106 replies to this topic

[Matt]

Do serious CR practitioners feel content or hungry?

I've been at 1560k/cal per day and now at 1700k/cal a day... both are easy to do and none produce significant hunger. The reason most people feel really hungry is simply because their diet is planned poorly. I'm 5ft 7" and 109 lbs at the moment, i've been doing proper CRON for 3.5 years and probably some mild form of CR for an additional 2 years prior to that simply by removing bad foods from my diet and goinf from a BMI of <20 to 18.5, this was BEFORE proper Calorie Restriction optimal nutrition stuff.

I really very rarely feel hungry on CR.

On the other hand, if I used my current intake (about 2,000 kcal) as the set point, I'd have to cut down to at least 1,750 kcal, which would mean my BMI would soon be less than 17, and still it'd only be a 12.5% CR, which is not a lot.

#

Theres no real point of measuring % CR. You just go as low as you feel is safe, for me my cut of point was a BMI of arond 16.4, and whatever calorie intake kept me there was what I was going to accept.

If you're normally eating 4,000 kcal per day, it's a lot easier to do 50% CR than if you're eating 2,000 kcal per day.

Well you should understand that when the latest rodent studies use a restriction of the ad lib diet by 10-20%. I think Michael explained this a few times around here at imminst and at CR society mailing lists. Before even going in to the 'anti aging' kind of CR that is used in animal models, you gotta get down to rather lean weight first I guess. So the kind of 50 - 60% CR used in animals would probably be torture lol.

Edited by Matt, 03 August 2008 - 01:48 AM.

[VictorBjoerk]

on livinghthecrway.com Paul McGlothin and Meredith Averill says they are doing 30% restriction each. They don't mention their ad lib weight before CR. If that means 30% restriction it doesn't seem so unfeasible.

[Matt]

Heres a few pictures on flickr of Paul and Meredith at the American Cancer Society race thing, they look fine! Doing better than most people 60 years old lol
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thecrway/

[kai73]

Heres a few pictures on flickr of Paul and Meredith at the American Cancer Society race thing, they look fine! Doing better than most people 60 years old lol
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thecrway/

but these guys do CR?? Paul looks older than 60 (to be honest i would say 70yo) and beeing so slim he also looks sick (the woman i would give maybe 55 years).

I am on CR myself (i eat 1800kcal/day) mainly to remain on shape but really, these guys show all their age (and even more).

[Matt]

Maybe you can watch this video ?
http://video.msn.com...5b-2b796972cd9e

Paul and Meredith are on near the end somewhere. Paul doesn't look 70, thats ridiculous!

From my own recent observations of 40-60 year olds meredith has far better skin than the average 40-50 year old women and she probably would look better in real life than the majority of women in their mid 40's. Paul looks around the same as as a person in his early 50's. They also don't look extremely thin/gaunt either, and they're both above a bmi of 18.5. Which is NORMAL.

And I'm not comparing to celebs here, but your average person.

Edited by Matt, 10 March 2009 - 09:12 PM.

[VictorBjoerk]

What's important is the fact that they are very healthy according to their medical tests. CR seems to be quite hard to do anyhow.

[Luna]

uhh can anything above 1400 calories even count as CR?

[VespeneGas]

uhh can anything above 1400 calories even count as CR?

Can you imagine a 6'10" male surviving on less than 1400 calories per day?

[FunkOdyssey]

At 6'6" I doubt I could survive on less than 1400 calories per day. Forget 6'10".

[Johan]

I get by on 1600 calories per day, and I'm 5'10". I do think it counts as CR, as long as you ensure proper nutrition.

[kai73]

Maybe you can watch this video ?
http://video.msn.com...5b-2b796972cd9e

Paul and Meredith are on near the end somewhere. Paul doesn't look 70, thats ridiculous!

