Calorie Restriction Diet for Anti-aging
Options
Replies
-
I must admit, there is not a great deal of long term data on outcome since this is a relative recent concept. This is one which relates to caloric restriction and brain aging:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3733585/
The language is pretty technical, and it still deals a lot with mice and other animals, although it also discusses this program with humans.
In some ways, CR does make sense if we're talking about a population, such as in the U.S., which is overfed and suffering from health issues due to that. The studies, however, do exclude people who are extremely overweight (I don't think it takes people with BMI over 27).
No. There is zero human outcome data in that publication (and it isn't even a study but a literature review of the zebrafish model as a possible animal model for neurogenesis).
Regarding HUMAN outcomes..... it's not so clear that this would be worth the effort.... We know it works if you're a zebrafish or an inbred mouse living in a mouse facility eating a controlled diet.
However.
You are not a mouse living in a facility. One of the unfortunate things about being on the low end of the healthy BMI range? Underweight people tend to have less positive outcomes from serious illnesses and trauma. That extra 10 lbs might make the difference between life and death in the event of a car accident, or improve your ability to tolerate chemotherapy. IMO, the calorie restriction to extend lifespan is not really worth the risk. With the inbred mice, if the researcher dropped it on the floor and it croaked, they'd discard it from the study.0 -
Genetics help too. But smaller and lighter people have a correlation of having longer lives.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Genetics help too. But smaller and lighter people have a correlation of having longer lives.
I would be willing to wager that people who aren't overfat that spend the most of their time in a calorie surplus have the longest life expectancy of all. Time spent ina calorie surplus is fantastic for you body. Anyone that has experience with this knows this to be true. Literally everything works better.0 -
One of the unfortunate things about being on the low end of the healthy BMI range? Underweight people tend to have less positive outcomes from serious illnesses and trauma. That extra 10 lbs might make the difference between life and death in the event of a car accident, or improve your ability to tolerate chemotherapy. IMO, the calorie restriction to extend lifespan is not really worth the risk.
the key thing here is whether the calorie restriction is causing a change from overweight>healthy or from healthy>underweight
the calories restricted may be exactly the same, but their effect will not
this is one of the reasons that there is a "healthy" *range* and not just a value and that leaving it higher or lower is not good for you0 -
Has anyone heard of the Calorie Restriction diet to prevent aging? Some studies show that restricting calories to about 30% below the TDEE actually promotes longevity. There are a couple websites devoted to it. Is anyone familiar with this theory or has anyone tried it?
I thought it didn't deliver the expected benefits in humans ie didn't scale up from mice / flies.
The CALERIE trial series was about that and there are people like Valter D Longo and Luigi Fontana chasing protein restriction, intermittent fasting and other approaches to try and replicate the animal model results.
So, the people starving in Africa...are going to live a long and healthy life...so, therefore, all the food/medical aid, was a total waste of time...?
The difference being that people starving to death for want of food also aren't getting their nutritional needs met or their calorie needs met.
Meanwhile, a very obese Scotsman went over one year without eating any food at all because, when needed, he was given supplements, proving at least some people (or at least one if you want to really nitpick) can live for a very long time off their stored energy alone.
But the question in this case is, what is a healthy weight and what is a healthy eating pattern for maximum longevity? If the mice and monkey studies are anything to go by, perhaps we've currently got it wrong.0 -
Quite incorrect - there are correlations to being slightly overweight and living longer.Genetics help too. But smaller and lighter people have a correlation of having longer lives.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But the reverse causation is well outlined here: http://healthland.time.com/2013/01/02/being-overweight-is-linked-to-lower-risk-of-mortality/0 -
Surplus would put fat on the body though and increase weight if continued.. Unless there's some way to break the rule of thermogenesis.Genetics help too. But smaller and lighter people have a correlation of having longer lives.
I would be willing to wager that people who aren't overfat that spend the most of their time in a calorie surplus have the longest life expectancy of all. Time spent ina calorie surplus is fantastic for you body. Anyone that has experience with this knows this to be true. Literally everything works better.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Don't listen to the naysayers!
0 -
Has anyone heard of the Calorie Restriction diet to prevent aging? Some studies show that restricting calories to about 30% below the TDEE actually promotes longevity. There are a couple websites devoted to it. Is anyone familiar with this theory or has anyone tried it?
I thought it didn't deliver the expected benefits in humans ie didn't scale up from mice / flies.
The CALERIE trial series was about that and there are people like Valter D Longo and Luigi Fontana chasing protein restriction, intermittent fasting and other approaches to try and replicate the animal model results.
So, the people starving in Africa...are going to live a long and healthy life...so, therefore, all the food/medical aid, was a total waste of time...?
The difference being that people starving to death for want of food also aren't getting their nutritional needs met or their calorie needs met.
Meanwhile, a very obese Scotsman went over one year without eating any food at all because, when needed, he was given supplements, proving at least some people (or at least one if you want to really nitpick) can live for a very long time off their stored energy alone.
But the question in this case is, what is a healthy weight and what is a healthy eating pattern for maximum longevity? If the mice and monkey studies are anything to go by, perhaps we've currently got it wrong.
At a 30% CR many people are not meeting their Nutritional Needs.
At the time of the Obese Scotsman a few others died in that same clinic - so a survival of 25% isn't really the sign of a great idea.
If mice and monkey studies are anything to go by, you should be living in a cage.0 -
Has anyone heard of the Calorie Restriction diet to prevent aging? Some studies show that restricting calories to about 30% below the TDEE actually promotes longevity. There are a couple websites devoted to it. Is anyone familiar with this theory or has anyone tried it?
I thought it didn't deliver the expected benefits in humans ie didn't scale up from mice / flies.
The CALERIE trial series was about that and there are people like Valter D Longo and Luigi Fontana chasing protein restriction, intermittent fasting and other approaches to try and replicate the animal model results.
So, the people starving in Africa...are going to live a long and healthy life...so, therefore, all the food/medical aid, was a total waste of time...?
The difference being that people starving to death for want of food also aren't getting their nutritional needs met or their calorie needs met.
Meanwhile, a very obese Scotsman went over one year without eating any food at all because, when needed, he was given supplements, proving at least some people (or at least one if you want to really nitpick) can live for a very long time off their stored energy alone.
But the question in this case is, what is a healthy weight and what is a healthy eating pattern for maximum longevity? If the mice and monkey studies are anything to go by, perhaps we've currently got it wrong.
At a 30% CR many people are not meeting their Nutritional Needs.
At the time of the Obese Scotsman a few others died in that same clinic - so a survival of 25% isn't really the sign of a great idea.
If mice and monkey studies are anything to go by, you should be living in a cage.
The idea of CRON however is to meet all nutritional needs.
As for living in a cage, how do we know the results wouldn't be even more startling of somehow the mice and monkeys were in a more natural environment? The reverse, as I already said in another post, could be true as well, however.0 -
That goes without saying because as you get smaller your TDEE gets smaller too. However, it's the whole concept of some diet stopping the aging process. What will be thought up next?And for those that don't know as several of the posts bear out - that's enough of a deficit you would stop losing weight because of suppressed metabolism and TDEE.
So TDEE- 30% would no longer become that as you would eventually maintain at lowered TDEE.0 -
Has anyone heard of the Calorie Restriction diet to prevent aging? Some studies show that restricting calories to about 30% below the TDEE actually promotes longevity. There are a couple websites devoted to it. Is anyone familiar with this theory or has anyone tried it?
Yeah, I've heard of it. It's been years since I read about it, though. So many that it wasn't really something I thought about at the time. I don't recall the studies I read being specific to 30% below TDEE. And obviously you couldn't eat that low forever because at some point you would become dangerously underweight, or your TDEE would adjust so that you were no longer eating 30% below.
But I have heard of severe calorie restriction for disease control in old age. I don't think what I read was even really about weight loss. My guess is this yet another web site that has bastardized the concept like so many other things (clean eating, I'm looking at you).0 -
Has anyone heard of the Calorie Restriction diet to prevent aging? Some studies show that restricting calories to about 30% below the TDEE actually promotes longevity. There are a couple websites devoted to it. Is anyone familiar with this theory or has anyone tried it?
I thought it didn't deliver the expected benefits in humans ie didn't scale up from mice / flies.
The CALERIE trial series was about that and there are people like Valter D Longo and Luigi Fontana chasing protein restriction, intermittent fasting and other approaches to try and replicate the animal model results.
So, the people starving in Africa...are going to live a long and healthy life...so, therefore, all the food/medical aid, was a total waste of time...?
