Re: Re: QOD

[Guest guest]

At 05:30 AM 9/21/2006, you wrote:

>Hi Maco:

>

>Thanks for reminding us about this issue. I know it has been

>discussed previously. But I no longer remember which studies it was

>that showed the benefits you described below, specifically:

>

> " ......... the retention of greater lean body mass and likely

>better bone mass, and the biomarker enhancements are equal to or

>superior to 'straight' CR. "

>

>The fact that I never decided to do the EOD/ADF thing has me assuming

>that I wasn't entirely persuaded by what I saw. But perhaps I should

>take another look at it?

I think it's a matter of preference rather than one really being

demonstrably better than the other.

I can't get into the CR Society archives to search the EOD stuff--Nerissa

has posted copiously and informatively on the subject--but here are a

couple of PubMed studies; neither of them seems to specify superior

retained bone mass, but I've read that's part of the supposed benefits of

an EOD approach vs " straight " CR although I can't hurl forth a ref for it.

***********************************

The effect on health of alternate day calorie restriction: eating less and

more than needed on alternate days prolongs life.

JB,

Laub DR,

S.

Department of Surgery, Louisiana State University Medical Center, 2547A

Lyon Street, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94123, USA. jim@...

Restricting caloric intake to 60-70% of normal adult weight maintenance

requirement prolongs lifespan 30-50% and confers near perfect health across

a broad range of species. Every other day feeding produces similar effects

in rodents, and profound beneficial physiologic changes have been

demonstrated in the absence of weight loss in ob/ob mice. Since May 2003 we

have experimented with alternate day calorie restriction, one day consuming

20-50% of estimated daily caloric requirement and the next day ad lib

eating, and have observed health benefits starting in as little as two

weeks, in insulin resistance, asthma, seasonal allergies, infectious

diseases of viral, bacterial and fungal origin (viral URI, recurrent

bacterial tonsillitis, chronic sinusitis, periodontal disease), autoimmune

disorder (rheumatoid arthritis), osteoarthritis, symptoms due to CNS

inflammatory lesions (Tourette's, Meniere's) cardiac arrhythmias (PVCs,

atrial fibrillation), menopause related hot flashes. We hypothesize that

other many conditions would be delayed, prevented or improved, including

Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, brain injury due to

thrombotic stroke atherosclerosis, NIDDM, congestive heart failure. Our

hypothesis is supported by an article from 1957 in the Spanish medical

literature which due to a translation error has been construed by several

authors to be the only existing example of calorie restriction with good

nutrition. We contend for reasons cited that there was no reduction in

calories overall, but that the subjects were eating, on alternate days,

either 900 calories or 2300 calories, averaging 1600, and that body weight

was maintained. Thus they consumed either 56% or 144% of daily caloric

requirement. The subjects were in a residence for old people, and all were

in perfect health and over 65. Over three years, there were 6 deaths among

60 study subjects and 13 deaths among 60 ad lib-fed controls,

non-significant difference. Study subjects were in hospital 123 days,

controls 219, highly significant difference. We believe widespread use of

this pattern of eating could impact influenza epidemics and other

communicable diseases by improving resistance to infection. In addition to

the health effects, this pattern of eating has proven to be a good method

of weight control, and we are continuing to study the process in

conjunction with the NIH.

PMID: 16529878 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Retrieve & dopt=Abstra\

ctPlus & list_uids=16529878 & query_hl=8 & itool=pubmed_docsum

************************

Intermittent fasting dissociates beneficial effects of dietary restriction

on glucose metabolism and neuronal resistance to injury from calorie intake.

Anson RM,

Guo Z,

de Cabo R,

Iyun T,

Rios M,

Hagepanos A,

Ingram DK,

Lane MA,

Mattson MP.

Laboratory of Neurosciences, Gerontology Research Center, National

Institute on Aging, 5600 Shock Drive, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA.

