http://www.sbdrc.org/Pages/page49.html

I would like to have some opinions on the benefit of intermittent fasting. I feel that this and the composition of your calorie-intake (low- vs slowcarb, more proteïne) may have a much larger influence on fatt-loss then is generally apreciated until now.

So maybe the calorie counting and feeling of hunger can stop now?

My mom was seriously into fasting when I was a teenager. We'd get sick, she'd put us on a fast. Either a "juice fast", "water fast", or a "watermelon fast". It was during her period when she was under the sway of a chiropractor who fancied himself a nutritionist and doctor too.

Sometimes he'd recommend that people fast for as long as a month. But fasting for a few days wasn't uncommon for us. I can't remember how many times I did it, probably not many because I was a kid and resistant to her nutty ideas.

Anyway, the funny part of fasting is that after about the first 24 hours, you stop being hungry.

Do I think fasting is good? I dunno. I just read an article day before yesterday that women who experience food deprevation, like during wars with rationing, have a higher rate of breast cancer.

Well every one of those articles mentionned lower blood glucose and insulin levels. Some researchers believe that insulin, especially elevated levels of it, has a profound negative effect on health.

So it occurs to me, if fasting or calorie restriction has the effect of lowering glucose and insulin levels, and low-carb has the same effect, might low-carb be just as effective as fasting or calorie restriction in extending life ?

That's my take, and it bears repeating...

Regimen Reduces Risk of Diseases Associated With Aging
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 20, 2004; Page A03


A small group of people who are drastically restricting how much they eat in the hope of slowing the aging process have produced the strongest support yet for the tantalizing theory that very low-calorie diets can extend the human lifespan.

The first study of people who voluntarily imposed draconian diets on themselves found that their cholesterol levels, blood pressure and other major risk factors for heart disease -- the biggest killer -- plummeted, along with risk factors for diabetes and possibly other leading causes of death such as cancer and Alzheimer's.

"These people are definitely protected against the major killers," said John O. Holloszy of Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, who led the study, released online yesterday. "It should definitely increase longevity."

While it has long been known that eating well and staying trim helps people live healthier lives and avoid dying prematurely, evidence has been accumulating that following extremely low-calorie diets for many years may do something more -- significantly extend longevity beyond current norms.

Lab rats, mice and other creatures live much longer when fed very low-calorie diets, and some researchers suggest the same Fountain of Youth effects may hold true for people, perhaps by cutting the body's production of harmful atoms or molecules known as free radicals. But aside from a few corroborating clues from historical records of famines, the only evidence from humans came in 1991, when eight subjects in the sealed Biosphere laboratory in the Arizona desert unintentionally tested the theory when their food ran short. Their health appeared to improve markedly, according to a number of measures.

The new study found "profound and sustained beneficial effects" in 18 people from the United States and Canada who had been eating very low calorie diets for three to 15 years, the researchers wrote in a paper being published in the April 27 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. While far from proving the theory, the findings provide the strongest direct evidence yet in people, several experts said.

"It is a very important paper," Roy L. Walford, a professor emeritus at the UCLA School of Medicine and a leading proponent of the theory, said in an e-mail interview. "You may well be able to choose between [caloric restriction] and that double-bypass cardiac surgery you are not looking forward to."

Several researchers cautioned that it was unclear whether the improvements were directly the result of caloric restriction, or simply caused by losing weight, eating more healthful diets or other beneficial behavior. In addition, the study was not able to assess whether the lower risk factors translate into longer life. Nevertheless, they said, the findings provided important encouragement to continue exploring the theory.

Holloszy and his colleagues conducted the study after stumbling across an online organization of about 1,000 adherents, called the Calorie Restriction Society.

One of the members, Dean Pomerleau, 39, a computer engineer from Gibsonia, Pa., cut his daily caloric intake from about 3,000 calories a day to about 1,900 more than four years ago. Pomerleau eats a highly regimented diet that consists of the same two meals daily of nothing but fruits, vegetables and nuts, with a couple of cups of non-sweetened herb tea for snacks.

"I'm a very disciplined person, and food has never been a critical, driving force in my life. So I've never found it as difficult as many may have," Pomerleau said. "For many it is difficult, especially in the beginning. But what you find is that once you get into it it's not a hardship at all. We actually consider it a preferable way to live."

On its Web site (www.calorierestriction.org), the Calorie Restriction Society offers advice for how to maintain equally low-calorie diets but with considerably more variety, including detailed recipes for fish and chicken dishes, a "Pastafree Veggie Pastalike Dish" and more appetizing items such as "Sherm's Bingeing Brownies," "Dean's Fruit and Veggie Smoothies" and "Sherm's Megamuffins."

"Creating highly nutritious low-calorie meals takes some practice," the site says. "Fortunately some of our members have been practicing for a long time and have published their creations to share with you."

Overall, Pomerleau and the other study subjects had reduced their intake to between 1,100 and 1,950 calories a day for an average of six years. Holloszy conducted a battery of tests on them and compared the results with the participants' earlier medical records, and with results from a similar group of 18 adults who ate a typical Western diet of between about 1,975 and 3,550 calories a day.

Those on low-calorie diets had much lower levels of "bad" cholesterol, much higher levels of "good" cholesterol, lower levels of triglycerides and very low blood pressure. Tests of their arteries showed they looked more like those of children than middle-age adults.

In addition, their blood sugar levels were very low and their body's response to insulin was extremely high, indicating they were at very low risk for diabetes.

At the same time, they had very low blood levels of a substance known as c-reactive protein (CRP), which is believed to be a marker for inflammation in the body. Many researchers believe low CRP levels are linked to a lower risk for a host of ailments, including heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer's.

"It's very clear from these findings that calorie restriction has a powerful protective effect against diseases associated with aging," Holloszy said. "We don't know how long each individual actually will end up living, but they certainly have a much longer life expectancy on average because they're most likely not going to die from a heart attack, stroke or diabetes."

But at a time when the number of Americans who are overweight and obese is soaring despite intensive public health campaigns to get people not to overeat, the idea that large numbers would be willing or able to go even further is daunting, many experts said. If scientists prove the theory, however, they might be able to develop new drugs that harness the biological mechanisms at work or new, safer appetite suppressants that may help more people eat less, experts said.

"If the drug companies can come up with a safe way to control appetite, which is being aggressively investigated, then in that case these kinds of findings may suddenly have profound public health implications," said Richard Weindruch of the University of Wisconsin Medical School at Madison, who studies caloric restriction.

The National Institutes of Health has launched pilot studies to determine whether it is practical to get healthy middle-age Americans to eat very low-calorie diets.

"If in fact it's shown to have beneficial effects, that might give more incentive to lower caloric intakes," said Evan Hadley, an associate director at the National Institute on Aging. "One of the things we're trying to find out is whether lower caloric intake may do things that exercise doesn't do."

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't much lower levels of "bad" cholesterol, much higher levels of "good" cholesterol, lower levels of triglycerides and very low blood pressure, very low blood sugar levels and a very high body's response to insulin frequent results from low carb ?

Well, actually "bad" cholesterol often rises on low-carb, but so does good cholesterol. The ratio usually improves. However let's mention that tryglycerides levels is supposed to be a better predictor of heart health for women than bad cholesterol.

So here you go. They base themselves on these predictors to say that low-calorie regimes benefits health and could improve longevity. The "cholesterol causes heart disease" is dismissed as a hoax by a small minority of researchers. Very low blood sugar levels and a very high body's response to insulin is something that can be achieved through diligent low-carbing.

Low-carbing has also been proven to reduce appetite. Yet Right. Just what we need ... more drugs.

One point of interest

I have never seen any information on the impact of low-carbing on c-reactive protein (CRP). That would be REALLY interesting as many researchers now consider CRP to be a better indicator of heart disease than actual cholesterol levels.

Everyone says that sugar and insulin puts oxidative stress on the body, which I don't doubt, however the assumption drawn from this is that lipolysis puts less oxidative stress and therefore a low sugar high fat diet is anti-aging.

IMO I think it is more likely that the stress is not so much the result of sugar metabolism, but the effects of metabolic activity itself. Therefore, any activity which transforms energy is likely to put oxidative stress on the body and contribute to aging. The only reason people think sugar is worse than fat is because most people burn sugar primarily and so thats where the research is focused.

I could be *totally* wrong though, and it might be true that per energy unit (calorie) sugar creates more oxidative stress than per calorie of fat. I just don't think it is likely. If anyone has a link to a comparative analysis between sugar and fat metabolism and their impact on aging & oxidative stress I would really appreciate you sending it this way .

My guess. . . and it's only a guess. . . is that trying to 'dramatically' extend the life span won't really happen. It sounds like the fountain of youth people have been searching for since the Middle Ages. This sounds like the same goose chase, except with some 'scientific' dressing on it. These people might save themselves from heart disease or diabetes maybe. But something else will get them. I suspect they will find an Oooops in there somewhere.

Oddly enough, in western societies, the LONGEST-LIVED people right now, according to the article below, are slightly overweight.

Underweight people actually have a higher death rate.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/072203E.html

"The level of underweight sanctioned by these cultural images and in life insurance tables is known to be dangerous, but never mentioned, Paul Ernsberger, Ph.D., associate professor of Medicine, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, has said. "The health risk of even slightly underweight is real." Slender weights, especially as we age, is an indicator for poor survival, he noted.

Indeed, multiple studies published in the International Journal of Obesity-Related Metabolic Disorders have found that those who are thin or who've lost weight not only increase their risk of premature death, they have the highest risk. In short, those who seek culturally "ideal" bodies will die earlier than heavier people.

A long-term study by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), published in a 1998 Journal of Public Health, for example, found that those with BMIs of 20 or less, or with even modest 10 percent weight losses after age 50, have higher premature death rates than those overweight, even when other variables such as smoking are taken into account. A clinical study at the University of Maryland published in the December 1999 Journal of American Geriatrics Society, found voluntary weight loss in mature women, no matter what they weigh, appears especially dangerous, quadrupling their likelihood of dying prematurely."





Like most of this stuff. . . everything depends on who you ask. The scientific data is stubbornly and annoyingly ambiguous.

In TSP I, Dr. Schwarzbein says that eating carbs creates a higher oxygen environment in our bodies that is conducive to cancer growth and that eating low-carb can help starve cancer cells. Don't ask me where it is in the book, since I haven't cracked it in ages, but I do remember reading it.

I think so, but maybe 10 year average would be dramatic to society?


This seems in total contradiction with the rest of science, I can't believe the message this seems to express. I think I you look at the definitions of the scientific research you can compose the opposite message from the same basic facts: overweight will kill you, lean and mean is healthy?

I think the facts surrounding the issue of whether or not fat vs lean is healthiest has been greatly distorted.

For example, those who are trying to push a lean-is-better agenda will deceptively site research showing ill health for those who are extremely morbidly obese (bmi > 40) and extrapolate from this notions about moderate overweight and obesity. This is a hair away from lying.

Then on the other side the fat-is-better people take research showing the underweight have health problems, and then try to paint the situation that fat itself is somehow protective. However, the fact activists don't control for those who are underweight due to nutritional deficiencies and malnutrition (whether self or environmentally imposed) so the picture is skewed. Comparing someone who has anorexia and weighs 110 pounds, to someone who has a healthy diet and weighs 110 pounds is false.

I think both sides are lying but also telling the truth. The lean advocates are correct in their assumptions that the sort of environment which results in obesity and morbid obesity is not one which will maximize health. It implies metabolic sickness (IRS), and it implies one is purposely eating energy they don't need (which puts oxidative stress on the body and exacerbates aging). Extra fat itself can be deleterious to health too. The increased system stress carrying around more metabolically active tissue has is also of great concern.
However, they try to make it seem as if 65% of the population is overweight enough to suffer these problems when that is just deceptive. They take risks that the severely obese suffer and say it is a risk for the man or woman carrying a spare tire. It's not true. While the moderately overweight man or woman may or may not have an environment that is health-causing, moderate overweight itself is not a health risk. Severe overweight, however, is a health risk (fat is metabolically & hormonally active, therefore carrying around dozens of pounds puts stress on the body, accelerates aging, and exacerbates hormonal problems). People often purposely or naively confuse risk factors for obesity with obesity itself, and therefore diseases caused by the risk factors are too often blamed on the fat itself. Like I said, severe overweight is probably a health risk, but moderate overweight (i.e. about 90% of the "obese america") is not.

