowance to 20 and later he developed the 4-phase Atkins plan.

In the past, some of our ancestors must have lived in areas where the only food they could eat was meat. So, the human body must be capable to live on meat only diet just like lions and tigers do.

Glendora

Wed, Feb-16-05, 11:04

I lived that lifestyle for years, and trust me, twenty extra years of irritability, forgetfulness, exhaustion, fainting and stealing candy from children's Halloween bags in starving desperation is really something I don't want... ;) They can have those 20 years!

Ayustar

Wed, Feb-16-05, 23:58

For me, I am back and forth between CR and always on LC. LC works a lot better but it is hard for me to want to eat because of guilt, lol. But I don't see how starving yourself can make you live longer, lol. Deprivation just isn't healthy. Even though I am a hypocrit but I am just saying. I know it isn't healthy, but I do it anyways.

I felt like GARBAGE when I wasn't on LC, I couldn't imagine any other way of living. I try the low fat and low carb, so that works, I get pretty tired, but that's ok. My job and life are not a high impact one, so being tired isn't so bad.

quietone

Thu, Feb-17-05, 09:49

I think on discovery channel or maybe PBS.

Anyway, these people eat at least three times a day, and eat high nutrient value foods. It's neither low carb nor vegan, but highly nutrious.

Calories depend on gender, age and activity level.

Only the women complained about being hungry, but only occasinally.

All lost weight. All said they felt great (except the hungry women). Only the men looked kind of emaciated.

They do eat protein and fat.

This is based on a rat study that found nutrient dense, less caloric feeding increased lifespan signficiantly in rats. So, if not rats...why not humans.

I find it intriguing and I believe it. oxygenation is a large part of why we age/get disease. The less we eat..the less oxygenation goes on. The only trouble is, we aren't programmed that way. We are programmed to survive.

AimeeJoi

Fri, Mar-04-05, 11:01

Here is a really informative site about calorie restriction.
http://www.longevitymeme.org/topics/calorie_restriction.cfm

The thing i have found is that the point is not to starve yourself but to try and fill yourself up while taking in the proper amount of nutrients with as few calories as possile. This can be done by eating lots of veggies, fish , lean meats, some nuts and fruits. The rationale is that burning excess calories release free radicals. There are some other theories as well. Scientists are really studying this phenomenon and there have been studies with humans (mainly the japanese) This is found to be the only proven method to expand life. Some one earlier mentioned that they have only tested animals from birth but they have actually done studies testing cr animals form birth vs. cr animals from midlife (rats i think) both rats lived substantially longer than the control group, proving that even starting cr in your 40's can affect your lifespan. Also the website above does not recommend restricting your children's calories
The website above doesnt promote vegetarianism and in fact says vegetarians should not try and do cr. It mostly promotes a paleo way of eating and then says to try and keep proportions of The Zone 30-30-40.
I tried this last summer and lived the whole summer on </=1500 a day that consisted of fruits, fish, a lot of sauteed onions,a little yogurt and some popcorn at night if i needed to crunch on something. I never felt better in my life. I lost about 20 lbs at a slow and steady pace and had tons of energy but it became too hard and i lost my motivation when the winter came because there were no good fruits available. I plan to do this again soon and try to plan better for next winter like maybe more fish and meat.
I think the main reason people dont like the sound of this is because at first it does sound like an accepted version of anorexia but in truth you are not cutting cals that much and your focus is on getting the right amount of nutrients in as little cals as you can. When i was 14 I had a small bout with anorexia and i remember my sole focus was on eating as few cals as i could, exercising as much as i could and losing as much weight as i could without passing out. This is in no way the goal of cr.

Aimee

quietone

Fri, Mar-04-05, 11:16

This certainly would be much easier to do in the summer for me, when there are abundant fresh fruits and vegs.

I guess it would kind of be like the paleo diet, except that the only meat they ate on the one I watched was an occasional piece of fish.

Whoa182

Mon, Sep-19-05, 18:49

I think some of you have got the wrong idea about Calorie Restriction. There is around 70 years of research on it and it's proven to work all the time... Before making an opinion on it you should try reading some books or papers on it. Just google some or buy books on it, then you could possibly make an educated opinion?

I follow CRON (calorie Restriction With Optimal Nutrition) and everything is steadily improving with time (I'll provide a graph). The idea is to get the most nutrition out the least amount of calories, to get all nutrients required and not to become deficient in any, regular monitoring of health via methods we can do at home and routine blood tests.

My experience with CR has been really easy... One would think that I'd be hungry all the time but it isn't the case at all. I eat Breakfast, Raw Salad for lunch, streamed/boiled vegetables for dinnner. I usually include some protein with these meals from Chicken, turkey, fish or Whey Protein powder. I take various supplements but don't megadose... this is to ensure I get a few nutrients that I could easily become deficient in.

Weight loss is inevitible with CR and the idea is to lose weight as slowly as possible... research has shown that dropping too quickly could shorten life span. There are some theories now that life span may actually be more to do with metabolic stability.

I've only been doing Calorie Restriction for around 6 months now and recently started to monitor whats going on carefuly just incase... But all me and my doctor are seeing is good benifits from doing CR.

Believe me, the majority of people doing CR know what they are doing and are very careful about how they go about CR. They didn't just rush into the diet... people generally do some research before going into something like CR. I researched it for a couple of months prior to starting.

-At the moment my Ratio of total Cholesterol to HDL is 3.3 and I am aiming to get it better in the coming months.
-I would like to slow down weight loss so I have increased my calorie intake slightly.

To the person doing a bit of math on weight loss... You do realize that as you lose weight you will require less calories to maintain a certain weight? At some point your weight loss will level off.

I hope that you will take a look at all the research on CR available on the net.

CR effects health in many ways...

Improved Insulin sensitivity
Lower average circulating levels of glucose
Increased Maintenance of DNA
Reducation in expression of oncogenes
Reduced Decline in sexual activity with age
Lowered Blood pressure
Reduced risk of arthritis
Improved mental functioning / reduced risk of AD and PD

There more! just look them up :)

Human studies have shown that CR is the only method that reduces the risk of so many age related diseases, results from monkeys are promising too and results from short term studies on humans are excellent.

Here are some links

http://mednewsarchive.wustl.edu/medadmin/PAnews.nsf/0/F76B2638BDB6CAE786256E76005D51F6

http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/210404heart.html

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/CR-Monitoring1.jpg

I have a few blood results coming shortly

Rosebud

Mon, Sep-19-05, 19:14

Whoa182

Mon, Sep-19-05, 19:36

Thank you for pointing me to that thread.

Dodger

Mon, Sep-19-05, 19:36

I follow CRON (calorie Restriction With Optimal Nutrition) and everything is steadily improving with time (I'll provide a graph). The idea is to get the most nutrition out the least amount of calories, to get all nutrients required and not to become deficient in any, regular monitoring of health via methods we can do at home and routine blood tests.
All the various low-carb plans with which I am familar stress eating high micro-nutrient foods and avoiding overeating. If one is eating properly low-carb, monitoring of health is not needed as the proper eating takes care of the numerous health problems related to eating high-carb foods.

ButterflyA

Tue, Sep-20-05, 10:38

I remember years ago reading about people who were doing calorie restriction. But the studies on animals that were calorie restricted, I think they cut their food back by 30%. So for a typical person, it'd be a 1400 calorie a day diet.

I guess according to some thoughts I must have an ED then since I cut out Dairy, sugar, and starch, and if I hit 1,000 cals a day I'm doing good ;) :rolleyes:

When I was extremely fat I ate like 1200-1500 (on a VERY HUNGRY day) a day and stayed the same weight...

zajack

Tue, Sep-20-05, 13:06

Nancy LC

Tue, Sep-20-05, 13:36

There's another thought, one I still think is significant, is that insulin wreaks havoc. Both low carbers and CRONites would be doing that.

It is interesting!

ButterflyA

Tue, Sep-20-05, 14:51

There's another thought, one I still think is significant, is that insulin wreaks havoc. Both low carbers and CRONites would be doing that.

It is interesting!

I know it does on me… I have serious sugar/insulin issues. If I have anything “normal” that’s sweet, I instantly get clammy, sweaty, light-headed, my heart starts beating fast, and I usually end up in the bathroom all night. From like a bite of peach, seriously.
This is why LC works for me- I stay away from sugar and I lose weight and feel wonderful. When I eat even a spoonful of frosting or whatever, my body goes NUTS.

Took me a long time to realize I have some severe sugar issues, and I still have a tendency to want to eat sugary stuff even knowing what it does to me. I’m a work in progress, I guess ;)

emmy207

Wed, Sep-21-05, 05:06

ItsTheWooo

Wed, Sep-21-05, 19:14

Just as a note...

There have been numerous observances within the scientific community regarding Low carb diets and why they work. One of the reasons frequently discussed is that, while eating low-carb, people experience a significant reduction in appetite, which in turn results in eating less throughout the course of any day. It's believed that the LC woe works not just because of its fat-burning strategy, but also because of the reduced calories people consume while following it. So...low-carbers...for the most part...are reducing calorie intake whether they realize it or not. Basically losing fat by inadvertantly incorporating two weight loss strategies. Kinda interesting.

That's true, and I suspect spontaneous appetite reduction (due to better metabolic functioning, from having better control over blood sugar) is the reason LC helps a lot of people lose so well without counting calories.

However there is a certain element among the LC circles that claims to be eating thousands of calories a day and not gain. True, these people are few and far between, but I've heard one lady claim with her average lifestyle, to be maintaining a healthy weight on over 3000 cals. Several guys have reported maintaining, with average activities, on similarly very high amounts of cals.

There are also those who were eating much less than they do now yet not losing. Now they aren't eating a lot of cals (like the former group), but before they were eating even less and not losing weight because their insulin and blood sugar was so screwy.

There's more going on here than calories. Personally I think it's all an insulin thing. The aging hormones plummet when you abstain from sugar. A lot of CR people are doing themselves a disservice by doing "moderate" or even "high" carb (low cal) diets. A CR individual should be LC by default, and only once eating very LC should they then consider reducing calories to make themselves live longer. The most effective way to get insulin under control is to keep carbs real low. Reducing calories also helps, but not as much as reducing carbs. Also the way insulin is lowered through extreme CR, is often less desirable than with carb control (because restricting cals, even when being VERY careful of diet, is going to result in some unplesant symptoms like tissue emaciation & tiredness, and that is an undesirable outcome).

Nancy LC

Wed, Sep-21-05, 20:57

I'd love to see what Whoa's diet is like.

Whoa182

Thu, Sep-22-05, 07:26

ok, I'll post on here after I get back from college tonight.

Whoa182

Wed, Dec-28-05, 14:37

my diet includes foods like

Breakfast

Porridge (oats)
Strawberries
Blueberries
Whey protein powder
Essnetial mix Vit/min (total 36)
Banana (rarely)
Almonds
Brazil Nut

Snack

Apples?
Low fat Yogurt

Dinner is usually some of these

Broccoli (upto 300-400g a day!)
Brussel Sprouts
Sweet potato or Carrots
Green beans
CauliFlower
Olive Oil
balsamic Vinegar
Various herbs
Fish or chicken
sweetcorn
garlic

salad later on in the evening

Spinach
Red cabbage
Tomatoes
Olive Oil
Balsamic vinegar
salsa
herbs
garlic
lettuce
red onion
Protein source? sometimes I split the chicken 50g/50g for salad and dinner or fish.

Flax Oil
Eggwhites
Whey protein drink after running or weights

Somtimes I have a bit of dark chocolate which keeps me sane! lol shame about the saturated fat content. I've probably missed quite a fair bit of food here but you get the idea... I always record everything I eat too, i have to log it into pc and it calculates nutrients and calories. my Carb,Fat,Protein ratio is 45:30:25

heres my latest blood results.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/BloodtestPage1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/Bloodtestpage23.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/Bloodtestpage4.jpg

Matt

Nancy LC

Wed, Dec-28-05, 15:21

That was the longest night I ever spent! :)

Whoa182

Wed, Dec-28-05, 17:30

lol... I'm not sure if I have converted these right, anyone know?

B]Serum Lipids:[/B]

Total cholesterol - 3.1 mmol/L --------- 120mg/dl
Triglycerides - 0.4 ---------------- 35mg/dl
HDL cholesterol - 1.20 --------------- 46mg/dl
LDL cholesterol - 1.7 ---------------- 65mg/dl
HDL : total cholesterol ratio : 39%
Total cholesterol: HDL Ratio - 2.6:1

Lisa N

Wed, Dec-28-05, 17:38

The fractions themselves add up to about 118 but the lab probably rounded up. I should point out, though, that a total below 160 is really not desireable any more than a total over 200 is. Both high and low cholesterol levels are thought to have problems of their own; with low cholesterol there is often an increased incidence of anxiety, agressive behavior, depression and suicide, especially in men.
I should also point out that as a 5' 7" tall male, 110 pounds is way too thin.

Whoa182

Wed, Dec-28-05, 17:52

Im definitly not aggresive, I don't have depression, I definitly am not considering suicide ( I want to make it past 120! lol ). I'm much more calm than I ever have been in my life, im able to concentrate and learn more easily, my memory has also improved.

The results I have are typical of animals that do CR and life upto 40% longer (equiv of 150+ humans years I think) Now I don't think i'll live that long but Calorie Restriction is the only method known to extend average and maximum life span.

Yeah I hate being thin, I've increased my calorie intake to gain another 5lb's.

I would like to live forever but that isnt likely, I definitly wont commit suicide ! :0 plus there are plenty of people that have done CR for upto 15 years and feel great.

I have a bit of knowledge on how and what foods influence behaviour, aswell as some supplements...

One thing you are correct about is anxiety, but i've always had it since I was a kid, I usually get control of it quickly

joanie

Wed, Dec-28-05, 23:22

Very interesting thread! I read about CRON quite awhile ago, and through my doctoral studies, we've talked about calorie reduction and longevity in lab animals. I do believe that being thinner is better, provided that the person is optimizing all caloric intake. This, of course, does NOT mean eating plain salads all day. But CRON doesn't seem to be that at all. Followed properly, it's a fairly gentle calorie restriction. A diet, if you will. The main difference is that CRON followers don't do this to lose weight. And they don't stop doing it when they get to a "goal" weight. It's a way of life for them, just like LC is for many people on these forums.

I've sort of done CRON on my own over the past year. I eat "clean" now -- not all the time, mind you! -- but most of the time. It works quite well for weight loss and physical well-being. When we eat whole, good foods, we lose weight. Most of didn't get fat by eating veggies, fruits, cheeses, low-fat dairy, and lean meats. I do eat nuts and essential oils, but I moderate my consumption in this area. In general, I don't eat a lot of breads and refined carbs, but I don't strictly count my carb grams. It's not necessary when I follow this program.

I guess the proof is in the pudding -- I've lost 150 pounds in the past 1.5 years. Things are going well. I'm not at goal yet -- I'm 5'5" and should be a little thinner, I think, but I'm close. We'll see if I'm able to go all the way down!!

LC_Dave

Thu, Dec-29-05, 10:10

Some things that bother me with this calorie restriction.

I have done something similar - Weight Watchers points - lost 30 kilos (Welcome to the metric system people!)
I was starving all the time, with constant blood sugar problems. I felt terrible! I couldn't sustain it.

I wonder if these people are really eating 'consistently' day in day out without cheating! I know it's a lot easier to stay on low carb without cheating than it is Calorie Restriction (for me).

Who wants to prolong their life past their 80's ? Have you seen people higher 80's plus ??? Geese, it's not like they are living life to the max - they have a lot of health issues, they have mobility issues. They are concerned of having a fall or an injury because their body takes a lot to heal.

Living to be in your 90's ? Gah! Not for me!!!
My Grandfather died in his mid eighties. His father died in early 50's and his father's father died at age 51.

Mid 80's will suit me just fine! I'm turning 30 in January - come back to me in 55 years and ask me again! ;)

joanie

Thu, Dec-29-05, 11:17

Sorry, Dave, but yes! I do want to live into my 90s and beyond, if I can do so healthfully. I had a grandfather who lived well into his 90s, and he had a happy life. I had another grandfather, who smoked and developed COPD who managed to live into his 80s, but the last 15 years of his life were horrible...chronic pain and shortness of breath. So it's all about living well. If you can avoid the fat-person trifecta of high blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and type 2 diabetes, you'll be going a long way to living longer AND better. And then you can go even further...warding off osteoporosis with weight-bearing exercise, keeping active so that the heart stays healthy, and so on. Genetics does play a role, obviously, and everyone knows at least one person who lived long and well despite bad health habits. but I think for the vast majority, being on the thin side (how many really fat old people do you routinely see?), not smoking, staying active (both mentally and physically) and living well results in optimal life span and life satisfaction. I know my life is much more active now that I am at a good weight. I don't tire easily, I don't get winded if I go up stairs, I can fit in airplane seats easily, I can shop all day (and it's FUN now!), and if someone asks me to do something that requires physical activity, I don't worry whether I can handle it or not. I don't get overheated in the summer -- in fact, I love to be out in the warm air now -- heck, pretty much everything is better now that I'm thin. Don't know if I'll live longer, but I sure as hell will live BETTER. And that's a critical part of the puzzle.

Whoa182

Thu, Dec-29-05, 13:29

Some things that bother me with this calorie restriction.

[QUOTE]I was starving all the time, with constant blood sugar problems. I felt terrible! I couldn't sustain it.

Maybe you chose the wrong foods? I don't know. The majority of my carbs are Complex Carbohydrates and these keep me going for hours. I don't have all these ups and downs and Im functioning better mentally now than I did when I was going through high school living on junk. I'm being really honest now, I've never experienced any hunger that was bad, because of the QUANTITY of food that I eat it fills me up for hours. I eat more food than I ever have done, it's just mostly Low Calories but high in nutrition

I wonder if these people are really eating 'consistently' day in day out without cheating! I know it's a lot easier to stay on low carb without cheating than it is Calorie Restriction (for me).

We don't really look at it that way doing CR, it's just about calories, If I over eat one day then I'll reduce my calories the next so it always averages out the same at the end of the week. I occasionally have dark chocolate and it doesn't put my off the diet or 'CR', it just means my nutrition may not be as good today. A lot of time I find myself trying to make up for how many calories I am short rather than how many over I've gone.

Who wants to prolong their life past their 80's ? Have you seen people higher 80's plus ??? Geese, it's not like they are living life to the max - they have a lot of health issues, they have mobility issues. They are concerned of having a fall or an injury because their body takes a lot to heal.

One of the good things about CR and it's been shown with every animal tested, is that the CR group stay very active, majority disease free, right up untill their last days then they just keel over and die. They look more youthful, they show less ageing and are protected from many diseases that usually come with old age. You will never extend your life if you are frail because you would be vunrable. If you look at the Island of okinawa you see that there are people around 90, 100 + fishing! Not with a rod but diving in the water - you can see him here! he was on the news:

http://demand1.stream.aol.com/ramgen/cnn/aolbb/world/2005/11/17/shubert.live.long.okinawa.affl_rv8.rm

He looks more youthful and active than most people in their 50's ! lol... Most of these people in okinawa are NOT genetically lucky people. They take care of themselves, they restrict their calories but have quite good nutrition, could be better...

Living to be in your 90's ? Gah! Not for me!!!
My Grandfather died in his mid eighties. His father died in early 50's and his father's father died at age 51.

please check out that news clip above :thup:

Mid 80's will suit me just fine! I'm turning 30 in January - come back to me in 55 years and ask me again! ;)

By then we could have probably discovered ways to extend life by tweaking metabolism or something. Maybe even using an engineering approach to reversing ageing.

Lisa N

Thu, Dec-29-05, 15:27

So it's all about living well. If you can avoid the fat-person trifecta of high blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and type 2 diabetes, you'll be going a long way to living longer AND better. And then you can go even further...warding off osteoporosis with weight-bearing exercise, keeping active so that the heart stays healthy, and so on. Genetics does play a role, obviously, and everyone knows at least one person who lived long and well despite bad health habits. but I think for the vast majority, being on the thin side (how many really fat old people do you routinely see?), not smoking, staying active (both mentally and physically) and living well results in optimal life span and life satisfaction.

I wouldn't put a great deal of money on calorie restriction and living a longer life as a thin person if I were a betting woman. Why? Real life examples. My maternal grandfather lived well into his 80's, was thin, ate well but not a lot and was active until his first stroke at 86. Because he was thin and healthy and never believed in doctors, he never realized he had extremely high blood pressure until he had a hemorrhagic stroke (seven of them, actually) and it killed him. My Maternal grandmother lived to be 93; also, thin and reasonably active, not a big eater but like her husband ate healthy foods and lots of produce from their own garden. She became senile the last few years of her life and had severe osteoporosis. She died of congestive heart failure.
Now my dad. He's currently 93. He's 5' 10" tall and has never weighed more than 145 pounds in his entire adult life; he currently weighs 135. He's also been active all his life and walked regularly until just a few years ago when his health began to deteriorate. He's had a heart attack, he's lost his hearing and a good portion of his sight in both eyes. He has diverticulosis, a hiatal hernia and mild hypertension and has such a low amount of strength now that he needs a wheelchair to get around the house without falling (no appetite, no strength).
So...based on the three examples I have in my own experience, I don't see a great deal of advantage in living to an old age as a thin person as far as health goes.
IIRC, statistics show that people are generally healthier and live longer when they are average to slightly above average in weight than they do when they are below average weight.

Nancy LC

Thu, Dec-29-05, 15:38

There's definitely a difference betwee n being "thin" and being CR. From what I can see of Whoa's diet he is eating pretty low carb, avoiding grains and dairy. Those are 3 things just "thin" people don't necessarily do. Add on top of that whatever metabolic changes happen to CR people and you've probably got a recipe for a much healthier, longer, less aged life.

My Mom is thin too at age 86, but she's thin because of a side-effect of COPD. She's also going downhill very fast right now. Failing vision, glaucoma, corneal damage, maybe a bit of senility, osteoperosis (probably due to gluten intolerance), and blood sugar issues. She doesn't want to change her diet even though she now knows, thanks to a DNA test I had, that she probably shouldn't eat wheat.

Whoa182

Thu, Dec-29-05, 15:53

I cannot look into why your family experienced strokes etc.. but being thin doesn't make you less vunrable to problems in old age. Calorie Restriction isn't really about being thin at all, it's about lowering energy intake. Meaning If I were to eat 2200 k/cal a day and burn off 700 k/cal , I would not gain the same benifits as a person eating 1500k/cal . Changes in the body of humans show exactly what the animals show, also remember that CR improves the health and extends life almost universally, even monkeys are showing amazing benifits on CR. Preliminary data shows that the human body and mind is also changing due to CR.

statistics show that people are generally healthier and live longer when they are average to slightly above average in weight than they do when they are below average weight

There are many reasons for this, you have to factor in things like Undiagnosed cancers, Smoking, Poor diet, Medications, Deficiencies, and various diseases. The western world is *sick* and it's getting worse.

I can't absaloutly say that CR will extend maximum life span but I think it's the best way we know how today.

Please read this article below, my friends participated in the study:

http://mednews.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/851.html

Calorie restriction drastically reduces risk of heart attack, stroke and diabetes

April 20, 2004 — People who severely restrict their caloric intake drastically reduce their risk of developing diabetes or clogged arteries, the precursor to a heart attack or stroke. In fact, according to researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, some risk factors were so low they were comparable to those of people decades younger.

"It's very clear from these findings that calorie restriction has a powerful, protective effect against diseases associated with aging," Holloszy says. "We don't know how long each individual actually will end up living, but they certainly have a much longer life expectancy than average because they're most likely not going to die from a heart attack, stroke or diabetes."

Research on mice and rats has shown that stringent and consistent calorie restriction increases the animals' maximum lifespan by about 30 percent and protects them against cancer. This study is the first to examine individuals who have been on calorie restriction diets for a long period of time.

The researchers recruited participants through a national organization called the Caloric Restriction Optimal Nutrition Society. By eating small amounts of nutrient-dense foods, members of this group try to consume between 10 and 25 percent fewer calories than the average American while still attempting to maintain proper nutrition. The 18 individuals who participated in the study had voluntarily been following this very low-calorie diet for three to 15 years. This group was compared with 18 age- and gender-matched individuals who ate a typical Western diet.

Holloszy's team found the two groups not only differed in the number of calories consumed, but also in the composition of their diets. Individuals in the calorie restriction group ate between about 1,100 and 1,950 calories per day depending on height, weight and gender, and these calories consisted of about 26 percent protein, 28 percent fat and 46 percent complex carbohydrates. In contrast, the comparison group consumed between about 1,975 and 3,550 calories per day, with only 18 percent of their calories from protein, 32 percent from fat and 50 percent from carbohydrates, including refined, processed starches.

Atherosclerosis — clogged arteries that can lead to a heart attack or stroke — already is the leading cause of death in the Western world, and the problem is continuing to grow. So Holloszy's team specifically focused on the risk factors for this condition. They measured multiple indications of early or impending atherosclerosis, including blood pressure and levels of several biological markers in the blood, including cholesterol and triglycerides. They also measured the levels of glucose and insulin in the blood to gauge diabetes risk, another major health concern in the American population.

People in the calorie restriction group had total and low-density lipoprotein — known as LDL or "bad" cholesterol — levels comparable to the lowest 10 percent of the population in their respective age groups. Their high-density lipoprotein — known as HDL or "good" cholesterol — levels were in the 85 to 90 percentile for middle-aged men. That finding was a surprise because HDL levels typically decrease when individuals follow low-fat diets to lose weight.

Triglyceride levels — which, when elevated, can lead to atherosclerosis — were even more impressive in the calorie restriction group: They were lower than more than 95 percent of Americans in their twenties, despite the fact that the study participants' ages ranged from 35 to 82.

In contrast, cholesterol and triglyceride levels in the comparison group were in the 50th percentile for average middle-aged Americans. Moreover, 12 of the individuals in the calorie restriction group provided medical records from before and during the diet. Their cholesterol and triglyceride scores also were close to the 50th percentile for middle-aged Americans before the diet, and levels fell the most dramatically during their first year of calorie restriction.

