I was looking at this site today, and I found it to be pretty interesting. I have heard this before but not ever really read into it- that reducing your calories sharply can increase your longevity. What do you all think?
http://calorierestriction.org/
http://www.longevitymeme.org/topics/calorie_restriction.cfm

While I think the research done here seems legit, I don't think that living life so skinny that I can't sit without hurting would be a life I'd want to live at all. If something is going to raise life expectancy, I'd expect it to be at a respectable standard of living- otherwise, it seems pointless.
But what do you think?

I agree, rainbowmoon! Eating is pleasurable to me. I'm not willing to so severely decrease my intake for the possibility of a longer life.

as for your question, it is very clearly not nonsense. the research is tried and true.

i think your actual question of: is it worth it? is a better one.

i agree that to me it is not. i see no pleasure in long life, but i do see a lot of pleasure in eating.

anyway, most of the science is more focused on duplicating increased lifespan without CR.

It's not worth it to me.

I also think promoting a calorie-restricted diet could be dangerous for those with ED. It's a fine line between retricting one's calories in a healthy manner and not eating enough. Someone with anorexia nervosa could claim, "I'm not starving myself, I'm just on a calorie-restricted diet. See, it's good for you!"

as for your question, it is very clearly not nonsense. the research is tried and true.

i think your actual question of: is it worth it? is a better one.

i agree that to me it is not. i see no pleasure in long life, but i do see a lot of pleasure in eating.

anyway, most of the science is more focused on duplicating increased lifespan without CR.
Actually it's not tried and true. The only "proof" they have is that mice live longer when they eat a bit less. This study has never been done on humans, except for say...people who starve to death :think:

The people I've read about trying this starvation thing are basiclly eating disordered if you read about them.

The evidance that this works in humans is still far from conclusive, by it's very nature any study will take decades, if not a century to complete. It certainly works in other animals, but then these animals still have a natural lifespan, compared to humans lifespans who are already extended way beyond anything in our past.

Personally i'm going to stick with healthy diet and excercise and hope they develope a full body transplant by the time I need a new body :)

Actually it's not tried and true. The only "proof" they have is that mice live longer when they eat a bit less. This study has never been done on humans, except for say...people who starve to death :think:

The people I've read about trying this starvation thing are basiclly eating disordered if you read about them.

yeast, worms, mice, primates...need i go on?

the science is very, very, very clear. it is established. it works. no doubt about it.

and the study is being done on humans--all the humans who are living under calorie restriction conditions right now, and there are quite a few of them.

these people will not starve to death. they are getting all of their essential nutrients. they are sterile--that is the biggest problem with calorie restricition as a mechanism of life extension.

they are not eating disordered. IMO, they may be obsessed and fixated on this goal of living longer at the expense of all else in their life. but for these people it is not about the food.

of course, there may be anorexics that use this as their excuse, but that is not the fault of CR.

. It certainly works in other animals, but then these animals still have a natural lifespan, compared to humans lifespans who are already extended way beyond anything in our past.



that is untrue. the average length of human lifespans has increased--but not the total time. people in this field are not looking to extend average lifespans, but total. so that people will begin to live 150 or 160 years, regularly.

i also just want to re-iterate that i do not support CR as a method of extending lifespan.

i think folks who do this are, by and large, crackpots.

but, my flatmate works in this field so i do know quite a bit about it.

that is untrue. the average length of human lifespans has increased--but not the total time. people in this field are not looking to extend average lifespans, but total. so that people will begin to live 150 or 160 years, regularly.

This is very interesting. My psychology prof. (developmental Psych..) was discussing a theory that the human body is only designed to work for about 120 years, making that a maximum lifespan for most people. I am curious to read more about how the CR stuff works- does it somehow slow down cell division and therefore the turning of telomeres? (I am no scientist, as you can see...!)
Also, the testing for CR has been done on primates, too, not just mice, and it did work on them. I guess when I say 'nonsense' I dont mean, does it work, but is it worth it.

I guess it depends on what's important to you in life. If eating a certain number of calories (and all that it entails) is something that makes your life significantly better, then CR is not going to be for you. If eating less food isn't too big an issue for you and have reasons to want a longer life, then you might as well go for it.

This is very interesting. My psychology prof. (developmental Psych..) was discussing a theory that the human body is only designed to work for about 120 years, making that a maximum lifespan for most people. I am curious to read more about how the CR stuff works- does it somehow slow down cell division and therefore the turning of telomeres? (I am no scientist, as you can see...!)
Also, the testing for CR has been done on primates, too, not just mice, and it did work on them. I guess when I say 'nonsense' I dont mean, does it work, but is it worth it.

no, it doesn't slow down cell division. but telomeres don't need to be degraded as quickly as they are. all i know is the telomere issue is complicated, and more than i have cared to understand in the field (and it is research currently being worked out anyway).

i've also heard the human body being designed to work for 120 years and no more, but i don't think there is a lot of scientific merit to it.

that is untrue. the average length of human lifespans has increased--but not the total time. people in this field are not looking to extend average lifespans, but total. so that people will begin to live 150 or 160 years, regularly.


The average lifespan has increased because of the reduction in infant mortality. But people were always capable of living a long time.

the science is very, very, very clear. it is established. it works. no doubt about it.

So how many people do you know over 120 years old on a calorie restricted diet?

So how many people do you know over 120 years old on a calorie restricted diet?

well, since science is all about anecdotal evidence....

Ok, maybe I'm missing something here, but this doesn't look that wierd...

I had a quick look through the "how to" guide in the first link, and it looked like basic nutrition to me - reduce white flour & sugar, limit protein, limit fats, eat fruit & veg and good fats. The only thing I couldn't find was exactly how many calories you are supposed to eat in a day. Is it an excessively small number? Because otherwise, it looks to me like these people are living longer simply because they are eating a healthier diet.

I think a huge part of the so-called "obesity epidemic" is that calories are too easy to get. If you eat a lot of processed foods and fast foods, you can get far more calories then your body needs without really eating that much. This calorie-restricted diet looks to me more like a "Get the actual number of calories you need a day" diet.

Of course, their website didn't provide me with a number, so I could be way off track.

Ok, maybe I'm missing something here, but this doesn't look that wierd...

I had a quick look through the "how to" guide in the first link, and it looked like basic nutrition to me - reduce white flour & sugar, limit protein, limit fats, eat fruit & veg and good fats. The only thing I couldn't find was exactly how many calories you are supposed to eat in a day. Is it an excessively small number? Because otherwise, it looks to me like these people are living longer simply because they are eating a healthier diet.

I think a huge part of the so-called "obesity epidemic" is that calories are too easy to get. If you eat a lot of processed foods and fast foods, you can get far more calories then your body needs without really eating that much. This calorie-restricted diet looks to me more like a "Get the actual number of calories you need a day" diet.

Of course, their website didn't provide me with a number, so I could be way off track.
I agree. From what I've read thus far it doesn't seem unhealthy.

I've been restricting calories for the past several months (100 less then what's recommended for my BMR) and it's working out well. Then again I'm not a huge food peson either.

IMO, although they don't provide a number, the calories MUST be low, because these people are constantly freezing, can't sit comfortable because they're all bones, and there is a section called "How to avoid binging" on one of the websites. This leads me to believe the calories are pretty low.


Ok, maybe I'm missing something here, but this doesn't look that wierd...

I had a quick look through the "how to" guide in the first link, and it looked like basic nutrition to me - reduce white flour & sugar, limit protein, limit fats, eat fruit & veg and good fats. The only thing I couldn't find was exactly how many calories you are supposed to eat in a day. Is it an excessively small number? Because otherwise, it looks to me like these people are living longer simply because they are eating a healthier diet.

I think a huge part of the so-called "obesity epidemic" is that calories are too easy to get. If you eat a lot of processed foods and fast foods, you can get far more calories then your body needs without really eating that much. This calorie-restricted diet looks to me more like a "Get the actual number of calories you need a day" diet.

Of course, their website didn't provide me with a number, so I could be way off track.

Not to be too simplistic, but it's about the quality of your body in the long run if you don't over tax it. "We" eat way too much on a regular basis. You actually need far less than we eat. We've grow so use to "super size" that most people don't know what a normal serving is for a human.

The point is.......eat less more often and don't over tax your body and thus your internal organs. Humans tend to cram lots of food into 3 BIG meals and several snacks a day. Most of us eat more calories at one sitting than we really need and it's hard on yoru body. I'm guilty too...I love food and it taste good. It's social. But as a society, we're wearing out our bodies and treating them poorly. Eating too much food is one aspect. I'm not talking about eating disorders and things off that nature. I'm just talking about how much the human body really needs to power it's self through the day.

And there is research to this point.

Ok, maybe I'm missing something here, but this doesn't look that wierd...

I had a quick look through the "how to" guide in the first link, and it looked like basic nutrition to me - reduce white flour & sugar, limit protein, limit fats, eat fruit & veg and good fats. The only thing I couldn't find was exactly how many calories you are supposed to eat in a day. Is it an excessively small number? Because otherwise, it looks to me like these people are living longer simply because they are eating a healthier diet.
.
I thought that also. There's no substitute for healthy diet and exercise, but faddy diets seem to feed the beauty industry well.
:flush:

How do they keep their bodies from going into starvation mode and consuming the protein in their muscles, which is a danger with extremely low-calorie diets? If these people can't keep warm and are so skinny their bones hurt, they are probably damaging their bodies.

How do they keep their bodies from going into starvation mode and consuming the protein in their muscles, which is a danger with extremely low-calorie diets? If these people can't keep warm and are so skinny their bones hurt, they are probably damaging their bodies.

they make sure that they are still getting sufficient protein. and their essential fats.

this is all about nutrition, not about starving themselves. i can't overemphasize that. they are getting their essential nutrients and micronutrients.

one reason they don't put calories on there is because of liability issues.

secondly, the exact number of calories will depend on how much you exercise/ how active you are.

( http://www.infoaging.org/b-cal3-what.html )

for instance, if you aren't very active then even 1400-1600 calories a day will be a significant enough reduction. if you are more active then you would add some calories to that.

here (http://www.infoaging.org/b-cal-7-increase.html) is another good explanation.

Thanks for those links Catswym. After reading this, I've changed my mind:

A calorie-restricted diet will produce weight loss, to the point that most adherents appear ill. Followers of calorie-restricted diets are generally cold and always hungry. Because they lose so much body fat, they lose the protective cushions that protect their bones. Sitting can be painful due to pressure on bones. Walking can hurt, due to the loss of the pads on the bottoms of feet. The digestive system can be constantly upset.

Few adults have the ability to sustain such a diet for any length of time, much less for their entire lives. Calorie-restricted humans are not very healthy in many ways and seem to have a low quality of life. Given that historically for economic reasons many humans have undoubtedly in effect been on lifelong caloric restriction, without a corresponding extension of lifespan past 120 years, some scientists doubt that caloric restriction will actually extend lifespan in humans. Because of the lack of evidence of benefit in humans, scientists do no currently recommend that humans go on a calorie-restricted diet. Nevertheless, there are some people who do it. Whether they live longer and healthier remains to be seen and will need to be confirmed by scientific studies that include large numbers of people.


Doesn't sound very healthy to me, regardless of how long they live. Maybe being cold all the time and not being able to sit down or walk without being in pain makes it feel like your lifespan is extended.

Doesn't sound very healthy to me, regardless of how long they live. Maybe being cold all the time and not being able to sit down or walk without being in pain makes it feel like your lifespan is extended.


ha!

:up:

I think people are often too quick to point the finger at an "Americanized" view of calorie restriction or such acts as fasting, or different diets. Claiming that restricting calories automatically leads to an eating disorder is not true, but I admit that anorexics do also extremely limit their calories.

There is a difference between someone under a lot of peer pressure to attain a certain physique so much so that he/she does not eat or purges after they eat and someone who eats healthily, lightly, and engages in such practices as fasting to promote spirituality and longevity. Doing this does not automatically make it hurt to sit down!!!

Every meal you eat requires energy expenditure from your body, but not eating sufficiently or at all can also be harmful if done haphazardly. I say: if you like how you feel when you do it, then do what you feel.