What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
135 Comments
- j1337, on 10/21/2007, -11/+49I think I'd rather enjoy delicious junk food and sweets than live to an advanced age.
- Otto, on 10/20/2007, -1/+16With that attitude, nobody will miss you either.
- AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -3/+18Live well, eat well, evoke happiness, Die happy.
- aukxsona, on 10/22/2007, -7/+18Excellent science behind this, but unfortunately it must be started early. This is hard in our society and often frowned on. Parents have to worry about Social Services, Teens worry about parents calling them anorexic, modern foods leave little choice for healthy low calorie foods, advertising begs you to take on more bite, it's often easier to buy a soda and a candy bar than an apple and a glass of tea. The point is the article is right on, but implementing it would be very hard.
- webcure, on 10/20/2007, -1/+12I think this is interesting. I don't think 20% will make anyone anorexic. I don't know if I would start it on kids or teens before they have developed fully. This diet is what I do. 2 meals a day, lots of veggies.
- fayeumi, on 10/20/2007, -0/+10There's a Japanese belief that you should only eat until your stomach is 80% full, and they live longer than anyone else.
- IHaveIssues, on 10/20/2007, -1/+10I'd rather not waddle and be able to play sports at will for a long time.
- BigglesPiP, on 10/19/2007, -2/+8Or you could eat twice the RDA and do lots of stuff.
- inactive, on 10/20/2007, -3/+9Apparently if you eat more animals your experience increases and you get more HP.
- Vryz, on 10/21/2007, -1/+7It has to be started gradually, not early. You can't go from 2500 down to 1800 overnight. If you're losing more than 1 pound a week you have cut your calories too far, which does indeed cause health problems.
- scm21st, on 10/19/2007, -0/+6The nutritionist in the picture certainly looks healthy. Very vivacious.
- sangjmoon, on 10/20/2007, -0/+5The main problem is that children are trained to eat when they aren't hungry by parents. It is actually better to eat smaller portions throughout the day than two or three big meals based on time instead of hunger. Eating less is only part of the whole picture. Your metabolism is adaptive and has "momentum". You have to gradually change it to get the greatest chance of success or you will revert or cause shock. This requires discipline and often a lifestyle change. If you attempt to suddenly change your metabolism and fail, it is actually worse than if you never tried at all in the first place.
- Mallus, on 10/31/2007, -1/+6Two things:
First, there is no reason it has to be started early, and in fact it should not be. Starting early may get you some additional years of lifespan, but it'll also make you shorter/smaller than normal as an adult. In our society, this is a negative.
Second, a very important part of this lifestyle is optimal nutrition. Eating less of an unhealthy diet is still unhealthy. If you want to search for it, don't just look for "calorie restriction". Look for "calorie restriction with optimal nutrition". - ambrosious, on 10/19/2007, -1/+6Actually from what I've read of the research the theory seems to be that consistantly eating more than you need to live/be healthy, even if you don't get overweight, puts extra strain on cellular functions. Basically every time a mitochondria produces ATP, some toxins are released. Most of these toxins are elliminated by the body but gradually accumulate over time. Reducing caloric intake simply reduces toxin build up and the "wear and tear" of cells. Also, being overweight at all puts extra stress on you heart, muscles bones and other organs, all of which increases the chance of virus, disease and injury.
- t1t0, on 10/21/2007, -2/+6Actually there IS excellent science behind this. It has long been known to work in yeast (a favorite lab genetic model), and has recently been demonstrated in mammals.
http://tinyurl.com/36zp4p - krnldmp, on 10/19/2007, -4/+8It must be started early for what? For it to start early?
- 2612, on 10/20/2007, -0/+4Actually it just seems longer.
- slamtv7, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4Well yeah, that sounds pretty intense, mostly I am talking about your average person you know. Of course one size rarely fits all, but what I said above is a great general rule to follow, until you know you need something more specific.
- aukxsona, on 10/21/2007, -1/+5so your body gets used to it, otherwise it causes possible health problems for those that have been eating 2500 calories for the past 20 years.
- TecHeavy, on 10/20/2007, -1/+5Drink lots of Tea!!!
- aukxsona, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3Thanks for your input, but the study done with mice suggested even slow and gradual declines were slightly detrimental if done in adulthood, where as the baby mice (adolescent actually) had absolutely no adverse affects what so ever.
- dcmjzero, on 10/21/2007, -2/+5interesting theory. is this your gut feeling or does this have scientific backing?
- VinceNoir, on 10/19/2007, -2/+5Actually the fallacy in most people's thinking is that there is ONE TRUE way to eat for everyone. In my experience, I've found that what works for one person doesn't work for another. And that's because not all human beings are physically identical. The diet that is currently working great for me would probably make someone else very sick. I'm an ectomorph (body type). Tall, skinny, and generally high energy (although that has little to do with body type). If you feed me with beef, pork, fatty foods and simple carbs, I get very ill and need a ton of medication to compensate. If you feed me with complex carbs (brown rice, whole wheat, fruits) and cut out the high fat foods and meat, also make sure I get plenty of fresh and raw vegetables (which are incredibly delicious) I'm very healthy and I can chuck all the medications for stomach ailments, allergies and most importantly antibiotics (except for in extreme but rare cases). So don't think that your approach is the only one. Humans are startlingly different almost enough to warrant some kind of classification system that would group the types together. But... the ugly side effect of that would be the abuse of that system to claim that one type is better than another.
- Bukowsky, on 10/19/2007, -2/+5agreed.
- dcmjzero, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3i think it is more about the quality of your life than the length. however, i would HATE to be old and fat. i have to be able to move around and not have to breath hard just to walk up stairs. that would be pure misery. it would make me want to die even sooner. i think the eating less leads to a greater overall quality of life even on a medium term basis.
- GravitySpec, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3The reason the doctor is suggesting the 3 meals broken up into smaller 5 meals is so that large meals don't spike blood sugar as bad and also helps to keep blood sugar stable throughout the day. There are some studies also being done to discern if eating smaller meals more often has a positive effect on the bodies ability to metabolize food more efficiently thus increasing a persons metabolism rate which can enhance the bodies ability to burn fat and preserve lean muscle mass.
- DoubtingThomas, on 10/20/2007, -0/+3That statement is somewhat misleading as the amount of calories to loose or gain weight is highly dependent on the person. For instance, someone with a high lean body mass would require more calories to gain weight and would need restrict a lower number of calories to loose due to there resting metabolic rating being higher than a more sedentary/less muscular person. This is why the USRDA is such pile of crap.
- saiyanate, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3The RDA for energy intake for the average person is roughly 2500 kcal. 20% * 2500 kcal = 500 kcal. You should be able to find 500 calories in your diet easily. Like, eat one less chicken strip, or get a small ice cream instead of the regular size. Portion sizes are WAY out of control IMO. Learn to enjoy the feeling of being hungry. The rumbling in your stomach will make you feel like you've earned the food you're about to eat.
I figure the bigger problem is all the people who eat too much sugary and fatty junk food. A typical serving size of two cookies has 250 kcal, but who eats just two cookies? The "caloric restricters" I guess! And that's where I take issue: people being considered extremists because they actually pay attention to what they eat. I don't take offense, though, because humans are engineered by evolution to be eating machines. It's in our physiology and in our mindsets. It's difficult for most of us to restrict what we eat, and it's difficult for us to rationalize that behavior in others. - coustoe, on 10/20/2007, -0/+3Old News
You activate the same life extending cellular mechanism SIRT1 by routine exercise and a healthy diet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirtuin
Basically exercise and calorie restriction do the same thing they increase mitochondria efficiency which leads to longer/extended cellular life. - VinceNoir, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3I agree with a lot of what you said. In my personal experience I've found that sugar (and other simple carbs) are probably the worst thing that more people overindulge in. Sugar and high fructose corn syrup are very much to blame for the number of fat people we have in the U.S. today. Just drinking one can of pop is like eating 14 tablespoons of sugar in terms of caloric content. It's insane what the food industry puts sugar and corn syrup into as well. There's no damn good reason to be putting either of those in canned veggies, but it's pretty much a standard outside of a handful of brands. All that hidden ***** adds up.
- Chordinator, on 10/20/2007, -2/+5I don't know that there really IS excellent science behind this. The article doesn't mention any reasons why cutting calories will lengthen lifespan, it only states the opinions of a few people.
Sure, Okinawans live longer than anyone else, but they're not exactly the only people on the planet eating 20% fewer calories. Not to mention, there are so many more important factors contributing to an individual's health. - aukxsona, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2sterility is a good side affect when you consider that we currently are having to place children of 11 on birth control...it is also easily reversed...up your calories.
- Mosatii, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2More of an Okinawan thing.
- salinemist, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2So being aerobically fit means having additional and more efficient mitochondria which produce more toxins? Look at rate of elite endurance athletes getting cancer.
- bonhome, on 10/20/2007, -4/+6I heard bloodletting is good too.
- Vryz, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2>>Many famous scientists and astronauts have pointed out that your heart has a limited number of beats in it, and if you exercise often, you feel healthier, but can have a heart attack earlier due to failed heart muscle (from use). So basically if you combine this with caloric restriction, you should be starving, eating raw veggies and sitting in a chair all day as not to use up your heart beats. What a sad and pathetic life, even if it buys you a few years.
This isn't correct. Among hardcore CR practitioners exercise is the rule. Many of them run more than 20 miles a week. There is some truth to your claim, notably with extremely long endurance athletes (like ironman). The rule is basically if your blood pressure is kept up extremely high all day long, that's not good for you heart. However, 30 minutes to an hour of a workout is good. - WhiteRaven, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2It is terminally stupid to associate life span with health care.
- Marrach, on 10/20/2007, -4/+6 I find this sad. Whether you have a long life or a short one-- you have only One lifetime. Screwing up your life before 50 and then DESPERATELY doing anything to Live Longer past 70+ is not going to change the fact that you messed your life up already. Those younger years won't come back. Sure, they always find some asian or Borneo guy who lives to 100. Usually, they're DIRT POOR and their life sucks by Western standards. Which is usually why they don't eat very much. Seeing a hundred while still living in a hut? Yeah right. They are SO lucky.
The saying goes: Live Long and Prosper.
Not: Live Long and Starve. - KidDynamo0, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2I worked for the NIH for a few years and I knew a top scientist who did this. This guy only ate like 1200 calories a day. He looked like a walking skeleton. Sure you will live longer, but at what cost. Enjoy your life, maybe you will come back as a panda or something in the next one, but probably not.
- tylas, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3Amen Brother!
- finalblue, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2I used to think my college roommate who used to scold at me for eating was nuts. He would tell me that eating would make us die younger. Years have passed now and it seems that research from Harvard et al. report that the claim is actually very well founded. In fact there's both public and private companies looking to profit from the science. More interesting is Sirtris, which has derived a compound called Resveratrol from red wine which would provide all the benefits of calorie restriction but without the pains of starvation. In fact, you can find Resveratrol in some health food stores... it's been available for a while. Companies like Sirtris, I would guess, just try to find ways to make the compound more potent, and of course to run it through the FDA.
- tizz66, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2I don't really understand this obsession with living longer. It sounds great in theory, and it's not like I want to die. But think about it - you're making your life longer at the end, when life is most useless. It isn't as though you're getting 10 years longer at being 20. For most people, old age means being uneasy on your feet, relying on other people to do things for you, and an inability to do much more than get out of bed. Why would you want to extend that?
If science is able to prolong life proportionately then thats great, but it seems to be determined to prolong it without making it any higher quality. - jessicass, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2Actually one pound = 3500 calories. You burn (I think) 12-13 calories per pound of body weight per hour just in a rested state, to keep organs functioning etc. So eating 2100 calories a day will not necessarily equal weight gain. That depends on how much you weigh, how much exercise you do and so on. Likewise 1900 calories a day does not necessarily equal weight loss. There are many contributing factors. The only constant is that 3500 calories equals one pound of fat, gained or lost.
- coustoe, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2Also Resveratrol has been shown to show the same life extending properties in mice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol
You can buy this for like $1000 for a years supply, still doing clinical trials on the bioavailability and bioabsorptions levels in humans, but hey it works on mice now - SebK666, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3Doctors in Australia expressed concern that anorexia nervosa was striking children as young as 8.
Too bad people don't know the difference between "Anorexia" & "Calorie Restriction"... - lOvOl, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3I read a study recently that explained why calorie restricted diets actually work in terms of increasing the longevity in many animals which was quite interesting. It turns out that when you go on a calorie restricted diet, your body generates a crap load of free radicals. However, the massive generation of free radicals stimulates your body to produce its most potent antioxidants in abundance as well which are longer lasting than the effect of the megadose of free radicals generated. The natural antioxidants scavenge up the free radicals generated from being in a stressful calorie restricted state, but also stick around when the body is not under stress. One idea behind these findings was that antioxidant vitamins or antioxidant rich foods might actually be bad for you in certain situations because they mop up so many free radicals that your body never gets to the threshold that it pumps out massive amounts of more powerful natural antioxidants like superoxide dismutase.
Anyways, besides caloric restriction the other way to boost the stress response and natural antioxidant levels in the body is through hard, strenous, exercise. Unfortunately, you can't starve yourself and exercise strenously at the same time so you need to pick one or the other in terms of a longevity plan. The irony in all of this is that it was thought calorie restriction worked by minimizing the level of free radicals in the blood, but it turns out the opposite is true and that what really matters is the natural production of antioxidants which are generated en masse when the body detects a major upsurge in free radicals. The hope for researchers is that someday we will be able to simply turn on the necessary genes to upregulate our antioxidant and DNA repair mechanisms in the body through genetic tinkering, rather than through caloric restriction or acute strenous exercise. - dukeochutney, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2agreed. if i ate 20% less i would literally die since i have hypoglycemia. these people can go ***** themeselves
- WhiteRaven, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Actually, the "science" beyond this is fatally flawed. Well, unless you're willing to accept sterility.
Studies on lab animals show that "starvation diets" lead to longer life spans but the exact reason this works is fairly well understood. Animals like mice dedicate a phenomenal portion of their energy to procreation. tying up that many resources in procreation also stresses their body. When they are on the verge of starvation, their reproductive systems shut down. This enables them to live longer.
Here's something that will rock you. In humans, we don't dedicate as much of our body's resources to procreation... but we DO dedicate quite a bit to running our big brains. Starvation diets are more damaging to the brain than heavy alcohol use. - offwithyourtv, on 10/20/2007, -3/+5And then if you die by some other means, such as a car accident, then you went hungry for nothing.
- Ub3rg33k, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3"help them avoid getting sick" is a misnomer. You have a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, and weight related diseases, but its not going to boost your immune system or protect you from colds and flus.
I already do what the article says : don't stuff yourself and eat high quality food. Amazingly simple. -
Show 51 - 100 of 135 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is