Low-Calorie Diet May Extend Life in Primates

I am still a fan of calorie restriction, even though I am personally rather slack at it.

The New York Times has some exciting news for us CRONies:


Low-Calorie Diet May Extend Life in Primates

By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: July 9, 2009

A long-awaited study of aging in rhesus monkeys suggests, with some reservations, that people could in principle fend off the usual diseases of old age and considerably extend their life span by following a special diet.

Known as caloric restriction, the diet has all the normal healthy ingredients but contains 30 percent fewer calories than usual. Mice kept on such a diet from birth have long been known to live up to 40 percent longer than comparison mice fed normally.

Would the same be true in people? More than 20 years ago, two studies of rhesus monkeys were started to see if primates respond to caloric restriction the same way that rodents do. Since rhesus monkeys live an average of 27 years and a maximum of 40, these are experiments that require patience.

The results from one of the two studies, conducted by a team led by Ricki J. Colman and Richard Weindruch at the University of Wisconsin, were reported on Thursday in Science. The researchers say that now, 20 years after the experiment began, the monkeys are showing many beneficial signs of caloric resistance, including significantly less diabetes, cancer, and heart and brain disease. “These data demonstrate that caloric restriction slows aging in a primate species,” they conclude.

Some critics say this conclusion is premature. But in an interview, Dr. Weindruch called it “very good news.”

“It says much of the biology of caloric restriction is translatable into primates,” he said, “which makes it more likely it would apply to humans.”

In terms of deaths, 37 percent of the comparison monkeys have so far died in ways judged due to old age, compared with 13 percent of the dieting group, a difference that is statistically significant.

Dr. Weindruch and his statistician, David Allison of the University of Alabama, said the dieting monkeys are expected to enjoy a life span extension of 10 to 20 percent, based on equivalent studies started in mice at the same age.

Most normal people cannot in fact keep to a diet with 30 percent fewer calories than usual. So biologists have been looking for drugs that might mimic the effects of caloric restriction, conferring the gain without the pain. One of these drugs is resveratrol, a substance found in red wine, though in quantities too small to have any effect.

Dr. Weindruch said the study data offered “very encouraging” signs that resveratrol could duplicate in people some of the effects of caloric restriction.

Critics, however, are not yet ready to accept that the rhesus study proves caloric restriction works in primates.

If caloric restriction can delay aging, then there should have been significantly fewer deaths in the dieting group of monkeys than in the normally fed comparison group. But this is not the case. Though a fewer number of dieting monkeys have died, the difference is not statistically significant, the Wisconsin team reports.

The Wisconsin researchers say that some of the monkey deaths were not related to age and can properly be excluded. Some monkeys died under the anesthesia given while taking blood samples. Some died from gastric bloat, a disease that can strike at any age, others from endometriosis. When the deaths judged not due to aging are excluded, the dieting monkeys lived significantly longer.

Some biologists think it is reasonable to exclude these deaths, but others do not. Steven Austad, an expert on aging at the University of Texas Health Science Center, said that some deaths could be due to caloric restriction, even if they did not seem to be related to aging. “Ultimately the results seem pretty inconclusive at this point,” he said. “I don’t know why they didn’t wait longer to publish.”

Leonard Guarente, a biologist who studies aging at M.I.T., also had reservations about the findings. “The survival data needs to be fleshed out a little bit more before we can say that caloric restriction extends life in primates,” he said. In mouse studies, people just count the number of dead animals without asking which deaths might be unrelated to aging, he said.

The second rhesus monkey study, being conducted by the National Institute on Aging, is not as far advanced as the Wisconsin study. The researchers have not yet reported on the number of deaths in the dieting and normal monkey groups. But there are signs that the immune system is holding up better in the dieting group, said Julie Mattison, the leader of the N.I.H. study.

The outcome of the rhesus monkey studies bears strongly on the prospects of finding drugs that might postpone the aging process in people. Although people are unexpectedly similar to mice in many ways, they differ in other ways, notably cancer, a disease in which many treatments that are effective in mice do not work in people.

Even if caloric restriction extends longevity in people as well as mice, the extent of the effect remains unclear, though Dr. Weindruch believes the effects will be in the same general range. His monkeys were not started on the diet until 6 to 14 years of age, and seem to be doing as well as mice that are started at equivalent ages. The most striking extensions of life span occur only when the mice are put on the diet from birth.

