Why eating less can be the key to a long life

[Demi]

New Scientist Magazine
16 May, 2006


THE best thing to eat to extend your lifespan is very little. Why caloric restriction should lengthen life isn't clear, but it now seems that growth hormone could well be a key piece in the puzzle.

Andrzej Bartke and colleagues at Southern Illinois University in Springfield worked with normal mice and mutant mice missing the receptor for growth hormone. Half of each type were allowed to eat at will, and the other half were fed 30 per cent fewer calories than usual. As expected, normal mice on fewer calories lived 20 to 30 per cent longer. Mice without the growth hormone receptor also showed similar increases in longevity on a normal diet.

This suggests that restricting calories has a similar effect on the body to knocking out the growth hormone receptor. Doing both does not make the mice live even longer: the mutant mice on low-calorie diets had similar lifespans to those on the normal diet (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 7901).

"The actions of growth hormone are somehow implicated in linking caloric restriction to longer life," Bartke says. Insulin may be the connection. Both groups of long-lived mice had a greater sensitivity to insulin, and caloric restriction in the mutant mice failed to increase their strong insulin sensitivity any further.

"Insulin resistance is a risk factor for just about any problem you don't want to get: diabetes, atherosclerosis, cancer. It's sort of intuitive that the opposite situation would be beneficial."



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025515.600-why-eating-less-can-be-the-key-to-a-long-life.html

[LC_Dave]

Living longer is not a big plus to me.

Then again I am 30, ask me when I'm 70, maybe I'll change my tune! :lol:

[ThomasCGT]

If this calorie reduction is done on humans, apparently it has to be started during one's early years. This would lead to learning difficulties, as was shown in previous studies on the longer lived mice. Notice how here they didnt give the starting age of the test animals.. This is a useless old concept being rehashed, maybe as a diversion just in case we discover that DMAE, resveratrol, acetyl l-carnitine, acetyl l-cysteine, glutathione, alpha lipoic acid, chromium picolonate, tribulus terrestris, silymarin, gota kola and myriads of other naturally occurring substances, not only extend our lifespan, but also keep us away from mad mainstream medicine. I now approach 70, fit as fiddle, on extreme low carbs for 30 years, on all the above 'useless' substances, (plus many raw egg yolks, raw milk keffir). The so called New Scientist will never publish this info, lest it upset BIg Pharma, whose advertising of toxic useless drugs keeps the New Scientist afloat.

[kaypeeoh]

Insulin seems to be the favorite culprit right now. But without it we'd all be dead. It's not insulin that's the problem, it's too much high-caloric food. Eating more than we are designed to process causes many health problems. I see a people in their 70s and 80s who are lean and healthy. My dad is 73 and can still fit into the uniform he wore in VietNam 40 years ago. I never see an obese 80 year old.

[bkloots]

There were plenty of obese 80-year-olds in the nursing home with my mother, who was obese, chronically, until she died.

At 60, I have every prospect of living 30 more years. Do I want to die obese in a nursing home? Not if I can do something to prevent it. I don't know what that "something" is, but for now, LC and exercise make me feel better about the future...and, more important, the present.

[Scars]

Insulin seems to be the favorite culprit right now. But without it we'd all be dead. It's not insulin that's the problem, it's too much high-caloric food. Eating more than we are designed to process causes many health problems. I see a people in their 70s and 80s who are lean and healthy. My dad is 73 and can still fit into the uniform he wore in VietNam 40 years ago. I never see an obese 80 year old.

Great points... It is easy to fall into a trap of exclusive demonization - it sells books, products etc. but is not congruent with the complexity of certain chronic disease. A single biochemical pathway is rarely exclusively respnsible for diseased states. There comes a point where excess calories will take its toll on the body.

Spiking insulin throughout the day will eventually make us fat... But when "guru's" get a hold of such information, they single-mindedly tell us that insulin is the only thing making us fat. Unfortunatley, certain people go to extremes by trying to alter sympathetic catecholamines - using substances to mimic or secrete hormones to counteract insulin. Unfortunately, the excess stimulation of this pathway can actually lead to INCREASED body fat by increasing cortisol, retarding glucose tolerance and decreasing leptin production.(1,2,3,)

In any case, exercise (cardio and resistance training) works wonders from a cellular level on up. Would you rather potentially extend your life by getting meaningful, joyful physical activity in your life - or by living hungry?

1. J. Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000 Jun; 85:2170-75
2. J. Appl Physiol. 2002 Jun;92:2347-52
3. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2001 Oct;2:357-63

[LC FP]

Insulin seems to be the favorite culprit right now.
Don't be too quick to write off insulin. Let's take it seriously for about 30 years and see if we've made any progress.

[LukeA]

Just a ditto on the thought of yes there are obese 80 something year olds around. My grandfather was when he died at 82, and my grandmother at 89. Neither even died directly because of their weight. my grandfather was a surgery gone terribly wrong, and my grandmother from lung cancer.

[Sherrielee]

Feel lucky Luke....you seem to be blessed with good genes! :)

[mike_d]

Low fasting insulin levels have been reported to be the common marker for wellness into advanced age.

[Nancy LC]

Living longer is not a big plus to me.

Then again I am 30, ask me when I'm 70, maybe I'll change my tune! :lol:

Yeah, I remember thinking the same thing at your age. :p

Actually, I remember thinking I'd like to die at 30 so I don't ever get old and ugly. As if 30 were old... :lol:

[kebaldwin]

So by eating less calories -- they ate less carbs and lowered their insulin levels.

Does anyone else get it?

[Dodger]

So by eating less calories -- they ate less carbs and lowered their insulin levels.

Does anyone else get it?I have wondered for a long time about reduced calorie diets and the associated reduced carb levels. Almost no dietary studies measure insulin levels. Weight loss seems to be the magic parameter, but insulin is the metabolic driver.

[Sherrielee]

I was at a seminar several years ago on the topic of "living to be 120". The Professor said that the "leaner" you are...the better chace for success. I remember he said one's weight should be 10% under the Insurance Charts...at least!

[Dodger]

The odds of living to 120 are significantly less than the odds of getting struck by lighting or winning the lottery. Lean or fat, don't bet on getting to 120.

[Sherrielee]

He wasn't saying we could ALL live to be 120....some people die at birth. He believed that 120 was the top age we could expect with all "the planets aligned". Many other factors were discussed, but caloric load and weight was PART of the discussion.

BTW, my cousin was struck by lightening on the golf course, but he is only 60! ;)

[Whoa182]

So by eating less calories -- they ate less carbs and lowered their insulin levels.

Does anyone else get it?

No, not in all cases was this done. The average consumption of Carbs is generally around 55%. In the Bioshpere two program their carb intake was 77% of their total caloric intake, so as they lowered calories, they increased carbs, not decreased!

What happend? "insulin, decreased 42%" with increased carbs.

The 42% decrease in INSULIN was done with the consumption of around 370g ~ of carbs.

blood sugar also decreased 21%


Calorie Restriction in Biosphere 2
Alterations in Physiologic, Hematologic, Hormonal, and Biochemical Parameters in Humans Restricted for a 2-Year Period
Roy L. Walforda, Dennis Mockb, Roy Verderyc and Taber MacCallumd
http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/57/6/B211

Four female and four male crew members, including two of the present authors (R. Walford and T. MacCallum)—seven of the crew being ages 27 to 42 years, and one aged 67 years—were sealed inside Biosphere 2 for two years. During seven eighths of that period they consumed a low-calorie (1750–2100 kcal/d) nutrient-dense diet of vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, and legumes, with small amounts of dairy, eggs, and meat (~12% calories from protein, ~11% from fat, and ~77% from complex carbohydrates). They experienced a marked and sustained weight loss of 17 ± 5%, mostly in the first 8 months. Blood was drawn before entry into Biosphere 2, at many time-points inside it, and four times during the 30 months following exit from it and return to an ad libitum diet. Longitudinal studies of 50 variables on each crew member compared outside and inside values by means of a Bayesian statistical analysis. The data show that physiologic (e.g., body mass index, with a decrease of 19% for men and 13% for women; blood pressure, with a systolic decrease of 25% and a diastolic decrease of 22%), hematologic (e.g., white blood cell count, decreased 31%), hormonal (e.g., insulin, decreased 42%; T3, decreased 19%), biochemical (e.g., blood sugar, decreased 21%; cholesterol, decreased 30%), and a number of additional changes, including values for rT3, cortisol, glycated hemaglobin, plus others, resembled those of rodents or monkeys maintained on a calorie-restricted regime. Significant variations in several substances not hitherto studied in calorie-restricted animals are also reported (e.g., androstenedione, thyroid binding globulin, renin, and transferrin). We conclude that healthy nonobese humans on a low-calorie, nutrient-dense diet show physiologic, hematologic, hormonal, and biochemical changes resembling those of rodents and monkeys on such diets. With regard to the health of humans on such a diet, we observed that despite the selective restriction in calories and marked weight loss, all crew members remained in excellent health and sustained a high level of physical and mental activity throughout the entire 2 years.

