What are your thoughts on Caloric Restriction?

[Howard Wallace]

My physical culture goals are to have fun while I live and keep my body mobile and capable of doing what I want to do. I bring this up because I am willing to sacrifice absolute strength if I can further those goals. For instance, a heavy guy might be able to squat a large weight but may not be able to keep up with a skinny fellow as they hike up a mountain trail.

A lot of research has been done on caloric restriction in lab animals. These studies generally ensure the animals get adequate vitamins and minerals, but less calories than they would eat if given a choice. The common theme is significantly increased lifespan, but there seem to be numerous other health benefits also. The Wikipedia article on caloric restriction is here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction)

I am considering trying caloric restriction. Basically I would probably start with a paleo style diet, big meal in the morning, and monitoring blood glucose. Then squeeze down the calories below what is generally considered optimal. A predictable result would be the loss of both fat and muscle tissue. I would also hope to see improvements in cholesterol levels and cardiovascular health.

Drawbacks include constant hunger, getting cold easily, perhaps ack of endurance due to little stored glycogen, etc.

What do you all think about caloric restriction? I’m at the “mulling it over” stage now and would appreciate any input or experiences you can share.

I’ll be off the net traveling for a few days so it may be a little while before I check back in on this thread

[gruntbrain]

It's the ol' conflict: life extension vs life expansion

Aesthetics aside, I wanna be lean & strong so I have to carefully restrict calories. the bathroom scale & strength tests let me know if I'm on the right path. Seeking the ideal path is too elusive so I'm content with a pgm that at least shows improvement

[tom]

Well, let me drag out the ol' Lyle McDonald comments, hoping I remember them right. His opinion, based on reading of research papers I don't want to read, seems right to me.

You are not a mouse.

If calorie restriction leads to longer lifespan, you probably are starting too late. You should start as a youth and restrict the heck out of yourself your whole life. That works if you are a mouse and someone is feeding you on some sadistic schedule. However, you are not a mouse.

At the level you have to restrict yourself, you will be physiologically/psychologically climbing the wall with hunger. Some have done it. Personally, I'm betting they were fanatics, and personally I will have nothing to do with fanatics. They are no fun and usually lack a sense of humor. And one particular guy I read about died at a very ordinary age. That piece of anecdotal evidence sticks in my head - do not quote it because I might have it all wrong.

There is an alternative. It is true that if you are overweight it's not healthy. I have been using a combination of nosdiet, caveman, carb control, and intermittent fasting. That sounds more complicated than it is. It's not - it's simpler than anything I've seen, even not thinking about it. Check out Fast5, intermittent fasting (IF). They are like the Warrior Diet.

I've been thinking about starting a thread on hunger. I don't think people know what the different types of hunger are, habit, taste, social, emotional, psychological, maybe more. If that is not dealt with, don't bother to diet.

And, of course, if anybody just follows John's guidelines in his books, sane, down-to-earth guidelines, you can't do better than that.

Oh, and self-deception on the part of the dieter, that's another reason these valid protocols, including John's, don't work.

Tom

Edit:
In this post I am using the term calorie restriction to mean extreme restriction, as the CR (calorie restriction) people use it. As Grunt uses it, all careful eating, dieting protocols, are a form of calorie restriction.

[HE LIVES IN MY HEART]

I think the jury is still out on calorie restriction. Roy Walford, who was a big proponent of it, died at age 79.

You will definitely get lean following a paleo type diet, with out starving yourself - just eat in moderation. I have been following this type of regime for a number of years now without starving myself, I eat in moderation, three times a day (no snacks) and don't stuff myself. By doing that and following the exercise protocol advocated here I have maintained a 32 inch waist at height of 6 feet without any effort (and I'll be age 51 in two weeks).

I think a paleo type diet (I hate that word, I prefer "lifestyle”) is a great choice. Stick with it and you'll be very pleased with not only the cosmetic benefits, but more importantly the health benefits you will reap.

[Alan_OldStudent]

Hi Howard,

Merry Christmas to you!

http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide4.gif

About your diet: Here's my take.

Personally, I think it's best to avoid all fad diets.

About a year and a half ago, I decided to lose weight, and since then, I've lost 70 pounds.

