Eat less, live longer

Exclusive excerpt from the cover story of the autumn issue of Get Fresh! magazine - now on sale.

Despite many attempts by modern medicine to develop a drug or intervention that will turn back the clock, one method shows more promise than all the rest put together. It’s not a magic pill you can swallow nor a treatment you can be given; it is the disciplined practice of calorie restriction with optimum nutrition. Sarah Best investigates.

Every morning Lara Williams sits down to a breakfast of cottage cheese on rye bread. A multivitamin tablet chased down with a 150ml glass of pomegranate juice (out of a bottle) completes the first meal of the day. Lunch is usually a chicken breast with half a cup of brown rice or pasta and a carefully-chosen selection of grilled vegetables. Dinner is fish with different vegetables (this time steamed or boiled) and a side salad. Occasionally she rings the changes with a stir-fry of greens and beansprouts on soba noodles. Either way, dessert will be no-fat yogurt with strawberries. 

Her daily total will come out at a carefully calculated 1,400 calories.  A woman of her height should eat at least 2,000. Lara, who is 43, is around 15% under her ideal weight but she is not anorexic. Nor is she on this regime for the weight loss; that has been a mere side effect. She is one of a growing group of hard-core health enthusiasts following a “Calorie Restriction with Optimum Nutrition” (CRON) diet. 

There is a considerable body of scientific evidence suggesting that reducing calorie intake by 20-50% below the recommended amount, while meeting nutritional needs, is the best thing we can do if rejuvenation and longevity are our goals. Many things, including stem cell therapy, human growth hormone, nutritional supplements and a variety of drugs, are claimed to be "anti-aging". But there is no reliable scientific evidence that anything besides calorie restriction is capable of retarding biological aging nor extending maximum lifespan.

So from that point of view Lara and others on similar regimes are definitely onto something. But the “optimal nutrition” part of the equation is just as important as the calorie restriction component. Anorexics, prisoners of war and others who subsist on fewer calories than their bodies require over prolonged periods do not live longer; they perish sooner.

The average CRON diet is certainly streets ahead of the standard diet: empty calories are low to non-existent, junk food doesn’t figure and red meat is a rarity. But if you want to meet all of your nutritional needs in the fewest calories possible, rule number one is to eat your food raw. Why? Because cooking makes 50-70% of protein in food non-bioavailable, it interferes with the body’s absorption of minerals, it denatures essential fats, and destroys 70%-90% of water-soluble vitamins and phytonutrients and 100% of enzymes. 

Given these figures, it is hard to understand why those on calorie restricted “optimum nutrition” diets would be switching their ovens on at all. But browse the many “CRON diet” journals posted online and you’ll discover a strange paradox. Much is made of the importance of “nutrient-dense” calories and meals. Yet you’ll struggle to find a mention of anything unfired being consumed, let alone a food diary which has raw foods as the foundation of the meals being painstakingly documented.

Take breakfast as an example. A big green juice loaded with nutrient-packed sprouts, or a bowl of mixed raw berries, or an infinite number of variations on the raw smoothie – any of these would be a much better choice than the combinations of wheat, dairy and pasteurized fruit juice favoured by most CRON enthusiasts. 

It’s clear the world of calorie restriction could benefit from learning about raw nutrition, but the reverse is also true. Many raw fooders experience less than optimal health and energy because they consistently overeat. So what, exactly, is the evidence that restricting calories makes us younger, healthier and longer-lived?

It all began with a 1934 Cornell University research study. Clive McCay and Mary Crowell were researching the effects of calorie restriction on rats, and found that when the animals were fed all the necessary nutrients but the calories in their diets were drastically cut, they lived substantially longer. Similar results have been observed in all species tested, and that now includes everything from insects to apes. Meeting nutritional needs on 20-50% fewer calories will extend lifespan.

Study after study has shown it is not only the mean lifespan that increases but also the maximum lifespan: i.e., some of the study animals lived longer than previously thought to be possible for the species in question. Another interesting phenomenon observed by some researchers: calorie-restricted animals who were still bearing offspring even when all the regularly fed animals in the study had grown old and died.

In all species studied, the most astonishing results are obtained if calorie restriction begins in infancy; however, if you are a parent, don’t try it on your offspring as it is also shown to stunt growth. Still, life-span increases of up to 20 per cent have been observed in mice that began restricted diets as adults. 

Since this science is relatively new, and humans live so long, there are no human studies proving conclusively that calorie restriction will have the same effect on humans. But the results from many short-term studies are in and they are conclusive: calorie restriction reduces all of the biomarkers for aging and lowers the risk of chronic diseases.

One noteworthy human study is the famous Biosphere II experiment. During the two years between September 1991 and September 1993 eight scientists lived inside this enclosed ecosystem, which allowed no contact whatsoever with the outside world. The group had to do everything needed for survival, including growing all their own food. One of the eight, the resident physician, was none other than UCLA gerontologist Roy Walford, who had been studying the effects of calorie restriction on longevity, and following such a diet himself.

When it was not possible to grow as much food as anticipated within the Biosphere, Walford convinced his fellow inhabitants to adopt a calorie-restricted diet. The results were astounding. Blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol and triglyceride levels all fell by at least 20 percent to extremely healthy levels. The team members also exhibited enhanced immunity and an increased capacity to fight off illnesses.  

Buy the issue to find out:

• What causes aging and precisely how calorie restriction turns back the clock
• Why combining calorie restriction with raw and living foods is the surest road to rejuvenation
• How to do it

Go here to find out what else is in our autumn issue, and go here to order your copy now. Choose between a glossy print magazine or an instantly downloadable PDF. Or why not subscribe, save money and enjoy our free gifts? Again, you can choose between receiving your magazine through the mail or receiving a PDF each time a new issue is released.

Comments

[neil porter]

Hi,
As with all magazines that come in to this house, I'm still at the sniffing stage.
Nothing quite like a fresh print smell to get me all enthusiastic.
Just thought you should know about the sniffing minority. We are people too. Ha Ha.

[Brenon Duff]

For those who are able to restrict their calorie intake consistently, it sounds great. For myself, after a day of eating less than usual, the craving to eat more the next day is so strong that I end up making up for the day before. So I gave that up, but I have found that after several years my appetite has decreased on its own. Brenon (7 years all raw) ;-)