Eating your way to younger old age
 

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/14316.html

WILLIAM TINNING April 20 2004

PEOPLE who curb their calorie intake and avoid processed foods could benefit from having health characteristics normally seen in someone decades younger, a study has shown.
Research has consistently demonstrated stringent calorie restriction can increase the lifespan of mice and rats by about 30% and protect them against cancer. However, until now the long-term effects of such dieting on humans has been unclear.
For the first time, researchers in the United States have found a long-term, low-calorie, balanced diet reduces the ageing process.
The research, published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests long-term dieting can provide strong protection from heart disease and diabetes.
Examples of high-profile showbusiness figures who already appear to have benefited from diet and fitness regimes include Goldie Hawn, 58; Sigourney Weaver, 54; Lulu, 56; Kim Cattrall, 48; Michelle Pfeiffer, 46; Madonna, 45; and Denzel Washington, 49.
Professor John Holloszy, from Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, who led the study, said: "It's very clear from these findings that calorie restriction has a powerful protective effect against diseases associated with ageing.
"We don't know how long each individual actually will end up living, but they certainly have a much longer life expectancy than average because they're most likely not going to die from a heart attack, stroke or diabetes."
Researchers said a group of 18 people, aged from 35 to 82, who restricted their calorie intake and studiously avoided processed foods for between three and 15 years, were found to have health characteristics normally seen in people decades younger.
In addition, the group – whose average age was 50 – recruited from the Caloric Restriction Optimal Nutrition Society, a US body which promotes healthy eating, showed blood pressure readings akin to that of an average 10-year-old.
The group consumed small amounts of nutrient-dense foods, taking in between 10% and 25% fewer calories than the average American.
Their diet included a wide variety of vegetables, fruits, nuts, dairy products, egg whites, wheat and soy proteins, and meat.
The participants obtained 26% of calories from protein, 28% from fat and 46% from complex carbohydrates. They avoided processed foods containing trans-fatty acids, as well as refined carbohydrates, desserts, snacks and soft drinks.
Although mortality has fallen over the past 20 years, heart disease still kills nearly 120,000 people a year in Britain – 12,000 in Scotland which still holds the unenviable title of being the heart attack capital of western Europe.
Professor Holloszy explained that typically the group's energy consumption was between 1100 and 1950 calories a day – about half that of a non-dieting comparison group recruited by the researchers.
The comparison group obtained only 18% of their calories from protein, 32% from fat, and 50% from carbohydrates including refined processed starches.
The scientists focused on risk factors for atherosclerosis, the narrowing of arteries that can trigger heart attacks or strokes and is the leading cause of death in the Western world.
Tests showed that people in the calorie-restricted group had levels of "bad" cholesterol – low density lipoprotein – equal to that of the lowest 10% of the population in their age groups.
Levels of "good" high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were at the top of the range for middle-aged men. This was a surprise to researchers because HDL levels often decrease when people follow low-fat diets to lose weight.
Levels of triglyceride – blood fats which when elevated can trigger atherosclerosis – were even more impressive in the calorie-restricted group.
Among the dieters, they were lower than more than 95% of Americans in their mid-20s.
Dr Luigi Fontana, who also took part in the research, said: "These effects are all pretty dramatic. For the first time, we've shown that calorie restriction is feasible and has a tremendous effect on the risk of atherosclerosis and diabetes."
Iain Lowis, Scottish director of the British Heart Foundation, had not seen the research results but said they seemed "surprising".
He added: "We have always said that people are eating more than they should and are eating more of the wrong stuff.
"This study seems to demonstrate that eating less and eating more unprocessed foods is good for you and will reduce the incidence of heart disease."

Well, other than fat/carb/protein rations, I'm definitely on this diet. :P At 1200 calories a day, I should be getting, by my rough estimates, 1 year younger every month. When I look 21 again, then I'll up the calories and maintain that age.

:D

According to fitday I burn about 3000 calories a day just doing my work and keeping myself going so sooner or later 1100 to 1950 calories isnt going to be enough is it or am I missing something here?

Ooooh, it's calorie restriction, is it? What about the avoiding transfats, not being overweight, etc?

Myself, I'm going for the "glycation of proteins" theory. Just eating low carb and maintaining a healthy weight and blood pressure, I will get the same anti-aging benefits as restricting calories....at least, that's my theory.

to parapharase mark twain... following a low calorie diet won't make you live longer, but it will sure seem like it!

Yeah, the glucose/insulin one seems to bear out in that 4 year old mouse.

But hey! I might as well make myself feel good about my low calorie diet. Other than the nice weightloss. :)

sorry I dont think it was clear I was asking the question seriously anyone tell me if I am interpreting it correctly.
calories in must equal calories out to maintain.
I know this is a over simplification but is the basic idea correct?

I wouldn't trust fitday's calorie expenditure estimates all that much. Mine seemed to indicate I could eat quite a few more calories than I do and lose at least a pound a week, in reality, I wasn't losing.

I didn't really understand your question:

Enough for what?

enough to keep myself going, do my work etc.

I have to say I don't think the basic idea is correct.

People lose weight low carbing while eating 300 more calories, according to one study.

My mother was eating under 1000 calories a day and GAINING...when she began low carbing she lost weight while eating much more calories.

Dunno about you but somehow I seem able to function on 1200-1300 just fine. I don't think I'd want to go my whole life like that though. I think probably my caloric max would be about 2000, when maintaining my weight.

I think they're missing the point in all these studies on calorie restriction. IMHO, I think it's insulin restriction that is the real key. And we get that with low-carbing. When you talk about limiting calories and not eating processed foods, you're going to be eating foods that have a much lower insulin response. And then there's that four-year-old mouse. I know there was one article posted by a doctor who seemed to get it. I just wish the others would get it too.

/nod DebPenny

I hope that's the case, that it is the insulin restriction. But I wonder if they've done this sort of study on a carnivore? That'd be more interesting since they don't eat much that would stimulate their insulin in the first place. Problem is though, they live pretty long already. The study would take a long time. :P

That was my thought, DebPenny. It would be irresponsible for the researchers to automatically credit calorie restriction when there are so many other factors. What they'd need to do is put two groups on diets that are identical except for the quantities of food. *Then* you can compare the results and see what affect total calories had.

Thanks, Nancy. That makes me wonder.... If you look at comparably-sized carnivores and herbivores, who lives longer when not confronted by violent death? You wouldn't want to compare, say, lions to elephants, who live a lot longer but are also a lot larger. But most pets (dogs and cats) do eat a high-carb diet in the form of OTC pet foods and do have insulin-related diseases -- look at the prevalence of diabetes in cats and dogs.

I do know that I have probably extended my dog Bandit's life by switching him to a low-carb lifestyle. He's been eating Bones and Raw Food since just before he was 12 -- he's 14 now. I have arrested his diabetes and the fat deposits that were developing under his skin (you know the ones old dogs always get) have all disappeared. And my cat, who was put on the diet when he was about 15 months old is in perfect health, but I don't know how long he'll be with me or if it will be longer because of the way I am feeding him, only time will tell.

I have no data on how many calories they were eating also. Ruggles, my cat, is much more self-regulating than he was on OTC catfood and Bandit no longer free-feeds as he did before because it's not feasible with raw food. But I do know that if they were having any kind of excess insulin before, they don't have it now.

Sorry to be so long-winded. Just sufice it to say, I'd love to see such a study. ;) It might help convince more people to feed their pets well, the way they were meant to eat.