So last night on the CBS news they did a story on the rhesus monkey research that shows that the monkeys who are fed a diet 30% less than normal monkey's diet are living longer with less disease. In the years they have been doing the study, 50% of the control group has died but only 20% of the calorie restricted group have died so far. They didn't mention how many monkeys were in the study so the percentages may not be that impressive.
Now of course the story then had to link this study to what if might mean for humans so had a quick blurb of a woman who is already doing "extreme calorie restriction" based on previous studies. The interesting point was that she is "surviving" on "only" 1500 calories per day. Sorry for all the quotation marks, but the phrasing of that statement just astounded me. It seems like many on this board are eating exactly in that range, do you feel extremely restricted? I have to say I don't. I do have to pay attention to make sure I get as much nutrition as possible out of my 1500, but really don't feel like I'm making an extreme sacrifice.
I too eat around 1500 calories a day, and don't feel deprived. I didn't see the show, but I read about it in the paper and thought extreme meant something like 500-800 calories. I couldn't help thinking that anorexics eat very little and often die early.
It's hard to see how 1500 calories is extreme calorie restriction since the recommended calories for a woman to maintain her weight are 1600 - 2200, depending on age and activity level. Dietary Guidelines For Americans 2005
I think all of us have discovered is that how we spend our calories is a lot more important than just the number we eat in a day. We've all learned what foods are filling and nutritious and keep us satisfied. It's totally possible to feel completely satisfied eating less than 1200 calories, to take one extreme. And it's totally possible to eat 2500 calories/day and be malnourished and feel awful on the other end of the spectrum.
I read about it in the paper and thought extreme meant something like 500-800 calories. I couldn't help thinking that anorexics eat very little and often die early.
I had thought the same thing and always wondered how people could expect to live longer if they weren't getting enough nutrients to keep systems healthy (so you're living longer but in wheelchair due to osteoporosis for example). While on line trying to get specifics about the study, I ran into links to Calorie Restricting groups and looks like 1500-1800 is the range the CR people aim for.
I suppose some of it depends on your activity level. My mother maintains ~120 with about 2000 cals (probably more) but she's very active. She'd likely be able to eat 1500 and maintain, so she'd have to be less active. I suspect she'd get downright grumpy if she tried to do it.
Yet, at 81 she's pretty healthy and not restricting what she eats at all. In the end, we're not monkeys, right?
One of the professionals had this to say in a printed article on this study:
"People would have to weigh up whether they are prepared to compromise their enjoyment of food for the uncertain promise of a longer life, and a life which could be dogged by all sorts of problems - including osteoporosis."
I wonder whether those monkeys are living longer in hopes that the study will end and they can eat more at last!
(Please note that they are not talking about obese people or obese monkeys that need to lose weight. These are normal sized individuals.)
But you know, I had the same reaction. 1500? Sounds good to me!
The way I read the article was that the monkey's diets were restricted by 30%. So in this case, if you are maintaining on 1500 calories a day, you would remove 30% of those maintenance calories, making 1050 calories a day available to you.
The most INTERESTING part about this for me wasn't the prospect of longer lives, disease, and so on. It was the concept that your body will adapt to 30% fewer calories without losing massive amounts of weight.
This interested me because I've often wondered about weight loss plateaus. Why if you are in a calorie deficit mathematically, does my weight loss STOP from time to time? When I've posted about this, there are many MANY responses that "starvation mode" just doesn't exist. That if you restrict your calories and do the math, you WILL lose weight continually. That "starvation mode" is a myth. And the implication is that I'm doing SOMETHING WRONG to "create" my plateau.
But, if you restrict your calories by 30%, these people aren't wasting away -- they are thin, yes, but they expect to extend their lives! And the monkey experiment bears this out -- they didn't lose weight and die early. So, is it logical to believe that calorie restrictors' bodies have ADAPTED to 30% fewer calories, most likely by shutting down their BMR when at rest, like watching TV? Which is in line with "starvation mode" or what I prefer to call "famine response". So don't these experiments show that plateaus CAN result from body adaptation, and that a biological "famine response" DOES indeed exist?
There was a show on Oprah a few months back with Dr. Oz. Basically, the gist was that extreme calorie restriction could possibly extend the life of humans by many decades. There was some talk on the show a human could possibly live to be 150. There was a man on the show living the lifestyle. I remember he didn't eat entire apples--only the peelings. He ate berries and things very high in antioxidants, etc.
Since beginning the lifestyle the man hadn't been sick--not even with a cold. I *think* he had been doing it for 7 years or maybe even more.
Maybe someone else here remembers more about the show.
I remember it, Thighs Be Gone. I saw it at the gym.
Personally, I'm not interested in any food program that is too restrictive or has too many rules, too many no-no's, etc. Why would you eat apple peelings and not the whole apple, and so on? It's unnatural... no more unnatural than some of the things people eat ... but still. In my imagination I see a scenario where one day he is found in a cellar surrounded by apple cores with juice running down his chin...
She is. I only know about how many calories she takes in because she asked me to work it out for her. She eats pretty much the same meal for breakfast and lunch every day.
Lunch: big egg bun, turkey/beef/pork (although she'd have turkey every day), cranberry jam / horseradish / applesauce (depending on meat), two servings of fruit, 2 digestive biscuits, about 1.5oz cheese, and a piece of cake (the high protein stuff I make) (~900 cals)
So she's at 1300 cals before dinner. She eats whatever I make for dinner, but they range from 450-750 cals. The nights I make hamburgers she puts a small pile of chips on the plate with them. However, it takes her a fairly long time to go through the bag.
That in itself would be amazing enough, but on Thurs when she goes out to buy the buns (she freezes them) she'll add in two or three bars of family size chocolate and a bag or two of candy from the deli. The catch is, she's very capable of just taking a small amount and not finishing it. So I could be wrong in that she might not buy that amount every week. She's also really quick to offer to go to the bulk food store as she loves the trebor candies. I don't mind letting her go as I can avoid the junk food as well.
I'm convinced that she just burns it off with movement. In the winter she'll maybe use the treadmill for 30 mins a couple of times a week... maybe. She's just one of those people who rarely sits still. If she's got something to go to the garage she takes it. She doesn't leave it near the door until the next time she's going. The same with something to go upstairs, or downstairs, etc. It's a style I try to emulate but likely will never be as good at.
There was a show on Oprah a few months back with Dr. Oz. Basically, the gist was that extreme calorie restriction could possibly extend the life of humans by many decades. There was some talk on the show a human could possibly live to be 150. There was a man on the show living the lifestyle. I remember he didn't eat entire apples--only the peelings. He ate berries and things very high in antioxidants, etc.
Since beginning the lifestyle the man hadn't been sick--not even with a cold. I *think* he had been doing it for 7 years or maybe even more.
Maybe someone else here remembers more about the show.
I watched that show a few weeks ago and was intrigued by it. One of the women on the diet said she ate 1600 cals/day. I eat about that to maintain so I googled the subject and came upon a website sponsored by the Calorie Restriction Society: calorierestriction.org.
The group follows recommendations from "The Longevity Diet" and the founder, Dr. Roy Walford. They recommend eating calorie-sparse, nutrient-dense food. I think that is why the guy on Oprah was eating the apple skins without the apple itself. They try to get the nutrients but reduce calories. If you subscribe to the society you can actually get software to track your nutrients as well as the calories, thereby preventing vitamin and nutrient deficiencies. Some of the testimonials on the website say it is time intensive due to the careful recording, weighing, etc. they have to do, in order to get the benefits of the plan. One place I found said you need to reduce your calories by 10-30% from what maintained on when you were younger., avoid simple sugars and flour, eat an abundance of veggies, make sure proteins are complete, and include monounsaturated fats. They also said it's best not to reduce your calories all at once, but to do so gradually, over a few years is best. I am interested in reading this book, as I think it's a fascinating subject.
I have read about these diets and seen some of the recipes for what they eat. Yuck, I will pass. If life isn't enjoyable, then what's the point? In other words, no thanks.
"Extreme" calorie restriction?
... but still. In my imagination I see a scenario where one day he is found in a cellar surrounded by apple cores with juice running down his chin... 
