87 replies to this topic

[VictorBjoerk]

OMG, it really must require a huge motivation and self-discipline to do extreme calorie restriction. I think 19 is a good BMI,you avoid obesity without looking painfully thin + you don't have to be hungry all the time.

[Matt]

But how many bloody times to we CRers have to say it! For the last time... YOU ARE NOT CONSTANTLY HUNGRY ON CR! It has been said a million times already, just ask anyone that is doing *CRON* and not starvation.

Edited by Matt, 09 September 2008 - 06:11 PM.

[s123]

But how many bloody times to we CRers have to say it! For the last time... YOU ARE NOT CONSTANTLY HUNGRY ON CR! It has been said a million times already, just ask anyone that is doing *CRON* and not starvation.

I can confirm this.

[Johan]

But how many bloody times to we CRers have to say it! For the last time... YOU ARE NOT CONSTANTLY HUNGRY ON CR! It has been said a million times already, just ask anyone that is doing *CRON* and not starvation.

I'll confirm that as well. The only time I get slightly hungry sometimes is just before lunch, and only if I ate breakfast particularly early that day. So I wouldn't consider that to be due to CRON.

[kismet]

OMG, it really must require a huge motivation and self-discipline to do extreme calorie restriction. I think 19 is a good BMI,you avoid obesity without looking painfully thin + you don't have to be hungry all the time.

No thanks. All or nothing, it is an athletic BMI of 25+ or fully fledged CR for me. I don't want to look pitiful without gaining all the CR benefits (BMI 19).

You did not cut your folic acid intake? Did you find contrary evidence to what I posted or was the evidence too weak? Personally I'd save some money reducing the dose and be on the safe side.

[s123]

OMG, it really must require a huge motivation and self-discipline to do extreme calorie restriction. I think 19 is a good BMI,you avoid obesity without looking painfully thin + you don't have to be hungry all the time.

No thanks. All or nothing, it is an athletic BMI of 25+ or fully fledged CR for me. I don't want to look pitiful without gaining all the CR benefits (BMI 19).

You did not cut your folic acid intake? Did you find contrary evidence to what I posted or was the evidence too weak? Personally I'd save some money reducing the dose and be on the safe side.

Oh, I forgot to adjust the amount of folic acid. But it's not too late, it will only be made tomorrow.
I've changed it to 200µg.

[REGIMEN]

But how many bloody times to we CRers have to say it! For the last time... YOU ARE NOT CONSTANTLY HUNGRY ON CR! It has been said a million times already, just ask anyone that is doing *CRON* and not starvation.

"Loss of appetite" is actually a negative symptom implying weakened digestion at that caloric intake. You may not feel like eating because your body wouldn't even be capable of digesting it thus the "decreased" appetite. I'm sure you've heard of those stories of concentration camp survivors so emaciated from lack of nourishment that some died from trying to eat regular food when the Allies came in, right? Similar concept. But then again 1700-1800 calories isn't bad. You should safely be able to sustain that longterm if you don't expend calories you don't have in activities such as walking anymore than you need to in arriving at your bed, bathroom, and kitchen.

Edited by REGIMEN, 11 September 2008 - 03:58 AM.

[Johan]

"Loss of appetite" is actually a negative symptom implying weakened digestion at that caloric intake. You may not feel like eating because your body wouldn't even be capable of digesting it thus the "decreased" appetite. I'm sure you've heard of those stories of concentration camp survivors so emaciated from lack of nourishment that some died from trying to eat regular food when the Allies came in, right? Similar concept. But then again 1700-1800 calories isn't bad. You should safely be able to sustain that longterm if you don't expend calories you don't have in activities such as walking anymore than you need to in arriving at your bed, bathroom, and kitchen.

Well, the whole point of CRON is to get adequate nutrition while consuming less calories, hence the name, "Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition".

I did a search on PubMed for studies on calorie restriction and nutrient uptake, and I found the following ones which might be of interest:

• This study finds that there is very little difference between metabolizable energy intake in CR:ed rhesus monkeys compared to the control group:

Metabolizable energy intake during long-term calorie restriction in rhesus monkeys.
Raman A, Baum ST, Colman RJ, Kemnitz JW, Weindruch R, Schoeller DA.

Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA.

