Study: Hungry mice are happy mice

This is great news, if true. For those who practice calorie restriction, are you happier now than before CR?

http://www.worldheal..._are_happy_mice

Unhappy and want to be happy? A new study says you should get hungry.

When our bodies notice we need more calories, levels of a hormone called ghrelin increase. Ghrelin is known to trigger hunger, but new research suggests this may be a side effect of its primary job as a stress-buster.

Researchers manipulated ghrelin levels in mice through a variety of methods, including prolonged calorie restriction, ghrelin injection and a genetic modification rendering the mice numb to ghrelin's effect.

Mice who had limited ghrelin activity seemed depressed. If pushed into deep water they made no effort to swim. When introduced to a maze, they clung to the entryway. And when placed with other mice, they tended to keep to themselves. (These behaviors were reversed when the mice were given a low-dose antidepressant commonly prescribed to humans.)

In contrast, mice with high levels of ghrelin swam energetically in deep water, looking for escape. They eagerly explored new environments. And they were much more social.

Edited by luminous, 13 August 2008 - 04:22 AM.

I bet if you believe in the philosophy of calorie restriction, there is a good chance you may be happier restricting calories. Though I have seen studies to the contrary.

"Thomas Wadden, director of the Weight and Eating Disorders Program at the University of Pennsylvania, says the classic study on calorie restriction, involving 20 healthy young men who cut their food intake in half for six months, found many negative effects, including "marked signs of depression and irritability." The subjects "were despondent, had very low energy and had lost the initiative to do things. When allowed to eat again, they in--dulged in binge eating." They did lose weight--almost a quarter of their body weight--but, Wadden says, "it's hard to argue for [calorie restriction] in the absence of definitive data." from http://www.newsweek....6?tid=relatedcl


I also seem to recall a study on monkeys indicating that they became more irritable from calorie restriction

This is great news, if true. For those who practice calorie restriction, are you happier now than before CR?

http://www.worldheal..._are_happy_mice

Unhappy and want to be happy? A new study says you should get hungry.

When our bodies notice we need more calories, levels of a hormone called ghrelin increase. Ghrelin is known to trigger hunger, but new research suggests this may be a side effect of its primary job as a stress-buster.

Researchers manipulated ghrelin levels in mice through a variety of methods, including prolonged calorie restriction, ghrelin injection and a genetic modification rendering the mice numb to ghrelin's effect.

Mice who had limited ghrelin activity seemed depressed. If pushed into deep water they made no effort to swim. When introduced to a maze, they clung to the entryway. And when placed with other mice, they tended to keep to themselves. (These behaviors were reversed when the mice were given a low-dose antidepressant commonly prescribed to humans.)

In contrast, mice with high levels of ghrelin swam energetically in deep water, looking for escape. They eagerly explored new environments. And they were much more social.

As mentioned, a report on yet another mechanism (the latest of several) whereby CR makes for a happy brain:

increasing ghrelin levels, through subcutaneous injections or calorie restriction, produced anxiolytic- and antidepressant-like responses in the elevated plus maze and forced swim test.(1)

Having seen numerous previous reports of "anxiolytic- and antidepressant-like responses" to CR, I wasn't surprised by the effect, but I was surprised by the mechanism: the increase in ghrelin -- a neurohormone whose best-researched effects are precisely the inducement of hunger itself.

Certainly, however, this is one mechanism amongst several. Notably, because of its role in regulating energy balance (2), levels of the neurotrophic factor brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), are increased by CR; this is not only a mechanism whereby CR enhances neurogenesis and protects neurons from neurotoxic insult,(3) but is also known to be a central mood regulator, whose levels are boosted by all major classes of antidepressant:

Stress is known to precipitate or exacerbate depression in susceptible individuals (Gold and Chrousos, 2002). Moreover, depressed patients show atrophy in several brain regions, including the hippocampus, frontal cortex, and amygdala (McEwen, 2001). These anatomical changes caused by stress are paralleled by reductions in BDNF expression (Duman and Monteggia, 2006). On the other hand, chronic administration of antidepressant treatments from different classes have been reported to commonly increase the expression of BDNF mRNA in the hippocampus (Coppell et al., 2003; Dias et al., 2003; Fujimaki et al., 2000; Molteni et al., 2005; Nibuya et al., 1995; Nibuya et al., 1996). Changes in BDNF expression emerge from chronic antidepressant treatment and parallel the time course of clinical response to these drugs. This could indicate that antidepressants regulate BDNF to oppose the effects of chronic stress and may be critical for therapeutic recovery ...

Chronic (21 days), but not acute (1 day), treatment with the tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) desipramine (10 mg/kg), the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) fluoxetine (10 mg/kg), and the monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) phenelzine (10 mg/kg) increased BDNF protein levels in the frontal cortex (10-30%), but not in the hippocampus, amygdala, olfactory bulb, and brain stem. [Note that CR increases BDNF in the hippocampus (3) -MR]. ...

The frontal cortex is also sensitive to effects of stress and antidepressant treatments and is likely to be involved in depression. In postmortem studies of depressed patients, cellular and morphological changes reported in cortical brain regions include reductions in the number of glia and neuronal size of cortical structures (Cotter et al., 2001; Ongur et al., 1998; Rajkowska and Miguel-Hildalgo, 2007). In rodents, chronic stress decreases cell proliferation and the production of glia in the cerebral cortex, and this effect was reversed by chronic fluoxetine treatment (Banasr et al., 2007). Moreover, chronic antidepressant treatments elevate BDNF mRNA in the frontal cortex (Nibuya et al., 1995). These findings favor the existence of decreased cortical neurotrophic support in depression, and suggest that the increased levels of BDNF in the frontal cortex following chronic antidepressant treatment could be important in reversing pathogenic deficits in this region. The promotion of hippocampal neurogenesis by chronic antidepressant treatments might also be linked to the ability of these drugs to increase BDNF protein levels in the frontal cortex. Increased levels of BDNF could influence hippocampal function by direct connections from the frontal cortex to the hippocampus (Zhong et al., 2006), or by a network of indirect connections to hippocampal afferents (Fuchs et al., 2006).

Moreover, animal studies have found that CR has many positive effects on brain function, including reducing anxiety (5); indeed, it's long been observed that many anorexics maintain their (misguided, malnourished, and self-destructive) reduction in Caloric intake in part because it relieves their anxiety symptoms (6). Similarly, in overweight humans undergoing weight loss, contrary to 'fat acceptance' dogma:

numerous studies conducted during the past 25 years have reported reductions in symptoms of depression and anxiety or, at minimum, no worsening in affect in obese patients treated by behavior modification combined with moderate caloric restriction,^47-50 severe caloric restriction,^24,47,50-51 or use of weight loss medications.^40,52-53 ...

Although most studies evaluating psychological changes with weight loss are from those who participated in clinical studies, recent information is available from 629 women and 155 men in the National Weight Control Registry, a registry of individuals who have lost at least 13.6 kg (mean, 30.0 kg) and who maintained a required minimum weight loss of greater than 13.6 kg for more than 1 year (mean, 6 years).⁶⁰ Almost half of the individuals in this sample report having lost weight on their own, without a formal weight loss program, and the remainder lost their weight in a variety of weight loss programs. Both groups reported using diet and exercise to lose weight. Registry participants completed a variety of measures of mood, distress, restraint, disinhibition, binge eating, and purging.⁶¹ Distress and depression levels were similar to those of community-based samples, as were rates of binge eating and purging. Levels of restraint and disinhibition were similar to those in patients recently treated for obesity and differed from those of eating disordered samples. Although this is not a random sample of all long-term weight maintainers, and hence is subject to selection bias, the results provide reassurance that many individuals who have lost and maintained weight through a variety of methods do not experience significant psychological distress or eating disordered behaviors.

Most findings indicate that obese adults who lose weight are likely to experience modest improvements in mood or, at minimum, no worsening in affect. Before weight loss, eg, obese individuals typically score in the nondepressed range on the Beck Depression Inventory.62 With weight loss, they report even fewer symptoms of dysphoria.(7)

So I was a bit puzzled to read this assertion:

I would like to see some discussion on the possibility of depression among CR practitioners. It would be a *serious* side effect, and certainly seems at least as likely as your folic acid hypothesis.

I couldn't see what basis he could have for such a statement, and indeed I knew of a fair body of evidence supporting the idea that CR improves mood. Now I see one source of misunderstanding:

I bet if you believe in the philosophy of calorie restriction, there is a good chance you may be happier restricting calories. Though I have seen studies to the contrary.

"... the classic study on calorie restriction, involving 20 healthy young men who cut their food intake in half for six months, found many negative effects, including "marked signs of depression and irritability." The subjects "were despondent, had very low energy and had lost the initiative to do things. When allowed to eat again, they in--dulged in binge eating." They did lose weight--almost a quarter of their body weight--but, Wadden says, "it's hard to argue for [calorie restriction] in the absence of definitive data." from http://www.newsweek....6?tid=relatedcl

Ah: the famous Ancel Keys "Minnesota Semistarvation study". Well, firstly, that wasn't "to the contrary": despite the Newsweek characterization of this as 'calorie restriction', these folks didn't " believe in the philosophy of calorie restriction", but were conscientious objectors who chose being subjected to a medical experiment on the effects of starvation over going to war or to prison. They did apparently believe in the value of the experiment as such, and favored it over shooting people or being mixed in with murderers and petty thieves, but were certainly not practicing voluntary CR. Moreover, their diets were very poor, and the level of energy deficit and the suddenness of its imposition were quite extreme. I'd feel pretty miserable too if I were locked up, half of my food taken away over a period of a few weeks, and was starved for EFAs and protein; I don't think it's reasonable to take this as evidence about the likely effects of volutary, properly-performed, life-extending CR in humans. And, from the previously-cited review:

Concerns about a "dieting depression" can be traced to 2 early studies, the first by Keys and colleagues,¹⁴ ... The second study⁴⁵ found that 54% of obese patients, who were treated in a nutrition clinic, reported (retrospectively) that they had experienced symptoms of weakness, nervousness, irritability, fatigue, or nausea at some time when previously trying to lose weight. These individuals did not report symptoms of depression, although the report of the findings was titled the "Dieting Depression." The title derived from observations of a second group of 25 individuals who were treated at an inpatient unit for both their psychiatric complications and obesity. Other early studies, reviewed by Stunkard and Rush,⁴⁶ also reported negative emotional responses to dieting.

In contrast to these early findings, numerous studies conducted during the past 25 years have reported reductions in symptoms of depression and anxiety or, at minimum, no worsening in affect ... Several factors seem to explain the discrepancy between the early and later findings. Studies in the 1950s and 1960s were based primarily on patients who were undergoing psychodynamic psychotherapy and, thus, were likely to have had significant emotional disturbance before weight loss.^54-55 By contrast, more recent behavioral studies included obese individuals who volunteered specifically for weight reduction; most were known to be free of significant depression.⁵⁶ In addition, most patients in recent studies received group support and cognitive behavioral therapy, each of which might favorably affect mood.^54-55 Differences in methods used to assess mood, and the frequency of assessment, might further explain the discrepancies between the early and later studies.⁵⁴

I also seem to recall a study on monkeys indicating that they became more irritable from calorie restriction

I don't believe there's any such data.

This is great news, if true. For those who practice calorie restriction, are you happier now than before CR?

Yes, I am; moreover, anecdotally, there have been many reports on the CR Society discussion forums and personal conversation indicate substantial CR-induced relief from anxiety and bipolar disorder. In fact, many CR practitioners (myself included) experience remarkable euphoria during the first few months of CR, and enjoy the coursing, streaming sensation of a cleaned-up metabolism thereafter, every cell humming with a near-mystical sense of a 'life force.'

Fortunately, we have more rigorous evidence than anecdotes, however. Although on the border between true CR and 'mere' healthy weight loss (because the subjects were high-normal or overweight to begin with and didn't lose weight into a range that was beyond their personal or a population norm, we now have a controlled study of 6 months of human "Calorie restriction" of a sort, in the form of the CALERIE study; it now reports:

During CALERIE Phase I, the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) was used to measure [quality of life], and the Beck Depression Inventory II and depression scale of the MAEDS [Multidimensional Assessment of Eating Disorder Symptoms ] were used to measure mood. Our results indicate that depressed mood, measured by the BDI-II, did not change during the trial. Additionally, in the CR group, scores on the MAEDS depression subscale decreased at three and six months in comparison to baseline. These results indicate that CR had no negative effect on mood during this trial and, in fact, symptoms of depressed mood, measured with the MAEDS, decreased in the CR group.

The SF-36 was used to test the effects of CR on two components of QOL - physical functioning and vitality. All dieting groups, but not the control group, had improved physical functioning during the trial. For the CR group, physical functioning was significantly improved from baseline to month three and baseline to month six. CR had no significant effect on vitality. (8)

I suspect that better-quality diets, with fewer grain products and more vegetables, total fat, omega-3 and short-chain omega-6 fatty acids, and vegetarian protein, would have yielded better results.

-Michael

References
1. Lutter M, Sakata I, Osborne-Lawrence S, Rovinsky SA, Anderson JG, Jung S, Birnbaum S, Yanagisawa M, Elmquist JK, Nestler EJ, Zigman JM.
The orexigenic hormone ghrelin defends against depressive symptoms of chronic stress.
Nat Neurosci. 2008 Jul;11(7):752-3. Epub 2008 Jun 15.
PMID: 18552842 [PubMed - in process]

2. Xu B, Goulding EH, Zang K, Cepoi D, Cone RD, Jones KR, Tecott LH, Reichardt LF.
Abstract
Brain-derived neurotrophic factor regulates energy balance downstream of melanocortin-4 receptor.
Nat Neurosci. 2003 Jul;6(7):736-42.
PMID: 12796784 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3. Mattson MP, Maudsley S, Martin B.
Abstract
BDNF and 5-HT: a dynamic duo in age-related neuronal plasticity and neurodegenerative disorders.
Trends Neurosci. 2004 Oct;27(10):589-94.
PMID: 15374669 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

4. Balu DT, Hoshaw BA, Malberg JE, Rosenzweig-Lipson S, Schechter LE, Lucki I.
Differential regulation of central BDNF protein levels by antidepressant and non-antidepressant drug treatments.
Brain Res. 2008 May 23;1211:37-43. Epub 2008 Mar 21.
PMID: 18433734 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

5. Inoue K, Zorrilla EP, Tabarin A, Valdez GR, Iwasaki S, Kiriike N, Koob GF.
Reduction of anxiety after restricted feeding in the rat: implication for eating disorders.
Biol Psychiatry. 2004 Jun 1;55(11):1075-81.
PMID: 15158426 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6. Kaye W.
Neurobiology of anorexia and bulimia nervosa.
Physiol Behav. 2008 Apr 22;94(1):121-35. Epub 2007 Nov 29. Review.
PMID: 18164737 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

7. National Task Force on the Prevention and Treatment of Obesity.
Dieting and the development of eating disorders in overweight and obese adults.
Arch Intern Med. 2000 Sep 25;160(17):2581-9. Review.
PMID: 10999971 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

8. Redman LM, Martin CK, Williamson DA, Ravussin E.
Effect of caloric restriction in non-obese humans on physiological,
psychological and behavioral outcomes.
Physiol Behav. 2008 Aug 6;94(5):643-8. Epub 2008 Apr 18.
PMID: 18502453

Edited by Michael, 01 September 2008 - 01:57 AM.

This is great news, if true. For those who practice calorie restriction, are you happier now than before CR?

Is any human happier while hungry? I don't know about you, but when I'm hungry I'm in a bad mood. This, in turn, would inevitably raise my cortisol level.


I think since a human living in an industrialized society has a virtually unlimited food supply since their inception into this world, this wouldn't apply to them. Our brains are already hard-wired so to speak to like food and lots of it. If you take this away or starve yourself, your subconscious will feel robbed. It kinda goes with the old adage "you don't value something to its fullest unless it is taken away". This could go along with freedom after someone is incarcerated. The same, IMO, would hold true to someone used to having a lot of food at all times yet suddenly found without a lot of food whether it is their decision or not.

I can't see how these animal models can hold true for humans who have had an abundant supply of food from the time which they were a baby.

Rhesus monkeys don't and never had the luxury of us industrialized humans with regards to having an abundant supply of good food.


Concluding from all of this, I would say that if CR worked at all in humans, it needs to be implemented at birth until the expiration of one's life. Make note that the person would also have to live in a society where people do not indulge in a lot of tasty food or a society where a lot of food in general is unavailable to them. This would be the only way where CR would not affect the measures of stress in humans negatively.

Edited by luv2increase, 02 September 2008 - 05:09 AM.

Is any human happier while hungry? I don't know about you, but when I'm hungry I'm in a bad mood. This, in turn, would inevitably raise my cortisol level.

This is wrong on so many levels. Being hungry and doing CR are two different things. Didn't you hear that most CR practisioners are not hungry? Are anorexic people hungry or unhappy? Most probably not. Can you translate your own feelings to the whole population? No. A lot of people are happier when fasting (that's being hungry), they feel free, lightly and clean.

....


Concluding from all of this, I would say that if CR worked at all in humans, it needs to be implemented at birth until the expiration of one's life. Make note that the person would also have to live in a society where people do not indulge in a lot of tasty food or a society where a lot of food in general is unavailable to them. This would be the only way where CR would not affect the measures of stress in humans negatively.

You're overestimating the influence on stress and even more so overestimating the stress caused by being on CR.Why should those people feel stressed if they have a loving family and friends who understand them, are part of one of the most knowledgable communities in the world and know they are more likely to fullfill their greatest dream. I definitely wouldn't feel any stress, rather fulfillment.
This probably based on the (wrong) assumption that CR practisioners feel the desire to eat and are in fact hungry.

Even though your argument is sound, it is still based on exaggeration imho. It sounds like you're really hating on CR, because most of your points are regularly addressed by CRONies.

It sounds like you're really hating on CR, because most of your points are regularly addressed by CRONies.

It is definitely 100% not hate yet caring for those who are currently doing CR and the problems they may face down the road. I care for all human life and value its worth. Besides, CR isn't proven yet so what is the harm in questioning it? There is none. That is what this here subforum is for. It isn't only for those pro CR yet for those against CR and those undecided. I know for a fact that I'll never do CR because I only believe in intermittent fasting which I am a devout practitioner of. I believe CR is a very interesting topic but premature for Homo sapiens to be partaking in without further evidence of its safety and efficacy.


It isn't bad to ask questions which may or may not be true for everyone. Just as you state it cannot be generalized for everyone; do you not think that it most certainly can be the case for some???

Certainly there are still many risks involved in doing CR and it's an experiment with an uncertain but probable outcome.
Personally I'd not start CR yet, in my opinion people in their teens should definitely wait to see how the experiments on primates turn out and whether we have to expect a case of diminishing returns for human longevity. Or even wait to your 30s/40s before you start and hope for CR-mimetics or SENS? It's down to personal choice.
If one was uninformed, healthy semi-starvation (CR) would be pretty taxing and stressing, yet I think most CR practisoners have addressed all the issues for themselves (at least I hope so) and are well aware of all the risks.

I don't think hunger is much of a problem, because you try to avoid being "suddenly without a lot of food" and slowly ramp up your CR diet and then eat lots of satiating food.

Hunger has never been a problem. The volume of food I eat is probably comparable to both of what my parents eat in a day

Hunger has never been a problem. The volume of food I eat is probably comparable to both of what my parents eat in a day

Yeah, I've done my fair share of juice fasts and even an 11 day lemonaide diet, and I can attest that the hunger does magically go away after a couple days. I'm sure that your body gets accustomed to the lowered food intake after awhile. The human body is amazing!

It sounds like you're really hating on CR, because most of your points are regularly addressed by CRONies.

It is definitely 100% not hate yet caring for those who are currently doing CR and the problems they may face down the road. I care for all human life and value its worth. Besides, CR isn't proven yet so what is the harm in questioning it? There is none. That is what this here subforum is for. It isn't only for those pro CR yet for those against CR and those undecided.

It's entirely appropriate -- and, in fact, a public service! -- to question CR, or any other proposed intervention, if that questioning is informed, and based on solid research, rather than speculation, personal bias, or pseudoscientific nonsense like traditional Chinese 'medicine.'

Alas, that has not been in evidence. Much of this present thread, for example, has been a case study of a disheartening pattern that occurs in many discussions of CR in the media and on the internet. It got started with the posting of a study showing that animals on CR experience profound protection against the ill effects of stress. I then elaborated on this by posting extensive evidence from controlled scientific studies (in addition to anecdotal reports from the few people actually practicing CR) showing clearly that
humans and animals on Calorie restriction are at least as happy, and apparently more so, than their AL controls. Questioning this conclusion based on contradictory data would be fine; but this kind of knee-jerk, intuitive reaction:

Is any human happier while hungry? I don't know about you, but when I'm hungry I'm in a bad mood. This, in turn, would inevitably raise my cortisol level.

... is an ill-informed, unproductive distraction at best -- and potentially a literally fatal distraction at worst. To return to your question:

CR isn't proven yet so what is the harm in questioning it? There is none. That is what this here subforum is for. It isn't only for those pro CR yet for those against CR and those undecided.

Exactly. CR is the only intervention available today for which a scientifically credible case can be advanced that it will retard biological aging in humans. That is a very serious issue, and needs to be discussed with commensurate seriousness. This is not a forum for the general public, but for people for whom extension of healthy life is a core passion. If such a person is considering taking up what appears to be the only way to extend hir youthful lifespan today, and what may be their only chance of reaching longevity escape velocity tomorrow, but is turned away -- not by solid, research-based arguments, but by fluff and blunder -- that would border on criminal.

I hope that the tenor of discussion around CR on this forum will rise up in future.

Is any human happier while hungry? I don't know about you, but when I'm hungry I'm in a bad mood. This, in turn, would inevitably raise my cortisol level.

... is an ill-informed, unproductive distraction at best -- and potentially a literally fatal distraction at worst. To return to your question:

You are absolutely wrong. If you show me some studies that show me stress is healthy, I will take back that statement.

Is any human happier while hungry? I don't know about you, but when I'm hungry I'm in a bad mood. This, in turn, would inevitably raise my cortisol level.

... is an ill-informed, unproductive distraction at best -- and potentially a literally fatal distraction at worst. To return to your question:

You are absolutely wrong. If you show me some studies that show me stress is healthy, I will take back that statement.

But (a) again, I've just provided extensive evidence that CR helps animals to handle stress better, and has no negative effects -- and apparent positive effects -- on overall emotional state in humans, so (again) your apparent clinging to the belief that CR must be so 'stressful' appears to be a case of placing faith in the jerking of your knee rather than an evaluation of any actual data; and (b) the question isn't whether stress is healthy, but whether CR is healthy, even if it may sometimes be stressful. Exercise can be very stressful, but it's also healthy. Relationships can be stressful, but can still be overall healthy. Having a job that you love can still be stressful, but is still central to a person's overall happiness, and for some people the nail-biting aspects of their career are part of the challenge that makes them engaging. Etc.

The proper way to answer such questions is with evidence, not vague hand-waving and appeal to "common sense" or "tradition."

Edited by Michael, 21 September 2008 - 01:09 PM.

The proper way to answer such questions is with evidence, not vague hand-waving and appeal to "common sense" or "tradition."

At times, these are the best way to go about it. People, most notably intellectuals, think too much and too far in-depth which can leave them confused, on the wrong path, and out of touch when it comes to understanding a problem and trying to answer it. Sometimes it is the "common sense" answer which will prevail. Never underestimate your gut feelings Michael. They have been a critical part of our (human race) survival since our inception.

Back to the subject. If a human starts CR from infancy (with proper nutrients of course) and leads the life all through their life and doesn't know that it is possible to indulge all you want and there is a plentiful supply of food in the world, they may very well do well with a CR lifestyle. They won't feel like they are being jipped so to speak. It is kinda like a crackhead who is in remission from their addiction. They have experienced the ultimate high of crack and nothing does it for them anymore, and they just go through life in a "blah" state of being. This will be the same for people who love food. This constant feeling of being jipped is stressful even if their body has become accustomed to their lowered food intake.

We aren't primates or worms; we are humans who have a complex mind. Animals and worms etc... (basically anything besides humans) are more so boolean programmed (yes I made that up yet fits perfectly); therefore, they don't know the damn difference between being deprived of food or not.

Edited by luv2increase, 21 September 2008 - 08:38 PM.

Going back to my comment earlier, this is a picture from 2005 or 2006. My food is the one that looks the most, my parents and sisters plates are the ones at the back on the cooker, mostly flat looking. That didn't include my protein shake. But you should clearly see the difference in volume of food I consume compared to my ad lib family. Thats just 1 meal of course... I eat 3.

http://img.photobuck...82/000_1756.jpg


CR for me has never felt like deprivation. I have learned to cook and experiment with foods, I have learned so many new delicious foods, and my diet is far more varied that it has ever been before in my life.

Edited by Matt, 21 September 2008 - 09:19 PM.

Going back to my comment earlier, this is a picture from 2005 or 2006. My food is the one that looks the most, my parents and sisters plates are the ones at the back on the cooker, mostly flat looking. That didn't include my protein shake. But you should clearly see the difference in volume of food I consume compared to my ad lib family. Thats just 1 meal of course... I eat 3.

http://img.photobuck...82/000_1756.jpg


CR for me has never felt like deprivation. I have learned to cook and experiment with foods, I have learned so many new delicious foods, and my diet is far more varied that it has ever been before in my life.

Where is your protein at. Since you are doing CR, you must at least have some protein Matt. If not, you will certainly "deprive" yourself of critical amino acids which your body needs to function correctly.

Are you sure you're reading the posts properly? I said that picture didn't include my protein shake I had. Maybe 70-80% of the time my meals are now 'zoned' carb 40% protein 30% and fat 30% of calories

Edited by Matt, 22 September 2008 - 01:08 PM.

At times, these are the best way to go about it. People, most notably intellectuals, think too much and too far in-depth which can leave them confused, on the wrong path, and out of touch when it comes to understanding a problem and trying to answer it. Sometimes it is the "common sense" answer which will prevail. Never underestimate your gut feelings Michael. They have been a critical part of our (human race) survival since our inception.

Back to the subject. If a human starts CR from infancy (with proper nutrients of course) and leads the life all through their life and doesn't know that it is possible to indulge all you want and there is a plentiful supply of food in the world, they may very well do well with a CR lifestyle. They won't feel like they are being jipped so to speak. It is kinda like a crackhead who is in remission from their addiction. They have experienced the ultimate high of crack and nothing does it for them anymore, and they just go through life in a "blah" state of being. This will be the same for people who love food. This constant feeling of being jipped is stressful even if their body has become accustomed to their lowered food intake.

Are you sure it wouldn't have been better to at least dig up something that looks remotely like evidence for you point instead of more hand waving and poor analogies?

We aren't primates or worms; we are humans who have a complex mind.

we actually are primates...

Are you sure it wouldn't have been better to at least dig up something that looks remotely like evidence for you point instead of more hand waving and poor analogies?

You wouldn't be a good scientist elrond. You have to learn to think for yourself and hypothesize the answers to problems and then create an experiment to see whether or not you are right or not. My scenario would be impossible to create in a laboratory, but it doesn't hurt to use intelligent common senseto try and understand problems.

You should note elrond that science does not have all the answers to everything as of yet. There is a whole lot of things in our world that have yet to be understood. Science does not have all the answers and nitpicking studies to try and back up my claim and correlate them to make sense is not my agenda. You need to learn to be a leader instead of a follower and think for yourself for once.

Elrond, you sound like one that would be better at gathering information rather than the one creating the information to be gathered. This is not my fault, yet it is your fallen attribute.

Edited by luv2increase, 22 September 2008 - 06:42 PM.

We aren't primates

we actually are primates...

You wouldn't be a good scientist elrond.

I just wanted to repost that. You're making an argument that can't be countered. This religious-like attitude has no place in scientific discussion.

Edited by shepard, 22 September 2008 - 07:11 PM.

So rather than addressing the point you choose to attack my character instead. Interesting. I suppose you must have saw on tv that a good way to win an argument is to discredit the one holding a view opposed to yours instead of addressing the view itself.

But you are correct. I'm a mediocre scientist. I'm a much better engineer. However, this is the CR forum, it isn't one designed for exploring my "fallen" attributes.

but it doesn't hurt to use intelligent common senseto try and understand problems.

it does when your "intelligent common sense" is in direct opposition to evidence that is documented. "Common sense" is only a point to go on before there is evidence, and then not really. A better word for "common sense" is "bias".

however not once have I ever observed you using anything anyone would mistake for intelligent common sense so I don't see how that has even come into the discussion. Lets look at a few of your earlier... um... "points".

It is kinda like a crackhead who is in remission from their addiction. They have experienced the ultimate high of crack and nothing does it for them anymore, and they just go through life in a "blah" state of being. This will be the same for people who love food. This constant feeling of being jipped is stressful even if their body has become accustomed to their lowered food intake.

You do realize that if someone is presently doing crack, should they they cease to do crack they will be alleviating a tremendous amount of stress on their body, and they will have increased their life expectancy significantly right? I think one of us might have a little too much experience with crack

We aren't primates or worms

Yes we are. *see reference

I know for a fact that I'll never do CR because I only believe in intermittent fasting which I am a devout practitioner of

CR isn't proven yet so what is the harm in questioning it?

so you believe in intermittent fasting, yet you know you would never do CR because it isn't proven...

