Study: Watching Calories Takes Commitment
The Associated Press
Friday, February 17, 2006; 10:02 PM


ST. LOUIS -- Losing that extra weight is one thing. Keeping it off requires a lifetime of counting calories.

That's the message from a more than two-decade study of monkeys conducted by Barbara Hansen of the University of South Florida, Tampa.


Genetic differences allow some primates to remain thin and others to grow fat when fed an identical diet over the years, the study found.

Other monkeys, when forced to slim down by as much as 25 percent, regained the weight they'd lost once caloric restrictions were lifted _ regardless of whether they'd been on a diet for two months or two years, Hansen said.

"The price of leanness is eternal vigilance," said Hansen, who presented her research Friday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Hansen has long studied the effects of calorie restriction in roughly 300 rhesus monkeys.

Cutting calories can pay off when it comes to longevity: Monkeys fed 30 percent less over the long term extended their lifetimes to 30 years from an average of 23 years, Hansen said.

The slimmer monkeys staved off the diabetes, high cholesterol, hypertension and other weight-related ailments that typically shortened the lives of their heavier peers, she added.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6021702094.html

If they had let the monkeys out of their cages long enought to swing to the bookstore -- maybe one of them would have been smart enough to buy Dr Atkins book and apply it.

Then they could have eaten all they wanted.

Is putting your pet on a traditional high carb pet food considered pat abuse ? Should be.

Beat the "health experts" -- not the cute little monkeys!

Kebaldwin, One thing to think about.
Losing weight is never a one thing works. Its a lot of "one thing"s working. And removing some other "one thing" if they don't work. For each and everyone here.

For example, using me: I can't eat carbs. But I eat more carbs than 20grams with beans, nuts, and veggies.. oh and a few berries. I can't eat low carb products: Soy and SA aren't tolerated by my body. I'm also allergic to wheat and milk. Ok. Isn't Soy suppose to be good for you (by some)? Isn't Dairy good for you (by some)? Whole Grains are good for you (by some)? I also have to watch my calories. Why? I'm very heavy I hardly exercise so I don't need that many calories. I just don't.
To make a blanket statement that calories don't count on Atkins, isn't true. They do. But please Atkins users. Each person has there own things they know they can or can't eat. Be honest, does a low carb food cause cravings? Stomach aches? Headaches? etc. Then don't eat it. Always try new things. If it wasn't for my allergies, I wouldn't eat over half the veggies I enjoy now. I love green peppers, onions, sprouts (radish), cauliflower and fennel.. all veggie I ate very little of before Atkins.

If you want to get technical about what I believe and don't believe -- I believe in the "type diets" where some people do best on just "meat, eggs, and cheese" whereas others do best on just veggies and fruit (low glycemic, plant based, carbs).

It also depends on the body composition that you want -- and what your goals are. Some people are obsessed with weight. To them - weight is everything. Percent body fat versus percent lean -- means nothing. Most women want a slim figure - most guys want a muscular build.

A lot of people that have not seen me in 2 years have complimented me on how much weight I have lost. Sometimes I just say "thanks" even though I have not lost ANY weight in like 3 years. It's much easier than explaining that my weight has not changed, but I have lost a lot of fat and gained a lot of muscle.

I am willing to accept a muscular build and am probably off the scale towards the just "meat, eggs, and cheese". I think this is typical of most guys that were muscular and played sports in middle and high schools and then got really fat in their 30s and 40s.

So I can eat like 4,000 calories per day, lose fat, and build muscle. And I do very little cardio exercise. Yard work is about the extent of it. But I do strength training exercises 3 or 4 times per week in front of the TV.

Regarding problems I have with this article.

First, they are obsessed with weight. Implying that being muscular is bad.

Second, that you have to count calories. I try not to -- since it scares me how many calories I eat.

Third, they went into the whole - eat less and live longer -- theory. I believe that is incorrect. I think it should be -- eat low glycemic and live longer.

Fourth, they talked about the monkeys going back to eating bad things if given the chance. There are all kinds of bad things that we can do to ourselves -- eating high glycemic foods, smoking, drinking, etc. I think all three are more similar than different. I think all three are addictions.

I think you are correct in that if your metabolism type is more plant based -- and you want a skinny (non muscular) build -- then you have to do more cardio and cut back on your calories. Back when I was younger that is what I did to lose weight. Once I reached about age 35 -- that no longer worked for me.

I have seen over the years of low carbing that my body burns carbs and alcohol first. So the fewer carbs I consume -- the more fat my body will burn.

Now wasn't my typical "smart ass", sarcastic comment much shorter and sweeter?

What they should have done is offered the #%$^ monkeys a variety of low glycemic foods. The monkeys with "meat and egg" metabolisms would have gotten healthy, not lost much weight, probably gotten more muscular. The monkeys that prefer veggies would have lost weight, exercised more.



I would be careful here. The reason induction is two weeks -- is that is about how long it takes for you to clean the junk out of your body and really determine how something effects you. I have an addiction (cravings) for smoking, drinking, and high glycemic foods. I always get hangovers (headaches) from cheating on my diet.

Look at it from a different perspective. What if you had several alcoholic drinks for breakfast, a couple for morning snack, several for lunch, several for afternoon snack, more for dinner, evening snack, etc. Then you had this great idea -- maybe drinking isn't good for me. Maybe I should try quiting drinking! So after a couple of days of quitting drinking -- the aches and pains are so bad -- you think that your body is meant to keep drinking.

Carbohydrates are the same way. Withdraws from drugs, smoking, etc -- are always painful short term -- and you always have the cravings long term.

