Weight Loss Support - OK, here's the article I was talking about (calorie restriction)




LLV
05-01-2007, 03:12 PM
http://www.slate.com/id/2164436/?GT1=10034

Pick out of that what you will. But basically they're comparing calorie restriction to anorexia and the long-term "consequences" of restricting calories.

And like what was mentioned in Wolfena's thread, these people restrict calories too far, therefore the comparison with anorexia. They believe it will make them live longer.


Wolfena
05-01-2007, 03:36 PM
I think they're referring to extreme calorie restriction.... unhealthy low calorie consumption & yea - that could be a disorder just the same as anorexia & bulimia.

I don't think what we do as 'calorie counters' or 'weight watchers' who keep track of our calories in order to meet a weight loss goal or maintain our weight at that goal would be the same thing. Most of us are eating a goal number of calories that is reasonable & healthy for us, not less.

(thanks for the link btw) :)

If you look at the Calorie Restriction Society's website, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me though... they mention eating less calories while maintaining proper nutrition. The average person DOES consume too many calories - and could benefit from what they suggest IMO.

ennay
05-01-2007, 03:41 PM
If you read more on what they do though, they believe that reducing calories to lower metabolism is a good thing--that is the goal. The good that they do is try to power pack nutrients in every calorie, but it is more along the lines of "if I can meet my RDA on 500 calories, then I dont need to eat more"

They try to differentiate - saying thin is not the goal, therefor they arent anorexic, but alot of ED isnt about thin, its about control, purity, acetic perfection. Many ana are proud of their restraint, just like the CRONies

The main difference may be the social aspect. Here in oregon there is/was a CRONie "commune" type place. A society of non-eaters - social support for the practice..not sure if that makes it better or worse


LLV
05-01-2007, 03:49 PM
If you read more on what they do though, they believe that reducing calories to lower metabolism is a good thing--that is the goal. The good that they do is try to power pack nutrients in every calorie, but it is more along the lines of "if I can meet my RDA on 500 calories, then I dont need to eat more"

Ouch. That's not good.

LLV
05-01-2007, 03:52 PM
If you look at the Calorie Restriction Society's website, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me though... they mention eating less calories while maintaining proper nutrition. The average person DOES consume too many calories - and could benefit from what they suggest IMO.

They're encouraging fasting, though. I'm not so sure that's a good idea. But then what do I know? LOL

Wolfena
05-01-2007, 04:32 PM
They're encouraging fasting, though. I'm not so sure that's a good idea. But then what do I know? LOL


I didn't take the time to read it thoroughly... just glanced through. On the surface it seemed OK. but what do I know either!!! :^:

booklover
05-01-2007, 04:38 PM
Yep, it looks like this article is discussing the Calorie Restriction Society we touched upon earlier. I posted this in the other thread. http://www.calorierestriction.org/Risks

There are numerous health risks associated with following this severely restrictive diet (including bone loss, muscle loss, menstrual irregularity and slow wound healing):

cbmare
05-01-2007, 04:55 PM
Thank you for posting this. I read this article and some of the links. The couple mentioned seems to have enough calories in their diets. I think this is very confusing. The premise sounds great! Reduce calories, good nutrition, etc. However, that professor who is under 100 lbs is very sad.

I can see where someone would be confused going into something like this.

I'll stick to the calorie counting I'm doing now and my workouts.

Bikini Dreader
05-01-2007, 04:59 PM
It is hard for me to believe that restricting calories lower than what your body needs to survive is ever healthy. I think this is playing with fire and just another disorder. In general, we are confused about what is "normal" eating behaviour and constantly bombarded with "healthy" images of bone thin celebrities. I think the average person is just confused about it all so this plan just seems to be another form of a disorder that claims to have health benefits. I don't buy it. When you focus so much on calories, many people can get consumed by it - including myself. I have had disordered eating since high school so any plan of that nature is not healthy for me.

Thanks for posting this article.

canadian mom
05-01-2007, 05:03 PM
I think they're referring to extreme calorie restriction.... unhealthy low calorie consumption & yea - that could be a disorder just the same as anorexia & bulimia.

I don't think what we do as 'calorie counters' or 'weight watchers' who keep track of our calories in order to meet a weight loss goal or maintain our weight at that goal would be the same thing. Most of us are eating a goal number of calories that is reasonable & healthy for us, not less.



I agree I have been anorexic(as young teen) and now am a calorie counter my mindset for both of these are different. As an anorexic eating was all I could control in my like and I was also tired of being called fat all the time by the other kids. Where as a calorie counter I wanto to be healthy. i get my calories from healthy foods. There are some that calorie count and still maimly eat junk that way it is not good. I am making a concious effort to make sure I get my food groups in everyday, weekly it usually's averages out. As for it not working with the family like. well i tend tto disagree my DDs are now making a more concious effort on what they put intheir mouth. ex. i can have 4 apples to this small bowl of chips. Yes there are days they get treats but I think most calotie counters are making the effort to eat healthier.


Forgot to mention I eat between 1400-1600 cals a day

shrinkingchica
05-01-2007, 07:48 PM
There are numerous health risks associated with following this severely restrictive diet (including bone loss, muscle loss, menstrual irregularity and slow wound healing):

Yes, yes, yes and YES!!!

I met with my dietician the other day and she emphasized that 1200cal is the clinical starvation level amount of calories, and thus one should never ever go below that (and ideally should stay a healthy amount above in order to sustain one's lifestyle and health, and obviously that would vary from person to person).

MicheleKC
05-01-2007, 08:03 PM
This is roughly 1200 calories, and what I find to be filling and satisfying, and not at all in starvation. If I ate foods heavier than this, it would make me feel bloated and sick. When I would eat a couple fast food meals a week, I put on weight. When I just cut out the fast food, and ate like this, I lost the weight. I get my 5 servings of fruit and veggies a day, my whole grains, and my protein, so no problem with healthy eating.

Breakfast: Yogurt/fruit/wheat toast: around 290 calories
Lunch: Chef Salad: around 300 calories
Mid morning Snack: Apple/handful of almonds: around 150 calories
Dinner: Healthy Choice Mac & Cheese with veggies, with 1/2 PB & J on wheat:
around 400 calories
Evening Snack: 100 calorie lowfat popcorn

shrinkingchica
05-01-2007, 08:16 PM
This is roughly 1200 calories, and what I find to be filling and satisfying, and not at all in starvation. If I ate foods heavier than this, it would make me feel bloated and sick.

Well, everyone is different and one formula is not going to work for all. We all require more or less calories based on our age, weight, height, muscle mass, amount of exercise, and natural metabolic rate.

My dietician is one that works with eating disordered clients and tries to "give permission" to eat and to aim for above 1200. Some people can eat 2000 and maintain 125lbs, some have to limit to 1300 to maintain that weight. Everybody's body is different and has different needs. :)

Glory87
05-01-2007, 08:40 PM
Here's an interesting book about severely restricting calories The Great Starvation Experiment (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Starvation-Experiment-Starved-Millions/dp/0743270304/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-1076053-2882443?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178066277&sr=8-1). During WWII, a group of conscientious objectors (who still wanted to serve their country without going to war) volunteered to be part of an experiment that would monitor the effects of severe calorie reduction, I thought it was fascinating - both the short term and the long term effects. (the experiment was intended to help find solutions to "re-feed" Europeans who were starving during the war).

Mel
05-01-2007, 09:07 PM
You can read a lot of the diaries of the men who took part in the "Minnesota Starvation Study" by googing the phrase I called it. They made very little attempt to eat what we would now consider a nutrient dense diet. I'm not all sure the effects are comparable to a nutrient dense extremely low calorie diet. I'm certainly not advocating either, but drawing conclusions about caloric restriction based on the WWII starvation studies would be flawed.

