Let Your Body Acclimate
Q: Dear Joseph,
Reading about you is inspiring. I am 48 years old, live in New Delhi, India, height 5 feet 10 inches and weight around 100 kg. My recommended body weight is around 70 kg and I have started a calories restriction diet of 1600 calories a day, 3 days ago. I wish to pursue this practice and any suggestions or guidance you could give to me on this, would go a long way in helping me.
Thank you for sharing your experience with all of us. You are inspiring.
Kind regards
Sanjiv
A: Hello Sanjiv,
Welcome aboard. You are launching on an adventure that will bring you great pleasure, excitement, challenges, occasional frustrations, but throughout manifold rewards. Be sure to go slowly. Reach target calories/weight over 6-8 month period. This allows your body to adapt more effectively. It’s like the months required to climb Mount Everest; your body’s acclimatization takes time. Also upgrade the nutritional quality of your diet; eat lots of vegetables and berries! Enjoy.
Thank you,
Joseph Cordell
Implementing Calorie Restriction to a Hectic Lifestyle
Q: I am an attorney who is 44 (soon to be 45) and who just came across your blog. Currently I am reasonably athletic but quite heavy (6’2” and about 260 pounds). Considering doing caloric restriction, not because of any immanent issue but just wanting to get this part of my life under control. I am trying to figure out how to navigate this undertaking given my rather hectic lifestyle of little sleep and lots of crappy food. Since it looks like you were probably in a similar place, I was curious if you had any advice or tips on how to start – did you get into a routine slowly and ratchet it up over time (I saw your analogy to mountain climbers and oxygen)? Did you just go “cold turkey” one day? Things I should look out for? I’d be grateful for any advice you might have, since I expect your experiences and mine are likely to be similar.
– Bill
A: Great to hear you are considering CR. I moved along quickly in my enthusiasm when I started. But I still lost weight at a pound or less a week. Studied show it’s very important to lose slowly Animals/people actually show diminished lifespans with CR that’s too precipitously implemented- probably relates to toxins otherwise benignly stored in fat tissues that are released too quickly and copiously for adequate elimination. Furthermore, this is not a sprint; it’s the ultimate marathon. Those that endure proceed at the right pace. In fact, it’s the best indicator, in my experience, of success.
Regarding a hectic schedule, you have to plan. Buy raw salads at your local grocery store or make at home at the first of the week; carry them with you. Have no inhibition about bringing your raw veggies (with some subtlety) into elegant or other restaurants to add to their likely corrupted or meager salads. Explain to your dinner companions or others concerned that you are confined to a special diet.
Because CR is about less food and less exercise, with planning it should require less time.
Hang in there!
Calorie Restriction and Low Carb Diets
Several studies suggest that eating a low carb diet can keep weight low because it, in effect, restricts calories. The argument goes that people feel fuller at a given volume of calories when the calories are comprised of protein and fat than when comprised of carbohydrates.
This may be true (but I doubt it)…
…which means that the program would meet one of the two elements of healthy CR, i.e. the restriction of calories. But that is only half the plan. CR requires, in addition, that the calories consumed be especially nutritious. As a practical matter, that means that the diet must include copious fruits and vegetables.
This is not something you see on “low-carb” diets. The centerpiece of every low-carb diet that I have seen is animal based, i.e. fats (saturated) and protein. These are not nutrient-dense foods. Furthermore, a plethora of studies exist suggesting, if not clearly establishing, a link between animal-source foods and cancers, heart-disease and diabetes. A good summary of this is found in “The China Study” by Colin Campbell. Also Google the terms under research.
The safest approach to CR is to stick with calories comprised of plant foods (especially raw) with animal products being no more than an occasional component. You will find that you are eating such a large quantity of food that you should rarely feel hungry. By contrast, animal foods are comparatively calorie-dense and nutrient-sparse.
The weight loss on such programs probably has less to do with calorie restriction than the questionably healthy and little-understood effects of ketosis–a complex process by which the body is forced to consume its fat stores for energy. This is a metabolic survival response normally associated with starvation which, when recommended as a weight loss strategy, should at least raise some intuitive red flags for even the least informed aspirant to health and longevity.
From Vegetarian to Calorie Restriction Practitioner
Q: I am currently 2 stone overweight and am a vegetarian. I would like to lose weight, but would also like to start out on adopting a calorie restriction diet, because I am convinced of it’s health benefits. Could you give me any advice on where to start?
A: Best to start slow; because this is a marathon, in competition not with others but with your own genes and environment, rather than a sprint, you should develop the habits that will sustain you long-term. I take the hunger out of calorie restriction by eating the things our bodies were designed to function best on: lots of plant foods with occasional lean meat. But all plant foods aren’t equal. It’s turns out, happily for you and me, that the foods most packed with nutrition are the same one’s least packed with calories. This means that these are the ones you can eat in unlimited quantity (without exploding) and still be safely calorie restricted. Of course I’m referring to vegetables and many fruits. (Not so with grains and legumes; with these you must be mindful of the calories.)
If you commit to eating meals dominated, if not monopolized, by these plants you should not have to battle hunger. Though temptations don’t go away, at least they’re rooted in something other than hunger (habit, mood, etc.) and dealt with accordingly. My personal eating regimen, which is one among several, if not many, used by veteran CR practitioners, is to eat two very large meals each day with no snacking: In the morning I have a huge bowl of many types of berries, apples (primarily peels) and 1-2 ounces of nuts; at noon or dinner I have a magnificent salad with many vegetables (1.5-2 lbs) with sparing application of dressing or generous if not oil-based. Since you are vegetarian, you should have no problem with the plant-centric strategy. I hope these thoughts were helpful.
Incidentally, at the outset spend a week identifying your “set-point”, which will become the basis for developing your daily restricted calorie objective. Though 20 years old, I recommend Dr. Roy Walford’s instructions in his book “The 120-Year Diet”.
One final point. To finish the marathon (especially with the slowest time possible), you cannot treat CR as a mere diet, this parenthetical thing that is going on in the background of your life while the real important stuff, the stuff in the foreground, gets your real focus and energy. CR requires, and deserves, much more than that. Some things by their nature cannot be parentheticals or incidentals in life; Mt. Everest, mastery of a musical instrument, leadership in your church or synagogue. These, in varying degrees of course, demonstrate passion, commitment, many hours of concentrated attention. Along a spectrum, with these on one end and a “diet” on the other, my point is that your CR practice, to endure, must be closer to the former than the latter.
Like all such things, there are times when you’re driven by enthusiasm and times when more effort is required. Personally, I seek out opportunities to talk about CR (as here); I never turn down an opportunity to tell others how great CR is. By being a fervent CR evangelist, I’ve done more for my health than for that of anyone else (my convert list is not very long). I also stay in touch with other practitioners. Be sure to attend any CR conferences or other events, regardless of travel hassles; though not as frequent as they should be, they are great for getting new ideas and recharging your batteries. I revisit CR books and articles from time to time. I also try to follow new developments in health, which often provide CR insights. All these things serve to remind me why I’m doing CR, what CR offers that so far nothing else on the planet can.
Good luck.
Describe For Me the Calorie Restriction Program – Wait! Let Me Get a Pen!
I am often asked with great anticipation to describe the “calorie restriction diet”. Questioners presume that there must be an intricate program with elaborate rules regarding what to eat and when to eat it. I know this because I have had this conversation many times and people are always disappointed with my first reply and therefore will take several runs at the question before abandoning the effort, concluding finally that I am either evasive or obtuse.
My theory is that diets are more credible (and attractive) if they consist of specific rules and procedures (especially when clothed with a glib scientific idea). The more popular diets come packaged in attractive books and include a generous array of recipes. Better still, some diets are sold as turn-key programs: They provide the meals themselves along with a wide array of supplements. But best-selling diets need more than elaborate programs and attractive packages. They need an “expert” that is winsome, articulate and telegenic (or, failing these, a celebrity). Programs built around points, portions and protein have proven hugely popular.
Unfortunately, calorie restriction lacks virtually all the elements essential for commercial success or, for that matter, even basic credibility. There are no celebrity promoters, no products to provide. There is not even a detailed program to present to prospects. The only books on the subject tend to lack the packaging and the promoters that produce best-sellers: The diction is not as user-friendly; the fact-filled content dwells heavily on scientific research and technical explanations; the recommendations lack the terse certitude consumers crave; and the authors do little for themselves or their books in the few interviews that come their way.
The unsatisfying fact is that CR practitioners are unanimous on only two things: 1) we must reduce our calorie consumption substantially below our respective set points, 2) we must maximize the nutritional content of the calories we consume. Beyond these fundamentals, strategies and tactics vary. While prong 2 does assure that all practitioners eat generous quantities of fruits and vegetables, strategies vary regarding carbs vs. fats vs. protein percentages in each diet. Practices also vary among us regarding the related issues of bread and dessert permissibility. Positions also vary regarding meat & dairy consumption, though it’s fair to say that most of us minimize or eliminate these. Some of us, but not all, take lots of supplements, consume alcohol and/or caffeine, prefer raw foods, eat only organic, etc..
Regarding exercise, prong 1 creates a general consensus that the calorie restriction effect can be nullified by too much exercise. CR is not about being lean, its about restricting calories. That being said, the actual amount of exercise varies greatly among practitioners. Some push the envelope in my humble opinion. People have told me they were doing CR while regularly exercising an hour a day. The problem is that there is no clear guidance on this point. We know that exercise is good since it benefits us in so many ways, not the least of which relates to our functional health (bones, muscles, flexibility, etc.). The key question is how many exercise calories can we expend without the caloric detriment outweighing the caloric benefit. We know, for example, that heavy aerobics activity–which by definition requires heavy calorie consumption– does not produce exceptional longevity (though it improves average longevity).
Our strategies also vary regarding how we schedule our meals. Some of us eat 3 meals of approximately the same size each day. Some eat only one or two meals; others eat more but eat larger meals early in the day. Some snack. Others eat only on alternate days. The research does not indicate that any of these is clearly the best approach. I suspect each of us chose the pattern that we can live with best, then developed our supporting arguments.
Despite, however, the marketing challenges facing calorie restriction, there still remains the preponderating fact that CR is the most intelligent diet option available to man at this time. No eating strategy has been shown to provide better protection against all major diseases, to preserve physical functionality longer and to provide, potentially at least, dramatically greater longevity. Furthermore, not only are these claims greater than those of 95% of the more popular diets, the documentation supporting these claims dwarfs that of its best-selling counterparts (for which in many cases no such evidence exists). Therefore, my path is clear. Along the way I will continue being one of those voices in the wilderness for which an occasional convert is ample satisfaction.
How Calorie Restriction is Advancing Medical Science
I have pointed out in other articles the striking contrast between, on the one hand, the feverish interest shown calorie restriction by scientific researchers and, on the other, the virtual invisibility of CR amid a population otherwise obsessed with dieting. As I have elsewhere opined, I think the latter is largely due to a failure on the part of those who do know (but whose expectations are cynically low) to inform and educate those that don’t.
Meanwhile, expectations are very high among those studying the nature and effects of calorie restriction. Since 1935, when Clive M. McKay at Cornell University first stumbled across the CR phenomenon, over 1000 CR-related studies have been conducted at major universities around the world. These studies generated over 100 articles in prominent medical and other scientific journals, including JAMA, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine. This vast and prolonged scientific gold rush was triggered by a very concrete discovery: When an organism, for example an animal, consumes substantially fewer calories (20-40%) than it normally would, its lifespan is extended beyond the maximum lifespan for its species.
This was an earth-shattering discovery. To fully appreciate this assertion you need to understand the difference between average life span and maximum life span. When health experts speak of ways to lengthen your life, to add years to your life, they are referring to ways that you can increase your average lifespan. In other words, no one can accurately tell you that a given behavior or product will extend your life in particular. The fact is that you in particular may die tomorrow in a plane crash or next year from a rare genetically-determined cancer. What experts can tell us is that certain things will increase the average health and longevity among members of a given population. There are a lot of these things: stop smoking, exercise regularly, eat lots of fruits and vegetables, use a seat belt. Studies show conclusively that when applied among a large representative sampling, the average life expectancy is higher.
While this is interesting and very valuable information, it pales in significance when compared to the things that allow an organism’s lifespan to plunge through the ceiling of its species, i.e. to surpass the specie’s maximum life span. For example, look at the most popular conventional strategy for increasing average lifespan: aerobic exercise. Beginning in the early 1970s, Dr. Kenneth Cooper and other influential proponents have persuaded many if not most educated Americans to either exercise regularly or feel guilty that they don’t. While the health benefits of aerobics can be measured in more than one way, the longevity effect is probably the most telling. Furthermore, since the runners have been running now for almost 40 years, the jury is in regarding the impact of aerobics on average lifespan.
Though there is room for disagreement regarding the details, the bottom line is that we are talking about single digit gains. This has been the nature of health discoveries after the middle of the last century. In the hundred or so years before there were quantum gains attributable largely to advances in environmental safety and infectious disease control (e.g. vaccinations, antibiotics, sterilization). But these were low hanging fruit that related less to our body’s intrinsic capabilities than to external threats. Going forward, as our present average exercised life span of 80 years encroaches on the human maximum life span of 115 years, gains are likely to become more effortful and incremental before finally butting against the brick wall.
Consequently, the real action, scientifically and commercially speaking, relates to the metabolic changes triggered by calorie restriction but without the restriction of calories. The truly good news is that such a metabolic phenomenon even exists. Except for calorie restriction, there would be widespread skepticism among scientists that its even possible to extend the life of an organism beyond its maximum life span. Such things were discussed more in science fiction than science. Now that we are past that hurdle, the frenetic race is on. Meanwhile, as the research proceeds, discoveries are occurring along the way that require medical professionals to think differently about the diagnosis and treatment of disease. Following are a couple of interesting examples:
Traditionally, physicians have considered a patient’s white blood cell count (also called “leukocytes”) a very important indicator of his immune health, of his ability to fight off various diseases and infections. Standard lab tests measuring white blood cell counts consider a count below 4,500 white blood cells per microliter (mcL). an unfavorable marker which indicates the immune system is impaired, that the patient has a greater vulnerability to disease. Yet calorie restriction studies show that CR subjects consistently have white cell counts substantially below the reference range while demonstrating exceptionally effective immune function. In the human study presently being conducted at Washington University in St. Louis, in which I am a participant, virtually all the CR subjects show medically low white cell counts yet are much healthier than their non-CR counterparts. They also report fewer colds and other illnesses as well as fewer allergies now than before CR. (Further investigation suggests that the answer likely lies in a sub-group of cells. CR practitioners, while low regarding all white cells, are actually very high respecting this particular subgroup. If this theory is confirmed it will explain the CR white cell paradox as well as inform the medical profession of a long-standing diagnostic error.
Bone health has traditionally been determined by measuring a person’s “bone mineral density”(BMD). The is done with a special x-ray device which measures the mass of the bone. If someone’s BMD is more than one standard deviation less than that of a healthy young adult, he is said to have osteopenia, generally considered a call to action if one is to head of the dreaded diagnosis of osteoporosis, defined as more than 2.5 standard deviations from the reference BMD. A low BMD is considered an indicator of weak bones and an accompanying higher risk of fracture. Calorie restriction research, however, suggests that BMD is not a reliable test of bone health. The human CR study at Wash U has studied closely the bone health of the CR participants and has found them to have functionally strong bones despite low BMDs. None of the participants have reported any fractures or other such problems despite substantial levels of activity. As with low white cell counts, practitioners of CR consistently have lower BMDs than their more caloried counterparts. Researchers believe that the bone loss that a person experiences when he adopts CR is akin to the myriad other adaptations that the body makes as it becomes increasingly efficient and healthy.
Bones are dynamic organs and it turns out that their mass expands and contracts with changes in the body’s structural and other needs. If someone is carrying 300 pounds of body weight, for example, he will require larger bones than the same person carrying 150. The body is smart enough to sense such changes and to make appropriate adjustments. What is most interesting, however, is that bone strength, integrity, does not appear to have been compromised through such adaptations despite the loss of density. Clearly this suggests that the gold standard for measuring bone health, BMD, needs to be replaced, along with the indiscriminate standards regarding treatment of osteopenia .
Metabolism Envy
This is a Freudian obsession of modern origin, a by-product of Western affluence. People in the West face a grave dilemma: On the one hand, they have an unlimited, almost historically unique, opportunity–They can eat whatever they want whenever they want. Lest they forget, wonderfully tasting food is continuously displayed around them wherever they may be.
On the other hand, if they allow themselves to eat as they desire they will soon find themselves fat, sick and dead. So what is the solution of choice to this dilemma?
Is it an admirable display of discipline? Is it a thoughtful reassessment of life’s priorities? No, it turns out modern consumers prefer something much more elemental: a faster metabolism. This is the next best thing to the fountain of youth–the apparent fountain of youth. Its the unrestricted calorie diet, CR in drag.
Unfortunately, despite appearances, this is the antithesis of calorie restriction. CR induces the body to become maximally efficient, to get more done with less, to operate on less fuel than it otherwise would. We don’t know completely how calorie restriction accomplishes this result. But we do know that when calorie restricted, the mitachondria (which produces energy in the cells) produces much less waste, the heart rate slows, body temperature drops and metabolism slows. These adaptations are all very positive for health and longevity.
By contrast, the popularly proclaimed “fat-burning metabolism” produces the opposite. By definition it is designed to get the least done with the most energy, to consume the most calories possible for bodily operations. Does this sound like a desirable condition long term?
This is like shopping for an automobile designed to get the fewest miles per gallon possible. Such an automobile would discharge into its environment much more waste and pollution than its more efficient counterparts. That is exactly what the body must do with its metabolic waste, except that its environment includes the cells and systems of the body.
CR research traces to these processes much, if not most, of the diseases of affluence claiming the lives of most Americans today (i.e. cancer, heart disease and diabetes). Yet, because an over-active metabolism holds the promise of more food for a given waist line, modern Americans persist in their pursuit of products purporting to deliver this effect. Not surprisingly, the few small voices advocating intelligent eating lifestyles cannot compete with the baser impulses of consumers and the industry that serves them.
The bottom line is that people in the end make choices that reflect their priorities. If health and longevity are important priorities, calorie restriction is appealing. If not, there is at least the security to be found in numbers. In a manner of speaking, one might even claim the weight of opinion. I’m reminded of a Bible verse to the effect that “wide is the gate and broad is the path that leads to destruction…”; hmm, food for thought.
Calorie Restriction: How to Get Started
Calorie Restriction Transition
Hopefully you have been favorably impressed by what you have heard and read about calorie restriction. You may have even decided that this is what you want to do for the balance of your life. But you are not sure where or how to start. Here are a two critical points that can make the difference between health and disaster:
Adopt calorie restriction gradually. Animal studies clearly show that an abrupt commencement of a calorie restriction diet actually reduces rather than enlarges life span. This makes complete sense if you think about it. Calorie Restriction produces a condition in your body that does not occur over night. We know that when calorie restricted, you body becomes much more efficient. Your body temperature drops 1-4 degrees; Your heart rate slows; Your blood pressure drops; Numerous other body functions adapt to the new caloric environment. Your body cannot accomplish changes, adaptations such as these overnight.
Have you ever known or read of someone who has climbed Mount Everest? Often people wonder why a expedition like that is a 2-3 month event when the actual climbing itself is a 3-4 day event. The answer lies in the physiological adaptation required of the body to survive at altitudes above 21,000 feet. It is a wondrous commentary on the body’s capacity to adapt that it can learn to survive on 33% of the oxygen that it would otherwise require. But this adaptation is not instant. In fact if a climber were to skip the acclimatization phase of his climb, he would be dead long before reaching the summit. Put differently, if a climber were simply deposited on the summit of Mt. Everest, he would be dead within minutes.
Your body’s adaptation to calorie restriction is similar to acclimatization. The body is willing and capable of adapting to new, more challenging conditions so long as it is given the opportunity to do so at the pace it requires. While there is no firm rule here and the animal studies may require some adjustment for our purposes, there are some general rules that those of us doing calorie restriction have followed. Most of us have followed the advice of Dr. Roy Walford, an early CR leader and scientific authority (incidentally, I highly recommend his book, “The 120 Year Diet”) which suggests an adaptation period of 6-12 months. This means that you should titrate your calorie restriction so that you arrive at your eventual restriction goal (for example, a 25% reduction in daily calories consumed) at the appropriate point in the future (for example, 6 months later). A good indicator for those who are significantly overweight at the start is the rate of weight loss. Your weight loss should parallel your calorie restriction. In other words, the loss should be dispersed evenly over the adaptation period. Resist the temptation to shed weight rapidly. This is the tactic of commercial diet schemes whose horizons are measured in days and weeks. Calorie restriction is permanent; its about the rest of your life. That is all the more reason to do this right. Be patient.
Determine your particular set point before you start restricting your calories. When starting calorie restriction, people are tempted to plunge forward before getting a point of reference regarding their pre-CR calorie consumption. This requires some explanation: Calorie restriction, as it relates to longevity and health, refers to reductions in calories below an organism’s particular “set point”. The “set point” is the number of calories that the organism (you, for example) would choose to consume if eating entirely without inhibition. In other words, how many calories would your body request each day if given its unfettered preference (i.e. while neither dieting nor gorging)?
Each of us has a metabolism which is designed or conditioned to operate at a certain level. Some of us have very active metabolisms that prod us to eat more than those whose metabolisms are much slower. As a result, some of us gain weight more easily than others. Appetite, however, is more complicated and involves additional factors that no one fully understands. What we do know is that set points are very individual, as are their corresponding body weights. This is why you cannot identify a calorie restriction practitioner by his body weight. While it’s generally true that CR practitioners are very lean (my BMI is 18), it’s not necessarily true. Think about it: If you are 5’8” and weigh 250 lbs. before CR (which we will assume reflects your set point calorie consumption), after a 30% calorie restriction your weight might settle in the 175 lbs. range. That’s not exactly lean. One can argue, of course, that there is room for further restriction in such circumstances, that you should reduce you calories even more. Perhaps that’s true. But the scientific research suggests that the chunky calorie restrictor in my example should indeed experience some, if not all, of the benefits enjoyed by his leaner 30% restricting counterpart.
Therefore, begin your calorie restricted life by eating without restriction. Do this for four to five days while carefully counting your calories. Use these figures to calculate your daily average, which will constitute your set point.
Calorie Restriction, Waistline and Exercise
When I talk to people about calorie restriction, I usually have to remind them as we are talking that simply staying lean is not tantamount to being calorie restricted. This is an easy misunderstanding. People associate restricted calories with the goal of being thin because our culture imputes that goal to all diets. But our popular obsession with body mass index (BMI) is as much or more about looks than health. As a result, calorie restriction sounds to the average person like a very worthy objective but for the wrong reasons.
A fixation with physical attractiveness will not likely sustain a calorie restriction lifestyle. The reason is simply not good enough to support the lifetime commitment that calorie restriction requires. CR is as much an educational program as it is a diet. Its real value lies beneath the surface; that is where the rich science is and the wonderful information regarding disease resistance and other incredible health effects. If you practice CR with these higher goals, chances are much greater that your decision will be permanent.
Furthermore, calorie restriction does not always produce a very low BMI. It’s technically possible for someone whose calorie set point is very high to be 40% restricted yet still have an average BMI. Granted, as a general rule CR practitioners are very lean. But if the primary goal is to be lean, dieters are inclined to increase exercise when needed to compensate for excess calories. This is a perfectly appropriate strategy if your goal is a certain BMI. But this is perfectly inappropriate if the goal is calorie restriction. The fact that, because of exercise, a person looks in the mirror and on the scales as if he had not eaten what he had does not cancel the reality. The reality is that over time many more calories are consumed than would otherwise be the case. Calorie restriction research shows that the health benefits of CR hinges on the extent that calories consumed are below each person’s set point. Burning off calories does not eradicate the fact that they were consumed.
The bottom line is this: Do calorie restriction for the right reasons (there are a lot of them). Be prepared to undertake an educational process in conjunction with your new eating habits. Absent this, you are vulnerable to well-intentioned yet self-defeating habits.
Calorie Restriction: Low Expectations Have Consequences
One thing that I have noticed since I began calorie restriction some eight years ago is this: A lot of cynicism exists among researchers and practitioners alike regarding calorie restriction’s potential appeal to the general public. In fact, it’s this attitude that largely explains the amazing multi-decade neglect shown calorie restriction by all involved. It helps explain how a discovery so incredible could shuffle along for 70+ years without acknowledgement from the media, this despite feverish interest on the part of the scientific community. The lab excitement, incidentally, relates to the general public only indirectly: Research teams around the world are frantically in pursuit of the pharmacological elixir that can simulate the calorie restriction metabolic effect in human beings. This is the Holy Grail that promises riches to its patent holder and health and longevity to its paying customers. To this end, millions of dollars are spent each year by privately funded researchers on calorie restriction-related research.
I don’t object to the mercenary motives here. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” earns its keep. My lament here is that the calorie restriction researchers have generated some really exciting and practical information that is useful today to people willing to seize it. Yet this information is not being shared with the general public. That is not to say that it is a secret or that any conspiracy is afoot. In fact, this information appears regularly in scholarly journals, including medical journals such as JAMA and New England Journal of Medicine. Literally thousands of calorie restriction experiments and studies have been conducted at major universities and research laboratories around the globe over the past 70 years. Much of this research has been published and is easily retrievable for those of us willing to expend the time and effort to locate and understand it. But why is this necessary? Where are the otherwise officious voices and resources of government, the medical community, the press and others when we can really use them? Instead, we have gotten the collective paternalistic sigh that says, “No one is going to do a diet like this. This diet is too radical” (that is, as compared to the mainstream but non-radical gravy/burger&donut diet). Consequently, science and evidence notwithstanding, it’s considered a waste of time and resources to promote this diet to a notoriously food-fond American public. One might as well cast pearls before swine (pardon the pun).
So let’s test this conclusion. We will use you as an example. Let’s pretend that you had not heard about calorie restriction, but that you are like many people in that you have an interest in health and fitness, that within reasonable boundaries you want to do the right and smart thing (the premium plan). Meanwhile, you are going about your life with the proposition in mind that smart and reasonable people hold about their health: i.e. you should 1) avoid obesity at all costs, 2) limit desserts and fried foods (especially those with trans-fats) while preferring fruits and vegetables. 3) exercise as much as Rule #1 requires.
Yet these axioms are tempered by your real world experience. You see cancer, heart disease and diabetes all around you -even among those on the premium plan. Furthermore, its very hard to push away from the table when you are still hungry and there is still plenty of food. Meanwhile, medicine is good and getting better at contending with the consequences of an imperfect diet. Besides, no one lives forever (put differently, the longevity payoff is not that great). So even the conventional premium plan fails to inspire great devotion because of this pay-off problem.
Now let’s imagine that one day while eating a blueberry croissant at Barnes & Noble you happen upon a very bold but fascinating diet book. This book reveals to you a well-documented strategy for dramatically reducing your risk for virtually every major disease while increasing your remaining years 30-50%. With this plan you will likely live 25+ additional years with wonderful health and functionality. This means that the life you had planned will now likely be much longer, much better and much more certain. But there is a price: You must be willing to consistently monitor your calories to assure that they do not exceed a certain level. That level will be 25-30% lower than you would otherwise choose. Furthermore, you must be willing to eat foods that are more healthful than you might have otherwise chosen. If you read further, however, it turns out that the sacrifice is not as draconian as you might think: By choosing the most nutritious foods, plant foods, you can in fact eat much more food than you otherwise would.
There you have it. That’s the pitch in a nutshell. Was the elite cynicism well placed? Or does CR sound like something you want to know more about? More to the point, is it conceivable to you that you could live with the calorie restriction plan? I know I lost some readers at “…there is a price”. I lost others at “…consistently monitor your calories”. But I know that there are many others, you for example, who have hung with me to this point and whose interest I’ll bet is genuinely piqued. Hopefully, you are nodding your head (as opposed to your head nodding) at his stage and are at least persuaded of calorie restriction’s modest popular potential. And that’s the basis of my complaint: As to life’s most important decisions (life and death among them), people deserve the opportunity to make tough but smart decisions. At a minimum, this requires information– not simple disclosure in the technical, academic journal sense, but active, even evangelistic, dissemination. But this proportionality is entirely missing with calorie restriction research. As a result, people otherwise receptive to calorie restriction live shorter less healthy lives. The fact that we can’t quantify this omission- i.e., that we don’t know their numbers, the diminution of their years or the gravity of their diseases- doesn’t diminish its grave and substantial consequences.
Are Leaner Years Longer Years?
Some Hope to Add On to Their Years by Cutting Back How Much They Eat
By DAN CHILDS
ABC News Medical Unit
Nov. 28, 2006 —
When you look at Joe Cordell, it’s hard to imagine you’re seeing someone who worries about counting calories.
At 5-foot-9 and 130 pounds, Cordell defies the stereotype of the overweight American, but this 48-year-old divorce lawyer is an experiment in progress.
He is one of a rarified group of Americans who practice caloric restriction (CR) — a significant reduction in food intake that they believe leads to added longevity and health.
For the last five years, Cordell has cut his caloric intake by a third.
“If you’d asked me before I started CR if I could possibly enjoy a diet like that, I would have said no,” he said. “Like almost every other American, I thought that variety was essential, but I know now that that’s not true.”
Caloric restriction is an intriguing idea — and a controversial one.
Though studies show that restricting calories in mice and other animals leads to an extended life span, definitive results have not yet been seen in humans.
Yet, researchers like Dr. Luigi Fontana of the Washington University School of Medicine say caloric restriction holds promise — as long as the regimen is followed properly, that is.
“Caloric restriction is not eating half a hamburger, half a pack of French fries, and half a can of one of these sugary beverages,” he said. “It is eating a healthy diet, where you get rid of empty calories, and you eat lots of nutrient-dense food.”
Fontana says the trick is to ensure that you still get 100 percent of your required nutrients every day, all while keeping additional calories to a minimum.
The principle is already being studied in rhesus monkeys, the closest thing to a human yet.
“The monkeys on CR look like they’re aging at a slower rate and their health is staying better longer,” said geriatric researcher Rick Weindruch, associate professor in the department of medicine at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Wis.
He says he expects that some of the calorie-restricted monkeys will live 30 percent to 40 percent longer than their counterparts in the control group.
“We’re starting to see clear differences in terms of how old the animal looks in the two different groups,” he said. “Appearance is another indicator of biological age.”
At Washington University, researchers are now seeking volunteers for a two-year study to determine the effects of caloric restriction in humans.
Bringing Metabolism to a Simmer
Despite the lack of definitive data in humans, researchers have a couple of ideas on how caloric restriction might lead to longer life.
“The theoretical basis for this is that burning fuel comes at a cost to an organism, just as it does to any vehicle,” said Dr. David Katz, associate clinical professor of public health & medicine at the Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Conn.
“If you can meet the needs of body tissues while burning less fuel, you generate less heat, expose the body to fewer metabolic byproducts, and potentially reduce the net exposure to factors likely to damage DNA,” Katz said.
“Calorie restriction in animals may induce certain proteins or enzymes, which may account for the longevity,” said Dr. Sethu Reddy, chairman of endocrinology, diabetes and metabolism at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland.
Whether or not it works, one thing is clear: Such a drastic cut in calories is not a simple proposition.
“Restricting calories simply by reducing the amount of food is difficult to sustain because people get hungry,” said Dr. Dean Ornish, founder and president of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute and clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.
“If chronic calorie restriction is going to make people feeling miserable, deprived, or unhappy with life, it may not be worth it even if there could be solid evidence for it,” said Keith-Thomas Ayoob, associate professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in Bronx, N.Y.
“There is something to be said for quality of life and personal satisfaction. Maybe how long someone lives isn’t the bottom line for everyone,” Ayoob said.
Too Skinny on Evidence
Not everyone is convinced that caloric restriction lives up to its reputation as a life extender.
“I have seen a college professor who was doing CR a few years ago,” said Dr. Donald Hensrud, associate professor of preventive medicine and nutrition at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine in Rochester, Minn.
“He had biochemical evidence of malnutrition with abnormalities of various tests. In his case I have a tough time believing it would extend his longevity. I also believe that in him, as perhaps with others, it developed into a variant of an eating disorder,” Hensrud said.
“Even in previously healthy individuals, one need only look at the spectrum of eating disorders typified by anorexia nervosa in order to demonstrate the potential risks of excessive caloric restriction,” said Dr. Peter Pressman, assistant professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. “To suggest that caloric restriction is the answer to slowing the human aging process is at best simplistic and at worst seems quite misleading and dangerous to the public.”
Others say that while whittling down the calories may help, it may be just one piece of the puzzle.
“The process of human aging is an extremely complex phenomenon,” Pressman said. “Merely restricting calories in and of itself may be one contributor to certain aspects of metabolic rate, but it is likely not by any means the entire story.”
“Longevity is about genetics, lifestyle, attitude, and possibly variables we don’t yet know,” said Connie Diekman, a registered dietitian and director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo. “Changing one aspect of the equation can’t guarantee longevity.”
As the current obesity epidemic grows, it is unlikely that caloric restriction will become a widespread trend.
“CR is not an idea that will be widely embraced in a population gaining weight even as we speak,” said Carla Wolper, research associate at the Obesity Research Center at St. Luke’s Hospital in New York.
“After all, if we cannot get people to reduce their caloric intake modestly to lose weight, how will we ever get large numbers of Americans to reduce their weight below ideal?” Wolper said.
Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures
Counting on Low Calories Benefits
From The Los Angeles Times
By Andreas Von Bubnoff
February 13, 2006 in print edition F-3
FOUR years ago, Joseph Cordell wasn’t looking to lose weight. At 5 feet 9 and 165 pounds and exercising regularly, the then 43-year-old divorce lawyer was in pretty good shape.
But he didn’t have anything against adding a few years to his life — and so, in 2002, he overhauled his diet. He cut his daily caloric intake from about 3,000 to 1,900. He turned to a diet rich in walnuts, berries, apple peels, broccoli, mountains of salad and lean protein. He says he now weighs 129 pounds and almost never gets sick anymore.
His heart, it appears, is reaping the benefit.
Last month, scientists at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis published a study showing that the hearts of Cordell and 24 others who had been practicing “caloric restriction” were more youthful-looking when viewed by ultrasound than the hearts of people on regular American diets.
The 25 subjects, who had consumed about one-third less calories than most people would normally eat for an average of 6 1/2 years, had heart walls that were more elastic, with ventricles that relaxed more readily to fill with blood.
“The hearts looked 10 to 15 years younger,” says Dr. Luigi Fontana, an assistant professor of medicine at the university and principal author of the paper. The scientists now plan to study what restricting calories does to other parts of the body such as arteries, lungs and kidneys.
The findings, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, is a promising sign that a science rooted in animal data might help humans extend their life span. Researchers have found that mice and rats fed 30% fewer calories from an early age live 30% longer than those given regular amounts of chow. Such animal findings have inspired a cadre of caloric restriction enthusiasts, Cordell among them, and a Calorie Restriction Society, which has several thousand members.
It’s not yet clear whether calorie restriction can also extend maximum life span in humans, but scientists are continuing to investigate the issue. Because most people probably don’t have the discipline to drastically reduce their calorie intake for the rest of their lives, research labs and biotech companies meanwhile are looking for drugs that mimic its effects so people could reap the benefits without self-denial.
If caloric restriction prolongs life, a major question is why. Fontana thinks reducing inflammation may be key. Inflammation usually increases with age and induces effects similar to wound healing, which makes tissues stiffer. Fontana’s study found reduced blood levels of two inflammation-linked proteins (TNF-alpha and CRP) in the subjects practicing caloric restriction.
Stiffening could also result from simply turning food into energy. That process creates so-called free radicals, reactive oxygen molecules that can damage tissues. Caloric restriction might reduce the accumulation of such radicals because it reduces the intake of food.
Although scientists say the heart study is compelling, they point out that people undergoing caloric restriction may be unusual in ways beyond consuming fewer calories. (Cordell, for example, is a stickler for good nutrition: One of his strategies is to eat only the peel of an apple because it contains more micronutrients.)
“It’s hard to sort out what’s causing what,” says Dr. Evan Hadley, director of the geriatrics and clinical gerontology program at the National Institute on Aging in Bethesda, Md.
To help surmount such issues, the National Institute on Aging has initiated a clinical trial that will randomly assign either a caloric restriction diet or a normal diet to 240 people. The trial will follow people on caloric restriction for two years and examine the health benefits and risks. Recruitment is expected to start in August.
Meanwhile, several research labs and biotech companies are looking for drugs to mimic caloric restriction. GeroScience in Pylesville, Md., is seeking compounds that trick cells into “thinking” they are fed when they aren’t. LifeGen Technologies in Madison, Wis., is studying nutrients that can activate certain genes the way caloric restriction does.
Other companies are focusing on drugs that activate proteins known as sirtuins. Sirtuins appear to be key in caloric restriction. Doubling sirtuin dosage in flies and worms extends their life span by 30% to 50%, says MIT researcher Leonard P. Guarente, a co-founder of Elixir Pharmaceuticals of Cambridge, Mass.
Another Cambridge-based company — Sirtris Pharmaceuticals Inc. — will test the safety of some sirtuin-activating compounds in human clinical trials this year, says co-founder David Sinclair, a Harvard researcher. In 2003, Sinclair’s lab identified resveratrol, a sirtuin-activating compound that is found in red wine.
Sinclair is optimistic that the first drugs mimicking caloric restriction will be available in five to 10 years.
But Dr. John Holloszy, a Washington University School of Medicine gerontologist and a co-author on the heart study, is not so sure that proteins such as sirtuins can explain all the effects of caloric restriction.
“I think it’s more complicated,” he says — only to admit that he takes resveratrol every day, and drinks red wine with dinner.
“It’s very nice if it works,” he says.
Low Calorie Diet Means Healthier Heart, Study Finds
January 13, 2006 – 5:20pm
People who follow a low-calorie, high-nutrition diet are among the young at heart, a new study from Washington University shows.
Caloric restriction, as the diet is known, has been shown to increase the life span of a variety of animals, including dogs, mice, rats and even creatures such as yeast. But no one knew whether severely cutting back on calories would have the same effect on humans.
This new study, which compared people who voluntarily followed calorie-restricted diets with healthy people who ate average diets, showed that the low-cal group had hearts that worked as well as those of people 10 to 15 years younger. It is the first clear evidence that calorie restriction is associated with delayed aging in humans, the study’s authors say.
The study, led by Dr. Luigi Fontana of Washington University and the Instituto Superiore di Santi in Rome, Italy, will appear Tuesday in the Journal of American College of Cardiology.
Fontana and his colleagues measured heart function in 25 people on the calorie-restricted diet and 25 healthy people of average weight who ate a standard diet. None of the study participants exercised more than 20 minutes twice a week. The restrictive dieters ate fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans, lean proteins, nuts and other foods for optimum nutritional value. They consumed 1,400 to 2,000 calories per day – about 25 percent fewer calories than an average American.
“It’s not that draconian,” said Joseph Cordell, 47, a divorce lawyer who started calorie restriction four years ago. Cordell eats about 1,850 calories a day.
He started the regimen after becoming dissatisfied with the “mediocre success” he had in improving his health with exercise. Since he started following the lower-calorie diet, Cordell says, his blood pressure, cholesterol and pulse rate have all dropped substantially. And the new study shows that he has “the heart of a 10-year-old,” he said.
The researchers saw a marked change in the diastolic heart function of the calorie-restricted group over their peers.
During the diastolic phase, the left ventricle fills up with blood in a two-step process. During the first step, the ventricle relaxes and blood flows in, filling the chamber about 80 percent full in young people. In the second phase, the atrium contracts to top off the ventricle. Once full, the ventricle pumps the blood into the body.
As people age, their hearts become less elastic. That means that less blood gets in during the passive filling phase and the atrium must work harder and pump in more blood as it contracts. The decline in diastolic heart function is a good measure of aging, Fontana said.
People on the restrictive, nutritious diets filled their ventricles with more blood during the passive filling phase than the average eaters did. The low-cal dieters have been on the diet for an average of only six years, but their hearts appeared as much as 15 years younger. That could mean the diet reverses aging, Fontana said.
The CRONies, as the people on Calorie Restriction-Optimal Nutrition diets call themselves, also had lower levels of two proteins involved in inflammation, as well as lower levels of a protein involved in depositing collagen and scar tissue in wounded or inflamed tissue. That is important because it could indicate that restricted-calorie diets help prevent the heart from losing elasticity as people age and protect them from damaging inflammation.
The difference between the two groups was not attributable to genetics, Fontana said. People in both groups had family histories of heart disease, and some of the people in the calorie-restriction group had previously taken medications to lower blood pressure or cholesterol. Those problems improved once the people started calorie restriction.
“These people are not genetically lucky,” Fontana said.
He also cautioned that simply cutting calories is not enough to improve health. Low-calorie diets that don’t provide optimal nutrition may actually speed up aging and be dangerous, he said. But avoiding weight gain and improving the diet by eating fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish, nuts and beans also could improve overall health for average people, Fontana said.
—
(c) 2006, St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service.
So, What Are the Benefits of CR?
The only scientific proven way to increase longevity. In 1935 it was found that the lifespan of laboratory rats could be extended by as much as 50% on severely calorie restricted diets, the rodent equivalent of a human life stretched past the age of 160. And it isn’t just a mouse. Yeast cells, spiders, worms, monkeys have all been shown to benefit from CR’s life-extending effects.
In 1991 a team of eight bioscientists sealed themselves up for a two-year stint inside a giant, airtight terrarium in the Arizona desert, and promptly discovered that the hypothetically self-sustaining ecosystem they’d settled into could barely grow enough food to keep them alive.
This revelation might have doomed the experiment (known as Biosphere 2) but for the fact that the team’s physician, UCLA pathologist Roy Walford, had been studying Calorie Restriction for decades and convinced his fellow scientists that—as long as they all ate carefully enough to get their daily share of essential nutrients—a year or two of near starvation wouldn’t hurt.
When at last the Biosphere 2 crew emerged from their bubble, tests proved them healthier in nearly every nutritionally relevant respect than when they’d gone in, and the case for Calorie Restriction in humans was no longer purely circumstantial.
So what are the benefits of CR?
Dr. John Holloszy, principal investigator of a long term study on CR has this to say, “There’s no chance of CR practitioners getting type 2 diabetes, they have very low blood pressure, and the risk of them developing heart disease and cancer is markedly decreased,” “The calorie restriction protects them from the same diseases that exercise protects against, and more potently than exercise,”
And exercise? Not an option as C.R. dieters simply don’t have the calories for it, unless they increase their calories accordingly.
Dr Hellerstein a professor at UC Berkeley, says “It’s the only thing that is known to extend the life span in animals,” he studies human nutrition and metabolism. He recently started recruiting people for a study where subjects will eat a near-fasting diet every other day, alternated with a normal one. “It’s the most amazing thing in all of biology.”
And there is a growing impetus to find out if humans reap the same benefits, over time, as lab animals. The Baby Boomers are aging, and just as they felt the need to revolutionize attitudes toward child rearing and midlife, they are interested in a better old age. They are the ones who promoted 50 as the new 40. Could 100 will be the next 90 – or 80?
The National Institute on Aging and National Institutes of Health are both funding research at major universities. Private industry is also studying the metabolic effects of CR, working to create a pill that will mimic it and bypass the need for a rigid diet.
An example is 47 year old Joseph Cordell who eats about 30 % fewer calories than most people. The recommended minimum is 2,500 calories for adult males. Those males practicing CR commonly consume 1800 to 2000 calories daily while some women might consume as few as 1300 calories to 1500 calories daily.
Cordell’s doctor says that he has the blood pressure of a child, the cholesterol of a teenager, and his risk of heart disease is close to zero. Average middle-aged men have 23 to 25 percent body fat; Cordell’s is 7 percent.
“If there wasn’t a substantial benefit to C.R., no one would do it,” he says.
For Cordell, the potential payoff is worth eating this way, something many of us might have a hard time with. It’s not about a short term New Year’s resolution; it’s about a complete diet overhaul that Cordell will stay on for what he believes will be a longer, healthier life.
Barry Gamble a 67 year old CR advocate says his benefits are more energy, fewer digestive problems, better measures of heart health and mobility than his peers and although there are no guarantees, a longer life. “The real reason I do it is because I feel better.”
The focus of those practicing CR is health. Nobody is trying to figure out how to eat less and disappear. The constant thought is, ‘How can I pack more nutrition into my calories?’