Don't YOU get it? Macronutrients ratios do not matter on a hypocaloric diet. Can anyone else see this ?

I can show you another study at the same calorie level but only consuming 40% carbs. The results are pretty much exactly the same!

[kwikdriver]

No, not in all cases was this done. The average consumption of Carbs is generally around 55%. In the Bioshpere two program their carb intake was 77% of their total caloric intake, so as they lowered calories, they increased carbs, not decreased!

In Biosphere they were eating 1900 calories iirc.

.77 X 1900 = 1463 calories from carbs, or 365 grams of carb.

The average American eats about 2700 calories (http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/FoodReview/DEC2002/frvol25i3a.pdf):

.55 X 2700 = 1485 calories from carbs, or about 371 grams. So they reduced total carbohydrate intake. When you factor in protein reduction, it isn't surprising insulin went down.


Don't YOU get it? Macronutrients ratios do not matter on a hypocaloric diet. Can anyone else see this ?

Just saw this. Yes, macronutrient composition doesn't matter on a hypocaloric diet. The question is, can you get the same effects with a eucaloric diet, but low carbing?

[ThomasCGT]

Dodger is right. Probably only one in a million is going to make 120. They would be taking great care of themselves, with exercise, meditation, alternate nostril breathing, massive and carefully selected nutrient supplementation, avoiding the life shorteners, ie microwaves, soy, teflon, trans fats, msg, alcohol, smoking etc. The rest, well they MAY hit 65. or if they have made some effort, they would live proportionately longer. As was stated by an early pioneer of life extension, Dr Richard Passwater, in a forward to his Supernutrition for Healthy Hearts.. A person in average health, with no exercise, no good health habits and no supplementation, will be dead at 65 of heart disease or cancer. He wasnt quite right on cancer, as we have learnt over the past 10 years, that cancer is a function of parasites, heavy metals, radiation, bacteria, etc. See ..A Cure For Cancer. Hulda Clark PhD. ND.

[kebaldwin]

I have wondered for a long time about reduced calorie diets and the associated reduced carb levels. Almost no dietary studies measure insulin levels. Weight loss seems to be the magic parameter, but insulin is the metabolic driver.

From what I have read is -- the control group is people eating a "typical western diet" (i.e. high glycemic). The low calorie group eats a percentage of the same diet. Which effectively reduces their insulin levels because their total intake of high glycemic food is reduced.

Then they measure things like insulin, DHEA, growth factors, hormones to see that they improve.

My point is -- you can do the same thing by eating low carb and not have to reduce your food intake.

It all goes back to this idea that people only need to "eat less and exercise more". And most of us know how that philosophy works

[kwikdriver]

Then they measure things like insulin, DHEA, growth factors, hormones to see that they improve.

My point is -- you can do the same thing by eating low carb and not have to reduce your food intake.

There is no evidence that this is true. There is no research on eucaloric, low carb diets that covers a long period of time on which to base this judgment. It might be true. I hope it's true. But I don't know. My gut feeling is that it isn't -- that there's something about undereating and periodic fasting that change the body that doesn't happen in a eucaloric state, regardless of macronutrient composition. All the research that works involves some kind of deprivation -- periods of time without eating, like intermittent fasting, or just plain undereating. The intermittant fasting seems to work even with a "normal" diet and no weight loss.

[Nancy LC]

My point is -- you can do the same thing by eating low carb and not have to reduce your food intake.
They don't really know because they haven't figured out if the benefit is because low carbers tend to eat less calories or if it is because of the food they do eat.

Dr. Eades has a good read up about this subject and called Carbohydrates or weight loss or both? (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/archives/2006/05/post_1.html)

[Scars]

Dodger is right. Probably only one in a million is going to make 120. They would be taking great care of themselves, with exercise, meditation, alternate nostril breathing, massive and carefully selected nutrient supplementation, avoiding the life shorteners, ie microwaves, soy, teflon, trans fats, msg, alcohol, smoking etc. The rest, well they MAY hit 65. or if they have made some effort, they would live proportionately longer. As was stated by an early pioneer of life extension, Dr Richard Passwater, in a forward to his Supernutrition for Healthy Hearts.. A person in average health, with no exercise, no good health habits and no supplementation, will be dead at 65 of heart disease or cancer. He wasnt quite right on cancer, as we have learnt over the past 10 years, that cancer is a function of parasites, heavy metals, radiation, bacteria, etc. See ..A Cure For Cancer. Hulda Clark PhD. ND.

Please post some studies that support your assertions on microwaves as being a life-shortener. While I think there is some merit in taking some supplements - I haven't seen anything to suggest that massive doses of supplements prolongs life. Exercise/healthy dietary/lifestyle habits does - that is proven.

As for your hero Hulda Clark PhD, ND (from a non-accredited, 100 hour correspondance course). I would have a difficult time believing somebody who;

- Claims all cancers are alike. They are all caused by a parasite. A single parasite! It is the human intestinal fluke. And if you kill this parasite, the cancer stops immediately.
- It takes 5 days to be cured of cancer regardless of the type you have.
- Claims her method is 100% effective in stopping cancer regardless of the type of cancer or how terminal it may be.
- Thinks a parasite "zapper" is a fail-proof way of getting rid of cancer
- Was arrested in San Diego, California, based on a fugitive warrant from Indiana, where she faced charges of practicing medicine without a license. In November, a former patient filed suit accusing her of negligence and fraud.

Also, check out this suit:

A civil case was filed by Esther and Jose Figueroa of New York City against Clark, the Dr. Clark Research Association, Century Nutrition, and several associated individuals. Mrs. Figueroa, who had been medically diagnosed with breast cancer, sought treatment in September 1998. The court papers state that she was told:

Dust from her apartment was responsible for her breast cancer.
Returning to her apartment would place her at special risk to develop leukemia because of her blood type.
She had asbestos, lead, and a lot of copper in her system.
The Syncrometer detected a parasite called "rabbit fluke" inside her breast.
She also had E. coli, asbestos, and salmonella due to improper food sterilization.
Several teeth should be removed and "cavitations" in her lower jaw should be scraped out.
The suit also charged that:

Clark subsequently arranged for all of Mrs. Figueroa's front and molar teeth to be removed, prescribed more than 30 dietary and herbal supplements to be taken during a 12-week period, and badly burned her breast while administering treatment with a "Zapper" device.
During the 3-month period of treatment, the tumor increased from 1.5 cm to 14 cm.
Despite this fact, Mrs. Figueroa was falsely told that she was getting better, that tests for "cancer markers" were negative, and that pain she was experiencing did not reflect persistence of her cancer.

hmmm.....

[theladyboo]

I see obese 80 yos in wheel chairs shopping at the local market here. It's sad because I'm sure their bones cannot handle the weight. They probably did not get enough calcium in their diet to support their weight or enough excercise to support their muscles so their joints deminished.

Believe me, I know. I would have been one of them had I not gone to the doctor to get my knees checked out. My internal organs are generally fit, I have no real diseases except for my lack of tolerence toward carbs. I would have been one of these people that continue to live and continue to gain weight only to be unable to walk later on in life.

Low carb saved me. Had I kept on eating the so-called healthy lifestyle foods, I would have been bed ridden.

Did I eat like mad? No. I ate oatmeal, cereal, bread, etc. I ate all the things the government tells you to eat yet I kept gaining until I ached all over.

Thank you Dr. Atkins for saving my health. I don't want to be unable to move when I'm 80, I want to be up and running around with my grandkids and running my company like I'm 40 still. :-)


There were plenty of obese 80-year-olds in the nursing home with my mother, who was obese, chronically, until she died.

At 60, I have every prospect of living 30 more years. Do I want to die obese in a nursing home? Not if I can do something to prevent it. I don't know what that "something" is, but for now, LC and exercise make me feel better about the future...and, more important, the present.

[Whoa182]

This is the only thing that I can find at the moment which gives some sort of idea on how the source of calories affect longevity in mice. Obviously there is no human data yet because that is going to take a few more decades! :p

I wasn't trying to look for something anti-fat.. it just happens that the mice fed mostly lard as primary calorie source didn't do aswell as the high carb group =/

These mice had lupus erythematosus I believe... So not exactly healthy but shows that high carb doesn't make them worse as most of you would expect?