As for the fat advocates, they are correct in saying that trying to diet down to unnatural slimness has no protective benefits, and one does risk malnutrition and ill health. Forcing your body to do something it wasn't meant to do can't be the road to good health. We forget sometimes that the goal of the game isn't to look like kate moss, it's to be healthy. Healthy might be carrying a few extra pounds for some people, and for other people it might be being a bit more lean.
However, they are incorrect in their assumption that excess fat is just another physical trait like the hair on your head or the color of your eyes. This is a fallacious belief for numerous reasons. First of all, fat is metabolically active - it's alive, it burns energy, it requires energy, it gives hormones. Therefore, an overabundance of fat is both a symptom of disease and contributes to disease. Second of all, the state of any physical trait - metabolically active or not - is indicative of health. Weak nails and dull eyes signify deficiency. Gaunt thinness is a sign of disease (metabolic or psychological). Yes, extreme obesity is too sign of disease (metabolic or psychological).
Just the fact that so many more people are obese today than a few years ago is enough evidence to conclude that most of us who are obese are obese because of our lifestyle. No one is designed to be extremely fat to the point of compromised mobility. What purpose would that have from ane evolutionary standpoint? Those who are extremely overweight have some sort of unresolved ailment, and they should seek a cure. While I think it is admirable to fight for human rights, we should not proliferate lies that encourage people to maim themselves, or to "accept" ill health.

I think the fat activist movement should take an approach similar to activists who fight for handicapped rights. Handicapped advocates ask for equal treatment regardless of impairments, and this is what fat people need. Fat people don't need to be told "it's ok, you're fine the way you are... have another coke". Imagine how ridiculous it would be if handicapped advocates tried to stop the research which benefits those who they purport to defend -- all because by trying to "cure" handicapped people you imply they are somehow defective or less worthy. This is what fat advocates are doing today.

What really should be encouraged by the fat activist movement is divorcing self image from body image. Once this divorce has been made, one can seek to improve their health and body, without it affecting self worth. It's ironic really that so many fat advocates have yet to learn this. Instead of trying to say "I love myself and am a good person in spite of my obesity", they love themselves because of their obesity. The problem is these people are the only voice fat people have, and they are not working for our best interests. I want to know what are the causes of the disease I have called morbid obesity. I want it to be cured, because it is a terrible affliction.

I don't think the calorie restriction diet is the fat vs lean thing at all. In most animals that they've tried it on so far it extends their life by a LOT, I want to say 1/3 or 1/4, but I'm not positive. The bad part is, you're going on 1/3 less calories your entire life. Even naturally skinny animals have to have 1/3 less calories. Hard to do in a society where they produce about 4000 calories per person in food.

Now there are a group of humans who have done it for 10-15 years and they're claiming they have arteries like children. But I'm wondering... how do they know? Did they get an invasive angiogram done to find that out?

Anyway, I have no doubt that the calorie restriction longevity diet is going to work on humans too, but what is more interesting to me is why does it work? I think uncovering that is going to gain some cool insights into metabolism and things that cause disease or aging.

Now, you did hear about the oldest mouse ever? Someone posted it here a bit ago. Lived to be over 4 years old. It had DNA that tinkered with its insulin production or receptors, forget which. So it may well be that the reason animals on calorie restricted diets live longer is because they aren't producing so much insulin.

Anyway, its interesting but no one is drawing any firm conclusions yet.

The latest I have heard is that CR diets essentially slow most/all metabolic processes, limiting cell divisions. Limit that and you limit aging and attrition to some extent.

Health and aging is such a multi-faceted issue. My personal approach now is to try and balance things and do what I can to keep from harming my body (as opposed to going CR or some other means of forcibly extending life).

It seems to me that past a basic level of physical activity, doing less over time could extend life simply by limiting oxidative and other physical stressors on the body. This type of thinking goes hand in hand with a certain level of CR imo. Environmental stressors, mental stress, along with many things not taken into account also play a big role.

Also, I think a pretty strong argument can be made to stay near your bodyfat setpoint longterm as a means of keeping good health. Someone on a severe CR type diet can definitely have problems keeping a strong immune system for example. I also think it is pretty clear that being overfat isn't going to be the best bet for most people either.

There are obviously things to work around such as genetic predispositions and limitations, individual differences (what works for one person, blah, blah), and other risk factors like accidents that are not so easy to predict and control.

Also, a large argument against CR in the bodybuilding community and elsewhere centers on maintaining a higher quality of life rather than pure quantity. A higher quality of life might lead to greater happiness for some/many and this can work synergistically with other factors to help make a more complete picture of heatlh imo.

Hunter gatherer ancestors would have been in calorie restriction for many days, and then if lucky, into feasting and bingeing. We don't have to work so hard for our food and so Low Carb comes closest perhaps to our 'natural' way of eating as it does provide brakes to appetite. We have become used to daily 'feasts' and so overall, we get fatter. But low carbing, for me anyway, means that I am not looking for food all the time, and so eat less. But my eyes are still a bit bigger than my stomach even now...

Val