Theory of how CR promotes longevity
Inside our cells the process of cellular respiration breaks down a molecule of glucose into carbon dioxide, water, and energy. This energy is stored as ATP. An adult produces 70kg of ATP a day. The process of breaking down sugar in the body is not completely efficient. About 40% of the sugar is converted into ATP. A significant amount of free radicals are produced during this process. When calories are restricted our bodies rely more on fat stores as fuel.
Since fat consumption is several times as efficient at producing ATP than burning glucose, the same amount of energy can be created with much lower levels of free radicals. Fewer free radicals mean lower levels of free radical damage particularly to the mitochondria. Recent studies have shown that a calorie restriction of 40% leads to a 45% decrease in the rate of mitochondrial free radical generation and a 30% reduction in the level of oxidative damage to mitochondrial DNA.
The net effect of these changes decreases the rate of aging by about 50%. Unfortunately humans cannot live reasonably by cutting 40% of their calorie intake. But by decreasing our calorie intake by 15% one achieves almost as much of an anti-aging benefit. It becomes a more realistic achievement than the tough 30% reduction often used by the calorie restriction purists.
CR followers say it is “a way of living” instead of a diet. The Calorie Restriction Society, based on the work of the late UCLA gerontology researcher Roy Walford, was founded in 1994 by a small group of people interested in the science behind CR and an estimated 1,400 people have taken up the diet as a full-time, lifelong practice.
What should you do while waiting for the long term human studies? If you are overweight or you want to experience the potential anti-aging benefits of CR it would be prudent to reduce calories by 15%.
We need to work together with our health practitioner and monitor our blood levels of glucose, insulin, cholesterol and inflammation levels. We need to do this slowly over time and according to the CR followers we will then experience optimal health.
Researchers Evaluate the Health Benefits of Calorie Restriction
Researchers evaluate health benefits of calorie restriction
(Republished with permission from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. This article originally ran in the Health & Fitness section on Monday, February 18, 2008.)
By Harry Jackson Jr.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Washington University scientists want to find out if eating a lot less can improve your health to a nearly perfect condition.
That’s why they’re conducting human studies of a movement called “calorie restriction.”
It’s supposed to work this way: If you reduce your calorie intake by 25 percent to 30 percent, your physical fitness will improve to a nearly perfect level of health.
For example, a calculator used by the Mayo Clinic says an active man of 6 feet, 200 pounds, needs about 2,900 calories a day to maintain his weight. For a 25 percent reduction in calories, he’d go to 2,175 per day.
An active woman, 5-5, 140 pounds, needs 2,050 calories a day to maintain her weight.
She’d drop to about 1,550 calories.
The first phase of CALERIE — Comprehensive Assessment of the Long Term Effects of Reducing Intake of Energy — began several years ago when doctors examined a small number of people from a group called the Calorie Restriction Society. The group has about 3,000 members.
Early tests showed the practitioners, who call themselves “CRONies,” (Calorie Restriction, Optimal Nutrition), had virtually no risks of cardiovascular disease or cancer even though their medical records said they were less healthy when they started the program.
What also intrigued researchers were claims that practitioners would live 20 to 30 percent longer and in better health.
Dr. John Holloszy, professor of medicine in the Division of Geriatrics and Nutritional Sciences at Washington University School of Medicine and the lead researcher on the project, says researchers can’t wait half a century to see if the longevity claims are true.
However, he wrote after the preliminary round of studies, “It’s becoming clear from studies with the CRONies — and from this brief, prospective study — that calorie restriction does change some of the markers we associate with aging.”
The federal National Institutes of Health agreed and is paying for a bigger study of several hundred people in three research centers — Boston, Baton Rouge, La., and St. Louis. These will be people new to calorie restriction.
WHAT THEY FOUND
Proponents of calorie restriction, which they call “CR,” boast of disappearing triglycerides, healthy cholesterol levels, the elimination of low-level inflammation through the body caused by oxidation damage, lowered and more stable blood sugar, nonexistent cardiovascular disease and even instances of being cured of early stage diabetes.
Holloszy says he’s not put off by claims that the practice could stretch useful and healthy life spans up to 120 years.
“With calorie restriction, it seems like the metabolism goes into slow motion,” Holloszy says, adding that the slower metabolism means slower aging.
“We’ll look at the (physiological changes) in the reduction of the processes that we know cause aging,” Holloszy says.
He added that early research shows some health benefits can come from reducing calories by 10 or 15 percent. “We think the effects may hold true (in proportion). We just don’t know yet.”
ONE STORY
A seven-year practitioner of calorie restriction is Joseph Cordell, a St. Louis divorce attorney who specializes in men’s rights.
He adopted calorie restriction years ago. He was in good condition but wanted more. He read a book, “Beyond the 120 Year Diet” by Dr. Roy Walford, who’s considered the founder of the movement. Walford believed the rodent tests would translate easily to humans even before human studies were performed.
Today, Cordell has a breakfast of berries and apple peels. Through the day he’ll eat mainly vegetables, fruit and for dinner vegetables with a small amount of lean meat, such as salmon, chicken or even lean red meat.
“That’s the thing about calorie restriction,” Cordell says. “What I eat probably weighs more than what you’re eating, but it’s much more dense in nutrients and a lot fewer calories.”
WHERE IT STARTED
The attraction to CR by researchers was sparked by more than 60 years of uncommonly consistent tests on laboratory mice and rats, Holloszy says. When laboratory animals were placed on calorie restricted diets, “their life spans increased 20 to 40 percent.”
Washington University performed the tests more than 10 years ago and came up with the same results, Holloszy said.
Bob Cavanaugh, a spokesman for the Calorie Restriction Society, says the group was founded on Walford’s principle. Thousands use the group’s website, calorierestriction.org.
NOT A DIET
Both Cavanaugh and Cordell emphasized that calorie restriction is a way of life, not a diet; it’s not simply eating 25 percent fewer calories at each meal.
And it’s not easy, which is why CR practitioners created a supportive community. St.Louis doesn’t have a local group, although people here practice CR.
This is a simplified description:
— Examine your diet closely, detect the high-calorie, low nutrient foods, then eliminate them. They suggest weening, not simply turning them off cold turkey.
This will involve logging what you eat, maybe even seeking help from dietitians or other CR practitioners.
— As you eliminate empty calories, replace them with nutrient-dense foods, primarily vegetables and fruits. Cordell says he eats apple peels rather than the whole apple because that’s the source of the most nutrients. He also avoids high-sugar fruit such as pineapples.
— Once your whole diet is nutrient-dense foods, you can calculate the calories you’re eating and begin cutting back until you’ve eliminated 25-30 percent.
Cavanaugh says the CR Society offers a calorie and nutrition calculator to anyone who pays the $35 signup fee. Another, called “Cron-o-meter,” is free online.
Holloszy, however, recommended against doing this on your own because off the downsides. And even the CR Society lists risks, most of which come during the transition process.
For example, practitioners find that they lose both fat, muscle and bone mass. That’s why people who can’t afford loss of bone mass or muscle need to be cautious or reject CR alone or work closely with their personal physician.
As for others, “The body is marvelous at regulating itself,” Cordell says. “Your body maintains the amount of bone mass and muscle you need for good health. If you’re not carrying around so much weight, you don’t need the bone mass or muscle mass.”
He says he dropped to about 130 pounds from 170, living on about 1,500 calories a day.
Holloszy wasn’t ready to dismiss the loss of bone mass and muscle. He suggested daily exercise for people trying CR.
THE STUDY
For maximum safety, Holloszy suggests joining the Washington University study. Researchers still need about 60 people.
Those accepted will be monitored by physicians, dietitians and physiologists who’ll meet with them weekly and help set up their diets.
The first month will be a tightly scrutinized eating plan to get you started. After “boot camp,” participants will be be given a stack of eating plans and recipes from various diets such as the Mediterranean Diet and diets based on low fat, low glycemic index or vegetarian.
For two years, they’ll have weekly contacts with the researchers and frequent blood tests.
“It’s quite a commitment,” Holloszy says.
Taking Calorie Counting Up a Notch
(CBS) Looking to live a long, healthy life? As CBS News correspondent Mika Brzezinski reports, for people like Joseph Cordell, that means counting every single calorie (video).
Forty-seven year-old Joseph Cordell is not only counting his calories, but counting on every single one.
“This is all about getting the most bang for your buck nutritionally, trying to squeeze the most nutrition out of the fewest calories,” Cordell says.
In Cordell’s case, that means he eats about 30 percent fewer calories than most people.
“Green peppers,” he remarks. “Wonderful.”
And he restricts his choices to food with the very highest nutritional value. It’s called “calorie restriction optimal nutrition,” or C.R. for short.
“The whole idea of calorie restriction is recognizing that calories are basically bad for you,” Cordell says.
So, what does he eat? Well, twice a day, he eats a big bowl of “blueberries, nuts, and apple peels,” he tells me.
That’s right, just the peel. The peel is where the most nutrition is stored.
For lunch, Cordell eats a huge salad made up of the right kinds of food.
He has it down to a science. “I bet the calories on my plate, which is significantly larger than yours, are certainly no more than 300, maybe less,” he says.
His largest meal is dinner with his family. Tonight, that means another salad, broccoli, asparagus and salmon.
Known as the “120 Year Diet,” followers believe they’ll live a lot longer by eating a lot less.
“Definitely his life expectancy is higher than an average American,” Dr. Luigi Fontana says.
Doctors like Fontana are conducting long-term studies of C.R. They’re convinced it protects against major diseases.
Dr. John Holloszy, principal investigator, agrees. “There’s no chance of them getting type 2 diabetes, they have very low blood pressure, and the risk of them developing cancer is markedly decreased,” Dr. Holloszy says.
And exercise? Not an option. C.R. dieters simply don’t have the calories for it.
“The calorie restriction protects them from the same diseases that exercise protects against, and more potently actually than exercise,” Dr. Holloszy says.
His doctors say Cordell’s has the blood pressure of a child, the cholesterol of a teenager, and his risk of heart disease is close to zero. Average middle-aged men have 23 to 25 percent body fat; Cordell’s is 7 percent.
“If there wasn’t a substantial benefit to C.R., no one would do it,” he says.
For Cordell, the potential payoff is worth eating this way, something many of us might have a hard time with.
Cordell understands. “Americans, many Americans, are not good at deferred gratification,” he says.
What are Americans good at?
“Gratification,” Cordell says.
It’s not about a short term new year’s resolution; it’s about a complete diet overhaul that Cordell will stay on for what he believes will be a longer, healthier life.
©MMV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
The Pros and Cons of Fasting
February 20, 2009
Something about the way Americans eat isn’t working — and hasn’t been for a long time.
The number of obese Americans is now greater than the number who are merely overweight, according to government figures released last month. It’s as if once we taste food, we can’t stop until we’ve gorged ourselves.
Taking that inclination into account, some people are adopting an unusual solution to overeating. Rather than battling temptation in grocery stores, restaurants and their own kitchens, they simply don’t eat. At least not at certain times of the day or specific days of the week.
Called intermittent fasting, this rather stark approach to weight control appears to be supported by science, not to mention various religious and cultural practices around the globe. The practice is a way to become more circumspect about food, its adherents say.
But it also seems to yield the benefits of calorie restriction, which may ultimately reduce the risk of some diseases and even extend life. Some fasters, in fact, ultimately switch from regular, if comparatively rare, periods of hunger to permanent deprivation. They limit calories all the time.
“There is something kind of magical about starvation,” says Dr. Marc Hellerstein, a professor of endocrinology, metabolism and nutrition at UC Berkeley, who studies fasting.
Adds Mark P. Mattson, chief of the laboratory of neurosciences at the National Institute on Aging: “In normal health subjects, moderate fasting — maybe one day a week or cutting back on calories a couple of days a week — will have health benefits for most anybody.” Mattson is among the leading researchers on the effects of calorie restriction and the brain.
Not all nutrition professionals see the merits of fasting. Some think of it as a recipe for disaster, setting up a person for binge eating and metabolic confusion.
Ruth Frechman, a registered dietitian in Burbank and spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Assn., says she frequently sees such extreme strategies backfire. “You’re hungry, fatigued, irritable. Fasting is not very comfortable. People try to cut back one day and the next day they’re starving and they overeat.”
Researchers who study fasting and caloric restriction, however, say the body’s hunger cycle ultimately adjusts.
And from a biological standpoint, they say, fasting can be helpful whether someone is overweight or normal weight.
“We’re brilliant at this,” Hellerstein says, referring to humans’ physical reaction to not eating. “We’re not good at responding to too many calories, but we’re very good at responding to fasting. Fasting, in itself, is not an unhealthy process.”
Benefits to body
During fasting, almost every system in the body is “turned down,” Hellerstein says. The body changes how it uses fuel. Certain hormone levels fall. Growth stops. Reproduction becomes impossible.
“By the end of three weeks of fasting you are a completely different metabolic creature,” he says.
“It affects many, many processes — but in a somewhat predictable way that takes you toward disease prevention.”
Put simply, intermittent fasting appears to offer the same advantages as long-term calorie restriction — defined as eating at regular times but consuming 25% to 30% fewer calories than what is recommended for that person based on age, size and gender (see accompanying article). People who eat this way tend to do so by filling up on nutrient-dense but low-calorie foods. They get all the protein, fiber, vitamins and minerals the body absolutely needs — and very little else.
With intermittent fasting, “the idea is that maybe you can trick the system to think it’s starving, but not make it starve every day,” Hellerstein says.
Researchers aren’t sure why the body apparently benefits from a state of mini-starvation.
One theory is that the process produces just enough stress in cells to be good. “What our evidence suggests is that nerve cells in animals that are on dietary energy restriction are under mild stress,” Mattson says. “It’s a mild stress that stimulates the production of proteins that protect the neurons against more severe stress.”
What they do know is that occasionally going without food or reducing calories daily makes the body more sensitive to insulin, which helps maintain normal blood sugar levels. And animal studies suggest calorie restriction may reduce the risk of cancer by slowing the growth of abnormal cells.
“We’ve been finding that putting an animal on a reduced-calorie diet for a couple of weeks dramatically slows cell proliferation rates,” Hellerstein says. “This is the case in pretty much every tissue you look at: prostate, skin, colon, liver, lymphocytes.”
Intermittent fasting and calorie restriction have also been shown in animals to reduce cognitive decline in diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, Mattson says.
Little research yet
Researchers caution that not many studies have examined humans who are practicing intermittent fasting or caloric restriction. But the little evidence that exists is favorable.
A study published last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that reducing calories 30% per day increased the memory function of elderly men and women. The study was performed at the Salk Institute in La Jolla.
University of Utah scientists looked at health data from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who have lower rates of heart disease than most Americans. Mormons typically don’t smoke or drink alcohol, and some abstain from food on the first Sunday of every month. After controlling for several factors that protect against heart disease, the researchers found that only fasting made a significant difference in lowering the risk of heart disease. Among 448 people surveyed, intermittent fasting was associated with more than a 40% reduction in heart disease risk. Fasting was also linked to a lower incidence of diabetes. The study was published in October in the American Journal of
Cardiology.
Another study showed that asthma patients who fasted had fewer symptoms, better airway function and a decrease in the markers of inflammation in the blood than those who didn’t fast or restrict calories. The study was conducted because being overweight is known to worsen asthma symptoms. The study was published in 2007 in the journal Free Radical Biology & Medicine.
“They complied with the diet pretty well,” Mattson says. “If people know that tomorrow they can eat whatever they want, today they can eat less.”
The National Institutes of Health is now supporting calorie-restriction research at three medical centers. At one study site,
Washington University in St. Louis, Dr. Luigi Fontana is following the largest group to date of people who practice caloric restriction or intermittent fasting. So far his research shows that such people are not malnourished and have excellent cardiovascular health.
“Eating less is important because 65% of the American population is overweight,” Fontana says. “But another question is: If you are already lean, should you change your diet to improve your health and possibly extend your life span?”
That ultimately may be the strongest selling point of a reduced-calorie lifestyle.
(For first-person accounts, see accompanying article.)
“It does demand more than some other diets,” says Joseph Cordell, a St. Louis lawyer who limits his intake to 1,800 to 1,900 calories a day.
“But surely the payoff is dramatically better than anything else. I feel so much better and have more energy. And there is this prospect of living so much longer than you otherwise would.”
shari.roan@latimes.com
Calorie Restriction for Longer Life: One Man’s Experience
By Rosie Mestel
Los Angeles Times
For 10 years, Joe Cordell has been living a life diametrically opposed to that of most Americans: Instead of eating too much, he’s deliberately been eating too little.
The 54-year-old St. Louis lawyer was inspired by the science that suggests that calorie restriction of this type could significantly lengthen a creature’s lifespan, as well as ward off diseases of old age.
We spoke with Cordell about how he got into calorie restriction, what his daily diet is like — and what his wife of 21 years and his two teenage daughters feel about it. We asked him what he felt about a new study that didn’t prolong the life of calorie-restricted monkeys — although it did seem to help ward off cancer.
Here’s what Cordell had to say, edited for length and clarity:
How did you get into calorie restriction?
I had previously been interested in health and fitness and had a pretty traditional approach. Then I was visiting my parents in Florida and was in a bookstore when I came across a book called “The 120 Year Diet” by [pioneering calorie restriction scientist] Roy Walford.
I read the blurb on the back and saw the guy’s credentials, that he was on faculty at UCLA. Then he started quoting these animal studies in which animals had lived beyond the maximum lifespan of their species and it wasn’t a controversial thing, it was a well-settled fact.
I saw enough to intrigue me. I bought the book, and over the next two days as I rode in a car with my parents who were coming to visit in St. Louis, I was immersed in this book. I found it fascinating – my mother probably didn’t find it quite as fascinating; I was telling her things as I was reading. I was amazed then, and am still amazed, that such earth-shattering, revolutionary information about not just longevity but health and longevity could be out there and so few people know about it.
I was converted. Not only that, I was an evangelical convert. I naively thought others would be as excited to hear the information as I was — I probably was a bit of an annoying dinner guest over the next few years. But I’ll tell you, I can count on one hand the number of people I’ve converted in 10 years.
What appeals to you about it?
It wasn’t just the longevity piece, though I know that’s emphasized. Just as radically impressive are the [chronicled] reductions in cancer rates, in heart disease and diabetes. It’s just a truly healthful diet and far beyond what else is out there.
You could make the case that it requires too much. But I think it’s a very difficult case to make that it’s not an intelligent way to live your life.
Was it hard to start off with?
I’m not trying to be dismissive about the challenges [but] it’s like anything: If you’re really excited about something, it’s easier. I can’t say I agonized over restricting my calories that first year. I implemented it slowly, as recommended, over a period of six months or so.
Because it’s become more routine, it’s more difficult in some ways.
How do you watch your weight?
My weight has stayed the same for 10 years at 129-130 pounds. When I get out of bed I go straight to the scales. It’s very important to me that I do not vary.
The diet doesn’t require a machine-like consistency in number calories taken in every day, happily — animal studies show that what really counts is the average. So if I have a holiday coming up or big family event with lots of gourmet food there, if I want to splurge that’s OK — but you have to compensate.
The only thing keeping you really honest on the compensation is tracking your calories and your weight.
At times, my weight will go up to 131 pounds. And on New Year’s Day I often will weigh 132 pounds, because New Year’s Eve is a day I allow myself to eat whatever I want.
What about Thanksgiving and Christmas Day?
Not anything I want. I’ll eat more calories, but there are certain things I just categorircally don’t eat. Bread. Sweets. Desserts. Mashed potatoes, not much — they are calories with very little nutrition.
This is not necessarily CR [calorie restriction] orthodoxy. If you lined up 10 of us doing CR, what we’ll have in common is we’re restricting calories and we’re taking in extra amounts of nutrition — lots of vegetables, a substantial amount of fruit.
But we would disagree about things such as how much much meat to eat or whether to eat any meat at all.
How do you make sure you’re getting adequate vitamins, minerals and other nutrients?
It takes care of itself. if you focus on a plant diet, you’re good. I eat lots of plants, but good plants: richly colored vegetables, berries. And nuts, which have calories but have oils and other things that are healthful.
Most Americans, even those taking in 4,000 calories a day, get easily less nutrients than I do. I’m not suffering from a deficiency. But I have to be sure to do that in the context of a smaller number of calories.
Any strategies?
You learn to like salads without lots of dressing. There are other things you can use, like balsamic vinegar. Mustard is delicious in a salad; most people think mustard only goes on lettuce in a hamburger. I use a rich variety of vegetables, just a really, really, varied salad.
You can eat a tremendous amount of food, as you can see from pictures and whatnot that are out there of me. I walk away from lunch much fuller than anybody else at a table. They’ve eaten much less food and I’ve eaten two pounds of salad and taken in maybe 400 calories and feel completely satisfied.
If I ate what they ate for lunch, I would be hungry.
Peels — that’s another tip. With an apple, you can decide to cut off a little thicker peel and get a bit of the taste of apple. Eating predominantly the peel eradicates 80% of the calories. You have a ton of fiber in peel plus you get rid of all the sugar and it tastes wonderful and its just a load of phytochemicals, plant chemicals.
What’s a typical meal plan for the day?
My typical menu is kind of boring to some people, not to me.
Breakfast is my biggest meal of the day. I have two cups of strawberries, two cups of blueberries. Sometimes I’ll shake it up and put in bag of raspberries. You’d be surprised by how many berries you can eat — and you feel very full. I eat mine frozen; that’s a personal taste. It’s cheaper and easier to get year-round and you can buy organic that way too.
Add apple peels, some nuts — generally walnuts — and sometimes stevia on it to sweeten it up. And that’s my breakfast. I don’t eat it immediately. I generally make my bowl, take the dog outside, walk her, then sit down and eat it and then it’s perfect. Kind of like ice cream.
Lunch I’ll often skip, actually. But if I don’t, it will be the mega salad. If I don’t have a large salad at lunch, I’ll be sure to have it at dinner.
How does your family feel about your diet?
My wife loves to cook. It’s an irony that my wife’s favorite hobby is to make food and mine is to not eat it.
We have come up with reconcilations. In recent times, I’ve reduced or eliminated what I eat at lunch. It allows me to be more productive during the day, and then in the evening I’ll have some of my budget left.
But I would be less than completely frank if didn’t say it can be frustrating to her. For everyone who does CR, it’s always a little inconvenient to the chef in the family and others who are eating with them.
My daughters oscillate between on the one hand being frustrated and finding it annoying because we’re out traveling and I want to go to a restaurant I can eat at, and they’re saying “No no, we want to go to the pizza place.” But they also get delighted by the occasional publicity that seems to roll around CR. They really thought it cool I was on “Oprah” with Dr. Oz.
Do you eat meat?
At present I don’t — and again, this is not a core tenet of CR, I want to make that clear. But I kind of prefer it. I think a plant-based diet is much healthier.
Do you take vitamins?
Off and on – I’m not a big believer in vitamins. I think it’s much too complicated, that what we need from fruits and vegetables is more like a symphony of nutrients, some of which we’ve identified and many of which we haven’t. I think that explains the ambiguous results they get from science that regularly whipsaw us with reports saying taking vitamins is good or saying not only is it not helpful but also harmful.
What percentage of your calories are you restricting?
I’m doing about 25% or 30%, closer to 30% probably. The way you do it is whenever you start doing CR, first you go through a week or so just monitoring what you eat. You eat what you want, being careful not to deliberately gorge or diet. You track that. And that represents your baseline for determining CR.
That’s your set point: Everyone’s set point is different, as you know. Some have very fast metabolisms and some don’t.
That brings me down to 1,900 calories a day. That’s an average. At times I eat less and at times I eat more.
What do you hope to get out of this?
First and foremost, I would like to live to the outer limits of what human beings normally live. [But] I would be delighted to take 90 to 95 years without cancer, without heart disease, without diabetes or other chronic illnesses. To me, that would have warranted this.
My brother and I are about the same age, 14 months apart. He’s about an inch shorter than I am and weighs 120 pounds more than I do. His approach to life in many ways is the opposite of mine — he enjoys eating what he wants when he wants it. He’ll often joke with me around the Thanksgiving table that wouldn’t it be funny if he lives longer than I do. All this suffering would be for nothing. He gets a kick out of that.
But people do lots of things that are strenuous but very enjoyable: They climb mountains and run marathons. And I can tell you without batting an eye that my life has been richer, fuller, more enjoyable with calorie restriction than it would have been without it even if I were run over by a truck today.
I wouldn’t change the way I’ve lived my life because it’s a challenge, but it’s the type of challenge that makes life fun.
Are you disappointed by the results of the new monkey study?
I’m mildly disappointed, but still excited about CR. I was aware there were ambivalent results from the rhesus monkeys at Universities of Maryland and Wisconsin and NIH.
The study has some substantial flaws, among them the fact that the control group did not eat ad libitum. Even the results are suspiciously inconsistent internally. But either way, as we discussed, I’m not especially invested in the extreme longevity piece of the program.
My brother will have fun with this study.
Read our Science blog at latimes.com/sciencenow and our Health blog at latimes.com/boostershots.
Follow me on twitter: @LATimesRosie
Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times
BBC Crew Counts Calories in SIUE Film Session
From The Telegraph
EDWARDSVILLE – Members of the British Broadcasting Corp. spent time this week on the Southern Illinois University Edwardsville campus.
Researchers in the SIUE Department of Kinesiology and Health Education conducted various laboratory tests Tuesday for a BBC Horizon documentary series on diet and calorie restriction.
Curt Lox, professor and chairman of the Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, said the BBC crew became interested in using SIUE as a testing site because of its equipment and testing capabilities.
BBC Director Kate Dart was drawn to a specific piece of equipment, the BodPod, which assesses an individual’s composition of lean and fat body mass. Dart researched the BodPod website and discovered that SIUE owned the device. Already scheduled for a stop in St. Louis, she decided to schedule some testing at SIUE.
“The BBC’s decision to utilize our lab reflects positively on the emerging reputation of both our department and the university as a whole,” said Lox, who said he believes the collaborative effort is a tremendous boon for SIUE. “We certainly couldn’t ask for better international publicity than this, given the BBC’s reach and reputation.”
The still-to-be-titled episodes explore calorie restriction in one’s diet in an effort to stay younger and extend an individual life.
The production team, led by Dart and researcher Roshan Samarasinghe, began taping in London and will visit Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Chicago and Baltimore during the next two weeks. The crew expects to complete the project by the end of August, with an autumn release date on the BBC. Whether the show will air on BBC America is not yet known.
Dr. Bryan Smith, an assistant professor in the Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, led two participants through two different body composition assessments utilizing the BodPod as the iDXA scanning unit. The participants were Joe Cordell, a St. Louisan, and Michael Mosley, a presenter and executive producer of a variety of exercise and health programming for the BBC. Both men are over 50 years old.
“It was an enjoyable experience,” Smith said. “The crew and participants were a pleasure to work with, and the final product will be great exposure for the department and the university.”