New study on CR in humans- comments

[geo]

Oh Boy, these guys have more than just perspective and context issues

I read the whole thread and if these are the practicing experts in the CR world, they will all ultimately fail. They don't seem to understand human nutrician at all. At least one post mentioned the McDougall program (lumped with other low fat, vegan programs as one of 5 possible types of CR diets.

This tells me right off that they have spent little time reading the science and understanding it. IMO, if you want to practice CR then you had at least better understand what the proper/best human diet is needed to begin with. A diet that supplies an adequate amount of nutrients and fully optimizes health within the context of a broad range of Calories. Then once you have that figured out its relatively simple how to lower calorie levels while maintaining satiety to an adequate CR level.

These guys would rather argue single nutrients (IGF-1, protein levels, etc...) than focus on the big picture. They don't seem to understand the simple concept of overall dietary pattern being the key point and not any single thing.

Or they would rather argue the minutia of CR animal studies, rather than just simply practicing a proper nutrition program. It was disheartening (but not unexpected in my opinion) that they bemoaned the number of people in their group that have quit CR either out of lack of results or simply because they got worse health.

If CR does work, even if just to square the curve, why aren't these experts simply starting with proper nutrition? Its staring at them in their faces. How could anyone think that following any HF dietary style will help them to lower calorie density to practice CR and not also give them the health issues that so many people in the world already see???

To me, they are so far off the dietary mark, that no amount of perspective and context will help these guys. They are in desperate need of some light. But who would want to try to offer that in a forum that is so obviously confused.

Sorry if I sound upset...sometimes I think these guys just need a good smack in the head to knock the sense back into them...(no I dont believe in violence...)

[JeffN]

My link was just to one post, which I think has great value (and there have been a few added since). It was not a generic recommendation to the forum and all the information there. IMH(P&P)O, I greatly respect and value the perspectives of a few of the members there and had been in discussions groups with them for decades and have learned a lot from. A few years back they switched from the list-serve format to the discussion group format and I think both the quality of the posters and the discussions in the forum has gone way down compared to the old list-serve.

I don't mind a respectful intelligent discussion with someone well versed in the data who may disagree with me as long as they can present a valid case and not just email me one study (or post it here) and say, oh yea, what about this.

It sounds like you either read through the whole post from the beginning, searched their forums and/or read through other posts too.

If so, then I am sure you found things you disagree with, just as you would in the forums here, or especially on any of the social media groups that are based on this program. There have been people here and discussions here that recommend variations of the program (or have other recommendations not inline with the program) that we don't agree with.

There are many ways to peel a potato.

I think my approach is the easiest, simplest, healthiest, most affordable and most accessible. I think you agree with that.

However, I have always said, even in these forums, that if you can create a diet based on minimally processed real foods that meets all our known requirements, and limits everything we know to be harmful (to known safe amounts), and you can do it differently than I recommend, more power to you.

In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

I think you will appreciate this.

In a recent discussion on one of the latest IF studies, my long-time colleague Jay Kenney, PhD, RDN, said this,....

“Nutrition science is about what to eat. It gets complicated when that focus shifts form what to eat to how much to eat and/or when to eat. Knowing when to eat is simple and knowing when to stop eating is simple. Eat when you are hungry and stop when you are comfortably full (not stuffed). Calorie restriction (CR) & IF (and other forms of time restricted eating) complicates when (and sometimes also how much) one should be eating because it proclaims you should not eat even when you are hungry or you must stop eating before being satiated. CR as a means of weight control or as an attempt to induce longevity or slow aging complicates how much one should eat. If one understand how different foods impact disease risk factors and satiety/kcal, one can change what is being consumed in order to treat and prevent disease and maintain a healthy body weight and likely live a longer and healthier life. Pitting will power against the hunger drive is very hard to sustain over time and is likely a major factor promoting the development of most eating disorders. ”

[geo]

I think you will appreciate this.

Yes! Very much so. Its what I have come to believe over the years through a lot of trial, error, and much critical thinking thanks to you.

Sometimes I think I try to make this too simple, then I realize I can't come up with a good reason to make it more difficult

Eat your starches, veggies, fruits, when hungry eat till your comfortably full, drink clean water, breathe clean air, keep your BMI at the low end of healthy, use calorie density to control weight, get some sun, and exercise a bit...then go do something else

In my journal, I posted last week my rules for a long, healthy, and rewarding life: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=57313#p582322

So why does my home nutrition, exercise and health library keep expanding?

[JeffN]

If you are interested, here is a update on the state of the science in regard to CR, from Luigi Fontana

This is in print form, from a published article

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4547605/

This is in video form, in a YouTube video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7wGfy-vRKk

I am sure it may raise more questions then answers but i think it raises several points you may find of value

In Health
Jeff

[jay kaye]

Love following Luigi Fontana. Thanks for telling me about him years ago.

So in the linked video, Luigi Fontana again makes reference to the value of protein restriction. (53:40 Importance of low protein / methionine restriction for longevity independent of CR (blocks tumor development)

In the following video he talks about Calorie restrictions giving the same tumor reduction results. Then he goes on to talk about amino acids intake and glucose tolerance.

What is still unclear to me is the question, particularity in regards to tumors: Is it the CR or protein restrictions that is most important in this regard.

Thanks,
J

[JeffN]

Love following Luigi Fontana. Thanks for telling me about him years ago.

So in the linked video, Luigi Fontana again makes reference to the value of protein restriction. (53:40 Importance of low protein / methionine restriction for longevity independent of CR (blocks tumor development)

In the following video he talks about Calorie restrictions giving the same tumor reduction results. Then he goes on to talk about amino acids intake and glucose tolerance.

What is still unclear to me is the question, particularity in regards to tumors: Is it the CR or protein restrictions that is most important in this regard.

Thanks,
J

From my perspective, If you listen closely, it is the same as we discussed before. What he is calling restriction, I am calling (and others) moderation or normal levels.

He is recommending the .8gm/kg per day for total protein, with no specifics on individual amino acids. If you do this and make the majority of your "protein rich foods" plants, without overdoing them, and limit any animal protein (if included) you accomplish what he is referring to as "restriction" in both total protein and the individual amino acids he mentioned. However, it is really just moderation and in regard to total protein, the actual RDA/DRI.

For most Americans, hitting the RDA would be a form of restriction from where they are now, but I just can't see calling the RDA a form of "intervention of protein restriction."

It is not different then I wrote up in an earlier thread where he did the rat and human studies

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=40765&#p418994



In Health
Jeff

[jay kaye]

From my perspective, If you listen closely, it is the same as we discussed before. What he is calling restriction, I am calling (and others) moderation or normal levels.

He is recommending the .8gm/kg per day for total protein, with no specifics on individual amino acids. If you do this and make the majority of your "protein rich foods" plants, without overdoing them, and limit any animal protein (if included) you accomplish what he is referring to as "restriction" in both total protein and the individual amino acids he mentioned. However, it is really just moderation and in regard to total protein, the actual RDA/DRI.

For most Americans, hitting the RDA would be a form of restriction from where they are now, but I just can't see calling the RDA a form of "intervention of protein restriction."

It is not different then I wrote up in an earlier thread where he did the rat and human studies

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=40765&#p418994



In Health
Jeff

So, if I understand your above answer, the McDougall plan is already falling into the Fontana definition of "restriction" as it compares to the SAD. The benefits of what he says is restriction is, therefore, present in the regular McDougall program.

J

[geo]

Thank you Jeff! Appreciate this article on the SOTA in CR (more so since it was written by LF which I probably respect most of all the current big name CR researchers). I'll try to spend some time tomorrow to go through it all, but from the little I've read of it so far I feel pretty confident that I'm doing about as best I can in terms of CRON while also eschueing all the pharmacological manipulations (which I am always leary about). I.e., (What some might call) A tightly controlled MWL program following all your principles, guidelines and recommendations coupled with a heavy dose of common sense and real life expectations... what I commented on above and written previously

[JeffN]

Thank you Jeff! Appreciate this article on the SOTA in CR (more so since it was written by LF which I probably respect most of all the current big name CR researchers).

Agreed. I think he is the one with the most integrity.