Dietary restriction has been shown to have several health benefits

including increased insulin sensitivity, stress resistance, reduced

morbidity, and increased life span. The mechanism remains unknown, but the

need for a long-term reduction in caloric intake to achieve these benefits

has been assumed. We report that when C57BL6 mice are maintained on an

intermittent fasting (alternate-day fasting) dietary-restriction regimen

their overall food intake is not decreased and their body weight is

maintained. Nevertheless, intermittent fasting resulted in beneficial

effects that met or exceeded those of caloric restriction including reduced

serum glucose and insulin levels and increased resistance of neurons in the

brain to excitotoxic stress. Intermittent fasting therefore has beneficial

effects on glucose regulation and neuronal resistance to injury in these

mice that are independent of caloric intake.

PMID: 12724520 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Retrieve & dopt=Abstra\

ctPlus & list_uids=12724520 & query_hl=2 & itool=pubmed_DocSum

>And where is Mattson's study of 'only one meal a day at 6 pm', which

>was supposed to have been completed over a year ago, I thought?

Dunno. I think the central issue is how to kick in the CR-associated

protective mechanisms.

>Also, do you know if there is some logic behind the requirement for

>60 grams of protein on the low intake days?

Sure. You don't want the body to catabolize protein stores to generate

glucose for the brain et al., so the idea is that such supplementation will

help an individual retain more lean body mass and draw on lipid stores and,

of course, glycogen preferentially.

>It is difficult to

>imagine anyone would suffer from protein deficiency in a 36 hour

>partial fast. But perhaps that is not the reason for it?

I don't think it's so much an optimal nutrition thing as a step to try to

help maintain lean body mass.

Maco

[Guest guest]

> >Also, do you know if there is some logic behind the

> requirement for

> >60 grams of protein on the low intake days?

>

> Sure. You don't want the body to catabolize protein

> stores to generate glucose for the brain et al., so

the idea is that such supplementation will help an

individual retain more lean body mass and draw on

lipid stores and, of course, glycogen preferentially.

Considering that the person ate their regular meals on

the day before, the body will not start to catabolize

protein for glucose for the brain for around 36-72

hours.

IF they are recommnding 400 calories and 60 grams of

protein that is 640 calories total and 38% protein.

If the goal is to preserve protein from being

catabolized for brain glucose, the better way to

achieve this is to supply around 500 calories from

carbohydrates, which, is about what the average brain

uses in a day. This is why carbohydrates are known as

" protein sparing " .

So if they ate the 640-700 calories on the off day and

choose food that was 65-70% carb, and around 10% fat

anbd 20% protein they would get the 500 calories of

glucose the brain needs, and they would also get 32

grams of protein (which by some estimates, is more

than enough for someone in a day)..and 50% of the RDA.

Choosing a mixture of fresh fruits, veggies, whole

grains, and legumes would not only provide these

amounts with a lot more bulk and be way more satiating

than the supplments... it would also have way more

fiber, and vitamins and minerals..

Reagrds

Jeff

[Guest guest]

At 10:02 AM 9/21/2006, you wrote:

> > >Also, do you know if there is some logic behind the

> > requirement for

> > >60 grams of protein on the low intake days?

> >

> > Sure. You don't want the body to catabolize protein

> > stores to generate glucose for the brain et al., so

>the idea is that such supplementation will help an

>individual retain more lean body mass and draw on

>lipid stores and, of course, glycogen preferentially.

>

>Considering that the person ate their regular meals on

>the day before, the body will not start to catabolize

>protein for glucose for the brain for around 36-72

>hours.

>

>IF they are recommnding 400 calories and 60 grams of

>protein that is 640 calories total and 38% protein.

They recommend 400 calories in addition to the 60 g of protein, as I said.

>If the goal is to preserve protein from being

>catabolized for brain glucose, the better way to

>achieve this is to supply around 500 calories from

>carbohydrates, which, is about what the average brain

>uses in a day. This is why carbohydrates are known as

> " protein sparing " .

