I doubt you will, think about this unfortunate Brzilian model, who starved herself to death.

It really is true... the CRONers in them interviews said this even before these studies came out. It is very real, just as SIRT1 stimulation increase mitochondria and DOUBLED ENDURANCE in that very recent Resveratrol Study. I don't understand why some are calling all CRONers liars based on their own experience. The science backs up what we are saying. Arthur De Vany said this too, when he was at the calorie restriction conference, IF and CR increases energy to find food. It makes sense.

Funny you mentioned runners, this activity IMHO causes the most oxydative stress. Actually, everytime we eat, breath, or simply perform any task that requires oxygen we shorten our lives. Everything we do creates free radicals and oxydative stress. I start thinking may be anaerobic sports (weight lifting) are better than so highly prised aerobics, less oxydative stress after all.
But I also wonder if CR can also restrict their oxygen consumption by just breathing less.
A machinery that is barely used will definitely last longer: eat very little, conserve energy (physical and mental), don't have children (wonder why nuns lived much longer), and don't stress about your family, loved ones, work, finances, etc, etc.
Works for rodents, but not too practical for normal human being.

Two of them, recently, that I read about... but I don't think they really were out to live forever, just to be smaller. I guess if you get too carried away with either extreme of eating, you're not going to have a very happy ending.

I, personally, have battled disordered food behavior of various forms most of my life. Binging and compulsively overeating aren't exactly healthy, either, but most of te years I didn't LOOK sick, nor was I too fat or thin.

Like some of the statements in the site linked to in my signature, there are all sorts of eating disorders... so judging solely by appearance is fairly poor criteria, IMO. No getting around it, Whoa's a skinny boy (and I'm old, so I call any male under 30 a "boy" so don't get offended, Whoa ) but he seems to have a healthier relationship with food than a lot of people I know. The plate-lickers? Not so much...

I think it's the opposite, why body will make you look for food when it has been starving for some time? It shoud rather supress appetite to conserve energy. But even if it so, what kind of energy it is? Is it energy generated by optimal nutrition and properly working metabolism, or energy increase due to adrenal overload pumping adrenalin and cortisol hoping that this energy boost will result in more fuel? These two are diferent sources of energy and will make you feel different too.
Gnawing pain of constant hunger is stressfull, so body is operating under constant stress. I think permanent undereating should work as appetite suppressor, and will shut down most mody functions, and operate at a low gear to survive.

I believe humans by nature are sort of "obsessed" with food, given that nutriotion is crucial for not only surviving but reproduction and nurturing. This is a surving mechanism. But I also beleive that if we have cheap and accessible food around, and we don't spend days doing hard physical work (as we used to), ultimately we will overeat. definetely, there are phycocological aspects of one's eating habits, but I also beleive we did not get far away from Pavlov's dog and certain things can trigger natural reflexes. Watching food comercial, smeeling somthing yummy, watching others having your favorite food, etc. can "trigger" appetite even if you did not feel hungry right before that. it takes natural (sickness) or artificial appetite suppression (ketosis) for humans to eat when everything revolves around food.
I am not a binger and never been skinny or too fat eigther, but I definetely not a light or picky eater by nature, and if I won't listen to my body or watch what I eat, it is easy for me to overindulge.

You're right, it is our nature. All those evolutionary cues to hunt down or gather food, the urge to eat while food was abundant to hold us over when it wasn't... except now it IS, all the time. That's why I personally feel IF and CRON might be on to something, at least in part. There's a line somewhere between starvation and our current view of optimal fitness-magazine pictures of health.

I don't think we're ever going to find one "right" way to eat, or certainly never agree on what it is. I'm going to put all my eggs in the low-carb basket, but I'm really finding the discussion fascinating.

For those that do have energy problems or feel a little bit down, especially around this time of the year... you really should give power yoga a go. I got this DVD a while back Power Yoga - Total Body Workout and I feel extremely good after a session everyday... But it is very tough, makes you sweat within minutes! lol. Read up on Power yoga and what its about here http://www.abc-of-yoga.com/styles-o.../power-yoga.asp

And here are a list of potential benefits from doing yoga
http://www.abc-of-yoga.com/beginner...ogabenefits.asp

Whoa,
You really onto something... like reinventing a wheel, LOL. Now you into promoting power yoga. I suspectthink everyone is aware that yoga is great and power yoga is a very good workout. However, it does not replace food

I just think its a great thing to compliment a healthy lifestyle... why not share your experience right? My experience is, yoga is excellent, especially for feeling better around this time of year with all the dark nights and stuff. It really helped me when I was doing night shifts last year, I don't think I seen daylight for over a month!

Maybe other things I'm doing is keeping me from being in this depressed, miserable state that so many seem to say happens with CR. That's what I'm getting at.

Oh boy! Valerie, I wonder if Whoa's last post changes your opinion?

