87 replies to this topic

[samuilov]

Hi guys i am 18 years old and i am interested in living as long a life as possible and i wanted to take some preventive measures starting young. I researched CR and i also planned on using it when i am 25 but i found an article that suggests that it doesn't work can you please have a look at it and give your opinion on it.

http://www.nature.co...ng-run-1.11297

I'm looking forward to your opinions ty.

[DR01D]

Calorie restriction may not increase maximum lifespan in long-lived animals. By maximum lifespan I mean that if humans have the genetic potential to reach 100 years of age +/- CR won't get someone much past that mark. However CR definitely increases healthspan.

Most people that eat a modern, western diet will suffer from chronic health problems before they reach 50 years old. By the time they reach age 60 their physical and mental health will be in serious decline. Age 70? Forget about it. Put simply a modern, high calorie diet will probably end the healthy, fun part of a person's life sometime in their 40s.

Calorie restriction maximizes the chances of living a long, healthy life. If you'd like to see what CR can do for someone's health watch this short video produced by the BBC.

YouTube: 101-year-old Fauja Singh Runs the London Marathon

You don't have to become extreme to get the health benefits of CR. My base diet is 1800 calories per day. If I lift weights, hike, work outside, etc. etc. I eat more to compensate for that activity.

Edited by DR01D, 17 February 2013 - 08:28 PM.

[Mind]

Read this long discussion about the topic and add your thoughts.

[scottknl]

I pretty much agree with what Droid said, except that I'd add that the issue hasn't been fully resolved by the study in question. My opinion is that nobody will spend the money on new full scale lifespan studies to nail down the true result now that doubt has been raised. So it's likely we will never know.

The real goal that most of us have is to live long enough that we can see some real advances in the battle against aging. Nobody doing CRON really thinks that this is all there will ever be to extend lifespan. It's a stop-gap measure to get us farther down the road than a western diet usually does.

I'd also add that the days I save by not being sick add up to a considerable amount compared to the people around me. Nothing else you can do to improve your health approaches what CRON does. A properly implemented CRON diet virtually eliminates risks for heart disease and diabetes and substantially improves cancer risks. There's a certain peace of mind that comes with the certainty that you can rely on your health to be there when you need it. If you've ever lost your good health, you know what I mean.

Samenualov, I recommend that you eat a very healthy diet similar to the one CRON follower's eat, but don't cut your calories until you reach 25. This should give you robust health and plenty of energy to keep up with your peers.

Edited by scottknl, 18 February 2013 - 06:10 PM.

[DR01D]

A properly implemented CRON diet virtually eliminates risks for heart disease and diabetes and substantially improves cancer risks.

scottknl is 100% correct.

Sciencedaily: Calorie Restricted Diet Prevents Pancreatic Inflammation And Cancer, Study Suggests

"Mice on the heavier diets had significantly more lesions and larger lesions than those on the restricted calorie diet," said first author Laura Lashinger, Ph.D., a post-doctoral fellow in Hursting's laboratory. The strain of mice, developed by Susan Fischer, professor in M. D. Anderson's Department of Carcinogenesis, spontaneously develops lesions associated with pancreatitis - inflammation of the pancreas. These lesions develop into pancreatic cancer and virtually all of these mice die within six to eight months.

The researchers fed the calorie restricted group a diet that was 30 percent lower in calories than that consumed by the overweight group and 50 percent lower than the obese group. Only 7.5 percent of mice on the calorie-restricted diet developed pancreatic lesions at the end of the experiment, and these lesions were so small that none exhibited symptoms of illness. For mice on the overweight diet, 45 percent developed lesions, as did 57.5 percent of those on the obesity-inducing diet. Lesions were also much larger in the overweight and obese mice than the calorie restricted mice.

[samuilov]

Ty for the answers guys i have done further research on the subject and found two other studies that claim that
Oxaloacetic Acid (Oxaloacetate) may mimic the results of CR study1 study2


What do you think?

Edited by samuilov, 19 February 2013 - 06:39 PM.

[niner]

Ty for the answers guys i have done further research on the subject and found two other studies that claim that
Oxaloacetic Acid (Oxaloacetate) may mimic the results of CR study1 study2

What do you think?

It's pretty easy to get life extension in a nematode. Harder in rodents, and very difficult in humans. As I recall, oxaloacetate was trialed in mice, and didn't result in LE. However, the supplement maker reports an interesting case study where a woman with T2DM saw her fasting blood glucose levels improve while taking oxaloacetate. I very much doubt that it will yield LE in healthy humans, but it might have a role in metabolic disease.