Dietary restriction seems to trigger an ancient strategy written into all animal genomes, that when food is scarce resources should be switched from breeding to tissue maintenance. In recent years biologists have had considerable success in identifying the mechanisms by which cells detect the level of nutrients available to the body. The goal is to find drugs that trick these mechanisms into thinking that famine is at hand. People could then literally have their cake and eat it, enjoying the health benefits of caloric restriction without the pain of forgoing rich foods.

Read the whole thing.

Happy Friday the 13th!

I have been linked on John Scalzi's blog, in the middle of a gargantuan thread about racism and science fiction, titled Mary Anne Mohanraj Gets You Up to Speed, Part I. I am thrilled to be included! The linked post is my all-time big-draw, the one about having a black name.

But you know what? I gotta say... this linkage happens fairly regularly, accompanied by something like: This white woman says racism is real, now do you believe us? Jesus H. Why don't (other white) people believe personal testimonies about racism, unless it comes from one of us? I have noticed that I am often posted to bolster the arguments of People of Color when they are not believed.

I realized while I was reading threads during the post's major-linkage period last year (particularly on MetaFilter): Many white people simply do not want to believe racism is genuine. Why not? What exactly is lost if whites believe racism is still a dominant influence? Why the constant arguing that it isn't really like that, that isn't really about race, you musta got it wrong?

When I started reading threads in which my word was doubted, I got really sick over it. I realized then, of course: this is what People of Color have to put up with, when they report racism. It must be due to something else, you are over-sensitive, etc.

My question is, why the doubt? What exactly does it COST whites of good will, to take racism seriously? I am confused about the protesting.

And speaking of which, over at John Scalzi's, the posts on the thread in question are currently up to 471, and it's not even noon. (Good lord, I can't imagine traffic like that, she marveled.) Lots of defensiveness, but also a great deal of raw intelligence on display. Mary Anne, of course, is tops.

Check it out.

~*~

How do the Calorie Restriction people stop from periodically going berserk and binging? Last night, I bought a package of mega-sugary conchas, and yes, ate the whole thing.

It was especially satisfying to chow down whilst watching the entertaining Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer spectacle! Technical knock-out! James Poniewozik of TIME reports on the prize-fight:

So, be my guest—talk among yourselves about who "won" the interview. (By the way, The Daily Show also has the full unedited exchange online.) Dance in the streets with Cramer's trophy head held aloft if you like. (As I type, The Huffington Post's headline is JON STEWART EVISCERATES JIM CRAMER AND CNBC, in VICTORY DECLARED IN EUROPE-sized type. [Matt] Drudge is rather more coy on the subject.) It was a beatdown, to be sure. (After airing a promo for Cramer's Mad Money which could have itself been a Daily Show parody: "I understand you want to make finance entertaining, but it's not a f__ing game.) But in the long run, it was most fascinating as a discussion about how business journalism in particular and journalism in general are done in America.

About CNBC generally, Stewart kept returning to the question not only of why the network didn't report on financial disaster coming, but who CNBC is for at all: "Who are you responsible to? The people in the 401ks and the pensions and the general public, or the Wall Street traders?" Stewart asked (adding that most traders are "bright guys" who are "f__ed in all this too").

I was fairly stunned by Cramer's fake innocent-routine...as well as disgusted by his overweening self-centeredness. He really seemed to believe the entire Wall Street fiasco is about HIM and HIS TV SHOW.

Cramer, the economy is in the shitter, dude! Wake the fuck up!

Poniewozik writes:

[Cramer stated during the interview] "It's difficult to have a reporter say, 'I just came from an interview with Hank Paulson, and he lied his darn-fool head off.' It's difficult. I think it challenges the boundaries." OK, this is an easy quote to attack—why not just say he's lying, damn you!—but in fairness it's not as simple than that. The real story—and not at all a more flattering story—is that lies like these are not obvious and cut-and-dried: refuting them takes a lot of work and a lot of time and often involves sticking your neck out and going against the crowd (see previous point). Much easier to quote your subject, adding a caveat if necessary, and move on.