From my own recent observations of 40-60 year olds meredith has far better skin than the average 40-50 year old women and she probably would look better in real life than the majority of women in their mid 40's. Paul looks around the same as as a person in his early 50's. They also don't look extremely thin/gaunt either, and they're both above a bmi of 18.5. Which is NORMAL.

And I'm not comparing to celebs here, but your average person.

Sorry but Paul looks 65-70...and i don't compare to celebs, i compare to normal people i know at work. None of my collegues do CR, but i can assure you that Paul looks older than most of 60 yo people in my company. Actually there is one colleague in my company very similar to Paul, she is 60yo and well, almost all people say he really doesn't bring well his age.

And about her, she doesn't look better than 40-50. She looks 60. I know lot of women of 40-45 yo, and there's no chance she can be taken for one of those.

Again, i don't want to be biased (and in fact i am not, i do CR myself) and for example, in another thread, the videos about the girl and the guy you linked showed people that effectively showed 10 years less than what they had. But not for these 2 guys.

Surely they are healthy and will live for another 50 years, but don't be biased yourself. Those guys look their age or more. Maybe you are too young to be able to give age to old people. I am 35, i am used to work and talk with people 40-60 (as it's normal when you work) and these people in my company (or where i live, big city in italy) they would be taken for their age (>60).

[tunt01]

kind of hard to compare height / caloric in-take without taking into account activity levels.

is there any good data on animals who have a very active lifestyle (equivalent of human beings running ~5 mi per day) and practicing only ~25% CR vs. sedentary animals on 50% CR?

seems to me like metabolic output is just as important as diet... some like Michael Rae probably exercises every day which is why he's at 1900 calories and still doing CR.

[JLL]

kind of hard to compare height / caloric in-take without taking into account activity levels.

is there any good data on animals who have a very active lifestyle (equivalent of human beings running ~5 mi per day) and practicing only ~25% CR vs. sedentary animals on 50% CR?

seems to me like metabolic output is just as important as diet... some like Michael Rae probably exercises every day which is why he's at 1900 calories and still doing CR.

Yes, as I recall there is such a study (I don't have the link atm though). Pretty much just as you described: 50% CR vs. 25% CR + 25% increase in energy expense through exercise. And earlier rodent studies have shown that metabolic output is not important when doing CR; it's all about energy intake.

[tunt01]

Yes, as I recall there is such a study (I don't have the link atm though). Pretty much just as you described: 50% CR vs. 25% CR + 25% increase in energy expense through exercise. And earlier rodent studies have shown that metabolic output is not important when doing CR; it's all about energy intake.

strange.

i find it hard to believe that someone like Michael Phelps who eats upwards of 10k calories a day, but is training like a maniac is potentially shortening his lifespan by not practicing CR. activities like exercise, which induce HGH output, are fundamentally telomerase activating overall and have to be extremely valuable.

it just seems like there should be some trade-off between caloric intake and expenditure such that you can walk that fine line. i'll have to look at a few of these studies and try to understand this issue, maybe play with some of the CRON calculators.

[kismet]

i find it hard to believe that someone like Michael Phelps who eats upwards of 10k calories a day, but is training like a maniac is potentially shortening his lifespan by not practicing CR.

He's shortening his life because of the drugs he must be doing to win, not because of the calories. There is no "reverse calorie restriction" to the best of my knowledge. If you are higher than your setpoint (or if kcal in > kcal out) you will simply gain weight, visceral fat is unhealthy in itself, but you won't age 30% faster if you are 30% over your setpoint (to give you an example). There is no reverse CR, it only holds true for starvation/famine-like situations.