CR + Low carb / High fat - lived twice the age of fully fed mice
CR + High Carb / Low fat - lived upto 2-4 times longer than fully fed mice
Full fed + no carb OR high carb - both groups died around the same age

Undernutrition, not malnutrition

According to Good, “The answer was clear and unmistakable. Using diets fed so that vitamin, mineral, and required protein intakes were identical between full-fed and food intake-restricted mice and only calories were limited in the restricted mice, the very large differences in survival depended solely on the calorie intake and not on the source of calories. The diets fed to the mice consuming a restricted calorie intake contained either 62% of the calories as carbohydrate (sucrose + glycerol) or 69% of the calories as fat (lard), or in the case of protein as much as 86% of the calorie intake (the higher level in this case is of course to allow adequate essential protein for the full-fed group and yet keep protein as the primary energy source in the restricted group). The groups consuming the restricted intakes were restricted to 60% of the calorie intake of the full-fed groups. In all cases, regardless of calorie source, the mice fed the 60% calorie intake lived from two to three times longer than their paired full-fed mice. There was, however, a secondary effect of fat so that the mice which consumed a restricted calorie intake of a diet proportionate in fat almost uniformly died at approximately twice the age of the full-fed mice. On the other hand, those mice placed on chronic energy intake restriction of a high carbohydrate diet that was also low in fat lived two to four times longer than full-fed mice. They lived on average three times as long as full-fed mice consuming diets relatively high in fat or carbohydrate, and the longest survivors lived more than 44 months. These results suggest a separate additional harmful effect of fat, as has been repeatedly reported” (Johnson, Good, Proc.Soc.Exp.Biol.Med. 193:4-5, 1990).

Low fat, low calorie best

Good stressed that, “The most dramatic shift in longevity curves occurred with a diet relatively low in fat and relatively high in carbohydrate that was fed at the CEIR level (restriction of 40% in total calories). Restriction can be imposed as late as midlife and still succeed at forestalling disease onset and greatly extending lifespan. However, for most powerful regulation of lifespan and health, CEIR is best imposed at time of weaning,”

http://gerson-research.org/docs/HildenbrandGLG-1992-4/index.html

Edit: here is some more:

*IMPORTANT*

In the presence of normal calorie intake levels, the source of calories had no statistically significant effect on lifespan in autoimmune mice, i.e. no difference was seen in the effects of a very high fat/no carbohydrate diet and a very low fat/high carbohydrate diet. However, the same diets fed at restricted calorie levels both increased lifespan in the same mice.

[Scars]

They don't really know because they haven't figured out if the benefit is because low carbers tend to eat less calories or if it is because of the food they do eat.

Dr. Eades has a good read up about this subject and called Carbohydrates or weight loss or both? (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/archives/2006/05/post_1.html)

A fantastic link! Hope everybody gets a chance to read this - Dr. Eades has some great commentary on a many number of things.

[Nancy LC]

Hulda Clark PhD, ND
I knew that name was familiar. Sounds like for a pretty good reason.

[kebaldwin]

There is no evidence that this is true. There is no research on eucaloric, low carb diets that covers a long period of time on which to base this judgment. It might be true. I hope it's true. But I don't know. My gut feeling is that it isn't -- that there's something about undereating and periodic fasting that change the body that doesn't happen in a eucaloric state, regardless of macronutrient composition. All the research that works involves some kind of deprivation -- periods of time without eating, like intermittent fasting, or just plain undereating. The intermittant fasting seems to work even with a "normal" diet and no weight loss.

Are you trying to say that Dr Atkins did not prove this over and over?

I think you need to reread Dr Atkins book - especially "Dr Atkins Age-Defying Diet". See Chapter 7.

[Whoa182]

No thoughts on what I posted earlier?

I thought it was very relevant to the discussion and answers some questions or claims brought up by people.

[kwikdriver]

Are you trying to say that Dr Atkins did not prove this over and over?

I think you need to reread Dr Atkins book - especially "Dr Atkins Age-Defying Diet". See Chapter 7.

Not meaning to argue with the good doctor, but I've been all over the research on life extension, and it isn't there. That's the book where he also talks about the wonders of chelation therapy, iirc, and I haven't found anything credible in favor of chelation therapy, either. I'm sure this sounds like heresy, but it takes more than "Atkins says" to make something true, which isn't to say that Atkins didn't make a great contribution to nutrition.

[kebaldwin]

Okay then try common sense.

If someone is eating a high glycemic diet (i.e. typical western diet) and they cut back on how much they eat -- then their total glycemic load decreases.

And if they decrease their total glycemic load -- what happens to their insulin level?

And if their insulin is not freaking out -- what happens to their other hormones?

[kwikdriver]

Okay then try common sense.

If someone is eating a high glycemic diet (i.e. typical western diet) and they cut back on how much they eat -- then their total glycemic load decreases.

And if they decrease their total glycemic load -- what happens to their insulin level?

And if their insulin is not freaking out -- what happens to their other hormones?


Well, I was never too good at common sense. The short answer is, there might be more to it than just insulin. In the absence of actual data, we can't know. Keep in mind I'm not saying it won't work; I'm saying we don't know.

[pbowers]

the problem with hypocaloric diets is that they tend to be unsustainable. for those without options (e.g. participants in biosphere 2) and others without impaired glucose metabolisms, hypocaloric diets that are also high in carbs might work for those with tremendous willpower. but for most of us - those who turned to lcing because starving ourselves on low-fat diets made us miserable and ultimately didn't work - trying to maintain a hypocaloric diet that included high carbs would be futile.

[pbowers]

Don't YOU get it? Macronutrients ratios do not matter on a hypocaloric diet. Can anyone else see this ?
they matter if you're starving!!!

[Whoa182]

why do you have to be starving? I don't understand =/ Wouldn't you just increase the volume the food you eat?

mabye I just got a small stomach? but I am never seriously hungry. I might crave a piece of chocolate every now and then but I'm never truly starving myself, ever.

and what has low fat got to do with a hypocaloric diet?

[Whoa182]

pbowers, this is my typical day of eating.

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost.php?p=6130048&postcount=478

Can you really be hungry if u were to eat all that? I sometimes struggle because I don't just have 1 tiny floret of broccoli but 400g ~ worth. Meaning I could eat and eat vegetables until I feel physically sick and still not reach my target target of 1800k/cal. Thats why I have to throw in some more energy dense foods. The point is, the volume of food keeps CRONies from feeling hungry. :)

I can't comment on how sustainable it would be for other people because everyone has a different situation. My motivation for doing this is quite powerful to keep me going for a very long time.

I'm not trying to bring anyone to do CR on here (well most of you are already doing it anyway!), but just to have interesting discussions and try to correct false things said about how its done. The fact is you can do it however you like, aslong as you have fat, protein, vitamins and minerals in there :)

[pbowers]

and what has low fat got to do with a hypocaloric diet?the discussion seemed to be focused on the potential benefits of lcing along with low-cal. this is, in fact, what a lot of lcers unintenitionally end up doing. you appear to be arguing that the macronutrient composition doesn't matter when it comes to calorie restriction, and in fact that, in mice, eating more carbs proved to be more beneficial, right? if you're restricting calories, but not restricting carbs, you're undoubtedly eating a low-fat diet.

btw, i'd be shaking, lightheaded, and looking to eat anything in sight by ten o'clock if i ate the breakfast you typically eat...

[Whoa182]

if you're restricting calories, but not restricting carbs, you're undoubtedly eating a low-fat diet.

63-70g a day is low fat?

i'd be shaking, lightheaded, and looking to eat anything in sight by ten o'clock if i ate the breakfast you typically eat...
Today 21:56

Well... you know yourself best I guess! I can't say I know how this feels because I don't have any problems like this.

[pbowers]

why do you have to be starving? I don't understand =/ Wouldn't you just increase the volume the food you eat?yes, you might icrease the volume of food, but you'd also substantially increase blood insulin levels (especially problematic for people suffering from hyperinsulinaemia), and end up hungry again. whereas i eat twice a day, probably consume far less in terms of total weight of food, but never feel hungry.

if i started calorie restriction when i was 20 i might have been able to consume a diet similar to yours without much difficulty (not that i would have wanted to). but if i did that now i'd be a mess...

[pbowers]

63-70g a day is low fat?i don't know, is it? that's about 30-35% of your 1800 calories. i'm getting somewhere around 80% of my total from fat, so for me it is.

[pbowers]

not sure if anyone posted this yet, but you can read the original article here (http://ca.geocities.com/paul.bowers/7901.pdf).

[Whoa182]

Hmmm, link doesn't work..

EDIT:

Nevermind, works now!

[LC_Dave]

why do you have to be starving? I don't understand =/ Wouldn't you just increase the volume the food you eat?

mabye I just got a small stomach? but I am never seriously hungry. I might crave a piece of chocolate every now and then but I'm never truly starving myself, ever.

and what has low fat got to do with a hypocaloric diet?

Whoa,
I have personally seen it in myself and other obese people, that they simply cannot handle high carb/low cal. The more obese you get, the less you can handle it.

I am sure you can, but you would have a different make up. The vast majority of humans cannot handle it, that's why they put on weight.

To me, it's all in the blood sugar regulation, which is best on a low carb diet.