OK, here's the article I was talking about (calorie restriction)
 

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.

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.

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

Ouch. That's not good.

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!!! :^:

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):

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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. :)

Here's an interesting book about severely restricting calories The Great Starvation Experiment. 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).

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