Calorie Restriction & Longevity

Nutrition
41

[quote]michael2507 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Further, where are all of the people living to be over 100 years old who don’t eat much? Shouldn’t there be a lot more of those by now?

Good point, even more as conversely, there are some family members of mine who have lived past 80 or even 90 years who were overweight for most of their lives and had bad dietary habits.

Well, that’s a pretty stupid point. There are always exceptions. That’s why they’re called exceptions.

How do you know that they are exceptions? Do you really believe that caloric intake, nutrition or even bodyweight are the only significant factors in the equation?

We know that being overweight and having bad dietary habits compromises longevity…

To what extent is the question here. A question to which you seem to have a decisive answer… :wink:

… and in the lucky people in whom it doesn’t still usually decreases quality of life.

Where did I mention quality of life in my post? [/quote]

If you haven’t read enough or heard enough to believe that maintaining a reasonably low level of bodyfat, eating healthy, and exercising [as well as non-smoking] greatly promote longevity and that obesity, poor diet, and lack of exercise take years off life, I’m not going to argue with you. I said nothing about those behaviors allowing someone to live to extraordinarily old ages and in fact said that I think such behaviors have little to do with getting past normal old age. Your post implied that health-eroding behavior do not decrease longetivy and healht-promoting behaviors do not increase it. At least that’s how I read it. If that’s a wrong interpretation, I apologize. As far as how we know they’re exceptions? There is a HUGE array of data that shows that people who smoke, have poor diets, at/or are overfat die earlier than those who do/are none of those things. Those who engage in those behaviors and still live to be as old or older as those who don’t are MUCH less common. That is how we know.

42

Calorie restriction does not make you live longer, it just feels that way.

43

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Further, where are all of the people living to be over 100 years old who don’t eat much? Shouldn’t there be a lot more of those by now?

Good point, even more as conversely, there are some family members of mine who have lived past 80 or even 90 years who were overweight for most of their lives and had bad dietary habits.

Well, that’s a pretty stupid point. There are always exceptions. That’s why they’re called exceptions.

How do you know that they are exceptions? Do you really believe that caloric intake, nutrition or even bodyweight are the only significant factors in the equation?

We know that being overweight and having bad dietary habits compromises longevity…

To what extent is the question here. A question to which you seem to have a decisive answer… :wink:

… and in the lucky people in whom it doesn’t still usually decreases quality of life.

Where did I mention quality of life in my post?

If you haven’t read enough or heard enough to believe that maintaining a reasonably low level of bodyfat, eating healthy, and exercising [as well as non-smoking] greatly promote longevity and that obesity, poor diet, and lack of exercise take years off life, I’m not going to argue with you. I said nothing about those behaviors allowing someone to live to extraordinarily old ages and in fact said that I think such behaviors have little to do with getting past normal old age. Your post implied that health-eroding behavior do not decrease longetivy and healht-promoting behaviors do not increase it. At least that’s how I read it. If that’s a wrong interpretation, I apologize. As far as how we know they’re exceptions? There is a HUGE array of data that shows that people who smoke, have poor diets, at/or are overfat die earlier than those who do/are none of those things. Those who engage in those behaviors and still live to be as old or older as those who don’t are MUCH less common. That is how we know.[/quote]

The point I was trying to make: Calory restriction or even nutrition as a whole is obviously not the only significant factor regarding longevity. Again, you are shifting the discussion away to aspects like smoking, exercise and obesity which I mentioned nowhere in my previous posts.

I definitely agree that a healthy lifestyle as a whole is an important factor in the equation.

The relatives I mentioned for example were physically more active than most people are now - something that could be said of the their whole generation on average. Most of those relatives did not smoke and while overweight as stated above, I would not consider them obese.

The food they consumed, while not perfect choices, was in a more natural state than most of the stuff available today. I’m also sure that they were subject to most negative environmental influences to a lesser degree.

Hope this clears things up.

44

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
florin wrote:
…Well, we are different, but that’s just because of the mind. Bodily, we’re just big apes. The SIRT1 effect should apply to us too.

Think with me for second. Even allowing for the hypothesis that “bodily we are just big apes” which I do not believe to be the case, the very thoroughly documented term “psychosomatic” renders this point moot to the nth degree.

