Unraveling the Mystery: The Science Behind Caloric Restriction and Aging

[ngrunenberg]

Good Evening,

I have a question regarding, what seems to be the only proven way to extend life-span, caloric restriction. There seem to be new studies coming out every other month showing that caloric restriction is very positively correlated with an increase in lifespan, as well as a decrease in chronic diseases. The mechanisms behind this seem to be "[reductions in the] metabolic rate and oxidative stress, [improved] insulin sensitivity, and [altered] neuroendocrine and sympathetic nervous system function in animals."¹

In his newest book, Michio Kaku even points out that out of the three potential paths to immortality, “[...] one and only one method has proven to extend the life span of animals, sometimes even doubling it. It is caloric restriction, or severely limiting the intake of calories in an animal's diet.” He then continues to drive this point home "[...] On average, animals that eat 30 percent fewer calories live 30 percent longer. This has been amply demonstrated with yeast cells, worms, insects, mice and rats, dogs and cats, and now primates. In fact, it is the only method that is universally accepted by scientists to alter the life span of all animals that have been tested so far.”

A 30% extension in lifespan is insane, especially since it seems to be quite linear in regards to how much you restrict calorie intake.

My question then is this, and it involves two parts:

1) I am on a 4,000+ calorie diet as I exercise quite frequently and am attempting to gain muscle mass while keeping my body fat low. If I eat less than 3,000 calories, I will lose weight (my current BMI is ~22 with a BFP of ~8%). Are the benefits of calorie restriction mostly for people who are typically overindulging, based on the recommended daily 2,000 calorie intake, or would I still have to reduce intake of calories and thus reduce my exercise load in order to reap the benefits of caloric restriction. If you know of any studies where this has been tested in athletes or body builders, that would be of great help.

2) Why would we evolve to seek out the maximum number of calories, when it apparently seems to be detrimental past a certain threshold? Is it because we humans are unique in being able to, for the most part in the developed world, create and consume calories on demand to the point where we created a calorie rich environment faster than what evolution could potentially "create" adaptations for lowering those mechanisms which made us seek out calories in the first place?

​

 

[phinds]

Kaku was at one time a respected physicist. Today he's a popularizer of the worst sort and there are plentiful examples of his willingness to expound on topics in which he has no training, and often apparently no knowledge, so although I can't comment directly on his claims about nutrition, I recommend that you take anything he says with a TRUCKLOAD of salt.

 

[Rive]

A 30% extension in lifespan is insane,

Especially if you translate this method honestly, as: 'this way starving to death takes 80 years'.

Why would we evolve to seek out the maximum number of calories, when it apparently seems to be detrimental past a certain threshold?

The main focus of human evolution is what happens till age of ~ 50. To actively live a life you need calories, and that was far less abundant way back than right now.

 

[russ_watters]

I have a question regarding, what seems to be the only proven way to extend life-span, caloric restriction. There seem to be new studies coming out every other month showing that caloric restriction is very positively correlated with an increase in lifespan, as well as a decrease in chronic diseases. The mechanisms behind this seem to be "[reductions in the] metabolic rate and oxidative stress, [improved] insulin sensitivity, and [altered] neuroendocrine and sympathetic nervous system function in animals."¹

Please cite some peer reviewed research on the subject.

 

[Dr_Zinj]

1) If you're active enough to burn 4000+ calories a day, your system is dealing with the metabolic waste products of that, and your metabolic rate is too high for extended longevity. You're not going to see any lifespan prolongation until you're below the 2000 calories per day level. In most biological systems, there's always tradeoffs. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

2) We evolved to seek out the maximum number of calories, even when it apparently seems to be detrimental past a certain threshold because for the vast majority of human existence, humans rarely were able to reach that level of caloric consumption. And when we did, it was usually episodic: fruit ripened all at once and we gorged on it, we discovered a wild bee hive and gorged on it, we drove a herd over a cliff and gorged on it for a week. Those events were few and far between, so we went hungry or ate minimally between them. It wasn't until we learned to farm and herd animals on our own, and preserve food, that we were able to stockpile enough to eat as much as we felt like all the time. Which is also one of the reasons for the obesity epidemic in western nations.

 

[Sherwood Botsford]

Google human longevity research.

Psychology Today has a blog of a woman's struggles with anorexia. Very solid posts, links to research on starvation, and the impact on the mind-body.

I've read of others who did the caloric restriction and they confirm the blogs:

* You are hungry all the time. You are obsessing about food, about waiting for food.
* You are cold all the time. Chronic hunger lowers your basal metabolic rate.
* You get stupid. There is a brain shrinkage of 4-10% as the brain uses up lipids internally for fuel.

