Eat 30% less = Smarter, live longer, look younger

[Plow]

To Shenren:
You can eat whatever you want because you're fucking 21.

No way! It was totally a placebo effect...

On... the monkeys they were experimenting on...

[Correction]

To Shenren:
You can eat whatever you want because you're fucking 21. WHen I was 18-21 or so I could eat 2 big macs and a super size fries and I wouldn't gain a pound. You also may be fairly active. When you get older things change a LOT.

Shh, don't spoil the huge fucking surprise waiting for him with that diet at 30.

[Shalyn]

Daft Punk tags.

[sephir]

This has been known for years. Calorie reduction in mice showed vast improvements in life span and other health qualities. Some scientists believe the reason to be behind it is something called the "survival gene". Meaning that when you are always just a little bit hungry your body ramps up your immune system and other preventative ways to block out sickness.

They are also doing a human study of this, and has proven to follow the same effect as with the mice. All the people have lived into their 60's and are all in the peak of healthieness for that age.

You learn all sorts of interesting things when you live with a Toxicologist.

[aduidarnenye]

I don't know how this can be a shock or surprise. If you eat less, especially less junk food, you are healthier in general. I'm currently on a wedding dress diet and I've lost 40lbs. I am a lot healthier and more energetic. Everyone keeps asking me how I've done it. I tell them I cut down my calories and stopped eating junk food. No one believes me. Everyone assumes that I'm doing it unhealthily or starving myself. All I've done is make sure I know how many calories I'm eating, try to keep it between 1500 and 2000 per day, and exercise regularly. I even have treats, like cake or french fries, from time to time, just not every single day.

I tried to explain to some co-workers that weight loss is all about reducing your calorie intake and they absolutely refused to believe me. The argument started over cookies that our employer was handing out. They said "0% Trans Fat" on the packaging but when I looked at the back each cookie contained 250 calories and I refused to eat one since it was a huge percentage of my daily calorie intake and yet a tiny little cookie. My co-workers thought I was insane and insisted that the cookie was healthy because of the trans fat thing. People have really odd ideas.

I have noticed that people out there are hugely fat. I lived in South Korea for three years and people there are fairly skinny. The kids are getting fat because of all the North American fast food restaurants, but the adults are bone racks. I went from South Korea to California and was totally shocked to go from being one of the biggest people to one of the smallest people. People in California are huge! When I came home to Canada I noticed that there are a lot of fat people. Everyone stuffs their face full of frothy caffienated drinks from Tim Hortons and donuts and meals from McDonald's. Horrifying.

[Sly]

Very interesting indeed. In fact, in my freshman biology class we discussed this topic and one of the possible reasons was related to ROS, reactive oxidizing substances, that are naturally produced (unfortunately by accident) during the process of electron transport during cellular respiration. These ROS have been shown to produce general aging effects, by being extremely oxidizating and therefore able to destroy cellular structures at a molecular level. ROS production tends to increase more with age.
The idea was proposed less on a calorically restricted diet, the cell had to do "less" processing, would overall slow the production of ROS and therefore slow the process of aging, which has been demonstrated in a variety of animals, including primates now.

[Tristam]

Cool article, I've been waiting for something like this. My very basic understanding of the calorie restriction is that it activates some pathway that results in the productions of proteins called Sirtuins that were originally discovered in lower organisms that were calorie restricted. I'm not sure if Sirtuins do anything with ROS, but it's a pathway that people are really just beginning to develop and understand in humans.

I'd be interested to see if the same pathways are activated in the monkeys. I think in bacteria they were able to induce longevity by activating the genes responsible for sirtuin production in the absence of calorie restriction.

Either way, expect to hear much much more about this pathway, lots of people are working on it.

[Absolutely Virtue]

To Shenren:
You can eat whatever you want because you're fucking 21. WHen I was 18-21 or so I could eat 2 big macs and a super size fries and I wouldn't gain a pound. You also may be fairly active. When you get older things change a LOT.

This is the end of this thread.

[Ensam]

I might be wooshing but the typical thing that's been said over and over again is have a 2k diet.

The # they bring up that should be cut is 2618 calories

Cutting 30% from that is 1833 calories.

So....I guess I'm just kind of confused as to how this is a breakthrough. It seems like its common knowledge.

[deft]

yeah since monkeys are the same a humans!!
yeah yeah we are 3-5% different but what people dont think is that 3-5% how many billions of cells and genes is XD now that 3-5% doesnt look that small isnt it?

Sounds like 3-5% to me, which is pretty small because you have to look at how much 95-97% of billions is. 3-5% is 3-5%, it's not that much.

People seem to be hating on this article a bit because it's obvious or expected. Note that in science just because something will most likely happen a certain way doesn't mean that proving it is a meaningless discovery.

@Ensam: Are you sure that you're not thinking of the standard nutrition label which is based off of a 2,000 cal diet? I thought recommended calorie intake was based off weight and height.

[Andarvi]

CNN is all about the weight articles lately, here is one concerning the variable and relative definition of "overweight," which gave me some lols.

As nation gains, 'overweight' is relative - CNN.com

Whether or not people's perceptions of themselves changes overtime or we as a society are able to cope better with being overweight because of cholesterol drugs and related treatments is pretty irrelevant. If you are 5'3 and weigh 170 lbs with low muscle mass you are overweight. You were overweight in the 90s and you are now. Maybe this article is classifying overweight as a mental label and deviating it from being obese, but I don't. We need to stop making excuses for this fat ass country, its getting ridiculous. Despite the poorly worded title of this thread, eating 30% less total food for many Americans would not be a bad idea.

[Absolutely Virtue]

I like the idea of expanding on the 30% rule:

Eat 30% less

becomes

Get 30% less of your advice from the internet

[Tristam]

People seem to be hating on this article a bit because it's obvious or expected. Note that in science just because something will most likely happen a certain way doesn't mean that proving it is a meaningless discovery.

I think some of the points of the article are a bit generalized, they're not testing to see if obesity is unhealthy if that's what some people are implying. The reasons being obese is unhealthy is different from the reasons calorie restriction is prolonging life. I mean they're not entirely disconnected, but the reason this is interesting to me at least is that they are studying an entirely new route to longevity that may (or may not) be applicable to humans. Even if nothing drug-worthy ever comes of it, it's interesting to see that there's a specific biological pathway that's common to so many organisms that slows down aging and seems to respond to a lack of calories. So in that respect, it's not quite obvious.

[Cyn]

I like the idea of expanding on the 30% rule:

Eat 30% less

becomes

Get 30% less of your advice from the internet

*from the BG general section

There's plenty of useful and factual information on the internet, it's just that not much makes it to here.

[Zieara]

I usually just follow the adage: Eat when hungry and never to the point of satisfaction.

Lots of folks can't afford food at all. Take the money you save from not eating when bored or not hungry and donate it to help others eat!^^

[Elcura]

Take the money you save from not eating when bored or not hungry and donate it to help others eat!^^

Or save it for when you need to eat later on.

[aru]

Just saw a follow-up article on Fark about this: Junkfood Science: Calorie restrictive eating for longer life? The story we didn’t hear in the news

No statistical difference. It was a null study that to date has failed to support the calorie restriction hypothesis.

[Vuitton]

This just reinforces my life motto that "nothing tastes better than being thin" (aka eat less to look and feel better). This also reinforces my discriminatory attitude towards fat people.

[Vuitton]

Just saw a follow-up article on Fark about this: Junkfood Science: Calorie restrictive eating for longer life? The story we didn’t hear in the news

Is it a smart thing to believe a blog that is debunking a 20 year long study?

[archibaldcrane]

Is it a smart thing to believe a blog that is debunking a 20 year long study?

Point to specifics, the blog brings up some very salient points. Just saying "lolblog" isn't an argument.