They do make fascinating reading, however. Many of the men dropped out as they found themselves deteriorating mentally and physically. These were young, college age men.

Mel

Glory87
05-01-2007, 10:20 PM
They ate diets similar to what the people starving in Europe were eating (because the purpose of the experiment was to starve them and then refeed them, simulating the real world starvation support efforts in war-torn Europe). I still think it's interesting and appropriate due to the effect of starvation on the mind and body, it was indeed fascinating reading. Does the body differentiate between high nutrition severe calorie restriction and just plain old starvation, probably...but I bet you can still starve to death on 500 daily calories of sweet potato, spinach, quinoa and chicken breast just as much as 500 calories of potatoes.

BooBear2071
05-02-2007, 06:47 AM
.but I bet you can still starve to death on 500 daily calories of sweet potato, spinach, quinoa and chicken breast just as much as 500 calories of potatoes.

I am a little disappointed in this artical because it seems they had an agenda to scare. There is a large difference between extreme calorie restriction and calorie restriction. And it is the fringe that take it too far. Just like in anything.

It is my belief that we are all eating too much today and if you took a time machine back 40 years you would realize how much even a 1200 calorie diet is over what most people ate in other years. And I do think that studies have been done C.A.L.R.I.E. That shows that calorie restriction can extend life and make you healthier. And it makes sense. Lost of people that survived the holocaust seemed to live an awfully long time. And it makes sense that if we outside hunting we would overall be eating a lot less and get a lot less nutrients. We would even go through periods of starvation. So isn't a little starvation even part of Natures plan? Natures diet?

But I fear that talking about CR or pushing something like CR (the reasonable and normal one) gets a backlash for fear that some will take it and use it like anorexia. And I fear that hurts those who are overweight because such a phobia of being *anorexic* or unhealthy -- even for a short time --keeps them fat -- or they loose less than they should because the message of eating less is half hearted for fear of touching off an anorexic.

Although CR is not for me -- I have neither the discipline or time for it. From the studies I am always going to keep it in mind when I want to pig out. The total results are not in yet -- they are still running the study (BTW anyone under a BMI of 27 can join under medical supervision) and if it does show that it can save me from cancer I seriously would consider it. Humn cancer or osteoprosis? I am going with osteo!

JayEll
05-02-2007, 07:52 AM
BooBear, I think you make some good points, only because the data isn't in yet. And I do agree that most Americans eat too much, period. But I do have a couple of differing opinions--first of all, people who survived the Holocaust did so because they were not killed before they were freed, period. Some of them lived a long time after that--but I think it is just not possible to conclude that they did so because they were nearly starved to death in a concentration camp. To me that just sounds nuts!

Second, osteoporosis is not "preferable" to cancer. That is not a choice anyone should have to make, first of all, and second of all, osteoporosis is no picnic--having your vertebrae crack without warning and becoming bedridden and in constant pain isn't "better" than cancer.

Just my opinions... :)

Jay

BooBear2071
05-02-2007, 10:30 AM
But I do have a couple of differing opinions--first of all, people who survived the Holocaust did so because they were not killed before they were freed, period.

I don't think I was saying that people survived the HOlocust because of dieting... no I was just saying that it is one of those *make you go humn* that many of them did *live* to substanially older ages and were starved for 10 years or so -- it obviously could be many other things (such as will to live) but that is something that always makes me wonder about the calorie restriction thing, because there is an entire group that certinally was calorie restricted.... but I am sure there are hard scientific studies.

And yes for me I would take osteoporosis over cancer... particularly many types of cancer. But I think even with calorie restriction you don't have to get osteoporosis.

