44 replies to this topic

[Snoopy]

Ferigno was notoriously putting away upto 8000 calories per day. He has done body building all his life... now at 61 he looks at least a decade younger than his age. A testament that calorie restriction should not be taken as gospel, especially if you are an athletic genotype.... He's probably never had a deficiency in his life. The food has facilitated his consistant exercise routine, self confidence, success etc... all major contributiors to a long and happy life...

Take a look!

[Mind]

61 is a little early to be judging, IMO. Let us hypothetically say Lou lives to be 90, and CR people live to be 100. It is a value judgement. Are the extra 10 years of life in (probably) good health worth the sacrifice of CR? To some maybe, but one would still feel the effects of aging, and (probably) would not be able to do even 10% of the things one did in the prime of life.

Of course, if one is already aged, CR might be the best intervention to keep yourself in better health in order to live long enough to see rejuvenation technology become a reality.

[Snoopy]

That's a good diplomatic answer!

I have come to the conclusion through the failure of a 3 month CR program which lead to depression and the success of a high calorie diet which lead to huge boost in self confidence that those extra years are not worth the trouble, personally.

Calories aside I still eat totally clean, high quality foods. Similar to Ferigno I would imagine.

[platypus]

Arnold looks at least decade older than Lou, even though their age-difference is only 3 years. Arnold has probably stopped steroids and cannot train too much due to his busy life, while Lou has kept it up.

[1kgcoffee]

Schwarzennegar has had heart bypass surgery, while Ferrigno hasn't. Maybe Lou has better genes, better glucose/cholesterol metabolism, more SOD. He could be peeing out those extra calories while Schwarzennegar accumulates them in his arteries. Or maybe Lou chose a better combination of steroids. I know a 50y/o personal trainer, juicing since he was 15. He too looks exceptionally good for his age.

Another thing is that Arnold has had a much busier career.

Could be that Ferrigno has a babyface and less photoaging.

I definitely believe that weight training, clean diet and keeping a trim physique is almost as good as full blown CR.

[zorba990]

Ferigno was notoriously putting away upto 8000 calories per day. He has done body building all his life... now at 61 he looks at least a decade younger than his age. A testament that calorie restriction should not be taken as gospel, especially if you are an athletic genotype.... He's probably never had a deficiency in his life. The food has facilitated his consistant exercise routine, self confidence, success etc... all major contributiors to a long and happy life...

Take a look!

http://www.mensfitne...gno-stay-so-fit
If this is accurate then he eats:

Ferrigno’s regular diet includes 3-4 small meals a day based heavily on healthy proteins like fish along with fruits and vegetables.

Which sounds paleo to me. The amount probably tapered to his size. I know he's been up to 300lbs at 4% body fat so at his present size he is probably not eating anywhere close to 8000 calls a day. Not sure if the hair is real though....

I take that back...
http://www.baldceleb...t-not-very-much

Edited by zorba990, 24 June 2012 - 02:17 AM.

[niner]

Ferrigno’s regular diet includes 3-4 small meals a day based heavily on healthy proteins like fish along with fruits and vegetables.

Which sounds paleo to me. The amount probably tapered to his size. I know he's been up to 300lbs at 4% body fat so at his present size he is probably not eating anywhere close to 8000 calls a day.

Well, I was going to say that if he's eating 8000 Cal/d, he's probably not making it to 90. If he's gone to a lighter paleo regime, well, we'll see. He could still drop dead, you never know. The dude looks great though- he's got good genes. Reminds me of a friend of mine; not a lifter, but the guy hasn't aged a day in 20 years. However, good skin doesn't keep you alive; for that you need good vasculature. They might be correlated, though.

[Brafarality]

Fully agree.
While I do not disagree in principle with the tenets of calorie restriction, I believe it is being wrongly and poorly applied in every living instance today.
The problem is that we do not fully understand how nutrition absorption and metabolism scales down as calories scale down.
You dont just cut 10% of what you were eating in exact proportion and expect that exact 10% loss to be properly accounted for by the primordial body, particularly if you start suddenly. It is too intellectual a construct to work effectively when our understanding of the body, in such a scientific way, is in such an infantile state.
But, if you return to the ancient wisdom, you can find the perfect diet, which will not need to rely upon poorly-developed science, so it will not fail on false premises.
Cheers all. Fine Sunday!

