Calorie restriction (CR)

[Welcomeaboard]

Ooh, great fun as ya'll have just been in the tesla frame of mind seeing the power of three, what joy hath one found!

[Gilgamesh]

Hey gang,

Nearing the end of a long, multi-legged journey. Just a quick note about CR.

Most of the current CR and aging (and diseases of aging) research is focusing on mTOR and IGF-1 signalling, but esp. mTOR. Ketosis looks to be secondary, but no one knows yet.

More and more, I sense we know less than we think we do about diet and health. But I think the right broad framework to begin to get less lost is hormesis. And I've learned about some interesting (currently embargoed, sorry!) data showing that if any nutrient should be restricted, it's protein, not carbs.

GB

[Ski]

Hey gang,
More and more, I sense we know less than we think we do about diet and health. But I think the right broad framework to begin to get less lost is hormesis. And I've learned about some interesting (currently embargoed, sorry!) data showing that if any nutrient should be restricted, it's protein, not carbs.
GB

Thats my theory too. Im just waiting (may take a decade) but for the big headlines to be about how wrong we were about carbs and its the protein and maybe the HF too.

[Tincup]

In this debate between T. Colin Campbell (of The China Study) and Eric Westman MD (LC researcher & co-author of New Atkins for a New You, Cholesterol Clarity & Ketone Clarity) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJYlXmfb08M Cambell makes the point about requirements for protein being low - on the order of 10% of calories. Of course in keto diets they can be very low also - 7%. I did think they danced around each other a bit, instead of looking for common ground.

Campbell is a big proponent of Esselstyn's plant based diet. One thing that has always puzzled me for Esselstyn and Ornish type diets is their statement of how their diets help Type 2's, even though they are very high carb (my recollection is the macros for Ornish are 70% carb, 20% pro, 10% fat and Esselstyn as 80, 10 ,10). 15 years ago, I was in the audience for a talk given by Ornish. A man stood up and told Ornish how his diet had saved him from the ravages of T2. Some place I read/heard that a carb load of course calls for a lot of insulin. Insulin takes fat to make and in the case of a very low fat diet, the fat ends up being pulled from fat cells. This is also true in IF when the feast is HCLF. It is an interesting concept and one that I've not chased down to verify...

[Janpeter]

Yes, mTOR is emerging as a key part of the puzzle. The LC community is moving away from the high protein component and is now stressing divided doses of protein not exceeding 100 g depending on activity levels and body weight. Dr. Rosedale is one of the first to bring mTOR to the forefront. Even Dr. Eades of "Protein Power" is back peddling and is now emphasizing more fat.

[Julie G]

G, is your concern with an LC diet the lack of hormesis? By concurrently practicing CR, aren't we also stressing our bodies a bit? I ask as research seems to indicate that mTOR and IGF-1 signaling IS down-regulated on a ketogenic diet in the same way as it's affected in CR. My concern is that doing both may be overkill. Concurrent mild CR and ketosis may be our safest bet.

Re. protein, I seem to recall a recent study indicating less was better especially for younger people. More might be helpful as we age? http://www.nih.gov/researchmatters/marc ... rotein.htm FWIW, I feel best on less protein and naturally gravitate that direction- unscientific, but works for me

I still have to listen to Russ's podcasts recommendations...and now George's You guys are keeping me busy, but I'm fascinated and learning so much. George's post reminded me of something I had read at http://www.heartlifetalk.com There seems to be a consensus there, that in terms of preventing or reversing CAD, following the philosophies of Esselstyn, Ornish, and Pritkin does NOT work. There are many converts there from those camps who have found they had to increase dietary fat to improve coronary health.

[circular]

When trying to conceive of an ideal macro ratio this morning I can't help but hear a symphony, with listeners saying, "What makes this so beautiful? Is it the string section?" "No I hear it in the percussion." "Are you missing the brass?" They are all playing their roles and maybe good health is more like a symphony, where different sections are emphasized at different times throughout a long musical score (could mean within a single meal, an hour, day, month, year, years ...).

[Tincup]

Circ,

While I think macro ratios are important, the context of overall quantity is also important. Stavia recently posted her 1 hr PP BG at 105 eating 40 40 20 C/F/P but calories were limited to ~400. I would advocated strongly that not regularly spiking BS very high is important and there may be numerous ways to eat that accomplish this objective. Also, our own genetics as well as degree of metabolic disfunction will impact what is possible.

[Stavia]

1200 to 1400 calories divided up in three small meals and a couple snacks.

[Russ]

… still betting that episodic variability is going to be important, too. Periodic (daily, weekly, seasonally) fasting and feasting seems very plausibly a health form of metabolic 'exercise' that could be important to keeping everything working? I thus very much like circular's symphony analogy - a musical score with a steady beat and no variability would be very boring.