Calorie restriction (CR) is a dietary intervention shown to increase maximum life-span. The aim of this study was to compare the metabolizable energy of the pelleted semi-purified diet with estimated energy intake from food weight. Energy density of diet, urine and feces were measured by bomb calorimetry in rhesus monkeys (23-29 years old) on CR (CR, n=11) and control (C, n=9). Food moisture was measured to be 2-fold higher (9+/-1%) than indicated on the label (approximately 5%). The measured gross energy of diet was 4.4 kcal/g dry weight of CR and 4.5 kcal/g dry weight of C diets. In a two-day trial, food intake (mean+/-SD) was 112+/-20 g and 136+/-26 g of dry mass/d in the CR and C monkeys, respectively (p=0.003). The fraction of the diet absorbed (CR=0.91; C=0.95) was different (p<0.001) between CR and C monkeys. Using these coefficients, the metabolizable energy intake averaged over 6 months was 450+/-53 and 534+/-97 kcal/d in CR and C monkeys, respectively (Diff=16%; p=0.03). These values were compared with energy expenditure (EE), as measured annually by indirect calorimetry (490+/-61 kcal/d in CR and 532+/-62 kcal/d in C monkeys). Adjusted for changes in body composition (2+/-10 kcal/d in CR and -7+/-12 kcal/d in C), energy balance was not different from zero in CR (-42+/-42 kcal/d) and C (9+/-61 kcal/d) monkeys. Use of diet weight is a reasonable estimate of the level of CR when food waste is assessed.

PMID: 17618073 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

• And this study reports that glucose uptake was no different in CR rats than ad-lib ones, and sometimes even higher for CR vs. ad-lib rats:

Effect of calorie restriction on in vivo glucose metabolism by individual tissues in rats.
Wetter TJ, Gazdag AC, Dean DJ, Cartee GD.

Biodynamics Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA.

We evaluated the effects of 8 mo of calorie restriction [CR: 60% of ad libitum (AL) food intake] on glucose uptake by 14 tissues in unanesthetized, adult (12 mo) F344xBN rats. Glucose metabolism was assessed by the 2-[3H]deoxyglucose tracer technique at 1500 or 2100. Despite an approximately 60% decline in insulinemia with CR, plasma 2-[3H]deoxyglucose clearance for CR was greater than for AL at both times. A small, CR-related decrease in glucose metabolic index (R'g) occurred only at 1500 in the spleen and heart, and this decrease was reversed at 2100. In some tissues (cerebellum, lung, kidney, soleus, and diaphragm), R'g was unaffected by diet, regardless of time. In the other tissues (brown fat, 3 white fat pads, epitrochlearis, plantaris, and gastrocnemius), R'g was higher or tended to be higher for CR vs. AL at one or both times. These findings indicate that 8 mo of CR did not cause a continuous reduction in in vivo glucose uptake by any tissue studied, and, in several insulin-sensitive tissues, glucose uptake was at times greater for CR vs. AL rats.

PMID: 10198310 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

• Additionally, this study says that intestinal nutrient uptake is significantly higher in aged CR rats vs. ad-lib controls:

Effects of changes in calorie intake on intestinal nutrient uptake and transporter mRNA levels in aged mice.
Casirola DM, Lan Y, Ferraris RP.

Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, New Jersey Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, USA.

In aged, chronically calorie-restricted (CR) mice, intestinal nutrient uptake is significantly higher than in same-age ad libitum controls. Can this chronic restriction-induced enhancement of uptake be reversed by ad libitum feeding? We addressed this question by switching 32-mo-old chronically CR mice to ad libitum feeding for 4 wk (CRAL). Intestinal transport rate and total intestinal absorptive capacity for D-sugars and several nonessential L-amino acids decreased significantly in CRAL mice. In contrast, switching CR mice to an ad libitum regimen for only 3 d had no effect on intestinal nutrient transport, indicating that the negative effects of ad libitum feeding require a duration longer than the 3-d lifetime of most enterocytes. Permeability of the intestinal mucosa to L-glucose was independent of the switches in diet. Levels of the brushborder glucose transporter SGLT1, brushborder fructose transporter GLUT5, and basolateral sugar transporter GLUT2 mRNA as determined by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction in 6-, 24-, and 32-mo-old mice were each apparently independent of caloric restriction and age. We conclude that the high rates of intestinal nutrient uptake exhibited by chronically CR mice can be reversed by ad libitum feeding of only 1 mo duration. These decreases in uptake were due mainly to specific decreases in transport per unit weight of intestine and not to nonspecific decreases in intestinal mass. Changes in rates of sugar uptake induced by chronic CR and age are apparently not accompanied by changes in steady-state levels of mRNA coding for those transporters.

