QUESTION: Hi Tom. I just saw recently on Oprah, there was a 51 year old man with the heart of a 20 year old. He’s been following a “calorie restriction” plan. They claim that he may become one of the first people to reach 120 years old by following this plan. How is this food plan different from (or the same as) your Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle (BFFM) program? My thoughts are that your BFFM has more protein, we eat more often, we are building muscle, not allowing it to burn away and the amount of calories is not always low, it depends on what our present goals are; losing, gaining or maintaining. What are your thoughts on this calorie restriction idea? Couldn’t your BFFM food plan be also thought as a longevity lifestyle, but with more muscle mass?
ANSWER: I didn’t see that full episode of Oprah, I only caught a short video clip and read the show recap on the Oprah website, but caloric restriction (CR) for life extension is not new news. There have been stories both in the lay press and scientific press about this subject for years and it has been a frequent TV talk show topic.
I’ve seen a lot of strange things in the health field, and although CR is the subject of serious and legitimate scientific study, I consider CR to be one of those strange things. Of course, that’s because I choose a different lifestyle – the muscle-friendly Burn The fat, Feed The Muscle lifestyle – but there’s more than one reason why I’m not a CR advocate:
Hunger while dieting is almost always a challenge. There’s some hunger even with conservative calorie deficits of 15-20% under maintenance. Prolonged hunger is one of the biggest reasons people fall off the weight loss diet wagon because it’s unpleasant and difficult to resist. This is why pharmaceutical and supplement companies spend millions of dollars on researching, developing and marketing appetite suppressants. Yet CR advocates put themselves through 30-50% calorie restriction on a daily basis as a way of life in the hopes of extending life span or health.
Practitioners of CR follow a low-calorie lifestyle, but technically, they are not in a chronic 30% calorie deficit. That would be impossible. What happens is their metabolisms get very slow (that’s part of the idea behind CR; if you slow down your metabolism, you allegedly slow down aging). So a 6 foot tall man who would normally require nearly 3,000 calories to maintain his weight, might eventually reach an energy balance at only 1800 or 1900 calories. This is not just due to a ‘starvation mode’ phenomenon, that’s only part of it. It’s primarily because he loses weight until he is very thin and his smaller body doesn’t need many calories any more.
Does caloric restriction really extend lifespan?
The biological mechanisms of lifespan extension through CR are not fully understood, but researchers say it may involve alterations in energy metabolism (as mentioned above), reduced oxidative damage, improvements in insulin sensitivity, reduction of glycation, modulation of protein metabolism, downregulation of pro-inflammatory genes and functional changes in both neuroendocrine and autonomic nervous systems.
Mouse studies on CR go back as far as 1935 and monkey studies began in the late 1980’s. So far the results are clear on one thing: caloric restriction does increase lifespan in rodents and other lower species (yeast, worms and flies). Studies suggest the life of the laboratory rat is 25% longer with CR (even longer with aggressive CR). Primate studies are still underway and humans have been experimenting with CR for some time. In primates and humans, biomarkers of aging show signs of slower aging with CR. This makes many proponents talk about this CR as if it were a sure-thing, already proven through double-blind randomized clinical human trials.
The truth is, there is NO direct experimental evidence that you will live longer from practicing CR. Due to the length of human lifespans, we will not have the necessary data for at least another generation and perhaps multiple generations. Even then, it will still be highly speculative whether CR will extend human life at all and if so how much. We can only estimate. I’ve seen guesses in the scientific literature ranging from 3 to 13 years, if CR is practiced for an entire adult lifetime.
Jay Phelan, a biologist at UCLA is skeptical. He says the potential life extension is on the lower end of that range and the increase is so small that it’s not worth the semi-starvation:
“There is no current evidence that lifelong caloric restriction leads to increased lifespan in primates. It’s certainly tantalizing that things like blood pressure or heart rate look as though they are a lot healthier and I believe they are. Whether or not this translates to a significantly increased lifespan, I don’t know. I predict that it doesn’t.”
I don’t quibble qualitatively with their results. Yes, it will increase lifespan, but it will not increase it by 50% or 60%, it won’t increase it by 20% or 10%, it might increase it by 2%. So if you tell me that I have to do something horrible for every day of my life for a 2% benefit – for an extra year of life – I say no thanks.”
Is prolonged caloric restriction unhealthy?
When caloric restriction is practiced with optimal nutrition (CRON), it is not inherently unhealthy. Actually, it appears the reverse is true. First, the weight loss that comes with the low calories produces improvements in the health markers, as you would expect. Second, the meticulous choice of food from CRON practitioners, where they pick high nutrient foods and avoid empty calories means that they are making healthy food choices. Third, advocates say that the CR itself improves health. I wonder, however, how much does CR improve health independent of the weight loss and the nutritious food?
By losing fat and maintaining an ideal body composition (the fat to muscle ratio) and eating high nutrient density foods, I propose that even at a more normal caloric intake, you will get very significant health and longevity benefits. I also propose that gaining muscle in a natural way (no steroid or performance-enhancing drug abuse) will increase your quality of life today and as you get older.
Aside from the fact that we are not lab rats, the truth is, none of us knows when our day will come. We could get plucked off this physical plane at any moment and have no control over how it happens. My belief is that we should make our lifestyle decisions based on quality of life, not just quantity of life. That includes our quality of life today as well as our anticipated quality of life when we are older. Maybe we ought to be focusing more on “health span” than life span.