[bodyhacker_com]

have been on CR for about 2.5 years, starting at 165lbs at 5'8 and got as low as 130lbs. was eating on average 1550-1600 counting, some days a little more, some a little less (+-150), along with 30 mins of a mixture of weights and running 5 days a week. it was fine until getting down to 130lbs and there was no more body fat (about 5.5%), then a lot of problems started - progressively longer dizziness, tingling in hands and feed, motor functions, consternation, hypoglycemia and several other things.in fact, started worrying i was getting MS or something. wife had less issues at 1200 and below, she's 5'1 and exercises the same. eat closer to 1750 now and weigh between 140-145. below 140 and the symptoms start.

each person is different. perhaps when reach middle age, then less calories could be done. the important thing is to listen to what your body is telling you.

just an opinion, but based on experience, below 1700 for young or active guys and 1300 for females begins to become a poor risk:reward scenario, (risking earlier death, neurological diseases without the proper upside in years of longevity).

[Dmitri]

According to the Cron-O-Meter it's somewhere between 1400 - 1700 which I'm starting to doubt considering my BMI is 21.

[Matt]

1650 Calories per day keeps me at about 106 lbs at 5ft 7". I dare not to lower my weight anymore lol.

[Saber]

1650 Calories per day keeps me at about 106 lbs at 5ft 7". I dare not to lower my weight anymore lol.

Matt, you're the same height as I am. It's interesting how your weight is so much less than mine at 130lb while I eat only between 1000-1400 calories per day. Although my CR is not voluntary.

I'm actually trying to gain some weight for years now, I don't like the sight of protruding ribs in the mirror. Being 106lbs at that height is gotta be quite something.

[Saintor]

13 days out of 14, I am on CR... my best estimation is 1950 kCal/ days. I exercise moderately. The 14th day I am on my own - my cheating day; alcohol, desserts, anything goes. Even doing this, I am still losing weight. this cheating day (so convenient for social happenings)) is essential for me I estimate my overall daily calories intake on 14 days to 2100. About 20% off of 'normal eating'.

Edited by Saintor, 27 September 2009 - 08:55 PM.

[nameless]

Is there any specific cut-off calorie-wise when someone is doing CR?

I just properly did the Cron-o-meter thing over the past two weeks (inputting almost every nutrition label for each food I eat), and it seems I have been getting around 1800 calories daily for a while now. I wasn't intentionally cutting down calories or even considering CR at any time, so I found it weird my caloric intake was lower than expected.

[Matt]

you're probably eating more than 1000-1400 k/cal... i think maybe you should weigh everything and input it into cron o meter and see. I very much doubt you're maintaining that weight on as low as 1000...

i'm 108 lbs now, going for 110....

Edited by Matt, 28 September 2009 - 12:29 AM.

[Brain_Ischemia]

Original poll is old, but my target daily intake is 1800 calories as that would put me around 14-24% CR depending on my activity level in a given day according to this simplistic calculator: http://www.scientifi...alth/cron1.html

Typically, however, my daily intake is closer to 1900 calories, which is OK since I'm not very strict with my CR, and a moderate level of CR (even 5%) is just fine for me. My BMI is 18.4 which is already low enough IMO, and I exercise 5-6 days a week, so I prefer not to reduce my calories *too* much. I've been practicing moderate CR for roughly two years but only tediously monitoring and measuring my food intake for the last 4 months.

BTW: "Cheating" for me is going over 2000 calories, I never eat candies, desserts, ice cream, junk food etc. but I will *sometimes* have a slice of cake here or there.

I do enjoy dark chocolate occasionally (85% cacao; I don't consider it candy or dessert) and usually have a single glass of red wine 3 times a week; I don't consider either of those to be cheating.

Edited by Xanthus, 01 October 2009 - 03:20 PM.

[Matt]

Activity level has NOTHING to do with calorie restriction... only calories taken IN are important in terms of the L.E benefit from any given percentage of CR. The calculator really isnt very good for determining your level of CR

[Blue]

Activity level has NOTHING to do with calorie restriction... only calories taken IN are important in terms of the L.E benefit from any given percentage of CR. The calculator really isnt very good for determining your level of CR

Any studies to support this? There are hormones like Adiponectin that varies according to body composition which could be the important factor and not CR itself.

