Here’s the story. Some wonks in a lab starved some yeast and found that the yeast seemed to live longer than well-fed yeast. ?Hey!,? they said, ?That must mean that if we starve mice, monkeys, and humans, they’ll live longer, too!
Fast forward a few years and some other scientists tested the hypothesis in mice and rats and got…mixed results. Some rodents just wouldn’t live longer when fed less. In fact, some of them lived shorter (and hungrier) lives, which had the scientists scratching their heads. ?Gee, there must be something wrong with these rodents. They?re supposed to live longer when underfed.
So they found other breeds of rodents that behaved properly, and they ran some studies on those and found that, lo and behold, there are some rodents that live longer lives when fed less. And thus began the ?life extension? craze of calorie restriction.
Next thing we know, there are websites and internet groups dedicated to supporting the practice of calorie restriction for humans. Of course, in a different context it would be called anorexia nervosa, but calorie restriction for life extension is different…because it’s for health. ?Ah! Right. For health. Okay. Then it’s different. Not the same. How’s it different? Well, sure, they are restricting calories, but they are doing it while maintaining “optimal nutrition.” So instead of being called anorexia nervosa it’s called CRON (calorie restriction with optimal nutrition) to sound very scientific and technically advanced (since it rhymes with TRON).
How does CRON work? Essentially, eat fewer calories. There are different approaches, but all involve eating fewer calories. Generally, it means eating a lot fewer calories. As in, many people report eating 1600, 1500, or even 1200 calories a day. (Some report eating as few as 800 calories a day, but the 1200+ figures are more reliable since they are reported by people who obsessively weigh and track every single bite they eat. But remember, they are healthy, not anorexic.)
To put this in perspective, during the landmark Minnesota Starvation Experiment a group of healthy young men were placed on a 1600 calorie a day diet for six months. The men became so physically and emotionally unwell (one of the men ?accidentally? cut off his own hand) that the experiment is now considered to be unethical.
So what is different about CRON? Well, in most ways it’s not. Like the starving Minnesotans, CRONers are starving, but with a slightly different spin on things. CRONers generally eat lots of low calorie food, and many actually comment that they eat so much volume that they sometimes struggle to meet their (very low) calorie goals. So unlike the Minnesotans, CRONers often eat a lot of volume, which may produce feelings of fullness. CRONers also advise one another to focus on ?nutrient-dense,? low-calorie vegetables and ‘superfoods? like nutritional yeast, kale, spinach, wheat germ, mushrooms, and non-fat dry milk. (Are you salivating yet?) They may also take supplemental vitamins and minerals to avoid deficiencies. So there are some subtle differences in typical CRON that result in less stomach growling and possibly fewer deficiencies in most nutrients. But they are still deficient in one key nutrient: calories.
A few years ago a paper was published in the journal Science reporting on the findings from a long-term starvation, er, I mean, calorie restriction study involving monkeys at the University of Wisconsin. The cheeseheads had two groups of rhesus monkeys: one group was the control group, the other was the intervention group. The control group was fed 20 percent more than the usual rhesus diet (anything sounding fishy yet?). The intervention group was fed 30 percent less than the control group. This is trickery designed to make it sound like the intervention group was eating 30 percent less than a normal diet, whereas, in fact, they were eating 16 percent less than a normal diet – still significant, of course, but not as dramatic as we’re supposed to think.
So in truth there were two intervention groups and no control. The first intervention group was the overfed group and the second intervention group was the moderately restricted group. The researchers reported that the restricted group had fewer deaths than the overfed group, which they concluded to mean that calorie restriction increases lifespan in primates, meaning that it might work in humans.
But wait a minute. Not so fast! Because what they forgot to mention was that a bunch of the starved monkeys did die. They died of accidents (remember the Minnesotan who chopped off his own hand), infections, and conditions other than the ?acceptable? types of deaths such as death from cardiovascular disease. And when we consider the monkeys who died of all causes it turns out that there was no significant difference between the two groups.
Whoops.
Wait. There’s more. It turns out that the Wisconsin group’s lead researcher is one of the co-founders of LifeGen, which, according to its website, has several patents pending. You can bet that at least one of those patents will be more profitable if the public is convinced of the benefits of calorie restriction.
