VeggieBoards banner
1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
controversial among some, inspiring to others... here are just a few of the references on the research done on Caloric Restriction.

NOTE: for anyone who has an ED, or has any worrying or strong urges attached to food, please realize that this thread is likely not what would be most helpful for you. please take care of yourself


NOTE to all:

hopefully we're all smarties here and we know to judge things for ourselves. I'll just note that i have no formal experience in medical research and i've never been in medical school, and i have not read any of the below studies in it's entirety. In other words DON'T TRUST ME I am not perfect and I will prove that point many more times before my body dies :b Read if you're interested, and don't if you're not..

THAT said, here are some interesting things...

imagine.. less illness, longer life, less money spent on food, less environmental effects of food, less time spent eating (hey i enjoy taste too, but it's easy to find things i enjoy even more
) no, i'm not selling anything, i don't accept donations, and i don't even have any site that gives me ad revenue or any other kind of income. Just sharing what's inspiring, enlightening, and liberating


these are all .edu and .gov sources

(a note - the research that involved using animals almost surely involved their breeding, taken from their mothers, confinement, isolation and other hurts, and likely also included being killed.

Most people who are at this forum already have an idea that these animals matter, and that science has 'better' methods. If you feel animal use may be justified, please see my page http://www.helpusall.com/ap.html , or see http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/ for a more technical view. Thank YOU)

--Research--

http://mednews.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/6362.html

Jan. 12, 2006 -- Eating a very low-calorie yet nutritionally balanced diet is good for your heart. Studying heart function in members of an organization called the Calorie Restriction Society, investigators at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis found that their hearts functioned like the hearts of much younger people. The researchers report their findings in the Jan. 17 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...gi?artid=58517

Caloric restriction (CR) is the only intervention shown to extend lifespan in mammals. It is also the most effective means known of reducing cancer incidence and increasing the mean age of onset of age-related diseases and tumors.

(national institutes of health)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=15650008

Study findings support existing epidemiological evidence indicating that caloric intake may influence risk for AD and raises the possibility that CR may be used in preventative measures aimed at delaying the onset of AD amyloid neuropathology.

(AD = Alzheimer's disease)

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1480571

NIH site, a slightly-biased against summary of CR research. (but useful for finding new general references and history)

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/r...AG-01-001.html

Numerous studies in laboratory animals have shown that chronic caloric restriction (CR), i.e., limiting caloric intake below ad libitum levels, extends maximum and average life span by as much as 40% and delays age-related pathologies correspondingly.

CR increases life span whether initiated in early adult life or middle age, but its effects diminish with increasing age of onset of CR. The amount of life span extension increases with the degree of caloric restriction (up to approximately 40% restriction; substantial effects have occurred with 20% restriction.

Among the aging changes slowed by these regimens are declines in glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity, and increases in body weight. (These regimens do not produce sustained weight loss: After transient weight loss, weight either remains stable or increases more slowly than in controls.)

Chronic CR in nonhuman primates has been found to produce parallel physiologic changes to those seen in rodents. Studies of its effects on nonhuman primate life span have not been completed.

http://www.nia.nih.gov/NewsAndEvents...2TwoNew.htmTwo

New Studies Suggest that Caloric Restriction in

Monkeys May Extend Their Life and Health

Two recent animal studies offer a possible explanation for how caloric restriction might possibly enhance human health and help extend life as well. One new study from the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and Dr. Roy Verdery at the Arizona Center on Aging shows that a 30 percent reduction in calories in a monkey's diet leads to elevation in good cholesterol (HDL2B) levels with a subsequent reduction in risk for cardiovascular disease.

A second recent study from the NIA has shown that caloric restriction slows the age-related decrease in amounts of a naturally occurring steroid hormone, DHEA. Using natural DHEA levels as a biomarker of aging may assist scientists in their search for a way to slow down the aging process.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/pub..._no_115=171962

Caloric restriction (CR) is the only intervention known to delay biological aging in animal models.