Good point. It should be very clear by now that our own mental state has the ability to affect us physically. If that isn’t one HUGE wrench to throw into this belief, I don’t know what is.[/quote]

I’m not flaming the guy, but he says the only difference between us and animals is the mind. However that is THE biggest difference that will always limit the usefulness of animal trials in general for human application. They are informative and should be continued, but sober caution needs to be exercised when implying things like walking around like an Auschwitz survivor may make you live longer.

45

[quote]gadget wrote:
Calorie restriction does not make you live longer, it just feels that way.[/quote]

Ha ha ha!!! :smiley:

Good one, Gadget.

46

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’m not flaming the guy, but he says the only difference between us and animals is the mind. However that is THE biggest difference that will always limit the usefulness of animal trials in general for human application. They are informative and should be continued, but sober caution needs to be exercised when implying things like walking around like an Auschwitz survivor may make you live longer. [/quote]

Actually, I was not thinking too different from that.
I was just saying, from a strictly physical perspective, it’s almost certain that the restricted calorie thing works on humans just like on animals. The difference might be the mind, which might be a very big difference, or a small one.

Anyway, here’s another angle:

Essentially, they say that caloric restriction might work through cooling the body, which prolongs life.

47

[quote]florin wrote:
I was just saying, from a strictly physical perspective, it’s almost certain that the restricted calorie thing works on humans just like on animals.
[/quote]

I’m not ready to concede even that much. At least not in terms that simple.

[quote]florin wrote:
The difference might be the mind, which might be a very big difference, or a small one.
[/quote]

It’s pretty well accepted by all save the most jaded extremists, which I’m not accusing you of being, that our intellectual processes are practically an order of magnitude more complex than even advanced primates.

Until Bonzo the chimp shows up here asking about how to see his abs I’ll accept that conclusion. That fact, especially with what we know about the power of the mind over the body quite strongly implies that the difference is a very big one which in turn forever limits the translation of animal studies directly into human data.

You seem a decent enough fella so don’t take me like I’m pouncing on you, but I just don’t see how the above conclusion can be reasonably avoided.

48

[quote]
I’ll tell you where all the calorie restricting, long-living smokers are: France! Those un-American existentialist bastards with their socialized medicine. They make me sick.

But seriously. The fat monkey that eats too much for living a sedentary life in captivity is gonna be worse off than the skinny monkey thats eating just enough to properly function.

I wanna see the T-Nation monkey test where a third monkey is given over a thousand calories a day and is trained to do squats with special monkey barbells. [/quote]

LOL. Sorry to interrupt!

49

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Professor X wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Further, where are all of the people living to be over 100 years old who don’t eat much? Shouldn’t there be a lot more of those by now?

Good point, even more as conversely, there are some family members of mine who have lived past 80 or even 90 years who were overweight for most of their lives and had bad dietary habits.

Well, that’s a pretty stupid point. There are always exceptions. That’s why they’re called exceptions. We know that being overweight and having bad dietary habits compromises longevity and in the lucky people in whom it doesn’t still usually decreases quality of life.

It just doesn’t mean that everyone should starve and go through life as a walking skeleton. It means that people should stay healthy and active, eat healthy nutritious foods, and maintain a reasonably low bodyfat.

Even with that said, if calorie restriction helped out that much, there would be MANY more people walking around who were living over 100 years of age just because they never ate much.

How can anyone skip over something like that? The majority of cases where people do live longer, they were genetic freaks anyway. My great aunt (may be great-great) lived to 112…and she SMOKED. No, that doesn’t mean that smoking makes you live longer. It is just proof that there is much more at work here than simply trying to be as healthy as possible…which really doesn’t mean anything.

What if we later learn that relatively frequent exposure to things that are considered “unhealthy” helps us build a resistance which helps us live longer as long as it is moderated?

I truly believe that concept holds more truth than the one presented by the OP.

Well, you’re right. We don’t understand what allows some human beings to attain an extremely old age. A few animal studies do not change this. Like you said, it is probably mostly winning the genetic lottery that allows someone to live EXTREMELY long. Sometimes even in spite of unhealthy behaviors. But we do know there is a HIGH correlation between the things I mentioned–proper diet, exercise, maintaining a proper weight [or rather bodyfat %]–and longevity. And, more importantly, quality of life while still alive. Enough to say that these behaviors promote both. Ordinary long, healthy lives. Not crazy, long lives.

