Extreme Dieting: Fountain Of Youth?

Small But Growing Movement Seeks To Lengthen Life By Eating Less -- Much Less

(CBS)  Eat less, alot less, and live longer and feel younger.

That's the boiled down philosophy of a small but growing movement called "Calorie Restriction."

As The Early Show medical correspondent Dr. Emily Senay explained Tuesday, research in animals such as mice, dogs, monkeys, even cows, has repeatedly shown that carefully restricting calories increases life spans.

But will it work in humans?

The believers in Calorie Restriction (www.calorierestriction.org, and, beginning Wednesday, www.livingthecrway.com) are counting on it, Senay reports.

Paul McGlothin, board chairman of the Calorie Restriction Society, and Meredith Averill, the group's research head, say consuming fewer calories means more life.

"Calorie restriction," Averill told Senay, "is taking in fewer calories than the body needs, or thinks it needs" to maintain its current weight.

Averill says she eats 1,600 calories-worth of food each day, as opposed to the conventional medical recommendation for a woman her size and age of 2,000.

"It's not about the weight loss," McGlothin observes, "it's about being as healthy as you possibly can."

In other words, Senay says, staying healthy longer and slowing the aging process.

At 59 and 61, McGlothin and Averill say they feel years younger, with sharper memories and perhaps even more energy.

Restricting calories in laboratory animals has been shown to affect cell behavior that may be involved in age-related diseases such as Alzheimer's, heart disease, and cancer, Senay points out. What's more, it's been shown to increase lifespan: Mice lived 30 percent longer than usual on calorie-restricted diets.

But dietician Elisa Zied, a spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association, says Calorie Restriction is too severe, and the animal research can't easily be translated to humans' health.

Notes Zied, "We have no clinical data in humans to supports calorie restriction to have all these benefits. So, I think people really need to read between the lines, and I don't think, in our lifetime, we're ever going to really see that Calorie Restriction is the fountain of youth."

Still, it's the lab findings that motivate people such as Dr. Steve Bell to attend workshops such as the one at which Senay chatted with him, sessions sponsored by the Calorie Restriction Society.

"I practice functional, integrated medicine," Bell says, "where lifestyle is the keynote component, and I think there's a lot of research in the anti-aging literature about calorie restriction as being a way to extend life."

For many people, Senay says, calorie restriction doesn't necessarily mean choice restriction. But, calorie restrictors are very careful to control nutrients, vitamins and minerals.

A typical lunch for McGlothin and Averill includes vegetables, vegetable broth, and barley.

Also, time away from food, fasting, matters to them.

Asked what she planned to have for dinner on a given night, Averill responded, "A long walk."

But dieticians such as Zied argue that too few calories and long periods without food can jeopardize a person's health.

"Skipping meals is just setting you up for dietary disaster," asserts Zied. "You're basically not giving your body the energy it needs. And you need to give your body fuel every few hours to sustain your metabolism."

But McGlothin and Averill stress that fewer calories maximizes fuel to slow down aging, and may be key to happiness.

All in all, says Averill, "Right now, life is better."

She and McGlothin say they work closely with their doctors to make sure they stay healthy, and are very careful not to go below government guidelines for weight. They're also involved in a clinical trial of calorie restriction, and plan to put out a book on it early next year.

Senay stressed that calorie restrictors say they're different from anorexics in that they're not about losing weight, they're not about harming themselves, they're all about getting as much nutrition as they can into a reduced calorie diet.

[papilio28570]

There are several things that most people fail to understand. First, the US recommended calorie intake of 2000 for women and 2500 calories for men is like the posted speed limit in that it is the maximum not the minimum requirement. A man eating 1800 calories, as most men on CR seem to gravitate to, is a 28% reduction in calories below the recommended maximum limit.

Secondly, in simplest terms, you have to think of your body in terms of a combustion chamber of sorts. Less fuel equal less heat equals longer lifetime usage of the combustion chamber. CR people have lower body temperatures as a result.

The primary cause of aging is eating and the damage occurs as food is converted into energy. Less food equals less damage equals slower aging. Exercise does not arrest this problem.

[whoa182]

Examination of Cognitive Function During Six Months of Calorie Restriction: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2006.0502

There was no negative effect on cognitive function catvickie.

Matt

[catvickie]

One thing people seem to forgetting--CR has only been tested on animals. Humans have a much larger brain capacity--and many of the body''s resources go to maintain it. I think a lot of study needs to be done before everyone jumps on the bandwagon on this one. Animal results are intriguing, yes, but not conclusive.

[sy2502]

1,600 calories a day for a woman doesn''t sound much like calories restriction to me! I live a very sedentary office life, but exercise 3 to 5 days a week, and if I ate as much as 1,600 calories a day, I would GAIN weight. What they are advocating seems just reasonable portion control. Many already do it, it''s called common sense.

[whoa182]

Just to make clear. The majority of us at CRS are frequently getting a huge panel of blood tests done twice or at least once a year to show we are not deficient or in anyway harming our bodies. Most of us are taking vitamins/minerals/fatty acids and adequate protein to ensure that we don''t become deficient. But more important our diet is packed full of nutrition, with most of us exceeding the RDI of all nutrients way before we even reach our total calorie intake for the day.

None of us are certain that we''ll get what we expect in terms of max life extension, but most of us are pretty optimistic we will live longer and better. Here are a few studies that might interest readers here:

1. Calorie restriction reduces risk of heart attack, stroke and diabetes
http://tinyurl.com/3438vt

2.Caloric restriction appears to prevent primary aging in the heart
http://tinyurl.com/2sy6er

3.Calorie restriction appears better than exercise at slowing primary aging
http://tinyurl.com/2b45cc

[whoa182]

rational_1;

You make fair points. I have actually raised the fact that more work needs to be done on immunity in CR human subjects. To-date there is only anecdotal evidence suggesting that Calorie Restriction improves immunity in humans. People who practice this diet frequently report that they have been mostly free of any kind of viral or bacterial infection since starting CR. We know now that CR boosts the immune system of rodents, dogs, and more recently rhesus monkeys[1]. I''ve also listed another study, in rodents this time, showing 100% protection from plaque formation.

1. Monkeys on calorie restriction have more youthful and robust immune systems. "
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/17856/

2.Mice fed ad-libitum, 100% developed these plaques. No plaque development was detected in the mice fed a carbohydrate and calorie restricted diet.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/18850.php

[grammawhamma]

"If you have the genetic potential to live an additional 20 to 30 years beyond what is currently considered normal, why would you chose an early, prolonged, disease ridden and often painful death."

So you think your death will not be painful or prolonged? How do you it won''t be? Just curious.

[grammawhamma]

pappilio28570 ...You really believe you might make it to 120 years!? I''m glad you CR people feel great. I''m sure you do feel better then a morbidly obese person. But I hate to break it to you guys...you all sound brainwashed.

A new breed of fanatics that I didn''t know existed until I read this article. More power to you...I just hope your kids aren''t malnourished.

[papilio28570]

Having been on CR over 6 years, hunger is not an issue. Once you nourish your body properly, all those crazy cravings go away. Most adults have actually forgotten what it feels like to be really healthy. They have lost that exhileration often felt during youth and are lulled into a false sense of normalcy. I feel sorry for some of the folks commenting here.

I am almost 60 now, weigh 144 muscular pounds at 5 ft. 10 in. tall. I work as a self employed landscape contractor in North Carolina and have absolutely no problem working a full day in the Carolina sun with a heat index of 115. I am more productive now and work at a much higher energy level than pre-CR.

All this talk about living longer boils down to a choice you each have to make. I believe most folks are genetically programed to live at least 100 years and a lucky few can reach 120. If you have the genetic potential to live an additional 20 to 30 years beyond what is currently considered normal, why would you chose an early, prolonged, disease ridden and often painful death. Is it because you want a 12 ounce steak instead of a 6 ounce? Is it because you want to eat a pint of ice cream instead of a cup?

I encourage each of you to join in the first human experiment in CR by joining the Calorie Restriction Society and participate on our email lists in our on-going discussions of the science and the lifestyle. Search us in Google, we''re easy to find.

[kaelinda]

Being hungry all the time doesn''t strike me as a better quality of life than eating the appropriate number of calories per day for your height and age. I''m 65, I work out vigorously 3 times a week, and even with a broken spinal disk and a severely pinched nerve, I''m feeling great. I won''t starve myself in the hopes of living to the age of 100. I''ve known too many people who lived from 90 to 100 or so stuck in bed with their minds somewhere else. I don''t want to live that long, thank you.

[rational_1]

1. Calorie restriction in non-human primates may prevent and reduce Alzheimer''''s disease neuropathology
2. Calorie restriction attenuates Alzheimer''''s disease type brain amyloidosis in Squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus)
Posted by whoa182 at 03:55 PM : Sep 04, 2007

Something else to consider about CR. Yes, CR enables lab animals to live longer. However, these animals live under very controlled laboratory conditions where, for example, efforts are made to remove them from many natural stressors such as infection. What does chronic underfeeding do to your immune system? Perhaps the CR crowd could theoretically live longer and avoid heart disease, cancer or Alzheimers, but instead succumb more easily to bacterial or viral infections. Just a thought...

[rational_1]

"Calorie Restriction has actually been shown to prevent Alzheimer''''s disease in rodents, squirel monkeys and recently evidence suggests also in Rhesus monkeys. The likelihood of this being also true in humans is high. [1,2]."

I just did a Pubmed search on Alzheimers and CR. You aren''t quite correct that CR prevents Alzheimers - at best you can say that it appears to decrease the rate of behavioural decline and antagonizes the appearance of beta-amyloid deposits in animal models. This is quite a far cry from showing it prevents Alzheimers in people (as far as I know rodents don''t actually get Alzheimers). By the way there aren''t many papers published on this, although so far at least the studies seem to shown pretty good concordance. I tend to agree with you that there MIGHT be something to this.

"And our point is that have we''''ll take both quality and quantity of life. Health is a very important thing in quality of life, don''''t forget that. CRers are more likely to spend their last years enjoying themselves rather than in bed waiting to die. Animal evidence suggests that CR subjects are more healthy right up until they die."
Posted by whoa182 at 03:55 PM : Sep 04, 2007

Perhaps. I hope you''re at least taking multivitamins and that women doing this are making sure they get enough calcium and iron (and folate if they are pregnant). Unless you''re careful you could probably run into nutritional deficiencies.

[maxium6]

Anybody notice, they surely look their respective ages. I''m 61, and I look about like them. I think folks are just looking younger; a product of babyboomer vitamins.

[whoa182]

rational_1 you said:

"Remember that the longer you live the better your odds of getting Alzheimers and a load of other age-related diseases and I doubt that CR will lessen those risks."

Calorie Restriction has actually been shown to prevent Alzheimer''s disease in rodents, squirel monkeys and recently evidence suggests also in Rhesus monkeys. The likelihood of this being also true in humans is high. [1,2].

You said "My point is that quality of life means more to me than quantity"

And our point is that have we''ll take both quality and quantity of life. Health is a very important thing in quality of life, don''t forget that. CRers are more likely to spend their last years enjoying themselves rather than in bed waiting to die. Animal evidence suggests that CR subjects are more healthy right up until they die.

Search for these in search engine:

1. Calorie restriction in non-human primates may prevent and reduce Alzheimer''s disease neuropathology

2. Calorie restriction attenuates Alzheimer''s disease type brain amyloidosis in Squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus)

[grammawhamma]

"carefully restricting calories increases life spans."

What ever... Why do so many people feel the need to live forever? I am all for being healthy but I also want to be able to enjoy this life. Sipping on vegetable broth for the main course meal...I think not!!

Eat, drink and be merry!! See you on the other side.

[rational_1]

And persons like "rational_1" may be fortunate at their age and physical disposition now, but shouldn''''t toss facts to the wayside nor discourage others. The day may come when they''''ll be thankful for any such knowledge.
Posted by Spectrum108 at 02:19 PM : Sep 04, 2007

I''m not disputing that CR may (may) work in humans; it''s been shown to work in other mammals so it''s quite possible, but not yet proven, that it will also work in humans - granted. My point is that quality of life means more to me than quantity. I do work out and generally eat sensibly and am healthy at 46. I could get hit by a car going home tonight or die of a stroke or a myriad of bad things could happen to me that CR could not prevent. So, why restrict yourself to such an extreme to get what seems to me to be a fairly minor benefit. Yippee, I get to live a few years longer eating nothing but parsley. Remember that the longer you live the better your odds of getting Alzheimers and a load of other age-related diseases and I doubt that CR will lessen those risks. In my mind the costs of CR outweigh the supposed benefits.

[boldwin223]

"Life is good, CR gives more of it ;)"

Posted by Whoa182 at 11:55 AM : Sep 04, 2007

The average life expectancy in the Dark Ages was about 30 years. If CR is such a great thing then why did people in the dark ages not live longer? Most people during these times had barely enough food to stay alive.

[bobusa3]

It''s True. I had to lower my cholesterol...so I tried to do it with diet. And it worked. I dropped my cholesterol 100 points and lost 35 pounds by eating less and eating healthy. I also did not exercise either; which I am not proud of, but is also true.

Less calories per day, and eating healthy will make you feel better AND much healthier in general. IT IS TRUE. BTW, it took me about 8 months to get healthy.

[rational_1]

Okay, so suppose CR does increase your lifespan. Do you want to look like a concentration camp victim, like the two unfortunates at the top of this web page? I sure don''t want my wife looking like a flat chested bag of bones and I''m pretty sure I wouldn''t be getting much action being 6 feet tall and weighing 120 lbs. Plus, imagine the indignity of having grade 6 kids shaking you down for pocket change because they figure they can take you. Nah, I''d rather work out, feel great and poke fun at the stick insects subsisting on watery gruel.

[drputt45]

To jacktorn2: I can''t stand your multiple postings. Reducing the Enter key diet would be better for the rest of us.