severe calorie restriction

has anyone read this article? or heard about severe calorie restriction?

http://nymag.com/news/features/23169/

this is exactly what makes me doubt starvation mode!  these people limit their carbs but get tons of nutrients and good stuff and they're skinny: they are not starving themselves, nor are they in starvation mode......in fact, eating what we consider NORMAL could be shortening our lifespans....not that I'm going to start to adhere to this diet...too strict!....but it makes me wonder about rules we consider while dieting....

yes, i've heard of it. but it's so extreme, it would really be difficult to maintain. every single calorie has to be of the highest possible nutritional value---something very, very difficult to do.

moderation and common sense is the key to balanced living.

i read the first 4 pages.if i payed enough attention: the author says he eats 1800 calories per day and the other guy has a dinner of 639 cals daily + other meals. so no further comments. 

i don't understand what you mean, eugrrll....are you saying that is a little or not a lot?

they get to eat ricotta and drink wine...stuff I deprive myself of often.....

people here make the case against going into starvation mode by saying it has nothing to do with nutrients, just sheer calories, energy.....???

I saw this when it first appeared in the New York Times Magazine, earlier this year.  All I have to say is, these people sound like they're in a weird cult.  And eugrrrll is right - they don't really restrict that much, they just make a big deal out of it. 

Life is too much fun to spend it counting and weighing and analyzing every morsel.  And there is no evidence that these people will live longer, or even that they are healthy.  For all we know, they will develop osteoporosis or liver disease, or some other problem.  Only time will tell.

but it does throw some light onto a lot of weight loss beliefs we have: ideas that we'll go into starvation mode, that very very low BMI's are without a doubt unhealthy, etc.

I'm not about to adhere to it, and I don't like the sound of quorn one bit, but I think it raises some questions about our bodies and nutrition.

Counting, weighing, analyzing?  Isn't that what we do on this website??

Actually, aside from being a little on the obsesive side with numbers, they are not doing anything that goes against the tenents that are proposed on this website for weight loss... Now weight management, I have no clue, but being smaller, they do not require many calories, so 1800 to 1900 doesn't sound so bad. They are not going against the basic rules of dieting, accept that they are putting themselves way below the low end of BMI, but I have always seen BMI as too broad, it takes away from personal adaptation. If their doctors think that they are healthy, and their tests are ok, then what ever. I guess we'll see how their doing in a hundred years (if we're still around). I personally, don't like stressing as much as they do with the numbers.

borgesgreen, it sounds like you're looking for some proof that starvation mode is false and that it's OK to be at a low BMI.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You can keep looking and I'm even sure you'll find something, but... you're wrong. Starvation Mode is very real and it is *NOT* OK to be too low a BMI because your body suffers. Don't you pay attention to the news? A few models, over the last few years, with way too low BMIs DYING?

Go talk to a professional. Don't believe us, by all means. Go talk to your doctor or a dieitician.

yes, of course. most people in starvation mode, including those models were terribly unhealthy.  but I should also add they probably had a diet that consisted of celery and cigarettes.  most models eat terribly, not only because they need to be skinny, but because they're so busy.

what calorie restriction is, is very low calories and a very low BMI.....making a healthy person, a person who may live to be 140 years old.  You should read the article.  these men with tiny BMI's are not starving Brazilian models.  They're healthy, they're active, they look young.

What I am trying to say is that I don't buy this "a calorie is a calorie" crap....what's in those calories matters more than the amount.  Eat 1000 calories a day of chocolate and coffee and carrots and you die.  Eat 1000 calories packed with fiber, nutrients and vitamins....you're doing a lot better.

I'm not promoting this diet, I don't plan to follow it....but I think, as I said before, we can learn something from it.

i didn't mean 'in starvation mode' in the first sentence, I meant taking in low calories

From the article:

?You?re losing weight too fast,? she says, with the crisp authority of a doctor handing me some bad but easily remedied news. ?You?ve lost twenty pounds in two months, and you probably shouldn?t lose more than five pounds a month. You need to start eating more.?

This appears to be a cue for the evening?s two alpha geeks?Paul and Michael?to launch into dueling mini-lectures on the dire biophysics of rapid weight loss. ?When you do CR, you?re not just losing fat,? Michael explains. ?You?re losing muscle; you?re losing bone.? Shed weight too fast, and you can even shrink the most important muscle you have, your heart, running the same risk of cardiac arrest that makes anorexia such a dangerous obsession.

Also:

?Did you get your blood tested at the beginning of this?? Paul asks, and I confess I didn?t: Yet another misstep exposed.

Also this:

Of all the physiological inconveniences known to face the long-term calorie restricter?chills that sometimes accompany reduced metabolism rates, stamina deficits that can cut short the capacity for protracted physical labor?none strikes dismay into the heart of the initiate quite like CR?s potential, often mentioned but little understood, to squelch the libido.

And:

Michael smiles, just a little. ?I consume an enormous amount of carotenoids?beta-carotene and lycopene?which are found in foods like carrots, kale, tomatoes,? he explains. ?If I had skin like yours, the effect probably would be barely noticeable, but because my skin is an extremely pasty white to begin with ? ?

?So wait,? Adam interjects, ?you eat so much kale, tomatoes, and carrots that your hands actually turn orange??

And:

I?m just about sold myself. But Adam is an independent observer, his judgment far less likely to be compromised by traces of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, and he has seen all he needs to see of CR. He?s heard the many arguments in favor of Calorie Restriction and the few that carry any weight against it; he?s met some of its smartest and most likable practitioners. He?s even tasted and declared ?not bad? the best of its cuisine.

?So, whoa,? says Adam. ?I have got to say that that was probably the blandest-tasting meal I?ve had since, like, ever.?

I?m confused. ?But you said??

?I was being nice.? An awkward silence reigns until at last Adam puts his hand on my shoulder, looks me in the eye, and says, ?Dude. It was bad.?

And:

And yes, by any objective standard, the food is lousy, but believe me: Starve yourself long enough and even a tofu-coffee-macadamia-nut-and-flaxseed smoothie becomes ambrosia.

Their regime varies by person, but the woman mentioned in the article eats an average of 1300 calories per day, and the men all have at least 1500 (usually over 1800, some 2000). They are all followed closely by medical personnel.

Their regime varies by person, but the woman mentioned in the article eats an average of 1300 calories per day, and the men all have at least 1500 (usually over 1800, some 2000) per day.

For weight-loss purposes, a calorie is a calorie. For health purposes, the type of calorie it is DOES matter. These folks are extremely careful in tracking the nutrients of their food, way beyond fat, protein, and carbs. Gotten enough zinc today? These folks would know whether they had.

I could not do what these folks do. I wouldn't WANT to do what these folks do. We have one lifetime in which to experience what we can of all that our glorious universe has to offer. So much restriction is not for me. A long life filled with deprivation... no. Give me the opportunity to taste life instead!

Thanks athena, you just highlighted a couple of the sections in the article i was about to point out. I think there is a lot to be said for critical reading and looking to other (scientific) sources for verification.

I don't know whether such a regime would make your life last longer (with the attention they pay to nutrition and all over health it probably does) but I can sure tell you that if you were hungry every day of your life, it would sure SEEM LONGER!

I wrote a paper on extreme calorie restriction or ECR and there is scientific evidence that a nutritionally dense, low calorie diet does extend the life of dogs and cats. Makes commons sense to me that eating heathily, not too much or too little would be really good for your body. The other things to consider: eating a lot of food or eating often can be taxing to your internal organs. Your liver, intestines, pancreas! are all working very hard to process these foods we take in. When you think about the standard American diet (SAD), which is heavy in chemicals from preservatives and other byproducts of processing foods, fats and salts, it's no wonder our country has an epidemic of obesity-related health problems. ECR is somewhat obsessive, you must carefully determine your caloric needs and tailor a diet that closely delivers it. Many people eat only one meal a day. Some snack on low cal, nutritionally dense stuff like celery. Yes, it does sound like what many of us do on our so-called diets. ECR could be a justification for an eating disorder, or at least be attractive to the types of people who might fall into the spectrum of eating disorders. I think it's fascinating! I'm not interested in doing it because I love food too much and I love the social aspect of food. It's a big part of my life. Having said that, I am mindful of some of the basic tenets of ECR. I try not to eat large portions or foods that are rich and fatty. But, every once in awhile I still do and I find it a necessary part of my weight loss journey. ECR vs. the starvation mode, my understanding of the starvation mode is that your body slows down your metabolism to adjust to a reduction in calories that does not meet the body's demand. Whereas, with ECR, calorie expeditures have been carefully determined and caloric intake is based on those needs. So, the body is not actually starving.

yes, obviously it's a severe and probably not very pleasurable way of life.....I said before, I'm not advocating it. But it's worth a look.

What interests me about this is....okay, there seem to be a lot of diet "rules" we follow: no alcohol! no less than 1200 calories a day! don't let your BMI go under 20!

These people are healthy and they break a lot of diet rules, don't they?  Yes, under the supervision of a doctor, yes with a lot of sacrifices in their personal lives. 

But....I just think it's an interesting answer to all of these strict ideas we have about dieting....our bodies are more complex than that.

I think the rules advocated in a lot of sensible diets are designed to be simple principles that work in most cases which won't do you too much harm. In fact I think using the term dieting rules is perhaps misleading and perhaps using the term "dieting principles" might be more suitable. The principles advocated take into account that most people are not very knowledgable about how their body works or what it does, and will prevent you from damaging yourself.

Just because general principles are formulated for those with minimal knowledge does not mean that those with more complete knowledge are not able to on the basis of this extra knowledge appear to flaunt these general principles.

I would probably be quite happy with almost anybody with the knowledge of nutrition, medical supervision etc these people have following the diets they do. I would not however be happy with the general public trying it, given how anecedotally looking at some of the posts on this site people seem to be confused as to the how thier body works, what nutrients are required and in which foods to find them.

I think if you eat what your body burns daily to exist ( your BMR) whatever # of calories it is.... You can eat WHATEVER you want.... CHOCOLATE to FRUITS.. as long as its within your BMR & you can still lose weight. I don't deprive myself of ricotta cheese... or evern the occasional M&M's but I make room for it within my calorie #'s... Remember a calorie is a calorie regardless of what it is. That is hard for people to except because of nutrition involved. But a calorie is a calorie... parts of energy!! You can eat higher calorie foods, and not eat as much and feel hungry later, or leat heallthy low cal foods that you can eat more of fill yourself up, and not feel hungry.... You choose what you put in your body.  

"Remember a calorie is a calorie regardless of what it is. That is hard for people to except because of nutrition involved. But a calorie is a calorie... parts of energy!!"

I do not believe this at all!  Our bodies are all different and differently adapted to burning energy.  I know if I ate 800 calories a day of chocolate and only chocolate, I would gain weight.  My body has a hard time with sugar.  Other people might lose weight.

We're all different, nutrition and our bodies are smarter than black-and-white rules.  I'm interested in this calorie restriction diet (not in following it, but in its principles) because it is catered toward a particular individual, a particular body.

What interests me about this is....okay, there seem to be a lot of diet "rules" we follow: no alcohol! no less than 1200 calories a day! don't let your BMI go under 20!

These people are healthy and they break a lot of diet rules, don't they?  Yes, under the supervision of a doctor, yes with a lot of sacrifices in their personal lives. 

Actually, I haven't seen any "rule" that says "no alcohol," and I didn't see ANY mention in the article that ANYONE was eating less than 1200 calories. Did you? The calorie totals that I saw in the article went from 1300 calories average/day by the one female to 1679-2000 for the men mentioned, well within the guidelines of this site.

Heh, I just finished reading the book, Madonnas of Leningrad, about the german siege on Leningrad during WWII, in which the germans attempted to starve out the occupants of Leningrad over 900 days. Millions of people died from starvation during the siege. Guess who went first? The skinny people!

So I don't buy this whole idea that ECR extends life. Sure, if your life never encounters a period of severe stress, maybe. But with the threat of global pandemic (for example), these are the people that are going to be the first to knock off, because they have no fat on their bodies to get them through a tough period.

Another way to look at it!

borgesgreen-I think you are looking for something here that is just not here!

The facts: a long-term calorie intake of 1300 for women and 1500-1800 or in some cases 2000 for men is considered 'SEVERE CALORIE RESTRICTION.' At that calorie intake level, people require doctors supervision and very careful attention to nutrition.

No wonder our bodies protest when you go under 1200 when dieting!

Nowhere is anyone telling you to eat 800-900 calories per day.

yes, athena, but you also forget that they exercise as well, some running for miles a day.  that adds to quite a calorie deficit.  and I know lots of people on diets who refuse to drink, even red wine.

as for the siege in germany: do you think "the skinny people" followed the same diet as calorie restrictors?

things aren't divided into A or B, black or white, skinny or fat....there are certain guidelines, but ultimately our bodies aren't all alike!