The Daily Mail
London, UK
Published: 7 February, 2007


Can 1,000 calories a day make you live longer? Fat chance!

Along with leggings and Pat Butcher earrings, calorie-counting is the latest Eighties fad undergoing a resurgence.

It's a while since we've heard of a diet that focuses on the basic principle that the more you eat, the bigger you'll get.

We're so used to faddy diet theories - Atkins, food-combining, glycaemic indexing (GI), caveman diet - that good old-fashioned calorie counting had become unfashionable.

But it's back, and back with a vengeance, in the form of what might be the most hardcore diet regime the world has ever seen. It's called Calorie Restriction, and glossy magazines have hailed it as the latest miracle.

Known as CR to its devotees, it's a bizarre practice where followers may consume only 1,000 calories a day.

To put that into some kind of perspective, Western women are supposed to have 2,000 calories a day (information gleaned from the nutrition label on a stonkingly fattening Marks & Spencer readymeal in my fridge).

And because we're all greedy and Krispy Kreme doughnut concessions are springing up all over the country, most of us tend to eat around 2,600. So to live off 1,000 calories a day means you'd be cutting your daily intake by about 60 per cent.

The CR Society, based in California (where else?), has 1,000 members worldwide and its numbers are growing. They all subscribe to the notion that a degree of self-starvation can trigger physiological and biochemical changes in the body that slow the ageing process.

So far, this theory is based on experiments on mice. Tests at America's National Institute on Ageing, in Baltimore, discovered that mice fed every other day appeared to live longer than those allowed to eat at will. The semistarved mice displayed resistance to toxins that can cause damage linked to Alzheimer's disease.

To the casual observer, CR looks worryingly like a justification for anorexia. There is a feeling that it helps eating disorders slip through the net, that someone vulnerable to consuming less might simply label their disorder calorie restriction.

The CR Society insists this isn't the case, because the emphasis is on obtaining as many nutrients as possible from the few calories they allow. A typical meal includes organic egg-white omelettes, raw-food salads or vegetable broths (yum!).

Meals are a 30 per cent protein, 40 per cent carb and 30 per cent fat mix, which nutritionists recommend, although health professionals say that calcium, iron and B vitamins are often lacking when calories are reduced.

Coffee and tea are out. Most devotees cut out dairy and meat altogether.

One glass of red wine a few times a week is allowed, the only alcoholic drink deemed to have enough antioxidants to make it "nutritious" enough to pass a CR person's lips.

Even if the food consumed is healthy, the psychological impact of following a diet this restrictive and anti-social can't be good for you.

Measuring out your life in terms of calories consumed and nutrition obtained is a complex business, and one that means this is a diet you can't dip in and out of easily.

If you've struggled with the computations needed to do Atkins or the GI diet, they're nothing compared to CR, which requires an encyclopedic knowledge of the calorie and nutritional content of every foodstuff on the planet.

Most CR dieters have a laptop in the kitchen loaded with special software to help make sure they don't have so much as an extra prawn or stem of broccoli that would take them over their daily calorie intake.

Would Nigella Lawson be a national treasure and sex symbol if we watched her tapping figures into a computer rather than licking spoons covered in chocolate? I think not.

One leading proponent of the diet has worked out, via a system of graphs, weights and measures, that he needs to survive on 1,913 calories every day.

His girlfriend, an equally hardcore devotee, finds the fact that his dinner is always exactly 639 calories attractive.

She also finds the fact that he has an orange tinge to his skin from eating so many carrots and tomatoes endearing: if ever there was a case of two people made for each other, this is it.

But not all CR followers find that the diet is the route to domestic harmony. One woman who eats conventionally told a magazine recently that her husband's rigid, unflexible devotion to CR has almost broken up their marriage on a number of occasions.

And many report that they have ended friendships with people who didn't understand their need to live the rest of their lives in a state of near starvation. When you think about it, 1,000 calories really isn't very much; there are nearly that many calories in some Pizza Express salads.

I burn 1,000 calories during an hour's workout with my personal trainer. If I did the CR diet, exercise would be a thing of the past.

The CR people avoid gyms anyway. They advise some light work with weights, since CR can adversely affect bone density, but they say that CR alone gives better results for longevity than aerobic exercise, and that too much exercise is counterproductive.