Agricultural Research Service of USDA

http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t020815.html (health and human services)

Since the 1930s, investigators have consistently found that laboratory rats and mice live up to 30 percent longer than usual when fed a nutritionally balanced diet that has at least 30 percent fewer calories than they would normally consume. These studies were the first demonstration that the maximum life span of a mammal could be increased.

More recent research has found that these animals also appear to be more resistant to age-related diseases including cancer. Other rodent studies have found that caloric restriction may increase resistance of neurons in the brain to dysfunction and death. In fact, caloric restriction appears to delay normal age-related degeneration of a number of physiological systems in rodents.

Studies on the effects of caloric restriction in higher mammals (monkeys) are ongoing. Preliminary results are promising, including greater resistance to diabetes and heart disease in these animals. Yet, even if caloric restriction is successful in extending primate life span, it is doubtful that it will ever become a practical and acceptable long-term goal for most humans. However, caloric restriction shows that life span can be altered, prompting research into possible mechanisms.

In an effort to further elucidate the role of caloric restriction in extending healthy life span in humans, in March 1999, the NIA and NIDDK co-sponsored a meeting of the Caloric Restriction Clinical Implications Advisory Group. In October 2000, based on the scientific recommendations from this group, the NIA and NIDDK issued a research solicitation for "Exploratory Studies of Sustained Caloric Restriction in Non-Obese Persons: Physiologic Effects and Comparisons/Interactions with Physical Activity."

when reading, be aware, and unaffected by non-informative aspects... such as:

Quote:
Yet, even if caloric restriction is successful in extending primate life span, it is doubtful that it will ever become a practical and acceptable long-term goal for most humans.
..the same would be said about veganism also, or about vegetarianism a few decades back. The statement has no relevance in terms of discovering how helpful Caloric Restriction may be. Anyway, be aware of some biases, especially when the scientific community is exploring the idea of actually applying what is being learned.

very interesting! Explore it. The first link especially will provide more info if you feel like exploring it..

for us all

Jon

help us all .com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
I didn't read through everything yet, but something I noticed from the first source:

Quote:
The researchers studied 25 calorie-restricted individuals who had voluntarily been consuming a very low-calorie diet for an average of six years (consuming about 1,400 to 2,000 calories per day). They ranged in age from 41 to 65. 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).
A low-calorie diet in this study is defined as 1400-2000 calories per day.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
Bingo. Although 1400-2000 is low, it isn't typically starvation level, as long as it is nutritionally balanced.

Seems to me some people with EDs as well as some looking to be different are misusing these studies to some degree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
that is true.

also, it wasn't mentioned anywhere that

diets of 1300 calories were found to have the same effects, or not have the same effects.

in order to explore if diets of 1300 calories or less would have the same benefits, or not... it would require research.

But there is a lot of research solidly showing that 2,000 calories are not always required for good health.... and that significantly fewer calories actually improves certain aspects of health.

I for one am curious what more research will find..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

Seems to me some people with EDs as well as some looking to be different are misusing these studies to some degree.
have you seen people mis-representing these studies anywhere? i'd be glad to try to put the focus back to science if you can share any url's.

CR needs to be distinguished from ED, just like healthy exercise needs to be distinguished from compulsive exercise.

p.s. as far as 1400 calories being "low"... it appears that it may be a healthier number than 2000, according to the bulk and direction of the research available so far. That being the case, it seems "lower" than 2000, but not neccessarily "low"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,743 Posts
The idea makes some intuitive sense to me, as it seems doubtful that the body was designed to be as overfed as many first world humans have become.

But the huge amount of animal research about this, which has meant imprisoning these sentient individuals and cutting them up so that humans can figure out how to have the most fulfilling lives for themselves, is gratuitous and cruel. Perhaps you could focus just on the human clinical studies, which is where the most reliable data is anyway (and obviously so, because even the researchers aren't able to make the leap to say this would be the result in humans).

Ed: not to make you feel attacked from all sides, as I see your thread is already garnering some controversy, but maybe you could consider this point
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
A BIG agree on that. The many animals hurt and killed in the research is a big thing.

