or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

calorie deprivation

post #1 of 38
Thread Starter 
You need to have a subscription to read the Wall Street Journal online, so I dug out the article from two weeks ago that was mentioned in the other thread. Watch out for Lisamarie's dissertation-length response that is sure to follow !

Lean Times: The Surprising Rise Of Radical, Calorie-Cutting Diet

Could Self Deprivation Be the Secret To a Longer, Albeit Famished, Life?

If there were a magic elixir that extended life to 150 years, most people would drink it gladly.

But as scientists begin to uncover the secrets of longevity, they are finding a prescription for long life that few will want to take: a diet so low in calories that to most Americans, it would feel close to starvation.

The diet, dubbed "calorie restriction" in the clinical parlance of science, would be called severe deprivation in any other lexicon. Calorie restriction was first shown to create exceptionally long-lived rats in the 1930s. It later had the same effect in guppies, water fleas, yeast, spiders and a microscopic water invertebrate called the rotifer. Last month, Labrador retrievers became the first large mammals to join the list.

Now, scientists appear on the verge of a finding that calorie restriction also extends the lifespan of monkeys, who share more than 90% of their genes with humans. At the National Institutes of Health, where researchers have been studying a colony of 120 rhesus monkeys for 15 years, evidence for calorie restriction is mounting. The control animals, fed a healthy low-fat diet, are dying at a normal rate, while animals fed 30% less appear to be living far longer -- and avoiding age-linked maladies. One of the underfed monkeys is 38 years old, the human equivalent of 114 years.

"Calorie restriction has worked in every species in which it has ever been tested," says Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist Leonard Guarente. "I'd be shocked if it doesn't work in humans."

Catalyzing Change
Calorie restriction appears to create biochemical changes in the body that have a more-profound effect on lifespan than simply avoiding diseases caused by excess fat. No one knows for sure how it works. It might lower the levels of free radicals, or potentially toxic particles created by the breakdown of food. Other scientists believe it triggers a state of emergency called "survival mode" in which the body eliminates all unnecessary functions to focus only on staying alive.

If scientists could figure out what the changes are and bottle them as a drug, "we'd have it made," says Roger McCarter, a scientist at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio.

Encouraged by the animal research, the NIH plans to spend $20 million to test the effects of calorie restriction on hundreds of Americans. Some people have seen enough evidence already and have started self-depriving. Bob Cavanaugh, a 54-year-old landscaper from Morehead, N.C., has trimmed his intake to two meals a day, totaling 1,500 calories . Breakfast consists of one cup of quick oats, two tablespoons of toasted wheat germ, one cup of skim milk and blueberries. For dinner, he eats vegetables, fruit and a small portion of fish. "I'm hoping to see my great, great grandchildren," he says.

Mr. Cavanaugh's diet may sound extreme, particularly since at 5-feet 9-inches tall and 158 pounds, he isn't overweight. But over the next several years, if the monkey results hold up, they could represent a major shift in how we view food and nutrition. The U.S. Department of Agriculture says the average sedentary woman should eat 1,600 calories a day and the average man 2,200 -- benchmarks already significantly overshot by most Americans.

Minimal Intake
But those guidelines are based on ideal weight, and a calorie-restricted diet has nothing to do with weight. Rather, the NIH monkey experiments limit food intake to the minimum necessary to prevent negative effects on health -- or at least 30% less than the current "healthy" diet. Translated into human terms, that would be 1,120 calories a day for the average woman, or 1,540 for a man.

For the average American, eating at that level would create deep hunger pangs. One meal at McDonald's -- a Big Mac, supersize fries, and small Coke -- weighs in at 1,450 calories. And if a woman on 30% calorie restriction had a cappuccino and a large muffin during her morning commute, she would already have consumed 75% of her allocation for the day, says Cathy Nonas, director of the Van Itallie Center for Nutrition and Weight Management at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital in New York.

In the NIH tests, which will last as long as three years, volunteers will be asked to cut their current intake by 20% to 30%. Since many of those chosen will likely be overeaters, theirs will be a modest effort by comparison with the NIH monkeys. Still, to ensure compliance, the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La., will initially require volunteers to eat only food provided by the scientists -- and two of the three daily meals must be eaten in the laboratory cafeteria. Scientists will catalog the test subjects' metabolism and other biochemical markers, such as blood sugar, lipid levels and body temperature.

The goal of the tests, says Evan Hadley, head of geriatrics at the National Institute on Aging, is to give scientists insight into how deprivation changes body chemistry. Residents of developing countries eat very low calorie diets. Their nutrition is so poor, though, that any positive effects are masked by medical problems caused by malnourishment, scientists say. But a study of the Japanese island of Okinawa -- whose 1.3 million inhabitants have traditionally eaten a spartan, but nutrition-packed diet of about 1,800 calories a day -- provides some evidence for calorie restriction.

On Okinawa, where the diet consists of soy, vegetables and small amounts of fish, meat and rice, there are 34 centenarians for every 100,000 people -- more than triple the U.S. rate, says Bradley Willcox, a gerontologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. The oldest person in the world, 113-year-old Kamato Hongo, lives on a nearby island, he adds.

The Okinawa data fall short of a controlled experiment, because genetics or other factors could be at work. In rats, the effects of calorie restriction have been shown repeatedly, and they are dramatic. University of Wisconsin researcher Richard Weindruch says that broadly speaking, a 30% calorie restriction results in a 30% increase in maximum lifespan. Translated into human years, that would mean that the oldest members of the species would make it to about 150 on such a diet.

Even more striking is that the caloric intake of the rat, not its weight, matters most. Well-fed rats kept lean by regular exercise are less likely to die prematurely of disease than well-fed sedentary rats -- but their maximum lifespan remains the same.

Primates, similar enough to humans that they have been used to study everything from congenital vision defects to Alzheimer's disease, remain the gold standard for proof when human experiments aren't practicable. But monkeys haven't been easy to study, because they live to be around 25, compared with three years for rodents.

At the NIH facility in Poolesville, Md., in a bucolic area about 40 miles from downtown Washington, scientists are growing increasingly excited about the results they are seeing. The experiment began in 1987, with monkeys of various ages. They were divided into two groups. One group was fed a normal low-fat diet, equivalent to the healthy diet recommended by nutritionists for humans. The other group received 30% less than that, or just barely enough to stave off starvation.

And that's the group that's thriving. Today, 14% of the calorie-restricted monkeys have died, compared with 22% of the monkeys on the normal healthy diet, says Mark Lane, a co-investigator on the study. Those figures exclude monkeys whose deaths were deemed accidental, such as when a batch of overcooked food caused a fatal stomach ailment called gastric bloat.

"We're very excited," says Dr. Lane. "We think it's working."

Healthier Monkeys
Not only do the calorie-restricted monkeys appear to be living longer, they also seem to be healthier. Only 14% of them have developed an age-related disease, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes or failing kidneys, compared with 32% in the control group, Dr. Lane says.

Also, calorie restriction staved off the normal age-related decline in a multifunctioned hormone called dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate. DHEA, sold as a dietary supplement, has touched off a craze among Americans even though many scientists say there is no proof it will forestall aging.

It's too early to predict what the maximum lifespan will be in either group. But one of the calorie-restricted monkeys, a rhesus from Indian stock who goes only by the name given him by his breeders, C58, turned 38 in January.

That makes him one of the oldest rhesuses ever recorded. The University of Wisconsin, widely believed to have housed the oldest-ever rhesus, says the oldest monkey for which it had a firm date of birth lived to be 36. Another animal, still alive but without a well-documented birthdate, is believed to be about 39 years old. Neither of those monkeys were on calorie-restricted diets.

C58 looks thin but not gaunt. He weighs 17 pounds, compared with an average of 24 pounds for elderly control monkeys. Other than a touch of arthritis and a cataract, he appears in excellent health. Each day, he eats about 3.7 ounces of monkey chow -- dried pellets compressed from wheat, corn, soybean, alfalfa, fish and brewer's yeast.

In his younger days, scientists say, C58 was an aggressive "alpha male," reaching out of his cage to grab passersby. But he's mellowed in his old age. On a recent day, he sat quietly, munching contentedly on a handful of chow and gazing out of his cage with mild curiosity.

A small group of humans are practicing C58-style calorie restriction in the hopes that it will provide a fountain of youth. These people, who communicate through an online chat group with 800 participants, call their philosophy "Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition." Its practitioners, who dub themselves Cronies, follow their own personalized diets, which share the common goal of minimal calories.

Many draw their inspiration from the Biosphere 2 project in the early 1990s. Volunteers attempting to live a self-contained existence in a glass-enclosed community were forced to reduce their calories sharply when food became unexpectedly restricted. One of the volunteers on Biosphere 2 was Dr. Roy Walford, a scientist at the University of California Los Angeles who is one of the pioneers of calorie restriction.

Michael Rae, a six-foot-tall 31-year-old from Calgary, Canada, weighs a gaunt 115 pounds after three years on a strict calorie-restricted diet. "I'd much rather weigh 50 more pounds, but I want to live longer and this is the only proven way to do it," says Mr. Rae. "Every calorie you eat is a second off your life."

Cronies monitor their vital signs carefully. Like the Biospherians, their blood sugar, weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels have dropped. They draw hope from the fact that they have few colds and flus, and that their bodies seem to be changing in ways similar to animal models. For example, just as the body temperature of rats and monkeys drops with calorie restriction, Mr. Rae's has fallen to 97 degrees, below the normal human temperature of 98.6 degrees.

But many Cronies become irritable and snappish. Testosterone drops, causing some of the men to lose interest in sex. Several men have developed early signs of osteoporosis -- a disease of brittle bones commonly found in elderly women. One Cronie suddenly found himself severely anemic. He had to start taking iron supplements and eating more red meat.

Families sometimes resent the enormous amount of time it takes to maintain the Cronie lifestyle. For the most part, prepackaged food is out -- because it would shoot the daily limit quickly, while providing inadequate nutrition.

Dean Pomerleau, a 37-year-old technology entrepreneur from Wexford, Pa., grows sprouts -- bean, alfalfa, broccoli, arugula and a dozen other kinds -- in his basement. "If you like arugula, you'd really like arugula sprouts," says Mr. Pomerleau, who is 5-foot-8 and weighs 127 pounds.

Terry, his wife, isn't enthusiastic. She told her husband the time-consuming preparation of his giant salads was dirtying the kitchen, he says. The solution: He spent $1,000 to build a mini-kitchen for himself in the basement, adjacent to the sprout farm.

If scientists could discover what makes calorie restriction work, people might be able to enjoy the same effect without the hassle, and without the deprivation. One theory is that the lower body temperature caused by near-starvation somehow extends life. In case low temperature is in fact the secret, Mr. Rae avoids putting on a sweater even when he feels chilly.

There is mounting evidence for another favorite theory -- that lower food intake results in fewer free radicals, or unstable particles created as a result of the breakdown of food. These particles can seriously damage genes and proteins, resulting in potentially fatal diseases. Advocates of this theory got a major boost when samples of thigh muscles from the calorie-restricted monkeys at the University of Wisconsin were shown to have suffered remarkably little free-radical damage, says Dr. Weindruch.

NIH scientists have also found preliminary evidence for the "survival mode" theory. The scientists found that human and rat cells grown in the blood of calorie-restricted monkeys are enormously resistant to heat and toxins -- suggesting there is something in the blood that is fighting dangers aggressively.

Several groups of researchers are now racing to find which genes are "expressed," or turned on, during calorie restriction. In mice, the "gene-expression profile," or the list of genes whose functions are turned on and off, is strikingly similar in calorie-restricted animals to younger animals -- indicating that calorie restriction may be directly reversing age-related biochemical changes.

In monkeys, so far, dozens of genes have been found turned on or off as a result of calorie restriction. But in preliminary data, the gene-expression profile of the restricted monkeys doesn't appear to mirror that of younger animals, says Stephen Spindler, a professor of biochemistry at the University of California at Riverside.

For information and resources visit www.calorierestriction.org
post #2 of 38
If we were talking about adding years to the beginning of life, I would be excited. We are not. We are talking about adding years to the end of life, the least desirable years. Oh goodie, I now get to live 10 years in an assisted care facility and 5 years in a nursing home instead of 5 years in a nursing home.

This sounds like a great deal for the care providers and insurers, but a terrible deal for you and I.

No thanks!!!
post #3 of 38
Originally posted by Maddog1959:
If we were talking about adding years to the beginning of life, I would be excited. We are not. We are talking about adding years to the end of life, the least desirable years.
This always seems like a specious argument to me. Smokers like to use this one. What makes you think that the "end of life" years wouldn't be made more enjoyable by following the reduced calorie diet?

Not that I have any plans to follow this diet, just playing devil's advocate a little [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #4 of 38
Fascinating stuff - thanks, JD.

A good friend of my late dad's always maintained that you should leave the table still feeling a little hungry. He'd had a tough childhood, one of a large family of Russian emigrants who had settled in Manchester, in northern England, in the early 20th century, and perhaps that's when his body became atuned to thriving on less.

He also walked everywhere by choice rather than use the car and in his 70s looked like a man 20 years younger.

He died peacefully at home a couple of months short of his 94th birthday in 2000, and only in the last couple of years of his life did he begin to slow down and his sharp intellect fade - I don't think he would have shared Maddog's spin on the above average lifespan he enjoyed.

He was also 10 years older than my very sedentary and overweight father but outlived him by six years. My father died unhappy, incapacitated and in hospital, surrounded by all the paraphernalia of progress.

I often think of this paradox when I'm about to reach out for a second helping and in the light of the NIH research suspect there could be a lesson for us all in here.
post #5 of 38
Uh yeah, there's a lesson, but there's also such a thing as taking things just a wee bit over the top. Been there, done that! Depends if you want to spend everfy day of your life being completely anal retentive! At this point, I refuse to share meals with people who ask the calorie content of every darn thing on the table! Although I am opposed to gluttany, there is a certain sensuality to food, and people who an analytical, as opposed to a pleasurable relationship with it are, IMHO a bit asexual.

In many cases, this sort of thing is doomed to backfire. Excessive caloric restriction actually slows your metabolic rate, but ok, they said they are concerned with health, not weight loss.

The average sedentary woman, who drives to work and everywhere else, has a desk job, and does about 30 minutes of cardio a day would probably be fine on 1120 calories a day. But someone who walks to work, performs sometimes up to 2 hours of cardio and some weight lifting, most days of the week would be setting themselves up for health risks. Female athlete triad!

I've mentioned this before, but a frightening number of fitness pros and fitness maniacs have some sort of auto immune disease. HYpothyroid, gastro intestinal, even a few careers ruined by MS. Does the body rebel against having too many restrictions against it ? Who knows?

BTW, my dad ate whatever he wanted, but did not over eat. He died last year, 2 months before his 93rd birthday.

[ June 20, 2002, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Lisamarie ]
post #6 of 38
Originally posted by Lisamarie:
BTW, my dad date whatever he wanted, but did not over eat. He died last year, 2 months before his 93rd birthday .
Ummm 93 and still dating whatever he wanted. What a guy!
post #7 of 38
I win the Funniest Typos award!
post #8 of 38
I don't get it. So you spend your entire life in "survival mode", being listless, weak, hungry, headachy, snappish, and food obsessed, only to have it go on longer???