Downsides of calorie restriction for life extension
One fact about CR that they often don’t mention on these talk shows is that the benefits of CR decline if you start CR at a later age. This was discussed in a research paper from the Journal of Nutrition called, “Starving for life: what animal studies can and cannot tell us about the use of caloric restriction to prolong human lifespan.” The Author of the paper, John Speakman from the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, said that the later in life you begin to practice CR, the less of an increase in lifespan you will achieve. Even if the CR proponents are right, if you started in your late 40’s or mid 50’s for example, the benefit would be minimal. If you started in your 60’s the effect would be almost nonexistent. Essentially, you have to “starve for life” to get the benefits.
While some CR propenents claim that they aren’t hungry and they cite studies suggesting that hunger decreases during starvation, Speakman and other researchers say that hunger remains a big problem during CR – especially in today’s modern society where we are surrounded with convenience food and numerous eating cues – and that alone makes CR impractical:
“Neuroendocrine profiles support the idea that animals under CR are continuously hungry. The feasibility of restricting intake in humans for many decades is questionable.”
Let’s suppose for a moment that CR is totally legit and the claims are true. Many of the proposed benefits of CR come at the expense of what many of us are trying to do here: gain and maintain lean body mass. One spokesman for CR is 6 feet tall and 130 pounds. Another poster boy for CR is 6 foot tall and 115 lbs. Measurements of rodents under CR not only show large reductions in skeletal muscle but also bone mass.
I am not suggesting that these CR practitioners are anorexic, a concern that has been raised about CR when practiced aggressively. However, they are losing large amounts of fat-free tissue and that is plainly obvious for all to see when you look at their bony physiques. I am not imposing my body standards on others, but 115 to 130 lbs at 6 foot tall is underweight for a man by any standard. Furthermore, researchers say that at the body mass indices sustained by most voluntary CR practitioners, we would expect females to become amenorrheic. “One thing that is completely incompatible with a CR lifestyle is reproduction” says Speakman.
With that kind of atrophy, I have to wonder what their quality of life will be like in old age. While many people struggle with body fat for most of their adult lives, I’m sure almost everyone knows an elderly person who wrestles with the opposite problem: they are seriously underweight and they struggle to eat enough and maintain lean body mass.
My grandmother, before she passed away, was under 80 lbs. We could not get her to eat. She was weak and very frail. I have reported many times about the research showing how most overweight people under estimate calorie intake and eat more than they think or admit. In elder care homes, the research has often showed the opposite – the patients over estimate how much they eat. They swear they are eating enough, but they arent and they keep losing dangerous amounts of weight. With underweight, atrophied seniors, weakness means less functionality and lower quality of life and a fall can mean more than broken bones, it can be life threatening.
Life extension with more muscle
While there is a commonality between CRON and the way I recommend eating (high nutrient density, low calorie density foods), in most regards, CR is the opposite of my approach. In my Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle program, we go for a higher energy flux nutrition program, which means that because we are weight training and doing cardio and leading a very active lifestyle, we get to eat more. Because we are so active and well-trained, the eating more does not have a negative effect as it would on a sedentary person, who might get sick and fat from the additional calories. We active folks take those calories, burn them for energy, partition them into lean muscle tissue and we enjoy a faster metabolism and extremely high quality of life.
As a bodybuilder, CR is not compatible with my priorities, but hypothetically speaking, if I were to practice a lower calorie lifestyle, I wouldn’t follow an aggressive CR approach. I’d probably do as the Okinawans do. They have a very simple philosophy: hari hachi bu: eat until you are only 80% full. While this does not mean there is a carefully measured 20% calorie deficit, it’s consistent with what we practice in the Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle lifestyle for a fat loss phase, and avoiding overeating is certainly a smart way to avoid obesity and health problems. Incidentally, the Okinawans eat about 40% less than Americans, and 11% less than they should, according to standard caloric intake guidelines, and they live 4 years longer than Americans.
If someone is being “sold” on CR by an enthusiastic CR spokesperson, or simply curious after watching the latest TV talk show (where they are looking for controversial stories), it’s important to know that there is more than one side to the story. If you carefully read the entire body of research on CR, you will see that the experts are split right down the middle in their opinions about whether CR will really work. CR for humans remains highly controversial and there are no guarantees that this will extend your life.
Researchers at the National Institutes of Health in Baltimore, MD put it this way:
“Because it is unlikely that an experimental study will ever be designed to address this question in humans, we respond that “we think we will never know for sure.” We suggest that debate of this question is clearly an academic exercise.”
In closing, let me go back to one of the original questions I was asked: “Can the BFFM food plan also be thought as a longevity lifestyle, but with more muscle mass?” Absolutely beautifully said! That’s precisely what Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle is.
I believe that by making healthy food choices but doing so at a higher level of calorie intake and expenditure, that we can fend off sarcopenia – the age related decline in muscle mass that debilitates many seniors – while enjoying a more muscular physique, greater strength, and a less restrictive lifestyle. Most gerontologists agree – by making simple lifestyle changes that include strength training and good nutrition, you can easily turn back the biological clock 10 years without going hungry.
For more information about Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle, the “longevity lifestyle with more muscle”, visit: www.BurnTheFat.com
If you have comments or questions about this post, please feel free to post them below. If you liked this article, please click the LIKE button below.
References:
Hunger does not diminish over time in mice under protracted caloric restriction. Hambly C, Mercer JG, Speakman JR. Rejuvenation Res. 2007 Dec 10(533-542). Aberdeen Centre For Energy Regulation and Obesity (ACERO), Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Starving for life: what animal studies can and cannot tell us about the use of caloric restriction to prolong human lifespan.Speakman JR, Hambly C. J Nutr. 2007 Apr;137(4):1078-86. School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 2TZ, Scotland, UK.
