Slashdot Mirror
Calorie Restriction May Not Extend Lifespan
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."
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 so much fuel?
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
I think the unstated implication that comes from comparing the two long running studies on this in Rhesus Monkeys is that it's not so much that calorie restriction v maintenance requirement extends your life, but that caloric intake above maintenance shortens it. The key is in the differences between the two "non-restricted" treatments used I the different studies.
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
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
Very True! Wish I had mod points.
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
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
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.
Not to mention that like alcohol, smoking or pretty much anything else there are diminishing returns on enjoyment. Moderation actually improves most experiences.
love is just extroverted narcissism
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.
The (left-leaning, liberal, etc.) nytimes has an interesting article on this. A recent study comparing the Hazda people that follow a hunter-gatherer lifestyle with a lot of exercise, show that they burned similar amounts of calories to many more sedentary people. It's unclear that just increasing exercise will reduce someone's weight. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/debunking-the-hunter-gatherer-workout.html
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it