Anyway, I think Mutant was probably right. It seems Whoa probably is an obsessive CR evangelist whose particular eating disorder has led to stunted physical maturity and shattered body composition.

Now Whoa, none of the CRon studies which varied macronutrient ratio used healthy unprocessed food for the experimental animals, which at least approximated their evolutionary diet. Lab chow is by definition processed.
Again none of the primate CRon studies varied macronutrient ratio for extended periods, even within the highly innappropriate dietary food variables they were using.

So the CRon studies you keep quoting don't 'prove' (actually they don't even really even suggest that macronutrient ratio is not of primary importance in minimizing the degree of calorie restriction necessary to produce a particular longevity improvement.

As I've pointed out to you more than once, the studies that would prove the importance of macronutrient ratio in deciding on the necessary degree of life extension haven't been even designed yet, let alone commenced. The almost breathtakingly narrow vision of the CR research community is partly to blame, but the reasons are actually fairly complex.

But as also been pointed out many, many times, you can save yourself years of your particular miserable emaciating calorie restriction by just taking into account the evolutionary macronutrient ratio imperatives nature has genetically saddled us with.

I'm curious Whoa, why have you slashed your own carb intake if you weren't starting to realize macronutrient ratio has a direct and inviolable health impact? I mean if you live a few extra decades, but aren't as healthy because you stuffed up the macronutrient ratio on the way, why bother?

So even if you feel it necessary to virtually starve yourself (Whoa is emaciated, by the way. That's not 'venom' that's just honest), why not at least eat the (restricted calorie) macronutrient ratio you were designed for.

You bandy the word 'proof' about as if the current crop of CRon studies are the final word on how best to approach life extension (and while we're on the subject of life, quality of life ) using calorie control. I mean, we also have forty years of so called 'good' research that saturated fat is unhealthy. That should itself ring a few alarm bells that piles of research papers might be better as compost. Instead you believe that nonsense as well .

So if you think the best way to settle this (sensibly . Whoa believe me, I'm just as interested as you are in maximizing lifespan, and quality of life - I'm sorry constant hunger is not part of the plan) is to just let existing research 'studies' square off, then I should just slash my calorie intake start eating more 'healthy' carbohydrate, and watch my body composition go south.

This is not about studies Whoa. It's about not ignoring the obvious. You are skeletal. All CRonies who restrict calories to the extent you do are skeletal. In fact all mammals who forced to restrict calories to the Whoa extent (believe me, they don't go willingly ) look skeletal. I've yet to see an example of a CRonie who doesn't.

Paleowoman's mention of Art Devany and the Eades as if they would even dream of restricting calorie intake to Whoa's extent was unfortunate. Art Devany coined the concept of evolutionary fitness. CRon is the antithesis of evolutionary fitness. Both the Eades and DeVany like the idea of the life extension promise of CRon, but realize it is a no brainer because of the body composition (at the very least ) compromises necessary.

Let's stop this endless procession of 'studies' Whoa. Please start looking in the mirror. Maybe then you'll start to realize that your various 'hardline stances' are wasted energy (Woops! I forgot, you have energy to spare )

No, it doesn't. He's still just saying that only CR produces documentable longevity benefits. If you've got some studies that prove low-carb does the same thing, pony them up and we'll talk.

In the meantime, this... reinforces my original point. This discussion is degrading into name-calling and intolerance.

Val

I believe I've posted this before:


http://biology.plosjournals.org/per...al.pbio.0030223

It's also well known that protein restriction has beneficial effects for some Parkinson's patients and, of course, renal disease. And nobody seems to be studying it at all. It could be just the tip of the iceberg.

The simple fact is we are really ignorant about the subject of nutrition, so folks making absolute claims in this thread are, well, making absolute claims in the absence of definitive evidence, to be polite.

Why is the tone of this thread so vituperative and nasty? It's always been like this, and I never have figured it out entirely. I think part of it is because of jealousy, and some people seem to be using this thread to work through their own issues. But there also seems to be some score settling going on, and this thread seems to be the place where people come to settle their personal scores. That's too bad, because it degrades the quality of what could be an informative discussion to the level of a schoolyard namecalling contest. Some of the participants ought to be a little old for that sort of thing, but maybe they have been practicing mental CRON....

All the data about varied macronutrient ratios and life span are in the book. They went through almost every component of the diet you can think of to see if it was 'just' calories that mattered. Although macronutrients made some changes to cancer incidence, an increase in average lifespan of cron animals, but little change in maximum.

Weindruch and Walford's - The Retardation of aging

Get it on loan or something.

Or email him and ask yourself!
http://aging.wisc.edu/research/affil.php?Ident=67

A good paper here that may be of interest

How does calorie restriction work?
http://web.mit.edu/biology/guarente/references/12.pdf