Fine, fine. Maybe it doesn’t work in monkeys, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work in humans, right? I mean, there have been lots of well-designed human trials showing that calorie restriction improves biomarkers of health in humans, right?
Well, actually yes, you’re right. There are a bunch of well-designed, clinical human trials that demonstrate that calorie restriction results in lowered LDL, triglycerides, blood pressure, and so forth. That sounds nice. But what rarely gets reported is that along with all the other reductions, the studies also report a reduction in metabolic rate and serum T3.
Strangely, in the calorie restriction studies, the researchers often speculate that perhaps lowered metabolic rate and lowered T3 levels may account for the life extension effects of calorie restriction in humans. Somehow they’ve forgotten that calorie restriction has never been shown to increase lifespan in humans.
But what about outside of calorie restriction studies? What do other researchers normally associate with lowered metabolic rate and lowered T3? Well, those folks over at LifeGen aren’t going to like this, but everyone else knows that lowered metabolic rate and lowered T3 are associated with starvation, malnutrition, and a whole bunch of disease states. In other words, they’re nothing to brag about.
If you don’t believe me, go ahead and look it up. Low T3 is called euthyroid sick syndrome. According to the Merck Manual, euthyroid sick syndrome is commonly seen as a result of fasting, starvation, protein-energy undernutrition, and anorexia nervosa, among other things. In other words, it’s not surprising that calorie restriction would have the effect.
And regarding lowered metabolic rate, those poor, starved Minnesotans had an average reduction in metabolic rate of 40 percent! Meanwhile, they were obsessing over food (kind of like CRONers weighing and measuring all their food), exhausted, depressed, anxious, impotent, and cutting off their own hands. So lowered metabolic rate doesn’t sound so great either.
Will calorie restriction make you live longer? All in all, it seems very unlikely. Clement Freud, the British chef, politician, and broadcaster (what a combo!) is quoted as having said, ?If you give up smoking, drinking, and sex, you don’t actually live longer, it just seems longer. Well, add calories to the list, too. And unlike smoking and drinking, despite what LifeGen and the breatharians would have you believe, you actually need calories.
So next time someone mentions the benefits of calorie restriction, remember: that stuff is for the…er…yeast? Meanwhile, eat long and prosper.
About the Author
Joey Lott investigates and unmasks all forms of suffering. If you like what you’ve read here, then you can read more of his free content at his website, or you can check out his books.
That dude needs a nice BLT or 10. Every time I see the calorie phobe guys they look like rip wan winkle on crack. Not a good look.
Thanks for this!
deb the hag of the century
Interesting info. I did the the 5:2 diet for over a year and did lose weight, but decided how stupid to starve myself two days a week. I have since decided to try to eat more sanely by listening to my body and eating mindfully. Hope this works for me because the other “diets” are crazy in the long run. Love your books too.
Good article but a bit overkill for the 180 crowd I’d say :P
Anyway, is it just me or do other people also have adds everywhere on 180D? Particularly annoying are the words in articles that get highlighted with a link.
Err, nevermind, seems like there’s some crap on this pc that creates adds on some websites.
I nearly had a heart attack when you said there were ads on the site!
Haha XD sorry about that
Awesome post Joey. Loved this section:
“Some rodents just wouldn’t live longer when fed less….So they found other breeds of rodents that behaved properly, and they ran some studies on those and found that, lo and behold, there are some rodents that live longer lives when fed less.”
That picture reminded me of Trent Arsenault, famous virgin dad and sperm donor (http://nymag.com/news/features/trent-arsenault-2012-2/) I think he also practices CRON and is 6’1″ 150lbs (formerly 220lbs). But he’s still fertile I guess, so he’s got that going for him.
“Of course, in a different context it would be called anorexia nervosa, but calorie restriction for life extension is different?because it’s for health”
That sentence made me laugh :)
What do you think of the methionine / protein restriction studies purporting life extension?
Personally I think they are valid, but I suspect that protein restriction and calorie restriction provide potential life extension (and only in a certain context, i.e. a lab), for one reason and one reason only: animals starved of calories and/or protein (or certain essential amino acids) are SMALLER. That in and of itself explains many phenomena, such as why taller people die younger, why Asians live longer, why women live longer than men, why small dogs live longer than big dogs, why delayed puberty is associated with greater longevity, etc.
I might also note that etc. also happens to be the same initials used for the phrase, Eat the Calories (ETC). Coincidence? Doubtful.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1600586
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071721/
For get the calorie restriction diet hoax. Animal testing of this has no relevance to humans . Humans live much longer and all have different constitutions and lifestyles. Not to mention ancestry and environment habits . There is just way too many variables for each human being on this Earth to come to calorie restriction for longevity . Only nutritionally illiterate hospital paid dietitians are looking at and working with calories . Just eat real food from Nature . Follow the eating habits of your ancestry and support your local organic farmer friend in season . And take it a step further and learn to grow your own garden using non GMO organic heirloom seed. This way you will be closer to living like the longevity people of the blue zones. Holistic Chef Barry Gourmet “Your Good Earth Chef “
That’s an interesting perspective. I think there probably are life-extending metabolic effects which occur at the expense of fertility to calorie and protein restrictions based on evolutionary adaptations as well (but these obviously occur alongside health risks like infections, depression, low energy and lowered fertility as mentioned).
I also think that excess methionine probably is toxic and reducing it may extend lifespans but it’s toxicity is probably contingent on a DEFICIENCY IN GLYCINE.
In one rodent study adding extra glycine WITHOUT restriction protein or methionine had the same longevity benefits as methionine / protein restriction – http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/25/1_MeetingAbstracts/528.2
Marcus,
I suspect that the methionine/glycine ratio is significant, as you note. The study you cite is the only one that I know of that supports the claim thus far, and I know of nothing that proves that it would also be true in humans. But, it seems likely considering that humans probably evolved eating whole animals and a very large percentage of the protein in most animals is collagen, which is high in glycine and deficient in methionine.
It probably isn’t strictly as simple as just methionine/glycine either though. In my research I keep finding exceptions to every “rule”. For example, smoking tobacco generally correlates to poor health. However, there are major and notable exceptions (Kitavans, Japanese, French). I suspect that there are usually many factors that converge to produce problems, psychological stress being a major piece.
I enjoy eating collagen/gelatin, and so I do so frequently. I opt for collagen-rich cuts like ox tail, for example. And, frankly, I don’t like to eat a whole lot of muscle meat. I find that it doesn’t agree with me, so to speak. I just have a limited desire for muscle meat. But the problem is that then glycine/gelatin/collagen can become a new dietary religion. The next thing you know, we’ll have a bunch of books such as The Glycine Miracle, and everyone will be supplementing glycine. Which doesn’t address the pscyhological stress component. In fact, it just exacerbates it! So I’m inclined to advise eating enough, sleeping enough, and ditching stress as the most important things to do for health. And that usually means eating what you want rather than what you think you should. If you just want to eat lean cuts of muscle meat then eat it and don’t stress. That’s my view.
By the way, an interesting note on the amino acid front is that Campbell’s reports in The China Study that are used by vegans to claim victory regarding the toxicity of animal protein fail to mention that the same toxicity is seen with ANY complete protein, regardless of its origin. Since we need approximately 0.8 grams of complete protein per kilogram of body mass per day in order to avoid deficiency, that means that whether we eat beans and rice (and lots of it to get that much protein) or steak and eggs, we will feel the same inflammatory effects. But, it does seem that, as you point out, methionine (and perhaps tryptophan) seems to be the primary culprit.
We are definitely at the preliminary stages of research but I am happy with the implications that we should be able to eat as much calories as we want and adequate protein and possibly still get the life-extension benefits of protein restriction without the negative consequences.
Collin Campbell’s protein restricted rats also suffered a number of serious health problems and died from toxic shock when aflotoxin was administered at much lower doses than the protein sufficient rats. Campbell also forgot to tell his readers that the high protein diet protected rats from cancer initiation in the presence of a carcinogen (aflotoxin) even though it accelerated the cancer growth once the tumor was already initiated.
Peat writes quite a lot about tryptophan and cysteine as well, not just isolating methionine. http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/gelatin.shtml
But who knows. Once again, maybe those elements only have that effect in a certain context, like a low metabolism, glycine deficiency, nutrient deficiency, or otherwise.
I tried “calorie restriction” for a good part of my 20s. It pretty much ruined my quality of life and did no favors to my health. It ended with eating disorder therapy. I wouldn’t recommend it.
That said, I don’t think overrating is any better. There’s a sweet spot where you eat a pretty balanced and moderate diet and listen to your body. And whether it leads to life extension or not, I’m a whole lot happier this way.
Interesting read, thank you, however, let’s clarify few things.
1) 3 fingers were cut off of his hand – not the whole hand.
2) The 40% drop in metabolic rate as stated is misleading in my humble opinion. This is 40% reduction from baseline. Considering that on average the “participants” dropped 25% of their starting weight, the actual metabolic adaptations were probably 20% or so since a smaller body burns less calories. Those adaptations and metabolic slowdowns could not stop weight loss till the participants hit 5% bodyfat levels.
I am not a proponent of CR for life extension but just wanted to clarify these points on this seminal study.
During the Minnesota Starvation experiment the subjects were fed limited, yet high carbohydrate meals right? I wonder what the results would’ve shown if they were given something similar to the paleo diet: high protein, low carb. I bet the results would have been just as, or even more ugly. Oh yeah, and when are researchers going to stop comparing us to animals??? I’m not a damn rat, monkey, or caveman, I’m a 21st century HUman.
Living longer isn’t always all it’s cracked up to be – I’d rather live more happily even if it is for a shorter period of time.
Hey, I’m with Real Amy and Jen. Let’s enjoy our food and enjoy our lives, I’m sure that also leads to longevity! Yeah, lets try and eat real, nutritious food a lot of the time but being relaxed about all foods and enjoying ourselves without hang-ups about how we eat, I am sure leads to longevity also. And if it doesn’t, at least we are having fun (The calorie restrictors or strict food restriction of any kind can only lead to misery).
Nice article and well said. For those who feel that eating at starvation level, being emaciated, being consumed with anxiety regarding food etc, is a good way to live longer, because it may work in mice, please take a science course to understand the non transferrability of most rodent studies to human conditions. A large scale study performed in china in the 1990s looking at the characteristics of Chinese centenarians, noted that many suffered through starvation in their middle age years (due to Chairman Mao’s policies of starving the population in the Great Leap Forward). But those who ate higher calorie diets in the elder years, including meat and alcohol, lived the longest. It is all a bit more complicated than mice. tx for the excellent reminder.
> the non transferrability of most rodent studies to human conditions.
wade: I’m not about to take an entire science class to help me understand this. Can you provide some citations or links to support this?
Because surely if mice and human share 97.5% of their genetic material, and share major biochemical pathways, it would seem that most rodent studies would have relevance.
dan, my apologies for not supplying references. They are available on a myriad of research topics but i lack the time to hunt these down for a blog chat. I have done a fair amount of published research in orthopedics and trauma. We consistently find that rodent studies are minimally transferrable and this has been seen across the board for pharmacokinetics, cardiac, infectious disease etc. Nutrition would seem to be similiar, but perhaps not? I HAVE NOT done studies in human starvation and nutrition however. Anecdotal review of starvation studies from the US military and the unfortunate experiences of WW2 and the Great Leap Forward in China would seem to indicate that starvation and near starvation levels of calories are at best terribly unpleasant and at worst life shortening. On the other hand, most long lived cultures with accurate documentation such as the Okinawans and Sardinians, do appear to avoid gluttony and on average eat less calories than we do in the US. I suppose the scientific jury is out, but my personal bias is to not be too extreme. tx wade
Can you give citations for the studies where “Some rodents just wouldn’t live longer when fed less. In fact, some of them lived shorter (and hungrier) lives”
Hi. Has there been any update to Rob’s Calorie counting experiment?
My story is that I have ramped up my exercise and general levels of outdoor activity quite considerably in recent months. I have maintained a semi energetic lifestyle for a few years, mostly weight lifting. I feel good, more stamina and have gained muscle mass but the belly will not shift. I really cannot seem to lose or gain a pound in any sense that could be considered permanent. I am at a loss. I cannot do any more exercise without getting into athlete level fitness.Ain’t got the time or inclination for that. I do not restrict calories, nor am I food hog. Not sure what to try next.
I’ve always been suspicious that the rodents were overeating their calorie dense, highly palatable, crap lab food, and that the “undereating” studies might be just reducing the effects of overeating, or eating specific toxins such as transfats. So, is it really applicable to figuring out how much good, real food you need, and then eating less? I think it is a bit of a leap.
What I remember standing out about the rhesus monkeys calorie restriction experiment is how much better the restricted calorie monkeys aged than those who were on “normal” calories. The calorie restricted monkeys just looked better.
How would this fit in with the more calories higher metabolic rate as the controller of everything good and lower calories and restriction as the bringer of misery?
Dig: http://blog-imgs-42.fc2.com/y/o/s/yoshiropapa/20120415000014baa.png
An influential 2012 report on 120 monkeys being studied at the National Institute of Aging (NIA) reported no differences in survival for caloric restriction animals and a trend toward improved health that did not reach statistical significance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3832985/
Here’s a very interesting recent article from Free Radical Biology and Medicine
Volume 73, August 2014, Pages 366?382 called
“Caloric restriction and the aging process: a critique”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891584914002317
I’ve looked at the diets of centenarians and super centenarians a bit (yes I have read blue zones also – although I think the author has a vegetarian agenda) and have noticed that the diets vary widely.
You see some of them eating high carb plant based diets whilst others are eating fatty diets (bacon, eggs, cheese, etc). You also see that some of them do some calorie restriction (not always voluntary though) or fasting practices. I have seen Paul Jaminet argue that it’s the high fat diet or the calorie restriction that is significant while Dan Buettner argues that it’s the plant based, partly vegetarian diet that’s important.
What high carb diets, high fat diets, calorie restriction and fasting having in common is that they often result in a diet that restricts protein intake. I think this may be important.
Whilst meat and other animal proteins are still on the menu, it’s not consumed in great quantities or that often it seems.
Interestingly, pork, bacon and chicken come up quite a lot as do eggs, cheese and milk. You don’t really see beef, which kind of goes against the whole ‘grass fed beef’ being the better food and pork and chicken having too much omega 6 rant.
Many also seem to live at high altitudes too which is interesting (Ray Peat loves him some co2 I hear).
Great article, thank you! But what about intermittent fasting and things like that, getting enough calories but during 8 hours a day? To increase autophagy. I am so confused.. I suffer from autoimmune conditions, “chronic” infections, neurological damage. Everything get worse…I am just 25 and have no life. I have normal temperature, warm all the time (but often feverish), but all other symtoms of low metoblism, like dry skin and hair, can’t tolerate a lot of food etc. Have tried everything to get better. Severe joint pain and inflammation when I eat many Foods. Now a lot of people talks about autophagy to kill infections and increase autophagy with intermittent fasting. I am desperate to get better, but I am not sure if I believe them. Here in Sweden the solution for everything is low carb and intermittent fasting right now, but I am so tired of it because I have tried every diet since I was 14. Do some of you have any idea about autophagy? And decrease endotoxins, is the only what to skip fructose, starch…
What if I’m calorie restricting unintentionally? My appetite is still shot from a year of chronic neurotic dieting. I’m trying to binge on ice cream, cookies, calorie dense junk food to up my metabolism and deprogram my psyche but at the end of the day I still have too much trouble getting this food down. Any tricks I should know about?
Hi M,
What solved my problems was simple. Basically, after I read Matt’s books I started eating a lot, and got over my diet phobias. I’ve done paleo diets, low carb, restrictive diets such as avoiding sugar, nightshades, low fodmap, low histamine, high protein, ray peat diet, most forms of intermittent fasting, you name it, and none of it helped. I’ve tried countless supplements, even glycine after reading on this blog and I swear none of them make a difference and more often than not, actually seem to make things worse.
Implementing Matt’s ideas got me so far but everything kind of fell into place when I read Mastering Leptin. Strangely enough, the guy who wrote it died from a heart attack.
Anyway I ignored most of the rules in the book such as eating a very high amount of protein and avoiding carbs, but what did make all the difference was taking on board the idea of eating 3 meals per day, with no calories in between. I ignored some of the other rules too such as waiting 5-6 hours between meals (I regularly fit my meals within 3 hours of each other) or eating 3 small meals (I eat until I’m full otherwise this approach doesn’t really work for me – I start to get chronic fatigue symptoms if I don’t).
I do follow the rule however not to eat after dinner, and not to eat too close to bedtime (usually within 3 hours) – this alone may be significant.
I have found that I need to really focus on getting breakfast after getting up and having a good feed then. Sometimes I’m not that hungry but I have found I need some sugary foods such as sweetened tea or coffee, fruit or juice and I do think I do quite well with a bit of protein in the morning such as eggs which was emphasised in Mastering Leptin. I found that having some juice or fruit with meals eliminated ‘brain fog’ and keeps my energy levels consistent.
After a few days of doing this I noticed greatly improved and refreshed sleep, consistent energy and no aches and pains or feeling of exhaustion.
Simply put – three meals a day, no calories between, eat after rising, eat as much as you need to be full, don’t eat too close to bed time or after dinner and include some sugary foods. Try avoiding too much fluids if your skin is dry also (I think I got that from Matt Stone).
You are going a very far distance to equate Anorexia Nervosa to CRON. Anorexia really is not even close to CRON. As Anorexia is a condition relating to a false sense of body image, secondary it is an eating disorder.
I think that people on a CRON diet really are attempting to consume their actual caloric need from the best possible sources. I believe that the rational basis of the study was to determine the exact caloric need if when supplied nutritionally dense foods. Meaning no empty calorie foods, like candy, donuts, junk foods.
Why talking of these scientist as if they are a collection of straw man idiots. Why not talk about one of the men who founded the idea like Roy L Walford and take up a real debate with him.
I read his book years ago and can from my memory it is not exactly a reduced dietary plan. It isn’t even vegan or raw. The over arching idea today is that you can eat what ever. But you should attempt to get your basic RDA while minimizing empty calories from the selection of foods that you do eat.
You seem to be attacking the concept of eating less as if you are protecting your right to eat a gallon of ice cream and a bag of doritos at a party or your right to eat a buffalo tail maybe. Because you have reduced the Science of established researchers at NASA who developed this diet for astronautic exploration to the hyper identity and image crises of a preteen adolescent girl. Yeah that is a funny slant but is it really relevant. Not at all. Sure, a little girl on the path toward starvation is easy to debate. Why not prove the fasting technique of Ghandi void of value with the work of Herbert Shelton who gave him guidance while fasting 1000’s of his patients over the course of his career.
Then when your done with that take down the idea of Shankha cleansing in Kriya Yoga.
Sure you are already there already. You are the eyes of the world and wake up with the light in your eyes. You are one with the fools of love and nothing really matters in the light of your firm and stabilized sense of mediocrity.
Sure you shoot from the empirical eye objectively deconstructing it from a very general personal and interior idea. The idea that you and your idea is truer. If it is, then why are you not invested in that.
Many dietary approaches work and for different people some diets may work better. What if some people do work better on less food, like some rodents? How would you know? You seem to be taking down CRON with such total and complete certainty that you are correct, that you ruin your own position by assuming that it is pure and solid and without contest.
In science there is no claim that does not have an alternative position. It is the scientific method. A proof of something only suggest that more studies are warranted. It just happens that CRON is the only food based study to actually go through the riggers of what pharmaceuticals medicines do. You seem to then be suggesting that the science itself is faulted. The scientific method itself is the problem. Because you are intelligent enough to find faults in a study. Well then, the correct thing to do, is to make your own study and prove the theories wrong or true in peer review.
Sure you can sit back and have an perspective and make points. It seems to me that you are cherry picking. Why not suggest something of value and simple. Like make sure that your calories consumed are equal to calories burnt, try to keep the period to elimination of any food you consume within the span 36 hours. This should lead to some enhanced dietary lifestyle no matter the calories and no matter the food eaten.
“Eat Long & Prosper” – Bon Appetite everyone!!! xx