PMID: 9402931 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

• And lastly, this study finds that long-term, but not short-term, calorie restriction increases intestinal nutrient transport rates in aged mice:

Adaptations of intestinal nutrient transport to chronic caloric restriction in mice.
Casirola DM, Rifkin B, Tsai W, Ferraris RP.

Department of Physiology, New Jersey Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark 07103-2714, USA.

Lifelong caloric restriction increases median and maximum life span and retards the aging process in many organ systems of rodents. Because the small intestine absorbs a reduced amount of nutrients each day, does lifelong caloric restriction induce adaptations in intestinal nutrient transport? We initially compared intestinal transport of sugars and amino acids between 24-mo-old mice allowed free access to food [ad libitum (AL)] and those provided a calorically restricted [40% less than ad libitum (CR)] diet since 3 mo of age. We found that CR mice had significantly greater transport rates for D-glucose, D-fructose, and several amino acids and had significantly lower villus heights. Total intestinal absorptive capacities for D-glucose, D-fructose, and L-proline were each 40-50% greater in CR mice; absorptive capacity normalized to metabolic mass (body weight 0.75) was approximately 80% greater in CR mice. Comparison of uptakes in aged AL and CR mice with previously published results in young AL mice suggests that caloric restriction delays age-related decreases in nutrient transport. In contrast to published studies in hibernation and starvation, chronic caloric restriction enhances not only uptake per milligram but also uptake per centimeter. We then switched 24-mo-old AL mice to a calorie-restricted diet for 1 mo and found that short-term caloric restriction has no effect on intestinal nutrient transport, intestinal mass, and total absorptive capacity. Thus chronic but not short-term caloric restriction increases intestinal nutrient transport rates in aged mice, and the main mechanism underlying these increases is enhanced transport rates per unit intestinal tissue weight.

PMID: 8760123 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Matt]

But how many bloody times to we CRers have to say it! For the last time... YOU ARE NOT CONSTANTLY HUNGRY ON CR! It has been said a million times already, just ask anyone that is doing *CRON* and not starvation.

"Loss of appetite" is actually a negative symptom implying weakened digestion at that caloric intake. You may not feel like eating because your body wouldn't even be capable of digesting it thus the "decreased" appetite. I'm sure you've heard of those stories of concentration camp survivors so emaciated from lack of nourishment that some died from trying to eat regular food when the Allies came in, right? Similar concept. But then again 1700-1800 calories isn't bad. You should safely be able to sustain that longterm if you don't expend calories you don't have in activities such as walking anymore than you need to in arriving at your bed, bathroom, and kitchen.

I should be able to sustain it? I've been doing CRON for 3.7 years now and more relaxed Mild level of CR for another 2 years ontop of that... so 5.7 years and I'm still here, not wasting away. And yes I did participate in football, running, going to the gym, working shifts where I remained active for a few hours (lifting)... lots of other stuff. I think I've established that I can mantain it long term.

[s123]

I added OPCs from grape seeds to my supplement regimen.
Vitis vinifera semen extract 60mg (>54 mg polyphenols)
Citrus bioflavonoids (37% hesperidin) 300mg

My 'multivitamin' has only 250µg of B12 in it. The B12 is diluted with maltodextrin (1/1000). This means that he should put 0,5g of the mixture in every pill and then they would become too big (they are already large).

Edited by s123, 11 September 2008 - 08:27 PM.

[luv2increase]

I should be able to sustain it? I've been doing CRON for 3.7 years now and more relaxed Mild level of CR for another 2 years ontop of that... so 5.7 years and I'm still here, not wasting away. And yes I did participate in football, running, going to the gym, working shifts where I remained active for a few hours (lifting)... lots of other stuff. I think I've established that I can mantain it long term.

If you were placed in a cage on a sidewalk in a busy metropolitan area during peak hours, and people passing by were asked if they thought you looked unhealthy, or anorexic/bulimic; would those people say yes to any of those questions?

If the answer is yes, then I'm sure your professional career would take a big hit. It would ruin your chances at a normal life. People may consider you of being "different". It may be moreso a challenge to find a mate and start a family (due to your looks and possibly low sperm count). I am guessing about the sperm count thing.

Heck, if you put on some crappy clothes and walks around downtown, I guarantee someone would mistaken you for a homeless druggy.


This isn't pointed at you Matt, but at people whose BMI has dropped into the underweight to severely underweight category from practicing CR.

[s123]

I should be able to sustain it? I've been doing CRON for 3.7 years now and more relaxed Mild level of CR for another 2 years ontop of that... so 5.7 years and I'm still here, not wasting away. And yes I did participate in football, running, going to the gym, working shifts where I remained active for a few hours (lifting)... lots of other stuff. I think I've established that I can mantain it long term.

If you were placed in a cage on a sidewalk in a busy metropolitan area during peak hours, and people passing by were asked if they thought you looked unhealthy, or anorexic/bulimic; would those people say yes to any of those questions?

If the answer is yes, then I'm sure your professional career would take a big hit. It would ruin your chances at a normal life. People may consider you of being "different". It may be moreso a challenge to find a mate and start a family (due to your looks and possibly low sperm count). I am guessing about the sperm count thing.

Heck, if you put on some crappy clothes and walks around downtown, I guarantee someone would mistaken you for a homeless druggy.


This isn't pointed at you Matt, but at people whose BMI has dropped into the underweight to severely underweight category from practicing CR.

Do you think that people on CR are unattractive because they are thin? Well, I disagree, a lot of professional models are even thinner and many people find them very attractive. I don't think that many cronies (who are about 20 year old like me and matt) will try to get children soon. And if you wait a little bit longer then maybe you could add some longevity genes to your child (some people like to call these, designer babies).

Why should you wear 'crappy' clothes when you are practicing CR? My experience tells me that it's easier to find small sizes in designer clothes than in non-designer clothes.

[Matt]

There are quite a few thin male celebs coming through now actually... I don't think being thin means failure.

Alex band from the calling (thin and looks good for 27!)



Russel Brand
http://www.realbuzz...... Brand(0).JPG

Jarvis Cocker

DJ qualls

There are so many more...

Edited by Matt, 12 September 2008 - 07:14 PM.

[kismet]

But how many bloody times to we CRers have to say it! For the last time... YOU ARE NOT CONSTANTLY HUNGRY ON CR! It has been said a million times already, just ask anyone that is doing *CRON* and not starvation.

"Loss of appetite" is actually a negative symptom implying weakened digestion at that caloric intake. You may not feel like eating because your body wouldn't even be capable of digesting it thus the "decreased" appetite. I'm sure you've heard of those stories of concentration camp survivors so emaciated from lack of nourishment that some died from trying to eat regular food when the Allies came in, right? Similar concept. But then again 1700-1800 calories isn't bad. You should safely be able to sustain that longterm if you don't expend calories you don't have in activities such as walking anymore than you need to in arriving at your bed, bathroom, and kitchen.

Bolded part is completely wrong in the context of CR. 1) CR is not concentration camp like starvation 2) http://en.wikipedia....eeding_syndrome

[Matt]

By the way, this is just anecdotal of course, but all the 'thin' people I personally know all look MUCH younger than their age. I'm not talking about old frail people, but young between 18-30 years of age.

Edited by Matt, 12 September 2008 - 08:20 PM.

[VictorBjoerk]

not necessary, wrinkles are more visible when you are thin.People as young as 40 can actually look quite old when being very thin.

[Dmitri]

But how many bloody times to we CRers have to say it! For the last time... YOU ARE NOT CONSTANTLY HUNGRY ON CR! It has been said a million times already, just ask anyone that is doing *CRON* and not starvation.

"Loss of appetite" is actually a negative symptom implying weakened digestion at that caloric intake. You may not feel like eating because your body wouldn't even be capable of digesting it thus the "decreased" appetite. I'm sure you've heard of those stories of concentration camp survivors so emaciated from lack of nourishment that some died from trying to eat regular food when the Allies came in, right? Similar concept. But then again 1700-1800 calories isn't bad. You should safely be able to sustain that longterm if you don't expend calories you don't have in activities such as walking anymore than you need to in arriving at your bed, bathroom, and kitchen.

I wondered about this myself, but if Madonna who's on a low calorie macrobiotic diet can exercise 3 hours a day, I don't see why people on CR could not do vigorous activities.

[Matt]

not necessary, wrinkles are more visible when you are thin.People as young as 40 can actually look quite old when being very thin.

Just what I see dude with my very own eyes. I see more people looking older [than their age] that are fat.

[luv2increase]

I don't see why people on CR could not do vigorous activities.

Calories Burned > Calories Intaked = Unhealthy Situation


People doing CR would be better off being sedimentary. It is too bad living a sedimentary lifestyle is not very stimulating in any regard.

[Dmitri]

I don't see why people on CR could not do vigorous activities.

Calories Burned > Calories Intaked = Unhealthy Situation


People doing CR would be better off being sedimentary. It is too bad living a sedimentary lifestyle is not very stimulating in any regard.

