PDA

View Full Version : Live longer by cutting calories ??



mommy*2*3
06-17-2006, 06:41 PM
I got this article from Heart Center Online and it makes me wonder if trying my darndest to increase my metabolism is really such a good thing? I mean...what's the point? To be leaner? Why....so I can die sooner? Hmmm...very intersting research and it truly makes sense in a way. Metabolism doesn't just effect our bodyfat and how many calories we burn, but it effects the lifespan of every cell in our body.

Jan 23 (Reuters Health) - Sticking to a low-calorie diet over the long term slows the decline in heart function that normally occurs with aging, according to a study in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
"This paper is important because it is the first study in humans that strongly suggests that calorie restriction may delay primary aging," Dr. Luigi Fontana said in a telephone interview with Reuters Health. Calorie restriction has previously been shown to slow aging and increase lifespan in small mammals.
Fontana, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, and colleagues assessed 25 healthy adults who had followed a severely calorie-restricted, nutritionally balanced diet for an average of 6.5 years, and 25 matched "control" subjects who ate a typical Western diet. The researchers looked specifically at diastolic function -- how well the heart relaxed between beats.
The calorie-restricted diet provided about 1,670 calories per day, made up of approximately 23 percent protein, 49 percent complex carbohydrates, and 28 percent fat.
The Western diet delivered roughly 2,445 calories, made up of about 17 percent protein, 52 percent carbohydrates, and 31 percent fat.
The calorie-restricted diet included at least 100 percent of the recommended daily intake for all nutrients, and it was lower in salt than the Western diet.
According to Fontana, "people who followed a severe calorie-restricted diet but with optimal nutrition had a younger heart in terms of diastolic function, which is a well-accepted marker of primary aging because, independently of disease, as you get older your diastolic function gets worse and worse."
Indictors of diastolic function were significantly better in the calorie-restricted participants than the Western diet group, the team reports, and blood pressures were significantly lower also.
The researchers plan to continue to follow the study subjects "to see if other markers of aging are delayed in these people and determine the implication for health and the aging process."
The author of a related editorial, Dr. Gary Gerstenblith from Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, says that while it is not likely that many individuals would follow such a low-calorie diet, "the value of the study is that it points to possible mechanism explaining how aging occurs and, therefore, how it may be modified."
He adds: "The authors, and the disciplined volunteers following the practice of caloric restriction, are to be congratulated for their important contributions to this effort."


SOURCE: Journal of the American College of Cardiology, January 17, 2006.

Publish Date: January 23, 2006

mommy*2*3
06-17-2006, 06:42 PM
Jun 08 (HealthCentersOnline) - Consuming fewer calories may slow down the effects of aging in the body similar to the way it occurs in the heart.
Primary aging refers to the maximal length of a person's life. Secondary aging refers to any disease (e.g., heart disease, cancer) that can prevent a person from reaching their maximum life span. By reducing or eliminating factors that interfere with secondary aging, a person should be able to better reach their projected lifespan. By slowing primary aging, a person can effectively increase the length of their projected lifespan.
Previous research has suggested that calorie restriction helps make the heart more elastic, allowing it to relax more between beats. This effect appears to allow older hearts to beat more like young hearts.
As part of the new study, researchers from the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis examined 28 people who had participated in a calorie restricted diet for an average of six years. These participants' daily diet consisted of an average of only 1,800 calories per day, though their diets did include 100 percent of the recommended daily amounts of protein and micronutrients.
A second group of 28 people was composed of sedentary individuals who maintained a typical Western diet (about 2,700 calories per day). A third group of 28 participants ate a Western diet, but also engaged in endurance training.
The researchers found that only those participants who practiced calorie restriction experienced a reduction in concentrations of a thyroid hormone called triiodothyronine (T3). T3 has previously been shown to help control the energy balance and cellular metabolism in the body.
Individuals who practiced calorie restriction also experienced a reduction in an inflammatory molecule called tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF). The researchers believe, based on earlier animal studies, that this combination of lowered T3 levels and reduced inflammation may slow down the aging process by reducing the body's metabolic rate. It may also help reduce any oxidative damage being done to cells and tissues.
The effects of calorie restriction on primary aging had previously been hinted at in animal studies, which showed that calorie restriction can extend the life of rats more than exercise.
"Sedentary rats who ate a standard diet had the shortest average life-spans. Those who exercised by running on a wheel lived longer, but animals on calorie restriction lived even longer," explained John O. Holloszy, M.D., professor of medicine at Washington University School of Medicine, in a 1997 report that appeared in the Journal of Applied Physiology.
The results of this latest study appear in the May 23 issue of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

Copyright 2000-2006 HealthCentersOnline, Inc.