Much easier, too, to make this story about a feud between two cable-TV stars, declare a winner, and move on. Because then we don't have to recognize that this song is about us.

If you didn't see it, go over there and watch the whole thing. It explains more than any single news show or documentary, exactly how this happened: the fawning "financial news" media was up Wall Street's ass.

You can't report fairly on something if you are also trying to get rich off it yourself.

We might call that biased reporting, yes?

60 Minutes and why Calorie Restriction goes nowhere

...is one of the subject lines on my Calorie Restriction mailing list this week. Alas, if you saw 60 Minutes on CBS Sunday night, you know why.

Not real flattering.

And it was sexist too.

First, the story focused on Resveratrol, the active ingredient in red wine that has so many healthful properties. (And I sell it!--she momentarily preened.) Researchers believe that it can "turn on the longevity gene" and they are currently developing a supplement/pill that will have the higher concentrations necessary to do this.

So far, so good.

And then the story turned to the Calorie Restriction Society and I just gritted my teeth. Oh no, I thought.

I was right.

From the transcript of the show:

Meet the members of CRS - the Calorie Restriction Society - a group that has been severely restricting their calories for years now. They are also part of a Washington University study to see if humans "mimic" the monkeys. Does this kind of self-denial makes them live longer, healthier lives?

60 Minutes joined them for what they call "happy hour," consisting of a cocktail of low-calorie soup for starters, and walnuts, and baby food - green bean puree on flour-free bread to top off this feast fit for a flea.

So far the participants have lowered their blood pressure, reduced body fat, and lessened risk factors for heart disease, diabetes and even cancer. And what's more, to one husband anyway, starvation has its sexy side. "To be honest, if you saw her without any clothes, you'd see she looks pretty darn good, like a woman like of many, many years younger," the man told 60 Minutes.

Their emissaries travel the world, spreading the faith and the word: hunger turns on the survival gene.

The skinnies may not die young, but given their diet they just might die of boredom. But if the scientists at Sirtris are on the right track, it could mean forget dieting, forget the sweaty business of working out - just pop a pill and you are in guilt-free couch potato paradise.

Yes, we must assure the men, it makes the women LOOK GOOD! Offensive as hell. (Let's hear about how the men look!)

One email-list participant wrote of the experience:

[We hoped "60 Minutes" would share] some of the brilliant comments by Richard Schulman and Don Dowden, both of whom shared insights about the way they practice CR and the significant success they have had.

A woman replies:

This is what I wanted to hear! In fact they cut ALL comments by anyone except Paul describing Meredith without clothes.

It should be obvious to anyone, without having to ask, why CR doesn't go anywhere as a scientifically viable alternative to unproven "miracle drugs."

The fault rests squarely on the MSM (mainstream media) and their treatment of the subject matter.

As one thoroughly disappointed in the coverage, let me add my hearty amen to that. Several people are emailing CBS:

I've also emailed them to tell them what I though of the editing on the show. Very poor representation of CRON* in humans, and hardly mentioning the years of research behind it, the excellent results in humans, completely lying about our experience on the diet... and not even giving a chance for the other CRers in the clip to talk about how they feel. He practically used a voice over for almost all of that section!

Indeed, the focus seemed to be, look at these weird thin people who have made guinea pigs of themselves. Do they say this about any other 'diet' that people find useful? Why are various goofy fad diets (yes, I'm lookin at you, Dr Atkins) treated respectfully by the mainstream media, but CR is not? In fact, CR was presented primarily as a counter-point to the Resveratrol story:

Yup, it really wasn't about CR it was about CR effects in a bottle, pop a pill and live longer! Gee, you don't need self control like these poor CR folks, if revenge is living longer, we win. The story is about living longer in a pill, CR was background.

And besides that, the arrogant nastiness directed at the menu overlooked the main reasons for the food being eaten by the folks on CR, which is that they are exceptionally nutrient-rich, densely packed with vitamins and minerals. This fact wasn't mentioned at all in the story, which focused only on calories, not surprisingly. Another comment:

I wish the CR Society representatives featured on 60 minutes would have chosen different foods. The baby food on bread is probably a big turn off to most viewers, including myself. It makes CR look like a cult. There are many people who practice CR by eating better tasting foods.

Personally, I see no difference between "baby food" on bread, or anything else on bread... but the choice of the word "baby food" was certainly interesting, when the word purée would have been used exclusively if this was some sort of gourmet cooking show. Obviously, it was deliberately used for effect.

One CRS member's response was to write a post titled Media: How Does It Portray CR?:

If I depended on the media, I would think people on a CR diet must:

* Peel their apples, eat the peels and throw away the rest;
* Lick their plates in public to get every last scrap;
* Make oddball, tasteless canapes, perhaps with baby food;
* Make one food only and eat that same food day in and day out.
* Eat horrible looking food, portrayed as unappealingly as possible;

Here's the reality: you can eat absolutely any food you desire, as long as you meet your nutritional needs within your calorie limit. This is not that hard. My wife makes all sort of dishes (most recently, Indian cuisine). There is nothing she makes that I don't eat (except asparagus - yuck - some people will eat anything!). I just make sure I know what the nutritional value is, then eat an appropriate amount.

You can even eat pure, totally adulterated, junk food. But you will have to limit the amount of junk so you have enough remaining calories for the day to get 100% of your nutritional needs.

Reality: You can eat perfectly normal food similar to what you are used to, but you will probably also start eating more nutritious foods.

I don't think that rather undramatic reality would have made "good television" though, now would it? Fuck the facts, we want razzle-dazzle bozo weirdness!

Jerry Springer, call your office.

Whatever happened to real reporting?

...

*CRON stands for Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition

Calorie Restriction for Longevity

I have intermittently subscribed to the Calorie Restriction Society mailing list, even when I periodically go berserk and tear into packages of my favorite cookies. (Regular readers may recall that I am quite passionate for Ginger-O's by Newman's Organics! YES!) For this reason, I have never actually contributed to said email list, since I am a mere dilettante. But New Year's resolutions being what they are (or aren't, in my case), I have taken another look at the program. I re-uped on the list, and have finally started opening the email digests that I had been summarily deleting out of guilt. And I am evaluating, once again, the whole idea.

When I do something, I tend to go whole hog, as we say in these parts. Thus, if I should begin this program again, it won't be undertaken lightly.

I assure you, I haven't lost my feminism. I am not particularly interested in being thin, although it would increase my access to the way-cuter thrift store clothes.

The reason I would undertake this hard-core regimen? They say you will live longer!

Did somebody say... live longer?

Since the 1930s extensive scientific research has shown that calorie restricted (CR) diets improve health and extend lifespans of nearly every species tested, including worms, spiders, rodents, dogs, cows and monkeys. We believe it is likely that people who carefully adopt a CR diet will see similar results.

The CR Society supports the efforts of people who practice CR for current health, future longevity, or other benefits; those curious about or interested in understanding the effects of the diet; and those interested in the development of related, science-based health-enhancing and life-extension technologies.

Okay, now you're talkin!

Admittedly, my fear of death (the pale horse) is comfortably banished to the fringes whenever I encounter this sort of stuff. In addition, the scifi geek in me loves the idea of being a guinea pig, but of course, I don't want to ingest anything dangerous.

This seems perfect for me, since it involves NOT ingesting things.

Katherine Seligman wrote an article about the Calorie Restriction lifestyle for the San Francisco Chronicle in 2007:

[Barry] Gamble practices calorie restriction, packing all his daily nutrition into close to a quarter fewer calories than his body needs to maintain his natural weight - which used to hover around 195 pounds. At 6 feet tall, he now consumes 1,800 calories each weekday (he adds 200 on weekends when he gets more exercise) and weighs 164, his slimness cloaked by an extra layer he wears to keep warm. Being thin, which causes him to feel cold, is a side effect, not the goal of calorie restriction, or CR, as it's called.

But it's worth it for what Gamble says are his benefits - more energy, fewer digestive problems, better measures of heart health and mobility and perhaps, although there are no guarantees, a longer life.

"The real reason I do it is because I feel better today," said Gamble, who happened to be celebrating - although not with cake - his 67th birthday the day I met his friends at the Breakfast Club. His face was deeply lined, but his energy level was evident. After his non-breakfast he planned to head to the gym for a light workout, then to his office. "I have more bounce in my step than I did before," he said, jumping lightly from one foot to the other in his Birkenstocks.

No one knows how many people are practicing CR, what followers say is "a way of living" instead of a diet. The Calorie Restriction Society, based on the work of the late UCLA gerontology researcher Roy Walford, was founded in 1994 by a small group of people interested in the science behind CR and in creating a social network. It now has about 2,000 members (approximately 70 percent of them male, although society officials aren't sure why), with thousands more on its mailing list.

The well-respected but eccentric Dr. Walford, who studied the immunological and molecular aspects of the biology of aging, published hundreds of scientific papers. He alternated lab research with sabbaticals where he worked on such projects as living in a 3-acre glass-enclosed environment called the Biosphere to test its effect on health, and traveling India in a loincloth "measuring the rectal temperatures of holy men," according to the Los Angeles Times. He emerged as a CR guru with his books "The 120 Year Diet" and "The Anti-Aging Plan," which was written with his daughter. Hoping to live to that magic number, he rigorously restricted himself to 1,600 nutritionally scrutinized calories a day. His health failed when he developed amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known at Lou Gehrig's disease, which he attributed to oxygen deprivation from living in the Biosphere. He died from it in 2004. But not before reinvigorating a field of research that had been around since the 1930s.

Scientists have long known that calorie restriction increases the life span of earthworms, mice, dogs and monkeys. Studies have shown that mice and rats fed reduced calories but the best possible nutrition have a 40 to 50 percent increase in life span. The same was true of rodents fed every other day. Researchers have noted that both groups show a decrease in glucose and insulin levels. Researchers believe that metabolic changes from reducing calories lowers cell turnover, meaning there is less chance of DNA damage - associated with cancer, which is a major cause of death in mice and rats. While they can see these results with CR, they aren't certain why they occur. They theorize that reduced glucose curtails the production of free radicals in cell mitochondria or that the stress of CR makes the body learn to cope with more serious stress at a cellular level.

"It's the only thing that is known to extend the life span in warm-blooded animals," said Dr. Marc Hellerstein, a professor at UC San Francisco and UC Berkeley who studies human nutrition and metabolism. He recently started recruiting people for a study where subjects will eat a near-fasting diet every other day, alternated with a normal one. "It's the most amazing thing in all of biology."

And there is a growing impetus to find out if humans reap the same benefits, over time, as lab animals. The Baby Boomers are aging, and just as they felt the need to revolutionize attitudes toward child rearing and midlife, they are interested in a better old age. They are the ones who promoted 50 as the new 40. Could 100 will be the next 90 - or 80?

"This is definitely a Boomer diet," said Robert Cavanaugh, secretary of the Calorie Restriction Society and a retired Marine, who, along with his wife, has been following the diet for six years. "We used to be considered a bunch of extremist wackos who were starving ourselves to live longer. But now most any major university that does research is doing some on CR."

The National Institute on Aging and National Institutes of Health are both funding research at major universities. Private industry is also studying the metabolic effects of CR, working to create a pill that will mimic it and bypass the need for a rigid diet.

That's not to say that CR lacks skeptics. More than one person mentioned to me the line that CR "won't make you live longer, but it will feel longer."

Yes, that's what I worry about.

Do we really want to live longer if we aren't eating Ginger-Os? Aye, there's the rub.

And does it really work?

Seligman writes:

So far there is tempting evidence but no conclusive long-term studies on CR in humans. Partly this is because it's difficult to study longevity in people. Rats have no choice but to stay in their cages and wait for food pellets. Human research subjects would have to be followed for decades, and not many humans can, or will, stick to the rigors of the diet. And those who do it tend to follow disparate regimens. Some severely limit calories every day, while others fast all or part of every day. Without feeding each subject the same diet, results are hard to come by or duplicate, say researchers.

Some of the first willing research subjects were volunteers from the Calorie Restriction Society, who in 2002 offered themselves as subjects for an ongoing study at Washington University School of Medicine. Researchers there have measured markers of health and aging, and their findings, published by the National Academies of Sciences in 2002, say CR led to "profound and sustained beneficial effects." These included lowered cholesterol and blood pressure, less body fat and reduced levels of a protein known to cause inflammation, which is believed to be a factor in diseases.

Washington University researchers and doctors at Pennington Biomedical Research Center and the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Center are all continuing federally funded work on CR and humans. The Pennington team, in results published in the Journal of the American Medical Association last year, found that CR decreased fasting insulin levels and body temperature. The same group published a paper in PLoS Medicine this year saying that CR decreased whole body oxygen consumption and DNA damage in young non-obese adults. The team is now recruiting for a larger study group that will be followed for several years.

I have attempted this lifestyle several times, usually accompanying my attempts to go raw. I usually stall out at around 50-70% raw foods; meaning, that is the percentage of my diet that is totally raw. Raw foods tend to be low-calorie, and munching on raw veggies easily turns into a default setting. (My last attempt went decidedly kaput after I had gum surgery during the summer; good luck munching on raw veggies after gum surgery!)

I have also read the late Dr. Walford's book, temptingly titled Beyond the 120-Year Diet.

The problem with the diet is, it tends to make me a little crazy. Okay, a lot crazy. Is there anything they can do about that?

Some of us, you know, are already flaky enough.

Dean Pomerleau gave a fascinating presentation on the psychological effects of CRON*--which uncomfortably hit home with me:

Manifestations of CR Obsession

Food Obsession:

*“Orthorexia Nervosa” – Obsession with healthful eating - endless diet tuning, unwillingness to eat “forbidden” foods.

*Sight – magazines, Food Network TV – ironic, most don’t actually make, let alone ever taste, featured recipes

*Taste – heavy, exotic spices, proclivity for strong tastes (e.g. peppers), flavor “spritzing”, sucralose reliance, toothpaste eating

*Food tasting, and even more harmful eating disorders (e.g. bulimia and anorexia).

*Perhaps a natural result of scarcity mentality – food is scare, so need to maximize experience from what one is willing to eat or contemplate eating.

Yes, my acute interest in TOP CHEF began around this time. When you start reading bizarre vegan cookbooks (with no intention of actually cooking!) on your off-hours, you know you've hit the wall.

Thus, I think it is obvious that such a diet, over long periods, can rapidly turn into NO FUN. Although I am also aware that many of the saints, ascetics and holy people I admire, have usually eaten in just this manner. (My first excursion into this lifestyle, not surprisingly, was during a very austere Lent, some years ago.) Your humble narrator believes that spiritual enlightenment is the most fun of ALL, and I am always in the market for more. This seems like still another way to go there, and my curiosity is getting the best of me. Dean says:

CR Promotes/Attracts:

*Introspection / awareness

*Self-discipline / zeal

*Cessation of desires

*Smoothing of emotions – equanimity

*Recognition of cause and effect - interdependence

*Realization of impermanence – tough one for CRonies

As I have often discussed with my dear friend JW, that last one is the big prize, for me. I want this spiritual lesson in the worst way... only to discover that it finally dawns when one is fully ready to accept it, and not before.

It doesn't come cheaply; I realize that one must work hard for it. Will CR properly prepare me for this lesson, at long last?

Where do I sign up?

I promise, I will try to start slowly. I am already a committed vegetarian of well over a decade. Processed sugars (my beloved Ginger-Os!) will be most difficult to give up when one is overworked, upset and/or need emotional comforts (see reference to gum surgery, above). Other bad eating habits include actual cream in my coffee and fabulous samples of expensive, aged cheeses from exotic places, at my place of employment... the whole reason, I often joke, that I have never been able to go completely vegan. I will likely have to avoid a whole area of the store I work in, since I seem patently unable to keep my hand out of those damnable samples, which are (no other word for it, people) simply heavenly. (Unlike most folks, I would gladly choose cheese over any chocolate or sweets.)

If I mess up, it will the fault of EVIL EXOTIC CHEESE, probably from France.

Gonna give it a shot and see what happens. If I start watching too much TOP CHEF or reading woo-woo cookbooks in my spare time, I will know it's time to slice up some of that cheese. Gimme!


~*~


*This stands for Calorie Restriction/Optimal Nutrition, as opposed to 'starving' in an unhealthy way. Participants maximize the nutrient content in the few calories they take in (i.e. lots of greens and phytonutrients) and ingest a boatload of supplements, as I do anyway. Practitioners often call themselves CRONies, for short.