Can dietary restriction increase longevity in all species, particularly in human beings? Introduction to a debate among experts. Le Bourg E, Rattan SI. Biogerontology. 2006 Jun;7(3):123-5.
The potential for dietary restriction to increase longevity in humans: extrapolation from monkey studies. Ingram DK, Roth GS, Lane MA, Ottinger MA, Zou S, de Cabo R, Mattison JA.Biogerontology. 2006 Jun;7(3):143-8. Laboratory of Experimental Gerontology, Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 5600 Nathan Shock Drive, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA.
Caloric restriction in humans: potential pitfalls and health concerns. Dirks AJ, Leeuwenburgh C.Mech Ageing Dev. 2006 Jan;127(1):1-7. Epub 2005 Oct 13, Wingate University, School of Pharmacy, 316 N. Main Street, Wingate, NC 28174, USA.
Caloric restriction and human longevity: what can we learn from the Okinawans? D. Craig Willcox, Bradley J. Willcox Hidemi Todoriki. Biogerontology (2006) 7: 173–177
Endocrine alterations in response to calorie restriction in humans. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2009 Feb 5;299(1):129-36. Epub 2008 Oct 21. Redman LM, Ravussin E. Pennington Biomedical Research Center, 6400 Perkins Road, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, United States.
Caloric restriction in the presence of attractive food cues: external cues, eating, and weight. Polivy J, Herman CP, Coelho JS.Physiol Behav. 2008 Aug 6;94(5):729-33. Epub 2008 Apr 13. University of Toronto, Canada.
Life Extension by Calorie Restriction in Humans. Everitt AV, Le Couteur DG.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007 Aug 23, Centre for Education and Research on Ageing, University of Sydney, Concord, New South Wales, Australia.
Hi Tom. I have to take issue with your claim that hunger is always a problem while dieting.I have done Lyle McDonald’s Rapid Fat Loss program and was not hungry at all, and I was eating 1100 calories / day and I am a 6′ 185 lb. male who was at the time around 16% body fat.That’s a massive caloric deficit.I’m currently using Lyle’s Diet program and again, hunger is not a problem.I think it depends on the carbohydrate content of the diet. When I did BFFM, I never took carbohydrates lower than 160 or so grams per day based on your recommendations in the book. I was hungry all the time, even on my “low” days when I was eating 1900 calories. Likewise when I do my carbohydrate loading as part of UD2.0, I get VERY hungry even though I am eating nearly 6,000 calories in a 30 hour period.That isn’t to say BFFM isn’t a great program but to suggest that the caloric deficit is the cause of hunger doesn’t seem from my experience to be accurate.
Great post Tom. My heart is better at age 50 than it was at 20, so I think I’ll just keep eating and take my chances.Speaking of things Oprah, did anyone catch a recent episode of The Doctors where they were prescribing standing DB external rotations for postural improvement. Man…
As always Tom is on point with all the latest info. I also think that, besides nutrition and an active lifestyle, genetics play a huge part in the quality/quantity of life, something you cannot influence.One last thing, my personal thought about being able to reach an age of i.e. 120 years old with CR, is that it might sound great but I can only imagine how lonely one must feel when everybody around him passed away, I guess nature has a way of tiring a person out until he/she has no more will to live. Like Jack LaLanne said, people do not die from age, but from inactivity..By the way, Tom, I read somewhere in an article that the amount of heartbeats are programmed into our DNA and that after so many beats the heart just stops? What is your take on this?
It seems that the “experts” cite the exception as the norm. The media uses the sensational, news-breaking headlines. And people only read the headlines without the details and checking facts and think that’s the truth. Who’s to blame?Careyhttp://www.yourdreambodyworkoutxpert.comhttp://www.careyforfitness.com
It would seem to me that the likelihood of extending ones life would most likely come from improving the quality of food eaten and reducing the amount of foods that contribute to disease ( e.g. heart disease, due to high sat fats), rather than the actual reduction in number of calories.In other words, with a focus on more selective calorie intake that comes with CR, the beneficial side effect is better nutrition. Better nutrition = better health = longer life. Theoretically speaking of course.It sounds absurd to put it this way, but its rather obvious that if I just ate snickers bars exclusively for the rest of my life but cut my calories over time, that I would probably not be very healthy or live a long life.This type of slant on health and nutrition (the CR hype, I will call it), in my opinion, is just another attempt to hype and “mystify” what it takes to achieve a healthy lifestyle. Or to sell books and boost ratings. If it is controversial, it sells, right?It never ceases to amaze me how far we look beyond the truths that are right in front of us. Just human nature I suppose:)James Scott Murphy
Barry, regarding your comments about hunger, i appreciate your personal experience, but your experience is anectodal. For every person who doesnt have a problem with hunger on a large calorie deficit, there might be ten others who do have an issue. remember also, that people get “hungry” for psychological and emotional reasons as well.Im aware that some people feel less satiated on high carb, low fat diets and more satiated on low carb high fat/protein diets. I find its an individual matter – I feel the reverse that you do – Im hungrier on very low carbs and better satiated with more moderate amounts of carbs and prefer cyclical/re-feeding low carb diets if I do use low carb diets.Also I did not say hunger is always a problem, I said it is almost always a problem, as there are certainly exceptions to every ruleThe fact remains that hunger is a big issue with large calorie deficits and with dieting in general and that can be confirmed by the research, including the research on CRON which I cited.that said, there are many factors that affect hunger and satiety. Research says that Protein for example suppresses appetite and is more satiating than other macronutrientsAlso, as many CRON practitioners aim to achieve – when you eat low calorie density foods that are high in fiber and high in water content (fruits and veggies), you feel fuller as those foods are literally more filling in the stomach and there are fewer calories per given volume of food.regarding very low calorie dieting on rapid fat loss programs, 1100 calories per day for a 185 lb male is even lower than the levels we are discussing in regards to CRON and im presuming the purpose of your diet was accelerated fat loss, not life extension. Physicians have been known to give PSMF diets of even fewer calories than you consumed, but that doesnt mean its a good idea to recommend that approach widely to the public. I would not recommend very low calorie diet programs like that to the masses and Im pretty liberal if you compare myphilosophies to traditional dietian-type of approaches. I feel there are too many cons along with the pros.I shared my feelings on the pros and cons of rapid fat loss in one of last months blog posts. It Might be more relevant to post your comments on this issue into that post as that is addressing your point more directly than our discussion on life extensionRapid fat loss and the 2 pounds per week rulebest regardsTom Venuto
Remco wroteBy the way, Tom, I read somewhere in an article that the amount of heartbeats are programmed into our DNA and that after so many beats the heart just stops? What is your take on this? if there is a genetically programmed upper limit of heartbeats and then we just die, my guess is that its like other aspects of human potential – we never come close to our hypothetical upper limits due to dying for other reasons long before hitting the limit. id be curious to see if there was ever research on this topic or if it was just someones speculation. If you recall the article source, please feel free to share it or post the link.thanks for your comment!