Blood pressure scores in the restricted group also were equivalent to those of much younger individuals. The average blood pressure in the normal diet group was about 130/80, which is standard for the typical American. In comparison, the calorie restriction group's average was about 100/60, akin to the blood pressure of an average 10-year-old.

Fasting glucose and insulin — both markers of the risk of developing diabetes — also were significantly lower in the calorie restriction group, with insulin concentrations as much as 65 percent lower.

All other risk factors measured also were significantly better in the calorie restriction group. They included body mass index, body fat mass, C-reactive protein and the thickness of the carotid artery, the main blood vessel that runs from the heart to the brain.

"These effects are all pretty dramatic," Fontana says. "For the first time, we've shown that calorie restriction is feasible and has a tremendous affect on the risk for atherosclerosis and diabetes."

The team currently is conducting a controlled, prospective study comparing calorie restriction to the average American diet. They ultimately hope to follow these individuals for a longer period of time to assess the long-term effects of calorie restriction on biological markers of aging.

Rosebud

Thu, Dec-29-05, 15:59

Whoa182

Thu, Dec-29-05, 16:01

If anyone is interested in looking at some videos check these out:

Video on the left is from Discovery Canada on CR:

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&p=calorie+restriction

another one here from CBS : http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/08/eveningnews/main514443.shtml - Video on the right

heres another one, he been practising it for quite a long time now:

http://www.cbc.ca/clips/ram-lo/reith_caloric0405131.ram

or

http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/reith_caloric0405131.mov

Matt

Whoa182

Thu, Dec-29-05, 16:02

But we already know from much research that low carbing drastically reduces risk of heart attack, stroke and diabetes.
And please remember that other research (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=264210&highlight=calorie+restriction) found no benefits to humans by restricting calories. :exclm:

Why starve yourself when you can have the same, or better, health benefits from eating a healthy, tasty low carb diet? :confused:

Rosebud:rose:

the mathematical model? That really doesn't prove anything. Infact, what a waste of resources. While there is zero evidence to my knowledge that LOW CARB extends maximum life span. It has been tried already. No doubt it has benifits though!

Do you have to be skinny to get benifits from CR!?

NO!

Genetically "fat" mice on a calorie-restricted diet are as big as some other fully fed mice - but they live 50% longer when calories are reduced. It's got nothing to do with weight at all. Whats also interesting is that the mice that are on CR end up consuming the same amount of calories during their more extended life span as the controls did when they were alive.

Rosebud

Thu, Dec-29-05, 16:21

Whoa182

Thu, Dec-29-05, 17:00

I don't understand why you cannot be convinced, it's like you don't want to be... which is your choice I guess. CR has around 70 years of data to back it up, all animals show the same changes and so do humans.

I don't have a boring life, I love life and look forward to the future and seeing it, thats why I do CR.

- All my allergies have gone into remission

- My IBS have gone

- People doing CR don't really get ill anymore with colds, flu and other infections (if we do get a cold it only lasts a couple of hours) All my close family been ill, my friends, teachers, students in my class and I never get affected anymore, before I used to be the first one ill! lol

- My ability to learn has improved, aswell as memory.

- I feel more alert

- I have more energy

- Don't get stressed out easily and am usually calm

- I feel great and my blood results are Excellent

Bottom line, doing calorie restriction is EXTREMELY EASY and my motivation is to live longer which keeps my on track. Infact I don't think i'd ever go back to eating junk ever again. You should see the qauntity of the food I eat, my Dinners is HUUGEE.

I want QUALITY and QUANTITY of life. Right now being healthy is what quality of life is about. CR has not stopped me from enjoying life, I love life even more now.

It's hard to get across how easy I find it :mad: It's definitly not what the news reporters say, life has improved so much I don't know how I could not do it. Maybe some people here didn't do it correctly :S ?

Having a lot of protein helps, I generally get atleast 80g protein a day, usually around 100g. Fat makes up 30% of my total calories and the complex carbs keep me going.

Very easy stuff :)

TheCaveman

Thu, Dec-29-05, 17:30

Besides the calorie restriction part, you're not saying ANYTHING we haven't heard before from countless low-carbers here and elsewhere. What's so different?

I must have snapped while reading this thread since I'm going to respond to it. And here's the burning question that no CRONfolk have ever been able to answer.

What is the genetic advantage to humans if we live a third longer than we do now?

kyrasdad

Thu, Dec-29-05, 17:36

I always wince when I see someone say "it's like you don't want to be convinced". It speaks of an inability to see things from another point of view. I am intrigued by the CR lifestyle. The research for and against it is far from conclusive, but if you like it, all the better. It certainly doesn't seem to be doing you any harm, but it may not be doing the good you think it is.

I can list a near-identical set of benefits I've had from low carbing, plus having lost nearly 100 pounds. I don't think you can draw a thing from CR that I haven't from LC. In fact, although you say it has little to do with being skinny, you're very thin. It almost surely has to reduce muscle mass to eat so few calories, once it has gone through your fat stores.

Your improvements are great, but they are nothing that many thousands of people here also have -- and we aren't losing muscle mass like you appear to have lost.

It's impossible to say whether or not you'll really live longer due to this at this point, and there isn't enough information either direction to say any of us will.

In short, you can't convince us not because we are stubborn. You can't convince us because your information isn't very persuasive.

Nancy LC

Thu, Dec-29-05, 17:42

What is the genetic advantage to humans if we live a third longer than we do now?
I don't always do what is genetically advantageous to humans. If I did, I probably should have reproduced, but I didn't. But I would suspect that if one started on CR early enough, and it really worked, one's reproductive years might be extended.

nawchem

Thu, Dec-29-05, 17:42

I can't afford to live past my 70s, my money will be gone.

Nancy LC

Thu, Dec-29-05, 17:43

You'd just have to stay working, Nancy. :p Which you would, hopefully, be able to do since you'd have the health and vigor of a much younger person.

Although that idea of working for a lot more years isn't real attractive to me...

TheCaveman

Thu, Dec-29-05, 18:01

But I would suspect that if one started on CR early enough, and it really worked, one's reproductive years might be extended.

Reproductive years, perhaps. No evidence for this yet, unfortunately.

The evidence we DO have is that calorie restriction has a clear, negative effect on fertility in all plants and in all animals.

zajack

Thu, Dec-29-05, 18:09

Ok...I've been doing a bit of research (like requested) and CR doesnt seem that drastically different from low-carb (different yes...but not any kind of bizarre new spectrum.) The two biggest differences I saw were CR being low-fat and simply more focused on calorie intake. Both of those considerations are incorporated into many lc diets to facilitate losses.

What I also found however, is that the goal of CR seems to be to eat at a caloric level that will maintain the lowest healthy weight for any given individual by eating minimal calories required for maintenance with maximum nutrition. In other words...from what i've found...once you've hit that low end of the spectrum, you should be adjusting your caloric intake to maintain. It doesnt seem that losses should continue if you're doing it right. Were I to follow it...my goal weight should be somewhere around 117-125 (depending on the chart referenced) for my height....which is low but not scary-low. (It is, however, lower than I care to be) It didnt seem to be about eating below caloric bodily requirements, although many people following CRON appear to do just that.

So while it's not for me...it doesnt seem like a scary concept if followed correctly. I wouldnt, however, consider Whoa a good example of how to do it correctly based on what I've read and on his current weight (~no offense meant Whoa....you said you're trying to gain a bit and I'm sure there's a learning curve.) Admittedly, I havent read any books...I've only done online research....so take my current opinions with a grain of salt. I may pick up "the Longevity diet" just out of curiousity and to expand my horizons....not out of any desire to change plans because I love my WOE. :yum:

joanie

Thu, Dec-29-05, 22:21

[this response was to Lisa's note a couple pages back...I didn't realize that there were a lot of other entries in between her response and mine -- sorry for any confusion! I still stand firmly by what I've said here...]

Ah, but you see, I mentioned the importance of preventing osteoporosis, and avoiding HTN, etc. If you avoid doctors, you really aren't taking good care of your health, in my opinion. And if you are thin because all you consume is black coffee and cigarettes, you probably aren't going to live as long as someone who takes care of their health, but is slightly overweight. The reason they call HTN "the silent killer" is because it usually has few or no symptoms. Osteoporosis is another condition that has a very insidious onset; people should be getting at least a DEXA scan as they enter in menopausal years (for men, you should start a little later -- they are less prone to osteoporosis until age 65 or so, if I'm not mistaken). Unfortunately, basic labwork and tests aren't always done, and these conditions progress unchecked. Being thin AND healthy is the best solution, in my opinion, but being slightly overweight (BMI of 26 or 27, for example) probably isn't a problem if the aforementioned conditions are under control. It is well known that HTN, DM, and dyslipidemia, left untreated, reduce lifespan. And it is also well known that those with metabolic syndrome, which is characterized by abdominal obesity (waist measurement of 35" or more in women, 40" or more in men), HTN, Type 2 DM, and dyslipidemia, are much more likely to be overweight. I worked in a DM clinic earlier this year, and virtually every type 2 DM pt I saw was overweight, or had been overweight when they developed the condition. You can usually tell someone with metabolic syndrome at sight after awhile; the labwork merely affirms the diagnosis. And, these same people were often able to control their DM and HTN through diet and exercise. The actual diet was less important than the fact that they lost weight. Weight loss was actually more effective than using oral medications or insulin!

While I have no intention of becoming clinically underweight (I'd have to be <110 pounds, which is unlikely!) I do plan to go down to at least my ideal body weight (125) and maybe slightly lower, if I can handle it. But I will also get regular blood work, check my BP regularly, get regular weight-bearing exercise, have a DEXA scan in the next 5 years (I'm 44), and eat nutritious foods. Being thin isn't worth anything if you aren't simultaneously taking care of your overall health. The bottom line is living healthfully in ALL ways, as I've stated before.

ItsTheWooo

Thu, Dec-29-05, 23:07

Hi Whoa
Can I ask you some questions about yourself, your diet and your lifestyle?

1) What is your average caloric intake? Even though I am not an official CR, I have been eating a CR diet for weight control for 3 years now and likely will have to for the rest of my life. My maintenance calories are significantly below what the average person eats (since the average person is overweight and eats a high calorie diet). I was wondering how low you have to go before you can consider yourself eating CR.

2) You listed a lot of ways you feel better; has CR caused any side effects?

Back when my diet was more calorie restricted I experienced numerous side effects.
My heart rate was "slow/sluggish", I often would not be able to breathe well when laying down and I got palpitations whenever heart rate would change up fast. I imagine it was an adaptation to consistent low energy intake, from what I've read and the fact it has since went away now that I eat a lot more.
I experienced hypotension; often got dizzy when standing up (NEVER happens now).
Was chronically tired, like physical movement was an effort.
Psychologically I became very depressed and "obsessive compulsive". Other symptoms I experienced was very dry skin/hair loss, poor quality nails, worse fertility (I became amenorrhetic and my libido was non-existent).
I was cold *all the time*.
Sitting hurt because of thinness.
My joints often hurt too.
Even though I wasn't extremely hungry, I was obsessed with food and very paranoid about it... like I would be obsessively controlling with what I ate and have to portion everything exactly stuff like that.

When I experienced these symptoms I was eating about 1100ish cals per day average and I was a low weight (so that intake was not like a sudden drop for a big person). I ate healthy food specifically, my eating was very structured. So I don't know; to me CR seems less healthy than eating more but making sure what you eat is healthy (low carb). Why do you think I might have had such an unfavorable experience, and, do you think an unfavorable experience is common?

3) Is intermittent bouts of generous eating followed by fasting/semi fasting an appropriate way to CRON? I notice you said if you over eat you restrict more later; does it really not matter how concentrated your cals are just as long as they absolutely stay low over a continuum of time?

4) I imagine the reason CR "works" is because metabolism produces toxic byproducts that cause aging, correct? Under eating and living in a metabolically suppressed state would then increase lifespan, like keeping a car in the garage most of the time instead of driving it every day in snow storms (SAD) or even a sunny days (a lower carb healthy but high calorie diet).
So then do CR people also tend to avoid physical activity and exercise? I imagine that if the goal is to decrease metabolism & metabolic activity that all exercises and physical activity would be counterproductive to goal of keeping metabolism low.

If so, do you think this is a reason that athletes and runners tend to have such short life spans? It seems every other day you are hearing about such fit people keeling over in their 50s. Exercising so much = lotta energy = lotta eating = lower lifespan?

Those are a few questions I've had, I appreciate your presence on our forum and taking the time to educate us on CRON.

ItsTheWooo

Thu, Dec-29-05, 23:13

Speaking personally I think restricting calories is an important part of being healthy. As lovely as it would be that only carbs caused metabolic problems and poor health, in truth calories are an additional factor that cause many of the same problems carbohydrate does. I would think someone who eats an extremely high calorie low carb diet is not going to be as healthy as someone who eats a lower calorie higher carb diet. Of course both are better than SAD (high carb and high cal) but my point is both carbs and energy affect metabolism in similar, negative ways.

I just am not sure that eating an extremely calorie restricted diet is the way to go about things. Less is not always more. Probably, all that's necessary is restricting calories to obtain a low but normal weight (assuming otherwise good health e.g. no untreated metabolic problems that might cause weight loss resistance). Emaciating yourself and eating very low calorie relative to metabolic need is probably counterproductive, as this would induce a stress state that would not be good for health physically or psychologically.

ItsTheWooo

Thu, Dec-29-05, 23:22

Well, if you want to live a long boring life by restricting calories, go for it. :rolleyes:

But I doubt you will ever convince us (members of this low carb BB) that our healthy, low carb, proven-to-prevent-and-treat-many-health-problems way of eating is inferior to just plain starving yourself.
You might also remember that, as LC Dave pointed out, many of us have tried low calorie diets as part of our attempts to lose weight, and wound up gaining weight as well as gaining health problems. :exclm:

Rosebud:rose:

Rosebud,
First I would like to point out that LC is not mutually exclusive with CR; in fact the majority of successful LC maintainers on our forum are also CR. So it is not appropriate for you to act like LC and CR are at odds when in fact they often segue together (CR people probably LC to increase nutrient density and decrease hunger.... those who start out LC are likely to eventually CR to improve health and/or weight status).

Doing weight watchers (or grapefruit diet, etc etc) is not doing CRON. Not that I support either weight watchers or CRON, just pointing out that restricting calories does not necessarily mean you were CRONing. The last 2 letters stand for optimal nutrition. If your weight watchers councilor was misinformed and told you that rice cakes and potatoes and pasta and puffed wheat were optimal nutrition, she was mistaken (and it may have contributed to your unfavorable experience with CR). CRing eating lots of high sugar/calorie but low nutrient (fat, protein, minerals & vitamins) food is going to be miserable for sure.

ItsTheWooo

Thu, Dec-29-05, 23:34

What is the genetic advantage to humans if we live a third longer than we do now?

Like Lisa said, even if we DO assume there is no collective benefit to living longer (there is), it is in our personal best interest to live a longer life. We're here to be happy, ultimately, right? As long as my personal happiness does not impede what's best for us collectively, how is persuing it a wrong or wasteful goal?

You might say it's pointless narcissistic vanity but then again so are a lot of things. I would compare it to working out at the gym or weight loss dieting. You might say those things are not comparable because they improve reproductive status which is good for the collective, but then again is it not true that CRONing while of reproductive age could provide incentive to push harder DURING the "years that count" (because you see your life as more meaningful now that you perceive you have control over lifespan)?

Also, CRONers are likely to increase productivity. People who CR are likely to be among the higher echelons of humanity, since it takes both education and a high capacity to plan, self control, comittment & dedication to CRON for an appreciable amount of time. It would benefit us as a species to have our better members around longer, to create & produce more.

ItsTheWooo

Thu, Dec-29-05, 23:56

One thing I think is interesting is a lot of people seem to be saying "Why CR, just LC" as if the two were mutually exclusive diametrically opposed positions.

As I said earlier in the thread, LC often induces or provides a gateway for CR. In fact, the LC lifestyle itself is more often than not also a CR lifestyle, and virtually every member of this thread is practicing some form of CR by beginning their LC diet even if they never counted a calorie. Very very few people who start the LC lifestyle eat more calories than before, most of us eat less on LC and lose weight.

I think the real point of contention here is about the way the message is presented. The real issue is deprivation, and whether or not you perceive yourself as eating plentifully. LC says "eat eat eat" all you want of these few foods; and CR says "go ahead... if you wanna die early" :lol: . At the end of the day the LC group might be eating less calls than the person specifically CRing, ironically enough.
It's in the packaging of the message, how it's presented. I watched this thing on public television last night, about marketing. This guy came on and talked about how he got the estate tax removed, simply by convincing his rich buddies to rename it the death tax. He explained that when it was called the estate tax NO ONE wanted to get rid of it because it was associated with wealth (lets tax those rich bastards with estates!). However, once it was called the DEATH tax, suddenly everyone was overwhelmingly in favor of getting rid of this horrible thing.

I think we've got a similar thing going on in this thread. "Low carbohydrate high fat diets" conjure images of stuffing yourself with macadamia nuts, steaks, avocados, eating allll you want. "Calorie restriction" conjures images of a tiny plate with 3 leaves and someone very very hungry. In reality we're probably eating similar amounts, and our satiety levels (if CRON is done appropriately) are likely similar.

Another issue is how appropriate it is to credit the carbohydrate restriction specifically for our improvement in health. We've already established LC diets are also CR diets (MOST of the time). Sure many of the benefits are from reducing carbs... but maybe some are just from eating lower calorie? I know when I was eating much lower calorie my blood lipids were fantastic; in fact from personal observation I've noticed LCers who seem to be the healthiest lab test wise are usually the ones who are eating pretty low cal diets.
How can we tell which of our personal health benefits are from calorie restriction, and which are from carbohydrate restriction?
A related point, maybe calorie restriction is the reason those of us who get thin become so healthy... it's not so much a weight thing but a food intake thing? Thin people who are naturally thin (e.g. eating lots) aren't as healthy as those of us "unnaturally" thin (e.g. eating controlled amounts of less food).

Whoa182

Fri, Dec-30-05, 02:20

Thats quite a bit to respond to, i'll make sure that I definitly post after I have some sleep! :) Thanks for contributing to the discussion! whatever view you have :thup:

joanie

Fri, Dec-30-05, 10:41

Whoa, I'm curious to know what weight range you'd consider optimal for your height, age, activity level, etc. As you will see from my previous posts, I am not questioning your desire to follow the CRON program -- in fact, I admire your discipline and feel strongly that if one stays healthy, and is on the thin side of normal, it can increase longevity AND quality of life. (gory details in my previous posts)

But I know you've mentioned thinking you need to put back on a little weight (and I'd agree with this) so I wonder how someone following CRON does this. Do you strive for a certain BMI? Ideal body weight? These are, of course, simply medical calculations, and are used more for dosing purposes and calculating renal function, etc. But they are a good point of departure, I think. I know that I am using my IBW (which is 125) as a goal, and then I'll reassess when I get there.

One of the biggest challenges for anyone following a weight loss program is what to do when you get to your goal weight. "Maintenance" programs are tricky for me. It usually involves opening Pandora's box just slightly, and that's a tough proposition, whether it means adding more carbs (for those following a LC regimen) or adding more calories, or what have you. Sometimes strict programs are easier, at least in the short term. I do wonder what CRONers do at the point that they determine they are too thin, and either don't want to lose anymore, or actively want to put weight back on. Let me know what you think. Thanks much!

Nancy LC

Fri, Dec-30-05, 11:11

Another issue is how appropriate it is to credit the carbohydrate restriction specifically for our improvement in health. We've already established LC diets are also CR diets (MOST of the time).

I think we low-carbers are hoping this is the real mojo behind CRON. My suspicion is it is a lot of the mojo, but not entirely.

Lisa N

Fri, Dec-30-05, 17:32

This group was compared with 18 age- and gender-matched individuals who ate a typical Western diet.

This is called 'stacking the deck'. If you want your plan to look fabulous, compare it against the worst possible diet known. Whoa...anything would look good compared against the standard American diet.
OTOH, I'd really like to see how it stacks up against a low carb plan. I'd be willing to bet that the differences would be very slim, if any.

if you are thin because all you consume is black coffee and cigarettes, you probably aren't going to live as long as someone who takes care of their health, but is slightly overweight.

Of the 3 people I spoke of, none were smokers and one IS a doctor. ;) All were healthy by any standards their whole lives and ate a diet that is far from what we see now...home grown produce, no junk food other than the occasional home baked cookie and plenty of exercise. They all lived to be older than average, but the quality of life once past that average lifespan diminished quicky. Sorry, Joan...I remain unconvinced that CR or living at the lower end of normal weight range is going to confer any particular protection to me against diseases of aging in my old age based on what I have observed. If you get the best of health care in combination with CR, then how do you determine which helped you live longer? ;)

joanie

Fri, Dec-30-05, 17:46

Then we'll agree to disagree, Lisa. I too have done a lot of observing, both in my own universe and in my clinical work, and I am very confident that chronic conditions such as osteoarthritis, HTN, dyslipidemia, heart disease, and type 2 DM are all worsened by being overweight. While I don't plan to become underweight (as per my earlier entries, I'd have to be <110 pounds for this to be true!) I do plan to be thin. And I plan to take very good care of this body of mine. That way, I can say I did everything I could to be healthy. Whether I'm healthy because I'm thin or I'm healthy because I have access to good health care will be irrelevant at that point. Living well is the goal. How we get there is up to us. I'm very happy and confident with my decisions. I feel GREAT since I've gotten thinner. No joint pain, HTN is gone, dyslipidemia gone, heart rate is down, don't get winded easily, fit in airplane seats, can shop anywhere for clothes...the list is endless. Yup, being thin is a very good thing indeed!! :cool:

Nancy LC

Fri, Dec-30-05, 18:39

I actually could see a play-off here between:

Team 1: CRON
Team 2: Low-carb, no grains/no dairy
Team 3: Generic Low Carb
Team 4: Standard American Diet

I think Team 1 would win, Team 2 would place 2nd and Team 3 would be 3rd and Team 4 would have been pushing up daisies for a long, long time.

Whoa182

Fri, Dec-30-05, 18:41

1) My average calorie intake now is around 1800 calories a day, it was around 1600 but this is way too low for me and it will mean losing more weight if I kept on at that CR level. To get significant benefits a person would have to restrict their calories by 20% but even 10% is healthy. For the best results a man would have to eat around 1540k/cal a day and for a women 1,120 Calories, this is 30% Calorie Restriction but is also quite dangerous if you don’t get it right and long term data on humans isn’t available.

2)Side effects do come on more if I don’t exercise or if I have little sleep, but I feel that this is down to anxiety and so does my doctor. I’ve had anxiety since I was a kid. Recently I went for a temporary night job and I never seen daylight for almost 3weeks and had very little sleep because I also had college. This made me feel a bit down and have some anxiety including palpitations, which I’ve experienced even before CR. Since finishing the job I’ve got back onto my routine again and am feeling much better already and palpitations have gone.

Low Cholesterol and Anxiety link has been mentioned here and is this because people under stress don’t eat a lot and have poor diet? But if you eat healthy, get all required nutrients especially Omega 3, exercise and have low cholesterol, you will be fine? I don’t know… but I don’t think it’s as simple as earlier studies found. I also noticed that taking fish oil rather than flax oil improves my mood a lot! I did change to flax but it didn’t work that well, so am back on fish oil.

I sometimes get a bit dizzy if I get up too quickly, my blood pressure is usually around 95/60 which could be the cause.

My body temperature when I wake up is around 35.5 degrees Celsius consistently and never really goes above 36.6 after I eat. I do feel the cold more but it hasn’t really bothered me as I just turn up the heating  In the summer I should be able to handle the heat much better than before though (better heat tolerance).

You mention that you had dry skin/hair loss, poor quality nails. This is common among those with Zinc deficiency. You see when people lose weight or go on a low calorie diet they usually have impaired Calcium, Zinc, Iron absorption. On the Calorie Restriction Society Lists someone mentioned about some of these problems you experienced and it was found to be linked with a zinc deficiency, which was quickly alleviated by supplementing 15mg of zinc a day. A few people said they seen huge improvements in skin and nails within days. I have always supplemented, I’ll show you my daily supplement list below.

Sitting hurt because of thinness. I can live with this, I spend a few hours at the computer at home doing my work, online gaming or whatever, but luckily I paid 200 pound for a good quality chair! LoL. Seats without cushioning is annoying now

I was obsessed with food and very paranoid about it... well I don’t know how to read this properly. I wouldn’t say that I am paranoid about calories but I make sure that I don’t go below. I’ve never actually gone above the calorie limit I have set that often, and usually always fall short, so I have to get in the rest of the calories before the end of the day.

I think that it is important to have good ratios of Fat for absorption of nutrients, Protein to maintain muscle and decrease hunger and complex Carbs to keep me going. So I did buy expensive scales to weigh the food that I eat and input how much I eat into the program, one of the main reasons is to ensure that I am getting good nutrition and am not killing myself with all sorts of nutrient deficiencies. So to an extent I have to worry about the quality of my food, if I do happen to go over one day I don’t worry about it too much and I think that if it’s causing you physiological distress then that’s not good. Preparing meals now takes less than half hour for me.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/planner.jpg

As you might have noticed, some of the things associated with CR might be associated with an eating disorder, but CR is no eating disorder. People that do it are genuinely looking to improve health not make themselves suffer. A lot of people in CR have quite a relaxed approach and it doesn’t take over their lives too much. I still go out with friends to eat sometimes, not that I eat crap but because I eat so healthily I’m not too worried.

Is doing CR always a bad experience? Well the majority of people that I know who does CR enjoy the life style and its benefits. I know people that have been doing it for 2 years to 15 years and they are feeling good. I don’t know why you would have had a bad experience really, it’s hard to say. More people that do CR are eating low carb too. CR is about total calories and nothing to do with how much carbs you eat. You can have 60% of your calories coming from carbs and still end up with the same benefits in life extension and health.

So then do CR people also tend to avoid physical activity and exercise?Definitely not, most people doing CR do have some exercise but just limit it. One of the people on the lists is 6ft tall and weighs 115 lb’s and that is a BMI of 15.5? He started off skinny and like me is very much below the Recommended healthy BMI, but he’s been there for 9 years I think and hasn’t had any bad experiences, he also hasn’t been ill at all. He always gets a lot of blood taken to check that he is ok. He runs about 20 minutes every day and eats around 1800 calories a day!

I imagine the reason CR "works" is because metabolism produces toxic byproducts that cause aging, correct ? We still don’t know why calorie restriction works but we do know that the body goes into a survival state and certain genes turn on and some genes don’t get expressed etc.. but the body seems to put up it’s defenses against all sorts of diseases. Check out the cancer rates among CR’d Mice below:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/chart2.jpg

In the end one must appreciate that CR is the only method to improve health and extend life in every animal tested. No other diet is proven to extend life, the simple fact is, it’s all about calories. I think doing low carb is good but the reason I don’t follow this is because it doesn’t extend life, which is what I’m going for. I’m confident that LC will increase average life span, but until it proves to extend maximum life span, I’ll stick to what 70 years of science says.

Low calorie would induce a stress state that would not be good for health physically or psychologically It’s thought that when an organism is under mild stress which is what CR does it toughens up the cells. Some of the latest research shows a little stress seems to be good for the body and mind.

How I ensure that I maintain good nutrition I take the following:

I take 50% of ESSENTIAL MIX

VITAMINS
Vitamin A
Retinol (Palmitate) ....................................150 mcg 500 IU 16.70%
Beta-carotene (natural (D. salina)) ...............6 mg 9990 IU 3330%
Vitamin B Complex
B1 (Thiamine) ............................................12 mg 1000%
B2 (Riboflavin) ...........................................13 mg 1000%
B3 (Niacin (as 63 mg Inositol Hexanicotinate))..50 mg 313%
B5 (d-Ca Pantothenate) ..............................100 mg 2000%
B6 (Pyridoxine) ..........................................17 mg 1000%
B12 (Cyanocobalamin) ................................24 mcg 1000%
Folic Acid .................................................. 800 mcg 400%
Biotin ....................................................... 300 mcg 1000%
Choline (from Bitartrate) ................................ 500 mg 36%
Inositol ...................................................... 100 mg
Vitamin C (as Magnesium Ascorbate) ................. 450 mg 500%
Vitamin D3 (Cholecalciferol) .............................. 25 mcg 1000 IU 167%
Vitamin E Complex .......................................... 100 mg *
Tocopherols: .................................................. 90 mg
alpha-tocopherol ........................................... 15 mg 22 IU 186%
beta-tocopherol ........................................... 1.5 mg *
gamma-tocopherol ......................................... 52 mg *
delta-tocopherol ........................................... 22 mg *
Tocotrienols: .................................................. 10 mg
alpha-tocotrienol ............................................ 3 mg *
beta-tocotrienol ........................................... 0.1 mg *
gamma-tocotrienol .......................................... 6 mg *
delta-tocotrienol .......................................... 1.3 mg *
Phylloquinone ................................................ 80 mcg 67%

MINERALS
Boron (Citrate) .............................................. 1.8 mg *
Calcium (Citrate-Malate) ................................. 540 mg 54%
Chromium (Picolinate) ................................... 100 mcg *
Copper (Citrate) ............................................... 1 mg 111%
Iodine (Potassium Iodide) .............................. 150 mcg 100%
Magnesium (Aspartate, Oxide, Ascorbate) .......... 210 mg 50%
Manganese (Glycinate) ................................... 2.3 mg 100%
Molybdenum (Na Molybdate) ........................... 45 mcg 100%
Potassium (Chloride) ........................................ 99 mg *
Selenium (Se-Methylselenocysteine) ............... 200 mcg 364%
Silicon (Na Metasilicate) .................................. 50 mg *
Vanadium (Citrate) ........................................ 18 mcg *
Zinc (Citrate) ................................................ 11 mg 100%

Every other day I have Zinc/Copper Balance 15mg Zinc + 2mg Copper

Everyday:

Green Tea Extract 2 caps a day
Fish Oil
EPA Concentrate
Calcium and Vitamin D3 Supplement
500mg Vitamin C
Vinpocetine - Nootropic, protects the brain from free radicals and enhances memory and mood

Nancy LC

Fri, Dec-30-05, 18:49

I do enjoy your postings Whoa! Its very interesting stuff!

Whoa182

Fri, Dec-30-05, 20:10

Whoa, I'm curious to know what weight range you'd consider optimal for your height, age, activity level, etc.

I feel that an optimal BMI would be a BMI of around 18 and that would be 115lb's for me. I did drop further than 110lb's to 107 where I thought that this is too much and I feel it is dangerous for me to go this low considering we don't have any long term data. So I did put up my calories and am aiming for around 112-115lb's which would put me at a bmi of 17.5 to 18 which I feel is safe.

I only run about 15-20 minutes 3x a week and go to gym on a sunday for 1hour to do weight bearing and resistance training. Just by doing short amounts of excersise keeps my fitness level to a good level.

But I know you've mentioned thinking you need to put back on a little weight (and I'd agree with this) so I wonder how someone following CRON does this. Do you strive for a certain BMI? Ideal body weight?

For a person doing CR that is already skinny resuls in ultra skinniness unfortunatly, I know a person that never started off so skinnny and now two years later she still does CR and has a bmi of 19 and holding it with about 1200 calories a day. Originally I wanted to become huge with lots of weight training and stuff but then I educated myself in nutrition a bit and found CR. This changed my mind, for me its not about body image, it's about being healthy and doing CR is definitly going to mean I will be underweight with a bmi of probably around 17-18. I am scared to push it to far to be honest.

I do wonder what CRONers do at the point that they determine they are too thin, and either don't want to lose anymore, or actively want to put weight back on. Let me know what you think. Thanks much!

There are plenty of people on the CR list that feel they went to far and are trying to put weight back on, but slowly. When a person becomes really skinny they get the wrong perceptions from people, usually when people see a person that is really skinny and on CR, they believe he/she is sick. People in my family think I look ill but all tests show that I'm in very good health.

It's usually family that convinces more extreme CR'd people to gain more weight. Obviously because they are very worried, as my family are.

Matt

kyrasdad

Fri, Dec-30-05, 20:19

My average calorie intake now is around 1800 calories a day, it was around 1600 but this is way too low for me and it will mean losing more weight if I kept on at that CR level. To get significant benefits a person would have to restrict their calories by 20% but even 10% is healthy. For the best results a man would have to eat around 1540k/cal a day and for a women 1,120 Calories, this is 30% Calorie Restriction but is also quite dangerous if you don’t get it right and long term data on humans isn’t available.

This is really close in calories to what I eat, which doesn't seem all that restrictive to me (today, I had sausage for breakfast, cheese soup and a roast beef & cheddar salad for lunch, some cashews as a snack, and ground beef in low carb tortillas for dinner). I can get that in at around 2000 kcal.

I keep a fitday journal, and there are days I get 1500 and others when I get 2200 or so, but the average is perhaps a smidge higher than yours. More of my calories come from fat than any other source, from protein secondarily, and a miniscule amount from carbs.

Thanks for the information. It doesn't seem like these two ways of eating are all that different, other than in the ratios. I have different goals than you -- to lose weight for now -- so the carb restricted approach works for that better than a straight reduction would.

Whoa182

Fri, Dec-30-05, 20:25

I do enjoy your postings Whoa! Its very interesting stuff!

Thank you :)

Lisa N

Fri, Dec-30-05, 20:41

I am very confident that chronic conditions such as osteoarthritis, HTN, dyslipidemia, heart disease, and type 2 DM are all worsened by being overweight.

You won't get much argument from me there, depending on the degree of overweight that we are talking about. Obesity from a SAD will more than likely worsen all of those, but you have to ask yourself if it's the weight or the foods that got them to that weight causing the problem. ;) I've seen statistics showing that those in the 25-29 BMI range lived longer on average than those who were lower. What bothers me a bit is what seems to be the assertion that those who are thin or CRONers won't get these diseases at all and that has certainly not been my experience and I'd have a hard time believing that it's yours, either. The 3 that I mentioned earlier weren't thin because of some miracle of metabolism or disease and probably lived a calorie restricted life either out of habit or preference but in the end developed many of the same diseases non CRONers do.

Whoa182

Fri, Dec-30-05, 21:11

Check out this new artilcle AND Video on a person doing CR

ST. LOUIS, Dec. 30, 2005
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/30/eveningnews/main1172297.shtml

Watch the video and see what you think, you can choose media player or Real player to play it in (video on the right)

Matt

joanie

Fri, Dec-30-05, 21:23

I have had far too much medical training at this point to ever speak in absolute terms. I speak more of trends. Certain medications, for example, have been clearly shown to increase lifespan in someone with heart disease risks (HTN et al). That does NOT mean that everyone who takes the medication regimen will live longer or have fewer heart attacks, but that there is a statistically significant chance of living longer with the drugs than without them. And, as I've said before, everyone knows a person who did everything wrong from a health standpoint, and lived a long and healthy life. Sometimes you can beat the statistics. And, as I said before, I do think that being SLIGHTLY overweight (BMI no higher than 27) is probably acceptable, as long as the patient is eating healthfully and is physically active. This goes out the window, however, if there are complications such as HTN and DM, because it is very clear that weight loss positively affects both of these. In fact, for type 2 patients, weight loss is very often more helpful in reducing blood sugar than medications, because the pts are so insulin resistant to begin with. I'm sure there are a few thin Type 2s out there with high blood sugar, but there aren't many, in my experience. In fact, there are so few that when we encountered one, we often found they were actually Type 1 pts that had been misdiagnosed!

Somehow, even at 290 pounds, I had dodged the DM bullet, but I had full-blown metabolic syndrome, and it was really just a matter of time before my taxed body became resistant to insulin. Thankfully, at my current weight, and with my current eating habits, it is unlikely that I will develop DM. I'm not sure what the future will hold with respect to HTN and dyslipidemia -- there is a strong genetic factor in my family, and I have a thin sister with elevated cholesterol. But I do know that I used to have HTN, and since dropping weight, I don't anymore. And since HTN reduces lifespan, not having it has probably increased my lifespan. And I'm happy about that!

TheCaveman

Fri, Dec-30-05, 22:30

Like Lisa said, even if we DO assume there is no collective benefit to living longer (there is), it is in our personal best interest to live a longer life.

I'm sorry Wooo, I misposed. In the interests of clarity, I should have asked What is the genetic advantage to human genes (not individuals and not the species) if we live a third longer than we do now?

Whenever some theory runs afoul of genetics and natural selection--and almost forces a stance of human exception to these--we may safely deny its viability. After years of trying, it's the hole that CRONfolk cannot crawl out of.

If we look at all other living things on this planet, and use them as the logical beginnings of a theory of energy acquisition (feeding ourselves), we realize very quickly that calorie restriction/optimal nutrition is an oxymoron. Just like feeding ourselves less sugar, vegetable oils and other abominations of our expected diet makes us healthier, so does feeding lab animals less monkey chow make them healthier.

For every other living thing that has ever existed in the history of our planet, less energy is the kiss of death, and I'm not talking about starvation. I'm talking about genes. The red-in-tooth-and-claw realization that keeps most people from accepting evolution is that they can't come to grips with the notion that genes can kill their host dead and still be enacting a successful reproductive strategy. And if it IS successful, then they continue on, while you die. Try not to take it personally; you are here so that they can reproduce, not vice versa.

Let's say there's a Believe-In-CRON Gene. Some folks got it, some folks don't. Those that have it, have fewer ofspring, the gene eventually disappears, and no one believes in CRON anymore.

Here's a quote from the news that Whoa posted above.

"The whole idea of calorie restriction is recognizing that calories are basically bad for you," [Joseph] Cordell says.

One of us is crazy. See if you can figure out which.

Lisa N

Sat, Dec-31-05, 09:56

This goes out the window, however, if there are complications such as HTN and DM, because it is very clear that weight loss positively affects both of these.

That may be, but again I ask is it the weight loss that brought about the improvement or the change in eating habits? I'll use myself as an example. I'm a type 2 diabetic and clinically I still qualify as obese. If I were to go to a new doctor now who had no knowledge of my diabetes and have a blood test, I would have a hard time convincing him or her that I am a diabetic without my previous records because my bloodwork shows that my blood sugars are those of a non-diabetic even though I am still clinically obese. The same situation goes for my hypertension; still clinically obese, but now my BP is normal. I'd maintain that it wasn't the obesity causing my problems, but the foods I was eating. In other words, the obesity was a symptom, not a cause. If the reverse were true that it was the obesity causing the disease, then one would have to lose weight to the point of no longer being obese to even see improvement let alone complete reversal of the disease process. :idea:

Here's a quote from the news that Whoa posted above.

"The whole idea of calorie restriction is recognizing that calories are basically bad for you," [Joseph] Cordell says.

One of us is crazy. See if you can figure out which.

Hmmm...units of energy measurement are bad for us? Go figure. Given that the studies are based on feeding animals not less of the diet that they would eat in the wild but less of a man-made 'chow' for whatever animal that contains foods it would never have eaten in the wild, I'd say that the theory is based on a faulty premise. Sort of like feeding meat to herbivores to prove that eating meat is bad for everyone. ;)
It would be more accurate to say, "If I feed an animal less of foods that it wasn't designed to eat in the first place, it lives longer. Therefore, if humans eat less of foods that they were never designed to eat in the first place, they will live longer." ;) It's not about the calories, but about where those calories are coming from. ;)

zajack

Sat, Dec-31-05, 10:43

Nicely worded LisaN...I'm not sure I could have expressed it so well.

joanie

Sat, Dec-31-05, 11:58

Lisa, I am glad that you were able to get your BG levels and BP into the normal range despite still being overweight. My experience is that this is not always true, even when the patient follows an optimal diet. In my own case, my BP didn't drop to an optimal level until I had lost quite a bit of weight. (and I was eating very carefully) At the DM clinic, I had pts who were compliant with diet, exercise, and medication and still had non-optimal A1C and FBG levels. And I had others who did the same thing and brought their levels right down, and these pts were able to go off their meds. So it's highly individual. I have friends who were morbidly obese, who had GBP surgery and who went from having severe DM symptoms to having no signs of DM at all (once their weight came down...again, it is highly individual as to how much the weight has to come down before BG levels drop).

The bottom line is that in virtually every case I've observed, weight loss and exercise has helped lower BG levels and BP levels. The only variable is how much the levels go down. I agree that if one is eating a lot of simple carbs, the drops in BG won't be as dramatic, but again, I know people who have lost all their extra weight and can now eat any food they like with no significant increase in FBG, because they are no longer obese. In general, I don't think that refined carbs are good for anyone, but I don't necessarily think that Atkins is the only way to go (it wasn't as effective for me as just eating clean foods).

And, in my own case, I feel so much better at this weight than I did when I was obese or overweight. It's just easier to ambulate now! Less of me to haul around, I guess. Unlike Whoa, I won't go below a BMI of ~20, because I could not maintain that weight. But I will keep my BMI below 25, because I feel so much better when I'm not overweight.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!! :lol:

Lisa N

Sat, Dec-31-05, 13:29

At the DM clinic, I had pts who were compliant with diet, exercise, and medication and still had non-optimal A1C and FBG levels.

If they were following the standard ADA diet, the results don't surprise me at all; mine were quite similar on that plan which is way too high in any kind of carbs, complex or otherwise, to reasonably expect any kind of good control for the majority of type 2 diabetics. If someone is compliant with diet, exercise and medication and still not seeing good numbers, obviously there's something wrong with that plan and it's not that they don't have enough meds on board. ;)

joanie

Sat, Dec-31-05, 14:10

Nope, not ADA (at least not the ones I counselled). Frequent small meals, always a high quality protein on board, total cals kept to reasonable level, etc. Not rocket science, just basic common sense, really, to keep sugar spikes down. In fact, very similar to the way I lost my weight. And exercise as tolerated by the pt (some were in wheelchairs, having lost limbs in war or to peripheral neuropathy secondary to the DM -- it was the Baltimore VA hospital).

Most of the people I work with are pretty "cutting edge", b/c I'm in a teaching environment. We have access to all the current clinical data, including dietary recommendations. The traditional ADA recs are not current and are not always used in this type of clinic. Therefore, when a pt came in saying that they followed Atkins or another LC program, we didn't necessarily try to talk them out of it (unless it wasn't working or the pt's BG had worsened). It was the ones who followed a high refined carb diet (whether lowfat or not) that got counselled, and the importance of always having a protein to temper spikes as well as frequent snacks (eating 6 times a day or so) was stressed. As a matter of fact, the DM nurse educator had herself lost over 100 pounds and kept it off following this type of diet, so she was an excellent role model for the pts.

Dietary recs were always given with the pt's specific needs in mind. So if the pt had CHF and was prone to edema, they would be told to weigh daily and told to avoid a lot of sodium. If the pt had CKD, total protein was kept to a certain level. If the pt had frequent bouts of hypoglycemia, they were told exactly what to take for this in an emergency (usually pts overcompensated with too much sugar) and how to tweak the meds/diet to avoid these sugar swings in the future. It was such a rewarding work experience, and I saw firsthand the dramatic results when pts followed our advice. Although I probably won't be doing ambulatory care in the near future, I liked it a lot, and would happily do it again if given the opportunity. Of course, since my specialty is pharmacy, we also tweaked meds up or down based on the labwork and the pt interview. Each pt was seen at least an hour, so it was a very complete workup.

OK, I'm off to continue cleaning house...I think my kids are messing as we're cleaning, so there's an overall conservation of messiness, unfortunately! :lol:

ItsTheWooo

Sat, Dec-31-05, 17:08

In fact, for type 2 patients, weight loss is very often more helpful in reducing blood sugar than medications, because the pts are so insulin resistant to begin with. I'm sure there are a few thin Type 2s out there with high blood sugar, but there aren't many, in my experience. In fact, there are so few that when we encountered one, we often found they were actually Type 1 pts that had been misdiagnosed!

As a side,I would bet those who are thin and type 2 have some sort of genetic abnormality causing the perturbations in insulin signalling (meaning it is something other than your garden variety D & E induced IR & obesity bundle).

ItsTheWooo

Sat, Dec-31-05, 18:00

That may be, but again I ask is it the weight loss that brought about the improvement or the change in eating habits? I'll use myself as an example. I'm a type 2 diabetic and clinically I still qualify as obese. If I were to go to a new doctor now who had no knowledge of my diabetes and have a blood test, I would have a hard time convincing him or her that I am a diabetic without my previous records because my bloodwork shows that my blood sugars are those of a non-diabetic even though I am still clinically obese. The same situation goes for my hypertension; still clinically obese, but now my BP is normal. I'd maintain that it wasn't the obesity causing my problems, but the foods I was eating. In other words, the obesity was a symptom, not a cause. If the reverse were true that it was the obesity causing the disease, then one would have to lose weight to the point of no longer being obese to even see improvement let alone complete reversal of the disease process. :idea:

Is it possible both diet and calorie amounts (weight status) affect health? In other words you may enjoy health that qualifies as normal simply by controlling the types & quantity of food you eat, but who's to say you wouldn't be even further in the "good range" if you ate less calories and lost weight? There is a lot of data which shows body fat does things that increase IR after all. Plus there is a ton of evidence which shows lower calorie diets and eating less reduces your risk of diseases (like whoa provided)...

As I said I've noticed that those forum members who have the healthiest lab work tend to also be low weight (both naturally and unnaturally i.e. dieted) & eating low calorie diets. OTOH members who LC traditionally and eat higher cals tend to weigh more and not see the same degree of improvement in health. It seems to me every time I see one of those lab works with normal/low LDL, super high HDL and zero triglycerides the person who owns it is thin, and low cal and low carbing as well. In fact, I can't remember ever seeing someone who was obese post the same kind of fantastic blood sugar/cholesterol lab results.
Sure many obese people have had dramatic improvements, even gotten rid of many medications (or all of them), made it to "not dangerous/normal" health levels. I've seen a ton of posts like that. But I can't recall seeing those kind of "jaw droppingly good" numbers that you see when people get to the normal/low end normal and are mindful to eat low cal consistently.

Hmmm...units of energy measurement are bad for us? Go figure. Given that the studies are based on feeding animals not less of the diet that they would eat in the wild but less of a man-made 'chow' for whatever animal that contains foods it would never have eaten in the wild, I'd say that the theory is based on a faulty premise. Sort of like feeding meat to herbivores to prove that eating meat is bad for everyone. ;)
It would be more accurate to say, "If I feed an animal less of foods that it wasn't designed to eat in the first place, it lives longer. Therefore, if humans eat less of foods that they were never designed to eat in the first place, they will live longer." ;) It's not about the calories, but about where those calories are coming from. ;)
I too wondered if maybe the studies were useless because lab animal feed is so unhealthy the way junk food is unhealthy for humans. Who knows. Maybe it's all what you eat, but I have a suspicion that there might be something to staying low weight & not eating much. Likely being low normal weight and eating as low calories as you can without running into side effects of the restriction is probably where the money is ...

joanie

Sat, Dec-31-05, 18:41

I tend to agree with what you've said, Woo. And again, I can draw from my clinical experience, as well as the experiences of friends, etc. I have yet to see truly outstanding labwork (that's outstanding, not just acceptable) from people who are obese. I've certainly seen numbers go down, either from appropriate medications, or from lifestyle changes. But I haven't seen the kind of aggressively low numbers that are now recommended. The latest Joint Committee (JNCV11) recommends BP levels be below 120/80, and HTN is diagnosed at lower levels (anything over 140/90), with a new category of pre-HTN, which is 120-139/80-89. So your BP needs to be <120/80 to be considered normal. As far as DM goes, we were usually happy to see A1C levels below 7%. But here again, lower is better, and most clinicians would be shooting for <6% in an ideal world. In addition, recommendations for treating dyslipidemia have tightened quite a bit, especially if the pt has DM or other complications. LDLs should generally be below 100, and for those at risk, the recommendation is to have them below 70! As I was told, you can't really get LDLs to low...the data supports very low levels. HDLs on the other hand, should be >50, and optimally, >60. My HDLs were in the 60s when I was fat, but my LDLs were also high, so my total cholesterol level was not terrific.

But really, this is all kind of secondary in some respects...I mean, you can walk around with dyslipidemia and HTN and feel just fine. Same is true w/high blood glucose levels. But chances are, if you're fat, you are going to get winded more easily, have a harder time fitting in airplane seats -- or the seats at my school, which are small! -- and if you have little kids, like me, you may find that it's tough to run around with them. I really feel my day-to-day quality of life is tremendously better now that I'm thin. I just get around so much easier. And Woo, I've also been a bit bemused when people on this site have tried to tell me what I'm doing wrong when in fact my stats are better than theirs! The passion is admirable, I suppose, even if a bit misguided. I do believe that eating fewer carbs is a good idea, especially if it means eating MORE veggies, berries, high quality proteins, and so on. I don't feel the same way when I see people eating boatloads of nitrate-laden bacon and sausage, and heavy cream. Technically, both ways are acceptable on DANDR, but I'd go for the clean eating over the cream and bacon. I realize there may be extenuating circumstances which make losing harder -- like if one has PCOS or takes corticosteroids -- but I think there are those who just still eat too much and exercise too little. It is possible -- easy even -- to eat too much on an LC diet. I never lost much on Atkins, and I followed it to the letter. But I ate too much, and after the first 10 pounds or so, I stalled. My current WOE is much better in every possible way, and my weight loss and labwork support that.

Ehhhh...enough rambling. I think I've made my opinions more than clear at this point! My children are driving me nuts...when does school start again??!! :p

Lisa N

Sat, Dec-31-05, 20:05

As far as DM goes, we were usually happy to see A1C levels below 7%. But here again, lower is better, and most clinicians would be shooting for <6% in an ideal world.

How about 5.2 without meds? ;)

joanie

Sat, Dec-31-05, 21:20

Very good number. At what number did you start? Is all your other labwork as good?

Lisa N

Sat, Dec-31-05, 21:45

I started at 11.8 and was at a 5.6 within 4 1/2 months. Since that time, I'm in the range of 4.9 to 5.3 depending on the time of year and my activity level.

Just had to add this link and quote as well:
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=278716
Previous studies suggested that more than 400,000 people die each year from being obese. The new analysis, led by epidemiologist Katherine Flegal, showed only 112,000 excess deaths and found that being underweight was linked in the study to some 33,000 deaths a year. The people with the lowest death rates were moderately overweight—with a body-mass index between 25 and 29.9.

ValerieL

Sun, Jan-01-06, 00:31

I know one person's experience doesn't prove or disprove a theory, but for those that were saying they don't recall ever seeing really good cholesterol numbers from anyone obese, this is a cut & paste from my journal in Sept 2004, I was still about 195-200 lbs at the time, and per BMI, still obese.

My cholesterol numbers are EXCELLENT! Total cholesterol is 3.88 mmolL (149 for the US folks), HDL is 1.79 (69), LDL is 1.83 (71). LDL was so low that it fell below the normal range! Triglycerides were .57 (50), and my chol/HDL ratio is 2.17, considered to be a below average risk for heart disease!

I think those numbers are considered decent. I had them redone in Jan 2005, and while the cholesterol number went up slightly, it was because the HDL rose, my LDL on my last results was even lower, though I think my triglycerides rose to about to about 70 (US measure).

What gets me is that we put such a premium on these numbers and they don't always mean anything. People with low cholesterol get heart disease and people with high cholesterol don't always get heart disease. There is a correlation, yes, but not necessarily a cause & effect relationship between high cholesterol and developing heart disease. I'm not saying you shouldn't be more careful if your cholesterol numbers are poor, but having high cholesterol numbers is not a death sentence. Nor are good cholesterol numbers a get out of jail free card.

Val

Zuleikaa

Sun, Jan-01-06, 07:45

I can do better than that. At 350 lbs my cholesterol numbers were 146!! my LDL was 42, HDL was 101 and I don't remember the rest. I do remember that my doctor called me up to say that those were the best numbers, in fact my whole panel, i.e. heart, liver, thyroid, insulin, had the best results that she'd ever seen in her practice and she had athletes in her practice.

So you can be healthy and obese, not that I'm advocating obesity.

joanie

Sun, Jan-01-06, 15:59

I think the "healthy and obese" thing is only true if you can do the things a thin person can do. Here's an example: my husband, who is obese, usually has normal bloodwork, normal BP, normal cholesterol (not outstanding, probably, but within normal limits). However, he gets winded very easily, doesn't fit into my small car, would probably fit very tightly into a plane seat -- and annoy the person next to him -- and can't easily chase after kids without panting and sweating profusely. On paper, other than his weight, he's healthy. But you would never call him a healthy person overall. That's why, in my earlier post, I pointed out that the labwork is almost secondary to overall health and activities of daily life. I've been obese, I've been "moderately overweight" and I've been normal weight. Normal is, by far, the best in every possible way. I won't go into the "underweight" category, but for cosmetic reasons, I do plan to get down to my ideal body weight. Then I'll reassess. If, at that time, I truly feel that things were better at a higher BMI, I'll gain back some weight. But, frankly, I would be stunned if that were true.

I went jogging today for the first time in 4 or 5 months. The last time I ran, I was 30 pounds heavier than today. At that time, I was jogging 4 times a week, and was racing regularly. Even so, I got less winded today, simply because there was less of me to move around! For aerobic activities, thinner is definitely better. Put simply, I LOVE being thin, and I can't imagine willingly going back to a heavier weight. Life is just too damned great now!

Happy New Year, all!

Whoa182

Sun, Jan-01-06, 21:47

It's not about the calories, but about where those calories are coming from.

Not true at all. Say you had 2 groups and the controls had just as good nutrition as the CR'd subjects, but consumed considerably more calories. While both groups would be getting excellent nutrition, you would only see MAXIMUM life extension in the CR'd subjects, the controls would only have slightly longer average life spans without breaking maximum.

So if we were to translate that over to humans it would be saying that Healthy eating, mostly vegetables, fruits, nuts, lean meat etc.. would only increase the average life span of a population to 90 if they consumed a high amount of calories of around 2500. But feeding the same food to the CR'd subjects and only giving them 1500 calories, you would be getting an extension of maximum life span AND average life span, average being around 115 and maximum of say 130-140, theoretically (not that I believe this extension is possible even with CR)

You can see the survival curves here

http://calorierestriction.org/files/cr-youth.gif

Aslong as you give CR subjects good nutrition and they are not deficient, it's all about calories, and it's not even about ratios of C:F:P either, even a HIGH carb diet produces the same benifits aslong as the calories are kept low.

Lisa N

Mon, Jan-02-06, 07:57

Say you had 2 groups and the controls had just as good nutrition as the CR'd subjects, but consumed considerably more calories. While both groups would be getting excellent nutrition, you would only see MAXIMUM life extension in the CR'd subjects

Do you have a link to this study? So far the only one you've posted involving humans compared the worst possible diet against CR.

So if we were to translate that over to humans it would be saying that Healthy eating, mostly vegetables, fruits, nuts, lean meat etc.. would only increase the average life span of a population to 90 if they consumed a high amount of calories of around 2500. But feeding the same food to the CR'd subjects and only giving them 1500 calories, you would be getting an extension of maximum life span AND average life span

Whoa, to fit the maximum lifespan curve you gave in the chart, that 2500 calorie diet would need to be cut by 65%, or to 1125 calories daily. You're also missing that in the studies with animals while they may have been getting 'optimal' vitamins and minerals, the delivery system (ie the food that contained them) was less than optimal; many animals are no more meant to eat a grain based diet than we are. The CR group simply got less of it.

I'd also like to pose Caveman's original question; assuming that it's possible, what benefit is it to humans as a species to live longer than we currently do through CR given that CR also tends to reduce fertility and has anyone thought through the socioeconomic impact of having humans living 30 years longer on average? I don't know about you, but the thought of actively working a full time job into my 80's or mid-90's, physically robust or not, doesn't really appeal to me. :p

Bandito

Mon, Jan-02-06, 12:34

I think the benifit for the species would not come from increasing the reproductive years. I think that the advantage for the species would come from having older folks to help around on the home front.

Back in "caveman days" or even a couple hundred years ago and still in some cultures today, the older generation lives with (or close by) their adult offspring. The advantege is not a genetic investment, but an added investment of time. With more time, the grandmothers could assist with child rearing while the youger generation are out gathering. Advanced age also ensures the ability to TEACH the future generation how to gather, what foods are safe, how to make various pottery baskets and goods. All that gathering and making goods does not leave much time to do these things plus raise kids.

For the men, there would be a benifit to have grandpa(s) to stay close to home while the young warrior men were out hunting and fighting rival clans. They would have been the ones responsable for teaching the young boys how to hunt the close by small game and how to to "man things" such as make weapons and other man stuff. The older men would also be there to protect the females while the younger men were out. I also think the men would have been involved with passing on the history of the people, ever notice how elderly men love to tell stories??

There are lots advantages that living longer gould give to the species. Perhaps the greatest advantage of all would be their wisdom.....

Anyways, these are just my thoughts. I don't think that living longer would be an advantage in the reproductive years. I think that the advantage for the species would come from making the species more succesful as a whole. Ensuring future generations survival and passing down of skills is an asset for generations to come. Older folks are still useful for the species beyond their reproductive years.

Lisa N

Mon, Jan-02-06, 14:37

Bandito, I can possibly see the benefit to having a larger number of elderly around in caveman days in that many hands make light work, but how does that apply today when families are often spread across the nation? Take my husband's family, for example; he has relatives from the Netherlands to Canada and at least 6 states. Your benefit presumes that family groups all stay in close proximity to one another which seems to be more the exception than the rule these days.
Also, how does adding another 30 years to the average lifespan today help us as a species? We're not talking about living long enough to help with the grandchildren because that already happens for the most part. It seems to me that as we as a culture have begun living longer, the extended family concept has gone right out the window with most grandmas these days taking the attitude of "I did my time raising children, raise your own yourself!" and instead of caring for our elderly in extended family settings, they're sent off to retirement villages and nursing homes to be cared for. Extended family is a great idea, don't get me wrong, but unless an awful lot of people change how they do and view things, I don't see it happening.
There's also the question of how to support yourself financially for an additional 30 years.

Bandito

Mon, Jan-02-06, 15:12

What I posted does not really apply to our current society in which we live. Some previous postings left me with the feeling that there is no advantage to living beyond the reproductive years. This may not have been what was intended, but it got me thinking about the advanteges for living longer. I realize that our society is drasticly different today than the times in which I referred to, I just wanted to illustrate why people of advanced age are benificial to the developement of our species. I don't know, maybe I misunderstood the context/meaning of what was origionally said.

As for today, I think the pecieved benifit is up to the induvidual. A longer life through CRON (if it is attainable) provided better health doesn't seem like somthing that would be too harmful to society. I would hope that if a person was planning on living this long that they would be thinking ahead as to how they will pay for their extra years financially. When they drop dead unexpectedly at a ripe old age of 85, the next generation could then benifit from their saved retirement. I believe that this could be the unforseen benifit to society of the CRON lifestyle ;)

Lisa N

Mon, Jan-02-06, 18:08

Some previous postings left me with the feeling that there is no advantage to living beyond the reproductive years.

Personal benefit aside and from a genetic standpoint, there aren't many benefits once the young have been raised. Now that we have language, both spoken and written, and complex recording devices there is really no need for the 'village elders' to live long to pass on their knowledge to the next generation and tell them stories.
OTOH, from an emotional and relational standpoint, there are lots of advantages to grandparents.
Furthermore, since CRON seems to diminish reproductivity in nearly every animal species, it would seem more of a genetic detriment than benefit to participate in that particular eating style unless reduction of the human population were your goal. ;)

Whoa182

Tue, Jan-03-06, 03:55

You are quite right that there is no real genetic advantage to living past well beyond reproduction years and this is one of the key arguments against CRON having a significant impact in the longevity of humans who are on CR.

Preliminary data shows that people who do CR will look forward to a life span beyond the average because CR protects from various diseases that kill people later in life. CR protects the whole organism in several which seems to indicate that cronies will maintain good health if they were to stick to the diet. As with any disease, it progresses until it reaches a critical point and damages the organisms functionality and ability to survive even small infections for example. Cron seems to protect all organs from this deterioration, including the brain.

I don't believe in one theory but I see several things contributing to keeping an organism alive. Ageing is not just one thing going on but several which include DNA mutations, Mitochondrial mutations, Oxidative stress and more. Damaging is always occuring but not always at the same rate, that's why we can see some people running a marathon at 90 years old and another 90 year old critically ill with chronic diseases. Chronologically they are the same age but Biologically they are not. Calorie Restriction protects the organism from several types of damage and in the end you end up with less damage so your functionality is that of a much younger person which protects you from the simple things that might kill an old person.

There is a lot of research on PubMed that you can see and there is lots of new work on calorie restriction being published almost on a weekly basis.

We can see that people have managed to live to extreme ages and there do seem to be a genetic factor that contribute to their longevity. Calorie Restriction alters gene expression, 70% of genes that get expressed as an animal gets older either don't get expressed or their level of expression is markedly reduced. The same is probably true for humans.

The is some evidence of CR in Okinawans as I explained earlier, they generally live past 100, did anyone see that video I posted on here earlier? They are on CR diets, not as good nutrition as some people have here but theirs is fairly good.

I don't think anyone doubts that the average life expectancy of a person doing CRON will be a lot higher right? Whether it extends maximum life span (122* so far), It's going to be a long time before we find out, and even by then we will have probably disovered other ways to tweak metabolism to and extend life. So you could eat all you want but still gain the same benifits as if you were doing CRON

Whoa182

Tue, Jan-03-06, 04:16

I'm going to go a little bit away from CRON...

So what benifits would we have if humans lived longer? Well first of all people could work untill a much later age which would put less strain on social security. People wouldn't develop chronic diseases which costs thousands per person to treat each year, which drains money out the system.

One way to get out of this is to do more research into ageing or develops something that mimmics calorie restriction! Make the population more healthier, decrease morbidity.

In the western world right now we have a low birth rate, which is mainly the problem... not enough young people to pay for the retired. Older people are going to become a "burden on society" and unless something is done about ageing, there will be a bigger crises than what is predicted. So economically it is sensible to look into way which we can increase longevity and keep older people in much better health to make good contributions to society.

Why I don't mind if CR doesn't extend maximum Life span

I believe that we will be able to reverse ageing at some point in the future, probably before 2030 and certainly before 2050. The technologies that are in developement right now will help increase average life expectancy way beyond what politicians are predicting. The reason I am personally doing Calorie Restriction is to get to a time where these therapies are around so that I can live even further than 120, I want to live possibly thousands of years or longer (assuming my life is good). I want to explore the universe, see how we evolve using enhancing technologies and much more. I think giving up pizza and other bad foods is worth it.

People might say well aint you always hungry? but I'm really not, I don't feel deprived at all, I eat more foods now than I ever did before and they taste so much better. I want Quality of life aswell as Quantity, and I do have quality right now while doing CR. So even if CR doesn't extend maximum life span, I want to be in the best possible health for the time when Real anti aging therapies have been developed using the latest Biotechnology, Nanotechnology, robotics and whatever else... :)

Mr Bush thinks that social security will be in trouble by 2050, I think it wont even exist! People instead will save up for their retirement and go on periodic retirements for say 10 years... then maybe retrain and work as something else and so on.

Matt

Whoa182

Tue, Jan-10-06, 10:29

Just thought I'd share this with you,

http://www.immortalism.com/elixxir.jpg

That guy is 50 years old and has been pracitising calorie restriciton for over 20 years.

zajack

Tue, Jan-10-06, 12:13

Well...yup, he looks younger than his age...but I've seen plenty of people who look younger than they are who dont follow CRON and this guy seems so below board that I have to wonder if CRON is what got him where he is or if he just decided to capitalize on his youthful appearance.

Now I'm not saying that his program (or CRON) doesnt work...not at all...but with regards to Elixxer, personally...he hardly seems like anyone who should be pointed to as someone to use as a role model or to be even remotely impressed by. Based on his website, he seems personally dispicable to me. I'm actually pretty sure that CRON does work...but this particular guy just gets under my skin and I need to vent about it a bit. Here' Goes...

If you believe you have the key to something that is truly important to the well being of the general population (which he claims he has)...then I believe you're obligated to share it in some way that makes it accessible. That doesnt mean you cant make money...but it ought to be marketed in a way that a large number of the population can benefit. Atkins provided his conceptual diet which is available and completely do-able with just a book (and that can be gotten at the library). There are many other plans that are similar in their availability.

Now I know that this guy's concept is both physiological and spiritual but he's selling a product that starts at $1500. What do you get for your money?...well...it allows you to spend a meal with a program Master Coach...but that doesnt include the cost of travel (and you have to go wherever the Master Coach is) and it doesnt include the cost of the meal! One day with a master coach costs $5000 and the "day" starts... and I quote here...later in the day as The Master Coach is not a morning person A weekend is $9,900 and does not include travel expenses, meals, or accomodations. Wanna go for the gusto and get an 8 week course?...$70,000 please. A Year with the Master Coach?...here's what he says: Can you afford to take a year off? To prevent a fatal heart attack? Terminal cancer? A debilitating stroke? Adult-onset diabetes? A year to slash your risk for Alzheimer's or osteoporosis? The real question: Can you afford not to?...that'll be a cool million please and thank you.

His book is conceptual and not an active guide to how to do his program without incurring these fees. There is nothing that anyone can say that will make me believe that this guy cares one whit about the world at large or its health. It's all just too ridiculous.

I'm sorry...but I cant respect anyone who supposedly has answers that the world needs and then organizes his business in such a way as to eliminate 99% of the population from accessing those answers. He sounds like a huge scam artists who utilizes his youthful looks to make a ton of money from those who can afford it.

In Addition...he has the following in his website:

Also Wanted!

Failure Stories about Atkins, Sears & Other Diet Gurus Wanted!

You've tried Atkins, Sears, Ornish, Pritikin or some other weight-loss guru who also makes "anti-aging" claims for their diets. You've given it your all. And it has failed you miserably! We want to hear your story! Maybe you'll be with Elixxir on Oprah or some other shows!

If you have confidence in your own program...you shouldnt need to blatantly bash others programs this way.
Whew...OK...done...I feel better now. :lol:

Whoa...I know your post was just about what CRON can accomplish for the individual :agree: ...and none of my post was directed at you or CRON...honestly....I believe it can and does work for many people.

Edited to add:
You have belief and enthusiasm for your WOE...and I have a great deal of respect for that. I feel the same way about Atkins. I believe that all of the WOE's discussed in this forum work for some people. It's why we all come in here...to share our knowledge and enthusiasm.. Anyway... I hope your not offended. My rant truly wasnt directed at you or your WOE...I just visited this guys site and it got under my skin. (well...obviously) :lol:

Whoa182

Tue, Jan-10-06, 12:43

Wyvrn

Tue, Jan-10-06, 13:11

Lisa N

Tue, Jan-10-06, 14:08

You've tried Atkins, Sears, Ornish, Pritikin or some other weight-loss guru who also makes "anti-aging" claims for their diets. You've given it your all. And it has failed you miserably!

In order to say that the plan had failed from a CRON perspective, wouldn't the person have to die at an early age? ;) :lol:

Whoa182

Wed, Jan-11-06, 05:47

I guessed somewhere between 40 and 60. The pic you provided isn't very good but still it doesn't completely conceal telltale hints around the jawline and eyes. But then I have Asians in the family and know how to spot signs of age on them.

Wyv

I'm not sure if i can believe that you thought he looked 40 - 60 in that picture... EVERYONE i've asked (friends and family), has said that he is probably in his early 20's... including people of asian origin.

serrelind

Wed, Jan-11-06, 07:24

The guy looks Asian. You know how Asian are. I'm nearing 30 and I get carded every time I buy alcohol. I tell people my mom's 55 and they always look at me in disbelief.

ItsTheWooo

Wed, Jan-11-06, 12:33

I don't really know him personally so I am not really offended about what you thinka bout him. I only recently found this guy on the net over at imminst.org (discussion about him and his blog).

You really don't see people aged 50 that gets mistaken for looking like a 20 year old. This guy says he been doing Calorie restriction for around 25 years... It doesn't seem too hard to believe because he does look extremely young.

I dont know... just thought i'd share to see what you think :)

Just my opinion but I doubt if ANY eating plan is going to slow aging to the point where it can make 50 year olds stay looking like 20 year olds. Let's not get crazy here. Plus, I seriously doubt if physically CRON will keep you beautiful (young in that sense).

It may make you healthier physically (big if but not one I would throw out) but I will dismiss that physically you'll look better. Studies show that collagen (the stuff that makes skin elastic and youthful) production is slowed to a fraction of normal when calorie intake is restricted. When I was under eating I looked like a grandma because my skin was so weak (I'm 23). When I started eating more my skin took on an elasticity almost immediately; the difference was striking. My skin felt like rubber.
Anyone can see that those who restrict calories do not LOOK as good and healthy or young and vital as someone eating generously (overweight or not). I mean there's restricting calories to NORMAL to drop excess weight...these people generally look healthy. Then there's restricting calories TOO LOW to force weight (or to "improve lifespan") where you want it. The latter group without exception tends to look far less healthy ("good") than they would if they were eating normally and just accepting their weights (or "life span" or whatever they are trying to achieve). Again speaking personally here, I tend to look a lot younger than my age (back when I was 20 people thought I was 16). I can't say that anymore, I totally look old (and my hair is thin, my nails grow slowly, and all those wonderful side effects of CRON still are there).

As for this guy...
That guy probably has really good genes. Plus the fact he is ethnically asian allows him to appear younger than he is to our ignorant western eyes (we are not accustomed to seeing asian faces; we have a harder time detecting subtleties that signify aging in them).

ItsTheWooo

Wed, Jan-11-06, 12:40

BTW, reading the homepage of that Elixxir guy gives one the impression he is a pathological narcissist. ("he will outlive his enemies and marry their children"; he will "stay young and save the world"; his photoshop-altered image is plastered all over everything?)

Narcissists, in general, are liars and totally untrustworthy...
I would pick a different example for an ideal CRONer (even if we assume personal examples are relevant, this is NOT one I would choose by a long shot).

(Side note, not to offend Whoa or any CRONers but doesn't CRON seem inseperable from narcissism? How vain must one be to want to live forever? To me that implies an unwillingness or inability to accept or recognize value in anything but onesself and their status in the world - the foundations of a narcissist personality)

DietSka

Wed, Jan-11-06, 13:20

It's a picture. Pictures can be touched up... and it's obvious this picture has been through at least some graphics editing -- the guy has no neck! Who's to say they didn't go beyond that and maybe went on to smooth out a wrinkle there, erase a sag there, lighten up the undereye darkness... it's remarkably easy to do so and you wouldn't believe the difference it makes!

Actually, you don't even need computer editing to make someone look a LOT younger in a photo, the skillful use of lighting and camera lenses can take decades off one's face!

I know it's been mentioned but yes, he's Asian, and Asians typically don't show their age. Then there are people such as Leonardo diCaprio who look 20 years younger.

Or maybe he's doing face exercises. :lol: Look at Carole Maggio (http://www.facercise.com/aboutcarole.shtml), she also looks a lot younger than she is.

My point is, that picture doesn't really mean anything. You'd have to:
1. meet him in person, face to face, to see if he really looks like that
2. look at his family and see if he's maybe genetically gifted with perfect skin
3. rule out cosmetic treatments, face exercises or even surgery
Then and only then I'd begin to believe what he's selling because, aye, there's the rub, he's selling a book. And there's no other picture of him on his website, just that one. ;)

The Munch

Wed, Jan-11-06, 18:06

How vain must one be to want to live forever?Oh, Woo...

I want to live FOREVER (in good health, of course).

Vanity has NOTHING to do with it.

I recognize limited resources and that the older generation must leave to allow for new life.

Still I do not want to die. That's all. At least (with Woody Allen) I don't want to be there when it happens. Am I alone?

Doubt it.

Andrea

Nancy LC

Wed, Jan-11-06, 19:25

My friends and I, back in our younger days, used to have what we called "The Delphi Discussions". We were a little poofed up on our importance back then. :p Anyway, we'd decide on a topic and write a paper then have a moderated discussion about it. One of our topics was, "Should man want to live forever?".

I personally would like to see what the distant future is like, but maybe have some long breaks in my consciousness every now and then. Put me in cold storage and thaw me out. Then I can have the fun of discovering new things.

Whoa182

Thu, Jan-12-06, 06:06

How vain must one be to want to live forever?

It's a totally natural thing to want to live on forever. Isn't immortality what a lot of people strive for? Whether you come from a religious backround or not. Some people want to carry on in what they call the next life in a place called 'heaven' and theres people like me that love life and want more, there is nothing wrong with wanting more life.

I mean, we live to such extreme ages now that people experience diseases that were rare before, like alzheimer's. Do you think that we should just stop curing that disease because it gives the person more life?

I hate this pro death thing, it's sick. Everyone should be entitled to live as long as they possibly can. You say how vain are people who want to live forever? What about the MULTI BILLION DOLLAR MARKET in fake anti ageing creams and any other supplement that does nothing to make you live longer.

As the population is getting older, the market for these anti ageing therapies has increased by a lot. Want some figures?

And don't get started on overpopulation, there would be plenty of time to figure out what to do. It's not like there is not enough space on this planet, the problem would be having the infrastructure to support a growing population. If everyone were to become immortal today the population would only be 3 billion more than it would have be without immortality by 2100. So far it's projected that the population will be around 10 billion by 2100, with immortality today it would reach 13 billion instead.

Whoa182

Thu, Jan-12-06, 06:13

It's a picture. Pictures can be touched up... and it's obvious this picture has been through at least some graphics editing -- the guy has no neck! Who's to say they didn't go beyond that and maybe went on to smooth out a wrinkle there, erase a sag there, lighten up the undereye darkness... it's remarkably easy to do so and you wouldn't believe the difference it makes!

Actually, you don't even need computer editing to make someone look a LOT younger in a photo, the skillful use of lighting and camera lenses can take decades off one's face!

Hes been on quite a few shows in the U.S, including Oprah Winfrey 3 times. People have said to his face, not by looking at a photo, that he looks incredibly young for his age.

Studies show that collagen (the stuff that makes skin elastic and youthful) production is slowed to a fraction of normal when calorie intake is restricted

I exaplined this earlier, it was found that many CRON'ers had various degrees of Zinc Deficieny, which slows down collagen production. When they increased zinc their skin improved dramatically.

Just my opinion but I doubt if ANY eating plan is going to slow aging to the point where it can make 50 year olds stay looking like 20 year olds

Well with all animals, when they are on CR they look much more youthful in their appearance, outside and in. But other things could have an impact such as the envirionment you live in, sun exposure ages your skin for example.

Nancy LC

Thu, Jan-12-06, 13:59

Here's an article for you, Whoa!
Calorie restriction prevents the heart from aging.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/wuso-cra011206.php

scthgharpy

Thu, Jan-12-06, 15:15

Hmm, but REALLY severe calorie restriction prevents the heart from WORKING.

I wanna live forever too. Theres just too much cool stuff going on that Ill miss. And too much yummy food! WHich is why calorie restriction will SO totally not work.

alisbabe

Thu, Jan-12-06, 18:21

Low Cholesterol and Anxiety link has been mentioned here and is this because people under stress don’t eat a lot and have poor diet? But if you eat healthy, get all required nutrients especially Omega 3, exercise and have low cholesterol, you will be fine? I don’t know… but I don’t think it’s as simple as earlier studies found. I also noticed that taking fish oil rather than flax oil improves my mood a lot! I did change to flax but it didn’t work that well, so am back on fish oil.

It seems that EPA is better for mood than DHA, flax oil is high in DHA, fish oil in EPA. Some researchers suggest an optimal EPA:DHA ratio of 7:1 for sufferefs of depression. The book "Healing without Freud and Prozac" has a lot of into about this, but I can't quote from it as my copy is out on loan at the moment. The author's website is at http://www.nofreudnoprozac.com/.

.... googling threw up this article about it
http://www.mclean.harvard.edu/pdf/news/mitn/satevnpost.stoll0605.pdf

Nancy LC

Fri, Jan-13-06, 15:57

Hmm, but REALLY severe calorie restriction prevents the heart from WORKING.

CRON is calorie restriction. Someone else added the word severe and it seems to have stuck in everyone's mind and now they're making it synonymous with starvation.

Following SCD to get my intestines to behave again and I think it's a bit CRON-ish. I love great food too but it is sort of amazing how your tastebuds can adapt to milder fare.

Whoa182

Sat, Jan-14-06, 06:22

Here's an article for you, Whoa!
Calorie restriction prevents the heart from aging.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/wuso-cra011206.php

Ah yeah, I was waiting for this study to come out! A few people that I talk to participated in this study. These kind of results were also expected because of all the evidence of previous CR studies in other animals.

It seems that EPA is better for mood than DHA, flax oil is high in DHA

Actually flax oil, i think its ALA gets converted to EPA more than DHA. Studies show that the levels of DHA in the blood of male adults never changed when taking flax oil, but did for the women taking it.

But yeah, I take EPA concentrate for mood and Cod Liver Oil about 3x a week, I don't take it every day because of the high amount of Vitamin A.

Lisa N

Sat, Jan-14-06, 08:01

The study compared their heart function to 25 age- and gender-matched individuals who ate a typical Western diet (about 2,000 to 3,000 calories per day).

Once again, if you want your plan to look golden, compare it to the worst possible thing out there (Standard American Diet).
Pfft...if they really wanted a study that showed something other than eating lots of starches, sugars and fats is bad for you (something most of us here already know), they should compare apples to apples, not candy bars to asparagus.
Get a group that has eaten similar levels of calories over a period of time or compare a group of CRON against a group of long-term low-carbers and see how they compare.
I'd be willing to bet that if they did that, the differences wouldn't be nearly as striking as comparing someone on a 'heart attack waiting to happen' diet with someone who has been eating 'optimal nutrition' for years. ;)

Whoa182

Sat, Jan-14-06, 15:21

I have the CR DVD and there was some studies comparing Raw food eaters, CR, Exercisers (50 miles a week for 20 years) and controls (SAD). CR had the best results on all biomarkers. I see if I can get the PDF.

last study I heard about atkins was that it made the heart stiffer.

If you have a question regarding the study or comments, please email Liuigi Fontana at " lfontana~im.wustl.edu "

Im not sure that so many concerns have been raised over CRON than atkin diet.

Whoa182

Sat, Jan-14-06, 16:50

Once again, if you want your plan to look golden, compare it to the worst possible thing out there (Standard American Diet).

Maybe you never read it?

"In Western countries, heart attacks and strokes are responsible for about 40 percent of all deaths. Cancer causes about another 30 percent. According to Fontana, deaths in both groups can be attributed to what scientists call secondary aging. That's the term used to characterize health problems that result from conditions such as high cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure and other preventable conditions that contribute to premature death. A healthy diet and regular exercise can reduce risks from *secondary aging* . But this study suggests calorie restriction with optimal nutrition can do even more. " slow down or prevent *PRIMARY AGING* :wave:

Dodger

Sat, Jan-14-06, 18:02

Maybe you never read it?

"In Western countries, heart attacks and strokes are responsible for about 40 percent of all deaths. Cancer causes about another 30 percent. According to Fontana, deaths in both groups can be attributed to what scientists call secondary aging. That's the term used to characterize health problems that result from conditions such as high cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure and other preventable conditions that contribute to premature death. A healthy diet and regular exercise can reduce risks from *secondary aging* . But this study suggests calorie restriction with optimal nutrition can do even more. " slow down or prevent *PRIMARY AGING* :wave:So what is the definition of "primary aging" and how is it measured? How would one know if it had been slowed down?

Whoa182

Sat, Jan-14-06, 18:52

all the information you need to know is in the article

spiritof72

Fri, Jan-20-06, 10:01

I've often said that if my heart explodes tommorrow, at least I've been thin and happy while keeping full of rich food.

LOL ... this reminds me of my best friend's standard response when people inform her that she will imminently die of a heart attack if she keeps low carbing. She tells them that may be the case, but at least she'll be a skinny corpse and will only require the standard number of pallbearers.

People don't seem to get it. Atkins is not about deprivation, the entire reason why it works so well for so many of us is because it does NOT require deprivation, hunger or the elimination of entire groups of food.

Wyvrn

Fri, Jan-20-06, 10:15

I'm not sure if i can believe that you thought he looked 40 - 60 in that picture... EVERYONE i've asked (friends and family), has said that he is probably in his early 20's... including people of asian origin.Calling me a liar? Whatever... As I said I have Asians in the family, am part Asian myself, and we are all a very young looking bunch. I'm 45 and still occasionally get carded for buying alcohol.

Wyv

Nancy LC

Fri, Jan-20-06, 12:21

Yeah, I remember being floored when I ran into a women who was 59 and I thought she was probably in her 30's. I think she was SE Asian. My next door neighbors are Laotian and they look like kids. They must be in their 30's. My friend's husband is in his late 30's, he is half-chinese. He still gets carded. Pisses her off because everyone thinks she robbed the cradle for her husband. :lol:

I'm a sucker for Asian men, I think (many of them) are gorgeous. You should've seen seen the sons of my martial arts grand master... *drool*

Whoa182

Sat, Jan-21-06, 09:26

Check out this guy, hes about 90 now and hes jumping in the water catching fish, all day, plus he looks decades younger than other people at 90. This video is mainly about okinawans and their longevity because they have the longest life expectancy. Okinawans consume consume around 20-30% less calories than the U.S. They have the most centenarians.

http://demand1.stream.aol.com/ramgen/cnn/aolbb/world/2005/11/17/shubert.live.long.okinawa.affl_rv8.rm

http://okinawaprogram.com/images/chart1.gif

http://okinawaprogram.com/images/dem.gif

http://okinawaprogram.com/study.html

Lisa N

Sat, Jan-21-06, 12:36

Okinawans consume consume around 20-30% less calories than the U.S.

Not to mention a radically different diet and lifestyle. Once again, you cannot compare radically different diets, lifestyles and environments and then come to the conclusion that only one aspect (ie calorie restriction) is responsible for the better health and longevity of one group or the other.
Actually, you can...but it wouldn't be scientifically compelling evidence in support of your theory.
If you want to prove that calorie restriction alone promotes longevity and greater health, you need to compare groups eating identical diets as far as composition and nutrition and have one group eat less calories.

Whoa182

Sat, Jan-21-06, 15:21

If you want to prove that calorie restriction alone promotes longevity and greater health, you need to compare groups eating identical diets as far as composition and nutrition and have one group eat less calories.

I have already proved this, well the 60-70 years of research has proved this. When CR experiements are done on mice they set a certain number of calories for each group. I think an important point you missed is that CR isn't just one value for maximum amount of calories per day. Experiments have mice eat 20% less, 30% less, 40% less and usually an ad lib group.

This is demonstrated below, the composition of the diets were good and Identical for all CR groups, but the Percentage of CR were different. Fewer calories, same diet composition, more life. This is a well documented fact among all species tested.

http://calorierestriction.org/files/cr-youth.gif

I should be able to get hold of the studies on this.

Lisa N

Sat, Jan-21-06, 17:48

I think an important point you missed is that CR isn't just one value for maximum amount of calories per day. Experiments have mice eat 20% less, 30% less, 40% less and usually an ad lib group.

Nope, I didn't miss that and I'm well aware that the level of caloric intake needed for each person is individual. However, I'm not a mouse, rat, yeast cell, monkey, fish, fly or worm and the studies done thus far on humans compare the worst possible diets against calorie restriction and then credit calorie restriction with the better results instead of considering the possibility that the improvement in nutrition was responsible for the results.
There is no doubt that Okinawans are long-lived and there are many theories on why this is so (Coral Calcium (http://okinawaprogram.com/coral_calcium/coral-calcium.html), anyone? ;) ); you pointed out that they eat less calories than Americans but do they eat less calories than all other cultures? If so, how much less? It would be interesting to compare a group of Okinawans against another group of Okinawans with a reduced calorie intake long-term compared to their peers and see if it produced any change in longevity or improvement in health.
Until I see studies in humans that compare like with like, I will remain unconvinced.
Whoa, I wish you well in your CR lifestyle but I'm afraid that you aren't going to convince this skeptic that calorie restriction is going to offer me any longer of a life than eating healthy low carb style.

LC_Dave

Wed, Jan-25-06, 01:19

Whoa182

Wed, Jan-25-06, 09:45

Very interesting video,

but guess what ? all the food I saw was very low carb!

A lot of green vegetables and helps of seafood!!
They probably eat less rice than the mainland Japanese.

Sounds low carb to me!

Also I bet if you asked one of those older people how many calories in a carrot, they would not know! I doubt any of them conscious restricts calories,

however with the aid of their low carb diet, plenty of activity, their hunger and hence their intake is controlled!

There people were studies for years and some people in okinawa had their daily calorie intake measured. Like the animal data suggests, it's got NOTHING to do with carb reduction, the ratio in C:F:P does not effect it's longevity, this has been proved for the last 60 years. It's the total calorie intake. The lower the calorie intake, the more the benifits. I tototally agree that Low carb has it's benifits, but does nothing to maximum life span extension.

It's really not too difficult to understand dave...

zajack

Wed, Jan-25-06, 11:24

Every article that I've read about the okinawans (7 so far) regarding their longevity does mention a diet "low" in calories focused on fresh veggies and fruit with protein and in the range range of 1700-1900 cals...which is not ridiculously low in my opinion. They utilize "hara hachi bu" which means they eat until 80% full (which makes good sense since most people have consumed enough to satisfy but simply dont realize it for 20 minutes or so after they've finished eating). Okinawan's are generally shorter than westerners and their calorie count seems normal/healthy to me (heck, I eat 1500-1900 most of the time).

Every article so far, however, has (as LisaN mentioned) talked about a variety of factors that differentiate their culture from ours and note that their longevity could be the result of any one of those things or, more likely, the combination of those things. (such as coral calcium, activity level, herbal teas/remedies, strong sense of family and overall upbeat attitude.)

Dont get me wrong...I think they have a wonderful WOL and It obviously works. They're healthy, happy, and doing something right. I just dont think that CR can be given the bulk of credit for their longevity. There are too many other factors involved.

Nancy LC

Wed, Jan-25-06, 11:26

ItsTheWooo

Wed, Jan-25-06, 12:18

What dave meant was that low carb LEADS to low calorie. Saying "it's just calories not what you eat" is short sighted, because what you eat affects HOW you eat, and how much of it.

If you eat a lot of sweets and starches (and IMO fats/salts) guess what you will eat more, because these foods are physically and psychologically addictive. If you eat a plain diet of veggies and meats you will eat far less.
Those of us who low carb are 99% of the time practicing calorie restriction; we just don't do it in the same fashion or for the same reasons as CRONers.

Oh, and I highly doubt that it's as simple as "the lower the calories the better". I also think that quote that "calories are basically bad for you" is ridiculous to say the least. This is obviously untrue, if one abstains from calories they die pretty quickly. Energy is a nutrient, like amino acids, fatty acids, your body needs energy to do anything with any of this stuff. Nutrient factors don't exist in a vaccuum.
(BTW, checking my fitday, my zinc levels are 150% and I supplement with a vitamin pill which is 33% zinc. When I was restricting consistently/more my zinc supplementation was 100%. Didn't do much to make my nails grow faster, better, or stop hair loss. Only eating more food did.)

Obviously there must be some thesshold of intake, where, once crossed, benefits (if we assume they even exist) are negated and one starts to deteroriate.
Actually, if you ask me, it's likely you can deteroriate in some ways while still getting CR benefits in others. But I assume there is a point where one is restricting so much that they are becoming so ill and unhealthy that it's no longer a benefit. You are trying to make it seem as simple as "less is always more" as long as you eat only the highest nutrient foods when you DO eat... and I just don't think that can be correct for these reasons...

ItsTheWooo

Wed, Jan-25-06, 12:26

Nancy LC

Wed, Jan-25-06, 12:33

I think one thing that is a logical assumption people make is that "more is always better" too.

I think with CRON they're well aware of the fact that they've got to get adequate nutrition (the ON part of the name) so I would doubt they'd ever truly say "less is always better". Obviously you take that far enough and you'll starve to death.

This conversation would be more meaningful if people didn't take every argument to the extremes of starvation or the opposite. Its like people who argue low-carb is bad because people don't eat anything but meat. That's an extreme that doesn't apply to most low-carbers.

Whoa182

Wed, Jan-25-06, 14:07

I think that low calorie keeps your insulin levels low. Which low carb also does. I have a feeling that this might be of benefit to both groups. Now, CRON probably also does other things, but I think the low insulin benefit is a good one that both diets share.

Do you have any numbers on the average insulin level for LC? I suspect that you are right and LC will be low too.

I think that some researchers do believe that insulin has real importance in ageing. These are just captured from a dvd i have of the CR conference, it's from luigi fontannas presentation, which you heard about the other week on slowing down primary ageing in the heart.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/4.jpg

As you can see CR have very low levels of insulin. WBC count is also low... this is thought to be an indicator of longevity in non-smokers. Animals and human population that have low level of WBC live longer and have lower risk of cancer. CRP is a marker of inflammation which is also extremely low..

Whoa182

Wed, Jan-25-06, 14:19

What dave meant was that low carb LEADS to low calorie. Saying "it's just calories not what you eat" is short sighted, because what you eat affects HOW you eat, and how much of it.

Ok I understand...

If you eat a lot of sweets and starches (and IMO fats/salts) guess what you will eat more, because these foods are physically and psychologically addictive.

Yup I agree

Oh, and I highly doubt that it's as simple as "the lower the calories the better". I also think that quote that "calories are basically bad for you" is ridiculous to say the least.

That was one person that said that... his view, not mine.

(BTW, checking my fitday, my zinc levels are 150% and I supplement with a vitamin pill which is 33% zinc. When I was restricting consistently/more my zinc supplementation was 100%. Didn't do much to make my nails grow faster, better, or stop hair loss. Only eating more food did.)

Did you know your Zn Cu ratio? When a person loses weight their need for zinc increases by quite a bit and getting Zn:Cu ratio is obviously an important factor because they are similar, and compete for absorption.

I think a good Zn:Cu ratio is around 10:1

Obviously there must be some thesshold of intake, where, once crossed, benefits (if we assume they even exist) are negated and one starts to deteroriate.

Yeah there is, at a certain point, when an animal is restricted too far it ends up with a shorter life span, massive loss of life in early age and just 1 or 2 mice that have extraordinary extended life span.

Actually, if you ask me, it's likely you can deteroriate in some ways while still getting CR benefits in others. But I assume there is a point where one is restricting so much that they are becoming so ill and unhealthy that it's no longer a benefit. You are trying to make it seem as simple as "less is always more" as long as you eat only the highest nutrient foods when you DO eat... and I just don't think that can be correct for these reasons...

I think people should just be sensible, sensible restriction would be around 15% reduction in calories, providing the person its well.

Whoa182

Wed, Jan-25-06, 14:32

If anyone interesting in reading a new article check this out:

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/Issues/2006-01-18/news/feature_print.html

One thing that most people notice when doing cr is they are more immune to common colds, viruses and things. Almost everyone I've spoke to that does CR hasn't been ill once since starting CR...

in the article:

"Bettencourt boasts that he hasn't had a cold or the flu in fifteen years, that he hiked Mount Whitney in a single day this past summer with no problems, and that he has fantastic energy. "Race you around the block any day," he challenges."
"he hasn't had a cold or the flu in fifteen years"

Michael Rae in the video i gave a link to earlier in the thread:

" I have had one cold in 9 years " and that was in the 1st year.

Everyone around me in my immediate family, family, students in class etc.. has been ill with colds many times over this year. I used to always come down with a cold first lol. All my allergies dissapeared too!

Animals and humans that go on CR have improved immune function but is accompanied by a relative Lymphopenia

CR does the following:

- Enhanced Viral Immunity
- Augmented T-cell dependent antibiody production
- Decreased levels of circulating autoantibodies

Dodger

Wed, Jan-25-06, 14:35

Do you have any numbers on the average insulin level for LC? I suspect that you are right and LC will be low too.

I think that some researchers do believe that insulin has real importance in ageing. These are just captured from a dvd i have of the CR conference, it's from luigi fontannas presentation, which you heard about the other week on slowing down primary ageing in the heart.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/4.jpg

As you can see CR have very low levels of insulin. WBC count is also low... this is thought to be an indicator of longevity in non-smokers. Animals and human population that have low level of WBC live longer and have lower risk of cancer. CRP is a marker of inflammation which is also extremely low..What are the chart groups? Raw is raw foodists?, CR is calorie restiction, but what are Ex and C?

Whoa182

Wed, Jan-25-06, 14:36

Raw food eaters: Calorie restriction : exercisers : Controls (SAD)

Exercisers run around 50 miles a week for 30 years atleast.

Plaque build up in arteries was found in these runners and they had BP of 130/75 and CR around 100/60. Raw BP was pretty much the same as CR for BP.

Nancy LC

Wed, Jan-25-06, 15:14

From Whoa's article: Waistline watcher? Carb counter? Nope, that's for amateurs. Bettencourt is on a diet that never ends. And when he says he intends to keep doing something forever, he means forever.
That pretty much describes me. On a diet forever... simply because my body is so resistant to losing weight. :lol:

This is interesting:Within three to five days after a person stops eating, he says, nearly every organ in the body becomes involved in an intricate chemical choreography to maintain muscle mass while slowing growth and improving energy efficiency. The muscles get more efficient at burning fat, the liver stops producing glucose -- the brain switches over to another energy substrate -- and thyroid and growth hormone levels drop so the body uses less energy and its cells divide less frequently. Food-deprived animals also become much more active and quicker to learn. This, some researchers hypothesize, may help them hunt for food more vigorously -- scientists have observed similar hyperactivity in anorexic humans. Thanks to this built-in cycle of self-preservation, people can survive up to three months without food. Otherwise, Hellerstein says, we'd perish in three to four weeks.

But the REALLY interesting stuff is the periodic fasting. Sounds like it is as effective as CRON.

Whoa182

Wed, Jan-25-06, 16:06

Every other day fasting (Intermittent Fasting) works would be hard... I don't think I could do that. At my current calorie intake I do not feel deprived of food at all, and am never really hungry.

shopgirl28

Wed, Jan-25-06, 17:20

whoa182- why do you desire to be so thin? Your bmi is 17.2 is very underweight, did you strive for this or are you naturally thin. If so how many calories do you consume daily on average

Whoa182

Wed, Jan-25-06, 18:12

I started Calorie restriction at a BMI of 18.5. I've always been thin and it has nothing to do with weight, i would prefer to be around 120lb's

I take in around 1800 calories a day and my P:C:F ratio is now 30:40:30

I know people even more lower weight than me and he has had a bmi of 15.5 for 10 years now, he also started off at a really low weight too. I know another person and she has been doing CR for 15 years and has been at a BMI of 15.5 for nearly all of it. Now these bmi's are anorexically low, but their health is excellent because they supplement, eat large quantities of nutrient dense foods.

Here is one person that been doing cron for quite a while, hes got a bmi of around 15.5 and been doing cr for 9 -10 years now http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/13/sci-tech/calorie040513

Real player : http://www.cbc.ca/clips/ram-lo/reith_caloric0405131.ram
Quick time video : http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/reith_caloric0405131.mov

Unfortunatly some of us started off at a low weight so of course our weight would be even lower! People that started off at a higher weight when starting CR generally don't go below 18.5 even with very low Calorie intake.

ItsTheWooo

Wed, Jan-25-06, 19:04

If anyone interesting in reading a new article check this out:

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/Issues/2006-01-18/news/feature_print.html

One thing that most people notice when doing cr is they are more immune to common colds, viruses and things. Almost everyone I've spoke to that does CR hasn't been ill once since starting CR...

I always thought this is more a low carb (low glucose) thing than it is a CR thing specifically. Glucose is notorious for suppressing the immune system (by blocking vitamin C). Evidence in favor is that those of us on the low carb forum - whether or not we are CRing - typically enjoy the "imperviousness to germs" factor. Low carbing (even if calorie-adequate) and CR both lower glucose levels significantly, improving immunity.

Low carb is probably more effective in this respect, since CR impairs the body's ability to rebuild/recover tissues after day-to-day wear & tear & injury... which in the long run would lead to experiencing illnesses (once you get them) more profoundly. Like you, I NEVER get sick. The only times I come down with sicknesses are when I eat crappy food (every single time I eat crap food, by the end of the night I'll feel a bit "under the weather" with a sore throat and such, but it passes quickly).

But, on the other hand, if I get a bruise or a cut on my hand or something, it takes *forever* to really heal and go away sometimes. My hands and feet are often a little cold and numb (specially the feet get numb).

ItsTheWooo

Wed, Jan-25-06, 19:18

Did you know your Zn Cu ratio? When a person loses weight their need for zinc increases by quite a bit and getting Zn:Cu ratio is obviously an important factor because they are similar, and compete for absorption.

I think a good Zn:Cu ratio is around 10:1

This is data from very recently; I now eat significantly higher cal (on average) and also the quality of my nail/hair/skin have improved tremendously from before.

This is only applicable for the last month or so, but here's my averages (this includes the binging/over eating of holidays, followed by the restriction of the next few weeks to fix my weight, averaged out over 30 days)
Cals: 1490
Zinc: 165%
Cu: 150%
So my ratio is 1:1...

So basically supplement with isolated zinc? Is that what you do? I don't buy into supplementation really but eh, how much can zinc cost. I'm desperate enough to try it.

Yeah there is, at a certain point, when an animal is restricted too far it ends up with a shorter life span, massive loss of life in early age and just 1 or 2 mice that have extraordinary extended life span.

Is there any knowledge about when this point is reached - certain % of maintenance calories (in a normal-fed state) or what?

ItsTheWooo

Wed, Jan-25-06, 19:43

Unfortunatly some of us started off at a low weight so of course our weight would be even lower! People that started off at a higher weight when starting CR generally don't go below 18.5 even with very low Calorie intake.

Right now my weight this morning was a low of 116.8 and a high of 117.6... assuming 117 average that puts my present BMI at 119.5. I could probably very easily lose more weight if I cranked up the activity more and ate less than I am. I was morbidly obese and my weight got to 17.3 bmi... my calories were restricted more than 15% but they weren't THAT low (like maybe 1000-1100 average?)
Are you sure it's not possible to go lower than 18.5 if you were heavy?

shopgirl28

Wed, Jan-25-06, 19:44

yeah i have a friend that started doing low carb and lost a crap load of weight; she's 5'4 and weighs 96 but she eats so much, its not even calorie restriction, she eats vegan and eats almost 2500 cals a day, its amazing. She's actually trying to gain weight now I think

Nancy LC

Wed, Jan-25-06, 20:10

There's something wrong with your calculations, Woo. I don't think the BMI scale goes up to 119.5 and it increases as you gain weight, not otherwise. For instance, mine is 25.1 right now and I wear 50 pounds more than you do.

Whoa182

Wed, Jan-25-06, 20:12

This is data from very recently; I now eat significantly higher cal (on average) and also the quality of my nail/hair/skin have improved tremendously from before.

This is only applicable for the last month or so, but here's my averages (this includes the binging/over eating of holidays, followed by the restriction of the next few weeks to fix my weight, averaged out over 30 days)
Cals: 1490
Zinc: 165%
Cu: 150%
So my ratio is 1:1...

So basically supplement with isolated zinc? Is that what you do? I don't buy into supplementation really but eh, how much can zinc cost. I'm desperate enough to try it.

Is there any knowledge about when this point is reached - certain % of maintenance calories (in a normal-fed state) or what?

Ahh, I should of mentioned that I need the ratio when measured in mg. I am usually getting around 10-11 mg of zinc for every 1mg of copper, depending on what I ate that day.. I use http://www.aor.ca/products/zinc-copper_balance.php every other day and I take 50% of this every day: http://www.aor.ca/products/essential_mix.php

That Zn Cu balance for you should be fine though, I recommend you read this http://www.aor.ca/related_research/zinc-copper_balance.php

many people on the CR list discovered that they had a Zn deficiency, when they started to take 15mg zinc their skin improved and wound healing improved.

Whoa182

Wed, Jan-25-06, 20:24

Diets and what nutrients they are sometimes deficient in so people people should look carefuly at intake of the nutrients listed:

Walford: Protein?
Atkins: Fiber, Vitamin D, B1, B5, Cu, Mg, Mn, K, Ca, too much SaFa
Zone: copper
Ornish: B1, B12, EFA, Zn, E, A, Protein
Vegetarians: Omega 3, vitamins D, B1, B12, Retinol, Protein, Fe, Ca, Zn

Since you all eat a lot of meat, i'm really unsure about the whole zinc thing... It really wouldn't hurt to try out zinc copper balance though, 100caps last me 200 days and just cost 15-18 pounds... don't have invoice anymore.

ItsTheWooo

Wed, Jan-25-06, 20:40

Whoa182

Wed, Jan-25-06, 20:42

Are you sure it's not possible to go lower than 18.5 if you were heavy?

Im sure it is possible, but Metabolism slows down quite a bit. Most people that started off at a higher weight than I know of, dropped only to a bmi of around 19 and they are eating like 1200k/cal a day (females)

April http://www.mprize.org/blogs/index.html Does CR and she has really low level of carb intake too. she gets around 1200kcal and has a bmi of 19, anything over 1300 and she gains.

CR and metabolism

Respitory Metabolism becomes really effecient when reducing calories to different levels. I think 50% of the potential energy intake from carbs, fat and protein can be converted to ATP at around 1800k/cal for a male and the rest is dissapated as heat or stored as fat. 2500k/cal 35% 3000k/cal 30%

Whoa182

Wed, Jan-25-06, 20:57

One thing that you all have convinced me on is to lower my carb intake ;) just incase lol

My C:F:P % ratio used to be 45:30:25 but have now gone to 40:30:30

ItsTheWooo

Wed, Jan-25-06, 21:20

Im sure it is possible, but Metabolism slows down quite a bit. Most people that started off at a higher weight than I know of, dropped only to a bmi of around 19 and they are eating like 1200k/cal a day (females)

April http://www.mprize.org/blogs/index.html Does CR and she has really low level of carb intake too. she gets around 1200kcal and has a bmi of 19, anything over 1300 and she gains.

Perhaps the issue is how we are weighing. I ONLY bother to weigh first thing in the morning, naked, after going to the bathroom. I weigh a couple of times and do a rough average. I figure that's the only fair way to judge.

If I weighed with my clothes on, later in the day, after eating, the scale will be MUCH higher; never during the day will I get a weight like my morning weight.

CR and metabolism

Respitory Metabolism becomes really effecient when reducing calories to different levels. I think 50% of the potential energy intake from carbs, fat and protein can be converted to ATP at around 1800k/cal for a male and the rest is dissapated as heat or stored as fat. 2500k/cal 35% 3000k/cal 30%
Hmmm... so much of the conservation comes from respiratory metabolism...
Is this why when I would lie down I couldn't breath sometimes when I would lie down? I don't have that problem ever anymore. I always felt like I had a hard time breathing, a few times I had to sit up because I was afraid I would suffocate.

Is this why my extremities still often feel liek there's not enough blood getting to them? Heart rate gets slower, weaker blood flow, etc...

Marvin

Wed, Jan-25-06, 21:55

wow whoa182 all your research is very thorough and interesting. I don't see anything wrong with reducing calories (instead of or in addition to lowcarb) to lose weight. different strokes for different folks. basically, like I have learned any diet will work as long as there is

1. consistency

anyhow, I basically follow a calorie reduced diet that is mostly comprised of lean meat/dairy, fruits, vegetables (sweet potatoes :yes: ), and whole grains.

- white potatoes, white rice...etc.

don't get me wrong I love low-carb and it will definitely work, like it has when I started off for me. however it is not the sole and only way to do so.

:)

Whoa182

Wed, Jan-25-06, 22:28

Perhaps the issue is how we are weighing. I ONLY bother to weigh first thing in the morning, naked, after going to the bathroom. I weigh a couple of times and do a rough average. I figure that's the only fair way to judge.