Eves
05-02-2007, 10:59 AM
It is my belief that we are all eating too much today and if you took a time machine back 40 years you would realize how much even a 1200 calorie diet is over what most people ate in other years. And I do think that studies have been done C.A.L.R.I.E. That shows that calorie restriction can extend life and make you healthier. And it makes sense. Lost of people that survived the holocaust seemed to live an awfully long time. And it makes sense that if we outside hunting we would overall be eating a lot less and get a lot less nutrients. We would even go through periods of starvation. So isn't a little starvation even part of Natures plan? Natures diet?


Okay, you`ve touched on a bit of a pet peeve of mine: the old Hobbesian view that ancient man´s life was "solitary, poor, nasty, bruttish, and short". Speaking as an archaeologist, I can tell you that this is patently false.

Hunter gatherers average between 1500 - 2000 calories a day on most days. Most of these come from the fruits, grains, and vegetables that the women gather. On feast days, or when the men finally bring a bunch of meat, they can get easily over 3000 calories. These are from studies in New Guinea and rainforest Africa. Yes, sometimes in the week they get down to maybe 1000 calories, but in general hunter gatheres and especially hunter gatherers in the past were well fed.

How do we know this? Because malnutrition shows up in the bones. Man in Europe 30,000 years ago was taller, more muscular, and in better health than Europeans 2000, 1500, heck even 100 years ago. Barely this generation is getting up to the health standards that they had 20,000 years ago.

If you head over to modern Sudan go feel the teeth of a 13 year old kid. What you are going to feel is ridges. Those come from starvation and severe calorie restriction that affect bone growth. That is what happens during periods of starvation. (all of this information is available in William Bass`book "Human Osteology, btw).

Between the avocadoes, beans, maize, and other fruits they have worked out that the average daily caloric intake for ancient Mexicans was around 2000 calories.

Here`s whats funny. In Egypt, Mesopotamia, and North America when agriculture fist got started people were worst off. Instead of going through winter not eating enough, they were malnurished the entire year. We can tell from the decrease in height, more cavities, more diseases that show up in the bones.

The point is this, if starvation was a bit of nature`s plan, it would be this: eat as much as you can in the summer and spring. Go nuts. And then have around 800 calories during the winter. This is the general plan seen in the KAlahari desert about 50 years ago.

Second: there are no studies about Holocaust survivors living longer or less than the average. Do you even know what the death rates were for starvation in Treblinka or Dachau? They were incredible! And you`re saying that it was good? I would seriously rethink your argument before going any further.

Third: Archaeologist have done a terrible job in letting the average public know about the past and what people were doing. That`s why everyone gets away with thinking that ancient man`s life was incredibly difficult and that they were barely scraping by. Trust me, we were not. The average 1700 European was getting less calories than your average hunter gatherer today, and today they are living in the rainforest, the harshest desert, and the arctic.

nelie
05-02-2007, 11:20 AM
I don't think I was saying that people survived the HOlocust because of dieting... no I was just saying that it is one of those *make you go humn* that many of them did *live* to substanially older ages and were starved for 10 years or so -- it obviously could be many other things (such as will to live) but that is something that always makes me wonder about the calorie restriction thing, because there is an entire group that certinally was calorie restricted.... but I am sure there are hard scientific studies.


From the stories and things I've read, I don't believe anyone survived 10 years of internment in a concentration camp. Many of them died well before then. They also did intensive work for hours on end. I would also agree although there are holocaust survivors that lived a long time, there were many that did not.

junebug41
05-02-2007, 11:29 AM
From the stories and things I've read, I don't believe anyone survived 10 years of internment in a concentration camp. Many of them died well before then. They also did intensive work for hours on end. I would also agree although there are holocaust survivors that lived a long time, there were many that did not.

I think it's also worth noting that many emigrated to the States post-war, so it may seem like there are a lot of survivors. Also, I have known a handful of Survivors in my life and they may have made it to 80, but they had significant health issues that struck them long before than- usually bone and neuromuscular issues, leaving a couple of them in wheelchairs long before they passed.

Glory, thanks for linking the book... there were so many interesting health and science studies done during that time and I will be checking it out.

shananigans
05-02-2007, 11:34 AM
Archy- Thanks for the interesting info (and for being a voice of reason ;))

I took a couple phys anthro courses in college and absolutely fell in love with the subject. It is absolutely fascinating how much you can tell about ancient people’s lifestyles from their bones and teeth. I remember reading at least part of Human Osteology, and also Skeletons in Our Closet by Clark Spencer Larsen. I thought the latter was a little less jargony, easier for the layperson to read.

I think there is probably something to be said for eating less calories, and even slowing down the metabolism for periods of time. I think even occasional fasting can have a cleansing, positive effect on the body (if you’re in good shape to begin with and do it reasonably). However, as others stated there will always be those on the fringe taking it too far, to the point of disordered eating.

BooBear2071
05-02-2007, 11:53 AM
From the stories and things I've read, I don't believe anyone survived 10 years of internment in a concentration camp.

I think I was thinking that most of them started not getting food when their countries first started getting close to war and or were first having to make sacrifices.

JayEll
05-02-2007, 12:36 PM
archy, thanks SO much!!! :hug: It's so interesting to read this--a reality check.

It reminds me of something I read in Barbara Tuchman's book "A Distant Mirror" about the 1300s in Europe. She said that during that time, people routinely used to cross the Alps ON FOOT. And even IN WINTER. Because that was how most people got from one place to another. Yeah, some of them didn't make it across in storms and such. And they did this on foot even though they were malnourished in terms of what we know now about healthy diet.

Today you can barely get people to walk to the store and back, let alone trek through mountain ranges.

Jay

Heather
05-02-2007, 01:04 PM
Archy -- Loved your post! I didn't know any of that stuff!

Archaeologist have done a terrible job in letting the average public know about the past and what people were doing. That`s why everyone gets away with thinking that ancient man`s life was incredibly difficult and that they were barely scraping by.

I'm not an archaeologist, but I understand your frustration. As a psychologist who teaches research design courses, I can tell you that one of the things I think we don't do well is in helping people to better decipher the results of research studies. Many people are understandably confused by all the research out there, much of which seems to be conflicting. But a big part of the problem are the reporters who don't understand research design and interpretation issues, and the public, which is often similarly misinformed.

It makes me really sad to hear people basically say researchers know nothing and all research is as good as any other. I think it points to problems in our education system. I fear people give up trying to understand because they haven't been taught...

Okey dokey, I'm taking my soapbox and going home! :) I think I've ranted enough!

shrinkingchica
05-02-2007, 03:47 PM
As a psychologist who teaches research design courses, I can tell you that one of the things I think we don't do well is in helping people to better decipher the results of research studies. Many people are understandably confused by all the research out there, much of which seems to be conflicting. But a big part of the problem are the reporters who don't understand research design and interpretation issues, and the public, which is often similarly misinformed.


Heather: The research design course that I *had* (awww, really? do I hafta?) take for my ba (and carry out the design that we developed and interpret it) was probably one of the more practial courses I took in psych because it enabled me to read the literature, period. Otherwise I think that I would look at the results of a study and just go from abstract to findings and not even begin to understand the statistics! :)


And Archy!! What an intelligent and informative post! Thanks so much for sharing. :D

Gamerchick
05-02-2007, 03:59 PM
I think extreme calorie restriction is obsessing...which is what I was doing before I started starving. So I think it's the beginning of an eating disorder in the anorexic direction.

At first it's like a game to see how much better you can do than the day before. And then you aren't working with much.

Heather
05-02-2007, 11:53 PM
Charlotte -- So many of my students have that mindset when they start the class too, but it REALLY helps!!!!

I now tell students that when they finish the course they will be members of a special "club" of people who know something many others don't: how to evaluate claims (especially causal claims) and understand research!

Kinda sad that's a "special" club tho, huh? :(

shrinkingchica
05-03-2007, 12:18 AM
It is sad. Especially since we are bombarded with all sorts of claims that the average person receives from the media everyday.