T Nation

Latest Issue of Health

Anybody else read this on the stairmaster? No? Ok throw shit at me when you’re done reading…:slight_smile:
There was a HUGE article about a researcher who, due to his research with lab rats and mice, is recommending people skip at least breakfast and preferably lunch and eat one large meal a day. This is supposedly healthier because rats and mice who were fed 60% of their daily calories lived longer than other rats and mice.
So Mr. Researcher says- humans should eat like this too, it’s healthier! He himself barely eats breakfast or lunch now, restricting himself to one large meal at the end of the day. He says the response has been marvelous- people write him all the time saying “this is how I eat all the time! I starve all day and binge at night”.
And that is why America is fat.

the fact that they use the word ‘binge’ is the reason they are fat. how much do you want to bet that instead of eating a salad, some kind of meat, a small amount of rice or pasta, and some steamed veggies, these people are eating cheese burgers and fries, or a plate of burritos with ho-ho’s and a tub of ben and jerry’s.

actually there is some research to support that if you go on a very restricted calorie diet you will live longer, can’t find the citations for this at the moment. However, from what i understand, the calorie restriction has to be rather significant to have an effect. I’d rather take my chances leading a healthy life-style and eating enough to grow, rather than be a rail-thin, treadmill freak.

I’d rather live well and live short than live a long and shitty life of starvation, ematiation and frustrated potential.

Quality VS Quantity

The quality of life for those around me would be greatly diminshed if I didn’t get my six mini protein meals a day. ;o) I suspect this might lead to a shortened lifespan for myself.

What a bunch of crap. . How irresponsible of Health to print something like that.

I bet the author doesn’t have the same body as JB!

Here’s a q and a from my site.

Any thoughts on the science behind calorie restriction and longevity? What are your impressions of the studies, if any?

My preliminary thoughts are as follows. Calorie restriction, in rats, tends to increase longevity as a result of increased tissue turnover (some studies are now verifying this hypothesis, especially with respect to liver turnover). Basically, due to the fact that calories are so chronically low, the body is constantly breaking itself down. However, with the right micronutrient intake and adequate (while sub optimal) protein and energy intake, the body can survive and actually becomes more efficient at these lower caloric intakes. It does become much, much smaller and weaker though. In fact, in one study (The Biosphere 2 data), the men and women on long-term calorie restricted diets experienced body weight stabilization at about 23 lbs lighter than their original body weights (which, on average, went from 149 to 126lbs).

For these, as well as other reasons, I certainly do not want to tell anyone to eat fewer calories to increase their shelf life. From what we know of intense exercise training, it seems like calorie restriction and intense exercise training can promote very similar effects on tissue turnover. In fact, it’s a hypothesis of mine that an intense training regimen may also promote similarly high rates of tissue turnover, thus causing similar hormonal cascades, metabolic profiles, and some of the same benefits.

I’d much rather exercise more and eat normally instead of simply eating ? of my current intake. Make no mistake; the calorie restriction proponents don’t mess around. The Biosphere study used 1700kcal per day and proponents of this type of restriction often recommend fewer calories.

Thanks for chiming in. I repeat…I bet these people do not have YOUR body!

I would rather have a short time with you than an eternity with their bodies!! <wicked, evil, lust-filled grin>.

loved the new articles on JB.com by the way.

Ditto Iron Maiden (and if you’ll scuse the shameless flirting, we do love the body on that JB) :slight_smile:
I’m also just thinking that merely watching what you eat and making sure it’s clean is a form of caloric restriction in itself: you’re restraining yourself from being a pig!

The eating plan sounds like that Warrior Diet I’ve heard about, though with obviously fewer calories…

Anyway though, there some speculative stuff out there that is saying that perhaps some plant sompounds from red wine and/or olives can provide similar benefits to low-calorie diets. I specifically remember claims that were for red wines grown in cold climates, although I can’t remember where I saw this.

As far as going super hypo-caloric: All I know is I don’t particularly want to live a few years longer while being too weak to lift my pants.


Did you ever see the guy who created the warrior diet?

I made the mistake of purchasing “The Warrior Workout” created by the same guy who did the warrior diet.

The workout was a joke! The guy is so skinny I wanted to stop the tape and mail him a gift certificate from my favorite restaurant.

Zeb: Yeah, I did see a pic of him in the Dragon Door magazine. That was when I quit considering the Warrior Diet…

Awww shucks…

Great response Elveneyes!

I think the fact that those who chose to eat “cleanly” are indeed restricting calories (to a point). But lets not forget that a calorie is a calorie! HAHAHAHAHA…I can just imagine all the evil stares I got with that! I’m kidding of coarse!!

But yeah, I do see your point in that those of use who eat “cleanly” do restrict your intake to a certain extent. I mean, sure…I would LOVE to eat some pizza on the weekends, but is that going to get me any closer to my goals? I think not. Why eat some shitty food, when I can eat oatmeal or cottage cheese or yams and get MUCH better results.

I vaguely remember seeing an article which referenced a study claiming that the relationship between exertion levels and life expectancy was bell shaped-- sedentary individuals and elite athletes had shorter lifespans relative to the moderately active folks. Does this ring any bells?

This reminds me of something I saw on a BBC documentary - “How to Build a Human.”

They interviewed a guy who was on a ridiculously low cal diet - 1/4 “recommended intake” - so that’s probably 1/4 of not enough already. I think there were certain days when he ate an apple. Just an apple.

The guy was a sickening little weed - weighed something like 40kgs and he wasn’t exactly a dwarf either (I guess 5’10" ish)

They did some tests to compare his rates of aging with certain baselines for his chronological age - can’t remember the science of it but things were looking good for him at first - one test on artery width or something indicated his circulatory system was years younger than it should have been.

But then they got to his bones. Poor git was heading for osteoporosis.