What I am thinking, and please do share your thoughts more too
is that I can add a note to the first post about this, and that VB is mostly already filled with people who would be able to learn from the research and sources,,, and still be mindful of how the animals were affected. I would feel differently about sharing the studies with a group who might view the animal experiements as fine or good, or not be conscious of what's involved..

On the CR, another factor is the conomics of the food culture. Folks seeking a profit have created a ton of advertisements, convenience, and control over regulatory agencies.

Health is made to be a matter of "making sure we eat enough". There is a lot of pressure to make that be the message, and not much money in groups who are opposed to it. (Plus, we all enjoy eating, so it's an easy to accept the way things are
)

there was an LA Times and ABC article on this, but they're removed, so here's an excerpt from another source...

http://www.wirestaurant.org/news/obesity/78.htm

Nestle, who earned a master's in public health and a doctorate in molecular biology from UC Berkeley, said her interest in industry's role was sparked in 1988, when she served as editor for the Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health. "The extent of the industry lobbying was extraordinary," she said. "On my first day on the job, I was told that no matter what the research showed, we should never say 'Eat less meat' or 'Eat less sugar' but to use euphemisms like 'Choose lean meat.' I was pretty shocked."

The C.R. research shows also that much of it is being directed towards revealing how pharmaceutical corporations can create drugs that mimic some of the C.R. benefits. Researching simple C.R. seems a lot easier, but it's very opposed to profits or corporate interests. The FDA is doing work on C.R. also, but they're extremely cagey about mentioning the benefits. x% less calories means x% less food sales.

here's 2 things to add context to diet agencies..

USDA found guilty of conflicts of interest in their food recommendations...

http://www.pcrm.org/news/health001002.html

and a hint of how integrated corporations are in the top regulatory agencies

http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/s...ad.php?t=26423

So to me, it really says a lot that the NIH or HHS is funding or discussing C.R. at all in ways not directy related to new drugs.

I'm fairly skinny, at 120lbs for 6'1". Sometimes people say I should gain some weight, and I mention that i never get sick and i'm in great health.. and i ask how adding fat or muscle would help my body be any healthier... There's so much of a body image set by the media/companies, and it's easy to unconsciously use it ourselves as a measure of what is 'enough', 'too little', or 'too much'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
441 Posts
1400 calories is healthy if you're not very tall, built relatively lean, and don't do any activity that might burn it.

i think it's far healthier to eat more calories, and incorporate physical activity (both cardiovascular and strength training) into your day.

i am NOT saying that the articles are not legit.

but i fear that people might read that and think it's 'okay'. especially younger people - they need calories/fat and a balance of protein/carbohydrates/good fats per meal in order to be healthful and grow properly.

jonjan,

regarding your weight, you are right about society and the media. however, i would assume (sorry, i know, but just an assumption) that you are quite slim and have not a lot of muscle mass. now, if you wore the same 'size' (therefore, looked quite the same) but had 20lbs in muscle - no one would say anything - however, you would have to eat a heck of a lot more than 1300 calories to build it and maintain it.

the only 'real' issue i have with this ordeal (honestly, i didn't read all of the references as it is getting late, but they may have touched on it), is that it almost seems as though low calorie diets are healthful as OPPOSED to high(er) calorie diets combined with adequate physical activity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,132 Posts
I don't believe these studies encourage people to be "underweight" as such. From what I can see they are only "calorie restricted" diets in comparison to the the usual fat and sugar laden Western junk food diet". I don't see them advocating calorie restriction as a lot of people on these boards practice it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
yes, I agree very much - anybody who is having health issues due to nutrition or calorie deficiency... there is a problem. Anybody worried or anxious about their weight or body image, or who alters their diet because of emotional challenges, should explore and seek to resolve those things, before doing anything extreme.

I have never been worried about my weight, and never chose to eat more or less because of my weight or my figure. I've always just eatened whatever I wanted. Eating disorders, and exploring dietary changes for health or other benefits, are 2 very different things.

I think the only harm is people with beliefs that are already hindering their ability to see their state of health (with ED), or people jumping to conclusions after reading a little bit of stuff... whether it's blood type diets, atkins, caloric restriction, anything. Making instant solid conclusions on things that are not understood... or making conclusions without learning the new info, isn't the way.