If I weighed with my clothes on, later in the day, after eating, the scale will be MUCH higher; never during the day will I get a weight like my morning weight.

For a women weight can fluctuate quite significantly every day. Weighing in the morning is best, for me, i keep track of my weight to check that I'm not losing, because metabolism fluctuates too. If I weight with my clothes on and at the end of the day after I had eaten lots, i'm usually atleast 4-6 lb's heavier! but this obviously gets burned off and my weight decreases again by the morning.

Hmmm... so much of the conservation comes from respiratory metabolism...
Is this why when I would lie down I couldn't breath sometimes when I would lie down? I don't have that problem ever anymore. I always felt like I had a hard time breathing, a few times I had to sit up because I was afraid I would suffocate.

Well respiratory metabolism is the conversion of carbs, protein and fat in the mitochondria into Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) which is a energy carrying molecule to drive various functions of the cell. So it's a bit different from respiration as in breathing, but I should have explained that...

It sounds like Bradycardia from what you are explaining, do you know what you usual resting heart rate is, check in the morning when you wake up. My heart rate is consistanly around 50bpm, when wake up it's usually at 48bpm from the latest readings. It lowered after I starting to run 20min 3x a week. I have only once felt weak like arms felt a bit heavy, bit dizzy, started to take deep breaths etc.. and that was a few months ago.

wow whoa182 all your research is very thorough and interesting

Thanks... I like to read and sometimes share the latest research. I am studying Cell Biology so all this interests me. If anyone has any LC research they want to share with me, please do! I like reading.

ItsTheWooo

Wed, Jan-25-06, 22:40

Oh okay I get what you're saying, it's about energy period not specifically respiration as in breathing...
BTW those symptoms you had sound like a hypoglycemic episode. When myb lood sugar does a dive I get those arms of lead and dizziness too. I don't have trouble breathing really but this is a hypoglycemic symptom as well. Considering you eat a low cal diet and were exercising it's likely that episode was blood sugar related.

My (old) problems with breathing, though, were isolated only to when I was lulling off to sleep and lying down. I don't know what my heart rate was, but back then I had a lot of problems like that, palpitations when heart rate would change, stuff like that.

Whoa182

Wed, Jan-25-06, 22:55

BTW those symptoms you had sound like a hypoglycemic episode. When myb lood sugar does a dive I get those arms of lead and dizziness too

Didn't think about that... I'll get myself one of those little monitoring things :)

My (old) problems with breathing, though, were isolated only to when I was lulling off to sleep and lying down. I don't know what my heart rate was, but back then I had a lot of problems like that, palpitations when heart rate would change, stuff like that.

This is what some people had symptoms of when they took calorie restriction too far. Anxiety, when you get up heart rate would speed up really quick, palpitations. These symptoms were alleviated after raising calorie level or gaining weight back.

One thing I can relate to strongly is breathing, since I was about 8 years maybe, I must have developed some sort of anxiety. I would be too aware of my breathing and sometimes panic or find it hard to breathe. Now and then I will get it, usually during my bursts of anxiety that comes and goes throughout the year. always had this ever since I was a child. It's hard to explain but generally we don't really concentrate on our breathing, it automatic. I just used to fixate on it so much than I would panic and feel like I couldn't breathe properly, maybe worried that I would just stop breathing or I would breathe deepy while I try to fall asleep.

I've had numerous tests over the last 12 years and they show nothing wrong, ever... thats scans, monitoring, lots of blood tests etc...

Lez

Thu, Jan-26-06, 10:02

I
I was just reading an article in the newspaper today about this new sect of people called the CR group. They severely restrict calories based on the fact that they think it increases their lifespan. They eat one meal a day (usually just a salad and a piece of chicken - no dressing). They do this not because they want to be thin but because they think that eating that few of meals put your body into a survival mode that will increase their lifespan.
]

This was tried at the Liverpool university 25/30 years ago with humans, it didn’t work the and it wont work now.

lez

Whoa182

Thu, Jan-26-06, 11:10

Lez what are you talking about :p

results on human life span from extended calorie restriction is about 50-100 years away! lol

Whoa182

Thu, Jan-26-06, 13:09

I was just reading back through the thread to find anything I missed, I came across this lol.

First of All thats not true (refering the the article posted). My parents are both doctors and they said what they are doing is becoming anxeix and actually they will die very soon bystarinving their body to death.

First, no one that we are aware of at the CRS has died while doing Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition. But I am very sure that other people that have done CR without optimal nutrition have died, many thousands and even millions.

My step mom does biochemisrty ans she says that salad has not enough nutiets to live on and many people die everry year trying to do stupid things like that.

Your mom would be right, people do stupid things, but CRON is not stupid if you know what you are doing, understanding nutrition, counting calories and having regular tests.

You will by no means live an extra year a matter affact you cholsetrol will go up becuase that happens to many anerxiots and you will bhecome messed up.

All numbers reported in the latest studies have shown that people doing CR have very low level of cholesterol. The disorder you are refering to is called hypercholesterolaemia and this is typically seen in people with Anorexia Nervosa, not people who practise calorie restriction with optimal nutrition. My cholesterol after doing CR for nearly a year is:

Total cholesterol - 3.1 mmol/L --------- 120mg/dl
Triglycerides - 0.4 ---------------- 35mg/dl
HDL cholesterol - 1.20 --------------- 46mg/dl
LDL cholesterol - 1.7 ---------------- 65mg/dl

Even if you take supplemnts its by no menas healthy. Wheres your fat wers protein those are the key componets of living a haelty life.

People who practise CRON get all their nutrients from diet first like this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/72c9ec99.jpg

Then I supplement where I need to, 50% of most minerals and 1000% of most of the water soluble vitamins, and 50% of the fat soluble vitmains

Follow atkins Eat meat, butter, veggies, fruits and you will ive a far healthier life than those peolple.

I do eat meat and veggies and fruits :yum:

I dont care what the newspaper says guess what my parents are doctors and they said and go do reaserch salad has not enoguh nutrients to live on.

Some people been living on these nutreints from little calories for almost 1-2 decades.

Its funny we disscused this in chem class today. And my teacher said it is impossibble to live in lettuce if you do survive you would lose a ton of muslce mas and you will become so unhealty and you will die. So by no means dont do som4ething so stupid. :p

Who is living on lettuce? :eek:

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/10/14/lettuce_narrowweb__200x238.jpgDinner anyone?

ItsTheWooo

Thu, Jan-26-06, 13:38

Whoa one thing I'm curious about is the bioavailability of all that "optimal nutrition" in the context of a calorie restricted, energy-restricted diet.

As I said earlier, nutrient factors don't exist in a vaccum. For example if I swallow a calcium pill, it will do *nothing* if it is taken without other nutrients hormones and enzymes available. These nutrients are sometimes obtained from other sources (e.g. calcium, magnesium, D, do stuff together for bones). Suplement pills take care of that problem.

But what about other nutritional/metabolic factors that you CAN'T supplement - or worse yet - depend on energy (calorie) state to be active? For example, insulin & other anabolic hormones need to be a certain level, for optimal tissue growth. BTW, tissue growth includes more than fat - also bones and muscles. Anabolic hormone levels correlate strongly with nutrition (calorie levels).
If you are eating too little, your hormone levels will be too low for "optimal tissue growth". That is to say your muscles, organs and bones will emaciate & deteriorate. Swallow all the pills you want, it won't make a difference if your cals are too low to support normal metabolism, and keep a healthy amount of tissue mass (marker for anabolic potential/activity).

There's also the fact that to even ABSORB a lot of vitamins effectively, they need to go along with a full meal and adequate fat. Again, taking vitamins on an empty stomach or with a very very low fat meal is not effective.

Like Caveman said earlier CRON seems a little bit oxymoronic to me. Now it's possible that, in the context of calorie restriction, our needs for nutrient factors decrease enough that the net result is true optimal nutrition. Do you have any information regarding long-term nutritional status of CRONers? I would suspect osteopena, anemia, and other conditions relating to malnutrition. Even if you are good about supplementation, nutrition doesn't exist in a vacuum, energy IS a nutrient...for a metabolism to be ideally healthy you need to eat a reasonable amount to support reasonable weight consistently.

Whoa182

Thu, Jan-26-06, 14:53

Whoa one thing I'm curious about is the bioavailability of all that "optimal nutrition" in the context of a calorie restricted, energy-restricted diet.

[QUOTE]As I said earlier, nutrient factors don't exist in a vaccum. For example if I swallow a calcium pill, it will do *nothing* if it is taken without other nutrients hormones and enzymes available. These nutrients are sometimes obtained from other sources (e.g. calcium, magnesium, D, do stuff together for bones). Suplement pills take care of that problem.

I supplement because it just helps to ensure that I don't fall extremely low on some vitamins, minerals. The supplement I take is quite well formulated (you can see details on that link i sent) when you megadose on soem vitamins it causes a secondary deficiency in the other. I also supplement upto 1000% RDA of water soluble vitamins and is very safe. I think just getting the minimum 100% from supplementation is a bad idea because some people clearly need more than that, especially CRONer's

But what about other nutritional/metabolic factors that you CAN'T supplement - or worse yet - depend on energy (calorie) state to be active? For example, insulin & other anabolic hormones need to be a certain level, for optimal tissue growth. BTW, tissue growth includes more than fat - also bones and muscles. Anabolic hormone levels correlate strongly with nutrition (calorie levels).
If you are eating too little, your hormone levels will be too low for "optimal tissue growth". That is to say your muscles, organs and bones will emaciate & deteriorate. Swallow all the pills you want, it won't make a difference if your cals are too low to support normal metabolism, and keep a healthy amount of tissue mass (marker for anabolic potential/activity).

You are absolutely correct. CR alters metabolism thus decreases absorption of certain nutrients. We know from the study on CRON'ers hearts that was recently published, their heart function is that of someone 15 years younger than their age. They had lots of scans and tests done. The functioning of our organs by looking at hepatic liver function panel, renal function panel, metabolic panel etc... helps us ensure that we are not damaging our organs.

Read this please http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060113112537.htm

To my knowledge there hasn't been any reports on low calorie leading to death or any problems if proper nutrition is given. You might remember the study on the liquid protein diet a while ago where some people died of cardiac arrest. Later on it was found with good supplementation and having the same diet didn't lead to any deaths.

There's also the fact that to even ABSORB a lot of vitamins effectively, they need to go along with a full meal and adequate fat. Again, taking vitamins on an empty stomach or with a very very low fat meal is not effective.

I can't speak for other CRONer's but I always have quite a signifcant amount of fat with each meal. When I have my porridge in the morning I have 30g almonds, 2g brazil nut and my AOR essential mix supplement which contains fat souble, water solubl vitamins and minerals. I have plenty fat with every meal.

I would suspect osteopena, anemia, and other conditions relating to malnutrition. Even if you are good about supplementation, nutrition doesn't exist in a vacuum, energy IS a nutrient...for a metabolism to be ideally healthy you need to eat a reasonable amount to support reasonable weight consistently.

Anemia has occured for one person that is on CRS and hes male. Cases of malnutrition in humans practising calorie restriction in the studies over the last 5 years have not come up with deficiencies. Most of the people involved in the studies were members of CRS. Excellent health and very positive results that show up in animals were found. osteoporosis is a concern for people doing CR, most do certain exersises to reduce the risk.

Calorie restriction reduces the absorption of: Calcium, Zinc, Iron

I am aware of no study that has found calorie restriction to be harmful to humans when it is done properly

Do you really believe that humans are so seperate from primates and lots of other animals that have shown benifits from CR? If done properly all evidence is pointing to the EXACT same physiological changes that occur in animals also occur in humans. All studies show that humans gain the same benifits Okinawans are also doing pretty good on a reduced calorie intake

Whoa182

Thu, Jan-26-06, 15:05

I forgot to mention about a certain study.

it was found in CR mice that if they had a large meal before their injury occured, they would heal just as fast as ad lib mice.

Whoa182

Thu, Jan-26-06, 15:12

CRON'ers

Typical findings include:

* Very low total and LDL cholesterol
* Low blood pressure, often including postural hypotension
* Low fasting blood glucose and HbA1c
* Low fasting insulin
* Low WBC, especially absolute lymphocyte count
* Low T3, particularly in combination with normal TSH and high rT3 as a result of low peripheral conversion of T4
* Mild brachycardia
* Elevated ALT and alk phos, especially during preliminary weight loss
* Low rennin
* Low creatinine
* Low BUN
* Low body temperature
* Elevated (women) or lowered (men) prolactin
* High MCV (in the absence of B12 or folate deficiency)
* Low levels of major sex steroids; elevated sex hormone binding globulin

Tests that some croners get done or recommended are:

* Basic Metabolic Panel, including Sodium; Potassium; Calcium; Chloride; Carbon dioxide; Glucose; Blood urea nitrogen (BUN); Creatinine.
* Hepatic Function Panel including ALT, AST, Albumin, AP, Bilirubin, and Total Protein.
* Lipid Panel including total cholesterol, HDL, LDL, and triglycerides).
* Blood pressure
* Complete Blood Cell count (CBC) including white blood cell with differential and red blood cell
* HbA1c

* Thyroid panel (TSH, T3; T4 and rT3 if possible)
* Fasting insulin
* Fasting cortisol
* Free testosterone (males) or estrogen (females)
* Albumin

* DHEA-S
* IGF-1
* Body Fat (via calipers, buoyancy or DEXA scan)
* VO2 Max
* Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGGT)
* Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR)
* DEXA scan

We do a lot to ensure we are healthy

If anyone is interested i'd be happy to send out PDF files on a few studies. one of them is the Biosphere study, which might be of interest to you because 75% of their calories came from CARBOHYDRATES.

Whoa182

Thu, Jan-26-06, 15:26

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/CRONERS.jpg

Who says carbs are bad? - 75% calories from carbs and i'll show you their results... It's clearly the types of carbs you consume.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/09215b27.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/cap1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/cap2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/cap3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/cap4.jpg

There are slight differences between cron high fat and cron low fat. especially in the lipid panel. HDL was quite low here but most people doing CRON have atleast 20-30% of fat coming from calories and have higher HDL.

But this shows that the composition of your diet only produces mintor changes and to get these changes its all about calories

I have all the pdf files and if anyone wants to take a quick look please ask. I got ones that show the same changes from different diet composition.

Whoa182

Thu, Jan-26-06, 15:55

My suspicion is that Roy Walford's demise was probably brought about by a high-carb diet that kept his insulin levels high. The current message seems to be, the lower the carbs the better the results.

There are lots of people who are low-carbing that eat around 1500 calories per day. I expected Wolford's diet to be lower than that. With the high carbs, I would also expect the insulin level to be high.

Well looks like you expected wrong :) and if you like at the biosphere two health biomarkers you can see that one person affected the average insulin level, otherwise it would have been very low, you can see that on the graph.

This is from a presentaiton that luigi fontanna done at Calorie restriction conference.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/4.jpg

I hope you guys look into what I posted, I spent ages digging these up for you! ...

now dinner time!

ValerieL

Fri, Jan-27-06, 12:09

Nancy LC

Fri, Jan-27-06, 12:47

Who says carbs are bad? - 75% calories from carbs and i'll show you their results... It's clearly the types of carbs you consume.

I don't think you'll find low carbers disagree with that, that it is the sort of carbs. We call things low carb that are low in digestible carbs. If something is 20g of carbs but 19g of fiber, we'd call that a low carb food. It looked to me like most of your "carbs" were in that form.

Probably the biggest difference is that we don't count those undigestible carbs as carbs. We call them fiber and subtract them out of our carb totals.

Wyvrn

Fri, Jan-27-06, 13:37

I'm not sure I understand these concerns really. Whoa posted his nutritionally data for a day earlier, he's eating 1700 calories a day, assuming this is an average day for him. .... getting decent nutrition at 1700 calories a day doesn't seem to be an impossible task.Yeah, 1700 calories sounds like a lot to me too. I maybe average 1500 and my ideal weight is 20 pounds heavier than Whoa. I'd say low-carbers almost certainly get more nutrition per calorie because we tend to consume far less empty (carbohydrate) calories.

Wyv

Nancy LC

Fri, Jan-27-06, 14:00

I worked out a menu once that got pretty close to 100% RDA on all nutrients (except Vit E) on 1000 calories. Of course, 100% probably isn't optimal but I bet NO ONE, no matter how many calories they're eating, is eating optimally unless they've worked it out with nutrition software. I mean, 1000 calories of cheese cake isn't going to get you any closer to optimal nutrition. Calories != nutrition.

brpssm

Fri, Jan-27-06, 14:24

Calories != nutrition.
Programmer, by chance :q: ;)

Nancy LC

Fri, Jan-27-06, 15:26

programmer == true
:)

Wyvrn

Fri, Jan-27-06, 15:32

CS || VB?

Wyv

Dodger

Fri, Jan-27-06, 16:24

Whoa,

Thanks for posting all the data. I admit that I am very surprized at the low triglyceride and insulin levels, as I expected them to have been higher.

I do think that the lowered blood pressure numbers in the Biosphere were due to less stress and not to diet (they jumped up so sharply at the end).

I think of calorie restriction as being lower calories than the Biospherians ate. During the times that I have tracked my calories, I seldom exceed 2000 and often am at 1800. I don't intentionally restrict calories, I just eat when hungry and quit when satisfied (more or less, as I usually eat until my plate is clean).

The BMI and glucose levels seemed to be rising near the end of the program. Did the participants run out of certain foods and have to increase their consumption of other items?

ItsTheWooo

Fri, Jan-27-06, 16:32

Val,
My concerns are several. Primarily my concern is, that, nutrition does not exist in an vacuum... so even if we assume one manages to meet or even exceed RDA, they still aren't getting "optimal nutrition" in practice because of the metabolic state created by calorie restriction.

We all know food, in the body, is something entirely different than on paper. It's all hormones, enzymes, etc... and in prolonged restriction, the body begins to mimic starvation in some respects. Part of that includes dramatically reducing key hormones to better conserve the insufficient energy it's getting (such as insulin, sex steroids, other anabolic hormones). So even if you are eating 200% calcium, D, magnesium, phosphorus and all that... I highly doubt your body is going to build bones anywhere near as well as someone who eats unrestricted but may not meet 100% of those minerals/vitamins. Why? Bone buildling is ultimately controlled by hormones, not minerals and vitamins. These hormones are strongly affected by anabolic hormones. These anabolic hormones, are, in turn, strongly dictated by nutrition (energy) status.

I can easily use my computer to come up with a meal plan that would meet minimum nutrition, or even exceed it with vitamins... but if the diet is deficient in energy for life who knows what's going to happen? I firmly believe energy is a nutrient. I do not believe it is possible to have "optimal nutrition" if your diet is too low in energy so that your body begins adapting to restriction for life.

Nancy LC

Fri, Jan-27-06, 17:43

CS || VB?

Wyv

push (~languages, qw/perl php rusty-c sql coldfusion unix-stuff javascript/) && $U;

Argh! Mangled my list!

Whoa182

Fri, Jan-27-06, 19:11

I can easily use my computer to come up with a meal plan that would meet minimum nutrition, or even exceed it with vitamins... but if the diet is deficient in energy for life who knows what's going to happen?

It's already been discovered how one can extend life using CR when initiated in adulthood. If an animal is restricted in calories from a very early age then they seem to be protected against nutritional deficiencies that animals who began cr later in life do not. There were some scientists saying that "I told you so, it is impossible to extend life when cr begins in adulthood" DR Roy Walford found this to be not true.

He found two things that you MUST do to extend the life of animals when they start CR at a later age

1) They have to be restricted slowly, in steps, 5%, 15%, 25%, 40% and so on. If you put an organism under too much stress and restrict them at 40% straight away, you decrease the life span.

2) When CR was done on animals at adulthood they were given the same food and same nutritional quality as ad-lib animals. This was not sufficient and they were deficient in many vitamins and minerals that lead to early death. To ensure that they had adequete amounts they fed them with better fortified foods and supplemented where neeeded.

With these two things, doing CR in adulthood was succesful and EVERY ANIMAL so far, I see no reason why CR wont ATLEAST extend average life span. We know that one perosn made it to 122 and these centenarians have amazing health up untill about 100 + or so. Calorie Restriction would surely create a few more Centenarians and super centenarians.

http://www.karlloren.com/diet/images/monkey06042002145551.jpg

C58, who is on a calorie-restricted diet, is 114 years old human years
http://www.karlloren.com/diet/p108.htm

"It's too early to predict what the maximum lifespan will be in either group. But one of the calorie-restricted monkeys, a rhesus from Indian stock who goes only by the name given him by his breeders, C58, turned 38 in January.

That makes him one of the oldest rhesuses ever recorded."

that was in 2002 and the study is still going on

ValerieL

Fri, Jan-27-06, 22:33

Whoa182

Fri, Jan-27-06, 23:31

Thanks for posting all the data. I admit that I am very surprized at the low triglyceride and insulin levels, as I expected them to have been higher.

No problem, thanks for taking a quick look at the data! As i've said many times, the composition of the diet doesn't seem to affect the benifits from restricting calories.

I do think that the lowered blood pressure numbers in the Biosphere were due to less stress and not to diet (they jumped up so sharply at the end).

Most people doing CR on CRS lead very busy lives, scientists, corporate business persons and just other hard working people. I also have a lot of stress, mostly to do with college work! lol and working. No doubt that under stressful situations blood pressure goes slightly up, bit this rise isn't too much. When I'm home or anywhere else apart from the doctors I can typically get blood pressure readings of about 95/60 and pulse anything from 47-60. Since starting to run 3 x a week my pulse is usually around 48 when resting. When Im at the doctors I sometimes get a bit anxious, blood pressure readings go up to around 110/70 and pulse 100 -+20. But typically any study you see on humans on CR they have excellent bp readings and low heart rate.

The BMI and glucose levels seemed to be rising near the end of the program. Did the participants run out of certain foods and have to increase their consumption of other items?

Good point, take a look at the TABLE 2 and if you look at the calories consumed you see it rising as time goes by. In biosphere two they were restricted because they didnt have enough food, not because of choice. Some health biomarkers got worse as they increased their calories, you can clearly see the correlation by looking at table two and the graphs.

Matt

Whoa182

Fri, Jan-27-06, 23:37

Here are what foods they had:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/foodconsumed.jpg

ItsTheWooo

Fri, Jan-27-06, 23:37

I don't buy it. What's your foundation for this theory that 1700 calories is deficient energy for "life"?

Never said it was.
I am defining "sufficient" based on a total lack of starvation symptoms (which, everyone who does CR will have to *some* degree, even if only as benign as an emaciation of lean tissue mass). For one person this could be 1700 cals, for another it could be 2500 cals, for a third it's 1500... metabolism depends on age/sex/gender/genes/lifestyle. It's never a calorie number.

Whoa can produce some scientific studies at least to support his theories. Where are yours?

There are lots of studies which show energy restriction has negative effects on health. Although none of them were in the context of "CRON". If you've been paying attention even Whoa admits that when calorie restriction is done sloppily it has a completely negative benefit (for example, when animals are taken too low and/or too fast they experience a sharp decrease in lifespan).

Whoa keeps saying over and over CR improves lifespan, as if this automatically translates into CR being completely healthy in all respects. Something can improve health in one way, but decrease it in another.
What basis do you have for determining that the body's adaptation to calorie restriction by slowing metabolism is harmful?
Several reasons.

1) Logically speaking, it doesn't make sense that an ideal environment for an animal should be so close to one that can result in serious ill health or death.

Any CRON website reads like a packet of cigarettes; lots of WARNINGS and SIGNS to look out for. If I am to understand CRON correctly, if you eat EXACTLY too little calories you are maximizing your lifespan &health, but, if you take it just a slip too far, you are going to come down with a ton of trouble. Everyone knows that. But, according to CRON anyway, if you eat a slip too much, either, you are reducing lifespan as well.

In other words, it's not a bell curve (extremes on either side being problems), but, a "perfect zone" you have to find: a carrot point (the majority of spots "outside" this range are dramatically different).
Knowing what I know about reality, that does not make sense. The body is adaptive and, when doing something that is natural and healthful for it, it shouldn't be so easy to screw up and get into trouble. How would humans have survived if we were meant to live in a biodome of constant environment, where everything was carefully structured and controlled? ;)
We aren't. We are resiliant. It takes a dramatic deviation from what is expected to cause disease/issues (like, for example, eating a really unnatural diet and living a really unnatural lifestyle which IMO CRON classifies as). When we are doing things we are supposed to be doing (genetically speaking), it's really hard to get sick or in trouble. In other words, the body actually exists more in a "bell curve" fashion: you have to extremely deviate from "normal" in order to actually cause failing health.

Call me crazy, but something so wonderful and good for us shouldn't be so dangerously close to serious ill health. It just doesn't make logical sense to me.

2) Objective observation of the results of CRON.
CRONers don't look healthy. I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be judgemental, but the CRONers I've seen in these videos/pictures look brittle, "paperclip like", frail. They just don't look robust or healthy - they merely look like underfed people. Maybe inside they are a lot younger, but, outside, they don't impress me or make me a believer that it's the way to health.

3) Logically speaking, anything that reduces fertility usually means it's really unhealthy.
We are biological gene-disseminating machines; we are part of a species and our only point in being alive is to compete with each other to try to reproduce our genetic code. Successful reproduction is the point of life in an objective sense. CRON results in reduced fertility or complete infertility; at best you can hope for a lack of change in fertility from CRON (but if you're doing CRON "right" to induce a conservation state, you WILL experience a decrease in fertility...)
It does not logically make sense to me that something which should be good for us is something that would render us infertile.

I could go on... but I won't.
Bottom line is, I think that CRON is probably not as healthy as eating an energy-adequate carb controlled unprocessed diet. CRON is successful in context to unnatural and unhealthful lifestyles (like raw food, or high cal crap food SAD + exercise, or, of course, high cal crap food SAD w/o exercise).
I define "energy adequate" as enough to avoid any conservation symptoms at all, as I said earlier. I do think excess food or being on the heavier side of your weight range (from eating excess food) is not ideally healthy, either (since excess energy cause unfavorable changes the way carbs do). This doesn't mean the answer is to think "calories are basically bad for you" and to try to eat 15% less than needed to avoid conservation symptoms (which I won't list, the CRON sites list them, and some of them like lower basal metabolic rate, are considered "the goal" of the regimen).

