Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sat, Oct-16-04, 07:42
OzSlimmer's Avatar
OzSlimmer OzSlimmer is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 245
 
Plan: South Beach
Stats: 143/136.6/125 Female 63 inches
BF:hopefully shrinkin
Progress: 36%
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Default Severe Calorie Restriction as a Lifestyle

I just read another portion control thread and it reminded me of this:

I was just reading an article in the newspaper today about this new sect of people called the CR group. They severely restrict calories based on the fact that they think it increases their lifespan. They eat one meal a day (usually just a salad and a piece of chicken - no dressing). They do this not because they want to be thin but because they think that eating that few of meals put your body into a survival mode that will increase their lifespan.

My whole point was - why live another 20 years (if that is the case which I'm still severely doubtful on) if you have to be HUNGRY for another 20 years? Part of life is enjoying food and company and LIVING.

Here's the link below - the article is long so I decided not to include it here.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2...7607366308.html
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sat, Oct-16-04, 07:49
Lisa N's Avatar
Lisa N Lisa N is offline
Posts: 12,028
 
Plan: Bernstein Diabetes Soluti
Stats: 260/-/145 Female 5' 3"
BF:
Progress: 63%
Location: Michigan
Default

I'm not sure that calorie restriction actually helps people live longer or if it just makes it seem like it.

I've heard of this strategy before, but I have to ask myself if living an extra 20 years of deprivation would be worth the deprivation?
Another thought that comes to mind is that it's possible that these people are all suffering from eating disorders and using the "science shows we'll live longer if we don't eat" smokescreen as a means of legitimizing it.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sat, Oct-16-04, 08:16
potatofree's Avatar
potatofree potatofree is offline
Fully Caffeinated
Posts: 17,245
 
Plan: Back to Atkins
Stats: 298/228/160 Female 5ft9in
BF:?/35/?
Progress: 51%
Default

I wonder about that too. How many "healthy" eating styles would fall under that heading? It, to me, appears to be like a chicken-and-the-egg type thing where people with eating disorders pick up a tiny bit of science and find a "home" there. If you pick an eating plan with elements of your disorder, just like Lisa said, you can use it as a smokescreen.

I know binge eaters who claim to be doing CAD, anorexics and bulemics who take Atkins to the extreme, living on the fat fast and claiming they're too "metabolically resistant" to lose on induction when they already have a very low body weight...

Actually, I was suprised to find that one of the red flags for ED is the elimination of entire groups of food as being "bad". Whether it be fat or carbs....
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sat, Oct-16-04, 10:50
mps's Avatar
mps mps is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 392
 
Plan: NHE/UD2/General LC
Stats: 175/175/175 Male 6'
BF:10/6/?
Progress:
Location: Michigan
Default An opposing viewpoint...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...l-cmh052804.php
Could mice hold the secret to longer life?


Scientists from the University of Aberdeen, the Aberdeen-based Rowett Research Institute and the Medical Research Council (MRC) in Cambridge have made a major breakthrough in understanding how metabolism affects lifespan.

In a seven-year study of mice they found that those with the highest metabolic rate lived the longest, raising the prospect that the effect could be mimicked in humans.

Scientists have long thought that a high metabolic rate was linked to a shortened life-span. The present discovery turns this century old belief on its head and changes dramatically our understanding of the regulation of life-span.

Metabolism is the means by which nutrients are broken down to smaller building blocks and chemical energy, which are used to make new body materials and to do work.

The researchers discovered that the most metabolically active 25% of the mice studied, far from having shorter life-spans, in fact lived 36% longer than the least active. If the same effects are mimicked in humans then the finding would imply that a higher metabolic rate could add an extra 27 years to the average human lifespan.

When the muscles of the most metabolically active mice were examined, they were found to contain factors that increased their metabolism by making it less efficient.

Although the scientists do not yet fully understand how these factors work, it is suspected that while the make the metabolism less efficient, on the positive side they reduce the generation of toxic by-products called "oxygen free radicals".
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sat, Oct-16-04, 16:12
mio1996's Avatar
mio1996 mio1996 is offline
Glutton for Grease!
Posts: 1,338
 
Plan: Primal-VLC
Stats: 295/190/190 Male 76
BF:don't/really/care
Progress: 100%
Location: Clemson, SC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzSlimmer
My whole point was - why live another 20 years (if that is the case which I'm still severely doubtful on) if you have to be HUNGRY for another 20 years? Part of life is enjoying food and company and LIVING.


I've often said that if my heart explodes tommorrow, at least I've been thin and happy while keeping full of rich food. That may sound extreme, but its all about quality of life for me. The good health is a wonderful side effect, though. I was never free of hunger until lc'ing, and that alone makes it work for me. No more hunger pangs! Woohoo!
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Wed, Nov-24-04, 19:23
AtkinsBOY1 AtkinsBOY1 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 82
 
Plan: ATKINS ALL THE WAY
Stats: 240/155/155 Male 5ft 8inches
BF:
Progress:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzSlimmer
I just read another portion control thread and it reminded me of this:

I was just reading an article in the newspaper today about this new sect of people called the CR group. They severely restrict calories based on the fact that they think it increases their lifespan. They eat one meal a day (usually just a salad and a piece of chicken - no dressing). They do this not because they want to be thin but because they think that eating that few of meals put your body into a survival mode that will increase their lifespan.

My whole point was - why live another 20 years (if that is the case which I'm still severely doubtful on) if you have to be HUNGRY for another 20 years? Part of life is enjoying food and company and LIVING.

Here's the link below - the article is long so I decided not to include it here.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2...7607366308.html


Firt of All thats not true. My parewnts are both doctors and they said what they are doing is becoming anxeix and actually they will die very soon bystarinving their body to death. My step mom does biochemisrty ans she says that salad has not enough nutiets to live on and many people die everry year trying to do stupid things like that. You will by no means live an extra year a matter affact you cholsetrol will go up becuase that happens to many anerxiots and you will bhecome messed up. Even if you take supplemnts its by no menas halty. Wheres your fat wers protein those are the key componets of living a haelty life. Follow atkins Eat meat, butter, veggies, fruits and you will ive a far healthier life than those peolple. I dont care what the newspaper says guess what my parents are doctors and they said and go do reaserch salad has not enoguh nutrients to live on. Its funny we disscused this in chem class today. And my teacher said it is impossibble tolive in lettuce if you do survive you would lose a ton of muslce mas and you will become so unhealty and you will die. So by no means dont do som4ething so stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Wed, Nov-24-04, 22:10
carrottop carrottop is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 390
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 200/190/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress:
Default

Some points:

1. We do not know that the people who do this are hungry. We can speculate that they may be crazy.

2. The studies start the mice out from birth. These people did not have that advantage.

3. If they try to do this with their children, they will be arrested.

4. The scientists did not test the IQ's of the mice. What is good in theory for the metabolism may not be good for the brain.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Thu, Nov-25-04, 14:22
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is online now
Experimenter
Posts: 25,843
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

I remember years ago reading about people who were doing calorie restriction. But the studies on animals that were calorie restricted, I think they cut their food back by 30%. So for a typical person, it'd be a 1400 calorie a day diet.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Wed, Dec-08-04, 22:55
chaih20 chaih20 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 38
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 123/122/115 Female 64 inches
BF:
Progress: 13%
Location: Vermont!
Default

As long as they're getting enough nutrients than I guess we couldn't say its bad for them per se, but at the same time, I give little credit to the theory that they will live longer. the above post made a good point-- these animal studies started out from birth and their metabolisms never had to adjust to a lower level of eating, they simply always ate that way. The other thing, appetite is a brain chemistry function, and your body is self-regulating. Why would our bodies be telling us we are hungry if its better for us to not eat? Human beings are evolutionary creatures like any others so why would we have genes that give us this brain chemistry function? If human being survived better (I.E. LONGER) on lower calories, we would not have this mechanism. It could be argued that people don't reprodice after a certain age, like 45, or so, and therefore no lifespan-increasing genes would matter after that age (because evolution is the direct result of which species can reproduce successfully and survive to create the next generation) but that would only be the case for females. Males can make a kid much older. and maybe there was some 72 yr old neanderthal still having kids way back when. I don't know. Just, instinctively, something tells me this deprivation diet isn't right. Our bodies are like they are for a reason-- they are most efficient this way, and they survived best this way , and our hunger mechanism is just as much a part of our physical bodies as our hands and eyelashes.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Wed, Dec-29-04, 19:05
Duparc's Avatar
Duparc Duparc is offline
New Member
Posts: 586
 
Plan: self-designed
Stats: 216/189/190 Male tad under 6'
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Kirriemuir, Scotland
Default

Calorie restriction has been producing interesting results since research started on it around 1935. The research is continuing today on higher animal forms and the results continue to be interesting. Researchers have experimented too with older animals and have increased their average life-span and brought about considerable health benefits. There is little doubt that CR will probably have considerable benefits to those who follow it.

There is a problem with CR as it currently exists, and there is a difference between CR and LC, but not such a great difference.

The late Dr Roy Walford who was one of the latest pioneers in the CR arena put his reputation on-the-line when he wrote the book, 'The 120 Year Diet'. He followed the results of his research yet died prior to his 80th birthday having suffered from some neurological problem for around 3 years prior to his death. I do not wish to be unkind to his reputation but with his demise occurring around the average human time for death, then he, figuratively speaking, shot himself in the foot!

The trouble with CR is that it was highjacked by vegetarianism. To my knowledge, the great man's diet had leanings in this direction and I wonder if that was the cause of his ill-health and his apparent earlier demise. I am not seeking to discredit him. His research was, indeed, fascinating and continues to be so.

LC dieting has been known for considerably much longer but the little research done on it was discredited by its critics. Unlike CR where funds were readily available for research, LC became the Ugly Sister and was denied research funding.

More interestingly, the results arising from today's research on LC prompted, presumably by the influence of Robert Aitkins is showing more enhanced benefits than that of CR.

One needs to remember that our species survived through 10,000 years of the Ice Age when carbs were probably non-existent. Look at the life-styles too of the Eskimos prior to the recent influence of Western society.

My suspicion is that Roy Walford's demise was probably brought about by a high-carb diet that kept his insulin levels high. The current message seems to be, the lower the carbs the better the results.

Roy Walford was also known to have exercised regularly. If my recollection is correct he liked jogging. While one is tempted to exercise when energy levels are high, I still harbour doubts about the necessity for it.

Arctic explorers today apparently use up 12,000 calories in a day's trekking and use butter as their main dietary source to replace the lost energy. Slowly, the message is beginning to percolate through the conservatism of the medical profession that a diet high in fat and protein, and low, very low, in carbohydrates may possess health benefits.

Last edited by Duparc : Wed, Dec-29-04 at 19:37.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Thu, Dec-30-04, 09:46
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,757
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/167/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 116%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

Duparc,

I went to the Wolford web site ( http://www.walford.com )and found two days worth of sample menus. Day 1 was 1524 calories and did include 2 oz of salmon. Day 2 was 1472 calories and 3 oz of chicken. Both days were very low fat and high in carbs, around 200 gm net (lots of whole grains).

There are lots of people who are low-carbing that eat around 1500 calories per day. I expected Wolford's diet to be lower than that. With the high carbs, I would also expect the insulin level to be high.

While not vegetarian, it is low in animal fats and would be short in essential fatty acids. The diet is full of healthy sounding words that are the core of many vegetarian diets; whole-wheat, mixed grains, fresh juice, falafel, sprouts, tahini, sun-dried , etc.

If I was surviving on 1500 calories, I would be very hungry on his diet. If I did 1500 calories on low-carb, I would be much happier.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Tue, Feb-01-05, 18:54
Duparc's Avatar
Duparc Duparc is offline
New Member
Posts: 586
 
Plan: self-designed
Stats: 216/189/190 Male tad under 6'
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Kirriemuir, Scotland
Default

Hi Mike,

You might be interested to know that I was a vegetarian for 17 years which ended with having an emergency quadruple by-pass! That was in 1990. Bacon and eggs, fried in beef-dripping each morning since, and the abandonment of all fats except saturated, restored me to full health. Today, at the age of 74 I am in excellent health and do not suffer from any aches nor pains nor am I on prescription medication. I still have a healthy libido and do a workout occasionally with weights. Two years ago I remarried and continue to believe that I have a future (there won't, however, be any children on this occasion).

Need more be said? Stay on course!

Last edited by Duparc : Tue, Feb-01-05 at 19:07.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Wed, Feb-02-05, 06:59
arctica arctica is offline
New Member
Posts: 23
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 234/234/120 Female 5'2"
BF:
Progress: 0%
Location: United Kingdom
Default

Duparc, you are a great encouragement to me. I have been doing low carb for three weeks now -- am hypoglycaemic and feel the best I have felt in years. My clothes are looser, my face is thinner and the energy levels have soared. I am only 49 but now I feel like I could live until I am 100 at least. My husband's family is originally from Scotland. I am an American, but living in the UK. I powerwalk between 5 to 8 miles a day and do yogalates with a resistance band.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Wed, Feb-02-05, 11:23
fluffybear fluffybear is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 3,221
 
Plan: low carb/low fat
Stats: 255/236/155 Female 5 ft. 9 in.
BF:32%/?/20%
Progress: 19%
Location: USA
Default

I watch the TODAY show every morning and honestly I can't say that I ever saw a fat 100 year old on there. Calorie restriction does NOT neccessarily mean you are starving yourself your entire life. It just means you are eating a little below the average intake of calories. For instance if you should eat 2500 calories a day to maintain your ideal weight, then eat 2000. That is not such a huge reduction that you couldn't enjoy life. I rarely hear thin people complain about being hungry. It is usually heavy people who are always hungry. I believe it is because even though they are eating too much, it is not the right foods. In fact I saw an article that said one of the reasons obese persons have bad health is because they are literally starving themselves of the proper nutrients. At over 250 lbs. I felt awful all the time myself. I have ust recently cut my calories down to below 2000 a day. Not that I actually count them, but when I put what I've eaten down on FITDAY, it says my daily caloric intake is between 1500-1800 calories.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Wed, Feb-02-05, 14:46
serrelind serrelind is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,649
 
Plan: paleoish
Stats: 130/104/105 Female 5'1"
BF:-
Progress: 104%
Location: Florida
Default

I agree with fluffybear. I think extreme of anything just isn't healthy. I will buy the theory that you live longer with calorie restriction. Metabolizing food is demanding to the body as well as being an inflammatory process. Years of that will shorten one's life. However, living on 400 cals a day is damaging to the body as well. So I agree that you can lenghten your life by eating less, but not extremely less...

Serre
Reply With Quote
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Facts About Dr. Atkins Diet Calorie Intake fern2340 LC Research/Media 8 Wed, Mar-01-06 03:21
increased calorie needs Colleenski Beginner/Low Intensity 7 Tue, Sep-20-05 23:46
Question about calorie deficits and "starvation mode" Big Dog Beginner/Low Intensity 1 Fri, Oct-11-02 20:17
calorie tracking software? tomoolson General Low-Carb 6 Sun, Jul-07-02 11:25
Calorie intake John19 Newbies' Questions 4 Fri, Jan-18-02 23:43


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:09.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.