>

>So if they ate the 640-700 calories on the off day and

>choose food that was 65-70% carb, and around 10% fat

>anbd 20% protein they would get the 500 calories of

>glucose the brain needs, and they would also get 32

>grams of protein (which by some estimates, is more

>than enough for someone in a day)..and 50% of the RDA.

>

>Choosing a mixture of fresh fruits, veggies, whole

>grains, and legumes would not only provide these

>amounts with a lot more bulk and be way more satiating

>than the supplments... it would also have way more

>fiber, and vitamins and minerals..

And would be yummier, too!

;-)

Maco

[Guest guest]

> They recommend 400 calories in addition to the 60 g

> of protein, as I said.

Right. its in my calculations that way..

[Guest guest]

At 08:39 PM 9/21/2006, you wrote:

>Hi Maco

>

>I remember you describing what you eat on an ON day, but what

>do you eat on the fasting day, if you do a variety of this EOD diet?

>I also remember that you don't eat lunch. Is that no lunch any

>day at all, including your healthy ON day?

>

>Rodney raised the question on why the diet recommends

>high protein intake on the fasting day. I imagine that a reason

>for it may not avoid protein defficiency but to provide a modicum

>of satiety.

Perhaps. Certainly Jeff's clearly shown that the protein suggestion by the

QOD guy is on the high side for the semifasting days.

After honest consideration of the lunch issue, although it was an easy way

to not consume x calories/day, my experience was that if I didn't eat lunch

and then ate something that evening, sometimes this ravening beast would

rise up and feel strongly motivated to consume every

walnut/almond/you-name-it in sight, which in the end I determined was not

fun and not productive. So I normally consume for lunch some kind of

500-or-under-kcal entity. To the no-doubt shock/horror of many of you noble

detail-oriented food-weighing aficionados, lunch or " the meal " on an " off "

day might well be a Mc's grilled-chicken Caesar Salad with most of

the contents of the optional Newman's Ranch Dressing packet [cue

" Sympathy for the Arteries, " a cardio-aware song to the tune of Sympathy

for the Devil).

;-)

Equally evil Lean Cuisine entrees have similarly been known to find their

way to me at lunchtime . . . .

Maco

[Guest guest]

This is all good info but the question, which we have

discussed quite a bit here is how much benefit to CRON

is exercise, and how much exercise is neccessary to

get that benefit.

Much of this info has to do with " fitness " but how

much does increased levels of fitness have to do with

longevity.

As some have pointed out, it seems most of the benefit

from exercise/fitness is in mitigating the damage of

the typical american diet. But, if one is following

CRON, than those risk factors are already minimized.

An important question that I'm not sure we can answer

yet is whether or not two people (or animals) who

maintain the same weight but one does more exercise

and eats more to maintain a reduced weight, would end

up aging faster than the one that eats less and

exercises less to maintain the same reduced weight,

even though the one that does more exercise is more

fit?

If it makes little or no difference then is all the

effort of getting and staying very fit really worth

it?

You don't have to burn a lot of calories to get a

80-90% of your fitness potential regardless of whether

that is aerobic or resistance. (As studies have shown,

if done properly over 90% of the benefit can be

achieved in the first set of weight training).

My guess is 5 to at most 12 minutes of fairly intense

aerobic exercise a few times a week, and maybe 6-8

resistant exercises (1 set maybe 5-10 reps for each)

2-3 X per week and a little stretching maybe 2-3X per

week keeps you pretty fit but does not burn a lot of

calories or generate a lot of free radicals and might

be optimal for a long and healthy life.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Hi Rodney:

Yes. And to nitpick a little, but possibly an

important detail, I think you need to add the word

" CRON " in this paragraph, between the

words " a " and " BMI " , so that it reads:

> Exercise may help a little to fix the CVD, diabetes,

> etc. that are

> caused by the excessive weight in the heavier

> person. But someone

> with a **CRON** BMI of 20 will not have those

problems in the

> first place, and

> exercise might confer little or no benfit, while the

> extra calories

> consumed by the exerciser might very likely be net

> deleterious.

>

Jeff