New society name needed?

[Guest guest]

Hi all, A recent Letter to the Editor in Am J Clin Nutr by RN Kostoff entitled "Energy retriction" proposed that the name is a misnomer. We are expanding our limiations. It is a positive thing we intend to do. Restriction sounds depressing. My question then is "What might it be?" I propose maybe long healthy life society; longer healthier life society; or expanded healthy live society. We need to ring forth the religion of our lifestyle, IMHO.

Cheers not restrictions.

¸☺ not _

Al.

[Guest guest]

Hi all, The below is from the October issue of Am J Clin Nutr. In a letter by ARP , he discusses the relevance of hunter-gatherers’ diets to today’s diets. In the same issue are the following in which Neil Kostoff discusses the review letter in the same issue by Nov. 9, 2001. The following are of special interest re support, encouragement and direction for dietary restriction.

From Kostoff’s reply article, salient points are that the fundamental fuel available to humans is designed to ensure that humans remain lean. Unprocessed human food is mainly high in bulk and low in energy. In addition, it has high ratios of fiber, vitamins, and minerals to energy, thereby satisfying nutritional as well as leanness requirements. The human body has built-in governors to limit the amount of unprocessed food that can be ingested, starting with taste limitations for high volumes of unprocessed food. All food processing has the effect of artificially stimulating the appetite, allowing more food to be ingested than the body's natural governors would allow.

Most low-energy and low-volume processed-food diets do not work in the long term, because the low amounts of processed food lead to a stimulated appetite and unnatural feelings of food deprivation. To reduce weight over the long term, substances and processes that artificially stimulate appetite must be eliminated from the diet. The whole idea of "tasty" food needs to be modified. The terminology also needs to be changed: energy restriction is nature's design for all species; there is nothing restrictive about it. This is the positive note that the letter ends on.

For ’s reply, he says that adequate evidence exists that many population groups (such as certain Mediterranean populations, vegetarians, and Seventh-day Adventists) whose manners of life, in varying measure, conform with current dietary guidelines have lower occurrences of degenerative diseases and longer life expectations. A recent example can be found in the Norwegian County Study; in this noninterventional prospective study, the subjects' mean intake of whole-grain bread was 4 times that consumed in the United States, and their mortality rates from the chronic diseases of lifestyle were lower.

Few persons indeed are following the implications of such studies. To avoid or lessen the development of chronic disorders and diseases, the young should receive major attention. Children are bombarded with food advertisements, many of which conflict with nutritional guidelines. Perhaps the most important point is that the main burden of mortality from our major "killers," such as coronary artery disease, stroke, and cancer, occurs in late middle age. Notwithstanding, research on longevity should continue, if only for the small moieties of populations who desire to make the requisite lifestyle changes. At the moment at least, that is us, folks.

From a study examining the double-blinded effects of adding fiber in the form of a mixture of soluble and insoluble fibers obtained from fenugreek, guar gum and wheat bran resulted in not only reduced LDL cholesterol (146 to 134, p < 0.027) and apolipoprotein A-1 (105 to 139, p < 0.001), but also body mass index (24.9 to 24.5, p < 0.03) and waist circumference (37.2 to 36.7, p < 0.03). They lost weight without trying. We need all the help we can get from our diets.

Summarizing, the main points seem to be to eat whole unprocessed foods that are high in bulk and low in calories to allow greater weight loss and maintenance without undue hunger.Al not AL.