
Eat less, live longer? - alexandros
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627621.100-eat-less-live-longer.html
======
jnorthrop
It just doesn't seem to be worth the cost to me. I don't have a problem with
restricting foods or calories as I can cook up something tasty with almost
anything, but as shown in the example at the end of the article, lifestyle
seems to suffer.

The "typical" calorie restricting individual presented at the end of the
article is woman who is 5'6" tall and weighs 110lbs. She mentions that she
gave up running so she didn't lose too much weight. That's not a lifestyle I
find fulfilling nor does it seem healthy. She had to cut out physical activity
to keep from wasting away.

I want to run around with my kids, go to the gym (I enjoy my time there), jog
and play soccer (twice a week). I like being active and my life would be much
poorer if I had to give it up just to stay at a "healthy" weight.

Edit: I'd also like to add that I get the same exact benefits of "improved
mood, sleep, mental clarity and memory" by choosing the foods I eat carefully,
but I do not control the calorie intake. I eat when I'm hungry until I'm full.

~~~
executive
exactly. do you want to live an extra 10 years as a pathetic 130lb loser or be
a jacked 200lb hero.

~~~
jules
That highly depends on what the 200lb is made of. The average 130lb person is
healthier than the average 200lb person.

~~~
FlorinAndrei
"That highly depends on what the 200lb is made of."

Well, he did say "jacked", so it's safe to assume it's not 200 lb of fat.

BTW, I went pretty close to that, while staying at a relatively low 12% BFP
(body fat percentage). It's pretty awesome, but I can definitely see why some
people would rather not go through the trouble - it's not something easy to
accomplish, not if you're a cubicle slave like almost everybody these days.

~~~
jules
Oh, I didn't know that jacked means muscular (I thought it has something to do
with drugs). How many hours did you spend exercising per day? I think that
indeed it's probably not worth it for most people.

~~~
scott_s
If you see exercise as a chore, then no, it wouldn't be worth it. I don't see
exercise as a chore, and I am a fit 200 pounds.

I train four days a week in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and MMA. In order to get up to
a fit 200 pounds, I've done a lot of strength training over the years, but I
enjoy strength training.

~~~
jules
Even if someone wouldn't see it as a chore, and I don't know if I would
because I don't do it, I have a hard time believing most people would enjoy
doing it 2 hours a day. As 6 foot long less than 125 pound (but still
definitely above average fit ;) male I could certainly use some weight.

How much strength training do you roughly need to do to add x lbs of muscle
per year, assuming you haven't done any strength training? And how much do you
need to do to maintain 200 pounds? (in hours per day)

~~~
scott_s
It's not the time spent that matters, it's the quality of the time spent.
Intensity matters. A 30 minute intense workout is better than a leisurely 2
hour workout.

There's no real formula. When I started strength training, I knew nothing. I
was lean and weighed about 155 pounds. That was about 9 years ago. In about
two years I put on 20 pounds so that I was about 175. Over the course of two
or so years, I put on about another 10 pounds so that I was usually around
185. Around then I switched my focus to compound lifts like deadlifts and
clean & press. I shot up to 195 pounds. Last summer I lifted four days a week
and shot up to 205 pounds. Now I walk around closer to 200 because I don't do
much strength training. It's mostly grappling and conditioning - things that
keep me in shape but they don't add any muscle mass.

A good goal when you start is to do strength training three days a week.
That's enough to make progress, but you won't feel like you're always doing
it.

I agree completely with the author of this article: focus on compound lifts
like squat, deadlift, cleans, overhead press, clean and press. You'll need to
invest time to _learn_ how to do these lifts. Doing them properly (that is, in
such a way that avoids injury and allows you to add weight) is a skill, and
like any skill, you need practice to get good at it.

Also keep in mind that getting stronger and adding muscle mass is an
_adaptation_. You're putting your body under some stress, and your body adapts
to the stress by getting stronger. If you keep using the same stress, your
body doesn't need to adapt anymore. You need to continually change what you do
(more weight, or more reps, different exercises, less rest, etc.) to continue
to see improvements.

~~~
jules
So 30 min every 2 days, that would work? I don't really have the equipment for
most of those exercises, so I'll have to improvise (e.g. backpack filled with
heavy stuff for one hand lifting). What can you suggest as exercises that
don't require equipment, or only require things that most people have? I might
buy stuff later but I'd first want to try out if I like doing it.

Thanks!

~~~
scott_s
Again, it's not about a formula. I can't say "X for y minutes will yield z."

Exercises that don't require any weights are pull-ups, dips, squats (with no
load, obviously), burpees (<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4H92emcabA> ;
harder than you think). All of these exercises will increase your strength at
first, but eventually it'll just increase your conditioning. That is, once
you're at the point that you can do, say, three pull-ups, being able to do
more pull-ups won't add any muscle mass. It'll increase your conditioning
(your body's ability to _continue_ doing something), which is good, but you
won't put on weight.

Really, if you want to add muscle mass, you need to lift heavy things.

Also, I have to agree that if you are indeed 6 foot, 125 pounds is startlingly
thin. Have you ever had a doctor check if you have, perhaps, a hormonal
problem that makes it difficult to keep weight on?

~~~
jules
Thanks for the exercises. I'm going to try pull ups tomorrow on a tree branch,
but I'm pretty sure I can do more than 3 (I might be overly confident though).
Squats seem a little too easy too without weight, but I can a backpack as
weight? What do you think about push ups (with backpack)? Lifting a backpack
with 1 arm? Is 3 about the right amount of times you should be able to do
something? So increase weight until you can only do it 3 times? That would be
almost impossible to do with a backpack for squats...anyway squats seem to be
focused on the legs and my legs are already relatively big.

> Have you ever had a doctor check if you have, perhaps, a hormonal problem
> that makes it difficult to keep weight on?

No I have not seen a doctor. You guys seem to think that it's weird thin but I
know a lot of people who weigh less than that, and even more people who look
thinner. I think if you are not muscular and don't have much fat you weigh
about that much.

~~~
scott_s
When was the last time you stepped on a scale? If a man who is 6 foot is 140
pounds, I would call him "skinny." I think a 6 foot man who is under 125
pounds is underweight. Also, your legs aren't "big" if you weight less than
125 pounds.

You're taking my advice too literally. You're grasping onto the numbers and
thinking "Aha! These are the magic numbers I need to hit." It doesn't work
that way. You asked what kind of strength training you can do without weights.
There's lots of strength-conditioning you can do without weights, but it won't
add _muscle mass_. I was trying to explain the difference between increasing
your muscular endurance and increasing your absolute strength.

You're looking for a formula. There is none. If you want to get stronger and
put on weight, there's a lot you have to learn about how your body reacts to
the various kinds of stresses. Some resources for learning more:

<http://www.stumptuous.com/> <http://www.crossfit.com/>
<http://www.martygallagher.com/index>

~~~
jules
> When was the last time you stepped on a scale? > I think a 6 foot man who is
> under 125 pounds is underweight.

Umm, I don't know? A couple of weeks ago? I guess I am underweight by the BMI
measure, but I've been like that all my life and my BMI now is higher than
ever so I don't really worry about it.

> Also, your legs aren't "big" if you weight less than 125 pounds.

That's true, I meant relative to other muscles. All exercise I do do is
primarily legs, so it may be better to focus on the rest as my legs get
exercised during running & cycling. The upper body is also more important
visually ;)

> It doesn't work that way.

I understand, but it's good to have a ballpark figure to see if something is
going to be effective or not. For example if I do 30 push ups, is that going
to help or is it better to add an extra weight at that point?

Edit: I just filled my backpack with as many books as possible (that's
probably about 30-40 pounds) and I can do 28 push ups, but then I'm completely
weak for a few minutes. So would you suggest doing this exercise, or get a
better weight?

Thanks for the links!