A 6' 115 lb. man??? I don't think he could even lift a toothbrush.
post #9 of 38
no, but he might be able to hide behind it in a pinch.
post #10 of 38
I wonder how many women would have sex with something that looks like that. Not to sound like a Maggot [img]tongue.gif[/img] , but "not getting any" can also be bad for your health!

And these people look very scary!

Sort of a cross between EST gradutes, and Satanic Cultists!
post #11 of 38
150 year old skier on caloric deprivation diet:

post #12 of 38
He was so skinny, he turned sideways, stuck out his tongue and looked like a zipper!
post #13 of 38
Then he skied the zipper line!
post #14 of 38

My point is that if the individual is in good shape during life, the added years are not significant when they mean the most (i.e. 18 – 70 years of age). During these years most of us will be able to be very active and lead full lives. Would you want to drastically reduce your caloric intake if at 40 you could have the body of a 38 year old? I would not. Now, if I could have the body of a 30 year old at 40 I would seriously consider the proposal. But the differences don’t significantly manifest themselves until the subject is much older, perhaps 70 or 75.

Your point is correct, that the person when in the +70 age group will live a “better more fuller life.” But to get there they must give up the social and cultural benefit of eating a calorie unrestricted diet. This is an individual choice.

This research has been known since the 1930’s and well known since the 1970’s, but few people engage in these diets because they are difficult, if not impossible, to justify. The only analogies I can think of right now are motorcycle vs. car and diesel vs. gas engines. The car has some benefits but at a cost of greater fuel consumption. The motorcycle is very fuel conservative. So, why don’t more people switch to only using a motorcycle? Saving on fuel costs is not the only consideration. The diesel engine will last at least 2x longer than the gas, but we all don’t drive diesels. Why? Engine life is only one of the considerations.

All bets are off if the subject is seriously obese. These people do not generally have the same quality of life when young and die earlier than their non-obese peers.

Smokers are in a far worse position than the obese. They have the most significant health problems when young and they die earlier and with more quality of life destroying diseases (cancers, mesotheliomas, etc.). Smokers who stop will have an immediate and significant increase in their quality of life. They will have fewer annual health problems, fewer chronic health problems, better endurance, more stamina, athletic ability, less likelihood of significant future medical problems like cancer, stroke, etc.

I agree the argument is specious when made by smokers, but in this setting it is not. Because smokers use the argument speciously, does not make it specious in all arguments.


My great aunt has always eaten what she wanted. She was never fat, never thin. She also never exercised. She had the occasional Sherry. At 101 she is still alive and well. We are revising our will to add our daughter. I should probably add my great aunt as a beneficiary, since it appears she will out live me. A calorie restricted DID NOT have anything to do with her life span. She also is old enough to question whether the quality of her life is what she really wants. She is unable to walk or see due to a fall and macular degeneration.

Do you really think that your friend would have reduced his caloric intake by another 15 to 20% just to have the POTENTIAL to live a few years longer? Remember these diets are not just “push back from the table while you are still a little hungry.” These diets are “push back from the table once the ravenous, consuming hunger within you becomes just not painful hunger.” I agree with your dad's friend's comments, push back before you are full. But how much farther should you go in the search for eternal youth? You will die. Take reasonable care of your body and you can live a long full life. Go to extremes and gain a POTENTIAL of a few more years.

The issue is quality of life and how much you are willing to sacrifice to gain years from 90 to 95. I am just not willing to spend a life without wine, beer, alcohol, sweets, or treats, while eating pabulum and skinless chicken breasts to gain a few years in my late 90’s or early 100’s. There is no evidence that these diets add significant enjoyment to the pre 70 years, or any years for that matter. They just predict the possibility.

Thanks LM, you said all the above better than I but I just can’t shut-up.
post #15 of 38

post #16 of 38
PLease Maddog, DO NOT SHUT UP!!! Its both astonishing and terrifying to me that people are buying into this. A 6 foot male weighs 115 lbs. and some of you think this is a good thing, because he's going to live a long time!

MY GOD! Who the heck cares if he's going to live a long life! Will someone pleae tell him to get a life!

This stuff sounds like the malarchy that the Buddah Bellies {yoga participants} spout out around the gym.
"Go on a cleansing fast, then take the Bikram yoga class. [100 degree temps in the room!] You'll lose so much weight, and you'll live a long healthy pure life'.

GAG ME!!!!!!!

Its been proven a zillion times that both fasting and calorie restriction LOWER your basal metabolic rate. How healthy is that???

Its also been proven that both AEROBIC and STRENGTH TRAINING exercise will not only increase longevity, but improve the QUALITY of your life!

If you are concerned about longevity, stop taking your car every freakin place you need to go. People who are raised in cities have been doing that all their lives.

Eat a HEALTHY diet, then work out for as many hours a day as you can without injury.

The best way to prevent overeating, is to take as much PLEASURE with your food as you would with sex.

Think about it!
post #17 of 38

That comment about food and... er.. ah.. sex.

You just don't understand guys. We do, that's why we are often a bit over the ideal, but we are all well under the "target".


[ June 21, 2002, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: CalG ]
post #18 of 38
Are any acquainted with Victor Kulvinakis (sp)?

His thing used to be wheat grass. His photos always looked a bit lifeless to me.

However, when I was about 24, I went on a bit of a caloric deprivation diet for about a year. I limited what I ate at a meal to the amount that would fit in a tea cup. Sprouts with soya mayo was one of my favorites, Miso soup etc. I felt great, Some said I didn't look too skinny, some said I did.
The biggest change I noticed was the amount of sleep " I needed". About 5 hours a nite. I like 8 now.

You can also be very cheap dinner date. "Oh nothing for me thanks".

Completly impractical for social living however. Everyone worries about what your eating . or not.

I would do it again "Just to blow out the carbon".


[ June 21, 2002, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: CalG ]
post #19 of 38
Sorry! I don't buy it. I neither gorge nor deprive myself. And I get only 3 to 6 hours of sleep nightly. Check my posting times if you don't believe me!

BTW, Cal, [quote]
post #20 of 38
You've all missed the point! What I was trying to say - and clearly failing - was that there could be some mileage in walking away from the table with a tiny corner left to fill rather than bursting at the seams, which so many of us do just because we can.

The guy I was referring to was a brilliant cook, spents ages preparing and experimenting with dishes, loved his food and wine and during the years I knew him always ate extremely well. He just never ever gorged himself and also took tons of exercise and, as I said, was in full working order until pretty near the very end.

Of course there are a zillion other factors involved - some of which probably haven't even been identified yet - and all I was doing was flagging up an example of cause and apparent effect.

Personally - as I've said in another thread - I gave up measuring out my food 20 or more years ago, and like LM find calorie counters deeply dull dining companions. I also can't think of anything worse than spending your entire life only eating three or four things and forever calculating how many mountfuls of this or that you're "allowed". There is indeed zero point in spending more years on the planet if you sentence yourself to living them in a straitjacket.

But clearly something has gone badly tits up dietwise in the West and it surely might be possible to learn from this low-cal research without either embracing it in its entirity or dismissing it out of hand.

That's all. Mini-rant over.
post #21 of 38
Originally posted by Lisamarie:
If you are concerned about longevity, stop taking your car every freakin place you need to go. People who are raised in cities have been doing that all their lives.
Might be the case in the US, but some of the worst offenders in the car journey department over here live in cities.

They're the parents on the "school run" and they clog cities across the UK incredibly effectively and appear deaf to calls for them to transport their kids any other way.

So you get a double whammy: the streets are needlessly jammed and polluted and the kids grow up as couchies.

That's progress.
post #22 of 38

No contest. Just an observation. My experience. Something I recall, that is all. No Buy- In required.
Im just feeling inadequate 'cause I sleep 8 hours if I can. Sheesh, 1/3 with my eyes shut!

One of the things that bugs be big time is how risky it is to ride a bicycle or walk anywhere cars go.
How many of us know/;knew someone lost to a car. It is the western worlds "accepted mortality".

To add years to the average life time of our citizens? Wear a helmet when you get in a car!

I don't like to travel by bike or on foot on our paved roads. I feel at risk when the kids are out for a ride.
How is that supposed to work? We are being discouraged to be responsible for our own health and instead, expected to subscribe to a gym or "stairmaster" to comply with the suggestions of our medical system.
I'm beginning to feel the 29 mph vehicle (or what ever the speed limit advocates for safety are doing) is the way!

post #23 of 38
Amen to that. I feel guilty about not doing my part for the environment, myself, etc... by not commuting to work on my bike. But riding on the road scares the heck out of me! I can't even get myself to ride through the two main intersections to get to the trailhead near my house. It's sad we can't engineer safer roads for pedestrians and cyclists.
post #24 of 38
But clearly something has gone badly tits up dietwise in the West and it surely might be possible to learn from this low-cal research without either embracing it in its entirity or dismissing it out of hand.
Here's the problem. If the research is such an obvious piece of quakery, its really hard to give any merit to even its valid points. Where's Badrat when we need him???

If someone starts telling me about 6 feet tall guys who weigh 115 lbs, and tries to convince me that this is a good thing, they've blown their credibility with me.

I understand what you folks are saying about the problems involved in walking/biking on roads in the burbs. Its sadly ironic. Move away from the cities for a cleaner, healthier environment, but end up in a place where you need to use your car to go a quarter of a mile. :
post #25 of 38
I agree that a 6' man weighing 115 lbs is crazy. It's almost like they're trying to justify anorexia!

Basically we're ridiculously messed up about the whole weight issue. How many news stories have you heard about the shocking number of obese people in the U.S.? Now, how many stories have you ALSO heard about how models and actresses are presenting an unrealistic standard for what women and (and girls) should weigh?

Weird stuff.
post #26 of 38
The more I hear about dieting and eating disorders, and all the distorted body image issues that Westerners have, the more I think I'm going to quit looking at the scale. As long as I feel healthy, enjoy what I eat, enjoy skiing and biking and feel fit in those activities, I'm not going to worry about the details. I know I should probably lose a few pounds, but I'm probably better off enjoying myself than stressing myself out and being miserable trying to lose weight.
post #27 of 38
Originally posted by altaskier1234:
The more I hear about dieting and eating disorders, and all the distorted body image issues that Westerners have, the more I think I'm going to quit looking at the scale. As long as I feel healthy, enjoy what I eat, enjoy skiing and biking and feel fit in those activities, I'm not going to worry about the details. I know I should probably lose a few pounds, but I'm probably better off enjoying myself than stressing myself out and being miserable trying to lose weight.
The voice of sanity speaks! Also, do you realize who freakin cold a 115 lb male would be on the ski slopes.

This is, after all Fitness and Health for
SKIING, not the Shape Magazine forum!
post #28 of 38
I take my hat off to you...

Originally posted by Lisamarie:
The best way to prevent overeating, is to take as much PLEASURE with your food as you would with sex.
Originally posted by Lisamarie:
I get only 3 to 6 hours of sleep nightly...
Are you into the Tantric stuff?

LM must eat a lot, and burn off a lot of calories when she's not asleep each night.

post #29 of 38
Fox -

Problem is she's on the freakin' computer posting all those hours she's not sleeping [img]smile.gif[/img]

So that leaves me to raid the fridge for other pleasures instead.

Of course she does have a *wireless* laptop
post #30 of 38
Poor MarkXS!

Now, before I'm accused of going off topic, we all know that certain activities that MXS claims LM doesn't have time for, burn a lot of calories.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: