Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Minnesota Starvation Study'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Forums
    • CR Science & Theory
    • CR Practice
    • Chitchat
    • General Health and Longevity
    • CR Recipes
    • Members-Only Area
  • Community


  • Paul McGlothin's Blog
  • News
  • Calorie Restriction News Update


  • Supporting Members Only
  • Recipes
  • Research

Product Groups

  • CR IX
  • CRSI Membership
  • Conference DVDs

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL

Found 2 results

  1. All, In case you missed it, Al posted a pointer to a new review paper [1] by Luigi that reviews lots of interesting human CR results, including Okinawans, Biosphere II, Minnesota Starvation Study, CALERIE-I and II, and our own CR Society Cohort study. I read through it and didn't see anything particularly new. Pretty much a thorough review of everything we already know about human CR, much of it from his own work. Most of the positive evidence for CR benefits in humans comes from us. Reading between the lines, and looking at the lack of many expected changes, the CALERIE studies were somewhat of a disappointment. For anyone who is steeped in CR science, it probably isn't worth reading, except perhaps as a refresher. But for newcomers to CR, it looks to be a very good introduction. --Dean -------- [1] Ageing Res Rev. 2016 Aug 17. pii: S1568-1637(16)30183-0. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2016.08.005. [Epub ahead of print] Review. Calorie restriction in humans: An update. Most J, Tosti V, Redman LM, Fontana L. Full text: http://sci-hub.cc/10...arr.2016.08.005 Abstract Calorie restriction (CR), a nutritional intervention of reduced energy intake but with adequate nutrition, has been shown to extend healthspan and lifespan in rodent and primate models. Accumulating data from observational and randomized clinical trials indicate that CR in humans results in some of the same metabolic and molecular adaptations that have been shown to improve health and retard the accumulation of molecular damage in animal models of longevity. In particular, moderate CR in humans ameliorates multiple metabolic and hormonal factors that are implicated in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer, the leading causes of morbidity, disability and mortality. In this paper, we will discuss the effects of CR in non-obese humans on these physiological parameters. Special emphasis is committed to recent clinical intervention trials that have investigated the feasibility and effects of CR in young and middle-aged men and women on parameters of energy metabolism and metabolic risk factors of age-associated disease in great detail. Additionally, data from individuals who are either naturally exposed to CR or those who are self-practicing this dietary intervention allows us to speculate on longer-term effects of more severe CR in humans. PMID: 27544442
  2. [Admin Note: This and the next post in this thread originally formed of two-post thread about willpower, which I've deleted, because they fit better in this thread about CR Psychology, the good, the not-so-good and the ugly. So I'm moved them here. --Dean ] Another minor doubt I've had is that some of us might think about food in a way that wastes cognitive resources. The following might be relevant: "Self-control saps memory resources". I should, by the way, publically note that I now regret that the Society didn't take advantage of the opportunity to look at some of the psychological consequences of practicing CR when the opportunity to work with Kelly Vitousek presented itself. She might not have been the best person to work with, but still. A then board member was horrified that someone who researches eating disorders might besmirch our "great and noble diet" (exact quote, or near exact quote, if memory serves). My busy schedule at the time prevented me from thinking through the issue carefully. (I'm herewith also noting that Dean was probably right, in arguing for working with Kelly V.) I really think viewing CR as "great and noble" gets in the way of science. (I have little more to say on this side-note, but anyone wishing to continue it should perhaps start a new thread.) - Brian