How did I do that?

After my annual physical exam, which showed I was close to becoming diabetic, my doctor sent me to a hospital nutritionist who designed an eating plan for me, taking into consideration my lifestyle, the results of my lab work and annual physical exam, and ethnic preferences.

My weight loss has been at between 1/2 pound and 1-1/2 pounds a week, with several plateaus.

I ended up with an eating style I'm comfortable with, that's healthful, that has variety, and that leaves me feeling satisfied. I had to make some small sacrifices, and most importantly, I tracked everything I ate.

I counted calories and carbs, but not for all foods. Green leafy and non-starchy vegetables, including carrots, I did not count. I did not have to give up my frijoles, tortillas, or tamales, but I did need to exercise moderation.

I also exercised, of course, basing my exercise on Transformetrics and SVTs for 90% and heavyhands for 5% to 10%.

So my advice is don't do a diet that will make you miserable, not feel good, and don't do a diet that you're not willing to do for the rest of your life.

Check out JP's advice for some hints. I don't hold to everything exactly as he says it, but in the main, I think it's good common sense.

Variety and moderation, a routine that leaves you satisfied and that can be maintained over the long haul is best.

But do avoid those gimmicky fad diets.

Regards,

Alan

[Free]

I tend to gravitate towards a calorically restricted diet. I don't do it specifically to live to 140 or anything, but more because I feel better doing it. I take in around 1500-1800 calories a day, in three meals. I think that it is good to stay a bit on the hungry side, but I don't climb the walls, like Tom mentioned. I just think that the body and immune system run more efficiently when it is running lean.

[John Peterson]

hey Friends,

I'm in complete agreement with the concept of "running lean". It just makes good sense. In fact, Quite often I have received e-mails from people suffering from chronic joint pain. in such cases i always recommend fat loss while building muscle. Invariably they discover that just by losing the excessive weight they carry, and enhancing their strength to body weight ratio through the methods that we teach, they can eliminate a great deal, if not most of their chronic pain. Not only that but everything becomes easier and they have far more energy and endurance.

So I'm all for caloric restriction of the type that we don't need and are actually detrimental (and c'mon there is not a single person reading this that does not know what those kinds of calories are) to our best health provided that we receive maximum nourishment through carefully selected nutrients.

---John Peterson

[gruntbrain]

I wish Michael Phelps(Mr Mega Calorie) would chime in

[Free]

There are many things that advanced athletes do, that may enhance short term performance, but not long term health. Consuming massive amounts of calories is one of them.

Olympic athletes also have high rates of cancer. Over training depresses the imune system. There is a big difference between exercising for performance and short term goals, and exercising for longevity and health. Moderation is key.

[tom]

Running lean is a good description. I also call it feeling light. It's a good feeling. I achieve it by not eating it until much later in the day. By then, as long as I deliberately and consciously eat, it doesn't take much to fill me up. I can't believe the volume of food I used to eat, stuffing myself in the name of eating because the clock said it was breakfast, lunch, dinner, etc. . . . not to mention the snacks that were offered while the meals were prepared.

I like the visualization of not eating until later in the day when we finally bring down the buffalo.

However, yesterday the entire tribe stumbled on a mastodon that had gotten stuck in a sink-pit of brussel sprouts, macaroni and cheese, and the prized organs were made of apple pie, key lime pie, and peppermint ice cream. We ate it and all the surroundings.

The difference is, I'm still full and won't eat all day, while others will look at the clock, see it is time to eat breakfast themostimportantmealoftheday, then lunch, then dinner. I'll probably be ready to join them for dinner when we find a rabbit in the snare.

Unless I run into Pierini and his catch of wild tamales.

:act-up:

Tom

[gruntbrain]

Of course, moderation is an elusive, moving target. High volume activity MAY actually be healthful if the volume is increased in baby steps. I'll continue to pound the table for establishing objective strength measures as one way to determine if what the heck you are doin' is OK(if not optimal)

[tom]

Yes, big time.

Don't be fooled by that good-looking hunk he hires from the modeling agency to post videos.

He is really a short, quite overweight, blonde chick who spends her time making delicious tamales and posting on internet fitness sites.

I keep telling you guys, you're talking to a computer screen for crying out loud. Don't take this stuff too seriously.

Sincerely,
Napoleon

[budgiefan]

Tom - would you be good enough to give a little more detail about your eating style. It flies in the face of everything I've read, but that certainly doesn't mean it's "wrong".

I am in the mindset that it I don't eat every few hours, I'll be hungry and....uncomfortable. And, I'm fat.

I'd appreciate any details you can share!

Jeff

[tom]

Budgie, I'd be glad to help, or offer thoughts.

First, except for the nosdiet, I would guess you cannot jump into eating as I do right off the bat. Did you read that belief system thread by Greg? It applies to eating and our view of hunger.

From Monday through Friday I don't eat until 4 or 5, depending on if I have kruddy practice or not.

On Saturday mornings I spoil myself with a big pancake, eggs, sausage breakfast. It's my personal celebration of nothing in particular. Then I'm not hungry until way into the afternoon/evening.

On Sunday I very little to nothing until afternoon/evening.

So, research nosdiet and do it.

Next, read Fast5 (google it). Start thinking about it. Research around on intermittent fasting.

Meals, like bureaucracies, only expand. They will never get smaller on their own. I strongly believe that, in spite of those who say smaller, more frequent meal are best. They will become bigger, more frequent meals.

Moderate protein and plenty of fat will fill you up and keep you going hunger-free for a long time. It is almost guaranteed that the calories will be less than if you include carbs. I think of it this way: protein and fat will not turn to fat as long as there is no carbs, even just a little bit. That is not really true, but it works as a thought. It doesn't take much to make the body produce insulin. That's the key. Learn about it.

Cut way, way back on grains. Not completely . . . remember I said to go nosdiet?

I gotta go. I'm not going to edit this. I think some of it is curt and blunt and dogmatic. I don't mean it that way. I'm sorry. I'll add more later . . . we'll twalk.:act-up:

All the best,
Tom

[Howard Wallace]

Thank you all for your thoughts.

I've eaten low-carb and somewhat Paleo-style for a number of years now. My reasons for considering caloric restriction are not to lose fat. Rather it is for the possible health and longevity benefits. This motivation would keep me on caloric restriction after any "target weight" might be reached. One of my experiences with low-carb is I tend to relax it after a period of time at my target. I am wondering if the different motivation will make a difference in behavior as far as maintaining a stable lifestyle.

One of the theories I've encountered concerning caloric restriction is that it is an adaptation for times of famine. During good times it is in the best interest of the (whatever) species to reproduce, make sure the young are viable, and then die and get out of the way. In times of famine this is not an optimal strategy and the winning strategy is to survive until a better time to reproduce comes along. This theory seems to account for the wide variety of aging effects caloric restriction seems to inhibit in lab animals.

One interesting facet of caloric restriction is that it will lower the basal metabolic rate and body temperature. Most dieters see this as a bad thing. Some diets even cycle the caloric restriction in an attempt to keep the metabolic rate higher. Under caloric restriction you activate the lower metabolic rate and live in that state. One of the things I'm wondering about is the effect of this lower metabolic rate on cognitive function. I've expereinced the lower rate for periods of time but it remains to be seen what the long term effects on my cognitive functions are.

[Flash11740]

I suspect any longevity gains are due ti self digestion of old and damaged cells in place of sufficient food as opposed to the lowering of the metabolic rate. Parrots have a very high metabolic rate but can live to be much older than humans. I'd hazard a guess that a high metabolic rate is a good thing in that it means that cells are being replaced faster, keeping the average age of the body younger, and dealing better with any diseases. Birds recover from injury very quickly compared with people.

Fasting 1 day a week is a better way of achieving the benefits of self digestion of old and damaged cells without lowering the metabolic rate. It's also possible to squeeze in a couple of longer fasts each year if suffering from any infections - just see how much quicker than usual you heal.

I'm talking about water fasting as opposed to juice fasting.

The other advantage is that I'm only short of energy between 6am and noon on Mondays, the rest of the week I feel great, ESPECIALLY around Monday lunchtime. It's like I'm walking on air. The rest of the week my biggest problem is eating enough to keep pace with my training.