Anything’s possible; we could learn that frequent exposure to things that are unhealthy helps build a resistance which helps us live longer. But I’m not holding my breath. I don’t see that as much more likely than caloric restriction being some magic pill that allows extreme longevity.[/quote]

I don’t believe you that your great great whatever aunt lived to 112. There has only been about 30 people ever that haved lived over 110. That is people who could prove it with documentation of their birth and such. Such was the bullshit claims of a certain people in Russia i think it was that all claimed to be way over 120 years of age. Later it was discovered that at some time before when there was some kind of a draft they changed their ages to much older to avoid it.

What was her name? I can check to see if it listed.

Another point that has not be mentioned as to why some people live to a long time is epigenetics. Scientists so naively thought that the human genome project would tell it all how the body functions. But then to everyone surprise only found 30000 genes instead of the estimated 100 000 genes.

Well epigentics has been proven to be a factor what diseases you could get. They change how genes can interact with the cell’s transcribing machinery, epigenetic modifications, or “marks,” generally turn genes on or off, allowing or preventing the gene from being used to make a protein. On the other hand, mutations and bigger changes in the DNA sequence change not only the sequence of the DNA and RNA, but may affect the sequence of the protein as well.

The lives of your grandparents ? the air they breathed, the food they ate even the things they saw ? can directly affect you, decades later, despite your never experiencing these things yourself. And that what you do in your lifetime could in turn affect your grandchildren.

50

[quote]jii wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Professor X wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Further, where are all of the people living to be over 100 years old who don’t eat much? Shouldn’t there be a lot more of those by now?

Good point, even more as conversely, there are some family members of mine who have lived past 80 or even 90 years who were overweight for most of their lives and had bad dietary habits.

Well, that’s a pretty stupid point. There are always exceptions. That’s why they’re called exceptions. We know that being overweight and having bad dietary habits compromises longevity and in the lucky people in whom it doesn’t still usually decreases quality of life.

It just doesn’t mean that everyone should starve and go through life as a walking skeleton. It means that people should stay healthy and active, eat healthy nutritious foods, and maintain a reasonably low bodyfat.

Even with that said, if calorie restriction helped out that much, there would be MANY more people walking around who were living over 100 years of age just because they never ate much.

How can anyone skip over something like that? The majority of cases where people do live longer, they were genetic freaks anyway. My great aunt (may be great-great) lived to 112…and she SMOKED. No, that doesn’t mean that smoking makes you live longer. It is just proof that there is much more at work here than simply trying to be as healthy as possible…which really doesn’t mean anything.

What if we later learn that relatively frequent exposure to things that are considered “unhealthy” helps us build a resistance which helps us live longer as long as it is moderated?

I truly believe that concept holds more truth than the one presented by the OP.

Well, you’re right. We don’t understand what allows some human beings to attain an extremely old age. A few animal studies do not change this. Like you said, it is probably mostly winning the genetic lottery that allows someone to live EXTREMELY long. Sometimes even in spite of unhealthy behaviors. But we do know there is a HIGH correlation between the things I mentioned–proper diet, exercise, maintaining a proper weight [or rather bodyfat %]–and longevity. And, more importantly, quality of life while still alive. Enough to say that these behaviors promote both. Ordinary long, healthy lives. Not crazy, long lives.

Anything’s possible; we could learn that frequent exposure to things that are unhealthy helps build a resistance which helps us live longer. But I’m not holding my breath. I don’t see that as much more likely than caloric restriction being some magic pill that allows extreme longevity.

I don’t believe you that your great great whatever aunt lived to 112. There has only been about 30 people ever that haved lived over 110. That is people who could prove it with documentation of their birth and such. Such was the bullshit claims of a certain people in Russia i think it was that all claimed to be way over 120 years of age. Later it was discovered that at some time before when there was some kind of a draft they changed their ages to much older to avoid it.

What was her name? I can check to see if it listed.

[/quote]

It was in the newspaper. You can believe what you want, but giving out names of relatives on this site just won’t happen. I’m related to someone currently famous as well. Do I need to provide proof of this? Believe what you want to believe, or don’t. Until the point in time that YOU and everyone else logging onto the internet start using the name on your birth cirtificate, asking for someone else’s personal info seems rather stupid. The one thing I can say, is that I haven’t lied about info given on this site. There seems to be much about me that people just can’t believe. I find that funny.

PS, I just called my mom to confirm (because I was truly interested) and she was 115 years old when she died.

51

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
florin wrote:
The difference might be the mind, which might be a very big difference, or a small one.

It’s pretty well accepted by all save the most jaded extremists, which I’m not accusing you of being, that our intellectual processes are practically an order of magnitude more complex than even advanced primates.

Until Bonzo the chimp shows up here asking about how to see his abs I’ll accept that conclusion. That fact, especially with what we know about the power of the mind over the body quite strongly implies that the difference is a very big one which in turn forever limits the translation of animal studies directly into human data.

You seem a decent enough fella so don’t take me like I’m pouncing on you, but I just don’t see how the above conclusion can be reasonably avoided.[/quote]

No problem. It’s probably just me not being able to express myself properly.

No doubt we’re orders of magnitude beyond apes in terms of mental complexity. I was merely wandering about the effects of said complexity over the body.
On one hand, it has been shown that the mind can influence the body to a very large degree.
On the other, many people are just vegetables. In that case, the hardware might be there but the software is just doing NOPs (No OPeration).

Anyway, while the topic is very interesting, at present we can’t do much more than just juggling with ideas.

52

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Check out the people in these videos. These people don’t look anything close to healthy.

http://www.calorierestriction.org/Video_Clips [/quote]

They look like the most androgenous bunch I’ve ever seen.

If that is the results and effects they get, along with the stick dude from the pictures that looks like a bobble head, I am officialy on an eternal bulk.

53

All this talk about living long…

I havent read all the responses. No tme now.But assuming someone else hasnt posted this
already…just check this out…
its from Elitefts.

http://www.elitefts.com/documents/perspective.htm

54

[quote]Professor X wrote:

It was in the newspaper. You can believe what you want, but giving out names of relatives on this site just won’t happen. I’m related to someone currently famous as well. Do I need to provide proof of this? Believe what you want to believe, or don’t. Until the point in time that YOU and everyone else logging onto the internet start using the name on your birth cirtificate, asking for someone else’s personal info seems rather stupid. The one thing I can say, is that I haven’t lied about info given on this site. There seems to be much about me that people just can’t believe. I find that funny.

PS, I just called my mom to confirm (because I was truly interested) and she was 115 years old when she died.[/quote]

I still dont believe you. First were expected to believe you at 112 now its gets more outrageous at 115. Did you know that even if you break all the odds and manage to make it to 100 you only have a 50% chance of making it to your next birthday. and that 50% chance only decreases every year there after.

So your telling me that she managed to beat the odds 15 times? Thats like heading down to Vegas and keep taking the winnings on the roulette wheel and placing it on a new number.

I dont see any reason at all why you cant provide her name. What possible harm could come if we knew details about her when she is already dead? If you did not know already when your dead that’s it. Everything there after that happens to you would make zero difference.

55

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
… Hitting your self on the head with a hammer 3 times is going to be more damaging than doing it once.
…

Study?[/quote]

lol. Trust Zap to take the piss out of a great point. I LOLed at this one.

Trib made a great point that restricting calories from damaging foods will extend life. Also, even if you’re eating less, if you’re eating ‘superfoods’ you’ll be doing fairly well from a nutritional standpoint.

All of this is null and void if you’re simply starting yourself on convenience foods.

My understanding of calorie restriction is that it works by effectively lowering metabolism and removing demands from the body. Stress is taken off the digestive system, and there’s not much lean mass to maintain. It makes the body very efficient because it lowers the ‘cost of upkeep’ so to speak.

I like to eat - a lot. In both senses of the word. Sometimes I like to eat more than my body needs. I figure by working out and eating clean and highly nutrtious foods, I’m still at least a few steps ahead of most people.

And I might not live to 100, but at least I’ll have a sex drive. People who starve themselves lose a lot of ‘vitality’ and that to me is the ultimate testimony to the fact that it’s not ideal for us as species - something that discourages reproduction, though it maybe be appropriate for us now, isn’t ‘naturally ideal’ for any species.

56

I dont think periodic caloric restriction done in a fasting fashion is bad… like the way Dr. Art de Vany does it…I do it myself (warrior diet) but this skinny dude is just… creepy… thats way too extreme.