Good for you, but if you keep that up then 70 years of research suggests it doesn't matter whether you turn out to be fat or not, you will die sooner than someone eating 2000 calories or less.



When they were looking to extend the life, being very muscular is not such a good idea as it takes more calories to maintain.



Then what you believe is wrong, eating low glycemic has it's benifits but nowhere near to the extend of lowering caloric intake. Does not matter on the composition of the diet, only that calories are reduced and optimal nutrition is there.



They gave the best monkey diet a monkey could have, supplied with extra nutrients to make sure they werent deficient and were not given any foods that would damage their health, like Hi Glycemic foods.

Okay, then show me where they studied this. I have not seen that study.

I have seen numerous studies talking about lower calories -- which would of course be lower on glycemic index. But I have not seen a study where they have done a low glycemic diet versus low calorie.

Please show me that.

Can you provide the link, I can't find it. I'd like some details about their diet. There's plenty of stuff published by Barbara Hansen about monkeys but I can't find this one.

Here's my concern, from the article:




I think there's lots of evidence now that DM, cholesterol and hypertension are carb-related ailments. I'd like to know what they really ate. My suspicion is that they were given Purina-brand rhesus monkey food, made from corn meal, like their dogfood, hamsterfood, fishfood etc., along with some bananas and mangos.

Whoa, do you think free-living rhesus monkeys ever develop diabetes, bad cholesterol or hypertension?

Our pets develop human chronic diseases, and I wouldn't be surprised that zoo animals do too.

These monkeys may not live 7 years longer than their heavier peers, they may live 7 years longer than their insulin-resistant peers, who's life is 7 years shorter due to carb-induced chronic diseases.

You state:



as if this is a fact. This may be something you really really want to believe, but in humans, there is NO evidence that eating low calorie beats eating low carb. Get over it.

I am fed up of repeating myself over and over again but it does not matter what the macro-nutrient ratio is, it can be 80% carb - 60% - 40% - it does not matter in terms of how much life extension animals get. It's all dependant on total amount of calories consumed and has nothing to do with anything else. other than they have to be supplied with higher level of nutrients than ad lib, I think it's because of the reason that woo pointed out in another thread, CR affects the way some nutrients are absorbed.

Many people that do CR are also lower inevitbly consuming fewer carbs anyway, some of the women doing CR only get around 100g carb a day. but regardless of how many carbs, the benificial effects of CR still happen if one were eating 200g or 300g.

plenty more on this later one later, with some studies .

but what you mean here is no evidence that CR beats low carb... ? beats at what? please explain in more detail.



and you dont think they are associated with excess calories at all?

Do you claim that someone eating like 1,200 calories but standard American diet will live longer than someone eating 2,400, or even 3,600 low carb calories???

Not had time to look into the studies yet, but I would like to show you two articles that anyone here can read and understand, then please post your comments on it. This is related to the idea that low carb apparently beats calorie restriction (beats at what, I don't know..)

For those who can't be bothered, he is a quotes from the article on CR'd heart function:

Low Calorie group
http://www.scitechinfo.com/node/106 - try read all of it!

"studying heart function in members of an organization called the Calorie Restriction Society, investigators at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis found that their hearts functioned like the hearts of much younger people. - " their hearts looked 15 years younger " -

"Ultrasound examinations showed that the hearts of people on caloric restriction appeared more elastic than those of age- and gender-matched control subjects. Their hearts were able to relax between beats in a way similar to the hearts in younger people."

low carb group:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4435046.stm

"They found that the energy stored in the heart was reduced by an average of 16% among those who followed a high fat, low carbohydrate diet."

"Their hearts also became slightly 'stiffer' - not relaxing quite as well as before the diet."

"In some people the energy reduction was as much as a third."

One problem here is that the low carb was only a short term study... but I will be looking more into this soon.

No because the diet would be very deficient in too many nutrients and could shorten life span significantly. Also I would like to point out that most CR'd people consume 50% Complex carbs.

Maybe we ought to join in with the monkeys and eat ants. Probably very low calorie and low carb. The crunchy treat we can all agree on! Mmm, chitin!

Make mine chocolate-coated.

whoa, there is no evidence that people on cr extend life. improved biomarkers, which may indicate better health, do not prove that people are going to live longer.

btw, the study on heart energy being decreased in lcers was for 2 weeks. the body takes time to adapt to switching over from a diet composed mainly of carbs to a diet high in fat. two weeks is just not enough time.

if my heart is losing energy, my body doesn't seem to know it. i've been running marathons for 7 years, all on low-carb.

They made my point exactly. These people are suppose to be eating "low calorie" are really eating low carb !!! Read it again. They are comparing people on a low carb diet against people eating "a typical Western diet".

I agree that the diet these researchers recommend is much healthier than the typical western diet. It is because it is low glycemic. With plenty of omega 3s. The diet they recommend is like Atkins maintenance.

you mean, hi GI complex carbs, like rice and potatoes?

here's what you have to remember. some people may be able to eat a low-calorie diet that is also 50% carbohydrate and low-fat, and not notice hunger. but the large majority of people who have had weight problems and/or disturbed glucose metabolism issues would simply be hungry and irritable all the time on a low-cal/low-fat diet. not to mention, there's no evidence that people with these sort of metabolsim issues will see improvments on low-calore/hi-carb diets.

however, the same low-calorie diet, which *replaces most of the carbs with fat*, can not only improve glucose metabolism, but do it while staving off hunger.

also, comparing the 2 heart studies (calorie-restricted vs. "low-carb") becomes meaningless when the cronnies studied had been practicing calorie restriction for six years and the "low-carbers" were on their lc plan for 2 weeks.