[j.geralds]

I am resurrecting this thread to provide my views and experience of CR and IF.

Tom, I missed your response. It is almost exactly in line with what I practice. Mon - Fri compressed eating window to between 6PM to 10PM. Usually the first meal is high protein high fat, little or no carbs, although I no grudge against it in later eating. My rationale is that the body is already running on a ketogenic metabolism and as such will respond better to a fatty meal. Later carbs and the resultant shift to a glucose metabolism isn't a bad thing. The weekends I do whatever I feel like and sometimes (all throughout the holidays) I eat ad libutum during week days too.

When I started to eat like this I performed an 8 week experiment to test its effect. I measured daily: resting heart rate, blood pressure, fasting blood glucose levels, and BG levels an hour after a meal as a rough indicator of insulin response. I also recorded my impressions in a journal. Over that time, I lost fat and gained muscle as measured by before and after body fat % (I was strength training at that time, but I found it remarkable that I was able to gain muscle while consuming so few calories overall.) My HR, BP, and fasting blood glucose levels all decreased. I also experienced an increase in energy and alertness, and felt "sharper" mentally. I found it easy to maintain as a lifestyle and have continued to do so since.

Howard, for CR http://www.longevitymeme.org/ is a great place to look for information. They have a tremendous amount of info on age related research in general, usually stated in an easy to understand manner. I subscribe to the RSS feed through Google Reader and thoroughly enjoy what they send me.

Personally, I think CR is a hard lifestyle to maintain, and that is what drew me to IF. IF offers all the benefits (that's what research is showing), plus a couple more (e.g. increased BDNF - brain derived neurotrophic factor, one of the main regulators of adult neurogenesis). This is even if the same amount of calories is consumed overall. Pretty amazing , right? A good place to start looking is http://www.theiflife.com/. They have a great resource page http://www.theiflife.com/resources/research-studies/ with links to a multitude studies. Also, check out http://robbwolf.com/. The guy is a former molecular biologist, current crossfit trainer. He is smart and has a lot of good info there. Finally, check out http://www.board.crossfit.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8. This is Crossfit's nutrition discussion board. If you do a search, there have been a large number of really great discussions by very athletic individuals and their experiences with IF. These eased my fears that I would waste away.

You wondered about its effects on cognitive functions. Well this is my area (of research), and it was a number of research papers that provided me with the impetus to get serious about this. Basically, it increasing neurogenesis, synaptic plasticity, and long term potentiation. End result, you're smarter with a better memory. I'm willing to get as geeky as you want, but a great place to start is the research done by Mark P. Mattson. Here is a link to a review he wrote: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16899414 and there is a link to the free full text article.

[tom]

Wow, J.. yeah, you pretty much described me, only in a much smarterer way than I does. I'll check out those links/articles, using my big note picture-book dictionary. Thanks.

I used to legitimisize myself by finishing with, "and Free sorta does something like that, too, kinda, uh, I think, and he can do more pull-ups than your daddy!" Now I can throw your name around, too, a real honest to goodness geek-speaker.

You don't by any chance like Lyle McDonald, too, do you? He's my other academic authority on stuff I don't really understand.

Tom

[Howard Wallace]

Thanks J.

I have done caloric restriction in conjunction with low-carb in the past. My way was to get a small bowl and just eat from that for a meal, no seconds or snacks allowed. I didn't have to calculate too much that way. Usually my goal was weight loss, and I found that after a few months at a target weight I would relax the discipline and regain weight. This squares with what you said about CR being difficult to maintain. I was wondering if changing my objective from weight loss would break that pattern.

It would seem that we are designed to build up fat reserves after a time of famine, so this "difficulty" may in fact be a "feature" of us humans.

I'm glad to hear your response on cognitive function. I look forward to perusing the links you provided.

One constraint I'll have to deal with as I plan a caloric restriction/IF approach is my social obligations to eat with others. I think IF may fit into this better and till enable me to have lunches and dinners with colleagues.

[Flash11740]

I fast on the one day a week that I'm not training. This works well because I don;t gain any weight that day. It also helps me recover from any injuries and trauma as I'm digesting the damaged tissue and recycling it. The only downside is that I have my Sunday dinner on Monday now. Makes the weekend last longer though.