Caloric Restriction in Humans: Realistic?

rdklep8
atheistScience FreakSuperfan
rdklep8's picture
Posts: 155
Joined: 2009-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Caloric Restriction in Humans: Realistic?

I have been doing some research on caloric restriction, and have been surprised by what I have found.  I'm sure you have all heard of the concept, but if you haven't I'll give a brief outline:

CR is, in essence, just lowering the amount of calories in daily diets.  There is no magic number of calories that should be consumed per day, thus there is no magic number on how many calories should be consumed when calorically restricted.  However, some scientists who have been testing CR have set the bar at 60% of the calories of an animals typical daily diet.  It has been proven that these animals live longer.  They have a far lower cancer and cardiovascular disease rate.  If CR is started at birth, these animals grow to be much smaller than non CR animals of the same species.  They do, however, have the same level of function.  Most importantly, a significant increase in lifespan was noted in each animal. CR rats increased their average lifespan by over 100%.

There are many hypotheses on why CR is so successful, and the most commonly accepted one at the moment is that of SIRT1.  SIRT1 is in all cells, and it regulates DNA replication.  During average aging, SIRT1 is downregulated, and instances of DNA mutation increase substantially.  Increased DNA mutation=increased chance of disease.  In CR, through various mechanisms that, to be brutally honest I don't feel like explaining, SIRT1 is not downregulated.  SIRT1 being active leads to decreased free radicals, and an increased lifespan.

 

Side note: there is a big push for people to start taking resveratrol. Resveratrol is the reason people say drinking red wine is beneficial to you.  It decreases the amount of free radicals (perhaps the number 1 reason for disease).  It acts as basically as SIRT1. Early tests have shown that a small amount of resveratrol can increase lifespan, so manufacturors have jumped at the chance and began selling resveratrol in pill form.  Many consumers have bought it because it is being dubbed a "longevity" supplement.  However, the pills the sell have an obscene amount of resveratrol in them (i.e. the amount in 200 glasses of red wine).  It has also been shown that cancer cells cannot spread without SIRT1, or resveratrol (if you want to me explain this mechanism as well I can, I am just kind of pressed for time).  So, in animals taking resveratrol, a highly accelerated spreading of cancer can (and usually does) occur.  Read: Do NOT take resveratrol.  Tests have not been completed, but since it is a natural supplement, companies are allowed to sell the product anyway.

Ok, so back to CR.  The longwinded explanation above leads me to my question:  Do you think CR is feasible in humans?

IMO, I don't think so.  Food, and thus eating, is the main component to socializing in humans.  Every party any of us have ever gone to has had some sort of food or beverage.  Dates are for 'a bite to eat', birthday parties have cake, someone from work bought a dozen bagels, etc.  We are inundated with food on a daily basis, and I think that for CR restriction to work on humans, we would have to change our entire social order.

CR, again in my opinion, is the proverbial fountain of youth we have been looking for, but I just don't think it is something that can be effective in humans, but we may soon have some 45 year old dogs!


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, I saw something about

Well, I saw something about that on TV a while back.  I can't remember what the show was but they did interview several people doing a self imposed CR diet.  Apparently, they walk around hungry all the time, they feel cold due to no fat deposits and thier feet hurt for the same reason.  So if you want all of that, then by all means, go for it.  Heck you may live longer than me but at least I will be enjoying myself.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


rdklep8
atheistScience FreakSuperfan
rdklep8's picture
Posts: 155
Joined: 2009-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Well, I saw something about that on TV a while back.  I can't remember what the show was but they did interview several people doing a self imposed CR diet.  Apparently, they walk around hungry all the time, they feel cold due to no fat deposits and thier feet hurt for the same reason.  So if you want all of that, then by all means, go for it.  Heck you may live longer than me but at least I will be enjoying myself.

 

Understandable, and enlightening as I have not seen any such program.  So if self-imposed CR is a no go on test subjects, we can assume that they spent their whole lives not restricted.  What about CR from birth.  It would be reasonable to think that the body would go through immense changes if it had its entire daily intake altered.  But hypothetically if it were done from birth, do you think those negative aspects would still exist?


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
rdklep8 wrote:Ok, so back to

rdklep8 wrote:

Ok, so back to CR.  The longwinded explanation above leads me to my question:  Do you think CR is feasible in humans?

Yes. Not only feasible but it happens to be practiced in one way or another by many humans, the issues you've raised are strictly cultural.

rdklep8 wrote:

  We are inundated with food on a daily basis,

 

In western mainstream society, yeah. And to a similar sort of degree, I suppose, in all developed areas.

 

rdklep8 wrote:

and I think that for CR restriction to work on humans, we would have to change our entire social order.

CR, again in my opinion, is the proverbial fountain of youth we have been looking for,  but I just don't think it is something that can be effective in humans, but we may soon have some 45 year old dogs!

 

It's not going to happen on a grand scale, and thank goodness because I don't think it would be ideal anyway. Social enjoyment of food is a wonderful thing, I wouldn't trade it off for a few extra years of fasting and meditating. What's the point?

However it is already incorporated into human lifestyles (mostly in non-western cultures) to eat less in order to contemplate, explore or create more, so it's feasible for it to become a small part of the way all humanity lives, I believe.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Mr. XC
High Level DonorSpecial AgentWebsite AdminPlatinum Member
Posts: 237
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Calorie restriction

I read about calorie restriction several years ago and it seemed reasonable.  I think that it can be taken to an unhelpful extreme (like any diet program), so I would encourage anyone practicing it to understand how their body feels and do not take things too far.

I think that most Americans eat too much and serving sizes at restaurants are too big.  At minimum, I would step it down a notch.  For me, I found it helpful to study the difference between my bodies "I am thirsty" feeling from the "I am hungry" feeling.  I think that some people eat when they are just thirsty.  I always have a glass of water at my desk and take a sip throughout the day as I feel the need to.

Interestingly enough, a raw foods diet is by nature a calorie restriction diet.  We pick up the most energy in our small intestine and cooking softens up the food so that more of it can be processed before it passes the small intestine.

http://www.amazon.com/Catching-Fire-Cooking-Made-Human/dp/0465013627?tag=httpwwwration-20

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson