Good to Know

Some folks take calorie counting to extremes.

(Source: BuzzFeed)

Uh, Not Quite.

Author A.J. Jacobs has written books about self-experimentation before (notably, he lived in strict accordance with Biblical rules for a year), but he's now tackling a project to become "The Healthiest Person Alive." He's consulting with numerous health "experts" and is trying all sorts of different diets and fitness plans.

But from the video below, it looks like he's following a lot of wrong-headed advice. I have a feeling that "The Healthiest Person Alive" isn't someone who's using a treadmill desk and endlessly chewing on a a plate of raw food. And while Jacobs talks about having a single meal (of one blueberry and one walnut) with a bunch of extreme caloric restriction dieters, let's not confuse "healthiest" and "longest-lived." In my book, being miserable and on the verge of starvation doesn't make for good health.



Still, Jacobs is trying out barefoot running. Add some kettlebells and a Paleo-esque diet, and he's good to go. (And I'd actually buy that book.)

(Source: CNN)

What's the Secret to Living to 100?

(This is not Faity Tuttle.)

The New York Times recently published an article suggesting that a cheery spirit is the reason why certain folks live longer. This, by the way, strikes me as spectacularly dumb.

Do optimists live longer than pessimists? Yes, studies indicate. Dr. Hilary A. Tindle of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, found that among 97,000 women followed for eight years, those deemed optimistic were significantly less likely to die from heart disease and all causes than were pessimistic women, whom she described as “cynically hostile.”

The optimists were also less likely to have high blood pressure, diabetes or high cholesterol, suggesting they take better care of their health. Indeed, the pessimists were more likely to be overweight, smoke cigarettes and avoid exercise, indicating, Dr. Tindle says, that negative thinkers make poorer lifestyle choices than positive thinkers.

But can’t we turn this on its head and say that people who make "poorer lifestyle choices" end up being more pessimistic? I mean, isn’t it just as likely that these “negative thinkers” have good reason to be cranky and less-than-active – especially if they’re old, isolated, overweight and suffering from a bunch of diseases?

And shouldn’t we give greater credit to other factors that contribute to longevity, like diet (caloric restriction, anyone?) and advances in medical technology?

Interestingly, the Times article points to Manhattanite Esther “Faity” Tuttle as a shining example of a “positive thinker” who’s turning 100 next July.

Tuttle has “no high blood pressure, high cholesterol or diabetes,” and busies herself with yoga, walking, cooking, corresponding, reading, and watching TV. But here’s the best part: Tuttle “has spurned dairy foods for most of her life” and “still follows the advice of a predecessor of Dr. Robert Atkins who told her to avoid dairy and follow a diet low in carbohydrates and rich in meats and fats.”

That's right: Faity Tuttle is rockin’ a paleo diet.*

*Sort of. Tuttle also eats some oatmeal and a "'very thin' slice of rye toast" each day.

Nothing for Breakfast

I haven't had breakfast -- any food before 11:30 a.m. -- for months.

Since August, I've been playing around with intermittent fasting (IF). This might sound bizarre to some of you, but as the Drs. Eades have pointed out, IF has been shown to have a number of benefits, including:

• Improving longevity;
• Reducing the risk of cancer and other diseases (ranging from heart disease to Parkinson's and Alzheimer's); and
• Improving insulin sensitivity and blood glucose regulation.

As reported last year in the L.A. Times:

During fasting, almost every system in the body is "turned down," [U.C. Berkeley endocrinology professor Mark] Hellerstein says. The body changes how it uses fuel. Certain hormone levels fall. Growth stops. Reproduction becomes impossible. "By the end of three weeks of fasting you are a completely different metabolic creature," he says. "It affects many, many processes -- but in a somewhat predictable way that takes you toward disease prevention."

Oddly enough, scientists don't yet know why IF produces these health benefits.

One theory is that the process produces just enough stress in cells to be good. "What our evidence suggests is that nerve cells in animals that are on dietary energy restriction are under mild stress," [Mark] Mattson [of the National Institute on Aging] says. "It's a mild stress that stimulates the production of proteins that protect the neurons against more severe stress."

But whatever the reasons, IF seems to work. And it has other practical benefits, too, like:

• Increasing growth hormone during fasting (which helps build and maintain muscle mass);
• Weight and body composition maintenance; and
• Not having to make breakfast.

I know: You think this is utter bullshit. After all, "breakfast is the most important meal of the day," right? We hear this a lot -- but has anyone come up with any science to back this up? Or do we get an earful about how you need to "eat lots of small meals a day -- starting with breakfast -- to fuel your metabolism"? Because that's a load of hooey. Studies have shown that eating small, frequent meals doesn't do anything. But can you work out in the morning in a fasted state? I do, and I'm doing just fine. IF doesn't impair exercise. If anything, it boosts fat loss.

Let's review: A consistent line of research (going all the way back to the 1940s) demonstrates that IF confer lots of health benefits. And science has also disproven the theory that constantly grazing on tiny portions of food throughout the day somehow improves health.

You know me: Based on what I'd learned, I had to give IF a try.

More after the jump...

Caloric Restriction

You've heard of Caloric Restriction (CR), right?

As its name suggests, CR is a dietary approach that restricts caloric intake. Done properly, it slows the aging process and extends life.

No, I'm not making this up.

Lab mice on CR can live up to 50 percent longer than if they ate a more typical diet.

The maximum life span of a typical lab mouse is 39 months, corresponding to 110 years in humans. [UCLA Professor and Biosphere 2 crew member Roy] Walford and researchers have demonstrated that mice that eat only 60 percent of their preferred diet will live as long as 56 months -- the equivalent of 165 human years -- provided they start their diets before three months of age. Although these mice are smaller than their normally fed peers, they seem to retain their youthfulness and intellects well into their extended old age. “We’ve found that a 36-month-old restricted mouse will run a maze with the same facility as a six-month-old normally fed mouse,” Walford says. “That’s a substantial preservation of intellectual function.”

Similar results are seen in studies involving all sorts of living creatures, from yeast cells and roundworms to fruit flies and spiders. Even rhesus monkeys live a lot longer on CR, with significantly reduced rates of diabetes, cancer, and heart and brain disease.

There aren’t yet any published studies on CR’s effects on the average human lifespan, but research shows that humans on CR are healthier, with lower cholesterol, fasting glucose, triglyceride levels, and blood pressure. Based on available evidence, scientists believe that a 30 to 40 percent reduction in caloric intake could significantly extend human lives.

The problem?

CR is not fun. As Michael Eades points out:

When rats live out their little ratty lives calorically restricted in their cages, they seem to show signs of depression and irritability. Primates do for sure. If primates don’t get enough cholesterol, they can actually become violent. But if you’re willing to put up with a little irritability, hostility and depression, it might be worth cutting your calories by 30 percent for the rest of your long, healthy miserable life.

Plus, as characterized by a New York Magazine writer who hosted a CR dinner party, the hardcore CR lifestyle can seem deeply bizarre:

[T]he weirdnesses are starting to pile up, and my guests are looking weirder and weirder themselves, like emissaries from a future I’m not sure could ever feel like home: a world where the food grows in vats, where the porn industry just barely survives on government subsidies, where the physically ideal male has the BMI of Mary-Kate Olsen and the skin tones of an Oompa-Loompa.

I take a deep breath then and think, A world where 80 is the new 40. And suddenly, all those little weirdnesses seem quite manageable again.

At which point Michael, having finished his helping of asparagus and Quorn, picks up his plate without a word and does what any normal person who has not eaten a truly filling meal in years would do: He holds the plate up to his face and commences licking it clean. April looks on smilingly, and though I feel another tingle of vertigo coming on at the sight, it passes soon enough.

I’m not one to shy away from trying different strategies for better health, but I have zero interest in experimenting with CR. Call me spoiled, but I’m no ascetic. Eating’s too much fun to deprive myself of its pleasures.

And I ain’t eatin’ no Quorn. (Well… maybe I’ll give it a taste, just to see if it’s as unappetizing as it looks.)

But consider this: There’s evidence that Intermittent Fasting (IF) offers the same benefits of CR -- but without having to reduce overall caloric intake.

It probably won’t shock you to learn that M and I have been playing around with a variant of IF for a couple of weeks, limiting our daily eating windows to an 8-hour period. (Sound weird and complicated? Think of it this way: We don’t snack after dinner -- say, after 6:30 -- and we delay breakfast until later in the morning -- like 10:30.)

I’ll post more about IF (and our experiences with it) soon, so stay tuned.