"Maddy Mason" <MyTGoldens> wrote:

<bruce>
> > >Calorie restriction is not healthy.
> >
> > This is a blanket statement which has no basis in reality. Calorie
> > restriction experiments have been going on for the better part of
> > a century, and have been proven to extend youth/life in every single
> > organism ever tested

Only when feeding animals a low-fat, high-carb, processed,
and non-paleo diet. Would the same results apply if we fed
them their natural diet of fresh unprocessed foods and at
least 50% raw foods?

> > Walford and nearly
> > all of his followers are about as far from Paleo as one can get..
> > follow a nearly, or totally vegetarian diet; many are Vegan..
> > high fiber, high grain and legume, very low fat.. suffer from
> > fatigue, lethargy, low sex drive, depression, and worse, serious
> > osteoporosis. To blame all of this on the number of calories..
> > with no regard to the makeup of the diet, is erroneous.

Most complain of feeling cold and hungry all the time.
We can get the same benefits of CR (and more) just by
eating less frequently. Why torture ourselves risking
out health with starvation? Mice get the benefits of
a 40% reduction by eating one meal a day or fasting &
feasting on alternate days. This applies even if they
eat the same amount overall. If the same applies with
humans, it refutes the calorie restriction theory.

http://www.you.com.au/news/1706.htm

> CR sure does become unhealthy, once one crosses the threshold
> into starvation. It could be that many of the sick practitioners
> just do not get enough calories.

Man does not live on calories alone. They crossed the
threshold when they began suffering chronic diseases
like osteoporosis, arthritis, and ALS. Their diets do
not provide the optimal nutrition of CRON. They don't
even provide adequate nutrition (CRAN). They are all
brainwashed by low-fat vegetarian lies.

> nobody has any way of knowing if Walford would have developed
> ALS many years sooner if he had not been practicing CR.

True, but no one knows if he wouldn't have developed it
had he eaten high-fat/low-carb, paleo, raw animal food,
or other primitive diet (Price/Pottenger/Fallon).

> I don't believe he practiced a very severe form of
> CR anyway.

Walford claims to eat 1600 Calories a day. He stands
5'8" tall and weighs 130 pounds. That sounds extreme
to me. Most 5'8" women don't weigh 130 lbs. Not very
many 5'4" women weigh 130 pounds, except waif models
and emaciated celebrities.

http://www.lef.org/news/aging/2003/01/06/REC/0000-0300-KEYWORD.Missing.html

> > it does irritate me that all CR is lumped into the
> > Walford type of diet... you can't do CR with a Paleo diet?...
> > CR is usually abbreviated as CRON, meaning Calorie
> > Restriction with Optimal Nutrition... of course, what is
> > optimal nutrition?

We might not need to restrict calories at all. Just
avoiding processed foods, eating low-carb, and less
frequent meals probably provides the same benefits,
with none of the drawbacks. Surely, it wouldn't be
that hard to feast and fast on alternate days.

Just eating 2 meals a day instead of 3 probably has
a comparable effect to CR. You want to reduce your
body's exposure to insulin, and all food stimulates
insulin. Meat, fish, and dairy stimulate a greater
insulin response than oatmeal and white pasta.

http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/insulin.htm