Some people think that eating barely enough or "calorie restriction" can help you live longer.

Some of it doesn't make any sense, for example there's no such thing as 'ad libitum' because your intake changes dramatically depending on what you eat, and almost nobody eats exactly how much they want anyway (except maybe raw foodists). According to "calorie restriction" a woman who weight 300 pounds would live until she were 120 if she cut her calories by 20% and at the same junk.... although I doubt many people really believes that last part.

I really don't like their attitude. They seem to think that they'll achieve a lifespan of 120 and be full of energy until they're death... and it's ONLY them that will achieve it. I pointed out that there are millions of people living a healthy lifestyle with a very plant-based diet in Asia, and they also practice "calorie restriction" because their intake is so lower (in some places the average BMI is 18.5 there... on the CR list it's sometimes 20+). The response I got was "they are not"....... because that was "ad libitum" for them. They don't seem to be able to understand that foods change your appetite or that you can do "CR" without counting calories and being on the list, almost as if it's a religion, a superstition...

Most of the calorie restriction experiments done are psuedoscientic because the animals are usually not fed raw foods they would receive naturally and are not in natural conditions. Therefore they overeat and that's why the control does better. I think some CR mice still live *slightly* longer than the ones in the wild, however when they do this to mice from birth strange things happen, they only grow to about HALF their potential size, reproduction is shut of... it's not like humans at all. And as for the "primate studies" of CR.... those are the sickest and cruelest things I've ever seen. I'm going to go out on a limb and say they are peddling processed foods to the primates, that's why they are receiving the "spectacular" results of less blood sugar and less cardiovascular disease... diseases that only come about in primates when fed human foods!!!! I feel so sorry for those poor guys, it's so stupid it's a joke.

So first of all, there's no such thing as CR, Ad Lib, they're all completely relative and have no meaning. Secondly, you should eat raw foods until you're full and that way you'll live longest and do best.

Maybe CR can slow down some processes in the cells, but it's strange that it has NEVER been observed in the millions/billions out there, even in people who eat twice as much as another person. CR "practitioners" will say that it was because they weren't getting enough nutrients... but the people who eat plant-based mainly raw foods in Asia are getting a lot more nutrients than those people because they rarely have cake and don't cook their foods as much. You need good bones, organs etc., to live a long time. So I don't believe in calorie restriction, and if it is true I would say the majority of people here aren't eating much anyway and unlike the CR people are without any hunger pangs because of what they eat.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2009 02:46PM by SuperInfinity.

Super.....You really put yourself into this Topic. I believe
that not only is CR a 'key' to health, but FR (Fiber Restriction) is even
more important. I've been experimenting with a Liquid Diet, and think
herein lies the answer. Keep Fiber out of the Body, and the pressure is
relieved in the Colon, and the Body strengthens (and Heals)....WY

Wheatgrass... well if something is supposed to have life extension properties and make claims as they have then I'm going to want to check it out.

I believe in the natural way of eating. Lack of fibre has been implicated in a variety of maladies as you may be aware...

Wheatgrass Yogi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Super.....You really put yourself into this Topic.
> I believe
> that not only is CR a 'key' to health, but FR
> (Fiber Restriction) is even
> more important. I've been experimenting with a
> Liquid Diet, and think
> herein lies the answer. Keep Fiber out of the
> Body, and the pressure is
> relieved in the Colon, and the Body strengthens
> (and Heals)....WY

SuperInfinity,

I think calorie restriction is a relative term, no? I mean, 80/10/10ers consuming fewer than 2000 calories do well biophysiologically. And some high fat Rawists do also. I think you are onto something regarding the testing parameters' being irrelevant; mice don't eat kibble in nature. But the research is extrapolated out for application with human populations, so the scientists must use cooked nutrients because that is normal.

All I know is that every Calorie Restriction advocate I've ever seen, at least cooked ones, has looked like a gulag survivor--gaunt, ashy-complected, thin-boned, feeble. Yikes!

Wheatgrass Yogi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Super.....You really put yourself into this Topic.
> I believe
> that not only is CR a 'key' to health, but FR
> (Fiber Restriction) is even
> more important. I've been experimenting with a
> Liquid Diet, and think
> herein lies the answer. Keep Fiber out of the
> Body, and the pressure is
> relieved in the Colon, and the Body strengthens
> (and Heals)....WY

Nice to see someone else considering this possibility. That's the one thing I see with most, if not all CR followers. The choices tend to be less than optimal for digestion. I'm not saying do away with needed fiber, but to be more aware of what it can and does do and adjust accordingly.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2009 03:21PM by tanawana.

I think calorie restriction is the only way to go after one is really cleaned out and radiantly healthy, especially. However, I'm not very good at it yet! Got quite a ways to go-- which is good, because that gives me an exciting goal to work toward as I move from my 60s into my 70s and beyond.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2009 09:06PM by kwan.

I completely disagree with you. In humans, the highest prevalence of centarians is in Okinawa where CR is practiced among the populous. In higher order animals,not that I condone these experiments from an ethical perspective, rhesus monkeys who live CR well outperform controls in both quality and quanity of life. Good Richard Weindruch and Wisconsin, rhesus monkeys. Doesn't mean going raw wouldn't improve the outcome. But CR vs. just business as usual is a no brainer. it's true across a wide range of species.

If they practice it then so does most of rural Asia. Most of the Okinawans I've seen have a bit of weight on them and their diet isn't the most defining part of them at all or what they preach... it's exercise.

And it's also not a no-brainer vs normal, unless you also improve your nutrition an awful lot. A lot of people who are thin aren't too healthy. I don't really believe anyone would eat too much on a raw, plant-based diet. I don't know, but I don't think it's a good idea to let yourself go hungry a lot, first of all you won't stick to it and secondly the physiological stress is too harsh. I would DEFY ANYONE to eat raw plants only (no oils or nuts though) and be overweight a few months later, it's hardly possible.


pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I completely disagree with you. In humans, the
> highest prevalence of centarians is in Okinawa
> where CR is practiced among the populous. In
> higher order animals,not that I condone these
> experiments from an ethical perspective, rhesus
> monkeys who live CR well outperform controls in
> both quality and quanity of life. Good Richard
> Weindruch and Wisconsin, rhesus monkeys. Doesn't
> mean going raw wouldn't improve the outcome. But
> CR vs. just business as usual is a no brainer.
> it's true across a wide range of species.

"If they practice it then so does most of rural Asia"

No actually, they don't. That's the point.

"Most of the Okinawans I've seen have a bit of weight on them and their diet isn't the most defining part of them at all or what they preach... it's exercise"

they are probably younger, not eating the traditional Okinawan diet like the centarians. Bet they are bigger too. Eat Mc Donalds is eating Mc Donalds here or there. My reference point is the Okinawa program. [www.amazon.com]

It's hari hachi bu, 7/8ths not finishing your plate. What older Okinawans eat is basically a plant based diet with small amounts of seafood. But the more important point is that benefits from caloric restriction by definition is limited to those who practice it. A raw foodist who stuffs themselves with calorically rich foods (nuts, grains, dried fruits) won't enjoy the same benefits as plant based CR practioner who eat partially raw/partially cooked foods with small quantities of calorically rich foods.

Whatever pborst, CR is clearly flawed logic from the outset. I don't know if something about gene-expression that does occur, but whatever the case the monkey experiments are extremely flawed and I don't consider them to support CR. The popular media and scientists will say/make out nearly anything to make headlines, similar to how they find things that agree with government policy.

To say the Okinawans practice and condone "CR" is a terrible insult and injustice to them, who emphasize one thing: exercise... and the right kind of food as well. The 3/4th or 7/8th full saying is a flagrant soundbite, it's just an old saying.

And YOU are exactly the kind of person I'm talking about who treat it like a religion. And if you don't condone it and speak its riches, it must be because you can't do it right and are feeling deprived.

Good day to you fine sir. ^_^



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2009 11:44PM by SuperInfinity.

"And YOU are exactly the kind of person I'm talking about who treat it like a religion. And if you don't condone it and speak its riches, it must be because you can't do it right and are feeling deprived"

First of all, get the chip of your shoulder and refrain from personal comments. Debate the substance. If you can't do that, maybe it would be wise to refrain from posting.

Not only do the monkey experiments support CR, but so do virtually hundreds of studies across a wide range of species from fruit flies, round worms, mice, rats and fish. All of the data points in the same direction.

I don't understand you point about the Okinawans. But their diet is well documented by Wilcox and Wilcox in the Okinawa program. One can emphasize both exercise and diet, which they do well. Agree to disagree.

Paul

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "And YOU are exactly the kind of person I'm
> talking about who treat it like a religion. And if
> you don't condone it and speak its riches, it must
> be because you can't do it right and are feeling
> deprived"
>
> First of all, get the chip of your shoulder and
> refrain from personal comments. Debate the
> substance. If you can't do that, maybe it would
> be wise to refrain from posting.
>

I do not have a chip on my shoulder, just giving my opinion. You're entitled to disagree with it of course.

> Not only do the monkey experiments support CR, but
> so do virtually hundreds of studies across a wide
> range of species from fruit flies, round worms,
> mice, rats and fish. All of the data points in
> the same direction.
>

Firstly, the monkey experiments do not support CR so far... they are statistically insignificant. Secondly, the monkeys are not being fed raw food,do not have to hunt/search/forage for their food as it's there all the time, have much less exercise and are so clearly overweight. Have you ever seen monkeys like that in the wild? Rhesus monkeys do not look like that in their natural habitat. Thirdly, what do you mean "virutally hundreds"? In fact one type of fruit flies are one of the species shown to have shortened lifespan when put through CR while given their optimal diet. The biggest quandry with these experiments, is are the "ad lib" animals simply overeating due to lack of food as it would occur naturally. Finally, again I don't believe in this "eating less than normal", there's no such thing, it's a logical fallacy.

> I don't understand you point about the Okinawans.
> But their diet is well documented by Wilcox and
> Wilcox in the Okinawa program. One can emphasize
> both exercise and diet, which they do well. Agree
> to disagree.
>

Okay, and I agree that having a low calorie intake probably leads to longer life, I don't know if the SIRT genes have anything to do with it, reproduction level is slowed etc. I think maybe they are. I'm a supporter of many of the fundamental tenets of CR. My main point is that "eating less than you normally would", does not make any sense and I personally don't believe in EVER going hungry. Just change your diet to foods that make you eat less if you wish, that's why I don't eat many nuts, seeds or too much bananas.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2009 07:15PM by SuperInfinity.

"I do not have a chip on my shoulder, just giving my opinion. You're entitled to disagree with it of course."

You are not just giving your opinion. You are making personal comments. Stop it.

"Firstly, the monkey experiments do not support CR so far... they are statistically insignificant. Secondly, the monkeys are not being fed raw food,do not have to hunt/search/forage for their food as it's there all the time, have much less exercise and are so clearly overweight. Have you ever seen monkeys like that in the wild? Rhesus monkeys do not look like that in their natural habitat. Thirdly, what do you mean "virutally hundreds"? In fact one type of fruit flies are one of the species shown to have shortened lifespan when put through CR while given their optimal diet. The biggest quandry with these experiments, is are the "ad lib" animals simply overeating due to lack of food as it would occur naturally. Finally, again I don't believe in this "eating less than normal", there's no such thing, it's a logical fallacy."

It's true the most recent study isn't statistically significant, but the overall weight of evidence is. In both human studies using biomarkers and in animal trials over a range of species, the new is always the same, eating less lengthens life. Agree to disagree.

I would agree to disagree, but I'm not sure what I'm disagreeing with. Less what what?

"eating less lengthens life" is no more true than "eating more lengthens life".

"less than you would normally eat"... okay I'll agree to disagree that I don't find that makes sense on a logical level.

Actually eating more shortens life would be more accurate. Eating less activates the SIRT2 gene which has been shown to lengthen life among a variety of species. It also reduces circulating glucose levels which reduces cancer risk. Wrt less than what, less than we eat normally. We don't exist in the wild so speculating about what a subsistence diet is in terms of caloric level isn't really helpful.

I watched the aging experts on Charlie Rose (you can see it on Youtube). And contrary to this thread, the overwhelming consensus among those studying caloric restriction is that it has tremendous power. Animal experiments and human studies using biomarkers (humans live too long for randomized controlled trials so biomarkers are a short term proxy) all support the benefit in increased lifespan over an ad libitum diet. What we would have eaten in the wild is irrelevant because we don't live in the wild. We live near McDonalds and fast foods and that's what's killing us. Practicing caloric restriction in my view goes hand in hand with staying raw, vegan, principaled and ethical. It all flows together.

Krefcenz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I watched the aging experts on Charlie Rose (you
> can see it on Youtube). And contrary to this
> thread, the overwhelming consensus among those
> studying caloric restriction is that it has
> tremendous power.
It was interesting. It seems they're not concentrating
on Diet at all, but rather Gene Manipulation (or Genetic Engineering).
Charlie Rose always has interesting guests. However, I dare say
that they're approaching anti-aging from the wrong direction. They're
looking for longevity in Pill form. Did I miss the point?....WY

[www.youtube.com]
[en.wikipedia.org]

This one was more interesting. At 5'2" and 102 pounds,
she seems about right, but at 6'0" and 115 pounds, he's a bit
thin, don't you think?.
The Drug companies were brought into the picture too. I like her
attitude at the end of the clip....WY

[www.youtube.com]

Wheatgrass Yogi,

That was interesting. I am sorry to say I found them a tad creepy--sorry Like, they don't exactly radiate joy and goodwill. It would be more inspiring to me to see long-term CRists who are vibrant and smiley and maybe rosier of complexion. I don't mean giddy or flighty or goofy. I just mean, you know, like, "healthy" looking. Thanks for posting.

yea i kinda found them "stepford" like .. robotic maybe? .. and 115lbs seems a bit low for a 6' male but he doesnt look unhealthy ..

