Calorie Restriction May Not Extend Lifespan 251
sciencehabit writes "Slash your food intake and you can live dramatically longer — at least if you're a mouse or a nematode. But a major study designed to determine whether this regimen, known as caloric restriction, works in primates suggests that it improves monkeys' health but doesn't extend their lives. Researchers not involved with the new paper say the results are still encouraging. Although the monkeys didn't evince an increase in life span, both studies show a major improvement in 'health span,' or the amount of time before age-related diseases set in. 'I certainly wouldn't give up on calorie restriction as a health promoter' based on these findings, says molecular biologist Leonard Guarente of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge."
Study funded by... (Score:5, Funny)
...McDonalds Corporation?
Re: (Score:3)
both studies show a major improvement in 'health span,' or the amount of time before age-related diseases set in
More likely by LAP-BAND®
I'll die happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'll die happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I used to think just like you but at some point your body starts giving up and your life gets miserable despite the feasts.
That's so, but it's going to happen sooner or later anyway, unless you get run over by a bus or something. And at age 60 it doesn't seem like any more time has passed in my life than it seemed at 30. The older you get, the faster time goes.
The study showed that being skinny doesn't prolong life, but it didn't show the obesity doesn't shorten it.
Re:I'll die happy (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In 1934, Mary Crowell and Clive McCay of Cornell University observed that laboratory rats fed a severely reduced calorie diet while maintaining micronutrient levels resulted in life spans of up to twice as long as otherwise expected.
It goes beyond just staying thin, you have to be just above starving. To the point where I'd rather NOT live an extra 10 years of that. Plus, the benefits are lessened if you don't start it young.
Which is why so few scientists were trying it on themselves even before this study suggests it wouldn't work.
Re:I'll die happy (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather be fat and die early having eaten the things I liked, than old, skinny and never enjoyed a triple bacon burger with extra cheese.
Is your life about only food? If that's the only thing you enjoy, then by all means yours the philosophy to live by.
In addition, nothing says you can't enjoy these foods - the key is moderation. Don't glut yourself.
It seems a common misunderstanding when it comes to "limiting caloric intake" is that you can never eat anything "bad for you"; but I think it's far more important that you don't eat a) nothing *but* 'bad for you', or b) unlimited quantites of the same.
Have a slice of pizza and a soda. Don't have half a pie and a two liter bottle of soda, and don't eat the pizza every night. Pretty simple.
Re:I'll die happy (Score:5, Interesting)
One used ad Libitum access to feed (eat as much as you want) and saw a benefit to restricting by 30% vs maintenance requirement. The other used maintenance v 30% restriction and saw no difference. Seems to me the two Positive Control treatments are what really should be compared (all other things being equal).
-A Nutritionist
Re:I'll die happy (Score:4, Interesting)
An alternative is for him to get off of his fat ass and burn off the junk food. However, that actually requires work and effort and as such will be the last option that any American suggest.
It's not an easy enough solution. It doesn't shrink wrap well enough.
Moderation helps too.
The problem with pizza is mainly cultural. It is perceived as a binge food. Many people with dire fatness issues binge on junk and then are puzzled why they are medically obese.
Re:I'll die happy (Score:5, Informative)
Most of the other fun things in life do not favor the restricted calorie intake, so its kind of a moot point unless you enjoy a sedentary lifestyle. As someone whose experienced how the body feels on the level of restricted calories required to trigger the effect that's been studied, its a life of lethargy and lack of energy. I used to eat twice a day, under 1000 calories, and my bodily functions followed (don't have a bowel movement but once every couple days, don't get hungry, etc). The side effects were I could barely work out hard for 20 minutes and couldn't enjoy outdoor activities because I simply didn't have the energy, wanting to sleep upwards of 12 hours a day when feasible. Now that I eat 5 times a day, my body is fully rested on 7 hours and I can enjoy a full day of activity.
Granted, I loved the low calorie method when I was getting all my giggles from gaming and relaxing, but now that I've had the drive to do more it just doesn't work for me. I expect this is the same for parents as well, the key factor being time. To have the energy needed to be active and function on lesser amounts of sleep, a higher metabolism lifestyle is almost a requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
A while back I read of someone doing the calorie restriction thing like you, with the same energy-level results. If the calorie restriction is stopping you from doing the things you enjoy and want to do, something is wrong. At the time, it seemed to me to be, "half a life, lived twice as long."
I'm glad you seem to have reached a happier operating point.
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious if you are a man or a woman?
I am a man and I have had enormous success with daily fasting. From when I wake up to about 6pm I consume about 100-200 calories. (usually consists of fruit, veggies or coffee and cream. Then for dinner I eat whatever the hell I want and as much as I want to feel full. I've estimated based weighing and online tables a few times and it comes out to between 1000-1500 calories.
I have gone from 215 lbs to 165 lbs in 8 months. In addition I am able to work out more since
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a guy and I've never been overweight. Your body is having to consume your stores as evidenced by your weight loss, so you're running a negative. I'd wager that when you run out of stores, you'll start to feel the effects I mention. However, in comparison to how you felt at 215, maybe its still a much better feeling to you. I was a swimmer as a kid and very active, so I could feel a significant difference in my energy levels. Its all relative.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like I'm starving. As an engineer it's a control system problem. The net caloric intake leads to a specific equilibrium body mass which varies by individual. The rate at which your body mass changes is based on the difference between your current mass and the equilibrium mass of your net caloric intake. So my initial rate was very high and now I am approaching my equilibrium body mass asymptotically.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. The issue here is some people are consuming less than their equilibrium mass to forcefully lower their metabolism beyond normal levels, which results in reduced energy but also results in a slowed aging process. The problem this article is pointing to is that these people, while they may look like they're 45 at 60, have caused strain on their organs in doing so and thus do not end up living longer, regardless of their adjusted age as a result of lower metabolism. At the time I was doing this, I
Re: (Score:2)
"Ultimately what I've learned is that there is no one standard of a healthy combination of eating and exercise that works for everybody, and most of the people who claim that there is just want to sell their $20 diet book."
Agreed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I found the exact opposite. Went on the "Boulder Outdoor Survival School" course in southern Utah - 2 weeks, 1100 calories a day, hiking 10-20miles through the desert and fashioning our own survival implements and shelters, and foraging/trapping food. (I'm 145lbs btw).
It felt great. Have rarely felt as alive as I did then, physically and mentally.
Re: (Score:2)
1100 calories a day at a lean 145 is perfectly reasonable. I pull 1500 at 170 with a low body fat percentage. Low calorie doesnt mean below the 2000 they like to put on packages, it means your body kicks into the hibernation-like mode, forget what its called, and your metabolism and energy drop dramatically. Its the thing the anti-aging guys love.
Re: (Score:2)
fasting isn't really a new idea at all.
thing is if you continue using more calories than you get, you'll die. there's been medical studies about this.
the nazi kind of studies. one week or two isn't really the threshold there.
Re:I'll die happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Eating well is no guarantee. My dad ate almost nothing but vegetables, chicken, and fish for his entire adult life, and still died of a heart attack at age 53. He didn't do it for heart disease though, he did it for MS which remained in remission for the rest of his life.(whether the diet actually had anything to do with that, who knows?) But I think the point stands. If you can avoid saturated fats for 30 years and keel over from a heart attack, what's the point of avoiding saturated fats?
Re: (Score:3)
There was a guy here at work who exercised, ran, biked like a son-of-a-gun. He died one day of a heart attack, biking to work, at the age of 73. Not a bad span, but not great.
But then again, he came from a long paternal line that died of heart attacks by 50 or so. He really did well, after all. I heard somewhere that the biggest factor in a long life is choosing the right parents. Lifestyle (diet, exercise) is second, modern medicine is fourth or a distant third, or some such.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, well, easy enough to answer. Let's play russian roulette! I'll play with one bullet, and you play with three.
Not that I avoid saturated fats or live a particularly healthy life, I'm just pointing out your argument is full of holes.
Re:I'll die happy (Score:4, Insightful)
I certainly believe in science, but I'd suggest that my fathers medical history is a lot more relevant to my future health than reasearch done on the population level.
Re:I'll die happy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You can eat anything and still maintain a low-calorie diet on a reasonable timescale.
The simplest (not easiest, simplest) way to do this is to fast. You eat, then you don't for a while, then you eat again.
As an experiment, let yourself grow good and hungry before your next meal (I'm not talking about the first pangs here, those disappear in an hour or so, I mean actual hunger). You'd be surprised how long that takes.
Re:I'll die happy (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't read TFA but I wonder if this study consider the quality of those calories, e.g. in America we try and diet by eating one cheeseburger instead of two, of course we could have eaten 5 apples instead, been full and satisfied, and gotten some nutrition as well.
Re:I'll die happy (Score:4, Interesting)
I didn't read TFA but I wonder if this study consider the quality of those calories, e.g. in America we try and diet by eating one cheeseburger instead of two, of course we could have eaten 5 apples instead, been full and satisfied, and gotten some nutrition as well.
Who would want to eat five apples in one sitting? Even if I were hungry, I'd probably just stop at one and wait till the next meal. At least pick a more appealing fruit like an orange.
But seriously, I dropped from 205 pounds to 170 and have kept it off for years with virtually exercise and with the only change to what I'm consuming being that I never buy any beverages with calories. Mostly stick to water with some diet pop on occasion. Other than that, I just cut back portions and eliminated snacking between meals.
Funny thing is, I motivate myself to diet with food. I have a very strict rule that I never eat out/order in unless I'm below 170 pounds. Then I'll get whatever food I want and have one meal where I eat without restraint. After that, I have to diet off whatever I gained and repeat the process. Keeps me happy, and sure beats going vegetarian and/or spending hours a week in the gym.
Re: (Score:2)
Who would want to eat five apples in one sitting? Even if I were hungry, I'd probably just stop at one and wait till the next meal. At least pick a more appealing fruit like an orange.
It sounds like you've never had a good apple. I agree that the supermarket ones are disgusting (bland), but if you're lucky enough to live in a place where you can get them in season locally, they're very good. I think one of the problems America has, is that supermarket produce tastes terrible .. but it looks nice. I've been surprised when traveling abroad how much better plain food tastes. Over here we have to slather food in sauces just to make it edible.
The following is a joke, FYI (Score:5, Funny)
Stupid Apple fanboy...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wholeheartedly agree, except for the bacon part (I am a Muslim), but I think that a weight/knee relation is understated in current anti-weight propaganda. It's all about heart disease.
My heart is just fine with my 200 pounds, it's my knees that react strongly to the extra weight. For me it's either enjoy goat karahi or enjoy walking.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, the excuse of the happy smoker.
I bet you would like to retract that statement if you find out how valuable your health is. The sad part is that you only find this out when you lost your health.
Re: (Score:2)
'd rather be fat and die early having eaten the things I liked, than old, skinny and never enjoyed a triple bacon burger with extra cheese.
"Never"? The study is about diet restriction, reducing the amount of food. You can still eat pretty much anything, just not so much or as frequently.
A friend of mine was "morbidly obese" -- basically like "Fat Bastard". He had a stomach reduction and lost 2/3 of his weight. He still enjoys eating well and drinks wine, but in moderation. He was headed for a very unpleasant old age, probably would have lost his mobility by the time he was 60 but now he 's healthy and active and has a few decades of enjoyabl
Re: (Score:2)
don't forget the liquid bowel movements(usually forever)! Whoo hoo!
Maybe he's planning a new career in fetish videos?
Re: (Score:2)
You could always exercise, die skinny & fit, still having eaten your cheeseburgers ...just sayin' is all...
Re: (Score:2)
Or in my case, eat triple bacon cheeseburgers (on occasion), eat snacks before and after eating meals, gorge at the occasional buffet, and remain skinny while enjoying anything I eat.
Re: (Score:2)
Governor Christie, it's an honor to have you here on Slashdot.
And if you don't mind, you wanna pass me some a that fried scungilli? You did order a "dinner for two" for one, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
- A Nutritionist
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bacon that is a least 50% fat and high in salt.
Cheap high fat ground beef.
Cheese that is likely Velveeta with trans fat.
White bread that will trash your blood sugar levels.
There's pretty much something there to sabotage everyone's digestive system and metabolic balance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
okay so its not possible to have
1 lean bacon (more red than white)
2 ground lean steak
3 actual Cheddar
4 a Whole Grain/Multigrain Bun
and maybe some lettuce ,tomato and pickles on said burger??
and i think having some chili cheese chips (roasted not fried) would be good.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you're getting it from Icky Micky.
Re: (Score:2)
See, here I see a problem. The first two swaps on your list are not beneficial unless you have a pre-disposition to not being able to process those types of cholesterol or fat properly. Blanket diet requirements don't work. Some people will live longer eating fatty crap than they would if they ate all of what we call "healthy" food.
Shit. I most recently lost 30 lbs eating about 1800 calories a day of wendys and mcdonalds, and not the health food items they now have. I'm talking mcdoubles, baconators, probab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on your system. I'm 32.
See, its the combination. You can't take things for granted, but if you really looked at it, when you were eating whatever you wanted, you were probably having the full combo etc.
You don't need the full combo, most of the bad shit isn't in the burger, but you should still be able to pig out on bacon, eggs, burgers... just skip the hash brown and the toast.
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to weight management, our medical industry is completely full of crap.
Re: (Score:2)
okay so its not possible to have
1 lean bacon (more red than white)
Meats preserved with nitrates (most bacon and processed meat) are strongly correlated with all-cause mortality, CHD, and cancer. Unprocessed meat: less so.
So splurge on quality instead of quantity - like you suggest.
Re: (Score:2)
Bacon that is a least 50% fat and high in salt.
So when you eat it you feel full and don't tend to stuff your face with carbs all day. If you're not in the 10-20% who are salt sensitive, it doesn't matter how salty bacon is.
Cheap high fat ground beef.
Still on the fat thing?
Cheese that is likely Velveeta with trans fat.
That's the last thing I would put on a burger. Howsabout a nice gouda or chedder?
White bread that will trash your blood sugar levels.
So get whole wheat buns if you prefer.
Re:I'll die happy (Score:5, Informative)
Most of the fat in cheap ground beef it lost during the cooking process so that even 70% lean beef is only 15-18% fat after cooking [usda.gov]
A 1 ounce serving (28g) of Velveeta contains less than 0.01 g of trans fat [self.com] (the lower threshold for listing)
Most americans are not diabetic [diabetes.org]
As someone who is professionally employed as a nutritionist and has a Ph.D. in the science, I have to say that this:
There's pretty much something there to sabotage everyone's digestive system and metabolic balance.
is completely meaningless.
There is a lot of FUD being spread around about various types of food, and a lot of misinformation about nutrition in general. Eating at a fast-food joint every day is probably going to be unhealthy depending on what you order, assuming you have a daily caloric expenditure that is close to the 2,000/d that the government bases its recommendations on. However, it is more important that your diet match your activity level, than that you avoid specific foods or food groups. As an illustrative example, Michael Phelps consumes 12,000 calories/d when training [michaelphelps.net]. He is obviously a statistical outlier, but that is partially my point. The maintenance energy requirement for every person is different, and very much dependent upon that persons activity level. Their is nothing inherently bad about any of the ingredients in a triple bacon cheeseburger, nor with the final product. It is when such calorie dense meals are consumed in excess of your calorie expenditure that they start to cause problems.
Re:I'll die happy (Score:4, Informative)
Their is nothing inherently bad about any of the ingredients in a triple bacon cheeseburger, nor with the final product.
nitrosopyrrolidine and dimethylnitrosamine?
I'll agree that there is an ever changing crest of FUD and hype surrounding some basic food types and superfoods repectively. On the other hand, the evidence over the past 40 years between increased intake of nitrate preserved meat ( especially when subsequently cooked at high temperature) and CHD, diabetes, and all cause mortality has not been reverting to the mean. Instead the correlation has been getting tighter and tighter, with better mechanistic studies at the biological chemistry end and better data at the epidemiological end.
I'm not saying BAN ALL BACON; I'm saying there is evidence that eating a lot may cause you harm.
oh my god! a chemical! (Score:4, Interesting)
you're worried about nitirites and nitrates in your diet? celery has a lot of nitrites and nitrates. so does spinach. so does lettuce
fruit juice has formaldehyde
chocolate has theobromine
peanuts have aflatoxin, a potent carcinogen
parsley has plyacetylenes
do you want a couple hundred more scary chemicals in your food listed from plant sources?
guess what: the plants ARE TRYING TO KILL YOU. the absolute worst chemicals for you in your diet ARE NATURAL, FROM PLANTS
have been since dinosaurs began munching on them. so herbivores and omnivores like us respond with an organ called "the liver". which breaks down the toxic, carcinogenic, teratogenic, and otherwise lethal brew of noxious chemicals that plants have firing at us for millions of years. it's chemical warfare, us versus them, an arms race
do you know what morning sickness is? do you know why newly pregnant women vomit at the scent or sight or taste of plants?
because evolution has taught women's bodies to stick with THE SAFE MEAT FOOD SOURCES to avoid the noxious alkaloids in plants that will mutate her fetus at the sensitive stage of early pregnancy
just because you can string together a bunch of chemicals doesn't mean you understand what the greatest toxic danger to your body is that is out there: PLANTS
Re:oh my god! a chemical! (Score:4, Informative)
oh my god! a chemical!
Oh My God! I'm a Chemist!
you're worried about nitirites and nitrates in your diet? celery has a lot of nitrites and nitrates. so does spinach. so does lettuce
So what?
1. ascorbic acid in vegetables tends to scavenge nitrites, so you don't end up with nitrosamines.
2. Vegetables have a very low amine content, so again you don't end up with nitrosamines.
3. Meats preserved with nitrates (especially the ones subsequently cooked at hi temp - that's when many nitrosamines are formed ) are the ones associated with cancer, etc. Vegetables aren't. I just named the two nitrosamines most prevalent in cooked bacon.
do you want a couple hundred more scary chemicals in your food listed from plant sources?
Are the food sources (when properly prepared and not contaminated) linked by epidemiological data to excess morbidity or mortality?
so herbivores and omnivores like us respond with an organ called "the liver". which breaks down the toxic, carcinogenic, teratogenic, and otherwise lethal brew of noxious chemicals that plants have firing at us for millions of years.
Nitrosamines are hepatotoxins, even in rats. Rats are sometimes referred to as "livers wrapped in fur" in toxicity testing because they are so proficient at dealing with various toxins. Plenty of other toxins aren't really even toxic until they get activated in the liver. The liver isn't some magic suit of armor; it just hydroxylates the shit out of everything until it's water soluble enough for the kidneys to get rid of.
just because you can string together a bunch of chemicals doesn't mean you understand what the greatest toxic danger to your body is that is out there: PLANTS
Actually, stringing together a bunch of chemicals (and then identifying and purifying the resultant polymer) is something I'm pretty good at. The greatest toxic danger to my body personally is probably the neat hydrofluoric acid I work with daily, but whatever.
I get that there are a lot of people freaking out about "the evil of chemicals" - I'm not one of them. It's worse than ever now, since improved mass spec techniques make it cheap and easy to find parts per trillion/parts per billion of just about anything anywhere. On the other hand it hasn't gotten any easier to determine safe exposure levels, especially in long lived mammals. In the end we need good epidemiological data to figure it out, and for nitrosamines we're getting it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cooked bacon is about 38-40% fat and 38% protein [usda.gov], and Wendy's Baconator still provides almost half of its calories from carbohydrates [wendys.com].
You provided a link to the nutrition facts, but this statement is false. The Baconator has 970 calories, and the website lists 570 of those as being from fat. 400 is close to half sure, but you're ignoring the sources of the calories.
The website says a Baconator has 63 grams of fat, 40 grams carbs and 60 grams protein. 1 gram of protein or carbs is worth 4 calories, and 1g of fat is 9 calories.
Using that a Baconator's gets it calories from the following sources:
567 calories from fat. (~58.5%)
240 calories fr
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's pretty much something there to sabotage everyone's digestive system and metabolic balance.
Nope.
Bacon that is a least 50% fat and high in salt.
Cheap high fat ground beef.
Cheese that is likely Velveeta with trans fat.
White bread that will trash your blood sugar levels.
I'm thin and have low to normal blood pressure. I'm immune to salt and fat, and thin people seldom get diabetes. Not all of us are huge fatasses, some of us NEED that salt and fat.
Re:I'll die happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
NO it wasn't. Pointing you two anecdotal outliers is, exactly, Statistically garbage.
I am an expert in this field. I am telling you as an expert - You are wrong.
" I worked with stats and medical data for years..."
Then you should be ashamed of your statement, or you are very, very bad at your job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tricky, the way you worded it.
Diet and health are some of the largest factors of how well,and how long you live.
Now, genetics seem to impact as well, but more in the realm of 'how long can you survive with this crappy diet.'
So if there where two of you, one ate well and exercised, and the other ate poorly and didn't exercise, you could see a 20+ difference in age span.
I know people are like, 'I'll live a few years less to eat what I want', but it may not be a few years. It may be decades.
Plus, who can you c
Re: (Score:2)
My great grandfather died 2 years ago at the ripe age of 104. He ate a fry up /every/ morning with copious amounts of bacon, smoked more pipes than popeye, drank whiskey literally all the time.
My grandmother was given 2 years to live 30 years ago due to heart problems. She still knocks back the bottle and fries chips in lard twice a week.
There is no magic balance.
Mutants, both of them. No really.
Admittedly, the boring kind of mutant that doesn't have eyelasers or anything.
popeye the seaman (Score:2)
smoked more pipes than popeye,
Wow, you might want to watch how you are stating the facts about your grandfather. I'm getting a very different picture of him than I think you intended....
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes it is. Your nervous system and cell membranes are composed almost entirely of the stuff. Even Framington showed that it is beneficial. The directors of the study are huge critics of the lipid hypothesis.
The vitamins your body makes are made of cholesterol.
Re:I'll die happy .. wrong ... vitamin D (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong. You body DOES make vitamin D when you are exposed to the sun.
Re: (Score:2)
"An organic chemical compound (or related set of compounds) is called a vitamin when it cannot be synthesized in sufficient quantities by an organism, and must be obtained from the diet" source [wikipedia.org]. Trivia bit, the word vitamin comes from vital amines (amines being a class of organic molecules).
Re: (Score:3)
Do look at the phrase "sufficient quantities" Do the vitamins your body makes but needs supplements of not qualify since your body made them?
Re: (Score:3)
But I'm not convinced the meat and cheese itself, especially if they'
Re: (Score:2)
You might watch the movie Fathead (a counter Supersize Me), or check out marksdailyapple.com
According to the Fathead movie, the initial science concerning fat and obesity involved a 'scientist' starting with the fat intake and obesity levels, and picking a only a few points that would give a high correlation and dropping the rest of the data points that would have proven no correlation.
From there, most studies of problems with fat have been behavioral studies that ask the participants to report from memory
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'll die happy (Score:5, Informative)
You're quite right. lo carb hi fat [locarbhifat.com] diet is also what I use, and I have also had success in lowering my weight, and keeping off mild hypertension. It's extremely sad that people think fat is the what is making them unhealthy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a shortage of protein, an abundance of calories, and most importantly an utter absence of exercise keeping people unhealthy. Your body has vast mechanisms in place to convert fats to sugars and vice versa, which is why too much fat can lead to diabetes just as easily as too much sugar can.
Get off your lazy ass, get sufficient protein, keep your other calories under control, and it doesn't matter much if they come from carbs or fat.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Curious about Olympians (Score:2, Interesting)
Olympic atheletes consume unbelievable calories but exercise like crazy. They don't do it their whole lives, but I'd be curious to know what the outcome is for individuals who have an atheletic youth. Actually, it would probably be better to do such a study on people who are simply avid exercisers as opposed to the very top tier. It's a more common condition and less likely to have outliers like doping. Do you get better health from high calorie, high exercise or does the body wear out from processing s
Re: (Score:3)
Elite athletes have decreased life spans, although I don't think it's known precisely why. It would be difficult to study regular people because you'd have to know both what kind of exercise they got and what they ate over long periods of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of these studies have been done (well, somewhat - studies are hard and expensive, so most things are done "somewhat".)
From recollection, if you look at places where people live the longest, one of the things that is typical is that they have moderate and consistent amounts of exercise throughout their lives - not crazy high amounts, which at some point get associated with an increased risk of ill effects. (That having been said, there's some interested research about people with certain kinds of spine
Resistance to infection (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
This study proves that further calorie restriction doesn't extend the lifespan compared to an already healthy diet. *Both* though extend the lifespan compared to eating enough to become obese.
I'm just saying this because there'll be enough people who will take this as a prove that over-eating is fine. It isn't.
By the way, a diet consisting of all the fruits, vegetables and meat you can eat is totally fine. It's very hard to become obese when you avoid sugars, starch and other carbohydrates. Sadly, almost everything ready-made you can buy is full to the brim of these.
Re:Misleading (Score:5, Interesting)
There are two longitudinal monkey trials on calorie restriction, and they differ in what exactly the CR diet is compared to. One is verses a diet formulated to meet, but not exceed maintenance energy requirement, but the other is versus free-choice (which allows over eating). The first (the one cited above) shows no benefit, but the other shows remarkable benefit. Seems clear to me that it's the over eating that shortens life, not restriction that elongates it, at least in Rhesus monkeys.
Fat is more energy dense than starch, but it is also more energy intensive to absorb and transport in the body. Starch is absorbed almost energy free, but fat needs to be broken down every time it crosses a membrane and that takes energy. However, I've seen some pretty fat pigs in research trials as a result of feeding 30% fat (oil, lard, choice white grease, etc.) in the diet. So it CAN be done, but who really wants to essentially be drinking bacon grease.
-A Nutritionist
Re: (Score:2)
The study suggested that calorie restriction reduced the onset certain dieases. This does suggest a longer life is possible as it reduces the chances of dieing from cancers, tumors and such. Eventually the body does lose the ability to regenerate itself and death is the result. If you can prevent dieing from other causes so you can live long enough to reach this point you will end up living to the maximum age you are able to.
Re: (Score:2)
ITT we avoid sugars by eating fruits? /sarcasm ;)
Not completely, but very much as with starch in vegetables there's a natural limit to how much you can eat of it. Compared to "food products" (or beverages!) there's actually not much sugar in fruits.
the definition of calories (Score:5, Funny)
intermittent fasting (Score:5, Interesting)
It might turn out that it's not caloric restriction that's important, but periodic fasting.
There is research showing that even if you keep your overall food intake (and body weight) constant, but **fast on alternate days**, you can improve blood glucose and insulin levels
Check it:
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/10/6216.full
Re: (Score:2)
Well fasting can help heal some problems. While recovering from surgery I developed Pancreatitis and was put on a liquid diet for a few days (jello, broth, water, etc).
Religious prosecution ends here... (Score:2)
I am observant Hedonist, and I am glad that science finally stopped this assault on my religious freedoms.
Who restricts calories for longer lifespan? (Score:2)
I don't. I have to restrict them, because my knees are very sensitive to even extra pound. It's the matter of limping or not, not a lifespan.