Is any human happier while hungry? I don't know about you, but when I'm hungry I'm in a bad mood. This, in turn, would inevitably raise my cortisol level.

Concluding from all of this, I would say that if CR worked at all in humans, it needs to be implemented at birth until the expiration of one's life. Make note that the person would also have to live in a society where people do not indulge in a lot of tasty food or a society where a lot of food in general is unavailable to them. This would be the only way where CR would not affect the measures of stress in humans negatively.

Yeah, I've done my fair share of juice fasts and even an 11 day lemonaide diet, and I can attest that the hunger does magically go away after a couple days. I'm sure that your body gets accustomed to the lowered food intake after awhile

I am starting to think I might be reading the bible with all these contradictions.

People, most notably intellectuals, think too much and too far in-depth which can leave them confused, on the wrong path, and out of touch when it comes to understanding a problem and trying to answer it.

Yes, definitely something from sunday school.

ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm....7?dopt=Abstract

Edited by elrond, 22 September 2008 - 07:46 PM.

This religious-like attitude has no place in scientific discussion.

Religion? Where is the world did that word come from? I don't see anything in the slightest resembling anything remotely close to religion in any of my posts whatsoever.

it does when your "intelligent common sense" is in direct opposition to evidence that is documented.

Documented? I haven't seen anything documented on my hypothetical scenario which I hypothesized. Show me please.

You do realize that if someone is presently doing crack, should they they cease to do crack they will be alleviating a tremendous amount of stress on their body, and they will have increased their life expectancy significantly right? I think one of us might have a little too much experience with crack

So, you are admitting you know nothing about crack when you say I have too much experience with it. Actually, I've never done crack, but that is besides the point anyways. The point I was trying to make is this. I see for some you have to put it in layman's terms. It is like sex. Let's say you are a man or woman who likes to have sex a lot (sex is the substitute for the food in this instance FYI), and suddenly, you heard a lot of sex isn't good for you; "wow!", you think to yourself, "I better chill out on the sex but damn that would be a pain!". So, you cut your sex frequency (substitute this for quantity of food consumed) to a third that you are used to just because you heard it was good for your health. After a bit of time, you are getting a little frustrated because you aren't aloud to do what you love doing at the amount you loved doing, anymore. You could substitute anything in here for the sex or the food. It doesn't take a lot of brain cells to figure this out; I hope you won't have a problem doing, but I'm not so sure since you completely missed the point of my crack analogy.

so you believe in intermittent fasting, yet you know you would never do CR because it isn't proven...

You really are a peace of work. When did I ever say I wouldn't do CR because it wasn't proven. Wow!!!

I am starting to think I might be reading the bible with all these contradictions.

Excuse me? Are you attacking the character rather than the argument. You really need to grow up elrond. This is completely wrong on your part, and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself! No one said anything about the Bible, and I haven't for a long time here, yet you are somehow and erroneously correlating my statements to that of the Bible when there is no correlation to be made whatsoever. The thoughts never occurred to me.

Yes, definitely something from sunday school.

I've never heard this in Sunday school. Why don't you save the Bible talk for the philosophy forum; you out of all people should realize this considering your position within this institute. You obviously can't counter my arguments with relevant words or sentences. Sometimes, you have to think outside the box. If mankind never questioned currently held beliefs in their time, mankind wouldn't have progressed to what it has become today. Our ideas evolve just as our answers to scientific and world issues evolve.



Concluding from all of this, you have seriously just given the weakest post I've yet to see on this thread. It was full of uncalled for religious persecuting statements which were not even called for in the least. Nothing I've written can be even attributed to the Bible. You, sir, most certainly owe me an apology. I am completely disgusted with your post. Next time, post in a relevant, scientific manner rather than ad hominem attacks! I am a member of this institute, and I have paid my dues. Show some respect.

Religion? Where is the world did that word come from? I don't see anything in the slightest resembling anything remotely close to religion in any of my posts whatsoever.

Religion is not a falsifiable argument, just like your "common-sense" tactic. That's not science.

You, sir, most certainly owe me an apology. I am completely disgusted with your post. Next time, post in a relevant, scientific manner rather than ad hominem attacks! I am a member of this institute, and I have paid my dues.

You took it personal first:

You wouldn't be a good scientist elrond. You have to learn to think for yourself...

You need to learn to be a leader instead of a follower and think for yourself for once.

Elrond, you sound like one that would be better at gathering information rather than the one creating the information to be gathered. This is not my fault, yet it is your fallen attribute.

Edited by shepard, 22 September 2008 - 11:04 PM.

Religion? Where is the world did that word come from? I don't see anything in the slightest resembling anything remotely close to religion in any of my posts whatsoever.

Religion is not a falsifiable argument, just like your "common-sense" tactic. That's not science.

Common sense has gotten mankind to survive throughout our life on this planet. If you ignore your inborn gut feelings and common sense, where would that have left us? ---> extinct

Common sense has gotten mankind to survive throughout our life on this planet. If you ignore your inborn gut feelings and common sense, where would that have left us? ---> extinct

No, adaptability and chance has allowed us to thrive.

You, sir, most certainly owe me an apology. I am completely disgusted with your post.

very well. I apologize. I was playing by the rules I thought you had established. Evidently I was mistaken.

I do mean my apology regardless. Whether or not you are aware of it I do try to play by crocker's rules.

Edited by elrond, 23 September 2008 - 01:05 PM.

When did I ever say I wouldn't do CR because it wasn't proven. Wow!!!

I know for a fact that I'll never do CR because I only believe in intermittent fasting which I am a devout practitioner of.

If it was a mistake by elrond to interpret this as your unwillingness to do CR because it's not proven, then it's an easy mistake to make*. Instead of getting hypersensitive when people question your posts, it might be a good idea to read what you've written before posting it to make sure what you've actually typed is in accordance with what you mean.

*Combine this statement with all your attempts to disprove the benefits of CR in other topics, and it's an even easier mistake.

Edited by JLL, 23 September 2008 - 04:42 PM.

So, you are admitting you know nothing about crack when you say I have too much experience with it. Actually, I've never done crack, but that is besides the point anyways. The point I was trying to make is this. I see for some you have to put it in layman's terms. It is like sex. Let's say you are a man or woman who likes to have sex a lot (sex is the substitute for the food in this instance FYI), and suddenly, you heard a lot of sex isn't good for you; "wow!", you think to yourself, "I better chill out on the sex but damn that would be a pain!". So, you cut your sex frequency (substitute this for quantity of food consumed) to a third that you are used to just because you heard it was good for your health. After a bit of time, you are getting a little frustrated because you aren't aloud to do what you love doing at the amount you loved doing, anymore. You could substitute anything in here for the sex or the food. It doesn't take a lot of brain cells to figure this out; I hope you won't have a problem doing, but I'm not so sure since you completely missed the point of my crack analogy.

Do you believe there are people who don't enjoy sex (i.e. food FYI) or do you deny the existance of chastity (i.e. people who do not feel the need to eat)? If you deny that fact, you'd deny the well-established existance of eating disorders.
As long as there are people who don't feel they need to eat, because they don't enjoy eating, your point is moot: CR would work at least for people who have an eating disorder.
Personally I don't even believe you need to have an eating disorder to feel fine on CR, do you deny that the CR-practisoners on this board are still happy and not stressed at all? If yes, how do you come to that conclusion, can you read their minds? Do you call all of them liars?

So, you are admitting you know nothing about crack when you say I have too much experience with it. Actually, I've never done crack, but that is besides the point anyways. The point I was trying to make is this. I see for some you have to put it in layman's terms. It is like sex. Let's say you are a man or woman who likes to have sex a lot (sex is the substitute for the food in this instance FYI), and suddenly, you heard a lot of sex isn't good for you; "wow!", you think to yourself, "I better chill out on the sex but damn that would be a pain!". So, you cut your sex frequency (substitute this for quantity of food consumed) to a third that you are used to just because you heard it was good for your health. After a bit of time, you are getting a little frustrated because you aren't aloud to do what you love doing at the amount you loved doing, anymore. You could substitute anything in here for the sex or the food. It doesn't take a lot of brain cells to figure this out; I hope you won't have a problem doing, but I'm not so sure since you completely missed the point of my crack analogy.

Do you believe there are people who don't enjoy sex (i.e. food FYI) or do you deny the existance of chastity (i.e. people who do not feel the need to eat)? If you deny that fact, you'd deny the well-established existance of eating disorders.
As long as there are people who don't feel they need to eat, because they don't enjoy eating, your point is moot: CR would work at least for people who have an eating disorder.
Personally I don't even believe you need to have an eating disorder to feel fine on CR, do you deny that the CR-practisoners on this board are still happy and not stressed at all? If yes, how do you come to that conclusion, can you read their minds? Do you call all of them liars?

I believe those doing CR are missing out and act too prematurely to practice CR wholeheartedly. It is silly to devout one's life to something which isn't even proven. The human psyche is much more complex than animals. This brings in a psychological factor to CR which is not assessed in animal models. This is true whether you like it or not.

I know some people do not enjoy sex, food, etc... but these are ones in the minority. If CR can be utilized among the masses, it has to be feasible for those in the majority. This was a silly point by you, sorry.

CR would work at least for people who have an eating disorder.

Wow, a good yet obvious point. Instead of eating nothing of on non-nutritious value, you could eat a little something with great nutritional value.

Edited by Matt, 24 September 2008 - 03:44 PM.

It is silly to devout one's life to something which isn't even proven.

Um...yeah.

Nothing can be proven in science. If you're religious, superstitious, normal; or for us here, take basically any supplements or eat in a certain way based off of studies, you're violating your statement up above. There are always "what if's" and you base your decisions based around all the rejected possibilities, not the accepted ones. CR has a ton more support than anything else for the possibility of maximum lifespan increases.

Edited by shepard, 24 September 2008 - 03:35 PM.