CR AND EXERCISE.

[Guest claraga]

I´m a newbie CR entusiast and have a question: is it possible to combine both calorie restriction diet and exercise? If so, the amount of calories I spend during the exercise must be added to the total amount of calories of my daily needs and, after that, I will have to reduce of it 30%?

 

Thnaks, and sorry for any english mistakes (is isn´t my mother language

[Saul]

I´m a newbie CR entusiast and have a question: is it possible to combine both calorie restriction diet and exercise? If so, the amount of calories I spend during the exercise must be added to the total amount of calories of my daily needs and, after that, I will have to reduce of it 30%?

 

Thnaks, and sorry for any english mistakes (is isn´t my mother language

[Saul]

Hi Clara!

 

I've been practising CR since April, 1996. And I've been a vigorous exerciser since age 21 (I'm 74 now). I used to swim, but had a bad self-taught swimming style, and so developed sports injuries after 30+ years -- rotator cuff problems. So I switched to using the Elliptical Cross-Trainer with arm motion. I exercise 6 days a week, for one hour, at the top resistance on the gym equipment (latest Precor), and for a total distance of 5.1 miles or more.

 

This is a vigorous exercise -- it is mostly cardiovascular, but doing it at the top resistance applies some peripheral muscle strengthening as well (I feel that's needed, to prevent CR from eating away what skeletal muscles I have. My skeletal muscles are small, but strong).

 

It's hard to estimate how many calories are burned by the exercise -- Precor advertises a certain number, but posts that I've seen from Al Pater, from independent organizations that have tested the Precor, give a much smaller number. I believe the latter -- and simply ignore exercise when doing calorie computations.

 

Hope that helps,

 

-- Saul

[keithsct]

Yes, moderate exercise is beneficial when combined with CRON. If you find that the exercise makes you eat more to compensate, then you're probably doing a bit too much. I agree with Saul that exercise should not be compensated with more food. Animal studies have shown that only the amount of CR make a difference to the average and maximum lifespan, whereas the amount of exercise adds to the average lifespan only. I run and try to keep my mileage below 18 miles per week (about 3 hrs worth of exercise) even though I could do more. Chronic running can lead to an enlarged heart that has lots of scar tissue depending on your intensity level. Life is a marathon, not a sprint, so exercise moderately and keep your physical functionality right up to the end.

[Guest Claraga]

First of all, thankyou Saul and Keithsct for the help. So, the following (only an exemple) formula could be applied:

 

2200 calories needs per day, so in order to CR, the individual must eat 1400 (2/3) and, in a training day, spending 500 calories, the individual must consider 2700 calories (the usual 2200 plus 500) and, after that, cut 30% of it (900), finding 1800 as the calorie intake need for this day?

 

Is is correct?

[JesseLawler]

I just read The Longevity Diet and did not understand this passage...

 

If you are physically fit and thin, you will have a greater percentage of lean muscle and will have a higher resting metabolic rate, and hence you may need to eat more calories than a heavier person who does not exercise. It is precisely for this reason that too much exercise is counterproductive to the Longevity Diet.

 

I really like almost everything about the CR concept except for my lack of clarity on how it will affect my ability to exercise and perform athletically.

 

I guess I have two questions:

 

1.  What the heck does the paragraph above actually mean?  (I don't follow the logic from the first sentence to the second.)

 

2.  If I wanted to maintain significant levels of exercise while on CR, but also recognize that it's very hard to know from one workout to the next how many calories are consumed in the process of exercising... should I instead aim for a target weight that is an appropriate % lower than my current weight?  Could I then just exercise all I want, and eat enough to maintain my (reduced) weight?

 

To rephrase, should it be equally effective to aim for a reduced body weight versus my "natural/normal level" rather than a reduced calorie-count?  I suspect my CR+exercise calorie-count might still be higher than a sedentary, non-CR person.  Any reason to think I'd be undercutting myself?

 

Thanks!

[Michael R]

Hi Jesse,
 
To answer your last questions first,
 

To rephrase, should it be equally effective to aim for a reduced body weight versus my "natural/normal level" rather than a reduced calorie-count? I suspect my CR+exercise calorie-count might still be higher than a sedentary, non-CR person. Any reason to think I'd be undercutting myself?

Yes, you absolutely would be. CR works by reducing Calorie intake -- period. Your body weight as such is irrelevant. So:
 

I just read The Longevity Diet and did not understand this passage...
 

If you are physically fit and thin, you will have a greater percentage of lean muscle and will have a higher resting metabolic rate, and hence you may need to eat more calories than a heavier person who does not exercise. It is precisely for this reason that too much exercise is counterproductive to the Longevity Diet.

 
1.  What the heck does the paragraph above actually mean?  (I don't follow the logic from the first sentence to the second.)

 

Your goal on CR is to reduce your Calorie intake while maintaining adequate/ "optimal" nutrition.
 
You need to get some exercise for your health: 30 minutes/d of moderate-to-vigorous cardio, plus resistance training for your skeletal muscle and bones, plus motion throughout the day to avoid "sitting disease." And, you may also enjoy various energy-burning activities, such as soccer, backpacking, or (I'm told, by people who don't outwardly seem any crazier than I am) running marathons.
 
Your body weight as such is irrelevant to both of these goals. However, there's no escaping the First Law of Thermodynamics ;) . Exercise burns Calories. CR limits Calorie intake. Preserving a given amount of lean, fat, and bone tissue at a given level of activity requires a given Caloric intake. Reduce your Caloric intake, and you'll have to give up either some activity or some mass. At some point, you're going to become unacceptably skinny, whether "unacceptable" means your bone mineral density is getting worryingly low (although unfortunately DEXA BMD measurements become progressively less accurate in very slim people), or your girlfriend thinks you're too skinny aesthetically and demands that you put on some more pounds, or you find you're just too physically weak. So CR severity and total exercise volume and intensity is a tradeoff you'll have to balance based on your own priorities.

 

There is actually some nuance here about the interaction of CR- and exercise-induced energy deficits, but the above remains the core of the issue.
 

2.  If I wanted to maintain significant levels of exercise while on CR, but also recognize that it's very hard to know from one workout to the next how many calories are consumed in the process of exercising... should I instead aim for a target weight that is an appropriate % lower than my current weight?  Could I then just exercise all I want, and eat enough to maintain my (reduced) weight?
 
To rephrase, should it be equally effective to aim for a reduced body weight versus my "natural/normal level" rather than a reduced calorie-count?  I suspect my CR+exercise calorie-count might still be higher than a sedentary, non-CR person.  Any reason to think I'd be undercutting myself?

No, no, no, and yes :) . If it genuinely is "very hard to know from one workout to the next how many calories are consumed in the process of exercising," you need to get more systematic about deciding what activities to include, how long your workouts are going to be, how often, at what intensity, and establish and stick to a more fixed regimen.

[Guest Rodney]

The contents of this post by Al Pater on exercise does not seem - according to the abstracts - to stratify by BMI, or some other related measure. 

 

That is a pity because IIRC the only such study I have seen found an appreciable decline in benefit from exercise as BMI declines - such that it might even possibly be net negative at BMIs below 21 (although I recall they didn't have enough participants at very low BMIs to find a persuasive result), which might be significant to many people who participate here (!) 

 

We need to see a serious comprehensive study properly stratified down to low (18?) BMIs (done by people without a pre-conceived vested interest in the study findings) before I can muster any kind of conviction about this.

 

Rodney.

 

Leisure Time Physical Activity and Mortality: A Detailed Pooled Analysis of
the Dose-Response Relationship.
Arem H, Moore SC, Patel A, Hartge P, Berrington de Gonzalez A, Visvanathan
K, Campbell PT, Freedman M, Weiderpass E, Adami HO, Linet MS, Lee IM,
Matthews CE.
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Apr 6. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.

0533. [Epub
ahead of print]
PMID:25844730

Abstract

Importance: The 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans recommended
a minimum of 75 vigorous-intensity or 150 moderate-intensity minutes per
week (7.5 metabolic-equivalent hours per week) of aerobic activity for
substantial health benefit and suggested additional benefits by doing more
than double this amount. However, the upper limit of longevity benefit or
possible harm with more physical activity is unclear.

Objective: To quantify the dose-response association between leisure time
physical activity and mortality and define the upper limit of benefit or
harm associated with increased levels of physical activity.

Design, Setting, and Participants: We pooled data from 6 studies in the
National Cancer Institute Cohort Consortium (baseline 1992-2003).
Population-based prospective cohorts in the United States and Europe with
self-reported physical activity were analyzed in 2014. A total of 661 137
men and women (median age, 62 years; range, 21-98 years) and 116 686 deaths
were included. We used Cox proportional hazards regression with cohort
stratification to generate multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and
95% CIs. Median follow-up time was 14.2 years.

Exposures: Leisure time moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity.

Main Outcomes and Measures: The upper limit of mortality benefit from high
levels of leisure time physical activity.

Results: Compared with individuals reporting no leisure time physical
activity, we observed a 20% lower mortality risk among those performing less
than the recommended minimum of 7.5 metabolic-equivalent hours per week (HR,
0.80 [95% CI, 0.78-0.82]), a 31% lower risk at 1 to 2 times the recommended
minimum (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.67-0.70]), and a 37% lower risk at 2 to 3 times
the minimum (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.62-0.65]). An upper threshold for mortality
benefit occurred at 3 to 5 times the physical activity recommendation (HR,
0.61 [95% CI, 0.59-0.62]); however, compared with the recommended minimum,
the additional benefit was modest (31% vs 39%). There was no evidence of
harm at 10 or more times the recommended minimum (HR, 0.69 [95% CI,
0.59-0.78]). A similar dose-response relationship was observed for mortality
due to cardiovascular disease and to cancer.

Conclusions and Relevance: Meeting the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for
Americans minimum by either moderate- or vigorous-intensity activities was
associated with nearly the maximum longevity benefit. We observed a benefit
threshold at approximately 3 to 5 times the recommended leisure time
physical activity minimum and no excess risk at 10 or more times the
minimum. In regard to mortality, health care professionals should encourage
inactive adults to perform leisure time physical activity and do not need to
discourage adults who already participate in high-activity levels.


Effect of Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity on All-Cause Mortality in
Middle-aged and Older Australians.
Gebel K, Ding D, Chey T, Stamatakis E, Brown WJ, Bauman AE.
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Apr 6. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0541. [Epub
ahead of print]
PMID:25844882

Abstract

Importance: Few studies have examined how different proportions of moderate
and vigorous physical activity affect health outcomes.

Objective: To examine whether the proportion of total moderate to vigorous
activity (MVPA) that is achieved through vigorous activity is associated
with all-cause mortality independently of the total amount of MVPA.

Design, Setting, and Participants: We performed a prospective cohort study
with activity data linked to all-cause mortality data from February 1, 2006,
through June 15, 2014, in 204 542 adults aged 45 through 75 years from the
45 and Up population-based cohort study from New South Wales, Australia
(mean [sD] follow-up, 6.52 [1.23] years). Associations between different
contributions of vigorous activity to total MVPA and mortality were examined
using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for total MVPA and
sociodemographic and health covariates.

Exposures: Different proportions of total MVPA as vigorous activity.
Physical activity was measured with the Active Australia Survey.

Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality during the follow-up period.

Results: During 1 444 927 person-years of follow-up, 7435 deaths were
registered. Compared with those who reported no MVPA (crude death rate,
8.34%), the adjusted hazard ratios for all-cause mortality were 0.66 (95%
CI, 0.61-0.71; crude death rate, 4.81%), 0.53 (95% CI, 0.48-0.57; crude
death rate, 3.17%), and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.43-0.49; crude death rate, 2.64%)
for reporting 10 through 149, 150 through 299, and 300 min/wk or more of
activity, respectively. Among those who reported any MVPA, the proportion of
vigorous activity revealed an inverse dose-response relationship with
all-cause mortality: compared with those reporting no vigorous activity
(crude death rate, 3.84%) the fully adjusted hazard ratio was 0.91 (95% CI,
0.84-0.98; crude death rate, 2.35%) in those who reported some vigorous
activity (but <30% of total activity) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.81-0.93; crude
death rate, 2.08%) among those who reported 30% or more of activity as
vigorous. These associations were consistent in men and women, across
categories of body mass index and volume of MVPA, and in those with and
without existing cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus.

Conclusions and Relevance: Among people reporting any activity, there was an
inverse dose-response relationship between proportion of vigorous activity
and mortality. Our findings suggest that vigorous activities should be
endorsed in clinical and public health activity guidelines to maximize the
population benefits of physical activity.

 

[BrianMDelaney]

 

1.  What the heck does the paragraph above actually mean?  (I don't follow the logic from the first sentence to the second.)

 

 

Funny, I don't see that paragraph in my PDF version of the book. The paragraph is certainly not brilliantly written! It must have been altered by an editor later and I was asleep when reading the proofs. Sorry! (Noted for 3rd ed. -- if there ever is one.)  But the essential point is as Michael and the others explained.

 

Brian