Quality vs quantity? (Score:2)
This is not surprising news. The lifespan may not be increased, but the quality of life may be better. The example that comes to my mind (I use it because it's the only one I know anything about) are the monks on Mt. Athos. At most of the monasteries they eat two modest meals per day which are mostly vegetarian (they do eat fish on certain days). The monks are typically in great health and maladies such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes are very rare, so their quality of life is pretty good. Never
Calorie Restriction May Cure Cancer (Score:3)
"the team found that none of the Maryland monkeys that started calorie restriction when they were young have developed cancer."
Fat is ok now? (Score:2)
Singularity fail (Score:2)
Dashing the hopes of legions of skinny Slashdotters who had been keeping themselves in optimal physical condition for the arrival of the Singularity.
I had burgers and beer last night out of sheer anguish and not because that's the kind of crap most of us here would be eating anyway.
Ah, the joys of a good obesity argument... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm stuffed! No really, I'm so full I feel like rolling off this chair. I just had half a pizza and half a bottle of coke, and I'm not entirely sure I won't finish at least one of those two when this settles down!
And with that said, I've lost about 160lbs over the last year and a half. I eat pizza, noddles, burgers, I have ice cream, candy... I eat chips, dip, sauces... Oh man, do I ever... So how did I lose that weight?
I stopped eating so god damn much.
That's it. No exercise, no mysticism, no fad diets. I don't pay particular attention to what food is healthy and what isn't, I just look at how many calories it is, and I eat less of it than I expend in a day. This pizza feast? Oh man, at a guesstimate I binged a good 2000 calories tonight, that's more than I usually eat in an entire day! And that's okay, because I don't do this every day. Tomorrow I won't even feel like eating much for the first half of the day, I'll probably end up eating a pear or two for breakfast just to wake up the system, and then lunch will be something light again. All in all it's not the day that counts, but the average over time.
So yeah, from one former fatass to all the fatasses out there... keep fooling yourself if you want, keep telling yourself that you don't want to lose weight because you'll have to stop eating tasty shit... it's not true, not even remotely. You are using it as an excuse and you know it. It just means you'll have to stop eating twice as much as you need. And no, you won't be constantly hungry if you eat less, people aren't built to eat the amounts you do, it's just your body that has gotten used to it. Once you've stopped that in it's tracks, the body quickly adjusts, and you'll once more only be hungry before meals and so on.
There's no magic. You can keep eating whatever the fuck you want. Just a lot less of it. If you want to eat a LOT, then sure, salad is the way to go... but if you want to eat deliciously greasy... some moderation is key. And it's not harder than that. It's not even much of an effort. No need to go on a diet, no need to even decide to lose weight... just decide to eat less. That's it. Eat less. Weight will fall off, at an unbelievable rate, and you'll still be eating your pizza and chugging that coke... just not for every meal any more.
Perception (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if it makes people healthier, will being healthier not increase lifespan?
Not necessarily, you might just be fitter and live the same length of time
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily, you might just be fitter and live the same length of time
We just saved Social Security/Medicare! People may grumble about the food though ...
Re: (Score:3)
Even then, the prospect of having a better life (if not a longer one) seems good enough to try it.
Re: (Score:2)
This sort of thing works differently for different people.
That's why I think of a cheap burger as a perfect storm.
It has all of the refined carbs and zero fiber for the Atkins types and all of that grease and fat for the non-Atkins types. Plus it has a little bit of lactose for the lactose intolerant and some gratuitous trans fat for good measure.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when the mice study came out. "Mice live 50% longer! You might live to 150!" and the guy, bald IIRC, started himself on a lo-cal diet.
Mice lived 3 years instead of 2. Did it greatly extend their lives, or did it just add a year?
This is my hypothesis on the findings: Short-lived animals, like nematodes and lab mice, tend to produce lots of free radicals as they metabolize calories. Long-lived animals tend to have metabolisms that release far fewer free radicals. Free radicals damage DNA and promote cancer. Most lab mice are bred for a high propensity towards developing cancer because that makes them better test subjects for testing anti-cancer drugs and for finding cancer causing agents. I have been told by friends in the biol
Re: (Score:3)