The difference being that people starving to death for want of food also aren't getting their nutritional needs met or their calorie needs met.
Meanwhile, a very obese Scotsman went over one year without eating any food at all because, when needed, he was given supplements, proving at least some people (or at least one if you want to really nitpick) can live for a very long time off their stored energy alone.
But the question in this case is, what is a healthy weight and what is a healthy eating pattern for maximum longevity? If the mice and monkey studies are anything to go by, perhaps we've currently got it wrong.
At a 30% CR many people are not meeting their Nutritional Needs.
At the time of the Obese Scotsman a few others died in that same clinic - so a survival of 25% isn't really the sign of a great idea.
If mice and monkey studies are anything to go by, you should be living in a cage.
The idea of CRON however is to meet all nutritional needs.
As for living in a cage, how do we know the results wouldn't be even more startling of somehow the mice and monkeys were in a more natural environment? The reverse, as I already said in another post, could be true as well, however.
The ideas behind CRON - specifically the "ON" part of them - low cal, high nutrient foods, vegetables, etc... make sense. However, the CR experiments are not about that. At all.
Yes, eating well - with variety and meeting needs while reducing processed meats, excessive dietary calories from processed sugars does show health benefits, as does maintaining a healthy weight. But these are not the point of CR studies.
Again, I would like to see evidence that CR has longevity value in humans at a healthy weight. I have seen none.
On the other hand, I have seen significant HUMAN research that shows retaining and building lean body mass in the elderly does improve lifespan and quality of life. One cannot do that on a 30% CR.0 -
Has anyone heard of the Calorie Restriction diet to prevent aging? Some studies show that restricting calories to about 30% below the TDEE actually promotes longevity. There are a couple websites devoted to it. Is anyone familiar with this theory or has anyone tried it?
I thought it didn't deliver the expected benefits in humans ie didn't scale up from mice / flies.
The CALERIE trial series was about that and there are people like Valter D Longo and Luigi Fontana chasing protein restriction, intermittent fasting and other approaches to try and replicate the animal model results.
So, the people starving in Africa...are going to live a long and healthy life...so, therefore, all the food/medical aid, was a total waste of time...?
The difference being that people starving to death for want of food also aren't getting their nutritional needs met or their calorie needs met.
Meanwhile, a very obese Scotsman went over one year without eating any food at all because, when needed, he was given supplements, proving at least some people (or at least one if you want to really nitpick) can live for a very long time off their stored energy alone.
But the question in this case is, what is a healthy weight and what is a healthy eating pattern for maximum longevity? If the mice and monkey studies are anything to go by, perhaps we've currently got it wrong.
At a 30% CR many people are not meeting their Nutritional Needs.
At the time of the Obese Scotsman a few others died in that same clinic - so a survival of 25% isn't really the sign of a great idea.
If mice and monkey studies are anything to go by, you should be living in a cage.
The idea of CRON however is to meet all nutritional needs.
As for living in a cage, how do we know the results wouldn't be even more startling of somehow the mice and monkeys were in a more natural environment? The reverse, as I already said in another post, could be true as well, however.
The ideas behind CRON - specifically the "ON" part of them - low cal, high nutrient foods, vegetables, etc... make sense. However, the CR experiments are not about that. At all.
Yes, eating well - with variety and meeting needs while reducing processed meats, excessive dietary calories from processed sugars does show health benefits, as does maintaining a healthy weight. But these are not the point of CR studies.
Again, I would like to see evidence that CR has longevity value in humans at a healthy weight. I have seen none.
On the other hand, I have seen significant HUMAN research that shows retaining and building lean body mass in the elderly does improve lifespan and quality of life. One cannot do that on a 30% CR.
You're right, as far as I know, no human studies exist, at least as of yet. I do remember the Sikh marathon runner from the Horizon program Eat, Fast, & Live Longer who obviously did have lean body mass and also ate 'child size portions' of food. But he might also be a winner in the genetics lottery. One person proves nothing.
It's interesting, though. Maybe in coming decades we'll know for sure one way or the other. Meanwhile, nothing wrong with people who are already restricting calories because we need to lose weight working on optimal nutrition while we're at it, is there? I should have done it sooner. I have no intention of going below the healthy BMI minimum, though. I'll let other, more adventurous humans experiment on themselves to that extent.0 -
I've seen this around. I have to wonder--is it calorie restriction, or is it a healthy weight that does the trick?0
-
The design of the CALERIE trials is described at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20923909 with references to preceding results in animals etc. The Phase II intervention is a 25% caloric reduction from baseline AL EI (ie it does not continually adjust energy intake down in response to declines in TDEE) and the outcomes are not measured as death or life extension but as "markers of ageing".
Apart from a published paper on the selction process and another on a new TDEE equation it hasn't reported anything back yet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2692623/ looked for and found similar effects in humans to rodents "These results show that two previously reported biomarkers of longevity (fasting insulin and body temperature) are reduced by prolonged CR in humans" and made the case for a prolonged trial.0 -
It's hard to figure out. CR does not encourage people to go below the BMI minimum, but it does favor being smaller. I happen to come from a long line of small people who live a very long time, but I can't say all of them eat less. My father was a big eater but a small person, I have noticed my mom who is elderly and healthy, seems to naturally follow a form of CR. She eats salmon and chicken mostly, whole grain cereals, as well as vegetables and usually one small dessert a day, and she is at the low BMI range. She says she could not eat as much as I do, even though I am currently eating at a deficit.0
-
You're right, as far as I know, no human studies exist, at least as of yet. I do remember the Sikh marathon runner from the Horizon program Eat, Fast, & Live Longer who obviously did have lean body mass and also ate 'child size portions' of food. But he might also be a winner in the genetics lottery. One person proves nothing.
It's interesting, though. Maybe in coming decades we'll know for sure one way or the other. Meanwhile, nothing wrong with people who are already restricting calories because we need to lose weight working on optimal nutrition while we're at it, is there? I should have done it sooner. I have no intention of going below the healthy BMI minimum, though. I'll let other, more adventurous humans experiment on themselves to that extent.
- removing quotes -
Thank you - that's my point. I'd like to see the significant research completed one way or another. I'm totally neutral on the subject BUT it does seem to be counter productive to current best practices on physical activity, maintaining LBM, etc.
(and I think you mean BMR and not BMI). Generally speaking, for someone slightly active, a 25% cut is not below BMR.0 -
Surplus would put fat on the body though and increase weight if continued.. Unless there's some way to break the rule of thermogenesis.Genetics help too. But smaller and lighter people have a correlation of having longer lives.
I would be willing to wager that people who aren't overfat that spend the most of their time in a calorie surplus have the longest life expectancy of all. Time spent ina calorie surplus is fantastic for you body. Anyone that has experience with this knows this to be true. Literally everything works better.
Periodic cutting.....0 -
The distinction is not to go below the BMI in weight, but stay on the low end (18.5 to 20). Definitely the eating plan is to go below the BMR requirements. Again, the study excluded extremely active people, so clearly CR would not fuel a huge amount of exercise.0
-
I'll agree. It's what I do every year.
Surplus would put fat on the body though and increase weight if continued.. Unless there's some way to break the rule of thermogenesis.Genetics help too. But smaller and lighter people have a correlation of having longer lives.
I would be willing to wager that people who aren't overfat that spend the most of their time in a calorie surplus have the longest life expectancy of all. Time spent ina calorie surplus is fantastic for you body. Anyone that has experience with this knows this to be true. Literally everything works better.
Periodic cutting.....
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
The design of the CALERIE trials is described at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20923909 with references to preceding results in animals etc. The Phase II intervention is a 25% caloric reduction from baseline AL EI (ie it does not continually adjust energy intake down in response to declines in TDEE) and the outcomes are not measured as death or life extension but as "markers of ageing".
Apart from a published paper on the selction process and another on a new TDEE equation it hasn't reported anything back yet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2692623/ looked for and found similar effects in humans to rodents "These results show that two previously reported biomarkers of longevity (fasting insulin and body temperature) are reduced by prolonged CR in humans" and made the case for a prolonged trial.
Those biomarkers are rather tenuous indicators of longevity. I wouldn't value them as end-point surrogates - or perhaps I can start a movement for eating once a day and taking ice baths..0 -
I'll agree. It's what I do every year.
Surplus would put fat on the body though and increase weight if continued.. Unless there's some way to break the rule of thermogenesis.Genetics help too. But smaller and lighter people have a correlation of having longer lives.
I would be willing to wager that people who aren't overfat that spend the most of their time in a calorie surplus have the longest life expectancy of all. Time spent ina calorie surplus is fantastic for you body. Anyone that has experience with this knows this to be true. Literally everything works better.
Periodic cutting.....
Its a stone cold fact that older people that have spent the time during their life building muscle, maintaining it, and staying relatively lean, and staying in shape look and act the youngest.
Cripes look at Tony Horton; the dude's 55 years old. He looks younger than most 40 year olds.
Jack Lalanne practically lived to 100, and was very active til the day he died.0 -
The distinction is not to go below the BMI in weight, but stay on the low end (18.5 to 20). Definitely the eating plan is to go below the BMR requirements. Again, the study excluded extremely active people, so clearly CR would not fuel a huge amount of exercise.
Suggest you press on the quote button to reply to a post (and not reply...)
The study protocol removes overweight and obese people because it want to look at the effects of CR and not weight loss. It also excludes highly active people because a study with a large CR is unethical for highly active people (it would be know as the Minnesota Starvation experiment).
BTW, there is no evidence of improved longevity in that study.0 -
I'll agree. It's what I do every year.
Surplus would put fat on the body though and increase weight if continued.. Unless there's some way to break the rule of thermogenesis.Genetics help too. But smaller and lighter people have a correlation of having longer lives.
I would be willing to wager that people who aren't overfat that spend the most of their time in a calorie surplus have the longest life expectancy of all. Time spent ina calorie surplus is fantastic for you body. Anyone that has experience with this knows this to be true. Literally everything works better.
Periodic cutting.....
Its a stone cold fact that older people that have spent the time during their life building muscle, maintaining it, and staying relatively lean, and staying in shape look and act the youngest.
Cripes look at Tony Horton; the dude's 55 years old. He looks younger than most 40 year olds.
Jack Lalanne practically lived to 100, and was very active til the day he died.
Jean Calment cycled until she was 100. So I guess cycling is the solution to live to be 120...:huh: proof, right there! Fact!0 -
That goes without saying because as you get smaller your TDEE gets smaller too. However, it's the whole concept of some diet stopping the aging process. What will be thought up next?And for those that don't know as several of the posts bear out - that's enough of a deficit you would stop losing weight because of suppressed metabolism and TDEE.
So TDEE- 30% would no longer become that as you would eventually maintain at lowered TDEE.
Has absolutely nothing to do with the several obvious reasons why TDEE lowers, like eating less and weighing less and losing muscle mass so burning less.
This isn't about weight loss and TDEE lowering.
This is about eating way less than you could and TDEE lowering outside those other reasons because you become more metabolically efficient, just plain old burning less for everything. Adaptive thermogenesis.0 -
And for those that don't know as several of the posts bear out - that's enough of a deficit you would stop losing weight because of suppressed metabolism and TDEE.
So TDEE- 30% would no longer become that as you would eventually maintain at lowered TDEE.
Wouldn't you then have to keep adjusting your TDEE? Or do you mean you just take TDEE at a random point in life (when e.g. you have 100 kilos to lose), then never readjust it and just keep approaching your final goal?
If the purpose was weight loss while having a totally suppressed metabolism/TDEE - yes you would have to keep cutting more calories to eventually keep losing again.
Studies on that show about 20% max suppression occurring.
So if you want to eat 20% less than required either during weight loss or maintenance, then indeed use that method of badly undereating rather than reasonable goal.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-6162510 -
Jean Calment cycled until she was 100. So I guess cycling is the solution to live to be 120...:huh: proof, right there! Fact!
Now lets not be silly. :bigsmile:
You'd have to do that in a cage of course. And that would make for one bumpy ride.
Perhaps one of those things they use at carnivals with motorbikes, and just ride the bike around in that, much smoother.
Sadly, I think they are called "death cages" .....0 -
What makes this thread any different from the other trolls, on MFP that eat 1200 or below a day? As you should all know by now, it is against MFP rules to promote, an unhealthy diet. This thread has been reported.0
-
I don't know if that's totally true or not. I read a couple of books on it and the science seems solid. But on the other hand, there are studies that show that underweight people die more easily during serious illnesses like cancer because they don't have any weight to spare. Of course, theoretically you have a lower risk of serious illness with CR. I therefore think that the jury is out.
If you want to do it though, I think the best way is the Every Other Day Diet or the 5:2. Same metabolic/health results, and you don't have to go hungry every day.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 449 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions