© Unknown
Calorie restriction is all the rage in anti-aging circles. A few mice and worm studies seem to show that drastic reductions in food intake over a long period of time have the effect of prolonging life - although I'm not sure I'd call it living. For one, these animals are actually restricted. There's no ad libitum access to food. They'd prefer to eat more, but are prevented from doing so. I guarantee you they're unhappy and, if they could put (cartoonish high-pitched) voice to physiological state, would say they're starving.
Anyway, humans have picked up on this calorie restriction stuff. You might have seen one or two CR gurus giving "TED" talks; the exposed rib cages, gaunt faces, and complete lack of
lean muscle mass are dead giveaways. Okay - that's a bit unfair. CR is a legitimate way to improve many health markers. I'm just not convinced actively restricting your calorie intake through sheer will is the true path to
enjoyable longevity. I'd rather be robust, vibrant, and full of zest. I want to eat big strapping meals of
steak and veggies smothered in
butter without counting calories. On occasion, I like to devour an entire roasted chicken (yeah, yeah, chicken has more omega-6 than most animals, but I'll live). I want to maintain muscle mass and have enough energy to go on
long hikes and have the legs to still leap for high passes (over the young guys) at the end of
Ultimate games. And as I appreciate the neuroprotective and autophagy-promoting qualities of calorie restriction, I'd rather not expend the mental energy and fortitude required to maintain such a regimen day-in and day-out. Nor would I willingly subject myself to forced calorie restriction, a la the lab mice. No human-sized rat cages for me, even if they include a salt lick and a running wheel (don't get any ideas,
Blaisdell). Based on the science, I don't think all that is necessary. I'll just
IF instead.