« Eat 80% Full | Main | Nothing Diet About It »
February 8, 2006
Exercise Does Not Slow The Aging Process
Another interesting comment from a reader we haven't heard from before, reproduced here:
i find it interesting that u r now using more calories per day (u profess now exercise), and consuming same number or less of calories without any ill effects. u have yet to blog as to how many calories u r burning in ur exercise, and whether the amount of exercise may be affected by energy levels due to calory consumption. migh also be interesting at some point to compare life extending benefits of exercise vs. cr or appropriate combo. seems little point to cr when couch potato habits lead to death by body deterioration.
This is symptomatic of a common misunderstanding about the effects of CR. Unlike simple obesity avoidance, real calorie restriction actually slows the aging process in mammals. It doesn't just lower your risk of heart attack -- though it does that too -- it slows every aspect of aging throughout the body. Exercise can't do this, neither can popping massive amounts of supplements. While exercise and other "healthy living" interventions might push you toward the better end of the average lifespan, CR can actually extend maximum lifespan -- at least in all the mammals in which it's been tested. It takes awhile to see if humans die, so we're living an experiment right now, but all the studies to date show that CR folks seem to be aging more slowly in every way that we can measure.
Therefore, while it makes sense to do some exercise for bone and cardio health, it doesn't make sense to do any more than the minimum necessary. According to the treadmill, I burn about 100 calories per day, five days a week, treadmilling -- though I don't know how accurate those things are. And as to how many calories I burn by lifting weights, two - three exercises a day, three sets each (I got overly enthusiastic and did squats, inner thighs and outer thighs last night, and I am feeling it today!) -- can one of you exercise people out there estimate that?
As to feeling no ill effects from exercising more but consuming fewer calories, I think a lot of what I'm experiencing is confounded by the fact that I have mostly eliminated wine from my diet and also upped my fat content (all unsaturated -- love those olives! worship those almonds!) at the same time. The fat makes me less hungry and helps me hold onto my weight, while the elimination of wine allows me to consume fewer total calories while getting almost as many nutrients (though I may add a small amount back in for resveratrol eventually -- say 3 oz per day.)
As to there being no point to CR if one were a couch potato, this is actually not true. The CR'd couch potato will live longer than the non-CR'd couch potato (assuming no intervening incidents, such as the couch catching on fire). The person who does CR and engages in moderate, very targeted exercise to address the specific factors (like bone health) that could lead to increased risk of death in old age will live longer than the athelete who consumes twice the number of calories. If your priority is living longer, younger, then fewer calories is your best bet. If, however, you enjoy competitive sports, like the way you look when you're big and buff, or own a fitness studio, you may have other priorities. Even a bit of CR can be helpful then... my friend the marathon runner is finding his CR regimen to be helpful in making him lighter so that he runs faster, and he isn't cutting his calories to the point where it's detrimental to his energy level.
In designing my exercise program with the help of my ever so helpful trainer Lisa, I focused on getting the maximum impact with the minimum calories expended. That's why we combine bone building impact work along with light weight training. For example, when I do squats, I hold a weighted ball and jump from an aerobic step to the floor into a squat, and then jump back. Impact on the bones, weight bearing exercise for the legs, and it makes me look like a strawberry blonde frog! When I do push-ups, I jump into them from a sorta standing V-like position with my hands on the floor, then I jump back out of each one. Makes me look like a strawberry blonde grasshopper, minus the annoying chirping noises. Instead of running (high impact but also very high calorie burn) and then weight lifting (with no impact), I'm walking fast (4 mphh with incline of 4) on the treadmill for cardio, then doing weights and high impact work at the same time. Have I mentioned that I love my trainer? She really paid attention to me and my needs, instead of trying to push me into a one-size-fits-all. My priorities are so different from the average gym-going female: I don't want to lose weight, tone up, or meet dudes. I just want to have healthy bones and get some stress reduction benefits. There are few things I find so relaxing as a fast uphill walk on the treadmill. Zoning out, in the non-macronutrient sense of the word.
So I'll keep going to the gym and enjoying my workouts, but I don't seek to increase the number of calories burned or build a ton of muscle or train for a marathon. All of things would take away from my primary goal of keeping calories as low as I can, without compromising nutrition or quality of life.
And avoiding having a giant weight dropped on my foot. Some of those dudes at the gym are seriously not careful enough. I fear them.
Posted by april at February 8, 2006 12:21 PM
Comments
I would be interested to know what the effects are on different kinds of physiques or body muscle mass has on the rate of survivability for accidents. Yes, as far as CR is concerned, there may be no difference between a exercise enthusiast and a couch-potato (is there a difference? I don't personally know), but in terms of overall survivability long-term.. (and by long-term, I mean centuries, making the assumption that aging will be cured).
I don't know if there's any way to answer this right now. But perhaps it makes sense to be more active/build substantial muscle, perhaps even take martial arts and/or weapons training, just to reduce one's risk of overall mortality, not just from internal biologic causes?
Posted by: gregg m. at February 8, 2006 10:26 PM
the implication in the post, and txs for reply, of cr as a sole life extender ignores a few things, e.g rats extend lives on melatonin, or so the now 20 year old forgotten studies indicate. suspect the marathon buddy may have a comment or two on dismissal of specific exercise programs as life extenders, as may any college exercise physiology text. What conceivably might extend maximum life span at the cellular level--can we agree is an ongoing study. the evidence for CR is promising, and personally, im without any argument as to significant health benefits from CR. this is differs from my original Q, and txs for response, which was now that april has added exercise (presuming this is a recent thing--and apparently more intense than I had supposed from the posts--5 days a week treadmill is significant volume depending a little on workout length) to CR while actually decreasing calories, how are overall daily energy levels affected. e.g. i find it much more difficult particularly on a psychological level to do workout (which i do 1.5 hrs. per day) without a certain number of calories at some point pre workout.
Posted by: fb0252 at February 9, 2006 10:41 AM