« Pumpkin Pizza Showcase | Main | Help With Raw Veggies »
September 18, 2006
Hardcore CR Is Like Porn
As the Justice once said, "I know it when I see it."
Jen, my new commenter (welcome Jen!) asks what level of calories constitutes hardcore CR. That's an impossible question. Any reduction of calories (while keeping nutrition adequate) seems to have health benefits. What kind of caloric restriction will actually lead to increase in maximum lifespan? We really don't know.
My angel MR, once my CR rockstar whom I admired from afar, now the man who removes spiders from the bathtub and takes them outside so that I can shower in an arachnid-free zone, says that serious CR is about how far you are willing to go to cheat death. It's not about being skinny (lots of non-CR'd people are skinny) or about absolute caloric intake (I can eat a lot less than he does cause I'm almost a foot shorter) -- it's a state of mind and body where everything you do is aimed at optimal health. He's there. He keeps his calories consistent, his macronutrients Zoned (that's 30 percent protein, 30 percent fat, and 40 percent carb) and his lifestyle perfectly designed to maximize health (regular sleep, optimized workouts, etc.)
I'm not there. There are still things that are just as important to me as my health and my CR. Going out with friends, working an extremely demanding job, petting my cats... all occasionally take time and effort away from successful CR practice for me. It shows in my body weight -- certainly I could cut calories and be skinnier. I am not skinny by any stretch of the imagination, though those who knew me pre-CR (and 30 pounds heavier) think I'm quite thin now. It's important to remember that weight is not a good measure of degree of CR -- some people start skinny and get skinner, some people start fat and get thin. If you think people vary a lot in size and shape on CR, you should check out some of those study mice!
There is no absolute calorie level for CR, and I caution the newbie against believing the calorie levels that CR list folk report. Most of them aren't weighing and measuring everything they eat, and as a result, they're seriously underestimating their calories. Here's what I suggest:
Record your diet, honestly and completely, for three average (not good!) days.
Crunch it in nutritional software.
Look at how many calories you're eating and what nutrients you're missing. Do two things: cut your calories by fifteen percent by eliminating saturated fats, sugars, and grains. And note any nutritioal deficiencies and remedy them. Low in B vitamins? Eat mushrooms and brewers yeast. Low in zinc? Supplement at fifteen mg per day, or eat an oyster. Get your unsaturated fats -- olive, flax and hazelnut oil, hazelnuts and almonds. Eat over 70 grams of protein per day, mostly from sources of protein that are low in saturated fats, like eggwhites.
If you're a woman, chances are you'll be significantly CR'd at a real 1500 calories per day. You'll lose weight, feel great, and soon look smashing in a bikini. 1500 (if it's real -- as in, if that's what you're actually eating, weighed and measured, not what you're eating five days out of seven and going out for a big dinner on the weekends -- that can add 2000 calories to your week, easy!) may well be too low if you are athletic or tall. Start slow and build up, or down, as it were. If you're a man, you'll no doubt try to go down to some absurdly low calorie level like 1600 because you're competitive, you'll lose five pounds in a week, and you'll eat some crazy high cal meal cause you've got no better sense. Trust me and cut to 2200 or so first, then if you can take it, cut further. Fix your nurtition, then cut calories. Don't believe the people who say then eat 1400 calories a day and run and lift weights! They don't actually weigh and measure their food, so they have no idea how much they're eating. Those who do weigh and measure consistently report higher calorie intakes at lower BMI's than those who don't. Coincidence? I don't think so!
Cut your calories, improve your nutrition. Supplement as necessary. Exercise, but only to build a little muscle and improve bone health. Reduce stress, cause stress will kill you even if your diet is good. Get a pedicure, because your feet will be with you a hundred years from now, and in the meantime, who wants to walk around with unpolished toes?
MR once said in the famous RANT that hardcore CR is not about BMI, absolute calories, or skinniness. It's about how far you are willing to go, how hard you are willing to push, to cheat death. We all make choices about what is important. For example, MR and I both think it's important to inspire scientists to work on curing aging, so we are both Mprize Three Hundred Members. That means we give $85 per month - - no small sum! We also put a high priority on our own health and longevity, and that means making other things, like a daily helping of fast food, less important, or even non-existent in our lives. We agree on many things, though we still differ in how high we prioritize CR vs. going out with friends, eating socially on the job, etc. We respect our differences, and my choices are constantly evolving.
But I still can't get him to get a pedicure, in spite of study after study that states that people who get pedicures live longer, healthier, than the unpedicured. He's counting on CR to be the bridge to dawn of radical anti-aging biotechnology, and discounting the value of the well taken care of foot that you will walk on as you cross that bridge. There's nothing I can do... he's totally irrational on the subject. Maybe I can at least convince him to let me give him regular foot rubs. It's a slippery slope, at the end of which lies a full-scale salon pedicure, complete with parafin treatment and nail buffing. It starts with a foot massage... it all seems to innocent... and before you know it, you're on your way to your 1000th birthday with perfectly buffed toes.
Posted by april at September 18, 2006 7:44 PM
Comments
Wow, what an informative post! Thank you so much for the information. It gives me a better undersanding of things. I especially took notice to the part in your post that read, "...hardcore CR is not about BMI, absolute calories, or skinniness. It's about how far you are willing to go, how hard you are willing to push, to cheat death".