I started this thread to reveal that there is solid science that finds some measures of greater health, due to eating what's normally thought of as being an unhealthily low amoutn of food.

yup, 6'1" and abour 120, and i haven't been sick for years. I got the flu about 3 years back and got rid of it in 2-3 days with no medicine or any drugs. Other than that, I haven't been sick for a while... people at college would ask me if i ever get sick.. it's been this way for about 15 years or so.

The last time i went to my doctor for a routine check-up, he was really interested in my body, and even brought in his intern to do some extra tests on me. he said he wished all his patients were as healthy as me.

Add 20 more pounds, yes, my current plan is to add some muscle bulk, just so I can be more able to help others be free from the idea that my diet somehow must not be healthy, even without any evidence. Especially moving to fruitarian, I'm going to expect a lot of assumptive 'sure' feedback and strong opinions, more than questions about why my health contradicts what would be expected. I can understand tho ! It is soo far from the commonly held beliefs. i've been veg, vegan, non-gmo, organic, raw... when i see something better, i explore it and see if it's worth to keep pursuing

The link above, for the National Institutes of Health application for human studies of the effects of C.R. says..

"The amount of life span extension increases with the degree of caloric restriction (up to approximately 40% restriction; substantial effects have occurred with 20% restriction."

we really need to suspend judgement, focus on curiousity and read the new info... especially since it's so much in conflict with what we've heard for our entire lives.

as far as needing 1300 calories or more to maintain more muscle.. that wasn't my experience when i was on a juice-only diet and was building muscle from increasing my jogging endurance severalfold. Again, think we need to with-hold judgement and be more curious...

'being underweight and osteoporosis and heart problems'

I haven't been having any symptoms of health problems, and my doctor thought I was in terrific health when he saw me last.

Think of it this way. What are the requirements for bodily functioning...

How would excess fat or excess muscle help those functions... If there is a thicker layer of fat on me, or more muscle mass, how does that help...

Generally the body is seen as a machine that requires caloric and mineral nutrients, and oxygen... they are used to fuel, build, and repair the body cells, and the wastes generated by the body and the excess nutrients are expelled. And a circulatory system transports the nutrients to the cells, and carries away the wastes.

Here's a great (mechanical-only) model of the functioning of the human body I scanned from a book a while back

http://www.helpusall.com/images/bodi...%20(Small).jpg love this model

Once the cells have the energy and nutrients they require, that's all they need. Unless you need to store some for later retrieval... or extra fat will help to insulate the body from the cold. It's only a mechanical model and leaves out the life aspect of the body, but it hints at what the human body actually needs and what it's functions really are. The real question these studies raise is "Hey, how much calories and material do we really need?"

The science on nutrition is accumulating studies showing that reducing calories up to 30% has health benefits, and there are human studies that have also shown benefits and more human studies are being done. So what's going on?


Check out some of the studies and articles above.

fascinating stuff, how healthy can we get?? how much can we reduce illness and increase lifespan??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiz View Post

I don't believe these studies encourage people to be "underweight" as such. From what I can see they are only "calorie restricted" diets in comparison to the the usual fat and sugar laden Western junk food diet". I don't see them advocating calorie restriction as a lot of people on these boards practice it.
The animal studies clearly are comparing a simple caloric reduction to a 'normal' caloric diet.

The human studies are just getting started. The research in journal of american college of cardiology wasn't as controlled as would have been best. But it is an exploratory study using real human organisms (lol that sounds weird) and it does show that a 1400 cal diet can be healthy. Studies start off being general and basic, and grow in control and specificness as they gain more attention and work.

It seems likely there will be more research done on humans, and if so then the type of diets will likely be matched better, more controlled, and the amount of calories will be the main difference.

I hoope there continues to be research on simple C.R. as opposed to a focus for drug sales.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonjan View Post

Eating a very low-calorie yet nutritionally balanced diet is good for your heart.
This is from the first article. Now I'm not attacking but I am wondering. It says "nutritionally balanced diet". What you listed in your other thread of eating a few fruits a day..... how is that nutritionally balanced?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonjan View Post

Currently, I'm eating a few pieces of fruit each day (organic, non-gmo) and feel great.
While it may be all your body feels like eating - it doesn't mean your body is right. I mean my body might tell me it wants to eat an entire box of oreos at one setting but will I do it? No, of course not because it isn't healthy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonjan View Post

as far as needing 1300 calories or more to maintain more muscle.. that wasn't my experience when i was on a juice-only diet and was building muscle from increasing my jogging endurance severalfold. Again, think we need to with-hold judgement and be more curious...
I don't think you can really use that as evidence since you have only been doing this for a relatively short time. As you said earlier the tests on humans hasn't been done and the tests on animals were no where as restricted to the animals as you have said you have been to yourself.

You also talked about how the doctor said you were very healthy "the last time you went to the doctor". But how long ago was that? Again, you have said you have only been on this type of CR diet for a short time and haven't been sick in 3 years so it leads me to think that your doctor visit was quite some time ago. Again, I can only base this on what I have read here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonjan View Post

I haven't been sick for a while... people at college would ask me if i ever get sick.. it's been this way for about 15 years or so.

The last time i went to my doctor for a routine check-up, he was really interested in my body, and even brought in his intern to do some extra tests on me. he said he wished all his patients were as healthy as me.
And again, I'm not attacking but just having a hard time with taking what the articles in your first post have said and relating them to what you have described yourself as doing.

I think you can do very well on a CR diet as the studies above have proved but they also have to be nutritionally balanced and not just a few fruits a day. And as veggiejanie pointed out above these are also based on 1400-2000 calorie a day diets which I'm sure were based on height/weight of the participant. Again, I just don't see the connection and how this can prove what you have posted in other threads is beneficial to your health when it really sounds like starvation.

I just feel like I must ask the questions that my mind brings up as I read the posts. I know that there are many people on thid board with EDs and they are trying to recover but could use any excuse to resort to starvation. For this reason I feel like I need to bring up these questions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
Quote:
http://mednews.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/6362.html (first article)

Vegetables are a staple of calorie restriction diets because they have a high percentage of nutrients per calorie.

but human study has been difficult because the caloric restriction lifestyle requires a strict diet regimen, both to keep the total number of calories low and to insure that people consume the proper balance of nutrients.

But this study suggests calorie restriction with optimal nutrition can do even more.

It may even be possible that eating a very low-calorie, nutrient dense diet reverses declines in diastolic function.

Members of the Caloric Restriction Optimal Nutrition Society try to consume between 10 and 25 percent fewer calories than average Americans while still maintaining proper nutrition. Fontana says that's a very important point. People on this type of diet don't simply consume less food.

They eliminate calories by eating nutrient-dense foods."

He says caloric restriction tends to resemble a traditional Mediterranean diet, which includes a wide variety of vegetables, olive oil, beans, whole grains, fish and fruit. The diet avoids refined and processed foods, soft drinks, desserts, white bread and other sources of so-called "empty" calories.

"If you change the quality of your diet by increasing the servings of nutrient-dense food and reducing - actually, it would be better to slowly eliminate - all of the servings of 'empty' calorie foods, you improve your chances of living a healthier and longer life," Fontana says.
This is why I cannot agree with your eating a few fruits a day method.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
Quote:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1480571

The first evidence that CR could retard aging and extend lifespan was presented in the 1930s.[2] Since then, similar findings have been confirmed in a variety of species, including mice, rats, fish, flies, worms, and yeast.

(This portion of the article goes on to explain how you cannot compare mice to humans in a study like this)

It is clear that performing studies on CR in humans presents methodological and ethical problems. For these reasons, the amount of data in humans is even scarcer. In some parts of the world, human populations have been naturally exposed to CR. Most of these populations, however, are exposed to energy-restricted diets, lacking in proteins and micronutrients. In these populations, CR is usually associated with substantial, adverse physiological effects.

The effects of prolonged CR on health and longevity in the context of an equilibrated diet have been examined in Japan. A study compared data from Okinawa (where the number of centenarians is several-fold higher than in the rest of Japan) with the rest of the population. The researchers found that the total energy consumed by schoolchildren in Okinawa was only 62% of the "recommended intake" for Japan as a whole. In the adults, energy intake was 20% less than in the rest of Japan, although protein and lipid intake was about the same. The rates of death from vascular disease, malignancies, and heart disease were only 59%, 69%, and 59%, respectively, of those of the rest of Japan. The study, however, concluded that besides CR, other factors, such as genetic and environmental factors, were important in explaining these differences.
...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/r...AG-01-001.html

This page is just an application for participants in and explanation of a study they want to do. I didn't read it all but skimmed it. I'm not sure what you wanted us to gather from it. I see the info you put after the link in your first post. But those are just statements and doesn't give reference to the actual studies they are talking about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
Quote:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/pub..._no_115=171962

Caloric restriction, weight loss and dietary composition

Both diets (in the study) were consistent with current dietary recommendations

Based on this preliminary analysis of data from an ongoing trial, diets with a wide range of carbohydrate content and glycemic index appear to facilitate equivalent CR leading to sustained weight loss.
That is a pretty wide-held belief. Although, again, I don't think the diet that has been described by jonjan contains "a wide range of carbohydrate content and glycemic index". Again, not attacking - just not making the connection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
hi Aimra,

okay a lot of things to reply to.

first of all i appreciate you saying you don't mean to attack, because from my pov, this sort of way of relating can start to feel like i'm on trial, and i have to prove i'm not dying, but anything i say isn't given much value. Hopefully, we can also focus *a little bit* on all the research and evidence of that C.R. seems to have some health benefits, and increasing lifespan tremendously is maybe very noteworthy.

Okay, the defendent will now take the stand (lol)

This is from the first article. Now I'm not attacking but I am wondering. It says "nutritionally balanced diet". What you listed in your other thread of eating a few fruits a day..... how is that nutritionally balanced?

In my other thread, I hope I was pretty clear about exploring moving towards fruitarianism. Just like the matzohs weren't planned to be part of my eventual diet, the exact other foods are only what I was exploring at those times. same with the Amy's pizza. What I am doing is exploring a new diet, which I do in a more flowing free way, as opposed to an on-off adherence to a strict guideline. Also, there is evidence of people having very exceptional health on fruits only... they might be a reason to stop and wonder ''hmm, WHAT exactly is balanced nutrition" (just like the C.R. research should be making us wonder, how much calories are actually needed for good health)

While it may be all your body feels like eating - it doesn't mean your body is right. I mean my body might tell me it wants to eat an entire box of oreos at one setting but will I do it? No, of course not because it isn't healthy.

I know what you mean. I mean this, but there's a slight difference.. For me, if i ate a box of oreos, afterwards my body would feel dry, sluggish, and i know my stomach would feel 'runny'. So to me, my body wouldn't feel like eating a box of oreos. It takes being in more subtle tune with my body. Of course there are times when my mind or emotions hinder me listening to my body (bored eating, eating for recreation, impulsive eating)... but to me, that's part of a process of learning to value my body signals, more than the signals of the mind/body to eat food, when that isn't the real issue.

as far as needing 1300 calories or more to maintain more muscle.. that wasn't my experience when i was on a juice-only diet and was building muscle from increasing my jogging endurance severalfold. Again, think we need to with-hold judgement and be more curious...

I don't think you can really use that as evidence since you have only been doing this for a relatively short time. As you said earlier the tests on humans hasn't been done and the tests on animals were no where as restricted to the animals as you have said you have been to yourself.

You also talked about how the doctor said you were very healthy "the last time you went to the doctor". But how long ago was that? Again, you have said you have only been on this type of CR diet for a short time and haven't been sick in 3 years so it leads me to think that your doctor visit was quite some time ago. Again, I can only base this on what I have read here.

Experience is information, and all info should be included in making an analysis. I am not saying that the body surely doesn't need 1300 cals.... I am saying that it's more accurate to with-hold judgement that 1300 cals are needed. (there is no reason to need to make a rushed decision, there's nothing urgent going on here) Science doesn't assume something is false, in the absence of data.. it assumes that it isn't yet known if it's true or false.

My juice-diet and jogging experience is noteworthy, because it's the opposite of what most people would expect.

So that should make curious minds say, "hmm, that's odd/interesting. why did that happen that way when i thought it'd have the opposite effect? i wonder how long the body would have stayed healthy if you stayed on the juice diet? i wonder how much you could increase the jogging while on that diet?"

my doctor appointment was, about 2-3 years ago, maybe 4. So yes, my health could be different after 2-4 years of time. However, my experience of my health, and my history of no illness or allergies and good energy, are all about the same. So, there appears to be mostly evidence that I am still healthy, and no signs of evidence that my health is declining but just don't know about it.

I think you can do very well on a CR diet as the studies above have proved but they also have to be nutritionally balanced and not just a few fruits a day. And as veggiejanie pointed out above these are also based on 1400-2000 calorie a day diets which I'm sure were based on height/weight of the participant. Again, I just don't see the connection and how this can prove what you have posted in other threads is beneficial to your health when it really sounds like starvation.

The animal studies involved simple cutting the food intake. That 'should' have made them deficient in nutrition. But it actually increased lifespan by up to 40% ! and reducing the incidence of diseases and other age-related health decreases. And the primate tests (poor guys
) have found that C.R. has similar benefits for primates also.

Again, the common beliefs are that reducing caloric intake by 40% would make it deficient... so when that caloric reduction happens, and it results in health increases.... it really begs us to stop, and reassess "what exacty is balanced nutrition"... "what exactly does the body need in terms of nutrients and calories" "if calories were cut by 50%, would lifespan increase even more?" "what all kinds of illnesses are decreased by CR?"

The animal studies are based on simple reduction in calories, lower than the normal levels.

I am not saying that these 'prove' anything (except that there is solid consistent research on very large benefits of CR, that also contradict heavily the common beliefs about diet needs). Several people reacted to my diet exploring, by saying my organs will fail, assuming i have an ED, saying i'm starving myself, or saying that my absence of illness and good energy are self-assessed and don't matter... and generally relating in a dismissive or hostile way. Not very pleasant when i have no ill intents, and am just sharing, but this topic obviously will test a lot of our feelings and how to handle them. But so I started this thread here, to say "Hey, here are some solid research studies showing that the common views of diet needs, are definitely not the be-all-end-all. So please stop being so sure and firm and judgemental, and instead please be curious. I am not on the brink of death, and don't think i'm leading others to their deaths."

whew! : b

It is amazing how little interest there seems to be posted on the dramatic benefits of CR that have been replicated by many studies. lifespan increase of 30-40% and less illness... and the studies on primates and humans are revealing similar direction of results. very interesting, no??

therew are more than a few replies searching for any small details to try to dismiss everything, with the dismissals showing that there wasn't much effort to try to first understand what was in the info. Why the rush and need to lynch dismiss and silence any science on the benfits of CR? it's sure hitting some sensitive issues somwhere. there has to be misunderstandings of 'slippery slope' generalizations, or feelings it needs to be 'policed' for some reason, are my best guesses.

I just feel like I must ask the questions that my mind brings up as I read the posts. I know that there are many people on thid board with EDs and they are trying to recover but could use any excuse to resort to starvation. For this reason I feel like I need to bring up these questions.

I welcome the questions (and hope they can be more balanced, rather than seeming to only be interested to try to dismiss). People with ED are very important. But hiding the reality of CR doesn't seem like the most helpful thing. There are likely also people who would be eating less naturally, but feel emotionally distraut over feeling they are doing something bad. And they can develop an ED over worry that they need to eat more.

There are clear signs of when there is an ED... there are beliefs and emotions attached, heavily charged ones. There are actions not done from a state of calm interest on health. It is very different than people with no worries of their weight or body image, and who are not forcing their diet to be any way.. but just exploring. If anyone has significant worries or anxiety with weight or body image, or the connection between their self or emotions and food, then it's best to gently explore those to understand what is there that needs to be learned and resolved.

CR is a different thing.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top