I can see why some people would be attracted to it: one look at the little Augustus Gloops waddling around the playgrounds is enough to make anyone turn to the broccoli.

In such an atmosphere of gluttony and over-indulgence, it's little wonder CR is attracting an increasing following. But the pendulum doesn't need to swing so far the other way.

Of course, I'd love to be skinnier and look younger. Who wouldn't? But I've flirted with calorie restriction in the past, although at the time I didn't know that I was part of a cutting-edge diet fad, I just thought I was on a crash diet. And it was miserable.

In the run-up to my wedding, I tore a hamstring and couldn't move around much. To fit into my wedding dress, I lived off 1,100 calories a day for a couple of months.

It was a humourless, antisocial experience in which I measured out my life on the kitchen scales and inhaled miso soup while my beanpole bridegroom tucked into bangers and buttery mash.

During that time, I was hungry for the first time in my life.

My IQ plummeted along with my waistline, and I routinely sailed past my bus stop, forgot myself mid-conversation and once forgot how to use chopsticks (although this worked out for the best as I consumed less noodles).

I went on my honeymoon to food paradise New York, where I consumed so many calories that I would have needed an abacus the size of Central Park to count them all, then ran around Central Park to burn it all off and didn't put a single pound back on.

Can you guess which of those regimes made me a happier, more relaxed person?

The bottom line is that I want a normal, healthy, spontaneous life more than I want to be really thin, more even than I want to live for ever.

The chances of me persuading any of my family or friends - epicureans, all - to join me on this diet are slimmer than a CR follower during Lent.

Would I want to be super-skinny if I had to sit chomping on a lettuce leaf through every family Christmas, every birthday dinner, to give up alcohol and all that? No.

Would I want to live for ever if I couldn't take the people I love with me? Definitely not.

Today's CR devotees expect to live well into the beginning of the 22nd century. Perhaps they'll toast their 200th birthdays (with a glass of distilled water if they're feeling particularly Bacchanalian).

Maybe when I'm 70 and looking every day of it, they will all still resemble lithe 30 year olds.

But a life lived in constant deprivation is a funny kind of existence. Their skinny, brittle legs can dance on my big fat grave for all I care: I won't be around to hear their smug "I told you so".



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...in_page_id=1879

Oh god, leggings are coming back?

Sometimes I think that CR is the modern equivalent of Ascetics. Except that in this case instead of moral purity the goal is now either prolonging lifespan or achieving or maintaining a size zero.

If you think about it, it makes sense. What's our new religion? Religions arise in order to deal, at least in part, with our deepest fears. In our society our fears are dying and getting fat. The other side of the coin is our worship of youth and thinness

nice bit of satire.

Like most bad ideas, the best way to counter them is giving them the widest possible audience. Nothing sends people running away screaming like a CRON pot luck; I'm not sure if it's the people or the food.

Kind regards

"If you've struggled with the computations needed to do Atkins ..."



Computations are so hard when doing Atkins. Let's see... how much weight falls off? Do I need a calculator?

Gee .... how many 1's do I need to get 20?

Rachel

I am not a CR(er) but I felt the article was completely unfair to those who do CR and a lot of the claims that were made were not justified. It sounds like some disgruntled blogger wrote this. I have seen articles written on low carbing that have tried to have the same pejorative spin.

Also, from what I know about CR it has nothing to do with anorexia or her ridiculous crash diet. The people who CR are trying to do so because they believe that its healthy and try to do it in the healthiest way possible, anorexics try to vanish into nothingness. The reasons behind it and mindsets are completely different. Also, I don't think that living off of 1900 or 1500 calories a day is unreasonable or unhealthy or considered to be starvation. There are many days that I consume between 1100-1500 calories naturally and its not because I am counting calories but simply because I am not hungry. That includes things like butter, cheese, steaks, salads, bacon, eggs etc. If I actually cared enough about packing in all my nutrients I am sure I can get even more nutritional bang for my buck. I don't consider myself on being on some kind of antisocial or starvation diet or anything else and frankly if these CR people believe its the road to life extension or good health or youth etc. more power to them. I think it takes a lot of discipline to follow a plan like that, it certainly isn't for everyone and may not be what I consider the ideal plan but I wish them the best of success. Personally, I will wait for the pill that allows me to live forever lol.