57

[quote]jii wrote:
Professor X wrote:

It was in the newspaper. You can believe what you want, but giving out names of relatives on this site just won’t happen. I’m related to someone currently famous as well. Do I need to provide proof of this? Believe what you want to believe, or don’t. Until the point in time that YOU and everyone else logging onto the internet start using the name on your birth cirtificate, asking for someone else’s personal info seems rather stupid. The one thing I can say, is that I haven’t lied about info given on this site. There seems to be much about me that people just can’t believe. I find that funny.

PS, I just called my mom to confirm (because I was truly interested) and she was 115 years old when she died.

I still dont believe you. First were expected to believe you at 112 now its gets more outrageous at 115. Did you know that even if you break all the odds and manage to make it to 100 you only have a 50% chance of making it to your next birthday. and that 50% chance only decreases every year there after.

So your telling me that she managed to beat the odds 15 times? Thats like heading down to Vegas and keep taking the winnings on the roulette wheel and placing it on a new number.

I dont see any reason at all why you cant provide her name. What possible harm could come if we knew details about her when she is already dead? If you did not know already when your dead that’s it. Everything there after that happens to you would make zero difference. [/quote]

There is no reason to provide her name because she is related TO ME. That’s why. While no one knows who you are or cares (I haven’t even seen you post here before), some people actually may read my posts.

Further, if you really wanted this info instead of some lame attempt to call me out, you would have sent me a private message, not asked me on the public forum that arguably gets read by thousands of people everyday. Like I’ve told you, you don’t have to believe a word. I feel great knowing that I’m not lying and that you feel it is impossible.

58

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…
It was in the newspaper. You can believe what you want, but giving out names of relatives on this site just won’t happen. I’m related to someone currently famous as well. Do I need to provide proof of this? Believe what you want to believe, or don’t. Until the point in time that YOU and everyone else logging onto the internet start using the name on your birth cirtificate, asking for someone else’s personal info seems rather stupid. The one thing I can say, is that I haven’t lied about info given on this site. There seems to be much about me that people just can’t believe. I find that funny.

PS, I just called my mom to confirm (because I was truly interested) and she was 115 years old when she died.[/quote]

It’s Bush isn’t it. I’m willing to put money on Bush. Every family has a black sheep. Or a white sheep, depending on your point of view.

But seriously, you guys are to much emotional on this.
Most people choose to sit on a couch and get fat. We point at them and redicule them. So do the cronnies.

We choose to eat healthy, lift heavy weights and build a healthy and big body. Most people point at us and reducle us.
The cronnies choose to eat healthy but starve themselves to live longer. Most people point at them and redicule them. So do we. Why?

It’s their choice. I have respect for that. It takes discipline. I don’t want to follow their footsteps, but that doesn’t mean I have to redicule it.

And, this gets interesting, there might be a way to get the benifits of caloric restriction, without the drawbacks.

You heard that right, perhaps there’s a way to live longer without having to starve yourself. And perhaps resveratrol is (part of) the key. How about that eh? Who knew that all the big fellas at this forum and the cronies have something in comon?

I’ll point to this thread when someone complains on this forum that his choice in life is not understood by the people around him.

59

On the subject of living to 112 - It’s not 30 people who made it that far, it’s a little more than 200.

And that’s people whose age can be reliably verified, and does not include the Russians and such who are in doubt.

And the fifty percent thing is worng in two respects:

One, that’s not the actual chance of survival - it’s much lower and higher at various ages.

Two, there’s not a game in Vegas that gives you fifty-fifty odds, so it’s not like getting a run on anything in gambling.

It’s like a coin flip. Which, sitting here at the computer, I just got three tails in a row.

60

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…
It was in the newspaper. You can believe what you want, but giving out names of relatives on this site just won’t happen. I’m related to someone currently famous as well. Do I need to provide proof of this? Believe what you want to believe, or don’t. Until the point in time that YOU and everyone else logging onto the internet start using the name on your birth cirtificate, asking for someone else’s personal info seems rather stupid. The one thing I can say, is that I haven’t lied about info given on this site. There seems to be much about me that people just can’t believe. I find that funny.

PS, I just called my mom to confirm (because I was truly interested) and she was 115 years old when she died.

It’s Bush isn’t it. I’m willing to put money on Bush. Every family has a black sheep. Or a white sheep, depending on your point of view.[/quote]

He gave me FEMA for my last Birthday present but I kept the receipt and sent it back because it didn’t work.