------
reasonattlm
Here is a better overview with links to studies and some under the hood
details on the mechanisms of calorie restriction known to date:

<http://www.longevitymeme.org/topics/calorie_restriction.cfm>

If I were the wagering type, I'd say the bulk of the effect has to do with
autophagy cleaning out damaged mitochondria. See:

[http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2007/10/calorie-
restricti...](http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2007/10/calorie-restriction-
and-autophagy.php)

[http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/10/how-age-
damaged-m...](http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/10/how-age-damaged-
mitochondria-cause-your-cells-to-damage-you.php)

------
garply
Nitpick:

"Dreams of eternal youth feature in many cultures throughout history, but it
was only in the 20th century that research into longevity really began."

I seem to recall learning about ancient Chinese emperors entertaining Daoist
'priests' who offered them elixirs designed to extend their lifespans,
sometimes indefinitely. If by "research" they mean "contemporary scientific
research," their statement is a tautology.

Update:

From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_alchemy>

"Chinese alchemy is a part of the larger tradition of Taoism (although some
argue it has longer history than Taoism), centers on the tradition of body-
spirit cultivation that developed through the Chinese understandings of
medicine and the body. These Chinese traditions were developed into a system
of energy practices. Chinese alchemy focuses mainly on the purification of
one's spirit and body in the hopes of gaining immortality through the practice
of Qigong and/or consumption and use of various concoctions known as
alchemical medicines or elixirs, each of which having different purposes."

Just because their research didn't lead to correct conclusions doesn't mean it
wasn't research.

~~~
hugh3
_If by "research" they mean "contemporary scientific research," their
statement is a tautology._

How so? Scientific research on many subjects dates back to the ~17th century
or so, so I'm not sure how it's a tautology to say that scientific research on
a particular subject didn't begin until the 20th.

Unless you mean that the "contemporary" bit is a tautology, but you just
inserted that word yourself.

 _Just because their research didn't lead to correct conclusions doesn't mean
it wasn't research_

But what if it didn't use the correct methods? I think it's fair to restrict
the definition of "research" to methods which are likely to lead you towards
the right answer rather than the much older method of "just making shit up".

~~~
garply
My point was that "research" dates back well before the 17th century. If you
insist upon research meaning "scientific research" the scientific method goes
back to at least Aristotle. Scientific standards were different at different
points in time - you appear to have drawn the line at the 17th century.

But I believe the alchemists who were working on elixirs for eternal life both
in the Western world and in ancient China (pre-Aristotle) were performing a
type of research as well in that they presumably used some sort of trial and
error to determine the efficacy of their elixirs and modified their behavior
based on the results. That is, I do not believe that they would continue to
repeatedly administer an elixir that caused immediate death in the unshaken
belief that it was truly an elixir for immortality. Such a process of trial
and error constitutes "research" in my opinion, although it would have been
primitive research by our standards.

------
bradleyland
It seems to me that it is a basic survival adaptation. When resources are
scarce (no food), you can't support offspring. If you can't support offspring,
your species doesn't survive. It would make sense that evolutionary branches
where aging processes slow down during a time of scarcity would have an
adaptive advantage. They live to breed another day.

~~~
hugh3
Surely individuals who age slowly _all_ the time would have an evolutionary
advantage over those who only age slowly in times of starvation? The longer
you live the more offspring you can have.

This leads me to suspect that our bodies can't just turn off the aging
process.

~~~
gnaritas
Yea, but if you live too long you're competing for resources with your
offspring and lessening their chances of survival.

------
RevRal
Dan Buettner's TED talk touches on this:

[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_buettner_how_to_live_t...](http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100.html)

------
MikeCapone
I won't repeat it all here, but if you're interested by the fight against the
diseases of aging/healthy life-extension, check out these videos and books:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1368467>

------
Evgeny
_The protein theory is bad news for people on low-carbohydrate weight-loss
plans like the Atkins diet. "I'd be wary of diets that put a heavy emphasis on
protein," says Piper. "It's hard to see how that could be healthy."_

Um, how come they forgot about fat? Low-carbohydrate does not equal high-
protein. I personally feel best when I get 60-70% of my calorie intake from
fats, 15-25% from proteins and the rest from carbs (fruits and veggies).