[forever freedom]

I started CR three days ago. I just can't stand counting every calorie and stuff, so i measure the calories once and after that i just see the quantities and approximate how many calories that will make. I've been feeling hungry, weak and intermittent headaches for the past few days (mainly from sugar deprivation, i assume), so i suppose i'm doing fine in the cutting calories area, must have cut some 20% of the daily 2400 calories i used to get on average.

Edited by forever freedom, 01 October 2009 - 04:44 PM.

[Brain_Ischemia]

Activity level has NOTHING to do with calorie restriction...

Sure it does.
I'd imagine that if you consume fewer calories than the total amount of calories you would otherwise consume to maintain the same average healthy weight range of humans with your age, height, and activity level, that's a decent way to know if you're on CR or not.

The amount of calories I'm going to be burning in a day will vary depending on my level of physical activity. Is it not sound to use an estimate of the calories burned by that activity, along with your basal metabolic rate, as a baseline to work from when restricting calories? What other consistent, fairly accurate baseline is there for humans?

If I'm 100% sedentary and consuming more calories than I need to maintain my weight, then reducing my caloric intake from *that* baseline, just because it's what I currently consume, has nothing to do with CR. Then again, if I'm consuming the same exact amount of calories but doing a triathlon every single day (burning far more calories than I consume), I might just be losing an unhealthy amount of weight and wasting away. Without factoring the calories burned in the 7-days-a-week triathlon how can you know how what your baseline is for calorie needs?

I use caloriesperhour.com to get a *general* idea of how many calories I burn in a day, not the activity factor in the above-mentioned calculator.

Of course I understand that the accuracy of online calculators (and arguably BMR in general) is questionable but I think it gives you a decent general idea. What other baseline is there to subtract from?

And anyway, my understanding is that studies have shown that CR+exercise is more beneficial than CR alone.

so i suppose i'm doing fine in the cutting calories area, must have cut some 20% of the daily 2400 calories i used to get on average.

Problem is, that's not necessarily CR. Without estimating your caloric needs to maintain a healthy weight, we would have no way of knowing if the 2400 calories you used to be getting were "too much" in the first place. You could say you're just "eating fewer calories than you did before". This gets at the issue of properly determining your baseline calorie needs. A person of a particular height and activity level (say, a sedentary dwarf) could conceivably be "obese" on 2400 calories a day; reducing those calories by 20% might be meaningless with regards to true CR for the purpose of slowing the aging process compared to the population at large. You could argue that his aging would be slowed from the baseline of being obese, but that's not a very good baseline if your goal is to live to 100 and beyond.

Edited by Xanthus, 01 October 2009 - 06:29 PM.

[forever freedom]

so i suppose i'm doing fine in the cutting calories area, must have cut some 20% of the daily 2400 calories i used to get on average.

Problem is, that's not necessarily CR. Without estimating your caloric needs to maintain a healthy weight, we would have no way of knowing if the 2400 calories you used to be getting were "too much" in the first place. You could say you're just "eating fewer calories than you did before". This gets at the issue of properly determining your baseline calorie needs. A person of a particular height and activity level (say, a sedentary dwarf) could conceivably be "obese" on 2400 calories a day; reducing those calories by 20% might be meaningless with regards to true CR for the purpose of slowing the aging process compared to the population at large. You could argue that his aging would be slowed from the baseline of being obese, but that's not a very good baseline if your goal is to live to 100 and beyond.

Ah too much theory. Look, i'm eating less and much more healthful food than before. Before this, my body was already fit. I'll be keeping an eye on my weight as i lose it; once i lose 15-20% of my previos weight, i'll start increasing daily calories until i don't lose nor gain weight anymore.

This looks like good enough plan to me.

Edited by forever freedom, 01 October 2009 - 06:45 PM.

[Brain_Ischemia]

so i suppose i'm doing fine in the cutting calories area, must have cut some 20% of the daily 2400 calories i used to get on average.

Problem is, that's not necessarily CR. Without estimating your caloric needs to maintain a healthy weight, we would have no way of knowing if the 2400 calories you used to be getting were "too much" in the first place. You could say you're just "eating fewer calories than you did before". This gets at the issue of properly determining your baseline calorie needs. A person of a particular height and activity level (say, a sedentary dwarf) could conceivably be "obese" on 2400 calories a day; reducing those calories by 20% might be meaningless with regards to true CR for the purpose of slowing the aging process compared to the population at large. You could argue that his aging would be slowed from the baseline of being obese, but that's not a very good baseline if your goal is to live to 100 and beyond.

Ah too much theory. Look, i'm eating less and much more healthful food than before. Before this, my body was already fit. I'll be keeping an eye on my weight as i lose it; once i lose 15% of my previos weight, i'll start increasing daily calories until i don't lose nor gain weight anymore.

This looks like good enough plan to me.

I suppose that *is* CR and would be beneficial; my question is, is it CR compared to the rest of humanity?

For example, if you were Lance Armstrong racing in the Tour de France, I suppose if you were consuming 15-20% fewer calories than the mean caloric intake of every other individual racing in the Tour de France, then that would be CR (see how activity level plays a part?). If a second Lance Armstrong were sedentary, playing Counter-Strike in his parent's basement, he could be consuming fewer calories than the first Lance Armstrong and be in worse health.
Right?

Disclaimer:
I'm a layperson and in no way, shape, or form an expert on CR.

Matt probably knows a lot more about CR than I do (I've check out your website and blog, Matt; very informative!)... It just seems to me that activity level, and thus the amount of calories you burn each day, must be a consideration when determining what degree of CR you're doing.

[forever freedom]

so i suppose i'm doing fine in the cutting calories area, must have cut some 20% of the daily 2400 calories i used to get on average.

Problem is, that's not necessarily CR. Without estimating your caloric needs to maintain a healthy weight, we would have no way of knowing if the 2400 calories you used to be getting were "too much" in the first place. You could say you're just "eating fewer calories than you did before". This gets at the issue of properly determining your baseline calorie needs. A person of a particular height and activity level (say, a sedentary dwarf) could conceivably be "obese" on 2400 calories a day; reducing those calories by 20% might be meaningless with regards to true CR for the purpose of slowing the aging process compared to the population at large. You could argue that his aging would be slowed from the baseline of being obese, but that's not a very good baseline if your goal is to live to 100 and beyond.

Ah too much theory. Look, i'm eating less and much more healthful food than before. Before this, my body was already fit. I'll be keeping an eye on my weight as i lose it; once i lose 15% of my previos weight, i'll start increasing daily calories until i don't lose nor gain weight anymore.

This looks like good enough plan to me.

I suppose that *is* CR and would be beneficial; my question is, is it CR compared to the rest of humanity?

For example, if you were Lance Armstrong racing in the Tour de France, I suppose if you were consuming 15-20% fewer calories than the mean caloric intake of every other individual racing in the Tour de France, then that would be CR (see how activity level plays a part?). If a second Lance Armstrong were sedentary, playing Counter-Strike in his parent's basement, he could be consuming fewer calories than the first Lance Armstrong and be in worse health.
Right?

Disclaimer:
I'm a layperson and in no way, shape, or form an expert on CR.

Matt probably knows a lot more about CR than I do (I've check out your website and blog, Matt; very informative!)... It just seems to me that activity level, and thus the amount of calories you burn each day, must be a consideration when determining what degree of CR you're doing.

Ah now i think i understand why your fist reply to me looked so confusing. Maybe you misread the part where i said that i was getting 20% less calories than the average of 2400 that I, me, myself was taking? Obviously, as i didn't mention that i was gaining/losing weight, you should have inferred that the amount was enough to keep my weight stable.

Does this makes thing a bit clearer or am i the one completely misunderstanding everything?