EXERCISE

[Dean Pomerleau]

Michael,

 

So you appear to be both insulting me and publicly and knowingly mischaracterizing my views for no apparent reason, aside from what I might guess is a childish attempt to get me to post by simply provoking me into clarifying your knowing distortion.

 

Yeah - it worked! I never quite know what will get your goat Michael. You should be thankful - at least this time all I did was call you "silly" and I didn't resort to questioning your manhood. ☺

 

I admit my post may have been a bit flippant and it was certainly a lot briefer and to the point than one of yours would ever be, but nevertheless I thought my summary was a pretty fair characterization of what you told Jess back in 2014. 

 

Jesse, in his very first (and not far from his last...) post to the forum told you he'd just read Brian's book The Longevity Diet and was confused about this paragraph from the book (my emphasis):

 

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.

 

He, understandably, asked about just how "anti-CR" exercise is, and wondered whether he could target a specific (reduced) body weight and then, in his words, Jesse said:

 

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?

 

You'll notice Jesse is asking about exactly the strategy I've been employing myself for a while now - namely eating more calories than most people and certainly more than other CR folks, but maintaining a net calorie shortfall through copious exercise and cold exposure sufficient to keep me lean, although not as "rail thin" as a used to be, in order to enable me to maintain muscle and bone mass, build brown adipose tissue and avoid impaired glucose tolerance.

 

Both you and Brian (Brian in The Longevity Diet and also later in the thread) basically shut down poor Jesse with statements like this one from you:

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. ...

 

Sounds like first and foremost, you are giving him the same old "calories, calories, calories" mantra. Am I wrong about that?

 

Now obviously, as you always do, you qualified this statement with a hat tip to exercise and a link off to the (sadly still) unavailable email list archives for even more nuanced and obfuscated discussion of CR and exercise. But your messages in your response to Jesse are clear, at least the way I read them and I suspect other will as well, namely that: 

• One needs to do some amount of deliberate exercise to remain healthy - you say about 30min of cardio per day plus resistance training presumably a couple/few times per week to maintain cardiovascular health and avoid too much muscle loss.
• One also needs to avoid sitting for too long, and so should be active throughout the day.
• But "Your goal on CR is to reduce your Calorie intake" (your emphasis) so going beyond this minimum exercise/activity prescription will detract from any CR benefits you might otherwise enjoy. 
• "So CR severity and total exercise volume and intensity is a tradeoff you'll have to balance based on your own priorities."

Please correct me if I've mischaracterized your view then, or better yet you view now on the topic of CR & exercise. If it has changed to be more pro-exercise (and/or pro cold exposure) I'd love to hear about it, and I'm sure others would as well - that's why I prodded you in such a deliberate manner.

 

Yes, I acknowledge I was intentionally provocative, but only because I think your (and Brian's) perspective on this topic has done Jesse and probably many others a serious disservice. In Jesse's case, he was clearly discouraged by your response, posting two months later that he hadn't started CR yet, and instead was doing a ketogenic diet. Then he was never heard from again...

 

Michael, like you, I too see CR severity and total exercise volume/intensity as a tradeoff. But not in the same way that you do. I believe that adult-onset severe absolute (vs net) calorie restriction in humans is likely to be detrimental to long-term health and longevity, and that severe CR (along with the exercise regime you recommend) will not beat an healthy, obesity-avoiding diet and lifestyle. 

 

In short, my belief now based on the evidence I've compiled in that thread, is that severe adult-onset CR with the minimum effective dose of exercise, as you commend, is likely to shorten one's healthspan and lifespan (not to mention vitality), at least for the average person, relative to a similar regime where calories are replete but where sufficient exercise & cold exposure is employed to maintain a relatively lean physique (BMI in low to mid 20s).

 

Yes, I was hoping to goad you with my provocation into addressing this subject in a friendly (but perhaps somewhat adversarial) dialog here. Sadly, I don't appear to have been successful. From the way I read your response, all you've done is basically said "Dean, you've (apparently deliberately) mischaracterized my perspective".

 

Perhaps I have, but in doing so I was hoping to get your clarification of what your perspective actually is these days on the wisdom of practicing severe CR, and specifically about avoiding too much exercise as counterproductive in the context of a CR lifestyle.

 

I guess your silence on the topic suggests you haven't changed your tune, just as I speculated...

 

--Dean

[Michael R]

Dean, and all:
 

I admit my post may have been a bit flippant and it was certainly a lot briefer and to the point than one of yours would ever be, but nevertheless I thought my summary was a pretty fair characterization of what you told Jess back in 2014.

It was not "pretty fair," and I have a hard time believing that you thought or think it to be so. First, to state that I insist that people engage in "the minimum amount of exercise to (hopefully) maintain bone and CV health, but avoid doing anything beyond that" drastically restricts the range of activities that I have clearly indicated are important for all (muscle, "sitting disease") people seeking to support their long-term health, as well as the strategic use of exercise to address deficits unique to the individual (such as postprandial glucose management.

Second, it is patently false to state that "according to Michael, longevity is s all about "calories, calories, calories"," and it plays into the widespread calumny that I automatically discount every possible alternative strategy to CR. You are well aware that I acknowledge and have actively hammered home the fact that "longevity," and even intervention in degenerative aging per se, are impacted by many things that have little or nothing to do with Calories and the specific anti-aging effect of CR, including smoking and sun exposure, genetics, choice of specific foods at the same energy intake, the various IGF-1 longevity mutants, rapamycin (and apparently even more so rapa + metformin), apparently acarbose, apparently methionine restriction per se, and above all the "damage-repair" strategy of SENS underlying emerging and future rejuvenation biotechnologies.
 

Jesse, in his very first (and not far from his last...) post to the forum told you he'd just read Brian's book The Longevity Diet and was confused about this paragraph from the book (my emphasis):
 

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.

He, understandably, asked about just how "anti-CR" exercise is, and wondered whether he could target a specific (reduced) body weight and then, in his words, Jesse said:

Could I then just exercise all I want, and eat enough to maintain my (reduced) weight?

You'll notice Jesse is asking about exactly the strategy I've been employing myself for a while now - namely eating more calories than most people and certainly more than other CR folks, but maintaining a net calorie shortfall

Indeed he was — tho' depending on just what exercise he's doing and why, his approach might not be as strategic as yours, and thus less plausibly effective. There was, in any event, no misunderstanding of the question, as was quite clear from my careful reply, which you mischaracterized.
 

Both you and Brian (Brian in The Longevity Diet and also later in the thread) basically shut down poor Jesse with statements like this one from you:

I did not "shut down" "poor" (?!) Jesse: I answered his question clearly and directly, and in accordance with the available evidence.
 

Now obviously, as you always do, you qualified this statement with a hat tip to exercise and a link off to the (sadly still) unavailable email list archives for even more nuanced and obfuscated

"Obfuscated"?! (And, as you're aware, the Archives were up when I provided that link).
 

your messages in your response to Jesse are clear, at least the way I read them and I suspect other will as well, namely that:

• One needs to do some amount of deliberate exercise to remain healthy - you say about 30min of cardio per day plus resistance training presumably a couple/few times per week to maintain cardiovascular health and avoid too much muscle loss.
• One also needs to avoid sitting for too long, and so should be active throughout the day.
• But "Your goal on CR is to reduce your Calorie intake" (your emphasis) so going beyond this minimum exercise/activity prescription will detract from any CR benefits [MR emphasis] you might otherwise enjoy.
• "So CR severity and total exercise volume and intensity is a tradeoff you'll have to balance based on your own priorities."

Indeed. So granted that they were clear in context (and I've secondarily emphasized "CR benefits," since that was the context, and not the interface of exercise with self-experimentation with rapamycin or the future need to exercise once a comprehensive panel of rejuvenation biotechnologies is available (a FAQ which Dr. de Grey, I, and others the Foundation addresses often)) — granted that clarity, and that you can do a decent bullet-point on them, your characterization was not an understandable misunderstanding, but a misrepresentation.
 

Yes, I acknowledge I was intentionally provocative, but only because I think your (and Brian's) perspective on this topic has done Jesse and probably many others a serious disservice.

The fact that someone has presented a viewpoint with which you disagree (or that you think does an interlocutor a disservice) does not entitle you misrepresent their position. Even Dr. Oz, Mercola, and the current Republican nominee are entitled to have their (ridiculous) advice and arguments accurately represented and not taken out of context in the course of being dissected; certainly this goes double for someone who is arguing from evidence and presenting careful, nuanced positions and conclusions.
 

Michael, like you, I too see CR severity and total exercise volume/intensity as a tradeoff. But not in the same way that you do.

I understand your viewpoint, Dean. My disagreement with you has not led me to insult you nor to mischarcterize your views.
 

Yes, I was hoping to goad you with my provocation into addressing this subject in a friendly (but perhaps somewhat adversarial) dialog here.

Insulting someone and mischaracterizing hir views is not "friendly."
 

Sadly, I don't appear to have been successful. From the way I read your response, all you've done is basically said "Dean, you've (apparently deliberately) mischaracterized my perspective". From the way I read your response, all you've done is basically said "Dean, you've (apparently deliberately) mischaracterized my perspective".

You're not seriously saying that my responding post didn't clarify it (supposing, indeed, that it really need clarifying ...) ...?

[Dean Pomerleau]

Thanks Michael,

 

Whether or not you did Jesse a disservice at the time, and whether or not my first or second summaries of your perspective were accurate, your latest post (although I still content, not your first response) helps clarify your current perspective - namely that at least along several important axes, it isn't all about "calories, calories, calories". For this clarification I'm very appreciative.

 

I apologize if it seemed I insulted you or was overly provocative & inflammatory with my original reference to "silly advice". We obviously still disagree on the wisdom of serious CR, but I certainly respect your opinion and didn't mean to sour our relationship.

 

I realize now I was too harsh and pejorative in the way I characterized what I interpreted to be your perspective, and for this I'm sorry.

 

--Dean