I'll try to spend some time tomorrow to go through it all, but from the little I've read of it so far I feel pretty confident that I'm doing about as best I can in terms of CRON while also eschueing all the pharmacological manipulations (which I am always leary about). I.e., (What some might call) A tightly controlled MWL program following all your principles, guidelines and recommendations coupled with a heavy dose of common sense and real life expectations... what I commented on above and written previously :nod

I agree, in real life common sense terms.

In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

From my perspective, If you listen closely, it is the same as we discussed before. What he is calling restriction, I am calling (and others) moderation or normal levels.

He is recommending the .8gm/kg per day for total protein, with no specifics on individual amino acids. If you do this and make the majority of your "protein rich foods" plants, without overdoing them, and limit any animal protein (if included) you accomplish what he is referring to as "restriction" in both total protein and the individual amino acids he mentioned. However, it is really just moderation and in regard to total protein, the actual RDA/DRI.

For most Americans, hitting the RDA would be a form of restriction from where they are now, but I just can't see calling the RDA a form of "intervention of protein restriction."

It is not different then I wrote up in an earlier thread where he did the rat and human studies

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=40765&#p418994



In Health
Jeff

So, if I understand your above answer, the McDougall plan is already falling into the Fontana definition of "restriction" as it compares to the SAD. The benefits of what he says is restriction is, therefore, present in the regular McDougall program.

J

I would encourage you to do an experiment, and report back.

Calculate your RDA for protein based on .8gm/kg. This should be based on your ideal weight.

Then put in a typical days food and see how you do.

You will most likely be a little (to somewhat) over in the protein, which just shows how easy it is to get enough and even a little more.

It may take some minor tweaks to hit the RDA, or come close. I wouldn't want to go below the RDA in either total protein or any individual amino acid (for now).

Remember, even though you will be shooting for the RDA, this is all still in theory. And, as Fontana said early on, these are all associations and casual relationships. None of this is cast in stone.

When I put my recommendation up to be in the lower end of the BMI range (18.5 - 22) it seemed many interpreted that to mean 18.5 is best. Same here. We have a really good idea that not overdoing protein and choosing mostly if not all plant foods as sources, is the target, not any exact number.

In Health
Jeff

[geo]

OK, so I've "read" the article (read is very subjective when you can't truly understand half of the alphabet soup being used), and nothing in it strikes me as being new (relative to what we have discussed here over the past few years and granted that the article is a few years old). But none-the-less, nothing in it jumps out at me as something that I haven't already implimented or can easily impliment into my current program, except one, and that is the idea of limiting eating time to 5-7 hours a day. I need to take a closer look at those particular reference papers to see how solid they may be (though to be honest, I suspect in light of my current dietary program it will make no difference at all).

So I believe I'm in good standing as far as the known science is concerned, even though much of it is basically hypothetical in nature and based on limited human studies (despite the almost 150 reference papers sited). And I think that is something that current CRON/CRAN supporters really need to better understand. Theories require extensive testing and duplication and in this case in the same species, hypotheses much less so.

I found it interesting that LF wants to change the nomenclature from CR (Calorie Restriction) to DR (Dietary Restriction). He is correct that longevity does involve more than just calorie restriction and needs to encompass other dietary factors so thats a good thing. Having thought about this a little more, I disagree with both the usage of CR and DR as they are not truly representative of what the totality of nutritional science shows when it comes to a healthy paradigm of nutritional excellence.

Restriction is a negative term generally and in the case of nutritional excellence and longevity producing effects I think its just wrong. Its wrong in both the initial perspective of what proper nutrition is and in the possible outcomes possible without restrictions. It also really turns people off to the idea of nutritional excellence and longevity when you use such terms as restrictions implying to most something thats going to be in some way difficult or painful or unpleasant to impliment. I think thats totally untrue and unnecessary to the goal of health excellence and longevity and quality of life.

Instead I proposed the rather uncatchy term, NR - Nutritional Regulation - implying that its the controlling of dietary habits that leads to desired outcomes and not any restriction per se. This accomplishes 2 things, getting rid of negative connotations and implying that nutritional/health excellence is not a goal per se but rather the norm. That maintaining NR is about maintaining the proper nutritional health and that deviating from such either by restriction or over-indulgence is counter productive to health and longevity.

To me its about a broader persepctive. Longevity and health should be considered the norm, not a goal that needs to be strived for and difficult to maintain. Rather something to adjust as needed, i.e., regulated when you can't or don't maintain that norm.This idea that ad libitum is the antithesis of restricted when it comes to nutritional matters I believe is simply wrong.

It is entirely possible (and easly achievable) to nutritionally eat an ad-libitum, highly varied, diet AND meet all the nutritional RDI's as are known today AND follow all the current science that CR says may be important. Satiety is not in any way impossible or even difficult to achieve on a proper nutritious, healthy, longevity producing diet. Nor is anything special needed. We teach that here. I've proven it to my satisfaction in myself (and I'm my own toughest critic and skeptic).

Oh well, now I'm off to watch that video and check out a few of those reference studies on timing...

[JeffN]

But none-the-less, nothing in it jumps out at me as something that I haven't already implimented or can easily impliment into my current program, except one, and that is the idea of limiting eating time to 5-7 hours a day. I need to take a closer look at those particular reference papers to see how solid they may be (though to be honest, I suspect in light of my current dietary program it will make no difference at all).

I would recommend you review the thread on IF.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=36724

In Health
Jeff

[geo]

Thanks Jeff,

Been there done that. Its one of your classic threads I keep bookmarked I'm basically at the #4 point... I was hoping that there might be some newer references in LF's paper since he does seem to insist that a time issue may be important...as in a 5-7 hour eating window vs a true IF program. Since you already eat 2 meals a day you probably automatically follow that window idea. I try to eat a regular 3 meals plus snacks schedule though lately because of my new job its turning into more of a 2 larger meals a day schedule. So far I'm adjusting to it just fine (never did like eating BF at 5AM ) and missing it doesn't really seem to cause me any additional hunger till lunch so it was an easy switch. (I'm guessing the effects of heavy labor on my hunger drive being significantly dulled has a great deal to do with it). Now, I eat lunch from 12:30 to 1PM and then eat again around 7PM when I get home. The only change I notice is that my 7PM meal is generally larger than I like to eat in the evening but at least I give myself a couple hours before bedtime so that doesnt seem to interupt my normal sleep patterns (I do prefer to go to bed on an empty stomach). Anyways, that seems to fit the 5-7 hour eating window idea for now. I just doubt it will change anything at all but we will see...and if nothing else it will prove out the further flexibility of the MWL program in my mind.

Just a point to note: It does seem incredibly easy to switch eating patterns after you've been on the MWL for a few years. Its as if your body finds it easier to break long held habits (learned behaviers)...I'm thinking breaking the food addictions to hyper-palatable foods is a big reason for the easy switch.

[JeffN]

I was hoping that there might be some newer references in LF's paper since he does seem to insist that a time issue may be important...as in a 5-7 hour eating window vs a true IF program.

He said they are new ones he can't talk about yet but will be out soon. But, no one study is ever going to prove anything and like most other of these modified fasting plans, it depends on what it is pitted against in the study and whether the outcomes are "better" then what we normally see.

Here are the screen shots





As we can see, in the first one, they are overweight/obese people who will do a crossover.

In the second one, they are at healthier weights but its a healthy MED diet vs an (Unhealthy) Western Diet

Want to wager a bet which will prove better in each one?

Since you already eat 2 meals a day you probably automatically follow that window idea.

Yes. For decades but never thought of as IF, just what works for me. It is not a rule, just the pattern I feel best with. First meal around noonish and second one around 5-6ish. If hungry, may have snack somewhere in there, after or before.

My reaction when I started was the same as yours and have just maintained it for decades.

It's covered in the Meal Frequency thread

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=26337

This is the most important point...

"Some people just can't maintain a meal plan with fewer meals and some just can't maintain a meal plan with more frequent meals. I am one of the latter, and so, I keep a more limited meal plan but would not insist on that for someone who felt more comfortable with more frequent meals as long as the overall dietary and nutritional pattern is the same.”

In Health
Jeff