It is sad to see people do anything they can to extend their life. What I consider more important is the quality of life instead of quantity. I also enjoy eating healthy food like salads, etc..As far as the programed number of heart beats.. When you exercise your rest heart rate decreases so your heart ends up beating fewer times in a day even if you it beats quicker the hour or so you exercise..
If you slow your metabolism through CR, you certainly won’t be able to build much muscle, play sports, or be very active. Why would anyone want to extend their life an extra year or two only to have NO FUN during the years they have!?I’d rather have a shorter life and a higher QUALITY of living than to live longer in a thin, frail body.
So many people write articles online and claim research but their sources always turn out to be their own work or bogus. I have been reading your letter on and off for a couple of months now.You arguements are well researched and backed by reputable sources. You make sense which a lot of the charletans online don’t.Extremely well write article on CR. Keep up the good work.
Hello Tom:The CRON Society was started by Dr Roy L Walford shortly after Biosphere II. It is an Extraoplation at best since it was observed that the CRON diet improved blood test markers suggesting that individuals were actually getting heaththier. Also in Rodents they sometimes lived 50% longer.Having Dieted and Exercised much of my life, I find that the Human body is alot more clever and adaptable than the bodies of subspecies. There are so many feedback loops in the human body that yes in the short term people get healthier with calorie restriction….but no one seems to adress what happens when the body gets wise to what you are doing.Ultimately people will find out that CRON may add a small amount of years to your life….but more importantly BFFM will do what CRON will not…and that is Add Life to Your Years!The healtiest people on the planet reside on the Isle of Crete, in Greece. Those people eat alot of unrefined foods, consume 6 Oz of Cold Pressed Olive Oil per Capita, and eat simply prepared cold water fish….but being they live on an island, they are shielded from the fast food industry and get loads of exercise.As a practicing Scientist I speculate that the key to life extension is in control of insulin/blood sugar levels and elimination of altered foods such as trans fats. Diets high in refined food particularly for those who lead a sedentary lifesyle causes significant cellular damage due to carbonyl stress. The same chemistries that cause foods to brown happen in our mitochondria. The Benefits of CRON have as much to do with food choices as the caloric restriction in my opinion.BFFM adresses these issues quite nicely as maintaining adequate muscle mass, frequent cardio and a diet rich in unrefined nutrient dense foods will result in lower glucose/insulin levels, improve insulin sensitivity and is nearly devoid of altered foods such as trans fats and food additives.
One great word of advice I found in BFFM was to be ware of extremes: extremely low this, extremely high that. CR seems to have the outside aspect of extreme about it, even if you acknowledge the wisdom of “optimum nutrition” (as if we already knew what that is!).BFFM is extremely sane, extremely balanced and I’ve seen some extremely good results from it in less than a year. I especially like the way it allows/ requires me to make adjustments based on my personal physical characteristics and real world results.Preach it, Tom!
Tom, I think your article is spot-on as usual. I think you hit a great point about quality of life, especially as you age on a chronic calorie restricted diet. When I’m 60, 70, or even 80 yrs old and beyond, I’d like to think that I’d be able to do yard work or house work without struggle, instead of being frail and weak and emaciated.I knew a friend of the family when I was a kid and he was well into his 80’s and still climbing trees (he had been a tree surgeon for decades). He ate a lot of food, but good quality food to support his active lifestyle. He was a strong man and healthy well into his mid 80’s.I knew another friend of the family that lived into his mid-90’s. He had been into manual labor his entire life and was very active. He was a HUGE man (but not fat), had a very big appetite, and was very strong, even at his age. I certainly think he was still living a great quality of life and in very good health in his 80’s and 90’s.If he had been on chronic CR for decades, my guess is that his quality of life would have suffered as he would not have had the lean muscle mass and bone strength that he maintained as he aged, which enabled him to maintain such an active lifestyle into his 90’s.Good discussion here Tom!-Mike
Hi Tom,National Public Radio did a piece about genetically programmed number of heartbeats. The url is http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12877984 or just go to http://www.npr.org and do a search on “Size Matters: The hidden mathematics of life.”
I couldn’t imagine being as frail as the spokespeople you mention must be. Being that thin has to reduce your quality of life. And with lower bone density and muscle mass, injuries ensue. I’ll take my Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle diet and quality of life, even if I don’t get to live an extra 2 years.
i will choose life with quality more than quantity.
BEAUTIFUL POST!!! SPOT ON. The only things I could add are:(1) They found that many of the animals on CRON–esp the rodents–became bitter and would bite the researchers = they were less happy and more irritable(2) The critiques of the CRON studies cite that based on the data extrapolated to humans, that humans should only see a 5% increase in lifespan.Tom, you are very intelligent and spot on. Thank you for everything you write; your pieces are total gems :) I wish I could meet you to thank you in person for all the great work you do for all of us.
courtney, thanks for the additional info – i didnt know about the rats biting the researchers! I did know that the rats/mice go hyperphagic (binge) when they’re returned to ad lib eating, which is further evidence that the poor furry dudes were ravenously hungry during the underfeeding experimentstom
Excellent article. It does seem like this caloric Restriction can help prolong life. Let’s get serious though – we as a country can hardly worry about caloric restriction. I think we need to start with fast food restriction. Then move to candy restriction, then soda restriction. I bet if they studies restricting any of the above mentioned – life would be extended. If you asked my daughter she would say broccoli restriction is a good place to start – I am sure she would like hearing that. There are many diets out there but this one will never happen with most of us.
What I don’t get is all this hoopla about life extension. Thankfully, I’ve had four experiences in the ‘Bright Light’ and considering what’s happening around me on a daily basis here on the ‘dirt ball’, I’m all for hanging up this space suit at a point where my physical function capability is compromised. Just visit a few ‘old folks’ homes and you’ll get the picture. Horrible! And to what end? Putting money in peoples pockets that don’t deserve it?Living well far outweighs living long.Thee Dustman Speaketh
I wish I could recall the name of it, but there was an interesting programme on the BBC a short while ago which, amongst other things, more closely investigated someone living on this style of diet.Whilst it was unquestionably true he looked younger and seemed in every superficial way fitter than his “normal eating” counterpart, when they actually came to examine his DNA, the markers for life expectancy were looking markedly poorer.Maybe I’m an unnatural woman, but personally I’d rather live longer (and eat proper food!) than look younger.
Have you heard of the MUFA diet promoted by the folks at Prevention Magazine? They claim if you take the recommended amount of MUFA with each meal, that the fat will just start dropping off, with belly fat first. They provide a list of recommended MUFA choices, and amounts for each. No exercise or other diet changes required for success. Any thoughts on this plan, and adding MUFA’s to each meal?Thanks!Ron
Gratz Tom, one of your best articles ever.I am not sure BFFM increases your life-span, because you can actually die of many illness non-related with your food or exercise habits. We are surrounded by too many chemical substances which we dont know if they affect our health (or in which way they do). Not to mention non-natural causes of death, like car accidents.However, BFFM increases the quality of life and that is far enough for me. Quoting Queen “Who wants to live forever?”
Hi Tom,I was wondering what your thoughts were on a simular subject. I saw a TV program on Discovery a few years back that explained how oxidation causes damage to our bodies. The first thing that came to my mind was – does exercising (and therefore processing extra oxygen) cause one to age faster? Obviously there are the other positive benefits that come with exercise that are considered to reduce aging, but what about the free radical damage caused by all that extra oxygen? Perhaps there is a point at which doing too much exercise begins to age us faster?
Great post, very well considered.There was this programme based in the UK involving SuperSize vs SuperSkinny and there was a CRON practitioner who chose to ‘prove’ their lifestyle on the show. Yes, she looked very young for her age but despite being quite underweight, she was also very lifeless. Just very miserable and seemed to be very unpleasant to be around. I (and many other viewers) found her to very boring also. If that’s what CRON does to you then what is the point of extending lifespan if you spend it alone and with no emotion. I would hardly call that life.
Hi Tom,I subscribe to your newsletter and read them with interest. While I’m mostly silent and merely lurk I’d like to say that I think what you’re saying makes a lot of sense. By the way, I’m going to be 64 yrs old this year, weighs, 155 lbs. arms are about 16 inches and waist is 32 inches. I’ve been weight training since I was 15 and walk/run (intervals) for 1 hr on the treadmill 6 days/week. I think I shall be the first person to break the 120 yrs old barrier and still active, healthy and strong, eg, I can do a standing press with about my body weight. KI don’t have any aches and pain, and some people mistake me for my wife’s son (sorry, I didn’t mean to insult my wife).
I’m a 44 yr old woman who has struggled with eating problems my entire life. Not anorexic or bulimic – I have been within 15 lbs of proper weight my whole life – but persistently dieting and binging, and always feeling fat, self-loathing, self-denying, and just plain hungry all the time. I found BFFM two years ago and while following it, found myself feeling satiated and not hungry for the first time in my life. Over the course of 6 months, I gained 5 lbs of muscle, lost 10 lbs of fat, was the most fit and the best looking of my life, and I was never hungry or out of control. That sounds like a miracle, and it was, but it felt weird to me. My body felt heavy, full, and satisfied, not light, empty, and craving. It didn’t feel “normal.” So when I heard about CR, in the form of Intermittent Fasting, and combined with an ultra low carb diet, I decided it was better than BFFM. Over the course of the next 6 months, I watched the scale change like it was in reverse gear. I lost the 5 lbs of muscle, and I gained back the 10 lbs of fat plus 5 lbs more. I couldn’t believe it, because I felt so “normal.” I was feeling “lighter” and “emptier”. 42 years of that felt “normal.” I was also back to my emotional ups and downs, feeling like I was “good” when I was starving, and feeling like I was “bad” when I was eating. After the first 6 months, I started binging during the times when I was supposed to be “fasting.” Eating a half a batch of cookies became the norm again, or a pint of ice cream, or 1/2 a pizza at 8 pm. So, I’m back trying BFFM again. I am VERY slowly losing fat again, and gaining muscle – maybe losing .3 lbs fat per week. It’s very hard to be patient, and it’s very hard to get used to feeling well fed. It is HARD to eat. This time, I am telling myself that I am in it for my old age. I want to hit 80 with plenty of bone mass and muscle mass so I can be strong and continue to do what I love. The call of the ultra-thin and ultra-long lived Calorie Restriction, the punishment and reward of Intermittent Fasting, and the restriction of “good” and “bad” foods of Low-Carb is a siren call to those of us with eating disorders, who crave the anorexic look of a 20 yr old model. But I’ve chosen another route, and I hope this time for good.
I’m not an animal rights activists, but the thought of starving those poor rats and chimpanzees their entire lives, just so that we can test a theory about human longevity, makes my stomach turn.I’ll stick to the BFFM plan, which is working for me.
My Dad told me once: “All I notice as the years go by, is that more things hurt more”. I would expect that having enough muscle to hold one’s bones together should be helpful in avoiding this progressive pain!
I love this article, Tom. It put into words all the things I felt I knew intuitively about low calorie eating practices. It is unsustainable and impractical in today’s day. Besides, we all know there is a lot more to weight loss than the “calories in versus calories out” model– it is all about hormones. And of course what we really want is fat loss, not weight loss.Thanks so much for posting!Jill Coleman
I’m a nurse and silently cheered your article Tom. Mice don’t have jobs. Many people on CR are retired or work a job that is less physically demanding with determined hours, scheduled meals and breaks. Sure, some of them exercise, but it’s controlled! Many people who work cannot predict their caloric needs for the day. In a 12 hour period in busy hospital ER I’d faint on a CR diet. Firefighters, police, paramedics, hydro workers, etc. work shifts, long hours and need their strength. Must be nice to be able to predict your workload every day for the rest of your life!
Tom,you are right, consider this:In Science 309, 481-4 (July 15, 2005), it was stated in the conclusion of an elaborated study that:“Caloric restrictionis the only nutritional intervention that retards aging process.”This research was supported by NIH grants (T.A.P), (R.W.). R.W. and T.A.P are founders and members of the board of a company, which focuses on the influence of“Caloric restrictionon the aging process.”Interestingly enough, the study stated that oxidative stress, a proposed culprit in mitochondria’s mechanism of aging, did not seem to be a factor in aging. The aging process is affected only by caloric restriction, and oxidative stress actually decreased.Other researchers have found that oxidative stress (the free radicals) is responsible for the aging process. Increased oxidative damage, with age, has been demonstrated.(see Ann. NYAS 899 [2000]). (www.bioline.org.br/request.)Also, bone loss often accompanies weight loss induced by caloric restriction, but not exercise induced weight loss (Villareal D.T. et al. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00099138, 2006, 166:2502-10., also, JAMA, 297,7,682, Feb. 21, 2007).A review of this study in JAMA 294:6, 672, (Aug. 10, 2005) quotes the principal investigator as saying that “ the clinical potential for this line is down the road and… we can begin to think about pharmaceutical intervention to retard aging”.The investigator of this study is located in the Madison University Research Park, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where a Madison-based genomics company is also located.How is it that peer reviewers, in the article in JAMA 294:6, 672 (Aug. 10, 2005) and the article in Science did not question a possible conflict of interest?
Excellent points man… I like the fact that as you pointed out, BFFM is all about enjoying healthy eating and living an active lifestyle.There will always be people looking for some way to dodge this bullet proof theory and try and remove the exercise part from the equation. Wouldn’t it be easier just to add some activity, a couple of resistance based training sessions, your favourite sport and not have to worry every time you open your mouth for fear of blowing your CR plan?Great stuff as always mate.
There is genuine new work being done on this subject. The research of Andrew Dillin at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, CA is particularly interesting.Dillin and his lab were the first to find a genetic link between calorie restriction and longevity. See http://www.salk.edu/news/pressrelease_details.php?press_id=269 and also the article in the Annual Review of Biochemistry, March 2008 (“Aging and Survival: The Genetics of Life Span Extension by Dietary Restriction”).You are quite right that there are possible pitfalls with severe calorie restriction. Dillin, et al. do not tout calorie restriction as a magic bullet. They document numerous in vivo studies showing the percentage life expectancy increase in various species, but also note the potential for negative consequences. Obviously not enough is yet known, in their estimation, to recommend human beings practice severe calorie restriction.Bu, their research is leading to an understanding of WHY calorie restriction has positive effects, and thus may result in real solutions to many of the problems of aging. In other words, rather than taking the hit-or-miss approach of “starving,” we could reap the benefits of calorie restriction without experiencing the drawbacks of suboptimal nutrition and muscular atrophy.It is interesting that Salk researchers have also found a possible link between metabolic conditions (diabetes, for example) and the development of neurological conditions such as Alzheimers, further indicating the importance of determining the role overconsumption of calories and obesity play in diseases of aging.Readers may also want to check out the news release at http://www.salk.edu/insidesalk/article.php?id=94, about the establishment of a center for aging research at the Salk Institute, which references several other lines of research related to metabolism and aging, including Fred Gage’s work in stem cells (Gage was also the scientist who proved that the human brain DOES in fact continue to create new neurons throughout ones life, overturning decades of erroneous scientific dogma) and Ron Evans’ startling discoveries, one of which is a “pill” that mimics the effects of exercise. Potential for abuse? Yes…and Evans is apparently working already to find ways to prevent abuse by professional athletes, among others. But there is also potential for treatment of muscular degeneration, for cures for conditions like muscular dystrophy, where the victims are unable otherwise to reap the benefits of exercise or to regain muscle function.Very exciting stuff! But well grounded in fact and tedious, exacting research. No magic bullets, as noted, but amazing possibilities.As always, until more is known, adherence to sound, moderate, proven principles of nutrition and exercise is recommended by all experts, even those scientists on the cutting edge. They are, indeed, the first to advise caution, and to adopt better habits themselves, including a healthy diet, exercise, and time for rest and relaxation.
Hi Tom. So if you don’t begin a CR program until you reach your 60s is it still possible to lose weight & extend your life span by following a nutrition program? Or is it just too late by that time?Thanks in advance.
Hey Guys,I really like that Tom responds to stuff out there in the media and I have to say that I never heard of (CR), but it reminds me of a book I picked up. I was planning a trip to Japan last winter and heard a lot about Okinawa, so I went to the library and looked it up. Only book was the Okinawa diet, so I went for it.Apparently, the Okinawan people (like the Cretes in Greece) are on an island nation, and they live really long. At least on the traditional diets. The book talks about this and about a Mayo Clinic study that started like in 1935 or so. Tom covered all these points, and many more.the book was all about calorie restriction, but you were told to keep your activity level up, and eat A LOT during the day (many small meals, like BFFM, or any good diet). Here are some points:
Cool, so I pick up a book about Okinawa, and I get the “Fountain of youth. “This is before I picked up BFFM, but I was getting Tom’s e-mail newsletters at the same time. I quickly realized that Tom had more to say, a vast body of knowledge and was genuinely fun to read. So my intere turned into buying toms book.I have to hand it to Tom; he honestly covered everything tha was good in that book, to my surprise. For instance, the Okinawa diet spends many pages on the SWEET Potato, the natural staple food there. I’ve never really heard much mentioned about this before, but Tom puts sweet potato (and yams) at the top of the A+ food list, along with lean protein and fat (omega 3 &6) from fish, just like the Okinawans, a the good ration of carb, fat, and protein.However, even with the similarities between good parts of the okinawan diet and toms program, tom mentions so much about weight lifting/body sculpting, and thatrequires a lot of nutrition and calories. its one thing to restrict calories if youre a couch potato.Tom covers that with BFFM, and just about everything good that I’ve ever read with his real world take on it. So if anybody thinks that this (CR) is something new, or that it goes past TOM’s BFFM; Fugettaboutit.
If you’re very overweight, it’s especially important to do aerobic exercise, even if it doesn’t produce weight loss. Both obesity and physical inactivity increase the risk of chronic disease and premature death. But people who are fir (based on a treadmill test) live longer, on average, than those who are unfit, regardless of how overweight they are, according to a recent study of 2,600 people over 60 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. In fact, “fat but fit” people had lower death rates then unfit normal-weight or lean people.
Tom,What can I say. Great job on this topic. As usual, I could not agree with you more.I hope that the readers of your books and information really understand the quality of this information.Keep up the incredible work; and I feel very fortunate to know you.Darin Steen
tomhere is an article published in the journal of nutrition titled:Life span exetnsion in mice by food restriction depends on an energy imbalance.http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/139/3/533One thing the CR crowd doesn’t broadcast is that CR doesn’t increase the lifespan of all varieties of mice. This article looks into that anomaly and suggests that it extendsd only the lifespan of mice with inherent energy imbalances, only mice that would normally become fat.Tony
thanks tonyi read that paper a couple weeks ago and found it interesting – in fact that paper followed by the oprah show is what prompted me to write the articleOf course the folks over at the cr orgs have all kinds of rebuttals to those findings (wrong study design, wrong rats, yadda, yadda), but i found it very interesting and perhaps a valid reason that CR results in mouse studies might not transfer to humansone thing ive discovered in my research on obesity is that the mouse studies have virtually no relevance to humans for a wide variety of reasonsthanks and have a great weekendtom
Dear Tom,I want to share with you my take on CRON. I was on their email list for a while and I have to agree with the strange part. I was also not impressed with their level of health, a lot of them had serious health problems. Another limiting factor is that they seem to be focused on orthodox medicine as a yardstick for what defines healthy. In my opinion, they would do better to also include what the alternative community has to offer, in the area of nutrition. I think optimum nutrition is far more important than calorie restriction.Sincerely,Michael
There are many misunderstanding here, in the comment section especially. CR is about simply reducing calories, the adquate nutrition part is absolutely important for it to actually work. However, merely tweaking the diet by choosing different variations of foods does not extend ‘maxmiun lifespan’. This is directly linked to the calories taken in. For example, 30% CR gives an average of 30% life extension and 30% max life extension if done for life. The degree of life extension is in proportion to the degree of restriction. This can be seen here in my blog posthttp://matts-cr.blogspot.com/2009/01/evidence.htmlThose that do calorie restriction say they feel healthy and more alive than ever, and whats most important to many of them is the quality of life they leading now, and the added years is another bonus. For me the same is true, after doing CR for over 6 years now I’m probably healthier in terms of my blood work and vital stats than 99% of people my age out there. They’re extremely healthy. I not only am healthy by my stats but I also look 8 years YOUNGER than my actual age, yes you can see on my blog at the comparison picture http://matts-cr.blogspot.com/I also have plenty of links on my blog to videos of those that have been doing CR for 5, 10, 20 + years. The videos can be found directly on my blog or on a youtube link i have on teh side (for my channel on CR).Optimum nutrition has never been proven to extend maximum lifespan at all, there is just no real evidence for this. CR works right up until the brink of starvation in lab animals, long after reproduction shuts off in females as well. So 65-70% REDUCTION in calories gives a MASSIVE increase in lifespan, you can see on the graph on my blog.Unless you’ve been following the research for many years you will no doubt have missed some very important studies. There are questions to whether things like Methionine has a role in CR, but right now CR is the ONLY thing that extends maximum lifespan. Optimal nutrition can only extend mean lifespan and not actaully shift the survival curve to the right, it simply squares of the curve because you’re not basically prematurely killing off the organism.