Something inside me, some basic "common sense", some innate aversion to dangerous things, tells me this can't be correct.

ValerieL

Sat, Jan-28-06, 00:31

I'm at a loss here, Woo. You are dismissing CRON out of hand here because you "feel" logically it can't be healthy even when there are studies that suggest you might be wrong.

Pointing to where CRONer say it has to be done right to be effective doesn't mitigate it's effectiveness, it's just responsible on their part to be completely honest in their information. Just because something can be dangerous if done wrong doesn't mean it's unhealthy. Iron supplemention can be dangerous, but for those of us with non-existent ferritin levels, it's the right thing to do.

I'm not necessarily a proponent of CRON, personally, until they can prove their thesis, I'm not sure I believe enough to do the incredible work necessary to live a CRON lifestyle. And since they won't be able to prove their thesis with humans until a point in my life that will be too late for me to benefit probably, it will be my loss, no doubt.

I just don't see where an objective "feeling" of the logic and from what you know about the reality of life, means they are wrong. Science is constantly evolving, just because we don't have the data now to prove something doesn't mean it isn't true. I'm not suggesting you become a CRON, I just suggest that it seems to have enough merit at first blush that we can't dismiss it out of hand without proof of it's invalidity.

Whoa182

Sat, Jan-28-06, 00:46

Whoa keeps saying over and over CR improves lifespan, as if this automatically translates into CR being completely healthy in all respects. Something can improve health in one way, but decrease it in another.

Yeah one of the big risks from doing CR is osteoporosis

Any CRON website reads like a packet of cigarettes; lots of WARNINGS and SIGNS to look out for. If I am to understand CRON correctly, if you eat EXACTLY too little calories you are maximizing your lifespan &health, but, if you take it just a slip too far, you are going to come down with a ton of trouble.

Everyone knows that. But, according to CRON anyway, if you eat a slip too much, either, you are reducing lifespan as well.

This is big problem with humans trying to do CR, we don't know what is too far, 30% restriction might be fine for mice, but in the long term it could have a negative impact. We keep asking researchers how far can week go, no one knows, all they can say is stay at a BMI of around 18 atleast. And the only small hint of evidence that we have right now that it even extends life in humans is by looking at okinawans who have the lowest rates of disease in the world. Some cancers are virtually not existant in okinawa, like breast cancer. Breast cancer in animal studies doing CR is also reduced to 0%. Even simple DR wihout the optimal nutrition reduces cancer risk!

Call me crazy, but something so wonderful and good for us shouldn't be so dangerously close to serious ill health. It just doesn't make logical sense to me.

Well even 10% reduction in calories could have significant benifits in reducing the chances of dying from heart attacks and stroke. So I'd say anything up to a 10-15% restriction would be safe. 30% restriction and the risks increase dramatically.

2) Objective observation of the results of CRON.
CRONers don't look healthy. I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be judgemental, but the CRONers I've seen in these videos/pictures look brittle, "paperclip like", frail. They just don't look robust or healthy - they merely look like underfed people. Maybe inside they are a lot younger, but, outside, they don't impress me or make me a believer that it's the way to health.

I totally agree with this and so would the rest of my family and friends. CRON does not make a person look healthy on the outside. Many get asked if they have HIV, eating disorders and other things. family get worred about the huge weight loss. But as reported in the latest publication on how long term CR affects heart function, the insides of CR people are much better than most of the population. Outside we look ill. This is me 21 years old at 110lb's 5ft 7" http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/Matt20nov2005.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/Matt1.jpg
This is before I started CR: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/me.jpg

Whoa182

Sat, Jan-28-06, 00:52

zajack

Sat, Jan-28-06, 02:58

So...really, CRONers dont know for sure where they're headed, right? And the most hopeful basis for belief in CRONs effectiveness in humans is observation of Okinawans.

Now...the Okinawans are wonderful...but as has been noted, there are a ton of other factors involved with their way of life. And while we're at it, why do Okinawans look healthy? Lean, yes, but they dont look drawn in the same way that CRONers seem to. Is it black tea? Coral Calcium? Lower stress levels? More outdoor time?

On top of everything else...they live these amazing lives and dont have to medically monitor themselves all the time...why do croners? The Okinawans arent supplementing from GNC based on their nutrition charts and bloodwork. In everything I've read so far about "doing CRON correctly" (including Whoa's posts) the importance of regular monitoring, charting, and supplementation has been stressed with extreme emphasis. I just dont get how that meshes.

Dont get me wrong, I think the whole concept of CRON is interesting...but I think I'd rather live in Okinawa and do it their way than try the western version. While I'm not writing it off, and I take my hat off to those who want to try it...I'm with Woo.

kwikdriver

Sat, Jan-28-06, 04:01

And while we're at it, why do Okinawans look healthy? Lean, yes, but they dont look drawn in the same way that CRONers seem to. Is it black tea? Coral Calcium? Lower stress levels? More outdoor time?

They don't calorie restrict to the degree croners do. Neither do they live as long as croners aim to. I wonder if there's some connection? Naw, too obvious.

Dont get me wrong, I think the whole concept of CRON is interesting...but I think I'd rather live in Okinawa and do it their way than try the western version.

How do the Okinawans do it?

eepobee

Sat, Jan-28-06, 06:43

an interesting paper on this topic from aubrey de grey can be found here (http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/weatherPP.pdf) .

the rather lengthy title, the unfortunate influence of the weather on the rate of aging: why human caloric restriction or its emulation may only extend life expectancy by 2-3 years, kind of gives you the gist of his position, but this excerpt also does a good job of summing it up:
A generalisation that holds across species ranging in lifespan from a few weeks to a decade seems very likely to extend to species living several decades. The argument presented here suggests, therefore, that humans are likely to have “forgotten” how to respond to nutrient deprivation by slowing their aging by as much as 30-40%, as mice can and our common ancestors probably also could. We may well have retained the residual ability to slow our aging enough to confer a couple of years of life extension, but the chance that we can obtain a decade or more is slim.

zajack

Sat, Jan-28-06, 07:50

How do the Okinawans do it?
I'd rather take some time to live on an group of islands with a subtropical climate eating fish right off the boat and produce that's been just picked. I'd rather spend some time among an entire people who live upbeat lives, care for their elderly, eat healthy foods, get out and get busy every day with smiles on their faces, and live to be active and mentally sound into their old age.

They don't calorie restrict to the degree croners do. Neither do they live as long as croners aim to.

My point exactly..."Neither do they live as long as croners aim to." Like I said...it's an interesting concept, but they dont have hundreds of CRONers yet who have proven that kind of extended longevity. So right now it's still unproven.

I wonder if there's some connection? Naw, too obvious. I assume something in my post was taken as sarcasm in order to receive this kind of sarcasm in return. If I presented myself as anything other than interested and respectful of the concept, but personally reserved...I apologize, it was unintended.

Edited to add:
I've run across a few articles that I found interesting...
here at the Pacific Health Research Institute (http://www.phrihawaii.org/content/news/news_CaloriesLongevity_8-19-04.html)
Here in a news article (http://starbulletin.com/2005/11/20/news/story03.html)
Having been to a few tropical climates(Coastal Mexico, Hawaii, Venezuela...I gotta say that I think the tendency to eat fresh, healthy foods is far easier to make into a habit when you have those items readily available in local markets. It's the norm for those areas, and on top of that...you're in an atmosphere that lifts your spirits. Weird, maybe...but I believe that overall lifestyle,attitude, & environment truly do play a role in overall health.

When in Hawaii...I could excercise all day long(literally), hiking, swimming, walking on beaches, etc without considering it "excercise" (the same holds true for the other locations). Heck...I lost 7 pounds in 3 weeks and wasnt trying! I was visiting a few people who lived in HI year round(most have been there for years) and though they worked full time...they spent their free time outside enjoying the environment and "excercising". While I didnt personally know any long term residents in the other locations...the access to fresh(fish off the boat fresh) foods and beautiful weather was still amazing.

All I know is that I find natural beauty motivating. If not for the fact that I'm married with children, I could be very content living a simple life in the islands with little access to many of todays modern wonders (as long as I could had access to good books :lol: ). In NH, I lived in a small house with no cable, no computer, and was rarely indoors in the summertime...and I loved it. If that climate was year round with fresh foods readily available...I would have never left. Then again...different folks, different strokes. I suppose for those who dont like nature...being trapped on a tropical island with no major cities (Maui or the like) could be torture.

Sorry...got to thinkin' and then got to rambling. :D

Dodger

Sat, Jan-28-06, 10:23

I'd rather take some time to live on an group of islands with a subtropical climate eating fish right off the boat and produce that's been just picked. I'd rather spend some time among an entire people who live upbeat lives, care for their elderly, eat healthy foods, get out and get busy every day with smiles on their faces, and live to be active and mentally sound into their old age.

I was in PagoPago, Samoa 35 years ago and it was the only place I have been where the number of obese people was staggering. The climate is fantastic, most of what was available to eat was fish, but obesity was very prevalent.

When in Hawaii...I could excercise all day long(literally), hiking, swimming, walking on beaches, etc without considering it "excercise" (the same holds true for the other locations). Heck...I lost 7 pounds in 3 weeks and wasnt trying! I was visiting a few people who lived in HI year round(most have been there for years) and though they worked full time...they spent their free time outside enjoying the environment and "excercising". While I didnt personally know any long term residents in the other locations...the access to fresh(fish off the boat fresh) foods and beautiful weather was still amazing.
Here is a headline (http://starbulletin.com/2001/05/09/news/story9.html) from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin from a few years ago

Hawaii kids’
obesity rate twice
of mainland

Living in a tropical paradise is no guarantee of health.

Whoa182

Sat, Jan-28-06, 12:04

an interesting paper on this topic from aubrey de grey can be found here (http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/weatherPP.pdf) .
[U]the unfortunate influence of the weather on the rate of aging:

Aubrey De Grey... He's a good guy, but I disagree with him and as you can imagine, most of the people pracitising cron do!. De Grey is presenting at the calorie restriction conference in april which hopefully i'll be attending! Just incase CR doesn' work and De Grey is right... I am also helping the mprize by donating $25,000 as a member of the 300 (aubrey is one of the founders of this prize)

Michael Rae has his say why calorie restriction will extend life and this will be published in reply to aubrey de grey, soon!

Dodger

Sat, Jan-28-06, 12:19

I consider 2 to 3 years to be a significant increase in lifespan. From what I remember, non-smokers don't have that increase over smokers. I just did a internet check and a pack a day for 20 years is about a 3 year decrease.

zajack

Sat, Jan-28-06, 13:02

Living in a tropical paradise is no guarantee of health.
No it's not. The studies they're doing are on the oldest of the population who lived much as the Okinawans do...not on the current population that eats in a completely different fashion. One can be obese living anywhere. I was simply pointing out that environment can (not always does) but can play a part in overall health/fitness.

In addition...most research indicates that trends in obesity in Pacific and Indian Ocean island populations have been due to modernization and the resulting changes in diet and an increase in sedentary lifestyles and overall decreased excercise. (*although it seems there is also interest in whether or not there is a genetic factor involved as well that might explain why such a high percentage of islanders are moving toward obesity while others, exposed to the same dietary and lifestyle changes, are not~~that'd kinda apply to anywhere, dontcha think? )

Until the 20th century, Samoans were a relatively lean people and few suffered from Type 2 diabetes. Since World War II, however, Samoans - especially those living in American Samoa - have seen an alarming increase in obesity and related diseases. The same seems to hold true for a number of island populations whose overall health has declined since WWII. I've found references to 4 or 5 island cultures who have seen an increase in disease and obesity since. Kinda sad really.

Anyway...I've never argued that CRON may have benefits. I simply agree with Woo that something that one needs to be so careful with may be a bit too extreme (for me) and perhaps the severity of the restriction isn't necessary. (although as I've also previously said...the calorie amounts listed here didnt seem all that extreme compared to the levels followed by others).

We wont really know for a number of years what the truth is...so debate is purely theoretical for now. I'd be the first to admit that we wont know the long term result of lowcarbing for a number of years either...but I'm not bent out of shape about it. I'm going based on personal experiences and good bloodwork which is pretty much what CRONers are doing until they begin to have a number of 110-120 year old humans to verify an associated increase in lifespan.

So dont feel I'm bashing...I'm not. I dont feel that Whoa's commitment to CRON is stomping on low carb and I would hope that my preference for low carb doesnt need to be taken as an affront on CRON.

Now...all that aside...

Whoa...how long does it take an average CRONer to get comfortable (not hungry and seeing benefits) with CRON? I just havent seen it mentioned anywhere and was wondering. I've seen lots of info on eating and charting etc...but I havent yet found anyone talking about the process (the way lc'ers talk about the induction flu etc). Thanks in advance.

Whoa182

Sat, Jan-28-06, 14:01

Whoa...how long does it take an average CRONer to get comfortable (not hungry and seeing benefits) with CRON? I just havent seen it mentioned anywhere and was wondering. I've seen lots of info on eating and charting etc...but I havent yet found anyone talking about the process (the way lc'ers talk about the induction flu etc). Thanks in advance.

I've never experienced any hunger since starting calorie restriction so I can't say... The quantity of food that I eat stops me from ever feeling hungry. This is just one meal, it's pretty big and I also had salmon not long after this..
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/97ef0d68.jpg :)

I just started to first take out the bad foods from the diet and lower my calories by 15% and gradually decrease amount I consume. I've never really drunk alcohol, never smoked, never consumed a lot of food before I began CR. So the only changes I had to make was food choices, it was incredibly easy for me and In no way have I felt deprived of anything. I read a lot of stuff about CR before I started though, I began with Roy Walfords book and then checked up all the latest research at the time.

CR is very simple, eat fewer calories while getting optimal nutrition. All people on CR so far have experienced the same physiological changes over a similar period of time. Most of us weigh everything thing we eat and measure everything we drink, except water...

the benifits start happening very soon after calorie restriction has started. The charts actually show this change.

this is the change seen on calorie restricted humans in 6 months

Weight - 14% decrease
Systolic blood pressure - 18% decrease
Diastolic blood pessure - 28% decrease
Blood sugar - 21% decrease
Cholesterol - 36% decrease
White blood cells count-31% decrease
Insulin - 42% decrease
T3 (thyroid hormone) 19% decrease
renin - Gradual decrease
Glycosylated hemoglobin - gradual decrease
Triglycerides - gradual decrease

Within 6 months my total cholesterol was down to 120mg, so it has a big effect on biomarkers and changes happen quickly.

more later g2g

ItsTheWooo

Sat, Jan-28-06, 15:54

I'm not necessarily a proponent of CRON, personally, until they can prove their thesis, I'm not sure I believe enough to do the incredible work necessary to live a CRON lifestyle. And since they won't be able to prove their thesis with humans until a point in my life that will be too late for me to benefit probably, it will be my loss, no doubt.

Likewise :)
This is a discussion. I am giving my opinion. I am not judging or getting personal... you choose to see it that way.

I just don't see where an objective "feeling" of the logic and from what you know about the reality of life, means they are wrong. Science is constantly evolving, just because we don't have the data now to prove something doesn't mean it isn't true. I'm not suggesting you become a CRON, I just suggest that it seems to have enough merit at first blush that we can't dismiss it out of hand without proof of it's invalidity.
I'm just giving my opinion valerie. I'm not dismissing anything, even if I had the authority for my opinion to mean anything.
I know "feelings" and "logic" are at odds. What I understand of the situation combined with intuition lead me to err against CRON. I responded to the thread as such. I was just stating my reasons, seeing how the proponents (whoa) respond... I'm curious, I say what I think, I would like others to respond. it's a discussion. It's an exchange of ideas. Please try to seperate your person/feelings from this and it will be easier for you to see my intent. My intent is not closed, it is open; it is not to pass judgement or convert blindly, but to interact with the minds of others.

ItsTheWooo

Sat, Jan-28-06, 15:58

They don't calorie restrict to the degree croners do. Neither do they live as long as croners aim to. I wonder if there's some connection? Naw, too obvious.

Like others said there's a lot different about okinawans besides their lower intake. I can find way way more populations who eat as little as CRONers (or less) with abysmally low lifespans.

They are an ethnically homogeneous population, for starters; lifespan is above all else a function of genetic potential. They live in a unique environment, with a unique lifestyle, unique genes, etc. It isn't appropriate to say "Oh ah HA it's the low calories making them live long". I'm sure their lack of american diet (both composition and quantity) certainly contributes to their longevity. I highly doubt the relationship is so linear and simple as less food + making those cals count = longer life absoutely. It's quite the tremendous leap to take this information and decide that living life in a state of energy conservation is the way to go (as opposed to eating energy adequate to maintain a thin weight)

ItsTheWooo

Sat, Jan-28-06, 16:08

CR Reverses Early-stage Parkinson's Disease

Some new data on CR and parkinsons disease:

A study suggests that early-stage Parkinson's disease patients who lower
their calorie intake may boost levels of an essential brain chemical lost
from the neurodegenerative disorder.

More here:

http://bestofcr.com/node/view/1409

Parkinson's is caused by a problem with dopamine, right? Too little is perceived/present.
Starvation does things to increase the activity of dopamine, so, this would make sense. But, under eating to raise dopamine (which, as we were discussing before, can have a LOT of potentially negative side effects) might not be the best idea.

Also, what if you DON'T have Parkinsons?
More studies yet show that calorie restriction causes mental illness. There are a lot of mental disturbances associated with restriction because of what it does to neurochemistry. The "inverse" disease of parkinsons (an overexpression of dopamine) is the mental illness condition of schizophrenia / schizotypal PD. Somewhere (maybe earlier in this thread, too pressed for time to look at the moment) I read that in starved/deprived communities, rates of schizophrenia in the next generation were through the roof. Coincidence? Maybe...
Or maybe, in those sensitive, the restriction "triggered" it by doing things to make dopamine expression overactive in utero? Hmmm. Seeing as normal people outnumber those with parkinsons (dopamine insufficiency) numerous times, I would say this is a credit against restriction (assuming the theory is correct).

Whoa182

Sat, Jan-28-06, 17:27

Thanks woo, I'm going to look into that tonight and see what I can find. I know that people whos mothers never took DHA or ate fish during pregnancy are at greater risk. Fish oil even in adult life can reduce risk of this disorder dramatically. But i'm going to look more into this later. Calorie restriction creates highe levels of GDNF which is why dopamine cells survive longer. I agree with you though that calorie restriction on humans could potentially have a lot of negatives in terms of psychological health

From personal experience so far, since I started calorie restriction my concentration is better, I feel much more alert, interests in learning is much more than it used to be. I usually feel more calm aswell and have a clear mind. Here is a study on brain health when doing CR:

Neuroprotective signaling and the aging brain: take away my food and let me run - 2000 Dec 15;886(1-2):47-53.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11119686

Laboratory of Neurosciences, National Institute on Aging Gerontology Research Center,

It is remarkable that neurons are able to survive and function for a century or more in many persons that age successfully. A better understanding of the molecular signaling mechanisms that permit such cell survival and synaptic plasticity may therefore lead to the development of new preventative and therapeutic strategies for age-related neurodegenerative disorders. We all know that overeating and lack of exercise are risk factors for many different age-related diseases including cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancers.

Our recent studies have shown that dietary restriction (reduced calorie intake) can increase the resistance of neurons in the brain to dysfunction and death in experimental models of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease and stroke. The mechanism underlying the beneficial effects of dietary restriction involves stimulation of the expression of 'stress proteins' and neurotrophic factors. The neurotrophic factors induced by dietary restriction may protect neurons by inducing the production of proteins that suppress oxyradical production, stabilize cellular calcium homeostasis and inhibit apoptotic biochemical cascades.

Interestingly, dietary restriction also increases numbers of newly-generated neural cells in the adult brain suggesting that this dietary manipulation can increase the brain's capacity for plasticity and self-repair. Work in other laboratories suggests that physical and intellectual activity can similarly increase neurotrophic factor production and neurogenesis. Collectively, the available data suggest the that dietary restriction, and physical and mental activity, may reduce both the incidence and severity of neurodegenerative disorders in humans.

Frederick

Sat, Jan-28-06, 18:41

ItsTheWooo

Sat, Jan-28-06, 18:42

Here's some google links http://www.google.com/search?q=schizophrenia+starvation&hl=en&lr=

Seems the link between starvation & schizophrenia is pretty strong. Lots of info popped up.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050806/fob3ref.asp
"Women who go severely hungry during early pregnancy face twice the normal risk of having a child who develops schizophrenia in adulthood."

True these links talk of starvation (not CRON), but seeing as CRON is restrictive enough to reverse/improve parkinsons (dopamine insufficiency), it's reasonable to assume it might "trigger" the sensitivity to excessive dopamine activity which is associated with schizophrenia. After all, even normal parkinsons patients develop schizophrenic symptoms if they are overmedicated.

Whoa182

Sat, Jan-28-06, 20:17

Whoa182

Sat, Jan-28-06, 20:19

Edited this one since it was similar to the new article I posted, the other article has better description and result of the study.

Nancy LC

Sat, Jan-28-06, 20:32

As you can tell Im really interested in the effects of calorie restriction, but i'm also open to learn about low carb and other things. I'm about to order some books about okinawa diet. Is there any low carb books that are interesting to read that I can get at the same time?

We've got tons of research articles we've posted over the years to the research area. You might want to cruise through there. Also the online journal of (I think it is) Nutrition and Metabolism has a lot. Very technical stuff if that is what you like. My favorite Dr. who writes about low carb is Dr. Eades, of Protein Power fame. His blog is excellent: http://blog.proteinpower.com/drmike/

Whoa182

Sat, Jan-28-06, 21:38

Can't get access to the full pdf or articles yet...

UH researcher links
low calories to longevity
The study of men of Japanese
descent was begun in 1965

http://starbulletin.com/2004/08/31/news/story4.html

reduced caloric diet might lead to a longer life, according to a study of Honolulu Heart Program data on 8,006 men of Japanese ancestry.

The study confirms that it's not low fat or low carbohydrates that counts, it's calories," said Dr. Bradley Willcox, clinician investigator of the Pacific Health Research Institute at the University of Hawaii. "This is one of the great unanswered questions in biogerontology."

Willcox and other researchers from the Pacific Health Research Institute and Kuakini Medical Center wrote an article called "How Much Should We Eat: The Association Between Energy Intake and Mortality in a 36-year Follow-up Study of Japanese-American Men" that is featured in today's Journal of Gerontology Biological Sciences.

The report is believed to be the first long-term study that links reduced caloric intake with the longevity of humans.

"I'm not aware of another study that has such detailed diet information in 40 years of follow-up," said Willcox yesterday in a phone interview from Calgary, Canada.

Interest in the article already had circulated to parts of the mainland.

In 1965 the Honolulu Heart Program at Kuakini Medical Center started to collect data on men of Japanese descent who lived on Oahu. All of the men who ranged between 45 and 68 years old were healthy and nonsmokers.

According to Willcox, the study showed that risk of death dropped a third for men who ate fewer calories of about 1,900 calories a day or about 15 percent fewer than the group average of 2,300 calories a day.

"This trend for lower mortality persisted all the way until people ate 50 percent fewer calories than the group average, which is exactly what you would see in animal studies," he added.

Many animal studies involving rats, ducks, chickens, guppies and earthworms have shown a correlation with lower calorie intake and an extension in life span.

The study further suggests that the lower intake might have an impact on promoting longevity despite controlling factors that included differences in carbohydrates, fat or protein intake, physical activity, obesity and other factors.

"The results of Dr. Willcox's fascinating study comes at a time when there is much confusion among the general public regarding the optimum diet and its association with healthy aging," said Dr. David Curb, president and chief executive officer of the Pacific Health Research Institute, in a written statement.

Diets such as the popular Atkins diet that consist of high protein and fat and low carbohydrates appear to be effective for short-term weight loss for no more than six months to a year; however, there is no evidence of long-term effects, said Dr. Katsuhiko Yano, co-founder of the Research Institute.

"The low caloric intake appears to be the best way not only to lose weight, but for overall health and prolonging the life span for human beings," said Yano.

Willcox said the book on the Okinawan diet he co-wrote with his twin brother, Dr. D. Craig Willcox of Okinawa Prefectural University, and Dr. Makoto Suzuki of Okinawa International University inspired him to do the study.

The book, called "The Okinawan Diet Plan: Get Leaner, Live Longer and Never Feel Hungry," was released in May and reveals a diet plan of foods that are low-fat, water-rich and high in fiber, such as sweet potatoes, soybeans and fish.

Willcox and some members of his research team were also quoted extensively in an article on longevity featured in the current issue of Time magazine called "Living to 100: And Not Regretting It."

Willcox said he and other researchers are hoping to get federal funding to look into online diet support programs. He noted that he also plans to do more studies on dietary factors linked to genetics and longevity.

"One thing we'd like to do is a comparative study of Okinawans in Hawaii and Okinawans in Okinawa because they have different environment exposure but the same genes," Willcox said.

eepobee

Sat, Jan-28-06, 21:52

The book, called "The Okinawan Diet Plan: Get Leaner, Live Longer and Never Feel Hungry," was released in May and reveals a diet plan of foods that are low-fat, water-rich and high in fiber, such as sweet potatoes, soybeans and fish.wonder what the rationale is for a low-fat diet. doesn't wilcox believe that it's not the macronutrient make up of the diet, but the calorie count that matters?

Dodger

Sat, Jan-28-06, 22:42

Diets such as the popular Atkins diet that consist of high protein and fat and low carbohydrates appear to be effective for short-term weight loss for no more than six months to a year; however, there is no evidence of long-term effects, said Dr. Katsuhiko Yano, co-founder of the Research Institute.Almost all the tests on Atkins have been six months long. One was year long. There is not evidence of long-term effects because no one has wanted to fund the research.
The study further suggests that the lower intake might have an impact on promoting longevity despite controlling factors that included differences in carbohydrates, fat or protein intake, physical activity, obesity and other factors.
As far as I can tell, the research subjects were not on low-carb eating plans. If the group traditionally eats carbs, the carb variation would not be enough to show any difference.

kwikdriver

Sun, Jan-29-06, 01:22

Just curious, but based on the sound principle of the dreaded "starvation" mode, shouldn't these people CR their way straight into morbid obesity?

Hm, there appears to be people in our midst who lose weight by restricting calorie intake.

Blasphemer! Do not make sport of the great god Starvation Mode. His ways may be subtle and mysterious to mere mortals, but His wrath is terrible and fearsome nonetheless. I advise you to show penance by eating two super-sized fast food meals of your choice, and the beverage must be regular, not sugar free.

Whoa182

Sun, Jan-29-06, 02:02

Maldina

Sun, Jan-29-06, 02:50

~Whoa182

the absolute low carb classic over here in Germany/Switzerland:

Life without Bread from Wolfgang Lutz

A very scientific approach with lots of research

AimeeJoi

Sun, Jan-29-06, 08:52

[QUOTE Logically speaking, anything that reduces fertility usually means it's really unhealthy.
We are biological gene-disseminating machines; we are part of a species and our only point in being alive is to compete with each other to try to reproduce our genetic code. Successful reproduction is the point of life in an objective sense. CRON results in reduced fertility or complete infertility; at best you can hope for a lack of change in fertility from CRON (but if you're doing CRON "right" to induce a conservation state, you WILL experience a decrease in fertility...)
It does not logically make sense to me that something which should be good for us is something that would render us infertile.QUOTE]

I think that maybe this is a reason why CRON works. If your body is not in a state to reproduce successfully it will slow down your whole system until circumstances are better. I would suspect that if conditions are not good (not enough food is available) for childbirth, your body will let you age slower so that even if food doesnt come around for a long time you will still be able to reproduce. This idea agrees with the idea that our main goal is to reproduce. When our body slows itself down metabolically it is so that we can preserve our youth and be able to reproduce later. I believe this is why hunter-gatherers didn't have a lot of babies, because they weren't always fertile. I don't think there is anything unnatural about it. When you are fertile your whole life and you have baby after baby your body feels like it's work here is done and it allows itself to deteriorate. There is nothing wrong with being aware that this is happening and trying to mimick a hunter-gatherer way of life and not always give yourself enough calories to be constantly fertile. This is of course just my opinion.

Zuleikaa

Sun, Jan-29-06, 09:08

zajack

Sun, Jan-29-06, 09:38

Blasphemer! Do not make sport of the great god Starvation Mode. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Interesting thoughts in last few posts. hmmmmm

ItsTheWooo

Sun, Jan-29-06, 12:59

Whoa182

Sun, Jan-29-06, 14:17

CR shifts the body from promoting growth and reproduction to supporting maintenance and repair.

Frederick

Sun, Jan-29-06, 14:30

Blasphemer! Do not make sport of the great god Starvation Mode. His ways may be subtle and mysterious to mere mortals, but His wrath is terrible and fearsome nonetheless. I advise you to show penance by eating two super-sized fast food meals of your choice, and the beverage must be regular, not sugar free.

Seeing that I'm in Maintenance, the Gods are surely on my side.

You see, the secret is that that I put mayo and butter on everything, thereby increasing the calories to keep "starvation" mode at bay. For example, my lunch consisted of 2 slices of cheese with slices of salami in between spread with full fat mayonaise washed down with a glass buttered flavor pork juice. These ingenious concoctions easily add 500 - 1000 calories to my daily meals.

Of course, thankfully, I keep my carbs at bay. Could you imagine the weight I'd put on with both carbs and being in starvation mode?

Thankfully, I didn't take that piece of breath mint my friend had given me this morning. That extra millogram of carb might have caused my 1,500 calorie lunch to put on a pound or two!

ItsTheWooo

Sun, Jan-29-06, 14:45

Seeing that I'm in Maintenance, the Gods are surely on my side.

You see, the secret is that that I put mayo and butter on everything, thereby increasing the calories to keep "starvation" mode at bay. For example, my lunch consisted of 2 slices of cheese with slices of salami in between spread with full fat mayonaise washed down with a glass buttered flavor pork juice. These ingenious concoctions easily add 500 - 1000 calories to my daily meals.

Of course, thankfully, I keep my carbs at bay. Could you imagine the weight I'd put on with both carbs and being in starvation mode?

Thankfully, I didn't take that piece of breath mint my friend had given me this morning. That extra millogram of carb might have caused my 1,500 calorie lunch to put on a pound or two!

Oh Fredrick! :lol:
The really sad thing is, your post is not all that far from a LOT of posts in the Atkins main forum. I remember back in the day I was told to up my calories... I started intentionally buying fattier meats and frying lean chicken in lots of oil :lol: . Of course I was so heavy then that would have kept me losing... (plus my appetite was completely non existant from eating almost no carbs, and I had to choke down the food).
Still it's amazing how people really do believe such nonsense. I mean, does it make sense that eating all that fat wouldn't count, but a breathmint would? I believed it, though, and lots of others still do...

Lisa N

Sun, Jan-29-06, 14:46

That extra millogram of carb might have caused my 1,500 calorie lunch to put on a pound or two!

I've never seen a meal put on weight. Can you explain the mechanisms behind this and provide links to studies? ;) :lol:

eepobee

Sun, Jan-29-06, 17:59

if your body is not in a state to reproduce successfully it will slow down your whole system until circumstances are better. I would suspect that if conditions are not good (not enough food is available) for childbirth, your body will let you age slower so that even if food doesnt come around for a long time you will still be able to reproduce. This idea agrees with the idea that our main goal is to reproduce. When our body slows itself down metabolically it is so that we can preserve our youth and be able to reproduce later.actually, it would make more sense if the reproductive system was slowed down because it uses a lot of energy, and when energy is scarce this could be fatal.

eepobee

Sun, Jan-29-06, 18:14

I thought my lipid levels were low... check this guys lipids, found them on CRS lists. He's been doing CR for over 10 years.

LIPID PROFILE

CHOLESTEROL 113 (100-200) mg/dL
TRIGLYCERIDE 41 (30-190) mg/dL
HDL 69 (35-130) mg/dL
LDL (CALC) LO 36 (65-130) mg/dL
CHOL/HDL RATIO 1.6
i didn't know low lipid levels were an indicator of "good" health. in fact, aren't low cholesterol levels associated with increased risk of some cancers?

Whoa182

Sun, Jan-29-06, 18:26

i didn't know low lipid levels were an indicator of "good" health. in fact, aren't low cholesterol levels associated with increased risk of some cancers?

He was involved in DR Fontanna's study that was just published, he has had many health checks and is fine! Every human study has been positive so far.

Low Calorie Diet Helps Keep Heart Young Healthy and Elastic

http://www.bestsyndication.com/Articles/2006/dan_wilson/health/01/011206_low_calorie_heart.htm

A low caloric diet may slow aging of your heart, according to investigators at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. The researchers studied the heart function of members of the Caloric Restriction Society.

The researchers were primarily interested in heart function. It was as if the hearts aged at a much slower pace. According to Fontana Diastolic function of the heart is a primary marker of aging. "Diastolic (passive function declines in most people as they get older, but in this study we found that diastolic function in calorie-restricted people resembled diastolic function in individuals about 15 years younger."

According to their press release secondary aging characterizes “health problems that result from conditions such as high cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure and other preventable conditions that contribute to premature death. A healthy diet and regular exercise can reduce risks from secondary aging. But this study suggests calorie restriction with optimal nutrition can do even more.” ( PREVENT PRIMARY AGING )

Cancer and low cholesterol

Super Centenarians, Okinawans , animals on CR all have VERY LOW CHOLESTEROL Cancer is one of the major things that calories restriction protects against! Okinawans for example have amazingly low cholesterol, they also have the worlds lowest rates of cancers, some cancers hardly exist on that island, such as breast cancer. Which is EXACTLY what we see in CR'd animals!

Fully fed animals on the left and CR on the right
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/chart2.jpg

I really doubt there is a simple correlation of low cholesterol increasing the risk of cancer.

eepobee

Sun, Jan-29-06, 19:09

He was involved in DR Fontanna's study that was just published, he has had many health checks and is fine! Every human study has been positive so far.but how does this show that low cholesterol is an indicator of health? many people with high cholesterol are fine as well.

from Low serum total cholesterol concentrations and mortality in middle aged British men (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/311/7002/409):Results: During the mean follow up period of 14.8 years there were 1257 deaths from all causes, 640 cardiovascular deaths, 433 cancer deaths, and 184 deaths from other causes. Low serum cholesterol concentrations (<4.8 mmol/l), present in 5% (n=410) of the men, were associated with the highest mortality from all causes, largely due to a significant increase in cancer deaths (age adjusted relative risk 1.6 (95% confidence interval 1.1 to 2.3); <4.8 v 4.8-5.9 mmol/l) and in other non-cardiovascular deaths (age adjusted relative risk 1.9 (1.1 to 3.1)). Low serum cholesterol concentration was associated with an increased prevalence of several diseases and indicators of ill health and with lifestyle characteristics such as smoking and heavy drinking. After adjustment for these factors in the multivariate analysis the increased risk for cancer was attenuated (relative risk 1.4 (0.9 to 2.0)) and the inverse association with other non-cardiovascular, non-cancer causes was no longer significant (relative risk 1.5 (0.9 to 2.6); <4.8 v 4.8-5.9 mmol/l).
on okinawans (2001):
The world famous Okinawan health that has been the top news lately does not get similar kudos from local health officials.

According to the latest report by Okinawa Labor Agency, based on regular mandatory health checks for workers, the number of people who have health problems with some part of their body has been constantly ten percent more than national average for last 10 years. The latest report was published Sunday. The report says that last year 56 percent of those who went through health check-ups were discovered to have unusually high levels of cholesterol, problems with liver function or other ailments. The national average stands much lower at 45 percent.

The numbers have increased to one and a half fold when compared to the situation ten years ago, both Okinawan and national average. The agency officials explained they still can’t figure out the reasons and factors, why Okinawans seem to have more problems with their body.

http://japanupdate.com/en/?id=2815
remember, it's low cholesterol we're discussing, not cr. even if health markers are "improved" on cr, how can we prove that cr, and not other lifestyle factors, are behind the perceived improvements? what if we can see the same "improvements" and more on a calorie-unrestricted low-carb diet? wouldn't such a diet be more sustainable (particularly for athletes) than a calorie-restricted one?

btw, i'm very skeptical of anything that the wilcox bros are doing. they seemed to have whitewashed the okinawan diet. i'm going to look for other research on exactly what okinawans eat and total caloric intake, but i know they eat a lot of lard and have been eating a lot of spam since world war 2.

eepobee

Sun, Jan-29-06, 19:22

one more on the association between low cholesterol and cancer from the Serum cholesterol level and mortality findings for men screened in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/152/7/1490) :A serum cholesterol level less than 4.14 mmol/L (less than 160 mg/dL) was also associated with a significantly increased risk of death from cancer of the liver and pancreas; digestive diseases, particularly hepatic cirrhosis; suicide; and alcohol dependence syndrome. In addition, significant inverse graded associations were found between serum cholesterol level and cancers of the lung, lymphatic, and hematopoietic systems, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

eepobee

Sun, Jan-29-06, 20:44

i should add that i'm interested in learning more about cr. i think it's totally compitable with lc, and in fact i might unknowingly be consuming cr-level calories on most days. i think it also fits in nicely with my minimalist lifestyle.

Whoa182

Sun, Jan-29-06, 21:30

but how does this show that low cholesterol is an indicator of health? many people with high cholesterol are fine as well.

Low cholesterol in healthy non smokers, non heavy drinkers with a good life style is associated with a decreased risk of cancer. As the studies show, these people had underlying diseases such as cancer or were smokers and heavy drinkers. If you look at what it says:

After adjustment for these factors in the multivariate analysis the increased risk for cancer was attenuated (relative risk 1.4 (0.9 to 2.0)) and the inverse association with other non-cardiovascular, non-cancer causes was no longer significant (relative risk 1.5 (0.9 to 2.6); <4.8 v 4.8-5.9 mmol/l).

Conclusion: The association between comparatively low serum total cholesterol concentrations and excess mortality seemed to be due to preclinical cancer and other non-cardiovascular diseases. This suggests that public health programmes encouraging lower average concentrations of serum total cholesterol are unlikely to be associated with increased cancer or other non-cardiovascular mortality

My mother for example, she smokes and she eats crap. she also uses statins which have lowered her cholesterol to 140mg. She is in a high risk catagory for death in the next 15 years say...

I'm not saying that low cholesterol is an indicator of health in everyone, but in people take care of themselves, it is generally a good thing. Most people when they started off calorie restriction had high cholesterol, were on several medications and so on... through CR they got their cholesterol right down to around 130mg and reversed heart disease.

Put it simply, there is no simple correlation between cancer and low cholesterol, especially when you exlude at risk populations that have bad life styles.

on okinawans (2001):

remember, it's low cholesterol we're discussing, not cr. even if health markers are "improved" on cr, how can we prove that cr, and not other lifestyle factors, are behind the perceived improvements? what if we can see the same "improvements" and more on a calorie-unrestricted low-carb diet? wouldn't such a diet be more sustainable (particularly for athletes) than a calorie-restricted one?

Because CR health benifits are almost universal. Every species tested shows almost exactly the same responses in terms of physiological functions. As I've shown, ratios of macronutrients does not matter and it's just calories that count. Japan has a higher life expactancy than the U.S, they consume fewer calories than the U.S. Okinawans get fewer calories than japan, they live longer still... Not exactly amazing evidence, but consistant with what we see in animals. Without the Optimal nutrion part, CR doesn't work either.

Long term studies have been done with different macronutrient ratios showing the same benifits in all humans on the study. This shows that its not exactly low carb that gets them these results. Again, the sudy I showed a few pages ago showed that the people in bioshpere consumed 75% of their total calories from complex carbs. They had the data before they entered biosphere right till the end, look at them yourself, there is a correlation between lowering the calories and getting better health benifits upto a certain point! Once more food become abundant their health markers got worse.

We can also look at WBC

People who practise calorie restriction have low WBC's usually below the reference range of what doctors call healthy. But why is the reference range the optimal number? in normal population that eats a lot of junk, has high levels of inflammation etc... the average WBC is going to be higher than what you see in CRONer's and if you look at normal mixed population of smokers, drinkers, bad eating and you see a low wbc, that is usually a concern.

BUT

in the case of people doing CR, we have Low WBC (below reference range), but have ENHANCED immunity to bacteria, toxins, Viral Infections and so on.. In a new paper it was found that Non-smokers with LOW WBC have a lower mortality rate. But low WBC in smokers have high mortality rate and other diseases...

people on calorie restriction usually have wbc around 2-3 (ref. range 4 to 11).

http://web.archive.org/web/20020618163055/www.bioscience.org/2000/v5/d/pahlavan/fulltext.htm

It can get complicated lol

wouldn't such a diet be more sustainable (particularly for athletes) than a calorie-restricted one?

I did listen to someone that studied this and I believe the conclusoin was that athletes should definitly not do CR. The person was presenting at SENS ( Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence )

The Japanese district of Okinawa has the longest average lifespan in the world and the highest percentage of centenarians -- people living to a 100 or more -- ever documented from reliable records. Consistent with CR-induced life extension, Okinawans also eat up to 40 percent fewer calories than Americans and 17 percent fewer calories than the Japanese average. The caloric intake of Okinawan children is 36 percent below the Japanese recommended intake. And yet, satisfying a necessary ingredient for CR-induced life extension, Okinawans have adequate nutrition.

Not only do Okinawans have reduced mortality, but also consistent with animal CR research, they enjoy reduced morbidity from a range of causes. For example, these findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Geriatrics Society (2001):

Here are some interesting statistics on OKINAWANS

Compared to Americans, Okinawan elders

are 75% more likely to retain cognitive ability

get 80% fewer breast and prostate cancers

get 50% fewer ovarian and colon cancers

have 50% fewer hip fractures

have 80% fewer heart attacks

Matt

Dodger

Sun, Jan-29-06, 21:53

I have read that those with cancer have low cholesterol levels. It makes sense then that those with undiscovered cancer would have lower cholesterol levels. It's not low cholesterol that causes cancer, but the cancer that causes low cholesterol. I read somewhere that the Amazonian natives have very low cholesterol levels and low cancer rates. I think that in general, cholesterol levels don't predict much. I do like high HDL and low triglycerides.

The ON part of CR is something that I do not understand. What is considered Optimal Nutrition?

The worsening Okinawan heath is due to the influence of Western lifestyles and a move away from the traditional one.

Looking at my usual calorie counts, I seem to be on a CR version of LC. I don't intentionally restrict calories, but eating when hungry and stopping when satisfied seems to result in a decent level of calories that seems to fall within the range considered restricted.

Whoa182

Sun, Jan-29-06, 22:00

More later but just a quick note:

We have people doing LC and CR over at CRS and they have Excellent health biomarkers too.

Whoa182

Sun, Jan-29-06, 22:27

can mod delete this post?

eepobee

Sun, Jan-29-06, 23:51

i don't believe that low cholesterol causes cancer, just like i don't believe high cholesterol causes heart disease. it's likely that ill health can both raise (chd) or lower (cancer) cholesterol, and that low and high cholesterol can be disease indicators, but not the causes of those diseases.

saying that, i generally don't take much from the conclusions drawn by researchers. they (many, not all) look at data that tells me that high cholesterol is weakly associated with chd (i.e. a risk factor) and they see the cause for chd. conversely, they see data that tells them that low cholesterol is strongly associated with some cancers, and they conclude that: The association between comparatively low serum total cholesterol concentrations and excess mortality seemed to be due to preclinical cancer and other non-cardiovascular diseases. This suggests that public health programmes encouraging lower average concentrations of serum total cholesterol are unlikely to be associated with increased cancer or other non-cardiovascular mortalitywhat a surprize... :rolleyes:

eepobee

Mon, Jan-30-06, 04:08

The ON part of CR is something that I do not understand. What is considered Optimal Nutrition?i found some info here (http://www.optimal.org/peter/cron.htm)

Frederick

Mon, Jan-30-06, 08:27

Whoa,

A quick question, if I may.

I've been reading over the years on the theorized benefits of a calorie restricted eating regimen extending life expectancy. You appear to have read extensively and compiled much research on the topic--my compliments.

I thought I'd ask you this question and hope you'd point me in the right direction for more information, instead of my just pouring through the mountain of material.

How does CR affect atheletes who are physically active? I've read that the lower calorie intake makes it almost impossible to excercise 4 or 5 times per week?

Thank you in advance for some of your insights and views.

With kindest regards,

Frederick

Whoa182

Mon, Jan-30-06, 15:50

Hi Fedrick, I'll answer your question in the next few hours, I have to finish off some course work first for college! :(

But I found something earlier today that might be of interest, it's a study about higher WBC circulation and cancer.

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/166/2/188

Association Between Circulating White Blood Cell Count and Cancer Mortality

Background Inflammatory processes are implicated in the development and progression of cancer. However, it is not clear whether systemic markers of inflammation predict cancer. We examined the prospective relationship between circulating white blood cell (WBC) count and cancer mortality.

Methods Population-based cohort study of 3189 individuals, aged 49 to 84 years and free of cancer at the baseline examination (January 1, 1992, to December 31, 1994), in the Blue Mountains region, west of Sydney, Australia. The main outcome of interest was all cancer mortality ascertained from vital status as of December 31, 2001.

Results Higher WBC count was found to be associated with all cancer mortality. In proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, education, body mass index, hematocrit level, alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, smoking, weekly aspirin use, diabetes mellitus or fasting hyperglycemia status, and fasting glucose levels, the multivariable relative risk of all cancer mortality comparing quartile 4 of WBC count ( 7400 cells/µL) with quartile 1 (5300 cells/µL) was 1.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-2.55). In subgroup analyses, the relative risk of cancer mortality comparing quartile 4 of WBC count with quartile 1 was higher among those with diabetes or fasting hyperglycemia (3.03 [95% CI, 1.01-9.15]) than among those with normoglycemia (1.68 [95% CI, 1.12-2.52]). Also, the relative risk of cancer mortality associated with joint exposure to quartile 4 of WBC count and aspirin nonuse was 2.42 (95% CI, 1.46-4.01) compared with their absence.

Conclusion These data provide new epidemiological evidence of an association between circulating WBC count, a widely available marker of inflammation, and subsequent cancer mortality.

CRONers have really low WBC without a compromised immune system. So this data basically supports what I said earlier about the reference range as it stands now and how CRONers are probably at optimal range, just below reference range.

Frederick

Mon, Jan-30-06, 21:15

Hi Fedrick, I'll answer your question in the next few hours, I have to finish off some course work first for college! :(

Perfectly understandable!

Please, take your time. Having been a college student once upon a time, I can fully empthasize!

I remember last year, I had given serious thought to adopting a CR low-carb eating regimen based on some of the research I had read. I rejected the notion when reading some first hand accounts of people on the CR diet stipulating that they had to forgo strenuous physical activity.

The efficacy of a CR regimen increasing life expectancy appears to be supported by vast amount of research.

Wyvrn

Tue, Jan-31-06, 11:18

As I've shown, ratios of macronutrients does not matter and it's just calories that count.Macronutrient profile may not matter for rats (or humans) in a cage, but it certainly does matter for insulin resistant people living in the real world with free choice of food. I am able to keep my food consumption under control only as long as I eat a very low carb diet. If I ate more carbs I'd quickly be back to 2500+ calories a day and 200+ pounds.

Wyv

Dodger

Thu, Feb-02-06, 21:52

According to this research paper (http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/11), rats on reduced calories have less energy and are less active. Do CRONers lay around on the couch and think "I'll do something tomorrow?"

EE is energy expendature and PA is physical activity. CSN rats adapt to mild energy restriction by reducing body fat, EE and PA mainly during the dark period while growth proceeds and lean body mass is preserved. At higher levels of energy restriction there is decreased growth, body fat and lean mass and EE, PA and are also reduced during both light and dark periods.

Whoa182

Thu, Feb-02-06, 22:26

Thanks for the link dodger...

Well the people that I know who do calorie restriction, one of them is april, read her post she done yesterday (she does a CR blog, but is also quite low carb too) ahttp://www.mprize.org/blogs/archives/2006/02/ive_never_felt.html

Most people that I know who does CR lead very busy lives... they get up at 4am in the morning and dont sleep till 10pm in the night. most but not all experience an increase in energy. Also there are people who run many businesses and have similar schedual. I think that when a person pushes CR too far then they will experience weakness, not at mild cr like 10%.

I know of studies showing that mice on CR generally were more hyperactive, had more energy and ran more on the wheel every night than ad lib.

I'll copy part of the text from a book i got:

"whereas a young mouse might run one kilometer in a night, a cr mouse might run six or seven kilometers in a night. and whereas a normal mouse would stop running at all by the age of eight months, the cr animals are still running several kilometers a night at the age of two years!"

A new paper published " calorie restriction induces Mitochondrial Biogenesis and bioenergetic efficiency.http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0510452103v1

They show that muscle oxidative capacity remains in CR but not in ad lib. So energy supplied by the mitochondria which produces ATP is still at a critical point where it muscle energy is either increased or maintained, this seems to be because there are more mitochondria in the cell.

Whoa182

Thu, Feb-02-06, 22:32

Perfectly understandable!

Please, take your time. Having been a college student once upon a time, I can fully empthasize!

I remember last year, I had given serious thought to adopting a CR low-carb eating regimen based on some of the research I had read. I rejected the notion when reading some first hand accounts of people on the CR diet stipulating that they had to forgo strenuous physical activity.

The efficacy of a CR regimen increasing life expectancy appears to be supported by vast amount of research.

Hi, well i've done a little researching and it seems that you would need a fair number of calories especially if one were a competitive athlete. But we do have people on CR that exersise atleast 1 hour every day and do CR. I know some that run 5-10 miles a week and manage to restrict calories. But at this activity it would be safe to only restrict about 10%, which still gives people significant health benifits but not really much of an extension in life span.

Another thing to remember is how CR works... A person eating 1800 calories a day, but using 300 on exersising., will not get the same benifits as a person eating just 1500 without any exersise!

Whoa182

Thu, Feb-02-06, 22:36

Macronutrient profile may not matter for rats (or humans) in a cage, but it certainly does matter for insulin resistant people living in the real world with free choice of food. I am able to keep my food consumption under control only as long as I eat a very low carb diet. If I ate more carbs I'd quickly be back to 2500+ calories a day and 200+ pounds.

Wyv

I don't know, if you look at the biosphere two, they ate 75% from carbs and had huge reduction in insulin and increase in sensitivity. Everyone on the list that done CR has lost weight, mostly because the carbs come from vegetables and fruits. I myself cannot physically consume more than 2000 calories at the current time without feeling sick, mainly because the huge quanitity of food that I eat every day.

I also measure everything that I eat. I've seen so many reports of people restricting calories mainly for weight loss rather than longevitiy and end up dead or extremely thin and in danger of dying very quickly. A kid for example was on GMTV (show here in the UK) and he just started eating healthy, pretty much how I eat and he got down to 5stone and was going to die. His organs were failing and doctor said he could have days to live!

People tend to either eat too little and go on a crash diet or over consume, unless they measure and weigh the things they eat and drink and take into account energy expenditure. A lot of people are very uneducated about nutrition and believe things like eating Fat actually make you fat... So they would pile up some veggies and avoid all fats, which leads to death. There are many other examples but I guess you get my point..

Everytime a news report or something comes on the TV she always points it out to me like it somehow reflects what I'm doing. They story is always, I got the information from the internet and started dieting. Well so what, I'm not other people and I know a hell of a lot more about nutrition. These extreme stories you hear about are people that got down to BMI's of 13.

Thats why its very important that I weigh myself regularly and measure what I eat. Also track my diet using software like dwidp. Right now Im still gaining weight back, I have lots of self control and know the risks and understand what will happen if I push it too far.

This is how my nutrient intake is with one of my supplements essential mix:

Went a bit over on this day because of the salmon (lots of calories)... but this is around about what Im getting exluding my zinc copper balance every other day
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v141/whoa182/DWIDP.jpg