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wheatgrass Yogi,
>
> That was interesting. I am sorry to say I found
> them a tad creepy--sorry
I took them to be very serious about what they were
doing (CR). I wonder what they're like having Sex together....WY

Jgunn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ....... and 115lbs seems a bit low for a 6' male
> but he doesnt look unhealthy ..
Yes, and he was even jogging in a short segment
of the clip. I must say I like their approach......very
mechanical. They even weigh all their food. Even though
they're not Raw or Vegan, I admire both of them.....WY

WY,

"I wonder what they're like having Sex together....WY"

I dunno. What does robot sex look like? It was the mechanicalness of their approach that bothered me. I just thought, [sigh]eternal life is wasted on the grim.

well i dont know .. butt i gotta say if live past 100 im gonna be the wackiest centurian outhere

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

dude, don't you have your purple hat ready yet? i do. heh.

[www.luvzbluez.com]
comes with obnoxious music so speakers down.

oh man, i can think of some humans who would undoubtable benefit from CR! i live close to the fast food test market town in canada (they get all the new edible garbage first. blah. so many enormous people here.)

though i'm not fond of that word, Restricted, it's so negative and onerous.

those peeps just looked massively unhappy to me. why aim to live an extra 3 or 4 years when you aren't enjoying them? durr. and you know, you don't have to count all those calories and weigh everything well You do all know that already. we can just eat healthy foods (that don't include chocolate fudge sunday or whatever they ruined that nice healthy dinner w by sticking it their gut on top of the veg, blah! hello, food combining.) until we feel satisfied. after doing it for a while that feeling comes sooner and sooner. once you get past the heavy nut phase w raw foods isn't it all pretty calorie reduced?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2009 03:46AM by coco.

i think we should start the green hat society and be even wackier then the red and purples

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2009 04:39AM by Jgunn.

I shouldn't be joking around about such an intelligent
human being....Michael Rae. I've seen other video clips with him as
part of the CR Society personnel. My major complaint about CR Society
members is that they usually look like 'Warmed over Death'. The reason
is What they eat rather than the Amount.
Michael Rae, at 6'0" 115 pounds, gives me permission (if you will) to
lose weight from my 5'8" 132 pound frame. People are always telling me
how thin I am now. They're all part of the Steak-and-Potatoes crowd.
I've always wanted to fuel my body with Greens, and Green-like juices.
Fruit doesn't feel like the food I need for a strong body. Anyway, I'm
on a Quest with Wheatgrass, Celery, and Carrot juices. Get going on
something yourself.....WY

[images.google.com]

WY,

WOW! He's smiling in the photo--how reassuring! I was paused by their term "Negligible Senescence." I get what they mean, but it is odd to me how intent some people are on slowing aging, yea, even suspending it. This is different from what you are doing, WY--you are trying to attain the most perfect "you."

Part of growing old is acquiring wisdom, from which we get the term seneschal, a just and prudent ruler. To discount the psycho-emotional and spiritual advantages of aging is to do my profoundly valuable grandparents and everyone else's a great disservice.

People must know that they cannot stop death, and that evincing a desire to do so makes them look craven and desperate, rather than brave and enlightened.

it's about quality, not quantity for me. i could go tomorrow, am i ready for that? am i at peace with my life thus far? better be cause you never know.

can't discount the telomere issue either. our very dna is designed to fail over time. we are not meant to be here long, just gotta make it count with the time you've got. each moment, every day.

I watched it on Youtube and I wouldn't say that they aren't concentrating on diet at all. Wiendruch's research and others is based on that. They are looking at other aspect, not related to diet, such as stimulating SIRT2 genes without dietary intervention. Doesn't mean one can't do it through diet. Just means it may not be the only card in the deck.

Wheatgrass Yogi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Krefcenz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I watched the aging experts on Charlie Rose
> (you
> > can see it on Youtube). And contrary to this
> > thread, the overwhelming consensus among those
> > studying caloric restriction is that it has
> > tremendous power.
> It was interesting. It seems they're not
> concentrating
> on Diet at all, but rather Gene Manipulation (or
> Genetic Engineering).
> Charlie Rose always has interesting guests.
> However, I dare say
> that they're approaching anti-aging from the wrong
> direction. They're
> looking for longevity in Pill form. Did I miss the
> point?....WY
>
> [www.youtube.com]
> [en.wikipedia.org]