I received the following response to this question on a different thread:

"I believe many CR practitioners put a focus on strength training (for bones) for exercise since it addresses one of the main concerns of CR (bone loss) while not being too calorie-consuming. I believe many also endorse yoga (in its many forms) for its numerous benefits (not just physical). Cardio, in relation to heart-health, seems not to be as beneficial as CR, so at least some CR practitioners I know of do only limited quantities of it."

So it appears that many who practice CR are not engaged in vigorous exercises.

[REGIMEN]

But how many bloody times to we CRers have to say it! For the last time... YOU ARE NOT CONSTANTLY HUNGRY ON CR! It has been said a million times already, just ask anyone that is doing *CRON* and not starvation.

"Loss of appetite" is actually a negative symptom implying weakened digestion at that caloric intake. You may not feel like eating because your body wouldn't even be capable of digesting it thus the "decreased" appetite. I'm sure you've heard of those stories of concentration camp survivors so emaciated from lack of nourishment that some died from trying to eat regular food when the Allies came in, right? Similar concept. But then again 1700-1800 calories isn't bad. You should safely be able to sustain that longterm if you don't expend calories you don't have in activities such as walking anymore than you need to in arriving at your bed, bathroom, and kitchen.

Bolded part is completely wrong in the context of CR. 1) CR is not concentration camp like starvation 2) http://en.wikipedia....eeding_syndrome

Your statement is also completely wrong since my statement has its own context which you failed to recognize with also a missing explanation as to your own claim. Please describe how it is "wrong in the context of CR".

Concentration camp like starvation is on the extreme end of a scale which CR is much closer to than you think.

Consider this: If you were a CR practitioner put in a concentration camp like starvation scenario along with many other non-practitioners...who would last longer? ***More importantly, what is it that is lost, this difference? It's basically fat, muscle, and bone density, right?

I'd rather not have to worry the rest of my life about my bones fracturing during a pickup game....or impassioned sex.

[Johan]

REGIMEN, I highly doubt that you will be able to convince anyone who's currently practicing CRON using arguments like that. CRON people usually know quite thoroughly the science behind what they're doing. If you were to provide adequate references to back up your statements, perhaps they would seem more credible.

Edited by Johan, 13 September 2008 - 12:29 PM.

[JLL]

Yeah, it does sound like you're trying to rationalize why you're not doing CR yourselves.

It's the same with people with whom I talk about eating healthy; they get all defensive and come up with meaningless arguments like "moderation is always good" or "worrying too much about what you eat will only cause stress", instead of just admitting that yes, eating hamburgers may not be healthy but they sure taste good.

Personally, I think CR looks like the best way to increase lifespan even in humans, but the hassle of doing it is too much for me, at least for now. So, I recognize that my diet/lifestyle is not optimal instead of trying to argue that CR doesn't work. I wonder why other people have such a hard time doing the same?

[s123]

Consider this: If you were a CR practitioner put in a concentration camp like starvation scenario along with many other non-practitioners...who would last longer? ***More importantly, what is it that is lost, this difference? It's basically fat, muscle, and bone density, right?

What's the change that someone who is on CR is locked up in a concentration camp?

[luv2increase]

Alex band from the calling (thin and looks good for 27!)

Looks good my ass.... He looks like an AIDS patient. I think you have that body dysmorphic disorder. I could give the guy a pat on the back and probably break it...

There are so many more...

Please Matt, keep them to yourself. I don't feel like hurling once again

[Johan]

I think this thread is getting slightly off-topic and out of hand.

s123, what quantities of vitamins and minerals do you get from food alone?

[Matt]

luv2increase... There was a study that showed peoples perception of what looks normal has changed over time because the 'norm' for BMI has increased, so pepole precieve being overweight as normal for both themselves and others... I think you have this problem too! You see healthy lean guys as being underweight and ill... LoL

Edited by Matt, 13 September 2008 - 01:19 PM.

[s123]

I think this thread is getting slightly off-topic and out of hand.

s123, what quantities of vitamins and minerals do you get from food alone?

More that the RDA for most of them. However I'm low in vitamin E and calcium.

[luv2increase]

You see healthy lean guys

The guy has no muscle mass. He isn't lean in the sense of having muscle yet not hardly any fat; he is devoid of fat and muscle.



Yeah, the thread is getting off topic. I shall zip it now

[Johan]

More that the RDA for most of them. However I'm low in vitamin E and calcium.

Have you considered a milk substitute, such as soy milk or almond milk? That would provide some calcium, since many of them are fortified with Ca and vitamin D, and sometimes A and B vitamins as well.

Also, I've found almonds to be a very good source of vitamin E.