CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Nutrition
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Nutrition Diet, supplements, weightloss, health & longevity

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-01-2003, 08:53 AM   #1
Robert Wolf
Member Robert Wolf is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chico  CA
Posts: 2,669
Coach-

The standard crossfit protocol entails caloric restriction but how might one try something like what is mentioned in the NewScientist article? As simple as skip a day, eat a day? If this approach is taken it sounds like more calories should be eaten on the "eat" days.

BTW- Id love to hear your thoughts on this:

http://www.girevikmagazine.com/six/calrestriction.htm

BTW2- I will call this weekend!!
Robb
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2003, 12:13 PM   #2
Mike Minium
Member Mike Minium is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oakland  CA
Posts: 860
Robb,

To which NewScientist article are you referring? I did a keyword search on newscientist.com using "nutrition" but it didn't return anything resembling a "skip a day" nutrition article. Do you have a link? Or is it in the print version only?

Thanks,

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2003, 03:32 PM   #3
Robert Wolf
Member Robert Wolf is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chico  CA
Posts: 2,669
Mike-
the WOD has a link to the article.
Robb
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2003, 10:32 PM   #4
David Werner
Affiliate David Werner is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 399
Robb
How have you been? After our many discussions on this topic I have been doing some thinking, and today had an epiphany. We have been making this too hard.

It's not the calory restriction that leads to improved health markers and age extention, it's being quite lean.

Consider, There are many recent references to studies that show that ANY exess weight leads to degraded health. I saw an article that talked about findings that even hidden abdominal fat around the internal organs increased the rate of cancer and heart disease in the group of white men being studied. The New Scientist article hints at this. The "control" population of rats is allowed to eat all they want and are considerably heavier than either the calorie restricted population or the group that alternates. Further, they mention that the group that alternated calorie restricion with unrestricted eating, was no heavier than the calorie restricted group.

The answer jumps out at us; it's not how you get there , it's the leanness.

I can hear the howls of protest: What about concentration camp survivors and marathon runners? They clearly don't have elongated lifespans. So lets stipulate that being lean is only good for you if; 1)nutrition is adequate, 2)physical stress (exercise or work) is demanding but not destructive 3)drugs or other crazy schemes are not employed to achieve leanness and 4)sleep is sufficient.

How does this theory sound to you?

Dave
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 05:31 AM   #5
Peter Lundell
 
Profile:  
Posts: n/a
I searched around and found this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1 2543978&dopt=Abstract

It seems to support your idea about leanness David.

Peter
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 12:23 PM   #6
Robert Wolf
Member Robert Wolf is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chico  CA
Posts: 2,669
That certianly jives with Art devanys thoughts on this. Body fat potentiates the aramatazation of testosterone to estrogen and is a source of free radical damage. There is however the issue of decreasing oxidative stress due to decreased food intake....and the issue of immune modulation from intermitant fasting. My sense on this is to (like you and I have jabbered about for hours before) maximize performance on the bare minimum of calories while maximizing nutrition. I think the intermitant fasting actually makes the body more thrifty with calories thus requiring less energy to accomplish the same thing.
Ill call you this weekend.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 01:34 PM   #7
Michael Rutherford
Affiliate Michael Rutherford is offline
 
Michael Rutherford's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Leawood  Kansas
Posts: 200
This is heavy stuff. Robert, your understanding of nutrition is clearly above many others.

I have been reading a lot lately on caloric restriction and longevity. From my digging, it appears as if this is the only clear way to minimize damage and aging of the brain.

I have also found around 170 different articles on the adverse effects of excess protein intake on neurological aging and tumor proliferation.

As a side bar I believe it is understood that tumors grow nicely in the hormones estrogen and testoterone.

I'm not trying to kill anyone's buzz here just interested in what you might have to add here.

Have you uncovered any of this?
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 05:38 PM   #8
Robert Wolf
Member Robert Wolf is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chico  CA
Posts: 2,669
Michael-

Most of the sources I have read seem to indicate that the greater the relative amount of protein in the diet the LESS the likelyhood of these issues. Many of these studies look at "high protein" at levels of 20% of calories with as much as 65% of calories comming from carbs. AGE (advanced glycatation endproducts) which occurs due to the non enzymatic glycosolation of proteins with glucose is a major factor here. I would have to again fall back to populations like the Inuit of the arctic and Ache of south america...VERY high protein intake, very low carb intake and virtually no neuro degenerative disease in any of the folks living into advanced age.

The interesting thing about the article is that is demonstrates life extension and all of the biomarkers commonly associated with CR but from an intermitant fasting protocol.

If you have some key papers you could direct me to Id love to give them a read!
Great topic!
Robb
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2003, 10:38 PM   #9
David Werner
Affiliate David Werner is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 399
Yes, the oxidative stress of "excess" weight whether fat or muscle represents an extra load on the metabolic system.
"The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long....and you have burned so very, very brightly," Rob. LOL

Immune system modulation through intermittent fasting would be a subject I'd love to read more about.

Dave
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2003, 11:20 AM   #10
Michael Rutherford
Affiliate Michael Rutherford is offline
 
Michael Rutherford's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Leawood  Kansas
Posts: 200
Robert-

Read Chapter 8 of THE DIGITAL MANTRAP by James Autio. Available from Amazon.com.

Here you will find the documentation regarding excessive protein ingestion and premature aging, cancer and dementia.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DeVany's Experiences from Caloric Restriction Meetings Andy Deas Nutrition 0 04-18-2006 07:52 AM
Caloric restriction may not appreciably extend your life... Todd Learn Nutrition 2 08-30-2005 02:19 AM
Caloric restriction during the winter months Gregory Spilson Nutrition 1 02-10-2005 07:21 AM
Caloric Restriction Study Paul M Nutrition 12 04-26-2004 08:37 AM
Caloric Restriction Robert Wolf Nutrition 2 01-01-2003 03:14 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.