To Tony. The study you are refering to was again just nonsense. They used mice that are genetically F**£$ up, and have absolutely no similarity to humans. These mice do not get fat no matter what you feed them, does this sound like humans to you? Absolutely not! Also they suffer premature diseases, they also do NOT respond to CR in the way humans actually DO respond to CR. The authors also used shock CR which never works in adult mice on their B6 strain. We’ve known that CR doesn’t work in that strain of mice since the 80’s. It proves nothing.Human studies are showing amazing benefits. Practically zero risk from diabetes, heart disease, stroke, autoimmune disease. lower risk for alzheimers, parkinsons etc.. Less risk of cancer. Elimination of minor health problems. Hearts that are 16 years younger than CRers actual age. We have all the ‘biomarkers of longevity’ that are thought to extend human survival in centenarians.The protective effect of CR in humans is clear, we have the data. What we’re missing is the longevity data, but based on current evidence, it’s very good indication that it’s working.Also the primate studies are showing good results too, last video I seen had the CR monkeys at 75% survival and ad lib 50% so far. But another 10 years or so before we get good answers from that.
Rachel, the program you’re refering to was with Michael Mosely and I have a VIDEO of it on my blog, click my blog link! What the program didn’t tell you was that a) Michael had the telomere length of an average 2 year old, while david was of a 38 year old (hes 51). Telomere length can be upto 30x different and there is no proven correlation with lifespan. Meaning, people don’t die because of short telomeres. For those that are interested I’ll say again, check out my blog http://www.matts-cr.blogspot.com, and you can check out my youtube channel also with plenty of CR videos on therehttp://www.youtube.com/matthewlake182To Kerry, you’re refering to a women named Elizebeth, she does not associate with the CR society and is not doing CRON. She does look healthy and she does by that video have plenty of energy than most 40 year olds. You can view this video on my blog if you search for it. But she does NOT get the kind of nutrition CRONers get ;)It’s a shame there are so much misinformation around, but I guess thats what happens with the media and short explanation of lifestyles such as CRON. CR benefits has been documented now in thousands of studies on pubmed. There is no denying that it’s the ‘calories’ that count.Despite what others say, CRers do have a good quality of life(at least most of us), we do not feel miserable, and we do enjoy life. Otherwise why would we be sticking to CR? CR is incredibly easy to do.
Hi MattThanks for giving a CR practitioner’s point of view. I believe its important to always provide both points of view and be open to debating each side.I’d write a response, but I don’t think I have to. I think my article stated my case for my choice of lifestyle and recommendation against CR completely from A to Z.the only point I’ll re-iterate is that after one reads all the data and engages in all the debate that he or she feels necessary and prudent to feel sufficiently informed, at the end of the day, we are still left with a lifestyle choice.You choose to weigh 107 lbs at 5 ‘ 7 (according to your bio)I choose to weigh about 190 lbs with 8% bodyfat, (5 ‘ 8″ tall) with muscularity and strength, and I choose to carry that strength and muscle into my later years.I do plan to live a VERY long life – I believe that aiming for both quality of life AND length of life a worthy goal – but regardless of how long I live, I choose to be strong and active and muscular until I draw my last breath.best regardstom venuto
I think that there are different ways to health and longevity, one being the approach of people like Jack La Lanne who is in great shape for his age, isn’t he around 94 or 95 now. Although he was muscular he ate a very good diet almost all his life. My previous goal before starting CR was to actually gain weight, I wanted to gain some muscle, have more of a physique like Bruce lee did. One day I hope to do this, because I doubt I’ll need CR my whole life due to advances in science.I hope you do go on to live a very healthy and long life.Matt
CR does help extend lifespans in mice, and probably in humans too. Take a look @ this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iYpxRXlboQ Youtube TedTalk video by a leading researcher on how radical life extension may be probable in the next few decades. We won’t know what is possible until we try so I think we should support scientiific research on this.
“One thing that is completely incompatible with a CR lifestyle is reproduction”
That’s all I needed to hear!
The idea of being celibate for the rest of my long, long, long miserable life is kind of depressing. :(
Jonathan, amenorrheic doesn’t mean celibacy. An amenorrheic woman doesn’t menstruate and hence, can’t have babies. But there is nothing to prevent her from enjoying a normal, healthy sex-life, IF the Calorie-restricter has any energy for it.
Another great article Tom. I’ve been reading a ton of stuff on dieting lately, and its amazing that every other site has a different view on things.
Some people swear by CR, others hate it. Some weight loss “experts” advocate 5-6 meals a day, others advocate just 1!
One thing is for sure though- feeling hungry for the rest of your life doesn’t sound fun, so I feel bad for those lab rats that were always hungry due to CR.
A followup study had been done that showed no change in lifespan for the monkeys. They went back to the original study to determine why there was such a big difference in results. The original monkeys that did not limit their diet, also did not limit the types of food they ate. Basically, the normal/high calorie monkeys on the original study ate a high sugar diet. So, it turns out that the low calorie diet monkeys did not live longer, but that the crap diet monkeys lived shorter lives.