On another note - I really like your writing style. It seems so natural, yet professional at the same time (if that makes any sense!).
Thanks again - I truly appreciate it!
Posted by: Jen at September 19, 2006 8:48 PM
This post made me laugh (again!).
Your comments (and MR's) imply that CR benefit is the result of *first accounting for* natural appetite, and then eating significantly lower than that. In other words, the level of CR is discounted by how much one tends to eat naturally. A normally skinny person eating 1800 would not be as CRed as a normally hefty person eating 1800.
I wonder: is that right? It seems to imply that natural variations in appetite track natural variations in metabolism, such that (without considering CR) a naturally skinny person's metabolism would age them at the same rate as a naturally hefty person. I realize that (roughly speaking) nobody is naturally obsese, but there *is* natural variation in bone structure and overall mass.
That doesn't seem right to me. My suspicion is that a naturally skinny person, who never hears of CR, will be healthier and live longer (on average) than a naturally heftier person. And so CR-benefits do *not* require the conscious restriction of calories from what one would naturally feel inclined to eat. Some people have naturally lower appetites, lower overall mass, and so are (to lesser and greater degrees) naturally receiving CR-benefits, relative to people of naturally average size.
So if a skinny person inquires about CR, I'm not sure the best response is "well, you're already skinny, but you will still need to cut 20% (or whatever percent) calories from your diet." Perhaps one should say "you seem to have a naturally lower appetite and are probably enjoying similar health benefits that a larger person has to obtain through CR. You might not need to consciously practice CR at all."
But maybe I am wrong?
Posted by: Kip Werking at September 19, 2006 10:36 PM
Great theory, Kip, but wrong. :)
In the animal studies, mice who are genetically engineered to be obese actually live longer on CR (even though they are "Fatter", both in terms of absolute weight and percent body fat) than even normal mice who are CR'd. And in the human wild, naturally skinny people don't experience extension of the maximum lifespan... other than avoiding diseases of obesity (which people who tend towards being heavy but control their food intake and weight can also avoid) they don't live longer. The benefits of CR aren't coming from lower body weight... in the absence of CR, low body weight doesn't confer the benefits. Otherwise, MR (who weighed 145 at six feet eating all the pizza and oatmeal he could) wouldn't need to bother!
Many theories of CR speculate that the body's response to the stress of being underfed is what causes the extension of lifespan. We don't know if that's it, or if that's partially it, but it would explain why just being thinner doesn't seem to help. Of course it's better than being obese, but becoming obese is the result of a negative intervention, not natural for anyone.
Glad you're enjoying the blog and sharing your thoughts! Keep the comments coming! I really enjoy reading them.
a
Posted by: April at September 20, 2006 6:31 AM
I really like this Blog and the ideas you present. I was actually doing "CR" in 2003 without even knowing it. I ate about 1600-1800 calories per day. I weighed about 135 pounds, give or take five pounds throughout the year. I would do some type of work out almost every morning, plus I walked everywhere almost and had a very active job and hobbies. Looking at the rest of my family, it's obvious that our genes are to store fat. My current job and lifestyle are much less active and I also was eating crap these past few years and I ballooned up to 170 pounds and I was STILL the lightest male in my immediate family. CRON gives me something to focus on besides just weight-loss. I am in this for long-term health and vitality and I believe that eating less / maintaining a low BMI actually INCREASES energy levels.
Posted by: Jake Silver at September 22, 2006 6:24 AM
I'm not sure that your conclusion follows from those two data points (about obese mice and skinny humans). About the mice, I'm not what this shows. I'm not sure how this genetic modification changed them, other than making them obese (and *how* did it do that). And I'm not sure whether this would extrapolate to humans. I would be interested to look at those studies.
As for skinny humans not enjoying CR, skinny people live much longer than non-skinny people. Presumably this *has* affected the maximum life span (there may be some obese centenarians, but probably not too many). There have always been skinny people. It doesn't seem fair to say "here is the max life span that humans, skinny and fat, have" but then say "look, skinniness doesn't increase the maximum life span." That would try to account for skinniness twice. The proper test would be to take a population of just ordinary weight people, look at their maximum life span, and see if a skinny person can beat it. I bet he or she can.
I agree that the survival-over-reproduction evolutionary theory of CR explains how CR might induce health and life span benefits. It makes sense to me. What I am suggesting is that natural variations in appetite, and therefore weight, can naturally trigger this mechanism.
Posted by: Kip Werking at September 23, 2006 9:00 PM
I wonder if there isn't some truth to what Kip says.. from my own personal experience (all ad lib eating), up until my early 30s, I was very skinny, and natural weight levels got very low for my height (but very much in the range for people practicing CR).. that changed (and I need to fix that), but now at 39 I easily pass for 25 or younger. While I know that's anecdotal evidence at best, it's something to think about perhaps..
Then again, I can contradict myself when I say that my eyesight (ability to change focus) is very much dead-on for my actual age, from what the optician tells me.
Posted by: gregg m. at September 24, 2006 8:55 AM