hey genius, Im a professional with a masters and a doctorate, do your research then get back to me:
"Calorie restriction or Caloric restriction (CR) is the practice of limiting dietary energy intake in the hope that it will improve health and retard aging. In human subjects, CR has been shown to lower cholesterol, fasting glucose, and blood pressure. Some consider these to be biomarkers of aging, since there is a correlation between these markers and risk of diseases associated with aging. Except for houseflies (below), animal species tested with CR so far, including primates, rats, mice, spiders, C. elegans and rotifers, have shown lifespan extension. CR is the only known dietary measure capable of extending maximum lifespan, as opposed to average lifespan."
"While some tests of calorie restriction have shown increased muscle tissue in the calorie-restricted test subjects, how this has occurred is unknown. Muscle tissue grows when stimulated, so it is possible that the calorie-restricted test animals exercised more than their companions on higher calories"
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction""Sedentary rats who ate a standard diet had the shortest average life-spans," Holloszy says. "Those who exercised by running on a wheel lived longer, but animals on calorie restriction lived even longer."
"Previous research on mice and rats has shown that both calorie restriction and endurance exercise protect them against many chronic diseases including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some types of cancer. However, the research has shown that only CR increases the animals' maximum lifespan by up to 50 percent. These animal studies suggest that leanness is a key factor in the prevention of age-associated disease, but reducing caloric intake is needed to slow down aging."
It works for people to:
"Fontana says lower levels of T3, cholesterol and the inflammatory molecules TNF and C-reactive protein, combined with evidence of "younger" hearts in people on calorie restriction, suggest that humans on CR have the same adaptive responses as did animals whose rates of aging were slowed by CR.......For the new study, researchers examined 28 members of the Calorie Restriction Society who had been eating a CR diet for an average of six years. Although the CR group consumed fewer calories -- averaging only about 1,800 per day -- they consumed at least 100 percent of the recommended daily amounts of protein and micronutrients. A second group of 28 study subjects was sedentary, and they ate a standard Western diet. A third group in the study ate a standard Western diet -- approximately 2,700 calories per day -- but also did endurance training. The researchers found reduced T3 levels -- similar to those seen in animals whose rate of aging is reduced by CR -- only in the people on CR diets."
source:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:wWNitszv0_cJ:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060531164818.htm+calorie+reduction+exercise&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4 Eat Less to build muscle and live longer:
"Calorie restriction or Caloric restriction (CR) is the practice of limiting dietary energy intake in the hope that it will improve health and retard aging. In human subjects, CR has been shown to lower cholesterol, fasting glucose, and blood pressure. Some consider these to be biomarkers of aging, since there is a correlation between these markers and risk of diseases associated with aging. Except for houseflies (below), animal species tested with CR so far, including primates, rats, mice, spiders, C. elegans and rotifers, have shown lifespan extension. CR is the only known dietary measure capable of extending maximum lifespan, as opposed to average lifespan."
"While some tests of calorie restriction have shown increased muscle tissue in the calorie-restricted test subjects, how this has occurred is unknown. Muscle tissue grows when stimulated, so it is possible that the calorie-restricted test animals exercised more than their companions on higher calories"
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction""Sedentary rats who ate a standard diet had the shortest average life-spans," Holloszy says. "Those who exercised by running on a wheel lived longer, but animals on calorie restriction lived even longer."
"Previous research on mice and rats has shown that both calorie restriction and endurance exercise protect them against many chronic diseases including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some types of cancer. However, the research has shown that only CR increases the animals' maximum lifespan by up to 50 percent. These animal studies suggest that leanness is a key factor in the prevention of age-associated disease, but reducing caloric intake is needed to slow down aging."
It works for people to:
"Fontana says lower levels of T3, cholesterol and the inflammatory molecules TNF and C-reactive protein, combined with evidence of "younger" hearts in people on calorie restriction, suggest that humans on CR have the same adaptive responses as did animals whose rates of aging were slowed by CR.......For the new study, researchers examined 28 members of the Calorie Restriction Society who had been eating a CR diet for an average of six years. Although the CR group consumed fewer calories -- averaging only about 1,800 per day -- they consumed at least 100 percent of the recommended daily amounts of protein and micronutrients. A second group of 28 study subjects was sedentary, and they ate a standard Western diet. A third group in the study ate a standard Western diet -- approximately 2,700 calories per day -- but also did endurance training. The researchers found reduced T3 levels -- similar to those seen in animals whose rate of aging is reduced by CR -- only in the people on CR diets."
source:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:wWNitszv0_cJ:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060531164818.htm+calorie+reduction+exercise&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4The amount an INSULIN spike is Directly proportion to the AMOUNT of the Carbohydrate in question.
When in Low calories, a few cookies can equate to a cup of oats based on Glycemic Load.
The lower the calories go, the less and less it becomes a factor.
Throw in a defecit with an intense workout(demand for Carb and fat usage) the concern becomes even more non-existant.
Furthmore you require LOW amounts of protein to build muscle and sustain it.
The only thing that WILL cause you to atrophy is lack of training.
This can be seen when Astronauts,who eat well in space prefectly balanced, lose muscle tissue not due to lack of nutrition, but due to no gravity and lack of use.
Does it occur to anyone that todays trainer/diet gurus are demonizing carbohydrates the same way they did to fat back in the 80's? Hell, I still have a diet article written in Flex back in 84 or 85 (I'll have to dig it out) by Dan Duchaine in which he enthusiastically recomends cutting fat calories to almost 5% while simultaneously amping carb consumption to around 70% or so. This is the same guru who later on wrote "Bodyopus" which extolled the virtues of the ketogenic diet! This low carb noise by the likes of Poliquin strikes me as more of the same old "there is only one true diet"... kind of like religion, no?
Lyle McDonald wrote a fine piece that sums up the diet scene:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/Articles/comparing1.htmlBums on the street and kids in college are most likely not drinking light beer. And if a guy is averaging 5-6 beers a day it would only take about 2 average meals to put them over their daily intake level. Forget the snacks that most people eat everyday.
I agree with TA that a calorie is a calorie and that you only need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. It should be obvious by how many different diet programs that exist. All have different principles, but all have one thing in common - calorie deficit. The trick is to find a diet plan that doesn't leave you hungry or that doesn't allow you to eat some of the foods you enjoy - a tricky task.
If TA can lose weight while still eating the foods he enjoys and not feel hungry then he has a better chance for long term success than about 99% of the dieters out there that fail.
good luck TA.
PS low carbs definately works. I lose weight quickly while on low carbs at a rate of nearly 5 pounds per week without getting hungry. I eat mostly lean protein sources and vegetables while on a low carb diet. But the problem with this diet is that it doesn't allow me to drink beer and eat pizza and lasagna and other foods I enjoy. Hell, I couldn't go to one of my kids football games yesterday and eat not one thing from their snack shacks while only eating lean mean and vegetables. The world isn't set up to accomodate those who want to eat healthy regardless of what the food franchises preach.
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm:
The Physics Diet
Want to lose weight? Easy! Just remember the first law of thermodynamics: conservation of energy.
by Richard A. Muller
Technology for Presidents
November 14, 2003
Here's an old joke. The dairy industry hires a physicist to improve milk production. After several weeks, he's ready to lecture about his progress. He draws a circle on the blackboard and says, 'Consider a spherical cow.'
I've told this joke many times, but nobody ever laughs -- except other physicists. For the rest of you, I should explain that it is self-deprecating humor. It makes fun of our penchant for oversimplification.
This month I want to talk about diet and exercise for weight loss, and I'm going to oversimplify on purpose. Consider a spherical physicist.
Most dieters are so concerned about second-order effects, such as daily fluctuations in weight and changes in metabolism, that they lose track of the first law of thermodynamics: conservation of energy.
Want to lose a pound of fat? You can work it off by hiking to the top of a 2,500-story building. Or by running 60 miles. Or by spending 7 hours cleaning animal stalls. (It is amazing what scientists have actually measured. This last example is tabulated in the book Exercise Physiology by G. Brooks and T. Fahey.)
Exercise is a very difficult way to lose weight. Here's a rule of thumb: exercise very hard for one hour (swimming, running, or racquetball)– and you'll lose about one ounce of fat. Light exercise for an hour (gardening, baseball, or golf) will lose you a third of an ounce. That number is small because fat is a very energy-dense substance: it packs about 4,000 food calories per pound, the same as gasoline, and 15 times as much as in TNT.
If you run for an hour, you'll lose that ounce of fat and also a pound or two of water. By the next day, when you've replenished the water, you might think, 'the weight came right back!' But you'd be wrong -- you really did lose an ounce. It is hard to notice, unless you keep running every day for a month or more, and don't reward yourself after each run with a cookie.
There is a much easier way to lose weight, as we can learn from the first law of thermodynamics. Eat less.
A reasonable daily diet for an adult is 2,000 food calories. That's 8.36 megajoules per day, or about 100 joules per second -- in other words, 100 watts. Most of that ends up as heat, so you warm a room as much as a bright light bulb. Cut your consumption by 600 calories per day and you'll lose a pound of fat every week. Most diet experts consider that a reasonable goal. Don't drop below 1,000 calories per day, or you might get lethargic. But at 1,400 calories per day, you can easily maintain an active life.
Of course, there is a catch. You'll be hungry.
It's not real hunger–not like the painful hunger of starving people in impoverished countries. It's more of a mild ache, or an itch that you mustn't scratch. To be popular, a diet must somehow cope with this hunger. Weight Watchers does it with peer support. The food pyramid does it by encouraging you to eat unlimited celery. Some high-fat diets satisfy all your old cravings -- and figure you'll eventually cut back the butter you put on your bacon.
Last April, I had once again grown out of my belt. I wasn't grossly overweight: 205 pounds in a six-foot, one-inch body. That wouldn't be bad for a football player, but I'm 59 years old, and the excess pounds weren't in muscle. I had gained a pound a year for several decades. I felt heavy and old. I decided to try conservation of energy. I gave up lunch and snacks.
How to cope with the hunger? I attempted to enjoy it. I thought of the movie Lawrence of Arabia, in which T.E. Lawrence says, 'The trick is not minding that it hurts.' I told myself that the mild ache was only the sensation of evaporating fat. That interpretation has some basis in physics. When you lose weight, most of your fat is converted to the gases carbon dioxide and water vapor, and so you get rid of fat by breathing it out of your body.
Physics works, and I lost weight. By August, I was down to 175 pounds, a 30-pound drop. My belt went from 42 inches to 36 inches. My Zen-like approach to hunger also worked; I found myself declining offers of chocolate cake because I didn't want to lose the sensation of evaporation. I didn't change my level of activity, and managed to maintain my diet while taking trips to Cuba and Alaska -- and during a week-long backpacking excursion in the Sierra Nevada. A key innovation: I kept up the social aspects of lunch, without eating. I watched others gobbling cheeseburgers, while I sipped diet cola. It really wasn't that hard to do. And the mild afternoon discomfort was compensated by several positive developments. Dinner became truly wonderful. I hadn't had pre-dinner hunger for decades. A sharp appetite turns a meal into a feast. No more cheese 'appetizers' for me.
Moreover -- and this may sound silly coming from a physicist -- I was surprised that I began to feel lighter. I no longer walk down streets -- I float. Distant stores seem closer. And my knees have responded to the lighter load. Their aching, which I had mistakenly attributed to aging, went away.
Food is instant gratification. And fast-food chains and gourmet restaurants serve tasty food at remarkably low cost. It is a situation unprecedented in history and unanticipated by our genes. No wonder we are overweight.
Anybody can lose weight. Energy is conserved. Just stop scratching that itch. Of course, you'll have to sacrifice instant gratification. Is it worth it? You decide. Food is delicious and cheap. You might reasonably choose to take advantage of this unique historical circumstance, and decide to be fat.
It's been seven months since I started my diet, and two months since I left it. I've begun eating a light lunch, and having an occasional small snack. I'm still at 175. But I never want to lose the delicious edge of hunger before dinner, or the floating sensation when I walk. Moving takes less energy now, so I have more energy. I no longer feel like a spherical physicist. And for losing weight, dieting sure beats cleaning animal stalls.