Do you honestly think if you formed a line of anorexics and the "elite" CRONbies who have been able to stomache the diet for a few years, that you'd be able to tell them apart? The CRONbie couple featured in a recent post look anorexic to me and to a lot of other people. Not eating to the point of emaciation and emasulation is not healthy... The odd food rituals, the food obsessions, compulsive behaviour... am I describing a CRONbie or an anorexic?

Kind regards

After speaking with them for a few minutes I absolutely believe I could. I was hospitalized for anorexia when I was a teenager so this issue might be a little touchy for me but the way I behaved and others who were there with me with the same or similar EDs were very different. Its a completely different state of mind with different reasons and anorexia is not focused on good health and nutrition. Many anorexics are suicidal and want to die by vanishing. I remember thoughts of people thinking of how fat I might be when I would be buried and not caring if I lived or died as long as I was thin, I would compete with myself to try and see how many days I can have on just water or punish myself if I ate something that had over 100 calories in 1 sitting. In fact the absolute maximum I might have ever eaten in a day was 1000 calories. Most days I remember trying to live on 300 or so. I was sick and anyone who spoke with me for more than a few minutes would have been able to see that. I wasnt able to think or talk about anything else and all I would see when I looked at myself was how fat I was. I would have nightmares about my bones being covered by layers of fat. I think there is a huge difference.

One can look at low carbers and say they have quirky eating habits or even obsessions. I think many people would look at low carbers as eating in an unhealthy way. I think there is a lot more to an ED than just the way one might look and I think there is a difference between when something is a hobby vs. an obsession. The CR people are not trying to kill themselves and they are doing this based off of what they feel to be legitimate scientific research. Is the desire to have a longer or healthier life an unhealthy obsession? I suppose it can be, anything taken to an extreme can be unhealthy but the freedom to make choices is also the freedom to make bad choices. Either way, this topic wasnt on obsession vs hobby. The same way there are low carbers who can be obessive advocates the same can be said for people on WW or CRon or fitness or work or anything else there are also people that arent and that is something that is very individual. The CRon people, from what I have seen on multiple forums, are usually adults who are, for all intents and purposes, mentally stable who want to make a change in their life that may lead to a healthy outcome instead of mentally unstable children who are obsessed with thinness and hate themselves. Many people who look at my daily saturated fat intake and the fact that over 60% of my daily calories come from fat will say that I am making an unhealthy food choice and that I am not taking care of myself but as a mentally competent adult that is my decision alone to make.

My point being, they look the same. Talking to them would be cheating.



Sure, some do say that about low-carbers. The difference is that health markers are improving with a low-carb diet; a very practical, down-to-earth diet approach. The people that have problems with the low-carb diet are idealogues and they ignore/deny what doesn't fit into their paradigm.



Their 'feelings' are irrational. The CRONbie diet is NOT healthy. Tell me, how can a diet which emaciates the body, causes dangerously low cholesterol levels, drops sex hormone levels where you effectively neuter yourself, healthy? Really, I'd like to know. It suggests that what is driving them ultimately is not longer or healthier lives.

Kind regards

Ah, but I know a woman who cannot gain weight and eats like a pig. She is 90 pounds and underweight and actually hates it. She is also emaciated and has bones sticking out and is anything but starving herself. I suspect she has a thyroid problem but her tests all show her in the normal range and she would give her left arm to gain weight. Just because someone is emaciated doesnt mean they have an eating disorder (mental illness) there are also many other diseases like cancer, celiac etc. Even a drug habit or lack of money to buy food (third world countries) where people are emaciated and neither CRon or Anorexic. Can't always judge a book by its cover.






Of course you and I think that but there are many nutritionists, doctors, scientists, federal program directors and weight watchers members who would argue vociferously against it. Its all about how we interpret information. Of course I believe what I am doing is right, if I didnt I wouldnt be doing it, but they all think the same way. Just look at how many people interpret the bible in a million different ways. The same people look at the same study and somehow (dont ask me how since my interpretations always seem logical and obvious to me) get something different out of it. Also studies that I may consider flawed they might legitimize while studies that I consider to be a gold standard they will criticize. Everyone has an agenda no matter how objective we try to be or think we are. Even me :-)