Publish Date: June 08, 2006

terracotta
06-17-2006, 07:17 PM
I'm going to check if I have access to the study to see if I can garner more info.. for one, I would like to know there definition of endurance training. 2700 cals could be a LOT depending on what this endurance training is.

Here is the article properly listing the source: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-05/wuso-cra053106.php

MuscleMom
06-17-2006, 07:30 PM
I had heard this same thing a while back. There was actually an episode on this on one of the major networks news programs (can't remember which one...) Pretty interesting.

terracotta
06-17-2006, 07:38 PM
here is the document

terracotta
06-17-2006, 07:49 PM
The endurance runners were running an average of 48 miles per week.. we can't extrapolate beyond sedentary low calorie vs. sedentary high calorie. All nonsedentary people are not equal :rolleyes:

Sable_Strenua
06-17-2006, 07:51 PM
good find Mommy*2*3
but i wonder, are there conflicting reports out there? i wonder if earlier studies where conducted (1980s, 90s)

Sable_Strenua
06-17-2006, 07:52 PM
here is the document
?
no link/text
:(


edit: my bad, bb.com was having a hiccup again now i see the attachment!

mommy*2*3
06-17-2006, 07:57 PM
Terracotta...thanks for the entire article :) I couldn't pull it up through my University.

Anyways, I just thought this would make an interesting discussion. I think that diet will always supersede exercise and it just goes back to nutrition being number one. Just makes me wonder if me trying to fight mother nature and force feeding myself to increase my metabolism is really essential for having a long and healthy life. I mean, lots of exercise and lots of food does put a strain on the entire body, produces byproducts and yes, may actually be counter productive.

From my understanding, the study suggests that benefits are seen more from diet then from just maintaining a reduced bf level.

terracotta
06-17-2006, 08:04 PM
yeah, I see what you mean Mommy23.. I've seen commentary on this before, where people in a certain village lived very long lives, and were very active. They also had a custom of eating only to 80% full.

ChocoChick
06-18-2006, 02:29 PM
Fontana, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, and colleagues assessed 25 healthy adults who had followed a severely calorie-restricted, nutritionally balanced diet for an average of 6.5 years, and 25 matched "control" subjects who ate a typical Western diet.

I bold-faced what struck me about this study. To be scientifically valid, the only variable should have been the number of calories consumed. Then the results could be attributed to the caloric intake. But terms like "nutritionally balanced" and "typical Western diet" set off huge red flags for me. I'd like to see more science on this before concluding that a faster metabolism is a bad thing.

What has been suggested in most research to date is that people who eat slightly below maintenance calories live longest. But this is irresp[ective of BMR. Here's more http://starbulletin.com/2004/08/31/news/story4.html

violetdays
06-18-2006, 05:21 PM
Good catch dbflgirl!

mommy*2*3
06-18-2006, 06:33 PM
I bold-faced what struck me about this study. To be scientifically valid, the only variable should have been the number of calories consumed. Then the results could be attributed to the caloric intake. But terms like "nutritionally balanced" and "typical Western diet" set off huge red flags for me. I'd like to see more science on this before concluding that a faster metabolism is a bad thing.

What has been suggested in most research to date is that people who eat slightly below maintenance calories live longest. But this is irresp[ective of BMR. Here's more http://starbulletin.com/2004/08/31/news/story4.html

Thanks for the article :)

imperfectly_lou
06-18-2006, 10:09 PM
My main thought in relation to this is that you could get hit by a bus tomorrow, be the one person in three that gets cancer..... Good food is to be enjoyed with friends and family. I don't mean to say that gorging yourself is OK, but deliberately reducing your calories to possibly live longer seems a little absurd..

emmie
06-19-2006, 05:02 AM
I agree with Lou. This issue had received publicity several months ago and I recall reading about a family - kids included - who were following a restricted-calorie diet. These people did not strike me as being happy, nor healthy in the full sense of the word. They admitted to being hungry and fatigued most days. It seemed to me to be a variation of an eating disorder. And all for what?? The *possibility* of living a few more years? As with all things, I think that moderation is the key.

- Emma

mommy*2*3
06-19-2006, 06:20 AM
There are different ways of looking at this but obviously no matter how its perceived, more research would be helpful. I can see someone reading this and and misunderstanding the concept by starving him/herself because there's a chance for an extended lifespan...and yes, possibly justifying his/her eating disorder. I don't think that we should be purposly restricting our calories. Then there's the opposite side of the coin where us as bodybuilders are striving to eat above maintanance in order to gain muscle. It's hard for some of us to justify this and make sense out of it all when we've been programmed to think that we need to eat, eat and eat some more (healthy foods of course ;) )
I'm just thinking long term as a bodybuilder maybe it's not as healthy as we may think to eat above maintanence all the time. The idea has been that by eating x amount of calories and exercising will save your metabolism, however there's more to metabolism then just being able to maintain low bodyfat levels. There are cellular functions that are effected on every level, hormone productions and chemical reactions which may not be fully understood yet because in a way we're going against nature by eating more than we should in order to gain abnormal amounts of muscle.

ChocoChick
06-19-2006, 06:46 AM
Interesting post, Mommy. One thing I have noticed -- and this is anecdotal rather than scientific -- is that whenever the media interview someone who's lived to be 100 and asked his/her secrets, the answer is always a life lived fully, with good food, no awful habits, and moderate exercise/activity. Anecdotally, I am not aware of bbers being among the longest lived segment of society. Some of this may because so many pros juice, which is a definite health hazard. But it does make you wonder.

terracotta
06-19-2006, 09:18 AM
there is an article on T-nation you might want to read
http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle.do?article=262steak2

serinebean
06-19-2006, 10:47 AM
Hummm, great stuff in here. good article Terra. I am wondering at what point it becomes dangerous? And what genders they used. I hate some of the reports because they are so skewed. But I guess it only makes sense.
But I would agree with the quality of life, vrs quantity. (Id like both) but I dont see any sense in not going for my goals. And by how much shorter are we talking. I think there is so much contributing to an early death...mostly stress imo.....
This is def food for thought.
Then the question is...who bad for you is bbing? What if its only for a 10 yr period..what about the ones who look great for their age?
Its all so confusing.

terracotta
06-19-2006, 11:30 AM
From general reading, I think it is a combination of low bodyfat with overeating - and maybe even going between the two.. MEN do a LOT more overeating than women. Bulking for a man is typically overboard and not clean. And quality over quantity definately.

Luvdogs
06-19-2006, 02:42 PM
I'm going to go back and read those articles thoroughly later today, but what I consider more dangerous than eating slightly over maintenence calories for building is the drastic dieting done for BBing competitions. Getting so lean to compete seems so hard on the whole body and mind. I read about the excessive cardio, sodium depletion/overloading, water restriction, no carbs/carb loading, etc. and I won't even go into those who use drugs to do it...supplements that play with metabolism seem dangerous too, increasing heart rate, etc.

MuscleMom
06-19-2006, 03:22 PM
I'm going to go back and read those articles thoroughly later today, but what I consider more dangerous than eating slightly over maintenence calories for building is the drastic dieting done for BBing competitions. Getting so lean to compete seems so hard on the whole body and mind. I read about the excessive cardio, sodium depletion/overloading, water restriction, no carbs/carb loading, etc. and I won't even go into those who use drugs to do it...supplements that play with metabolism seem dangerous too, increasing heart rate, etc.


Others may not agree with staying lean in the off season...but I try to stay w/in a reasonable range as to avoid the drastic dieting, cardio... I don't sodium deplete or overload, restrict water, etc...



Scary stuff thou...