At this point the evidence I've read indicates that oxidation/free radicals are the main culprit. Do what you can to decrease there effects. Some indications that metformin a diabetes drug and another, that is an anticancer drug has good effects in mouse models. Human trials are underway.

https://www.lifeextension.com/Magazine/2017/4/Metformin-Slashes-Cancer-Risks/Page-01

 

[phinds]

1) If you're active enough to burn 4000+ calories a day, your system is dealing with the metabolic waste products of that, and your metabolic rate is too high for extended longevity.

Gee, Michael Phelps is going to be sorry to hear that since when he's training he eats and burns as much as 12,000 calories a day [I thought that was a misprint the first time I read it but apparently it's true] and he's a very healthy guy.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Kaku was at one time a respected physicist.

I'd call him a futurist with a physics background

Gee, Michael Phelps is going to be sorry to hear that since when he's training he eats and burns as much as 12,000 calories a day [I thought that was a misprint the first time I read it but apparently it's true] and he's a very healthy guy.

A bit more info on the diet. Note Phelps has said the specific 12k mark might be a bit of exaggeration, but none-the-less it's a huge amount.
https://nypost.com/2008/08/13/phelps-pig-secret-hes-boy-gorge/

 

[Rive]

Michael Phelps ... burns as much as 12,000 calories a day

Swimming does that.. At a water temperature what allows all that muscle work you just burn calories at a really crazy rate.

 

[BillTre]

The Rock (Dwane Johnson) also eats crazy large amounts of food (>5,000 calories/day), but does a lot of exercise.
Here is a 538 article on it and a guy who tried it out.

 

[Laroxe]

Ageing is a complicated affair and seems to involve a number of mechanisms that lead to a fixed maximum at around 125 years (though this has recently been challenged), so far as far as we know no human has exceeded this possible limit. This limit has variously been attributed to the limited number of stem cells and a possible limit on cellular reproduction which could be marked by telomere shortening.
There is the well known accumulation of genetic errors with each cell division and epigenetic changes which causes increased errors in cell metabolism and an accumulation of abnormal proteins. These might also lead to a breakdown of intra cellular communication and loss of the many “checkpoints” on the cells behaviour. As products of metabolism some toxic proteins are cannot be removed and accumulate in cells leading to mitochondrial dysfunction, reactive oxygen species, produced during metabolism, may contribute to this dysfunction and damage other intracellular structures. Unfortunately the whole oxidative damage idea became much more complicated as it became understood
The immune system becomes less efficient and may fail to identify cells for destruction cells accumulate that are effectively non functional, so called cellular senescence.
Then as we age the levels of a range of hormones and pre-cursor hormones falls and I expect there will be other issues I haven't thought of and like it or not we do have to factor in a whole range of environmental effects.
If indeed it is possible to extend our lifespan beyond these limits its going to need a lot more than calorie restriction and to be honest we simply don't know if it works in humans. The research on monkeys seems to get rather mixed results there seems little doubt that calorie restriction (relative to previous intake but without malnutrition) does reduce the incidence of age related disorders, whether it effects lifespan is debatable. I linked to one of these studies.
Some people suggest that exercise effectively mimics the effect of calorie restriction but it may be that a shift to a ketone based metabolism is required.
I expect we like calorie rich foods because they are exactly that, concentrated nutrients and when food is unpredictable you grab it when you can.
Nature doesn't give a toss whether we live beyond 125, in fact our deaths might be a built in design feature and we should die well before the maximum. If you haven't reproduced by then your just filling space, old mother nature can be very cruel. :)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3832985/

 

[JamesPhD]

Good Evening,

I have a question regarding, what seems to be the only proven way to extend life-span, caloric restriction. There seem to be new studies coming out every other month showing that caloric restriction is very positively correlated with an increase in lifespan, as well as a decrease in chronic diseases. The mechanisms behind this seem to be "[reductions in the] metabolic rate and oxidative stress, [improved] insulin sensitivity, and [altered] neuroendocrine and sympathetic nervous system function in animals."¹

In his newest book, Michio Kaku even points out that out of the three potential paths to immortality, “[...] one and only one method has proven to extend the life span of animals, sometimes even doubling it. It is caloric restriction, or severely limiting the intake of calories in an animal's diet.” He then continues to drive this point home "[...] On average, animals that eat 30 percent fewer calories live 30 percent longer. This has been amply demonstrated with yeast cells, worms, insects, mice and rats, dogs and cats, and now primates. In fact, it is the only method that is universally accepted by scientists to alter the life span of all animals that have been tested so far.”

A 30% extension in lifespan is insane, especially since it seems to be quite linear in regards to how much you restrict calorie intake.

My question then is this, and it involves two parts:

1) I am on a 4,000+ calorie diet as I exercise quite frequently and am attempting to gain muscle mass while keeping my body fat low. If I eat less than 3,000 calories, I will lose weight (my current BMI is ~22 with a BFP of ~8%). Are the benefits of calorie restriction mostly for people who are typically overindulging, based on the recommended daily 2,000 calorie intake, or would I still have to reduce intake of calories and thus reduce my exercise load in order to reap the benefits of caloric restriction. If you know of any studies where this has been tested in athletes or body builders, that would be of great help.

2) Why would we evolve to seek out the maximum number of calories, when it apparently seems to be detrimental past a certain threshold? Is it because we humans are unique in being able to, for the most part in the developed world, create and consume calories on demand to the point where we created a calorie rich environment faster than what evolution could potentially "create" adaptations for lowering those mechanisms which made us seek out calories in the first place?

​

This is actually my current research right now. We created drugs that essentially hit all the same pathways as caloric restriction . So I am probably one of maybe 10 people in the world that know how to stay young forever because I understand the biological mechanisms involved. I am uncovering new discoveries in this area every day that no one else in the world knows about yet. So I want to publish my paper soon.

You should keep exercising. All I can say is that the biological stress you put on your system through exercise, enhances the system and primes it for stress later in life, keeping you younger for longer. It doesn't necessarily have to be a reduction in calories. But the reduction in calories may also stress the system. It is still under investigation. When I cure aging, I'll let you know. Apparently, if you're not a US citizen, that only want you in the US for a certain amount of time on a visa. I guess I should tell them I have the potential to cure alzheimers parkinsons and aging. But oh, never mind my visa is up. Better go back to europe.

 

[bhobba]

We created drugs that essentially hit all the same pathways as caloric restriction . So I am probably one of maybe 10 people in the world that know how to stay young forever because I understand the biological mechanisms involved. I am uncovering new discoveries in this area every day that no one else in the world knows about yet. So I want to publish my paper soon.

That's one strong claim - a type of super Resveratrol I suppose. Be aware by forum rules we do not discuss such ground breaking claims until its published in a peer reviewed journal so further discussion here can not happen until then.

Just for general educational purposes we do not really know the ultimate human life span, but it can't be forever due to fatal accidents which limits it on the average to about 1000 years. That is just one issue. I recently broke my Femur, but had a complication - a rod holding it together snapped, probably caused by something in how they put it all together coming loose. At the moment they are hopeful it will still heal, but if not I may have problems. Things like this will happen, so while you may not die your body will become more and more decrepit the older you get until an accident takes you out. The idea of living forever young and healthy is a chimera even if we had such a wonder drug. Medical advances will help a lot, but it is quite possible being young and healthy forever will always be beyond our reach.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Please cite some peer reviewed research on the subject.

Good point. There are many claims about it in Nature, Scientific America etc, but I haven't actually seen one peer reviewed paper about it.

The most interesting fact about it I know was when Dr Mosley, in one of his documentaries, found a person who took caloric restriction to heart and went permanently on 1800 calories (if I recall correctly). He ensured he got proper nutrients by doing rather strange things like just eating the skin of an apple because that's where all the nutrients were. Both the person concerned and Dr Mosely looked pretty skinny - not the pot bellied hunk of physical non fitness I am. But when they put them through a Cat Scan the person on caloric restriction had almost no visceral fat - the supposedly dangerous stuff. The person that did the scan was in awe - he had only ever seen it in elite athletes - and looking at the person you could see he was no elite athlete - although he looked reasonably fit. Dr Mosley on the other hand had it by the ton - at levels that were perhaps dangerous. It scared the bejesus out of him and he came up with his 5-2 diet that I used to follow but got sick of.

Because of that I suspect there is something to it - but there is nothing like a peer reviewed study.

Thanks
Bill

 

[JamesPhD]

That's one strong claim - a type of super Resveratrol I suppose. Be aware by forum rules we do not discuss such ground breaking claims until its published in a peer reviewed journal so further discussion here can not happen until then.

I wouldn't discuss the outline of this online for the sake of a forum discussion until its published either, since I want to get the credit. But thanks Bill.

 

[Pythagorean]

Studies on longevity considering caloric restriction have found sirt3 genes to underly the mechanism:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413110004079
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1097276512009057
http://www.jbc.org/content/287/17/14078.short

Sprinkled throughout the literature, you will also find cold exposure, like caloric restriction, is associated with extended longevity through sirt3 regulation.

 

[JamesPhD]

Studies on longevity considering caloric restriction have found sirt3 genes to underly the mechanism:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413110004079
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1097276512009057
http://www.jbc.org/content/287/17/14078.short

Sprinkled throughout the literature, you will also find cold exposure, like caloric restriction, is associated with extended longevity through sirt3 regulation.

Basically mitochondrial biology.