They believe that they are activating certain genes by eating this way that is going to extend their life. They are going based on certain studies that were done that showed life extension to be the result. When I was speaking with a veterinary nutritionist about extending the life of my cat he also told me that the only effective way known was to cut 20% of his calories. I am not going to do that and my cat eats a healthy grain free diet and I am keeping it that way. Will CRon extend life in humans? I have no idea nor am I going to try it. I dont believe that I follow the optimal diet in terms of nutrition. I can get more vitamins, walk more, eat fewer low carb products etc. I dont think following a low fat eating plan is optimal for health but it works for many people. I also dont believe that long distance running is optimal and puts undue stress on the joints, I dont think intense body building is the optimal state for the body. All these people who do these things believe that they are getting benefits from them based on things that they have seen, read, heard, experienced, speculate etc. I am more of a live and let live person. What I may think is healthy or unhealthy there are a million others who are ready to argue the opposite. They have legitimate reasons to eat this way or feel like they should and they are trying to better their health. Whether I think that its going to better their health is irrelevant. So far I havent heard of any CRon people dying of malnutrition either. More power to them IMO. I hope they do live to 300! Also, from what I heard of an average 5'4 woman taking in around 1500 calories and an average 5'11 male taking in 1900 or so calories it doesnt seem like they are starving themselves to the point of sickness anyway. There might be some who do and take it to more of an extreme but those dont seem like unreasonable calorie levels where one is always starving. Especially since they arent getting any additional exercise.

I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. My point was that looking at a line up of CRONbies and anorexics, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I hoping that we both recognize that anorexics are not healthy, and therefore I was implying that CRONbies by all appearances were not healthy either. Further, I would argue that even if you starved yourself into a eunuch for the professed belief that it was making you healthier, it is not 'better'. The proof is in the pudding (low-carb, full fat! ) Anyway, I'm not sure where you are going with your arguement, as I have never contended that the only reason people become emaciated was either CRONbism or anorexia. Did I give that impression?



Ok, what are you saying? I gave some rational reasons why a CRONbie diet is unhealthy (and I didn't even get into the strange psychology of the whole thing) and you reply that everyone looks at it differently. True enough, now what do we do? We are forever undecided? We should give up? Cease this endless conflict and look into the abyss? I'm not too smart, could ya gimme a clue?



They narrowly focus on a particular process/metabolism from the 'paper of the month' and sermonize to everyone far and near how THIS is finally going to change everything. As it becomes clear that things are not unfolding as they desperately hoped, they jump on the next 'big thing' ad infinitum. It really isn't suprising to serious people that have been working on more immediate problems like the cure for cancer, same old story.



The best estimate from scientists specializing in longevity research is that for a life long CRONbie program filled with hunger, weakness, brain disfunction, OCD, emaciation and erectile disfunction, they will be rewarded with a percent extension of their natural lives. ROCK ON!



Anorexics have their reasons. Would it be better that people left them alone? What is a 'legitamate' reason? Are you now the judge of what is legitimate? Why are you discussing this with me, are my thoughts on this 'illegitimate'? (Don't tell my mom I'm illegitimate! )



Did you see the show on the CRONbie couple? Read about the dinner party?They are some strange cats, and not the fun kind of strange either.

Kind regards

What I am saying overall is that as long as a mentally competent adult makes a decision about what steps are best to improve their health/longevity etc. that they should be free to do what they want. I am opposed to articles like these that make broad accusations, conflate CR with anorexia (it doesnt matter if a CR and anorexic look the same, even if CRon was an eating disorder based on a mental illness - which I am not saying it is - I think it would be classified as a different disorder) and give no legitimate justifications for what they say.

I am not posting to defend CRon per se, I am posting against seeing "journalists" post these baseless hit and run articles that try and attack other groups. These same journalists write the same style articles on low carb diets, often claiming things like they ate no carbs for a week and became sick etc. Its the same type of junk article that this forum is filled with and I would hate to see people who criticize the same style article when it touches upon something they agree with (low carbing) and legitimize it when it deals with a subject they may not agree with (CRon).

As far as the CRon movie, I dont believe I saw it. I may have seen a frontline on it or something like that. I am sure the CRon people in this movie are shown to be very strange. Either way, my posts were not written to try and defend the CRon lifestyle, I would have posted about this article style no matter what the subject was about because of the way it was written. I am not the most articulate person in the world and english isnt my first language but I hope I am conveying my thoughts clearly enough.

they are back already, Nancy, the highest trend, LOL. leggins with long sweater or short dress, looks pretty goo.