Edited by Brafarality, 24 June 2012 - 09:18 AM.

[Snoopy]

Bloody intelligent comments from all of you!

Will reflect on what is said here!

[zorba990]

Chuck Norris, 72. Looks pretty good for a redhead and sun worshipper.
http://cbswwmx.wordp...k-norris-today/

[Luminosity]

61 is not too early to see if someone will age well. He looks very good.

Calorie restriction in humans to prevent aging is just a theory. I don't believe it, especially with the food supply being so devitalized these days. It could lead to malnutrition. I also think that life should include some joy and you shouldn't feel deprived all the time.

[scottknl]

The phrase "just a theory" is a bit loaded. CR is currently being testing in thousands of individuals and we may get some results before other advances make it redundant. As it stands right now, the results look pretty healthy for people doing it. As for Lou, I'd say he hasn't really held on to his youth all that much. At most he looks about 5 years younger than his real age. In other words mid 50's with some hair dye. When he hits his first big medical challenge, then he will likely start to look a little more like Arnold.

The way someone looks can be very decieving. Many people look quite good and then keel over from a heart attack or stroke without any warning. I'd love to take a peek at Lou and Arnold's cholesterol profiles and see how that looks. In all sincerity, I hope they're doing well. However I suspect that problems are lurking from their past excesses.

Aging seems to not be a continuous process. It's more like people move from one age range to another. Teenagers -> Young Adult (20 - 45) ->Mid Age ( 45 - 55) -> Young Old Age (55 - 75) -> Old Age (75 - 85) -> Advanced Old Age (85-100) -> Extreme Age (100+)

Most people who are in middle age are never really mistaken for someone in young adult. Or in Lou's case you couldn't really say he looks mid age instead of his real old age. The interesting thing is that the older CR practioners have great numbers, but in looks they don't really look a lot younger than their real ages. I've yet to see a CR person in the 55 - 75 age range appear to be in the 20 - 45 age range. Yeah, you can be on the border, but you can't just look as if you skipped two ranges.

[Mind]

61 is not too early to see if someone will age well. He looks very good.

Calorie restriction in humans to prevent aging is just a theory. I don't believe it, especially with the food supply being so devitalized these days. It could lead to malnutrition. I also think that life should include some joy and you shouldn't feel deprived all the time.

I have tried CR off-n-on a couple times for a few months at a time. I didn't like feeling deprived all the time. If I kept very busy, I didn't notice so much, but it is still there. I like to enjoy life, and that includes food, which I like to grow. Dedicated CR practiioners have achieved a monk-like mental state of sacrifice (IMO) which is fine. It takes a lot of willpower to sacrifice primal/evolutionary urges in order to achieve some possible gains in life extension, but it is not for everyone.

[Shepard]

Comparing Arnold to Lou isn't a good example. Arnold has had much more stress in his career, and Lou essentially relies on his physique and appearance for income. I see him once or twice a year at various shows and he does look good, but not that much better than Stallone or Zane, all things considered.

[TheFountain]

The way someone looks can be very decieving. Many people look quite good and then keel over from a heart attack or stroke without any warning.

I don't think this is true really.

Excessive abdominal fat contributes to the diseases you mention, and to down trodden appearance. So there can certainly be a correlation between appearance of health and actual health. I think this kind of paranoia of "anyone can die whenever" is just bad for ones mental health though. Even if in some abstract way it might possibly be true (examples being Asteroid impact, plague etc). Plus the media tends to isolate the rare cases and makes it seem more prevalent than it is, thus inflating paranoia.

Anyway, I find 'deathist' revery to be quite unhealthy, even if the person doing it is not 'deathist' per se. Focus on life, not the absence of it. The latter will turn you into a hypochondriac as it did to me for a while.

[TheFountain]

But anyway I do think lou looks very youthful for 61. Would be ridiculous not to admit so.

[scottknl]

The way someone looks can be very decieving. Many people look quite good and then keel over from a heart attack or stroke without any warning.

I don't think this is true really.

Excessive abdominal fat contributes to the diseases you mention, and to down trodden appearance. So there can certainly be a correlation between appearance of health and actual health. I think this kind of paranoia of "anyone can die whenever" is just bad for ones mental health though. Even if in some abstract way it might possibly be true (examples being Asteroid impact, plague etc). Plus the media tends to isolate the rare cases and makes it seem more prevalent than it is, thus inflating paranoia.

Anyway, I find 'deathist' revery to be quite unhealthy, even if the person doing it is not 'deathist' per se. Focus on life, not the absence of it. The latter will turn you into a hypochondriac as it did to me for a while.

So, Fountain, have you ever heard of a thin person having a heart attack? It happens all the time. There are many different ways in which this pathology can happen. I console myself with the reality that people who have a similar cholesterol profile to mine never die of heart attacks and probably strokes too. Putting you head in the sand doesn't make the risks go away. You have to take some real action or else know that you've got a good set of caretaker genes. CR diet is one approach. I'm sure that one could construct a non-cr diet that also would be heart healthy for a full lifespan. Anyway, once those two big risks are out of the way I guess we all just exist on the same level playing field of daily risks to life an limb like driving, walking at a cross walk or under a ladder.

[Brafarality]

61 is not too early to see if someone will age well. He looks very good.

Calorie restriction in humans to prevent aging is just a theory. I don't believe it, especially with the food supply being so devitalized these days. It could lead to malnutrition. I also think that life should include some joy and you shouldn't feel deprived all the time.

I have tried CR off-n-on a couple times for a few months at a time. I didn't like feeling deprived all the time. If I kept very busy, I didn't notice so much, but it is still there. I like to enjoy life, and that includes food, which I like to grow. Dedicated CR practiioners have achieved a monk-like mental state of sacrifice (IMO) which is fine. It takes a lot of willpower to sacrifice primal/evolutionary urges in order to achieve some possible gains in life extension, but it is not for everyone.

And, it is kind of tragic that they are wasting their asceticism on something so fruitless and valueless as CR. If self-abnegation is for a higher purpose, then I would never be one to discourage it, but if it is pointless, then I would suggest abandoning it and indulging oneself in what life has to offer and what is desired and enjoyed. Anything less is a live poorly lived, imho.

[Snoopy]

One other pattern I picked up on which could be a causal factor - Lou uses the word "consistancy" a lot...

Myself and many friends have a tendency to train hard for a while, then quit for months because you feel knackered and can't keep up the routine... Big mistake! I think there is a 'sweet spot' for dosing exercise so you keep it going "consistantly"... that then facilitates the ability to train moderately in your 60's without worrying about niggles or excuses like "i don't have time... or energy" If you really want it, you make time... It's like a self perpetuating feedback loop...

I also remember reading an article that moderate weight training has a positive impact on all 10 major 'biomarkers'. Whereas cardio training brought up a few negatives out of those 10...

There are so many factors involved with Arnie and Lou - let's not forget Lou had a more solid happy marriage with kids... Didn't Arnie have a divorce? And smoke cigars... I also read Arnie's nutrition book which suggested dairy, cheese, beef pate's, egg yolks without any sign of moderating....

It's all starting to stack up now...

I agree with "TheFountain" about the cause and effect of what you think and how your body reacts - think positive all the time and the odds are massively in your favor!!! scottknl, I would not dwell or imagine those type of "ideas" too much as "the fountain" rightly recommends...

[1kgcoffee]

61 is not too early to see if someone will age well. He looks very good.

Calorie restriction in humans to prevent aging is just a theory. I don't believe it, especially with the food supply being so devitalized these days. It could lead to malnutrition. I also think that life should include some joy and you shouldn't feel deprived all the time.

I have tried CR off-n-on a couple times for a few months at a time. I didn't like feeling deprived all the time. If I kept very busy, I didn't notice so much, but it is still there. I like to enjoy life, and that includes food, which I like to grow. Dedicated CR practiioners have achieved a monk-like mental state of sacrifice (IMO) which is fine. It takes a lot of willpower to sacrifice primal/evolutionary urges in order to achieve some possible gains in life extension, but it is not for everyone.

And, it is kind of tragic that they are wasting their asceticism on something so fruitless and valueless as CR. If self-abnegation is for a higher purpose, then I would never be one to discourage it, but if it is pointless, then I would suggest abandoning it and indulging oneself in what life has to offer and what is desired and enjoyed. Anything less is a live poorly lived, imho.

I'm not sure how you can deny the benefits of CR, considering the evidence.
Also, self-indulgence doesn't necessarily lead to a happy life.

[Luminosity]

Evidence, in humans? Let's see it.

Someone earlier in the thread also implied that CR is more than a theory. No matter how crisply and confidently a theory is presented, it is just that.

Moderation and balance is generally best. Some self-indulgence is good for the soul. Living above your body and disregarding its feelings is not healthy; it WILL get you back. The CR people I've seen on TV looked less than bursting with energy.

[niner]

Evidence, in humans? Let's see it.

Someone earlier in the thread also implied that CR is more than a theory. No matter how crisply and confidently a theory is presented, it is just that.

I believe the evidence in humans is presently in the form of biomarkers. Evidence in primates is undoubtedly more advanced. When an intervention has the same basic results in virtually any lifeform from bacteria through chimps, it would be pretty silly to think that it didn't apply to humans because we're so "special".

When a scientist uses the word "theory", it has a meaning that is different than (and preceded) the meaning applied to it by the general public. Do you know which meaning you are using?

[FadeIntoBig]

I have come to the conclusion through the failure of a 3 month CR program which lead to depression and the success of a high calorie diet which lead to huge boost in self confidence that those extra years are not worth the trouble, personally.

I couldn't agree more... CR may be more-or-less proven effective for life-forms that are driven more by instinct than by reason and social interaction, but when all is said and done, even if CR does effectively increase human life span (I personally doubt it), I believe there will be great debate as to whether or not it is worth it. One fairly obvious distinction between the animal studies and human experimentation w/ CR is that human CR as discussed here is done voluntarily.. In other words, perhaps CR may be effective for lab rats and even humans if the organism is forced into some sort of semi-hibernation state by a lack of calories, but the same physiology just doesn't apply when CR is done by self-deprivation.

One other thing to ponder... Could it be that the chow they feed the controls in most of these CR experiments is just total crap? Kind of like the standard american diet, where the mere act of eating less of the S.A.D. would prolong lifespan even if you matched calories w/ better food? For example, the feed they use for what is commonly called the "high fat diet" in rodent studies is purposely (b/c the metabolic co-morbidity happens faster, and time is money in the research world) loaded with Omega 6 PUFA's along with high-glycemic carbs. "High Fat" really turns out to be a misnomer in that case. Something to look into maybe if you're thinking about trying CR - I don't have the answer off hand...

I realize criticism for CR is almost sacrilege on this forum, but really I find it hard enough to function in the modern world w/o voluntarily depressing other things important to a meaningful life such as adequate leptin levels, mTOR, a balanced and robust endocrine system, etc.

I've been diagnosed w/ Type II DM, and after initially losing most of the excess body fat (I'm 12 to 13% now) and normalizing most other metabolic markers with a low carb diet, I tried CR so as completely normalize blood glucose. It did make some difference, but I was miserable. I've since bumped my carb intake to more moderate levels (50 - 100g per day) of what the paleo dieters would call "safe starches", and not only do I feel better but my BG levels have stayed within a "pre-diabetic" range, and perhaps most importantly I can face each day with the will to make a difference while I'm living instead of simply trying to prolong existence.

That said, if CR is for you and you can tolerate it, more power to ya.

[TheFountain]

So, Fountain, have you ever heard of a thin person having a heart attack?

One can be 'thin' and still have a lot of body fat because of poor diet.

It happens all the time.

No it doesn't, you're just focusing too much on the exceptions rather than the rule. For every one person who this happens to there are thousands it doesn't happen to. Think of it that way.

There are many different ways in which this pathology can happen. I console myself with the reality that people who have a similar cholesterol profile to mine never die of heart attacks and probably strokes too. Putting you head in the sand doesn't make the risks go away.

There is a difference between keeping your head out of the sand and focusing on death and doom all day and night. Personally, the latter has caused me extreme anxiety and a panic disorder. And I have known other's that it has done the same to. I have my regimen set up to where it is second nature to me now, I don't even think about it. Every few months I catch up on research. Focusing on this stuff every day, objectifying everything every day is not a healthy way to live IMO. I prefer to focus on art, music, poetry, philosophy while supplementing this with some scientific research every couple months. That's my happy medium that gets me through every day without being an extremist.

You have to take some real action or else know that you've got a good set of caretaker genes.

We have spoken extensively in private messages and you know all that I have done and continue to do. But in my opinion it shouldn't be a constant conscious component of ones daily life to think of this non-stop. For me personally it would drive me utterly insane. I do it but I do not think about it too much while doing it. I just simply do it. There are more rewarding things to think about.

I'm sure that one could construct a non-cr diet that also would be heart healthy for a full lifespan. Anyway, once those two big risks are out of the way I guess we all just exist on the same level playing field of daily risks to life an limb like driving, walking at a cross walk or under a ladder.

I find too much chatter about this to be really inhibitory to living. And this in itself can be unhealthy. We are doing what we can do, what else is there? Let's just enjoy our lives instead of focusing on this stuff like it's always a sense of impending doom or something. I don't know maybe it's just my inability to talk about this stuff without eventually becoming anxious over these stray thoughts. I spoke with niner in private messages too about all this so he knows what I am talking about.

Overall, I guess what I am saying is do it, live it and don't let it cloud you or inhibit you. Let it be like tying your shoes. It's so much a part of your life it's an unconscious thing. When new info comes to light that needs to be incorporated, assimilate it and move on. My suggestions. For what they are worth.

Edited by TheFountain, 27 June 2012 - 05:47 AM.

[Junk Master]

I just saw this and can't believe no one has mentioned Lou is a notorious user of LARGE amounts of HGH. In fact, used so much he had to have carpal tunnel surgery because of excess bone growth; which, of course, he attributed to years of heavy lifting.

[scottknl]

To my mind the biggest red flag for Lou is that he's so big. Big people just don't live a long time so far. Look at all the super-centenarians. None of them are very tall at all and none are very large. I searched and only found a couple who looked heavy. By far the lighter people make up the longest lived.

I may be wrong, but I think of it as more calories = more death. A twin experiment would be good here. For example one twin would eat a regular diet and the other twin would eat 20% more. Which lives longer? The CR data strongly suggest that the lighter twin would live longer. Life for people in society isn't all tooth and claw as for wild animals, so those who suggest that we should eat for maximum physical performance are, IMHO shortening their lives.

The data is very clear that exercise does not increase max lifespan of a species. It only affects median lifespan. If the suggestion of this topic is that the body building lifestyle leads to a longer life or some kind of anti-aging, I'd say that the results will be rather disappointing. Even more so when you take the steroid use into account.

[Snoopy]

"scottknl" you are talking in terms of maximum lifespan which is in a completely different context... Most people are happy enough to extend median lifespan and look good for their age which Lou does. If he is a giant AND looks decades younger for his age, this would make the argument even more impressive!

[Snoopy]

"exercise does not increase max lifespan of a species"

Jeanett Calment played tennis, roller skated, cycled..... that is a crazy statement in my opinion

The question should be does exercise make your blood work look better? Hell yes.

[Brett Black]

I believe the evidence in humans is presently in the form of biomarkers. Evidence in primates is undoubtedly more advanced. When an intervention has the same basic results in virtually any lifeform from bacteria through chimps, it would be pretty silly to think that it didn't apply to humans because we're so "special"

There are species or strains in which calorie restriction has not increased lifespan, and some in which it has actually decreased longevity:

1. Ageing Res Rev. 2012 Apr;11(2):254-70. Epub 2011 Dec 23.

Dietary restriction in rats and mice: a meta-analysis and review of the evidence
for genotype-dependent effects on lifespan.

Swindell WR.

Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States.
wswindell@genetics.med.harvard.edu

Laboratory survival experiments have shown that dietary restriction (DR) can
increase median and maximum lifespan. This paper provides a meta-analysis of
laboratory experiments that have evaluated the effects of DR on lifespan in rats
and mice (1934-present). In rats, DR increased median lifespan by 14-45% in half
of all experiments, but in mice the effects of DR have been much weaker (4-27%).
The least favorable effects of DR on lifespan have been observed among inbred
rather than non-inbred mouse strains. In fact, some inbred mouse strains do not
necessarily live longer with DR, including DBA/2 male mice and several strains
from the ILSXISS recombinant inbred panel. Shortening of lifespan with DR has
also been observed and confirmed for ILSXISS strain 114. Importantly, all rodent
studies may be biased by the effects of laboratory breeding, since one study has
shown that median lifespan is not improved by DR in wild-derived mice. These
findings suggest that the set of genetic backgrounds studied in rodent DR
experiments should be diversified. This will broaden the scope of genotypes
studied in aging research, but may also be critical for translation of findings
from rodents to historically outbred and genetically heterogeneous primate
species.

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PMCID: PMC3299887 [Available on 2013/4/1]
PMID: 22210149 [PubMed - in process]
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22210149

---

2. Biogerontology. 2006 Jun;7(3):165-8.

Caloric restriction does not enhance longevity in all species and is unlikely to
do so in humans.

Shanley DP, Kirkwood TB.

Henry Wellcome Laboratory for Biogerontology Research, School of Clinical and
Medical Sciences-Gerontology, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4
6BE, UK. dary.shanley@ncl.ac.uk

Calorie restriction is known to increase lifespan in many but not all species and
may perhaps not do so in humans. Exceptions to life extension have been
identified in the laboratory and others are known in nature. Given the variety of
physiological responses to variation in food supply that are possible,
evolutionary life history theory indicates that an increased investment in
maintenance in response to resource shortage will not always be the strategy that
maximises Darwinian fitness. Additionally, for the well-studied species in which
life extension is observed, there is considerable variation in the response. This
suggests that it is not an ancient ancestral response, which has been conserved
across the species range. Although calorie restriction does not increase lifespan
in all species, it remains a fascinating and valuable tool to study ageing at the
whole organism level.

PMID: 16858629 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16858629

---

3. Aging Cell. 2006 Dec;5(6):441-9. Epub 2006 Oct 27.

Does caloric restriction extend life in wild mice?

Harper JM, Leathers CW, Austad SN.

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA.

To investigate whether mice genetically unaltered by many generations of
laboratory selection exhibit similar hormonal and demographic responses to
caloric restriction (CR) as laboratory rodents, we performed CR on cohorts of
genetically heterogeneous male mice which were grandoffspring of wild-caught
ancestors. Although hormonal changes, specifically an increase in corticosterone
and decrease in testosterone, mimicked those seen in laboratory-adapted rodents,
we found no difference in mean longevity between ad libitum (AL) and CR dietary
groups, although a maximum likelihood fitted Gompertz mortality model indicated a
significantly shallower slope and higher intercept for the CR group. This result
was due to higher mortality in CR animals early in life, but lower mortality late
in life. A subset of animals may have exhibited the standard demographic response
to CR in that the longest-lived 8.1% of our animals were all from the CR group.
Despite the lack of a robust mean longevity difference between groups, we did
note a strong anticancer effect of CR as seen in laboratory rodents. Three
plausible interpretations of our results are the following: (1) animals not
selected under laboratory conditions do not show the typical CR effect; (2)
because wild-derived animals eat less when fed AL, our restriction regime was too
severe to see the CR effect; or (3) there is genetic variation for the CR effect
in wild populations; variants that respond to CR with extended life are
inadvertently selected for under conditions of laboratory domestication.

PMCID: PMC2923404
PMID: 17054664 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17054664

---

4. Biogerontology. 2006 Jun;7(3):157-60.

Effects of caloric restriction are species-specific.

Mockett RJ, Cooper TM, Orr WC, Sohal RS.

Department of Molecular Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Southern
California, 1985 Zonal Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90089-9121, USA.

This article addresses two questions: (1) 'can caloric restriction (CR) extend
the life spans of all species of experimental animals', and (2) 'is CR likely to
slow the human aging process and/or extend the human life span?' The answer to
the first question is clearly 'no', because CR decreases the life span of the
housefly, Musca domestica, and fails to extend the life span of at least one
mouse strain. The answer to the second question is unknown, because human CR has
not yet been shown either to increase or curtail the human life span. However,
recent efforts to develop insect models of CR have been unsuccessful and/or
relatively uninformative, so any insights regarding the relationship between CR
and human aging are more likely to arise from studies of established, mammalian
models of CR.

PMCID: PMC2835574
PMID: 16628489 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16628489

Edited by Brett Black, 03 July 2012 - 03:39 AM.

[Snoopy]

I can boil it down very simplistically: miserable life on CR risking deficiencies or happy fulfilling life on balanced diet that covers all the bases and enables you to attract the opposite sex.

From a male perspective especially, most women don't like skinny weak guys, they want a strong man to protect, provide and look after their family, and that requires additional calories!