[niner]

I should probably add that when I say "very difficult in humans", I'm being generous. There aren't any interventions that have been proven through prospective trials to provide LE in humans. The best we can do is point to the alterations in biomarkers produced by said interventions, or look to the highly imperfect field of epidemiology.

[DR01D]

Ty for the answers guys i have done further research on the subject and found two other studies that claim that
Oxaloacetic Acid (Oxaloacetate) may mimic the results of CR study1 study2
What do you think?

CR impacts the body in many complex ways and none of them are fully understood.

It's pretty much impossible for a supplement to do the same thing as CR.

That's not to say that research on supplements isn't important.

Edited by DR01D, 20 February 2013 - 04:15 AM.

[nowayout]

A properly implemented CRON diet virtually eliminates risks for heart disease and diabetes and substantially improves cancer risks.

But you don't have to go CR to achieve this, so this is not enough of a reason for CRON.

[scottknl]

A properly implemented CRON diet virtually eliminates risks for heart disease and diabetes and substantially improves cancer risks.

But you don't have to go CR to achieve this, so this is not enough of a reason for CRON.

Please do tell us what you've discovered that is easier or better.

[nowayout]

A properly implemented CRON diet virtually eliminates risks for heart disease and diabetes and substantially improves cancer risks.

But you don't have to go CR to achieve this, so this is not enough of a reason for CRON.

Please do tell us what you've discovered that is easier or better.

You can achieve those things with proper diet and exercise without going into CR, thus by the way also avoiding some of the negative effects of CR.

Edited by viveutvivas, 21 February 2013 - 01:23 AM.

[DR01D]

A properly implemented CRON diet virtually eliminates risks for heart disease and diabetes and substantially improves cancer risks.

But you don't have to go CR to achieve this, so this is not enough of a reason for CRON.

Please do tell us what you've discovered that is easier or better.

You can achieve those things with proper diet and exercise without going into CR, thus by the way also avoiding some of the negative effects of CR.

I'm a big believer in eating a healthy diet and doing exercise including strength training. But as far as health benefits are concerned nothing comes close to CR.

Edited by DR01D, 21 February 2013 - 04:30 AM.

[nowayout]

A properly implemented CRON diet virtually eliminates risks for heart disease and diabetes and substantially improves cancer risks.

But you don't have to go CR to achieve this, so this is not enough of a reason for CRON.

Please do tell us what you've discovered that is easier or better.

You can achieve those things with proper diet and exercise without going into CR, thus by the way also avoiding some of the negative effects of CR.

I'm a big believer in eating a healthy diet and doing exercise including strength training. But as far as health benefits are concerned nothing comes close to CR.

I don't think any studies support that claim.

[DR01D]

A properly implemented CRON diet virtually eliminates risks for heart disease and diabetes and substantially improves cancer risks.

But you don't have to go CR to achieve this, so this is not enough of a reason for CRON.

Please do tell us what you've discovered that is easier or better.

You can achieve those things with proper diet and exercise without going into CR, thus by the way also avoiding some of the negative effects of CR.

I'm a big believer in eating a healthy diet and doing exercise including strength training. But as far as health benefits are concerned nothing comes close to CR.

I don't think any studies support that claim.

Google "calorie restriction" and you'll find plenty of studies that support that. If you want to reduce inflammation and improve your health nothing comes close to CR.

Edited by DR01D, 21 February 2013 - 05:43 PM.

[nowayout]

Google "calorie restriction" and you'll find plenty of studies that support that. If you want to reduce inflammation and improve your health nothing comes close to CR.

That's a very strong claim, and I can't find anything supporting it.

[DR01D]

Google "calorie restriction" and you'll find plenty of studies that support that. If you want to reduce inflammation and improve your health nothing comes close to CR.

That's a very strong claim, and I can't find anything supporting it.

It's an easy claim to make. Google it.

If you'd like to run a little experiment try this.

Step 1) Check your blood pressure and write it down.
Step 2) Eat 1500 calories per day for a week.
Step 3) Check your blood pressure again.

Compare your results and decide for yourself.

[samuilov]

I agree that most studies support the health benefits from CR but i think life extension is more desirable. Do you think that telomerase activation combined WITH a CR diet and proper supplementation may result in significant life extension?

Edited by samuilov, 21 February 2013 - 06:07 PM.

[scottknl]

I agree that most studies support the health benefits from CR but i think life extension is more desirable. Do you think that telomerase activation combined WITH a CR diet and proper supplementation may result in significant life extension?

I don't know for sure, but I'm trying it. I take 5 g each day of powdered Astragalus herb which is said to enhance telomerase a bit. It's a conservative, long term play to allow my cells to be able to make that one or two last divisions and extend my health. I also meditate frequently which is also said to enhance telomerase activation.

Edited by scottknl, 21 February 2013 - 06:49 PM.

[Kevnzworld]

Google "calorie restriction" and you'll find plenty of studies that support that. If you want to reduce inflammation and improve your health nothing comes close to CR.

That's a very strong claim, and I can't find anything supporting it.

It's an easy claim to make. Google it.

If you'd like to run a little experiment try this.

Step 1) Check your blood pressure and write it down.
Step 2) Eat 1500 calories per day for a week.
Step 3) Check your blood pressure again.

Compare your results and decide for yourself.

There are many ways to support healthy blood pressure , lower inflammation and positively effect other physiologic and metabolic markers without restricting caloric intake to 1500 calories.
It isn't an either or proposition......

Edited by Kevnzworld, 21 February 2013 - 10:50 PM.

[DR01D]

Google "calorie restriction" and you'll find plenty of studies that support that. If you want to reduce inflammation and improve your health nothing comes close to CR.

That's a very strong claim, and I can't find anything supporting it.

It's an easy claim to make. Google it.

If you'd like to run a little experiment try this.

Step 1) Check your blood pressure and write it down.
Step 2) Eat 1500 calories per day for a week.
Step 3) Check your blood pressure again.

Compare your results and decide for yourself.

There are many ways to support healthy blood pressure , lower inflammation and positively effect other physiologic and metabolic markers without restricting caloric intake to 1500 calories.
It isn't an either or proposition......

There are many ways to improve health and I do nearly all of them. But nothing comes close to simply lowering caloric intake. It's #1 by a wide margin.

You might enjoy reading this. It's loaded with information and research links.
Metabolic Syndrome and Cardiovascular Disease

Edited by DR01D, 21 February 2013 - 11:16 PM.

[nowayout]

Google "calorie restriction" and you'll find plenty of studies that support that. If you want to reduce inflammation and improve your health nothing comes close to CR.

That's a very strong claim, and I can't find anything supporting it.

It's an easy claim to make. Google it.

If you'd like to run a little experiment try this.

Step 1) Check your blood pressure and write it down.
Step 2) Eat 1500 calories per day for a week.
Step 3) Check your blood pressure again.

Compare your results and decide for yourself.

My blood pressure and all other measured biomarkers are perfect, thank you very much, without doing CR.

[scottknl]

My blood pressure and all other measured biomarkers are perfect, thank you very much, without doing CR.

Good for you, viveutvivas. It is possible for a combination of genes and pretty good diet and exercise without CR to achieve perfect biomarkers in some people as you have done. However it doesn't work for all people, and perhaps it might fail to work as well when you grow older. CRON can help a large number of the other people also achieve perfect biomarkers.

1st choice: You have a great set of genes like Jean Calment (122 yrs). No special effort required.
2nd choice: You have a good set of genes and take good care of your self (most people who live into their 90's)
3rd choice: You have an average set of genes and need to do CRON + exercise to take care of yourself in an exceptional way.
4th choice: You have a average set of genes and no will power to do CRON, then you have to do paleo + exercise and hope that science makes some life extending discoveries pretty quickly.

It sounds to me like you are in the "2nd choice" group. I'm in the "3rd choice" group along with Droid ( I think).

[DR01D]

My blood pressure and all other measured biomarkers are perfect, thank you very much, without doing CR.

Good for you, viveutvivas. It is possible for a combination of genes and pretty good diet and exercise without CR to achieve perfect biomarkers in some people as you have done. However it doesn't work for all people, and perhaps it might fail to work as well when you grow older. CRON can help a large number of the other people also achieve perfect biomarkers.

1st choice: You have a great set of genes like Jean Calment (122 yrs). No special effort required.
2nd choice: You have a good set of genes and take good care of your self (most people who live into their 90's)
3rd choice: You have an average set of genes and need to do CRON + exercise to take care of yourself in an exceptional way.
4th choice: You have a average set of genes and no will power to do CRON, then you have to do paleo + exercise and hope that science makes some life extending discoveries pretty quickly.

It sounds to me like you are in the "2nd choice" group. I'm in the "3rd choice" group along with Droid ( I think).

Yep, I'm in group 3. 8-)

Before CR the top number on my blood pressure was 135 despite the fact that I ate a healthy diet, had plenty of muscle mass and operated a landscaping company which kept me physically active. I cut my calories and my blood pressure dropped to 106/72. For that and many other reasons I became a convert. CR worked for me the same way it worked in the studies.

For me an 1800 calorie base plus extra food to cover that days physical activity does the trick.

Edited by DR01D, 22 February 2013 - 01:55 PM.

[Kevnzworld]

Yep, I'm in group 3. 8-)
Before CR the top number on my blood pressure was 135 despite the fact that I ate a healthy diet, had plenty of muscle mass and operated a landscaping company which kept me physically active. I cut my calories and my blood pressure dropped to 106/72. For that and many other reasons I became a convert. CR worked for me the same way it worked in the studies.

For me an 1800 calorie base plus extra food to cover that days physical activity does the trick.

1800 calories, more on days with physical activity is reasonable. I am at about 2000 and I exercise moderately 4-5 days a week. CR is more in the 1500 area. 300 -500 calories doesn't seem like a lot, but it is actually almost an additional meal.
The composition of the calories is obviously also important. I supplement a lot because I can't fit all the nutrients that I want to ingest into a restricted diet. I need some extra B vitamins ( 5 Methylfolate ,B12 ) to reduce my homocysteine from 12 to 7. Supplementation also reduced my CRP to .4.
Again, I don't think it's an either or proposition. A moderate use of calorie restriction, diet optimization, targeted supplementation and exercise provides the best chance for longevity. Lets hope for better science.
I do also take Metformin and C60....

[DR01D]

1800 calories, more on days with physical activity is reasonable. I am at about 2000 and I exercise moderately 4-5 days a week. CR is more in the 1500 area.

I think if I ate 1500 calories per day I'd look like a skeleton... if I survived at all. I've tried eating less than 1800 calories but I couldn't stop losing weight. Maybe there is a point that I'd balance out but I never found it.

On days that I lift weights I eat an extra 500 calories. 300 calories for the workout and 200 for the surplus to build muscle. Sure enough that small surplus does build muscle.

But whatever I eat for the day I try to cut it close. When I go to bed I'm almost always a little bit hungry.

That might not be as easy to accomplish today because my in-laws are taking everyone to Famous Dave's BBQ, hehe.

Edited by DR01D, 22 February 2013 - 06:38 PM.

[DR01D]

1800 calories, more on days with physical activity is reasonable. I am at about 2000 and I exercise moderately 4-5 days a week. CR is more in the 1500 area.

1500 calories is not the line where a regular diet becomes calorie restriction. Joe Cordell consumes 1950 calories per day and he is thin as a pin.

YouTube: Joseph Cordell discusses CR on Oprah

Over a long enough period of time many adults would starve to death on 1500 calories per day. I'm probably one of them.

p.s. In the video Joe eats just the apple peal because it's where the nutrition is contained. IMHO that's completely nuts. Eat the whole apple. Everything works together and has a purpose even if scientists haven't figured out what it is yet.

Edited by DR01D, 24 February 2013 - 03:48 PM.

[xEva]

DR01D, in order to live well on less calories, one needs to fast for at least a week and then cut calories. Training metabolism is similar to reeling in a fish: one needs to alternatively tighten and ease. Slow a steady tightening does not work in fishing and it does not work for metabolic changes (or, if it does, takes a very long time and extraordinary effort).

For example, on a neighboring thread, a guy with about the same height and initial weight as scottknl lived on 1200 calories after a 2 weeks fast, while scottknl himself, who never fasted but simply cut calories more or less gradually, needed at least 1600 (-? around there).

capisci?

[Hebbeh]

Seems like there is a lot of confusion between eating at maintenance calorie level and CR which is 20% less than maintenance. You can't be worried about keeping your muscles (and looking like a bodybuilder) while doing CR. In fact, being muscled is contradictory to CR. Although I agree, if living a very active lifestyle and eating a healthy diet at maintenance, I'm not convinced starving at CR is going to add much and may even be counterproductive in the overall picture (health lifespan). The later over the former in humans is still conjecture at this point. On the other land, you will never starve on 1200 calories...you may be hungry and look like a scare crow...but that is the whole point of achieving the supposed benefit of CR.....anything else is confused for simply healthy living. If you think you're doing CR at 20% less maintenance....but have muscles...you're not doing true CR.

[DR01D]

Seems like there is a lot of confusion between eating at maintenance calorie level and CR which is 20% less than maintenance.

CR is not 20% less than maintenance. Anyone who consumes less than maintenance will lose weight and eventually die of starvation.

CR = maintenance.

DR01D, in order to live well on less calories, one needs to fast for at least a week and then cut calories. Training metabolism is similar to reeling in a fish: one needs to alternatively tighten and ease. Slow a steady tightening does not work in fishing and it does not work for metabolic changes (or, if it does, takes a very long time and extraordinary effort).

For example, on a neighboring thread, a guy with about the same height and initial weight as scottknl lived on 1200 calories after a 2 weeks fast, while scottknl himself, who never fasted but simply cut calories more or less gradually, needed at least 1600 (-? around there).

capisci?

That's not been my experience. 95% of the regimine is calories in - calories out.