This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
but this is not the reson why i was asking that why does women have more calori thatn men not thing else
People want to know what a human CR diet specifically consists of. Let's write a short section on this near the top. Could you please suggest some sources and references here? -- 131.193.179.146 ( talk) 19:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to put in some numbered references next to a lot of claims so that we can associate them with the texts that have shown evidence for such changes. Any thoughts? --Unknown
Thx for the good article. I found pro-cr info in Objections and moved it to near the end of "Why might CR increase longevity?" I don't know enough about this to rewrite much (except for one copyedit), so flow could use some work. Also, the last paragraph i moved ("Stated levels of Calorie needs may be biased towards sedentary individuals. Calorie Restriction may be more of adapting the diet to the body's needs.") should be explained more -- i wasn't sure what it meant and where to put it. Does this relate to the activity level question in test animals, and if so how? If "Calorie needs [are] biased towards sedentary individuals" vs active ones, wouldn't that mean they're too *low*? Etc. Hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
This statement isn't as correct as it should be. There has been no lifespan extention demonstrated in a published paper with primates. Richard Weindruch's experiments are ongoing and there has been nothing published stating that "lifespan extension" has been "shown". So unless someone puts forth a concluded published trial with primates I'm going to change this. 205.211.168.10 15:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Jonathan Graham
Also I added to the Objections section a link to the Housefly article and some text about John Phelan's objection about this being an effect that is really only acheivable on small organisms. Another good reason to change the intro text. Not saying that this wiki is biased but it looks like there has been way more effort put into representing the "pro" side here. 205.211.168.10 15:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Jonathan Graham
Searched around for completed primate studies, nothing so far. I did find another ongoing one (other than the one by RW). It shows some evidence at monkeys beating the median age ( I'll read the study in a bit more detail later but that seems like grade 'C' evidence when dealing with such a small sample ) If they were to beat the maximal age that would really drive the point home but considering that these monkeys live 40 years...I wouldn't expect a conclusion any time soon. Also Rhesus monkeys are prone to diabeties which would skew the results somewhat as well.
Also added the study about late-life CR. I'm not sure if we should put an approximate age in there. The rats were introduced at 18 months - what would that be in human years. I've seen places where people have just assumed that you compose them linearly but is it really reasonable to do so.
I've put it under 'objections' which is becoming a less and less applicable title. It sort of depends on exactly what one is 'objecting' to. If this article is about simple calorie restriction as having some (possibly small) benefit on some arbitrary group of creatures then they aren't but in reading this article, it appears to me that what is being advertised here is CR as a generally applicable lifestyle for significant (i.e. greater than maximal) longevity with implication on the idea the humans can do this too. In which case I would call the articles I'm posting "objections". I would think this isn't such a bad thing to be discussing either after all when you read about CR in the media, they aren't talking about how to keep your pet rat alive longer! :-)
205.211.168.10 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Jonathan Graham
More digging through PM...and we find out that this effect (longevity) may not even be consistant on small organisms. Drosphila may have mixed responses when it comes to CR - at least from the journal abstracts. Also there's a reference to a mouse study that didn't produce longevity. I'll go through these articles when I get a chance. Point being that this wiki, so far makes it sound like there is little reason to believe that this effect isn't universal but now I'm thinking we may want to tone it down a bit.
24.141.146.87 01:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Jonathan Graham
CR is one of the few dietary intervention that has been documented to increase both the median and maximum lifespan in a variety of species, among them yeast, fish, rodents, dogs and non-human primates.
I'm not aware of any other. I'll change this to the only dietary intervention if nobody objects. --
88.70.183.176 (
talk)
09:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Great catch, that's interesting why credit was only given to the student... although he was still the one to report them? Maybe teachers do that to give their underlings a better chance at success later, when they are satisfied. Tyciol 16:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
There's oodles of evidence that CR benefits exist at all ages. Too rapid introduction of CR is the problem in the few studies that don't show that. This section should be removed. /-- Borgipedia 18:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
This article quotes the names of many of the researchers, but I couldn't find any reference to the David Sinclair mentioned in Sir2. is this a mistake? -- apers0n 15:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
To Mccready: Why do you want Brookes comment here in the intro? The intro paragraph introduces CR, and (like CR) makes no claims about single or multiple causes of aging. Thanks in advance. -- Borgipedia 09:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What do others think? Anyone? Seems like a bizarre thing in this intro paragraph. Mccready: perhaps you can add more than your two words here? The question of the absence or presence of single causes of aging seems like weird "context." What do you mean? Thanks. -- Borgipedia 14:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You asked me to discuss. I did. You didn't. I'm removing it. Please justify, here, putting back before you put it back. -- Borgipedia 15:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Your quotation makes the point, indeed, stresses the point, that aging doesn't have one single cause. What does that have to do with the introductory paragraph in this article about CR, which (para. and article) rightly makes no claims about the number of causes of aging? /-- Borgipedia 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Please read the article, and/or read up on CR. You don't know enough about it to understand how to edit this article. CR itself doesn't "claim" anything, but advocates of CR believe that CR can affect various aspects of aging. No one argues that calorie intake is a direct cause of aging. I see from your other posts you have an axe to grind. Grinding it here is probably not a good idea. James Randy-ism isn't apposite here. Thanks. /-- Borgipedia 18:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Lowering the body temperature of mice resulted in significant longevity increase:
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/061102_cool_mice.html
From the article:
"Past studies have shown lifespan can be extended in animals by cutting down on the calories in their diets. Interestingly, this method also lowers body temperature. "The mechanisms mediating the increased lifespan in the 'cool mice' may be similar to those of calorie restriction," Conti speculated."
-- Cheese Sandwich 13:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
This is either a note to myself for when I have more time, or a request for others watching this page. Is it useful to have the section "effects on different organisms?" Several sections are stubs, and amount basically to "this species has been shown to live longer." The exception currently is the section on Rats, but clearly most of that material should be moved to the section "Why might CR effect longevity?"
It seems to me a more useful organization might be "Effects Of CR" and then, rather then divide it into species subtopics, divide it into outcome subtopics. "Increased longevity" - Longevity has been verified in mice, rate, c. elegans, etc.; "Decreased rates of Cancer", "Improved cardiovascular function", "Lower free radical damage" - etc., in each case noting in which species the benefit has been verified. This would take some work - a meta-analysis of what's been published, and a fair amount of referencing - but it strikes me as a much more useful organization. Each section could also, of course, note when the benefit has not been observed. Comments? SJS1971 11:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
In current human practice, what is the difference between CR and being skinny/lean/lowbodymass/smallwaisted? Is the only difference getting good nutrition? Is there any difference? Can you be doing CR and still maintain a relatively high weight? Should you? Does practicing CR imply being low-energy and exercising little? Or imply the opposite? This should all be clearly addressed in a section of the article. And there also needs to be a good wiki article on the plain relation of body mass to longevity, with a prominent See also link from here. 69.87.203.106 14:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be mentioned in the article the results and link to Calorie Restriction obtained through Biosphere Two by Roy Walford. Evidence can be cited here:
The eight people living in Biosphere 2, an enclosed ecosystem, underwent involuntary caloric restriction during their 2-year stay because they were unable to grow enough food for their needs. They consumed 1800 calories per day during the first 6 months and 2200 calories thereafter. Their diet was nutrient rich and high in vegetables. Body weight decreased by 15 percent and serum cholesterol dropped 38 percent. Blood pressure fell from an average of 110/74 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) to 90/59 mm Hg. A group outside Biosphere 2, who ate without restriction but who took the same nutritional supplements as those inside Biosphere 2, did not exhibit these same positive health alterations |
-- Walford RL et al 2002 |
The Biosphere project unintentionally became a significant study on calorie restriction on humans in a completely isolated environment - an important control variable.
P.S. Sorry for the alignment of the quote, it's from the second external link I put up. -- Permafrost 03:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
There should be a new article specifically on Intermittent Fasting, because that has proven to be a superior method of life-extension in animals, and perhaps humans. The benefits of intermittent fasting seem to be independent of Calorie Restriction (CR). For example, fasted mice eating as much as controls showed superior results to those eating only 60% as much (40% CR). This brings into question the whole theory of CR, because the same benefits (and more) can be had WITHOUT restricting calories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.77.27 ( talk • contribs) 10:27, 9 April 2007
Maybe he's referring to a different study? I see no "media gossip" in the following;
That IF feeding was more effective than either LDF or PF in protecting neurons from KA-induced damage demonstrates that the IF-feeding schedule itself is neuroprotective independent of overall caloric intake.
The whole point of IF over CR is mainly the benefit of increased insulin sensitivity, since some estimate as much as 25% of the U.S. population is suffering /dying from 'metaboic syndrome'.
"In contrast, at the end of the study the body weights of mice maintained on the IF diet or PF on a daily basis were only slightly below those of the AL-fed group (Fig. 1b). A prominent physiological change that occurs in mammals maintained on reduced-calorie diets is increased insulin sensitivity, which often is reflected in decreased fasting plasma levels of glucose and insulin (17). Fasting serum concentrations of glucose and insulin in mice fed AL in the current study averaged 150 mg/dl and 3,400 pg/ml, respectively (Fig. 2 a and b). The concentrations of glucose and insulin were decreased significantly, to similar amounts, in mice maintained on either LDF or IF regimens with glucose and insulin concentrations dropping to 100 mg/dl and 700–1,100 pg/ml, respectively (Fig. 2). That similar changes are seen in IF and LDF groups in the current study suggests that despite an overall calorie intake similar to mice fed AL, IF has similar effects on circulating glucose and insulin levels." Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 May 13; 100(10): 6216–6220. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=156352-- EinRand ( talk) 11:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I reverted an unsourced addition of content, and the editor who made it then reverted it back: [1]. I try to follow a one-revert rule, so I will not revert it again. I asked the editor for more clear sourcing, but my request was refused: [2]. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability "Articles should only contain material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." Is a citation to "Charlie Rose - calorie restriction" satisfactory detail for this material, or should we raise the bar on the article sourcing to comply with WP:CITE and WP:RS? Buddhipriya 07:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
A normal amount of kcal a person consumes is around 2800-3000kcal/day, is it possible to include in this article how much is consumed with this caloric restriction diet/day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.193.44 ( talk) 08:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
I agree. How can we have an article about calorie restriction and not mention how low the number of calories need to be to be considered "restricted". Pasado ( talk) 00:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I notice this still seems to be an issue with the article. What is it, 50%? 90%? I thought I saw studies using both figures for animals. -- Gwern (contribs) 07:42 21 July 2009 (GMT) 07:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no precise amount. One study on the effects of calorie restriction on elderly men and women used a 30% reduction compared to controls. Maybe explaining that there isn't enough research available yet to recommend a calorie intake in humans would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.164.147 ( talk) 22:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
"Sir2 or "silent information regulator 2" is a longevity gene in baker's yeast cells that extends lifespan by suppressing DNA instability (see Sinclair and Guarente, Cell, 1997).[10] In mammals Sir2 is known as SIRT1. Recent discoveries have suggested that the gene Sir2 might underlie the effect of CR. In baker's yeast the Sir2 enzyme is activated by CR, which leads to a 30% lifespan extension."
These statements are entirely inaccurate. Sir2 is not a "longevity gene", it has multiple responsibilities. Of primary importance is its role in cell division. My understanding of the literature, which is by no means extensive, is that CR increases Sir2 expression. Sir2, I believe, has 7 mammalian homologs SIRT1-7. SIRT1 is active in the nucleus. SIRT3 is an inter membrane mitochondrial enzyme which may play a role in regulation of thermogenesis, it is found primarily in the brown adipocye mitochondria. I don't know about the rest.
As for the 30% part, I have no idea what studies are showing and thus have no objections except for the lack of a citation. I intend to remedy my own lack of citations for above statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backwardtoes ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
A new article is to come for the CRON-diet (which uses calorie restriction)
The Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition-diet is a low calorie, high nutrition- diet which practices the limiting of dietary energy intake in the hope that it will improve health and retard aging.
This first line already shows that more low-high diets exist and can be used with the okinawa diet article aswell.
Dont have time to look up the references, found it in the health plan book of roy walford. Look into it and change article.
KVDP ( talk) 15:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
a new section would need to describe the CRON-diet in practice. It is to include: standard CR diet which is proposed (and still safe) features 5-25% CR restriction (it can go up to 60% in theory yet no longer safe). Standard diet recomendations are usually to begin with 1800 calories/day. Further work out may happen as this is a guideline(biospherians ate 1800 calories/day, yet had to work physically hard). basal metabolic rate of person cannot be accuratly measured (thus trial and error method is to be followed aldough trough the fat percentage some indications may be given on the amount of calorie intake a person must follow, as body fat should not drop below (6% for a man and 10% for a woman) KVDP ( talk) 10:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed an incorrect sentence stating that heart damage is more related to ketosis than to low calorie catabolisis. Any time the body release Adrenocorticotropic hormone, in response to stresses (low caloric intake is an example of such a stress), fats, and more importantly proteins in the body are broken down to ensure blood sugar is kept high. The problem is that proteins are broken down indiscriminately, leading to organ damage, and to the type of bloating seen in starving children when blood osmotic proteins are broken down, and lymph fluid functions improperly. I remember learning this in Grade 12 Biology, and I am certain about its correctness. 24.65.42.159 ( talk) 17:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I am removing the negative effects of increased mortality. The study cited there is studying individuals based solely on BMI, and is no way a controlled experiment between CR and non-CR individuals. As pointed out in the topic "CR vs. Lean" quite a few people can be underweight and be on a non-CR diet, so it is important to note the distinction that low BMI does not connotate a CR individual. Masparasol ( talk) 01:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph following headline "Yeast" is of poor quality. There are many grammatical and spelling mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.187.2 ( talk) 09:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Some of the pro-vegetarian stuff makes it nearly impossible to get adequate nutrition with CRON. I consider raw foodism, and vegetarianism to be distractions on the road to CR. Let's do some simple math.
A woman might normally eat 2300 Calories per day. Most CR folks cut their intake (over time) to be 30% less than it was. So that's a touch over 1600 Calories per day. That's like being on Weight Watchers for the rest of your life, except, you never go back to "maintenance".
The question is, can a person get enough nutrition under that restriction? The answer is a resounding YES and in fact, she will have better nutrition than the average American gets in their whole life. ...as long as she pays attention to the nutrients. I'll try to prove it to you with an example. Some good round numbers for what our fictitious woman needs is the following (check for yourself on the USDA "Recommendations for Americans" site - I've overestimated her needs):
Per-Day:
Protein 100g x 4Cal/g = 400 Cal
Carbs 150g x 4Cal/g = 600
Fiber 30g x 2Cal/g = 60
Fat 40g x 9Cal/g = 360
So total intake if you had paid attention to getting these amounts in your food every day is 1420 Cal. So that's the minimum you can eat per day if you want to keep these healthy levels of macronutrients. Macronutrients are the only source of significant Calories in food. Try to think of a vitamin that has calories. Omega-3? That's a fat. Vitamin D? Well, it's dissolved in fat, so there are a few calories there, but it's about 25 Cal max for a good supplement.
Now, even if you're not on this diet, check your diet out, and see if you are getting this much of everything right now. I bet not. Sometimes people panic over the nothing. Nobody would say that Weight Watchers is a fad or a starvation diet. Nor that people on it aren't getting enough nutrition. So why get bothered about this?
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.92.130.230 (
talk)
16:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Smokers and people with cancer can be lean but not on a CR diet and not healthy.
One Twinkie and 3 stiff drinks a day will make you thin, but not healthy.
Studies failing to report that thin people were unhealthy mostly overlooked the inclusion of people who were unhealthy in a way that made them thin. Smokers and people with cancer tend to omit such facts on life insurance applications. Studies using their original applications and date of death often failed to account for the omission of smoking (or cancer or other health conditions) and to conclude erroneously that being thin by itself was bad. But when adequate controls for unhealthy unreported habits or conditions were instituted and the data were re-analyzed, thin proved to be good for health, down to quite thin. Of course anorexics die because there IS such a thing as too thin -- a skeletal thin that finally destroys the immune system, far below the thin resulting from, e.g., 30% calorie restriction (with high-quality diet). See Chron diet for more on the kind of high-quality diet actually thought to provide benefits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.11.64 ( talk) 02:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not feel qualified to actually put this in the article, so I will offer it here for consideration for someone else to take up.
There is an interesting study conducted jointly by Poland's Department of Gastroenterology, Institute of Internal Medicine, Medical Academy of Pozna, Poland , and the Department of Nephrology. They seem to conclude that starvation diet and calorie restricted diets both lower weight in obese people, BUT... starvation diet tends to cause weight loss by reducing both fat and non-fat (ie, muscle) tissue, whereas Calorie Restricted diet tended to produce weight loss in fat tissue only.
link: http://www.springerlink.com/content/h3145861v1r37m24/
70.184.23.23 ( talk) 05:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)klw
Currently, the Primates section is entirely pro-CR. This does not reflect the actual studies, though. In particular, the rhesus macaque study returned a negative result on the primary outcome: the difference in deaths between the two groups was not statistically significant. It was made to be statistically significant in the reports by excluding deaths that the researchers considered to be non-age related. More criticisms:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/07/calorie-restrictive-eating-for-longer.html Astgtciv ( talk) 15:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the first paragraph at least define what the article is about? Right now it just immediately launches into health benefits before defining what Calorie Restriction means. Reads like someone advertising their lifestyle choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.51.128.21 ( talk) 14:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The section on negative effects of calorie restriction is misleading. The effects the section describes are caused by malnourishment, not calorie restricted diets. Calorie restricted diets aren't ones that are so restrictive that patients starve or die. So mortality, starvation, and abnormal hair growth should be removed from the list of negative effects of calorie restriction. Those effects have not been shown to be associated with diets that researchers call calorie restricted diets, at least judging by the citations in the "negative effects" section.
Also, this sentence should be removed: "However, that relation seems to be age-specific since another study, when analyzing people older than 65, those who were underweight had a higher dementia risk than normal or overweight people.[17]" The sentence cites a study that did not involve calorie restriction to call into question the results of a study that did involve calorie restriction. 128.36.164.147 ( talk) 22:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, there are far too many headings in the section. I propose that what's there now be consolidated under three headings: lack of essential nutrients, binge eating disorder, and potential malnourishment. Under the potential malnourishment section, we can note that overzealous calorie restriction can lead to malnourishment, and then note that abnormal hair growth and even death can result.
Also, the "attenuation of age-related sarcopenia" should not have a heading at that level, and it should not be in positive effects on humans section, because the study involves rhesus monkeys.
I'm happy to make these changes if they won't be summarily reverted. 128.36.164.147 ( talk) 22:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The statement that calorie restriction can lead to binge eating is both absurd and lacking any sort of citation, as noted in the article itself. Anybody even remotely educated in calorie restriction knows that with a CR diet comes a smaller stomach; while the typical fast-food lover may indeed binge-eat after consuming 800 or so calories in a day, this is hardly even an issue with actual practitioners of calorie restriction. Indeed, this statement merely seems to be somebody's personal opinion with no basis behind it. Let's do the article a favor and remove it. 67.60.38.138 ( talk) 07:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand there are a lot of proponents, but as someone not as informed, and reading teh article for educational purposes, I'm detecting a pretty strong bias the toward calorie restriction camp. This seems especially evident in the negative effects section(s) where it seems there is a caveat or apologetic attached to each potential concern, that seems aimed at explaining it away. I know this, like other diet and health issues, can be contentious and people feel strongly about it. But let's try to keep the POV to a minimum. I'd love to be bold and edit, but not having as much depth in the topic as I think it deserves, I'd rather suggest someone else do it. I think that section really needs some pruning for apologetic language. Let is stand on its own, as the benefits section should stand on its own. This is not supposed to be a puff piece on CR, nor is it supposed to be propaganda against it. It's natural to want to defend something you believe in, but this is not a persuasive article, it's an encyclopedic entry, and should be a neutral as possible. Jbower47 ( talk) 17:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Original Write up on the documentary: "Michael Mosley has set himself a truly ambitious goal: he wants to live longer, stay younger and lose weight in the bargain. And he wants to make as few changes to his life as possible along the way. He discovers the powerful new science behind the ancient idea of fasting, and he thinks he's found a way of doing it that still allows him to enjoy his food. Michael tests out the science of fasting on himself - with life-changing results" http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01lxyzc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNdWCZWpjxU http://www.buchinger.com/en/news-stories/latest-news/newsinhalt/detail/2012/april/24/Scientific-documentary-on-fasting8232.html http://www.viadecouvertes.fr/pages/en/reference.php?id=113
Potential edited summary write up on documentary: "The Franco-German television channel ARTE aired a documentary on fasting. The program examines the potential role to be played by fasting in the healthcare systems of industrialized countries, including in the treatment of diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and cancer, and as a way to reduce the potential overconsumption of pharmaceuticals. The film spotlights five major centers of fasting: In Germany, the film profiles the Buchinger Clinic in Überlingen, as well as the Department of Natural Medicine at the Charité University Hospital in Berlin. At the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique in Strasbourg, France, Professor Yvon Le Maho and his team investigate instinctive fasting in the animal kingdom."
Original Write up on the documentary from one of the sources: "Fasting as medical therapy is now experiencing a revival thanks to the groundbreaking research by Professor Valter Longo in the areas of anti-aging and cancer therapy. The Franco-German television channel ARTE aired an excellent scientific documentary on fasting. Produced by the renowned French documentary duo, Sylvie Gilman and Thierry Vincent de Lestrade, the program examines the potential role to be played by fasting in the healthcare systems of industrialized countries, including in the treatment of diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and cancer, and as a way to reduce the explosive overconsumption of pharmaceuticals. In presenting fasting as a proven complementary therapy, the film spotlights five major centers of fasting science and therapy: In Germany, the film profiles the Buchinger Clinic in Überlingen, as well as the Department of Natural Medicine at the Charité University Hospital in Berlin. At the Buchinger Clinics in Überlingen and Marbella, more than 250,000 fasting therapies have been medically supervised in the last 60 years. The Buchinger Clinics are Europe’s largest clinics for therapeutic fasting and have profound experience in the medical applications of fasting. At the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique in Strasbourg, France, Professor Yvon Le Maho and his team use the latest technology to investigate instinctive fasting in the animal kingdom. Hundreds of publications have shown that the ability to fast is a natural physiological adaptation of humans and animals to life on the planet Earth. The availability of food changes from winter to summer, and therefore a succession of eating and fasting periods is absolutely normal. Doctors and clinics in Russia have amassed extensive knowledge and experience in therapeutic fasting, including a wealth of scientific publications during the Soviet era that have never been translated and remain virtually unknown outside Russia. In the United States, there is a tradition of fasting in the alternative scene. "
• Eat Less, Live Longer? http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/07/09/calorierestriction.php
• Feast, fast and reduce risks http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-eat10dec10,1,883044.story?coll=la-headlines-healthI
• Routine Periodic Fasting Is Good for Your Health, and Your Heart, Study Suggests, ScienceDaily (Apr. 3, 2011) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110403090259.htm
• Fasting Weakens Cancer in Mice http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120208152254.htm
• Fasting could help fight cancer, By Roger Highfield, Science Editor http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3337872/Fasting-could-help-fight-cancer.html
• Fasting and cancer, Starving the Beast, The Economist, Feb 9th 2012, 22:02 by T.C. http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/02/fasting-and-cancer
• Fasting can help protect against brain diseases, scientists say: Claim that giving up almost all food for one or two days a week can counteract impact of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/18/fasting-protect-brain-diseases-scientists
1. Fasting cycles retard growth of tumors and sensitize a range of cancer cell types to chemotherapy. Lee C, Raffaghello L, Brandhorst S, Safdie FM, Bianchi G, Martin-Montalvo A, Pistoia V, Wei M, Hwang S, Merlino A, Emionite L, de Cabo R, Longo VD. Andrus Gerontology Center, Department of Biological Sciences, Norris Cancer Center, University of Southern California, 3715 McClintock Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0191, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22323820 Abstract: Short-term starvation (or fasting) protects normal cells, mice, and potentially humans from the harmful side effects of a variety of chemotherapy drugs. Here, we show that treatment with starvation conditions sensitized yeast cells (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) expressing the oncogene-like RAS2(val19) to oxidative stress and 15 of 17 mammalian cancer cell lines to chemotherapeutic agents. Cycles of starvation were as effective as chemotherapeutic agents in delaying progression of different tumors and increased the effectiveness of these drugs against melanoma, glioma, and breast cancer cells. In mouse models of neuroblastoma, fasting cycles plus chemotherapy drugs--but not either treatment alone--resulted in long-term cancer-free survival. In 4T1 breast cancer cells, short-term starvation resulted in increased phosphorylation of the stress-sensitizing Akt and S6 kinases, increased oxidative stress, caspase-3 cleavage, DNA damage, and apoptosis. These studies suggest that multiple cycles of fasting promote differential stress sensitization in a wide range of tumors and could potentially replace or augment the efficacy of certain chemotherapy drugs in the treatment of various cancers.
2. Fasting and cancer treatment in humans: A case series report. Fernando M. Safdie,1,6 Tanya Dorff,2,3,6 David Quinn,2,3 Luigi Fontana,4 Min Wei,1 Changhan Lee,1 Pinchas Cohen,5 and Valter D. Longo1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815756/ Abstract: Short-term fasting (48 hours) was shown to be effective in protecting normal cells and mice but not cancer cells against high dose chemotherapy, termed Differential Stress Resistance (DSR), but the feasibility and effect of fasting in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy is unknown. Here we describe 10 cases in which patients diagnosed with a variety of malignancies had voluntarily fasted prior to (48-140 hours) and/or following (5-56 hours) chemotherapy. None of these patients, who received an average of 4 cycles of various chemotherapy drugs in combination with fasting, reported significant side effects caused by the fasting itself other than hunger and lightheadedness. Chemotherapy associated toxicity was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The six patients who underwent chemotherapy with or without fasting reported a reduction in fatigue, weakness, and gastrointestinal side effects while fasting. In those patients whose cancer progression could be assessed, fasting did not prevent the chemotherapy-induced reduction of tumor volume or tumor markers. Although the 10 cases presented here suggest that fasting in combination with chemotherapy is feasible, safe, and has the potential to ameliorate side effects caused by chemotherapies, they are not meant to establish practice guidelines for patients undergoing chemotherapy. Only controlled-randomized clinical trials will determine the effect of fasting on clinical outcomes including quality of life and therapeutic index.
3. ‘Short-term therapeutic fasting (7 days) in the treatment of chronic pain and fatigue syndromes--well-being and side effects with and without mineral supplements’ - Michalsen A, Weidenhammer W, Melchart D, Langhorst J, Saha J, Dobos G. Department of Internal Medicine V and Integrative Medicine, Kliniken Essen Mitte, Am Deimelsberg 34 a, 45276 Essen, Germany. 2002 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12232494
4. ‘The short-term (7 days) effects of fasting on the neuroendocrine system in patients with chronic pain syndromes.’ - Michalsen A, Schneider S, Rodenbeck A, Lüdtke R, Huether G, Dobos GJ. Department of Internal Medicine V and Integrative Medicine, Kliniken Essen Mitte, Am Deimelsberg 34 a, 45276 Essen, Germany. 2003 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12608732
5. 2010 / CellCycle / Fasting and differential chemotherapy protection in patients / Rafaghello, Prof. Valter Longo, et al./ DOI: 10.4161/cc.9.22.13954
6. 2010 / Trends in Pharmacological Sciences / Calorie restriction and cancer prevention: metabolic and molecular mechanisms / Prof Valter D. Longo and Luigi Fontana / DOI: 10.1016/j.tips.2009.11.004
7. 2007 / PNAS / Starvation‐dependent differential stress resistance protects normal but not cancer against high‐dose chemotherapy / Lizzia Raffaghello, Prof. Valter Longo, et al. / DOI: 10.1073"pnas.0708100105
8. 2011 / Oncogene Research / Fasting vs dietary restriction in cellular protection and cancer treatment: from model organisms to patients / Changhan Lee and Prof. Valter Longo / DOI: 10.1038/onc.2011.91
9. ‘Medically supervised water-only fasting in the treatment of hypertension.’ Goldhamer A, Lisle D, Parpia B, Anderson SV, Campbell TC. Center for Conservative Therapy, Penngrove, Calif, USA. 2002 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11416824
10. ‘Medically supervised water-only fasting in the treatment of borderline hypertension.; - Goldhamer AC, Lisle DJ, Sultana P, Anderson SV, Parpia B, Hughes B, Campbell TC. TrueNorth Health Center, Rohnert Park, CA 2002 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12470446
11. ‘Prolonged fasting (7-21 days) as a method of mood enhancement in chronic pain syndromes: a review of clinical evidence and mechanisms.’ - Michalsen A. Immanuel Hospital Berlin, Department of Internal and Complementary Medicine, Institute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité-University Medical Centre, Germany. 2010 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20425196 Abstract: Periods of deliberate fasting with restriction to intake of solid food are practiced worldwide, mostly based on a traditional, cultural, or religious background. Recent evidence from clinical trials shows that medically supervised modified fasting (200-500 kcal nutritional intake/day) with periods from 7 to 21 days is efficacious in the treatment of rheumatic diseases and chronic pain syndromes. Here, fasting is frequently accompanied by increased alertness and mood enhancement. The beneficial claims of fasting are supported by experimental research, which has found fasting to be associated with increased brain availability of serotonin, endogenous opioids, and endocannabinoids. Fasting-induced neuroendocrine activation and mild cellular stress response with increased production of neurotrophic factors may also contribute to the mood enhancement of fasting. Fasting treatments may be useful as an adjunctive therapeutic approach in chronic pain patients. The mood-enhancing and pain-relieving effect of therapeutic fasting should be further evaluated in randomized clinical trials.
12. ‘Caloric restriction in primates and relevance to humans.’ - Roth GS, Ingram DK, Lane MA. Laboratory of Neurosciences, Gerontology Research Center, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21224, USA. 2001 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11795522 Abstract: Dietary caloric restriction (CR) is the only intervention conclusively and reproducibly shown to slow aging and maintain health and vitality in mammals. Although this paradigm has been known for over 60 years, its precise biological mechanisms and applicability to humans remain unknown. We began addressing the latter question in 1987 with the first controlled study of CR in primates (rhesus and squirrel monkeys, which are evolutionarily much closer to humans than the rodents most frequently employed in CR studies). To date, our results strongly suggest that the same beneficial "antiaging" and/or "antidisease" effects observed in CR rodents also occur in primates. These include lower plasma insulin levels and greater sensitivity; lower body temperatures; reduced cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure, and arterial stiffness; elevated HDL; and slower age-related decline in circulating levels of DHEAS. Collectively, these biomarkers suggest that CR primates will be less likely to incur diabetes, cardiovascular problems, and other age-related diseases and may in fact be aging more slowly than fully fed counterparts. Despite these very encouraging results, it is unlikely that most humans would be willing to maintain a 30% reduced diet for the bulk of their adult life span, even if it meant more healthy years.
13. ‘The impact of religious fasting on human health.’ Trepanowski JF, Bloomer RJ. Cardiorespiratory/Metabolic Laboratory, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21092212 Abstract: Greek Orthodox Christians fast for a total of 180 - 200 days each year, and their main fasting periods are the Nativity Fast (40 days prior to Christmas), Lent (48 days prior to Easter), and the Assumption (15 days in August). Some of the more favorable effects of these fasts include the lowering of body mass, total cholesterol, LDL-C, and the LDL-C/HDL-C ratio. The Biblical-based Daniel Fast prohibits the consumption of animal products, refined carbohydrates, food additives, preservatives, sweeteners, flavorings, caffeine, and alcohol. It is most commonly partaken for 21 days, although fasts of 10 and 40 days have been observed. Our initial investigation of the Daniel Fast noted favorable effects on several health-related outcomes, including: blood pressure, blood lipids, insulin sensitivity, and biomarkers of oxidative stress. This review summarizes the health-specific effects of these fasts and provides suggestions for future research.
14. ‘The Effects of Caloric Restriction on Health and Longevity.’ Green JL, Sawaya FJ, Dollar AL. Emory University, 49 Jesse Hill Jr Drive SE, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA 2011 Abstract: OPINION STATEMENT: There is increasing evidence that restricting caloric intake may have considerable health benefits in humans. Significant evidence in non-primate animals demonstrates that caloric restriction increases average and maximal life span. However, historically, caloric intake reduction in humans has been involuntary and accompanied by poverty, malnutrition, poor sanitation, and a lack of modern health care. As a result, caloric restriction in people typically has been accompanied by a reduction of both average and maximal life span. Conversely, improvements in standards of living usually are accompanied by an increased food supply and resultant improved health and longevity. The majority of the world is now in a new era where an abundance of caloric intake and its associated obesity are causing widespread chronic illness and premature death. What would happen if one were to institute caloric restriction with high-quality nutrition within an environment of modern sanitation and health care? This review argues that improved health and improved average life span would quite likely result. A lengthening of maximal human life span with this combination is perhaps possible but by no means certain.
15. A.J.Carlson and F. Hoelzel, “Nutrition, Senescence and Rejuvenescence”. Public Health Reports Vol.67 No.2. February 1952 Chicago.
16. H.L.Taylor, “American Journal of Physiology”. pp143-148 1945.
17. A.J.Carlson and F. Hoelzel, “Apparent Prolongation of Lifespan of Rats by Intermittent Fasting”. Journal of Nutrition, 31:363 1946.
18. Sergius Morgulis, “Fasting and Undernutrition”. University of Nebraska, E.P. Dutton, New York 1923.
19. A.J.Carlson, “The Control of Hunger in Health and Disease”. University of Chicago 1916.
20. Margaret M. Kunde, “The After Effects of Prolonged Fasting on the Basal Metabolic Rate”. Journal of Metabolic Research 1923, 3, 399 – 449.
21. R.H. Weindruch, J.A.Kristie, K.Cheney and R.L.Walford, “The Influence of Controlled Dietary Restriction on Immunologic Function and Ageing”. Federation Proceedings U.C.L.A. 389:2007 (1979)
22. ‘Caloric restriction in C57BL/6J mice mimics therapeutic fasting in humans.’ - Mahoney LB, Denny CA, Seyfried TN. Biology Department, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA. 2006
23. ‘Clinical Aspects of the Ketogenic Diet’ - Adam L. Hartman, Eileen P. G. Vining, The John M. Freeman Pediatric Epilepsy Center, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland U.S.A. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2007.00914.x/full
24. ‘Fasting increases the in vivo gene delivery of AAV vectors.’ - Moulay G, Scherman D, Kichler A., Genethon, Evry, France. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21207763
25. ‘Greek Orthodox fasting rituals: a hidden characteristic of the Mediterranean diet of Crete.’ Sarri KO, Linardakis MK, Bervanaki FN, Tzanakis NE, Kafatos AG. Department of Social Medicine, University of Crete, School of Medicine, PO Box 2208, Iraklion 71003, Greece. 2004 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15333159
26. ‘Incorporation of fasting therapy in an integrative medicine ward: evaluation of outcome, safety, and effects on lifestyle adherence in a large prospective cohort study.’ - Michalsen A, Hoffmann B, Moebus S, Bäcker M, Langhorst J, Dobos GJ. Department of Integrative and Internal Medicine V, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, and Complementary and Integrative Medicine of the Alfred Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach Foundation, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 2005 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16131283
27. Short-term dietary restriction and fasting precondition against ischemia reperfusion injury in mice.’ Mitchell JR, Verweij M, Brand K, van de Ven M, Goemaere N, van den Engel S, Chu T, Forrer F, Müller C, de Jong M, van IJcken W, IJzermans JN, Hoeijmakers JH, de Bruin RW. Department of Genetics, Erasmus Medical Center, Cancer Genomics Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 50, 3015 GE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2010 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19878145
28. ‘A trial of fasting cure for PCB-poisoned patients in Taiwan.’ 1984 Imamura M, Tung TC. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6422746
29. ‘Brain Metabolism during Fasting’ O. E. Owen, A. P. Morgan, H. G. Kemp, J. M. Sullivan, M. G. Herrera, and G. F. Cahill, Jr., Elliott P. Joslin Research Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, the Cardiovascular Unit, the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, and the Diabetes Foundation, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts 1967 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC292907/?page=6
30. ‘Brief case reports of medically supervised, water-only fasting associated with remission of autoimmune disease.’ Fuhrman J, Sarter B, Calabro DJ. Hunterdon Medical Center, Flemington, NJ, USA. 2002 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12126162
31. There is also a highly dubious case in India of a man called Prahlad Jani whom claims to have lived without not just food but also water for years. Observation studies of Jani have been conducted, one in 2003 and one in 2010, both involving Sudhir Shah, a neurologist at the Sterling Hospitals in Ahmedabad, India. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prahlad_Jani SpringSummerAutumn ( talk) 14:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Under "Possible contraindications", the author states: "Both animal and human research suggest BUD CR..." but nowhere else in the article is BUD CR defined, and I can't even find any reference to that term with a quick Google on "BUD CR calorie restriction". Bhami ( talk) 19:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
When the intro and the article body talk about the University of Wisconsin study, they just say "Results are being periodically published".
Why so secretive??
There's very little research on CR, and only two primates, so why not say something about the results that have been published so far?
I haven't read the results, so I can't add anything. I can just note that as a reader, this seems strange. Gronky ( talk) 07:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
In the past few days User:Lufontana added a bunch of content based on studies done on Washington University, citing a primary source in which data were published on a study of 18 CR patients and 18 controls. At Wikipedia we base content on secondary sources, not primary ones as per WP:PSTS and for health-related information, this is even more important, as per WP:MEDRS. What we need is a review article that discusses this study and puts it in context. I was tempted to completely delete the content, and perhaps we should, but for now I reduced the amount of content to give it appropriate WP:WEIGHT - it based only a primary source and we should not rely on it very much. Jytdog ( talk) 13:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
This article is basically all primary sources. These need removing. We should be using secondary sources per WP:RS. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
As User:Jytdog has highlighted, there is the beginning of an edit war in the "effects on humans" that should be preempted. The metabolic effects and effects on biomarkers of CR in humans are ipso facto effects of on humans, and were located there for a very long time before they were puzzlingly moved, and then (in what I would characterize as overly-strict adherence to the "primary source" exclusion) deleted altogether; I've provided proper secondary sources, and they are in line with the full statement from Spindler's review that "we certainly know that restricting calories can improve human health and reduce many risk factors for life-limiting diseases in people" even if "about the true quantitative benefits of CR for life extension in humans are simply unknown, but " (which has also, puzzlingly, been cut when it actually contextualizes the summary in the article and should help resolve any ambiguity about the "effects." These sections therefore belong in the section on "effects in humans."
I have no problem with moving all of the "effects on humans," including the potential negative effects, into the "research" section, but separating them seems to me to be fairly clearly arbitrary. -- Mikalra ( talk) 19:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I reckon! there may be some more tweaking but generally yes thank you for talking! it is rare. Jytdog ( talk) 00:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you should add this somewhere on the page: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/molecular-mechanism-behind-health-benefits-of-dietary-restriction-identified/
-- ThalèsWasHere ( talk) 18:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Mikalra ( talk) 20:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Alexbrn reverted my edit on the basis of "material based on non- WP:MEDRS. I would like to undo this reversion. With the exception of the "Austad and Kristan, 2003" paper, which is primary source, the other citations all meet MEDRS criteria.
Additionally, the reversion also reversed edits to material that clarified findings without changing sources from status quo ante. User:Mikalra 14:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Zefr. I have trouble with the section on Humans under Research. Three sentences with three references that have been cited a sum total of 148 times. Can we agree to throw out Everitt and Le Couter? Their paper seems to be written as an introduction and reads much like a high school report. My objection is that they belittle years of life, "it is estimated that long-term CR to prevent excessive weight gain could add only 3–13 years to life expectancy." A drug that could add that much to a cancer patient's life would be a bestseller. And according to them the Okinawans used to live "only" 4 years longer. A small empire was founded on those same 4 years. I think that last sentence is repetitive. Why not just omit the whole thing? We ought to build up the sources for these statements instead of diluting the message. - SusanLesch ( talk) 17:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I need to declare a possible conflict: the first author of this review is one of my teachers plus I enrolled in her class for next semester. Because she isn't teaching us this subject, while I knew she was among the authors of the 2015 study, I did not know she had written the review that is possibly a very good source. After looking into COI, evidently this might not be a problem. This is a first for me. Apologies for taking so long to declare. - SusanLesch ( talk) 22:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
One problem with this article is that the subject of all these experiments switches from humans to animals and back and forth again. A second problem is that the objective of CR seems to sway in the wind. Some places, CR is intended to prolong life, and in others CR reduces risk factors for disease, and in others CR is a weight loss tactic. Do you think this is a fair assessment and do you think the article can be improved? - SusanLesch ( talk) 19:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
1 Health effects humans 1.1 Risks of malnutrition 2 Mechanisms mice, humans, rodents, yeast 2.1 Temperature 2.2 Hormesis 2.3 Evolution 2.4 Chromatin and PHA-4 2.5 Reduced DNA damage 2.6 Sirtuin-mediated mechanism 3 Caloric restriction mimetics humans, yeast, worms, flies, fish, mice 3.1 Sirtuins 4 History one human generalized to other species 5 Research humans, primates and humans, rodents, yeast (pretty good!) 5.1 Humans 5.2 Primates 5.3 Rodents 5.4 Yeast 6 Effects rodents, monkeys, monkeys, animals, animals 6.1 Activity levels 6.2 Stereotyped behavior 6.3 Aggression 6.4 Obese controls
To this I would add that two sentences are gibberish. Under Mechanisms, "the mechanism by which caloric restriction works is still not well understood". I don't believe anything can "work" unless we know its objective. Second, I changed the second sentence in the lead, ""Low" can be defined relative to the subject's previous intake before intentionally restricting calories, or relative to an average person of similar body type." to "Reduce" can be defined.... Either way, we would need to specify what [something] is "relative to an average person of similar body type." - SusanLesch ( talk) 21:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi DocJames and Zefr. Can you please explain why this article needs to have three statements that the longterm effects of moderate CR on humans is unknown? DocJames writes in his edit summary that he is restoring " The most important part of the article." Perhaps we share a fear for life of a person with low BMI who might read something that might encourage them to restrict calories. Speaking as a new member of Wikiproject:Medicine, I am sorry but the net effect of three statements is that this article is biased against the idea of caloric restriction in humans. - SusanLesch ( talk) 20:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@ DocJames: I am waiting for your reply. - SusanLesch ( talk) 15:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Where do I cite the "Minnesota Starvation Experiment"? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Calorie restriction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
You have an excellent references page listed. I verified a few of the citations and they all seem to go to legitimate sources. I don't feel like there is any plagarism, everything appears to be re phrased in own words. The only negative or take a way is that I don't feel like everything is cited per say in the article that should be. Mss200424 ( talk) 02:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I was surprised to read this entry, as it does not reflect at all the current knowledge nor institutional recommendations (such as US dietary guidelines 2015-2020 or AHA or NICE). It mostly includes either adverse effects, or primary/animal studies. I would recommend updating the article starting from the institutional guidelines. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I also find it very confusing the distinction that was made between this entry and the "calorie restriction for dieting" redirecting to Dieting, as currently this entry is exactly written to cover calorie restriction for dieting.
Furthermore, dieting is not just calorie restriction: there are several diets that do not involve calorie restriction but nutrients balance modification (eg, Mediterranean diet), and others that involve only a different timing (meals timing, such as Intermittent fasting or strategically timing meals and snacks), which does not necessarily involve losing weight!. Dieting can indeed be done for different purposes: weight loss is the most common intervention indication, but it can be for CVD or other biomarker risk decrease (see Weight loss which nicely explain that different view).
Anyway, all of these points are also covered by the references above. About the adverse effects, sure it is necessary to describe them, but there are some major inaccuracies given the current state of knowledge. For example, it is now known that calorie restriction and weight loss are the best treatment for NAFLD, including lean NAFLD (individuals that are lean but have a fatty liver), thus opposing what is written in the entry. Same for obesity and diabetes). That is not to say that everyone should do calorie restriction (even if the US dietary guidelines suggest to restrict calories intake to prevent CVD and obesity -- thus not in the sense of continuous dieting but in the sense of managing one's own calories intake -- but note that for obesity they advise to do continuous dieting), but there are now clearly accepted indications for some pathologies, mainly the metabolic syndrome ones. Furthermore, the AHA evaluated there is "high" evidence that there is a long-term beneficial effect (and weight loss sustainability) of caloric restriction dieting for the treatment of obesity. Even for pregnancy, there are now systematic reviews showing limiting weight gain (and thus doing calorie intake control or even mild calorie restriction) improves outcomes for both the mother and child (see Management of obesity and more specifically: [4] [5]).
Thus, I would suggest to:
Meanwhile, since I have nearly exhausted my spare time allowed for editing, I will add a Template:Update banner to try to raise attention and foster discussion. Thank you for reading and participating -- Signimu ( talk) 22:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
References
Update: I rewrote the lede, I hope this can provide a good start for the rest of the article. -- Signimu ( talk) 03:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Either wikipedia and the editor who doesn't even read the existing content before deleting someone's addition start to act professionally, or I'm considering starting my own wikipedia type site that follows some logic.
Updating this complaint, Dec 21,2019, as Zefr once again reverted a significant addition to mice.
00:17, 22 December 2019 Zefr talk contribs 25,454 bytes -498 Reverted 1 edit by 67.243.247.88 (talk): Speculative; unconstructive (TW) undo Tag: Undo
A major finding of the 2017 report on the CR monkey studies was that the previous assumption that the effect of early onset CR observed in mice was not the case for primates. It was so not speculative that it was currently in the Primate section. I only repeat it in the Mice section because the mouse study is still important in estimating potential human lifespan extension. But one aspect of that mouse study, the front loaded benefits of early onset CR is not only not supported by the monkey study, the monkey study finds no benefit for younger CR. And yet, you still need to know about the mice study, for the still valid estimates of life extension, and to understand the significance of the finding in the monkey report.
curprev 23:25, 21 December 2019 67.243.247.88 talk 25,952 bytes +498 Some cosmetic edits to make section clearer and easier to read, and updated information on mice with signifcant observations made about mice/rodent data from more recent study.
undo Tag: Visual edit "Mice: fringe content with a weak source;" What? Are you insane? Weak source? Rozalyn M. Anderson? Are you saying the article is made up and you think https://www.alzforum.org is involved in an elaborate hoax, and the author, Gwyneth Dickey Zakaib, can't be trusted, or perhaps didn't even write the article?
Here is the information I'm trying to get into the mice section:
“That’s not something we could have predicted based on rodent studies,” said Anderson. In mice, the earlier scientists restrict diet, the longer animals live (for a review, see Speakman and Hambly, 2007).
Anderson is Rozalyn M. Anderson, a lead author of "Caloric restriction improves health and survival of rhesus monkeys" in Nature Communications. Of course mice studies are central to any discussion of Calorie restriction. Previous to my edits, the information in Humans was incorrect and misleading, and very out of date. Spefically it discounted Calorie resstriction by hiding the fact a study was comparing it to 20th Century public health improvements like the development of antibiotics and a decrease in accidents. Either get with the program or be called out as a bunch of crazies who suppress knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.247.88 ( talk) 03:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
In advance of what would unquestionably be an unethical undo for umpteeth time of truth with untruth, I'm proposing creating a new section comparing Human vs Primate and Mice CR. The current goal of information provided in the Mice section for Calorie Restriction is to highlight how it aids and informs studies of human CR. Every reference to mice is only made in so far as it provides insight into human CR, human health, and human longevity. The same is true for primates. A counter example would be dog CR, where CR could provide either insight into human CR, or could provide a way to prolong health and lifespan of beloved pets. Perhaps a Dog entry is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1742:83ED:4C8:FE5F:EADD:2DB1 ( talk) 20:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
In order to save considerable time for anyone stumbling upon this page, here are the current issues being discussed. Please note that technically entries should appear in chronological order, so the last entry is on the bottom. Obviously an Overview (and the linked outline) would not. There are three viewpoints expressed here. One from October 2019, with suggestions for a general rewrite, another from December 2019 (from this editor), which aside from exposing a comparison of CR to 20th century introduction of antibiotics, reduction in accidents, and cvd, introduced a section on mice, and a third, from a very active editor, that keeps undoing mice information. If you are here, the current discussion is then, do we want mice study info in the CR article? There is what I would characterize as illogical, inconsistent, contraditory, and fabricated claims about sources, relevance, and what the term outdated means, used to justify the undos. The reader is invited to read the Talk, follow the sources, and decide for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1742:83ED:B944:9FFE:9936:EC32 ( talk) 23:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Hard to see the value of this section using sources 13-15 years old. The 2017 review PMID 28977341 discusses there are too many design differences in animal research, indicating the CR studies on rodents are too preliminary to include, and are not translatable to humans, WP:MEDANIMAL. Removed from the article as below for discussion, if warranted. -- Zefr ( talk) 00:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Mice
Based on studies of mice in 2005, an objection to calorie restriction in humans was a claim that the physiological mechanisms determining longevity are complex, and that the effect would be small to negligible. [1] A subsequent study refuted the supposed tradeoff between calorie restriction and reproduction (in mice) from which this objection was derived. [2] [3] Another objection was the less stable metabolism of mice and linked opportunistic ecological niche (population variability) would mean mice are more susceptible to CR effects than humans. [4] A previous study, projecting the larger benefits from earlier CR in mice to human lifespan, has been contradicted by evidence from CR in primates. [2]
References
In reply to the comments above: The 2017 PMID 28977341 study says no such thing about rodent studies. Thank you for linking to it since it says the exact opposite, rodent studies are highly relevant.
Here's a quote: "However, only by examining the unique study design features highlighted in the primate studies and further illustrated in rodent models, we can accurately interpret the outcome and ultimately identify the relevant biological mechanisms." Or from the abstract: "These factors, that may be influencing the effects of a calorie restriction intervention, are highlighted in the rodent model to draw parallels and elucidate findings reported in a higher species, nonhuman primates."
This discussion is pretty insane and creates cognitive dissonance since anyone even glancing at the source PMID 28977341 sees the importance and relevance it places in mice studies.
I shall be working on a revised mice section, and anticipate the addition of a dog section.
Obviously there is great value in using sources 13-15 years old, the age of a source has no consequence on it's importance. For example, the wikipedia article on evolution is chock full of sources from the previous century. There is also one listed from 1872.
It's hard not to question the motives of the repeated cuts to the article of mice study information, and also hard not to see them as a violation of wikipedia policy. (unsigned; presumably IP user 67.243.247.88)
The editor above states "There are no relevant mice or dog studies to use in the encyclopedia article."
An editor claiming there are no relevant mice studies that can be used as sources for an encyclopedia article on calorie restriction has no business being allowed to participate in any editing at all. It's a pretty absurd statement, as is the denigration of sources 13-15 years old, per my example of evolution. This however seems to sum up the wierdness and bias of the editor. Denying the importance of lab mice studies on calorie restriction makes no sense and runs counter to the precepts of wikipedia and responsible editing.
Having followed guidelines for "Talk", obviously this has reached the next stage for Dispute Resolution. Please, somebody take the ball and run with it. I've provided all the necessary arguments and sources, and most importantly, so has the opposing editor with their "no relevant mice" position. What are we going to do tonight? Same thing we do every night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1742:83ED:2872:6060:9CE9:859F ( talk) 16:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I remember I read an article by Dr. Ashok D B Vaidya which says that lifespan is prolonged if calorie restriction is done. I will find the reference soon and will add in the article soon after discussing here. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 09:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi. It looks like calorie restriction delays aging: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352396417302505 Would this source be suitable for inclusion in the wikipedia article? It is a review article. Thanks. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lopkiol ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 August 2020 and 25 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MasonBoxberger.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MeganWilliams33. Peer reviewers: AdamTski, Cpichany.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Either one is allowed to point out the differences between mice and primates CR or there is no reason to include any information on mice, or primates for that matter. Humans are only studying CR in primates and mice to advance the study of CR in humans. It would be stupid to only include the similarities and applicability of primate and mice studies, and omit the differences observed. The differences are important to know, and give insight into Calrorie Restriction, and must be included in any wikipedia article that purports to cover the subject.
I have earnestly endeavored to respond to any critism of recent edits. The only valid quibble might be some necessary repetition, since part of the information already appears in the Primates section: "Specifically, reduced food intake was beneficial in adult and older primates, but not in younger monkeys." This is not really a fault, articles nearly always repeat some information in various sections. Please note, I'm tired of trying to get these facts into the article. Please follow the wikipedia guidelines and respond to 'Talk' if there are questions regarding edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.247.88 ( talk) 23:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
This revert was justified because the examples given are not from randomized controlled trials on calorie restriction, but rather are just isolated outdated observations. The 2016 review by Most et al. was updated in 2020 and is already included in the article. Under 'See also', there is an article on the Okinawa diet, but this is an outdated practice by some 70 years with little relevance to 21st century issues on calorie restriction.
The added section also contained grammatical and style errors - see WP:MOS. Zefr ( talk) 18:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
but this is not the reson why i was asking that why does women have more calori thatn men not thing else
People want to know what a human CR diet specifically consists of. Let's write a short section on this near the top. Could you please suggest some sources and references here? -- 131.193.179.146 ( talk) 19:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to put in some numbered references next to a lot of claims so that we can associate them with the texts that have shown evidence for such changes. Any thoughts? --Unknown
Thx for the good article. I found pro-cr info in Objections and moved it to near the end of "Why might CR increase longevity?" I don't know enough about this to rewrite much (except for one copyedit), so flow could use some work. Also, the last paragraph i moved ("Stated levels of Calorie needs may be biased towards sedentary individuals. Calorie Restriction may be more of adapting the diet to the body's needs.") should be explained more -- i wasn't sure what it meant and where to put it. Does this relate to the activity level question in test animals, and if so how? If "Calorie needs [are] biased towards sedentary individuals" vs active ones, wouldn't that mean they're too *low*? Etc. Hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
This statement isn't as correct as it should be. There has been no lifespan extention demonstrated in a published paper with primates. Richard Weindruch's experiments are ongoing and there has been nothing published stating that "lifespan extension" has been "shown". So unless someone puts forth a concluded published trial with primates I'm going to change this. 205.211.168.10 15:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Jonathan Graham
Also I added to the Objections section a link to the Housefly article and some text about John Phelan's objection about this being an effect that is really only acheivable on small organisms. Another good reason to change the intro text. Not saying that this wiki is biased but it looks like there has been way more effort put into representing the "pro" side here. 205.211.168.10 15:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Jonathan Graham
Searched around for completed primate studies, nothing so far. I did find another ongoing one (other than the one by RW). It shows some evidence at monkeys beating the median age ( I'll read the study in a bit more detail later but that seems like grade 'C' evidence when dealing with such a small sample ) If they were to beat the maximal age that would really drive the point home but considering that these monkeys live 40 years...I wouldn't expect a conclusion any time soon. Also Rhesus monkeys are prone to diabeties which would skew the results somewhat as well.
Also added the study about late-life CR. I'm not sure if we should put an approximate age in there. The rats were introduced at 18 months - what would that be in human years. I've seen places where people have just assumed that you compose them linearly but is it really reasonable to do so.
I've put it under 'objections' which is becoming a less and less applicable title. It sort of depends on exactly what one is 'objecting' to. If this article is about simple calorie restriction as having some (possibly small) benefit on some arbitrary group of creatures then they aren't but in reading this article, it appears to me that what is being advertised here is CR as a generally applicable lifestyle for significant (i.e. greater than maximal) longevity with implication on the idea the humans can do this too. In which case I would call the articles I'm posting "objections". I would think this isn't such a bad thing to be discussing either after all when you read about CR in the media, they aren't talking about how to keep your pet rat alive longer! :-)
205.211.168.10 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Jonathan Graham
More digging through PM...and we find out that this effect (longevity) may not even be consistant on small organisms. Drosphila may have mixed responses when it comes to CR - at least from the journal abstracts. Also there's a reference to a mouse study that didn't produce longevity. I'll go through these articles when I get a chance. Point being that this wiki, so far makes it sound like there is little reason to believe that this effect isn't universal but now I'm thinking we may want to tone it down a bit.
24.141.146.87 01:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Jonathan Graham
CR is one of the few dietary intervention that has been documented to increase both the median and maximum lifespan in a variety of species, among them yeast, fish, rodents, dogs and non-human primates.
I'm not aware of any other. I'll change this to the only dietary intervention if nobody objects. --
88.70.183.176 (
talk)
09:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Great catch, that's interesting why credit was only given to the student... although he was still the one to report them? Maybe teachers do that to give their underlings a better chance at success later, when they are satisfied. Tyciol 16:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
There's oodles of evidence that CR benefits exist at all ages. Too rapid introduction of CR is the problem in the few studies that don't show that. This section should be removed. /-- Borgipedia 18:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
This article quotes the names of many of the researchers, but I couldn't find any reference to the David Sinclair mentioned in Sir2. is this a mistake? -- apers0n 15:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
To Mccready: Why do you want Brookes comment here in the intro? The intro paragraph introduces CR, and (like CR) makes no claims about single or multiple causes of aging. Thanks in advance. -- Borgipedia 09:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What do others think? Anyone? Seems like a bizarre thing in this intro paragraph. Mccready: perhaps you can add more than your two words here? The question of the absence or presence of single causes of aging seems like weird "context." What do you mean? Thanks. -- Borgipedia 14:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You asked me to discuss. I did. You didn't. I'm removing it. Please justify, here, putting back before you put it back. -- Borgipedia 15:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Your quotation makes the point, indeed, stresses the point, that aging doesn't have one single cause. What does that have to do with the introductory paragraph in this article about CR, which (para. and article) rightly makes no claims about the number of causes of aging? /-- Borgipedia 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Please read the article, and/or read up on CR. You don't know enough about it to understand how to edit this article. CR itself doesn't "claim" anything, but advocates of CR believe that CR can affect various aspects of aging. No one argues that calorie intake is a direct cause of aging. I see from your other posts you have an axe to grind. Grinding it here is probably not a good idea. James Randy-ism isn't apposite here. Thanks. /-- Borgipedia 18:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Lowering the body temperature of mice resulted in significant longevity increase:
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/061102_cool_mice.html
From the article:
"Past studies have shown lifespan can be extended in animals by cutting down on the calories in their diets. Interestingly, this method also lowers body temperature. "The mechanisms mediating the increased lifespan in the 'cool mice' may be similar to those of calorie restriction," Conti speculated."
-- Cheese Sandwich 13:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
This is either a note to myself for when I have more time, or a request for others watching this page. Is it useful to have the section "effects on different organisms?" Several sections are stubs, and amount basically to "this species has been shown to live longer." The exception currently is the section on Rats, but clearly most of that material should be moved to the section "Why might CR effect longevity?"
It seems to me a more useful organization might be "Effects Of CR" and then, rather then divide it into species subtopics, divide it into outcome subtopics. "Increased longevity" - Longevity has been verified in mice, rate, c. elegans, etc.; "Decreased rates of Cancer", "Improved cardiovascular function", "Lower free radical damage" - etc., in each case noting in which species the benefit has been verified. This would take some work - a meta-analysis of what's been published, and a fair amount of referencing - but it strikes me as a much more useful organization. Each section could also, of course, note when the benefit has not been observed. Comments? SJS1971 11:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
In current human practice, what is the difference between CR and being skinny/lean/lowbodymass/smallwaisted? Is the only difference getting good nutrition? Is there any difference? Can you be doing CR and still maintain a relatively high weight? Should you? Does practicing CR imply being low-energy and exercising little? Or imply the opposite? This should all be clearly addressed in a section of the article. And there also needs to be a good wiki article on the plain relation of body mass to longevity, with a prominent See also link from here. 69.87.203.106 14:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be mentioned in the article the results and link to Calorie Restriction obtained through Biosphere Two by Roy Walford. Evidence can be cited here:
The eight people living in Biosphere 2, an enclosed ecosystem, underwent involuntary caloric restriction during their 2-year stay because they were unable to grow enough food for their needs. They consumed 1800 calories per day during the first 6 months and 2200 calories thereafter. Their diet was nutrient rich and high in vegetables. Body weight decreased by 15 percent and serum cholesterol dropped 38 percent. Blood pressure fell from an average of 110/74 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) to 90/59 mm Hg. A group outside Biosphere 2, who ate without restriction but who took the same nutritional supplements as those inside Biosphere 2, did not exhibit these same positive health alterations |
-- Walford RL et al 2002 |
The Biosphere project unintentionally became a significant study on calorie restriction on humans in a completely isolated environment - an important control variable.
P.S. Sorry for the alignment of the quote, it's from the second external link I put up. -- Permafrost 03:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
There should be a new article specifically on Intermittent Fasting, because that has proven to be a superior method of life-extension in animals, and perhaps humans. The benefits of intermittent fasting seem to be independent of Calorie Restriction (CR). For example, fasted mice eating as much as controls showed superior results to those eating only 60% as much (40% CR). This brings into question the whole theory of CR, because the same benefits (and more) can be had WITHOUT restricting calories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.77.27 ( talk • contribs) 10:27, 9 April 2007
Maybe he's referring to a different study? I see no "media gossip" in the following;
That IF feeding was more effective than either LDF or PF in protecting neurons from KA-induced damage demonstrates that the IF-feeding schedule itself is neuroprotective independent of overall caloric intake.
The whole point of IF over CR is mainly the benefit of increased insulin sensitivity, since some estimate as much as 25% of the U.S. population is suffering /dying from 'metaboic syndrome'.
"In contrast, at the end of the study the body weights of mice maintained on the IF diet or PF on a daily basis were only slightly below those of the AL-fed group (Fig. 1b). A prominent physiological change that occurs in mammals maintained on reduced-calorie diets is increased insulin sensitivity, which often is reflected in decreased fasting plasma levels of glucose and insulin (17). Fasting serum concentrations of glucose and insulin in mice fed AL in the current study averaged 150 mg/dl and 3,400 pg/ml, respectively (Fig. 2 a and b). The concentrations of glucose and insulin were decreased significantly, to similar amounts, in mice maintained on either LDF or IF regimens with glucose and insulin concentrations dropping to 100 mg/dl and 700–1,100 pg/ml, respectively (Fig. 2). That similar changes are seen in IF and LDF groups in the current study suggests that despite an overall calorie intake similar to mice fed AL, IF has similar effects on circulating glucose and insulin levels." Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 May 13; 100(10): 6216–6220. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=156352-- EinRand ( talk) 11:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I reverted an unsourced addition of content, and the editor who made it then reverted it back: [1]. I try to follow a one-revert rule, so I will not revert it again. I asked the editor for more clear sourcing, but my request was refused: [2]. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability "Articles should only contain material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." Is a citation to "Charlie Rose - calorie restriction" satisfactory detail for this material, or should we raise the bar on the article sourcing to comply with WP:CITE and WP:RS? Buddhipriya 07:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
A normal amount of kcal a person consumes is around 2800-3000kcal/day, is it possible to include in this article how much is consumed with this caloric restriction diet/day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.193.44 ( talk) 08:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
I agree. How can we have an article about calorie restriction and not mention how low the number of calories need to be to be considered "restricted". Pasado ( talk) 00:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I notice this still seems to be an issue with the article. What is it, 50%? 90%? I thought I saw studies using both figures for animals. -- Gwern (contribs) 07:42 21 July 2009 (GMT) 07:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no precise amount. One study on the effects of calorie restriction on elderly men and women used a 30% reduction compared to controls. Maybe explaining that there isn't enough research available yet to recommend a calorie intake in humans would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.164.147 ( talk) 22:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
"Sir2 or "silent information regulator 2" is a longevity gene in baker's yeast cells that extends lifespan by suppressing DNA instability (see Sinclair and Guarente, Cell, 1997).[10] In mammals Sir2 is known as SIRT1. Recent discoveries have suggested that the gene Sir2 might underlie the effect of CR. In baker's yeast the Sir2 enzyme is activated by CR, which leads to a 30% lifespan extension."
These statements are entirely inaccurate. Sir2 is not a "longevity gene", it has multiple responsibilities. Of primary importance is its role in cell division. My understanding of the literature, which is by no means extensive, is that CR increases Sir2 expression. Sir2, I believe, has 7 mammalian homologs SIRT1-7. SIRT1 is active in the nucleus. SIRT3 is an inter membrane mitochondrial enzyme which may play a role in regulation of thermogenesis, it is found primarily in the brown adipocye mitochondria. I don't know about the rest.
As for the 30% part, I have no idea what studies are showing and thus have no objections except for the lack of a citation. I intend to remedy my own lack of citations for above statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backwardtoes ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
A new article is to come for the CRON-diet (which uses calorie restriction)
The Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition-diet is a low calorie, high nutrition- diet which practices the limiting of dietary energy intake in the hope that it will improve health and retard aging.
This first line already shows that more low-high diets exist and can be used with the okinawa diet article aswell.
Dont have time to look up the references, found it in the health plan book of roy walford. Look into it and change article.
KVDP ( talk) 15:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
a new section would need to describe the CRON-diet in practice. It is to include: standard CR diet which is proposed (and still safe) features 5-25% CR restriction (it can go up to 60% in theory yet no longer safe). Standard diet recomendations are usually to begin with 1800 calories/day. Further work out may happen as this is a guideline(biospherians ate 1800 calories/day, yet had to work physically hard). basal metabolic rate of person cannot be accuratly measured (thus trial and error method is to be followed aldough trough the fat percentage some indications may be given on the amount of calorie intake a person must follow, as body fat should not drop below (6% for a man and 10% for a woman) KVDP ( talk) 10:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed an incorrect sentence stating that heart damage is more related to ketosis than to low calorie catabolisis. Any time the body release Adrenocorticotropic hormone, in response to stresses (low caloric intake is an example of such a stress), fats, and more importantly proteins in the body are broken down to ensure blood sugar is kept high. The problem is that proteins are broken down indiscriminately, leading to organ damage, and to the type of bloating seen in starving children when blood osmotic proteins are broken down, and lymph fluid functions improperly. I remember learning this in Grade 12 Biology, and I am certain about its correctness. 24.65.42.159 ( talk) 17:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I am removing the negative effects of increased mortality. The study cited there is studying individuals based solely on BMI, and is no way a controlled experiment between CR and non-CR individuals. As pointed out in the topic "CR vs. Lean" quite a few people can be underweight and be on a non-CR diet, so it is important to note the distinction that low BMI does not connotate a CR individual. Masparasol ( talk) 01:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph following headline "Yeast" is of poor quality. There are many grammatical and spelling mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.187.2 ( talk) 09:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Some of the pro-vegetarian stuff makes it nearly impossible to get adequate nutrition with CRON. I consider raw foodism, and vegetarianism to be distractions on the road to CR. Let's do some simple math.
A woman might normally eat 2300 Calories per day. Most CR folks cut their intake (over time) to be 30% less than it was. So that's a touch over 1600 Calories per day. That's like being on Weight Watchers for the rest of your life, except, you never go back to "maintenance".
The question is, can a person get enough nutrition under that restriction? The answer is a resounding YES and in fact, she will have better nutrition than the average American gets in their whole life. ...as long as she pays attention to the nutrients. I'll try to prove it to you with an example. Some good round numbers for what our fictitious woman needs is the following (check for yourself on the USDA "Recommendations for Americans" site - I've overestimated her needs):
Per-Day:
Protein 100g x 4Cal/g = 400 Cal
Carbs 150g x 4Cal/g = 600
Fiber 30g x 2Cal/g = 60
Fat 40g x 9Cal/g = 360
So total intake if you had paid attention to getting these amounts in your food every day is 1420 Cal. So that's the minimum you can eat per day if you want to keep these healthy levels of macronutrients. Macronutrients are the only source of significant Calories in food. Try to think of a vitamin that has calories. Omega-3? That's a fat. Vitamin D? Well, it's dissolved in fat, so there are a few calories there, but it's about 25 Cal max for a good supplement.
Now, even if you're not on this diet, check your diet out, and see if you are getting this much of everything right now. I bet not. Sometimes people panic over the nothing. Nobody would say that Weight Watchers is a fad or a starvation diet. Nor that people on it aren't getting enough nutrition. So why get bothered about this?
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.92.130.230 (
talk)
16:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Smokers and people with cancer can be lean but not on a CR diet and not healthy.
One Twinkie and 3 stiff drinks a day will make you thin, but not healthy.
Studies failing to report that thin people were unhealthy mostly overlooked the inclusion of people who were unhealthy in a way that made them thin. Smokers and people with cancer tend to omit such facts on life insurance applications. Studies using their original applications and date of death often failed to account for the omission of smoking (or cancer or other health conditions) and to conclude erroneously that being thin by itself was bad. But when adequate controls for unhealthy unreported habits or conditions were instituted and the data were re-analyzed, thin proved to be good for health, down to quite thin. Of course anorexics die because there IS such a thing as too thin -- a skeletal thin that finally destroys the immune system, far below the thin resulting from, e.g., 30% calorie restriction (with high-quality diet). See Chron diet for more on the kind of high-quality diet actually thought to provide benefits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.11.64 ( talk) 02:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not feel qualified to actually put this in the article, so I will offer it here for consideration for someone else to take up.
There is an interesting study conducted jointly by Poland's Department of Gastroenterology, Institute of Internal Medicine, Medical Academy of Pozna, Poland , and the Department of Nephrology. They seem to conclude that starvation diet and calorie restricted diets both lower weight in obese people, BUT... starvation diet tends to cause weight loss by reducing both fat and non-fat (ie, muscle) tissue, whereas Calorie Restricted diet tended to produce weight loss in fat tissue only.
link: http://www.springerlink.com/content/h3145861v1r37m24/
70.184.23.23 ( talk) 05:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)klw
Currently, the Primates section is entirely pro-CR. This does not reflect the actual studies, though. In particular, the rhesus macaque study returned a negative result on the primary outcome: the difference in deaths between the two groups was not statistically significant. It was made to be statistically significant in the reports by excluding deaths that the researchers considered to be non-age related. More criticisms:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/07/calorie-restrictive-eating-for-longer.html Astgtciv ( talk) 15:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the first paragraph at least define what the article is about? Right now it just immediately launches into health benefits before defining what Calorie Restriction means. Reads like someone advertising their lifestyle choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.51.128.21 ( talk) 14:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The section on negative effects of calorie restriction is misleading. The effects the section describes are caused by malnourishment, not calorie restricted diets. Calorie restricted diets aren't ones that are so restrictive that patients starve or die. So mortality, starvation, and abnormal hair growth should be removed from the list of negative effects of calorie restriction. Those effects have not been shown to be associated with diets that researchers call calorie restricted diets, at least judging by the citations in the "negative effects" section.
Also, this sentence should be removed: "However, that relation seems to be age-specific since another study, when analyzing people older than 65, those who were underweight had a higher dementia risk than normal or overweight people.[17]" The sentence cites a study that did not involve calorie restriction to call into question the results of a study that did involve calorie restriction. 128.36.164.147 ( talk) 22:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, there are far too many headings in the section. I propose that what's there now be consolidated under three headings: lack of essential nutrients, binge eating disorder, and potential malnourishment. Under the potential malnourishment section, we can note that overzealous calorie restriction can lead to malnourishment, and then note that abnormal hair growth and even death can result.
Also, the "attenuation of age-related sarcopenia" should not have a heading at that level, and it should not be in positive effects on humans section, because the study involves rhesus monkeys.
I'm happy to make these changes if they won't be summarily reverted. 128.36.164.147 ( talk) 22:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The statement that calorie restriction can lead to binge eating is both absurd and lacking any sort of citation, as noted in the article itself. Anybody even remotely educated in calorie restriction knows that with a CR diet comes a smaller stomach; while the typical fast-food lover may indeed binge-eat after consuming 800 or so calories in a day, this is hardly even an issue with actual practitioners of calorie restriction. Indeed, this statement merely seems to be somebody's personal opinion with no basis behind it. Let's do the article a favor and remove it. 67.60.38.138 ( talk) 07:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand there are a lot of proponents, but as someone not as informed, and reading teh article for educational purposes, I'm detecting a pretty strong bias the toward calorie restriction camp. This seems especially evident in the negative effects section(s) where it seems there is a caveat or apologetic attached to each potential concern, that seems aimed at explaining it away. I know this, like other diet and health issues, can be contentious and people feel strongly about it. But let's try to keep the POV to a minimum. I'd love to be bold and edit, but not having as much depth in the topic as I think it deserves, I'd rather suggest someone else do it. I think that section really needs some pruning for apologetic language. Let is stand on its own, as the benefits section should stand on its own. This is not supposed to be a puff piece on CR, nor is it supposed to be propaganda against it. It's natural to want to defend something you believe in, but this is not a persuasive article, it's an encyclopedic entry, and should be a neutral as possible. Jbower47 ( talk) 17:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Original Write up on the documentary: "Michael Mosley has set himself a truly ambitious goal: he wants to live longer, stay younger and lose weight in the bargain. And he wants to make as few changes to his life as possible along the way. He discovers the powerful new science behind the ancient idea of fasting, and he thinks he's found a way of doing it that still allows him to enjoy his food. Michael tests out the science of fasting on himself - with life-changing results" http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01lxyzc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNdWCZWpjxU http://www.buchinger.com/en/news-stories/latest-news/newsinhalt/detail/2012/april/24/Scientific-documentary-on-fasting8232.html http://www.viadecouvertes.fr/pages/en/reference.php?id=113
Potential edited summary write up on documentary: "The Franco-German television channel ARTE aired a documentary on fasting. The program examines the potential role to be played by fasting in the healthcare systems of industrialized countries, including in the treatment of diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and cancer, and as a way to reduce the potential overconsumption of pharmaceuticals. The film spotlights five major centers of fasting: In Germany, the film profiles the Buchinger Clinic in Überlingen, as well as the Department of Natural Medicine at the Charité University Hospital in Berlin. At the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique in Strasbourg, France, Professor Yvon Le Maho and his team investigate instinctive fasting in the animal kingdom."
Original Write up on the documentary from one of the sources: "Fasting as medical therapy is now experiencing a revival thanks to the groundbreaking research by Professor Valter Longo in the areas of anti-aging and cancer therapy. The Franco-German television channel ARTE aired an excellent scientific documentary on fasting. Produced by the renowned French documentary duo, Sylvie Gilman and Thierry Vincent de Lestrade, the program examines the potential role to be played by fasting in the healthcare systems of industrialized countries, including in the treatment of diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and cancer, and as a way to reduce the explosive overconsumption of pharmaceuticals. In presenting fasting as a proven complementary therapy, the film spotlights five major centers of fasting science and therapy: In Germany, the film profiles the Buchinger Clinic in Überlingen, as well as the Department of Natural Medicine at the Charité University Hospital in Berlin. At the Buchinger Clinics in Überlingen and Marbella, more than 250,000 fasting therapies have been medically supervised in the last 60 years. The Buchinger Clinics are Europe’s largest clinics for therapeutic fasting and have profound experience in the medical applications of fasting. At the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique in Strasbourg, France, Professor Yvon Le Maho and his team use the latest technology to investigate instinctive fasting in the animal kingdom. Hundreds of publications have shown that the ability to fast is a natural physiological adaptation of humans and animals to life on the planet Earth. The availability of food changes from winter to summer, and therefore a succession of eating and fasting periods is absolutely normal. Doctors and clinics in Russia have amassed extensive knowledge and experience in therapeutic fasting, including a wealth of scientific publications during the Soviet era that have never been translated and remain virtually unknown outside Russia. In the United States, there is a tradition of fasting in the alternative scene. "
• Eat Less, Live Longer? http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/07/09/calorierestriction.php
• Feast, fast and reduce risks http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-eat10dec10,1,883044.story?coll=la-headlines-healthI
• Routine Periodic Fasting Is Good for Your Health, and Your Heart, Study Suggests, ScienceDaily (Apr. 3, 2011) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110403090259.htm
• Fasting Weakens Cancer in Mice http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120208152254.htm
• Fasting could help fight cancer, By Roger Highfield, Science Editor http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3337872/Fasting-could-help-fight-cancer.html
• Fasting and cancer, Starving the Beast, The Economist, Feb 9th 2012, 22:02 by T.C. http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/02/fasting-and-cancer
• Fasting can help protect against brain diseases, scientists say: Claim that giving up almost all food for one or two days a week can counteract impact of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/18/fasting-protect-brain-diseases-scientists
1. Fasting cycles retard growth of tumors and sensitize a range of cancer cell types to chemotherapy. Lee C, Raffaghello L, Brandhorst S, Safdie FM, Bianchi G, Martin-Montalvo A, Pistoia V, Wei M, Hwang S, Merlino A, Emionite L, de Cabo R, Longo VD. Andrus Gerontology Center, Department of Biological Sciences, Norris Cancer Center, University of Southern California, 3715 McClintock Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0191, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22323820 Abstract: Short-term starvation (or fasting) protects normal cells, mice, and potentially humans from the harmful side effects of a variety of chemotherapy drugs. Here, we show that treatment with starvation conditions sensitized yeast cells (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) expressing the oncogene-like RAS2(val19) to oxidative stress and 15 of 17 mammalian cancer cell lines to chemotherapeutic agents. Cycles of starvation were as effective as chemotherapeutic agents in delaying progression of different tumors and increased the effectiveness of these drugs against melanoma, glioma, and breast cancer cells. In mouse models of neuroblastoma, fasting cycles plus chemotherapy drugs--but not either treatment alone--resulted in long-term cancer-free survival. In 4T1 breast cancer cells, short-term starvation resulted in increased phosphorylation of the stress-sensitizing Akt and S6 kinases, increased oxidative stress, caspase-3 cleavage, DNA damage, and apoptosis. These studies suggest that multiple cycles of fasting promote differential stress sensitization in a wide range of tumors and could potentially replace or augment the efficacy of certain chemotherapy drugs in the treatment of various cancers.
2. Fasting and cancer treatment in humans: A case series report. Fernando M. Safdie,1,6 Tanya Dorff,2,3,6 David Quinn,2,3 Luigi Fontana,4 Min Wei,1 Changhan Lee,1 Pinchas Cohen,5 and Valter D. Longo1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815756/ Abstract: Short-term fasting (48 hours) was shown to be effective in protecting normal cells and mice but not cancer cells against high dose chemotherapy, termed Differential Stress Resistance (DSR), but the feasibility and effect of fasting in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy is unknown. Here we describe 10 cases in which patients diagnosed with a variety of malignancies had voluntarily fasted prior to (48-140 hours) and/or following (5-56 hours) chemotherapy. None of these patients, who received an average of 4 cycles of various chemotherapy drugs in combination with fasting, reported significant side effects caused by the fasting itself other than hunger and lightheadedness. Chemotherapy associated toxicity was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The six patients who underwent chemotherapy with or without fasting reported a reduction in fatigue, weakness, and gastrointestinal side effects while fasting. In those patients whose cancer progression could be assessed, fasting did not prevent the chemotherapy-induced reduction of tumor volume or tumor markers. Although the 10 cases presented here suggest that fasting in combination with chemotherapy is feasible, safe, and has the potential to ameliorate side effects caused by chemotherapies, they are not meant to establish practice guidelines for patients undergoing chemotherapy. Only controlled-randomized clinical trials will determine the effect of fasting on clinical outcomes including quality of life and therapeutic index.
3. ‘Short-term therapeutic fasting (7 days) in the treatment of chronic pain and fatigue syndromes--well-being and side effects with and without mineral supplements’ - Michalsen A, Weidenhammer W, Melchart D, Langhorst J, Saha J, Dobos G. Department of Internal Medicine V and Integrative Medicine, Kliniken Essen Mitte, Am Deimelsberg 34 a, 45276 Essen, Germany. 2002 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12232494
4. ‘The short-term (7 days) effects of fasting on the neuroendocrine system in patients with chronic pain syndromes.’ - Michalsen A, Schneider S, Rodenbeck A, Lüdtke R, Huether G, Dobos GJ. Department of Internal Medicine V and Integrative Medicine, Kliniken Essen Mitte, Am Deimelsberg 34 a, 45276 Essen, Germany. 2003 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12608732
5. 2010 / CellCycle / Fasting and differential chemotherapy protection in patients / Rafaghello, Prof. Valter Longo, et al./ DOI: 10.4161/cc.9.22.13954
6. 2010 / Trends in Pharmacological Sciences / Calorie restriction and cancer prevention: metabolic and molecular mechanisms / Prof Valter D. Longo and Luigi Fontana / DOI: 10.1016/j.tips.2009.11.004
7. 2007 / PNAS / Starvation‐dependent differential stress resistance protects normal but not cancer against high‐dose chemotherapy / Lizzia Raffaghello, Prof. Valter Longo, et al. / DOI: 10.1073"pnas.0708100105
8. 2011 / Oncogene Research / Fasting vs dietary restriction in cellular protection and cancer treatment: from model organisms to patients / Changhan Lee and Prof. Valter Longo / DOI: 10.1038/onc.2011.91
9. ‘Medically supervised water-only fasting in the treatment of hypertension.’ Goldhamer A, Lisle D, Parpia B, Anderson SV, Campbell TC. Center for Conservative Therapy, Penngrove, Calif, USA. 2002 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11416824
10. ‘Medically supervised water-only fasting in the treatment of borderline hypertension.; - Goldhamer AC, Lisle DJ, Sultana P, Anderson SV, Parpia B, Hughes B, Campbell TC. TrueNorth Health Center, Rohnert Park, CA 2002 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12470446
11. ‘Prolonged fasting (7-21 days) as a method of mood enhancement in chronic pain syndromes: a review of clinical evidence and mechanisms.’ - Michalsen A. Immanuel Hospital Berlin, Department of Internal and Complementary Medicine, Institute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité-University Medical Centre, Germany. 2010 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20425196 Abstract: Periods of deliberate fasting with restriction to intake of solid food are practiced worldwide, mostly based on a traditional, cultural, or religious background. Recent evidence from clinical trials shows that medically supervised modified fasting (200-500 kcal nutritional intake/day) with periods from 7 to 21 days is efficacious in the treatment of rheumatic diseases and chronic pain syndromes. Here, fasting is frequently accompanied by increased alertness and mood enhancement. The beneficial claims of fasting are supported by experimental research, which has found fasting to be associated with increased brain availability of serotonin, endogenous opioids, and endocannabinoids. Fasting-induced neuroendocrine activation and mild cellular stress response with increased production of neurotrophic factors may also contribute to the mood enhancement of fasting. Fasting treatments may be useful as an adjunctive therapeutic approach in chronic pain patients. The mood-enhancing and pain-relieving effect of therapeutic fasting should be further evaluated in randomized clinical trials.
12. ‘Caloric restriction in primates and relevance to humans.’ - Roth GS, Ingram DK, Lane MA. Laboratory of Neurosciences, Gerontology Research Center, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21224, USA. 2001 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11795522 Abstract: Dietary caloric restriction (CR) is the only intervention conclusively and reproducibly shown to slow aging and maintain health and vitality in mammals. Although this paradigm has been known for over 60 years, its precise biological mechanisms and applicability to humans remain unknown. We began addressing the latter question in 1987 with the first controlled study of CR in primates (rhesus and squirrel monkeys, which are evolutionarily much closer to humans than the rodents most frequently employed in CR studies). To date, our results strongly suggest that the same beneficial "antiaging" and/or "antidisease" effects observed in CR rodents also occur in primates. These include lower plasma insulin levels and greater sensitivity; lower body temperatures; reduced cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure, and arterial stiffness; elevated HDL; and slower age-related decline in circulating levels of DHEAS. Collectively, these biomarkers suggest that CR primates will be less likely to incur diabetes, cardiovascular problems, and other age-related diseases and may in fact be aging more slowly than fully fed counterparts. Despite these very encouraging results, it is unlikely that most humans would be willing to maintain a 30% reduced diet for the bulk of their adult life span, even if it meant more healthy years.
13. ‘The impact of religious fasting on human health.’ Trepanowski JF, Bloomer RJ. Cardiorespiratory/Metabolic Laboratory, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21092212 Abstract: Greek Orthodox Christians fast for a total of 180 - 200 days each year, and their main fasting periods are the Nativity Fast (40 days prior to Christmas), Lent (48 days prior to Easter), and the Assumption (15 days in August). Some of the more favorable effects of these fasts include the lowering of body mass, total cholesterol, LDL-C, and the LDL-C/HDL-C ratio. The Biblical-based Daniel Fast prohibits the consumption of animal products, refined carbohydrates, food additives, preservatives, sweeteners, flavorings, caffeine, and alcohol. It is most commonly partaken for 21 days, although fasts of 10 and 40 days have been observed. Our initial investigation of the Daniel Fast noted favorable effects on several health-related outcomes, including: blood pressure, blood lipids, insulin sensitivity, and biomarkers of oxidative stress. This review summarizes the health-specific effects of these fasts and provides suggestions for future research.
14. ‘The Effects of Caloric Restriction on Health and Longevity.’ Green JL, Sawaya FJ, Dollar AL. Emory University, 49 Jesse Hill Jr Drive SE, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA 2011 Abstract: OPINION STATEMENT: There is increasing evidence that restricting caloric intake may have considerable health benefits in humans. Significant evidence in non-primate animals demonstrates that caloric restriction increases average and maximal life span. However, historically, caloric intake reduction in humans has been involuntary and accompanied by poverty, malnutrition, poor sanitation, and a lack of modern health care. As a result, caloric restriction in people typically has been accompanied by a reduction of both average and maximal life span. Conversely, improvements in standards of living usually are accompanied by an increased food supply and resultant improved health and longevity. The majority of the world is now in a new era where an abundance of caloric intake and its associated obesity are causing widespread chronic illness and premature death. What would happen if one were to institute caloric restriction with high-quality nutrition within an environment of modern sanitation and health care? This review argues that improved health and improved average life span would quite likely result. A lengthening of maximal human life span with this combination is perhaps possible but by no means certain.
15. A.J.Carlson and F. Hoelzel, “Nutrition, Senescence and Rejuvenescence”. Public Health Reports Vol.67 No.2. February 1952 Chicago.
16. H.L.Taylor, “American Journal of Physiology”. pp143-148 1945.
17. A.J.Carlson and F. Hoelzel, “Apparent Prolongation of Lifespan of Rats by Intermittent Fasting”. Journal of Nutrition, 31:363 1946.
18. Sergius Morgulis, “Fasting and Undernutrition”. University of Nebraska, E.P. Dutton, New York 1923.
19. A.J.Carlson, “The Control of Hunger in Health and Disease”. University of Chicago 1916.
20. Margaret M. Kunde, “The After Effects of Prolonged Fasting on the Basal Metabolic Rate”. Journal of Metabolic Research 1923, 3, 399 – 449.
21. R.H. Weindruch, J.A.Kristie, K.Cheney and R.L.Walford, “The Influence of Controlled Dietary Restriction on Immunologic Function and Ageing”. Federation Proceedings U.C.L.A. 389:2007 (1979)
22. ‘Caloric restriction in C57BL/6J mice mimics therapeutic fasting in humans.’ - Mahoney LB, Denny CA, Seyfried TN. Biology Department, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA. 2006
23. ‘Clinical Aspects of the Ketogenic Diet’ - Adam L. Hartman, Eileen P. G. Vining, The John M. Freeman Pediatric Epilepsy Center, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland U.S.A. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2007.00914.x/full
24. ‘Fasting increases the in vivo gene delivery of AAV vectors.’ - Moulay G, Scherman D, Kichler A., Genethon, Evry, France. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21207763
25. ‘Greek Orthodox fasting rituals: a hidden characteristic of the Mediterranean diet of Crete.’ Sarri KO, Linardakis MK, Bervanaki FN, Tzanakis NE, Kafatos AG. Department of Social Medicine, University of Crete, School of Medicine, PO Box 2208, Iraklion 71003, Greece. 2004 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15333159
26. ‘Incorporation of fasting therapy in an integrative medicine ward: evaluation of outcome, safety, and effects on lifestyle adherence in a large prospective cohort study.’ - Michalsen A, Hoffmann B, Moebus S, Bäcker M, Langhorst J, Dobos GJ. Department of Integrative and Internal Medicine V, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, and Complementary and Integrative Medicine of the Alfred Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach Foundation, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 2005 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16131283
27. Short-term dietary restriction and fasting precondition against ischemia reperfusion injury in mice.’ Mitchell JR, Verweij M, Brand K, van de Ven M, Goemaere N, van den Engel S, Chu T, Forrer F, Müller C, de Jong M, van IJcken W, IJzermans JN, Hoeijmakers JH, de Bruin RW. Department of Genetics, Erasmus Medical Center, Cancer Genomics Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 50, 3015 GE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2010 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19878145
28. ‘A trial of fasting cure for PCB-poisoned patients in Taiwan.’ 1984 Imamura M, Tung TC. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6422746
29. ‘Brain Metabolism during Fasting’ O. E. Owen, A. P. Morgan, H. G. Kemp, J. M. Sullivan, M. G. Herrera, and G. F. Cahill, Jr., Elliott P. Joslin Research Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, the Cardiovascular Unit, the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, and the Diabetes Foundation, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts 1967 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC292907/?page=6
30. ‘Brief case reports of medically supervised, water-only fasting associated with remission of autoimmune disease.’ Fuhrman J, Sarter B, Calabro DJ. Hunterdon Medical Center, Flemington, NJ, USA. 2002 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12126162
31. There is also a highly dubious case in India of a man called Prahlad Jani whom claims to have lived without not just food but also water for years. Observation studies of Jani have been conducted, one in 2003 and one in 2010, both involving Sudhir Shah, a neurologist at the Sterling Hospitals in Ahmedabad, India. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prahlad_Jani SpringSummerAutumn ( talk) 14:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Under "Possible contraindications", the author states: "Both animal and human research suggest BUD CR..." but nowhere else in the article is BUD CR defined, and I can't even find any reference to that term with a quick Google on "BUD CR calorie restriction". Bhami ( talk) 19:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
When the intro and the article body talk about the University of Wisconsin study, they just say "Results are being periodically published".
Why so secretive??
There's very little research on CR, and only two primates, so why not say something about the results that have been published so far?
I haven't read the results, so I can't add anything. I can just note that as a reader, this seems strange. Gronky ( talk) 07:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
In the past few days User:Lufontana added a bunch of content based on studies done on Washington University, citing a primary source in which data were published on a study of 18 CR patients and 18 controls. At Wikipedia we base content on secondary sources, not primary ones as per WP:PSTS and for health-related information, this is even more important, as per WP:MEDRS. What we need is a review article that discusses this study and puts it in context. I was tempted to completely delete the content, and perhaps we should, but for now I reduced the amount of content to give it appropriate WP:WEIGHT - it based only a primary source and we should not rely on it very much. Jytdog ( talk) 13:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
This article is basically all primary sources. These need removing. We should be using secondary sources per WP:RS. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
As User:Jytdog has highlighted, there is the beginning of an edit war in the "effects on humans" that should be preempted. The metabolic effects and effects on biomarkers of CR in humans are ipso facto effects of on humans, and were located there for a very long time before they were puzzlingly moved, and then (in what I would characterize as overly-strict adherence to the "primary source" exclusion) deleted altogether; I've provided proper secondary sources, and they are in line with the full statement from Spindler's review that "we certainly know that restricting calories can improve human health and reduce many risk factors for life-limiting diseases in people" even if "about the true quantitative benefits of CR for life extension in humans are simply unknown, but " (which has also, puzzlingly, been cut when it actually contextualizes the summary in the article and should help resolve any ambiguity about the "effects." These sections therefore belong in the section on "effects in humans."
I have no problem with moving all of the "effects on humans," including the potential negative effects, into the "research" section, but separating them seems to me to be fairly clearly arbitrary. -- Mikalra ( talk) 19:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I reckon! there may be some more tweaking but generally yes thank you for talking! it is rare. Jytdog ( talk) 00:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you should add this somewhere on the page: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/molecular-mechanism-behind-health-benefits-of-dietary-restriction-identified/
-- ThalèsWasHere ( talk) 18:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Mikalra ( talk) 20:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Alexbrn reverted my edit on the basis of "material based on non- WP:MEDRS. I would like to undo this reversion. With the exception of the "Austad and Kristan, 2003" paper, which is primary source, the other citations all meet MEDRS criteria.
Additionally, the reversion also reversed edits to material that clarified findings without changing sources from status quo ante. User:Mikalra 14:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Zefr. I have trouble with the section on Humans under Research. Three sentences with three references that have been cited a sum total of 148 times. Can we agree to throw out Everitt and Le Couter? Their paper seems to be written as an introduction and reads much like a high school report. My objection is that they belittle years of life, "it is estimated that long-term CR to prevent excessive weight gain could add only 3–13 years to life expectancy." A drug that could add that much to a cancer patient's life would be a bestseller. And according to them the Okinawans used to live "only" 4 years longer. A small empire was founded on those same 4 years. I think that last sentence is repetitive. Why not just omit the whole thing? We ought to build up the sources for these statements instead of diluting the message. - SusanLesch ( talk) 17:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I need to declare a possible conflict: the first author of this review is one of my teachers plus I enrolled in her class for next semester. Because she isn't teaching us this subject, while I knew she was among the authors of the 2015 study, I did not know she had written the review that is possibly a very good source. After looking into COI, evidently this might not be a problem. This is a first for me. Apologies for taking so long to declare. - SusanLesch ( talk) 22:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
One problem with this article is that the subject of all these experiments switches from humans to animals and back and forth again. A second problem is that the objective of CR seems to sway in the wind. Some places, CR is intended to prolong life, and in others CR reduces risk factors for disease, and in others CR is a weight loss tactic. Do you think this is a fair assessment and do you think the article can be improved? - SusanLesch ( talk) 19:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
1 Health effects humans 1.1 Risks of malnutrition 2 Mechanisms mice, humans, rodents, yeast 2.1 Temperature 2.2 Hormesis 2.3 Evolution 2.4 Chromatin and PHA-4 2.5 Reduced DNA damage 2.6 Sirtuin-mediated mechanism 3 Caloric restriction mimetics humans, yeast, worms, flies, fish, mice 3.1 Sirtuins 4 History one human generalized to other species 5 Research humans, primates and humans, rodents, yeast (pretty good!) 5.1 Humans 5.2 Primates 5.3 Rodents 5.4 Yeast 6 Effects rodents, monkeys, monkeys, animals, animals 6.1 Activity levels 6.2 Stereotyped behavior 6.3 Aggression 6.4 Obese controls
To this I would add that two sentences are gibberish. Under Mechanisms, "the mechanism by which caloric restriction works is still not well understood". I don't believe anything can "work" unless we know its objective. Second, I changed the second sentence in the lead, ""Low" can be defined relative to the subject's previous intake before intentionally restricting calories, or relative to an average person of similar body type." to "Reduce" can be defined.... Either way, we would need to specify what [something] is "relative to an average person of similar body type." - SusanLesch ( talk) 21:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi DocJames and Zefr. Can you please explain why this article needs to have three statements that the longterm effects of moderate CR on humans is unknown? DocJames writes in his edit summary that he is restoring " The most important part of the article." Perhaps we share a fear for life of a person with low BMI who might read something that might encourage them to restrict calories. Speaking as a new member of Wikiproject:Medicine, I am sorry but the net effect of three statements is that this article is biased against the idea of caloric restriction in humans. - SusanLesch ( talk) 20:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@ DocJames: I am waiting for your reply. - SusanLesch ( talk) 15:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Where do I cite the "Minnesota Starvation Experiment"? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Calorie restriction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
You have an excellent references page listed. I verified a few of the citations and they all seem to go to legitimate sources. I don't feel like there is any plagarism, everything appears to be re phrased in own words. The only negative or take a way is that I don't feel like everything is cited per say in the article that should be. Mss200424 ( talk) 02:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I was surprised to read this entry, as it does not reflect at all the current knowledge nor institutional recommendations (such as US dietary guidelines 2015-2020 or AHA or NICE). It mostly includes either adverse effects, or primary/animal studies. I would recommend updating the article starting from the institutional guidelines. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I also find it very confusing the distinction that was made between this entry and the "calorie restriction for dieting" redirecting to Dieting, as currently this entry is exactly written to cover calorie restriction for dieting.
Furthermore, dieting is not just calorie restriction: there are several diets that do not involve calorie restriction but nutrients balance modification (eg, Mediterranean diet), and others that involve only a different timing (meals timing, such as Intermittent fasting or strategically timing meals and snacks), which does not necessarily involve losing weight!. Dieting can indeed be done for different purposes: weight loss is the most common intervention indication, but it can be for CVD or other biomarker risk decrease (see Weight loss which nicely explain that different view).
Anyway, all of these points are also covered by the references above. About the adverse effects, sure it is necessary to describe them, but there are some major inaccuracies given the current state of knowledge. For example, it is now known that calorie restriction and weight loss are the best treatment for NAFLD, including lean NAFLD (individuals that are lean but have a fatty liver), thus opposing what is written in the entry. Same for obesity and diabetes). That is not to say that everyone should do calorie restriction (even if the US dietary guidelines suggest to restrict calories intake to prevent CVD and obesity -- thus not in the sense of continuous dieting but in the sense of managing one's own calories intake -- but note that for obesity they advise to do continuous dieting), but there are now clearly accepted indications for some pathologies, mainly the metabolic syndrome ones. Furthermore, the AHA evaluated there is "high" evidence that there is a long-term beneficial effect (and weight loss sustainability) of caloric restriction dieting for the treatment of obesity. Even for pregnancy, there are now systematic reviews showing limiting weight gain (and thus doing calorie intake control or even mild calorie restriction) improves outcomes for both the mother and child (see Management of obesity and more specifically: [4] [5]).
Thus, I would suggest to:
Meanwhile, since I have nearly exhausted my spare time allowed for editing, I will add a Template:Update banner to try to raise attention and foster discussion. Thank you for reading and participating -- Signimu ( talk) 22:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
References
Update: I rewrote the lede, I hope this can provide a good start for the rest of the article. -- Signimu ( talk) 03:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Either wikipedia and the editor who doesn't even read the existing content before deleting someone's addition start to act professionally, or I'm considering starting my own wikipedia type site that follows some logic.
Updating this complaint, Dec 21,2019, as Zefr once again reverted a significant addition to mice.
00:17, 22 December 2019 Zefr talk contribs 25,454 bytes -498 Reverted 1 edit by 67.243.247.88 (talk): Speculative; unconstructive (TW) undo Tag: Undo
A major finding of the 2017 report on the CR monkey studies was that the previous assumption that the effect of early onset CR observed in mice was not the case for primates. It was so not speculative that it was currently in the Primate section. I only repeat it in the Mice section because the mouse study is still important in estimating potential human lifespan extension. But one aspect of that mouse study, the front loaded benefits of early onset CR is not only not supported by the monkey study, the monkey study finds no benefit for younger CR. And yet, you still need to know about the mice study, for the still valid estimates of life extension, and to understand the significance of the finding in the monkey report.
curprev 23:25, 21 December 2019 67.243.247.88 talk 25,952 bytes +498 Some cosmetic edits to make section clearer and easier to read, and updated information on mice with signifcant observations made about mice/rodent data from more recent study.
undo Tag: Visual edit "Mice: fringe content with a weak source;" What? Are you insane? Weak source? Rozalyn M. Anderson? Are you saying the article is made up and you think https://www.alzforum.org is involved in an elaborate hoax, and the author, Gwyneth Dickey Zakaib, can't be trusted, or perhaps didn't even write the article?
Here is the information I'm trying to get into the mice section:
“That’s not something we could have predicted based on rodent studies,” said Anderson. In mice, the earlier scientists restrict diet, the longer animals live (for a review, see Speakman and Hambly, 2007).
Anderson is Rozalyn M. Anderson, a lead author of "Caloric restriction improves health and survival of rhesus monkeys" in Nature Communications. Of course mice studies are central to any discussion of Calorie restriction. Previous to my edits, the information in Humans was incorrect and misleading, and very out of date. Spefically it discounted Calorie resstriction by hiding the fact a study was comparing it to 20th Century public health improvements like the development of antibiotics and a decrease in accidents. Either get with the program or be called out as a bunch of crazies who suppress knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.247.88 ( talk) 03:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
In advance of what would unquestionably be an unethical undo for umpteeth time of truth with untruth, I'm proposing creating a new section comparing Human vs Primate and Mice CR. The current goal of information provided in the Mice section for Calorie Restriction is to highlight how it aids and informs studies of human CR. Every reference to mice is only made in so far as it provides insight into human CR, human health, and human longevity. The same is true for primates. A counter example would be dog CR, where CR could provide either insight into human CR, or could provide a way to prolong health and lifespan of beloved pets. Perhaps a Dog entry is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1742:83ED:4C8:FE5F:EADD:2DB1 ( talk) 20:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
In order to save considerable time for anyone stumbling upon this page, here are the current issues being discussed. Please note that technically entries should appear in chronological order, so the last entry is on the bottom. Obviously an Overview (and the linked outline) would not. There are three viewpoints expressed here. One from October 2019, with suggestions for a general rewrite, another from December 2019 (from this editor), which aside from exposing a comparison of CR to 20th century introduction of antibiotics, reduction in accidents, and cvd, introduced a section on mice, and a third, from a very active editor, that keeps undoing mice information. If you are here, the current discussion is then, do we want mice study info in the CR article? There is what I would characterize as illogical, inconsistent, contraditory, and fabricated claims about sources, relevance, and what the term outdated means, used to justify the undos. The reader is invited to read the Talk, follow the sources, and decide for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1742:83ED:B944:9FFE:9936:EC32 ( talk) 23:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Hard to see the value of this section using sources 13-15 years old. The 2017 review PMID 28977341 discusses there are too many design differences in animal research, indicating the CR studies on rodents are too preliminary to include, and are not translatable to humans, WP:MEDANIMAL. Removed from the article as below for discussion, if warranted. -- Zefr ( talk) 00:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Mice
Based on studies of mice in 2005, an objection to calorie restriction in humans was a claim that the physiological mechanisms determining longevity are complex, and that the effect would be small to negligible. [1] A subsequent study refuted the supposed tradeoff between calorie restriction and reproduction (in mice) from which this objection was derived. [2] [3] Another objection was the less stable metabolism of mice and linked opportunistic ecological niche (population variability) would mean mice are more susceptible to CR effects than humans. [4] A previous study, projecting the larger benefits from earlier CR in mice to human lifespan, has been contradicted by evidence from CR in primates. [2]
References
In reply to the comments above: The 2017 PMID 28977341 study says no such thing about rodent studies. Thank you for linking to it since it says the exact opposite, rodent studies are highly relevant.
Here's a quote: "However, only by examining the unique study design features highlighted in the primate studies and further illustrated in rodent models, we can accurately interpret the outcome and ultimately identify the relevant biological mechanisms." Or from the abstract: "These factors, that may be influencing the effects of a calorie restriction intervention, are highlighted in the rodent model to draw parallels and elucidate findings reported in a higher species, nonhuman primates."
This discussion is pretty insane and creates cognitive dissonance since anyone even glancing at the source PMID 28977341 sees the importance and relevance it places in mice studies.
I shall be working on a revised mice section, and anticipate the addition of a dog section.
Obviously there is great value in using sources 13-15 years old, the age of a source has no consequence on it's importance. For example, the wikipedia article on evolution is chock full of sources from the previous century. There is also one listed from 1872.
It's hard not to question the motives of the repeated cuts to the article of mice study information, and also hard not to see them as a violation of wikipedia policy. (unsigned; presumably IP user 67.243.247.88)
The editor above states "There are no relevant mice or dog studies to use in the encyclopedia article."
An editor claiming there are no relevant mice studies that can be used as sources for an encyclopedia article on calorie restriction has no business being allowed to participate in any editing at all. It's a pretty absurd statement, as is the denigration of sources 13-15 years old, per my example of evolution. This however seems to sum up the wierdness and bias of the editor. Denying the importance of lab mice studies on calorie restriction makes no sense and runs counter to the precepts of wikipedia and responsible editing.
Having followed guidelines for "Talk", obviously this has reached the next stage for Dispute Resolution. Please, somebody take the ball and run with it. I've provided all the necessary arguments and sources, and most importantly, so has the opposing editor with their "no relevant mice" position. What are we going to do tonight? Same thing we do every night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1742:83ED:2872:6060:9CE9:859F ( talk) 16:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I remember I read an article by Dr. Ashok D B Vaidya which says that lifespan is prolonged if calorie restriction is done. I will find the reference soon and will add in the article soon after discussing here. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai ( talk) 09:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi. It looks like calorie restriction delays aging: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352396417302505 Would this source be suitable for inclusion in the wikipedia article? It is a review article. Thanks. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lopkiol ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 August 2020 and 25 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MasonBoxberger.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MeganWilliams33. Peer reviewers: AdamTski, Cpichany.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Either one is allowed to point out the differences between mice and primates CR or there is no reason to include any information on mice, or primates for that matter. Humans are only studying CR in primates and mice to advance the study of CR in humans. It would be stupid to only include the similarities and applicability of primate and mice studies, and omit the differences observed. The differences are important to know, and give insight into Calrorie Restriction, and must be included in any wikipedia article that purports to cover the subject.
I have earnestly endeavored to respond to any critism of recent edits. The only valid quibble might be some necessary repetition, since part of the information already appears in the Primates section: "Specifically, reduced food intake was beneficial in adult and older primates, but not in younger monkeys." This is not really a fault, articles nearly always repeat some information in various sections. Please note, I'm tired of trying to get these facts into the article. Please follow the wikipedia guidelines and respond to 'Talk' if there are questions regarding edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.247.88 ( talk) 23:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
This revert was justified because the examples given are not from randomized controlled trials on calorie restriction, but rather are just isolated outdated observations. The 2016 review by Most et al. was updated in 2020 and is already included in the article. Under 'See also', there is an article on the Okinawa diet, but this is an outdated practice by some 70 years with little relevance to 21st century issues on calorie restriction.
The added section also contained grammatical and style errors - see WP:MOS. Zefr ( talk) 18:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)