A note to our readers

Dear readers,

A recent entry by one of our writers has sparked a lively debate about the Calorie Restriction diet. In response to some concerns that have been brought to me personally, I would like to give our audience the following disclaimer: the opinions expressed by an individual author do not necessarily represent the opinions held by the other authors or the Rudd Center organization. Our blog strives to encourage discussion and debate, and to that end, our authors often tackle controversial topics. But please remember that each author's words and beliefs are his or her own, and it is essential to uphold a tone of respect and decorum when responding to them.

In the interest of hearing all sides and perspectives, Rudd Sound Bites will soon be posting a response from a prominent member of the Calorie Restriction community, to convey the scientific basis of the lifestyle.

Thank you all for reading!

Carly Keidel
Editor

Comments

[Mara]

"Rudd Sound Bites will soon be posting a response from a prominent member of the Calorie Restriction community, to convey the scientific basis of the lifestyle."

I think, in the interest of truly being fair, Rudd Sound Bites should Also present scientific evidence that does Not support CR. The author who wrote the column expressing his doubts regarding CR honestly admitted that it was not "science" but rather his own insights and views of the matter (which should Not be considered "wrong" simply because he does not cite a scientific study after each sentence to back his words.

However, since scientific views are given so much respect in our culture, I think it only fair to have someone from the scientific community express views that differ from the CR expert who will be called in.

Of course, as is evident from those who question global warming, even large-spread scientific support of an issue that does mean that anyone will be convinced one way or the other.

[Judith]

Thank you for this reasoned response, Carly. As I keep telling anyone who will listen, Michael & April eat LOTS of food and what they eat is consistently beautiful, healthy and delicious. And yes, they do it every day. They are NOT "starving themselves" in any way and they definitely do not have an eating disorder. They're simply fuelling their bodies with nourishment for health now & in the future, and refusing to stuff their faces with gak for the fleeting pleasures of the moment.

Michael's attention to detail and desire for precision is simply part of his nature. Fine musicians, artists, accountants and technical writers all become successful by capitalizing on those same traits.

Let's be gentle with one another!

JD

[Mara]

"Michael's attention to detail and desire for precision is simply part of his nature. Fine musicians, artists, accountants and technical writers all become successful by capitalizing on those same traits."

Judith, you are right about this. However, it's well-known that this same "gift", if you will, can also turn on itself. Dr. Kay Redfield Jameison has written on how artists, writers, poets and musicians suffer from a greater degree of depression, both uni and bipolar for instance.

It really does sound, from your words on them, that Michael and April are living a very healthy and even exemplary lifestyle, yet I do not think this means that they cannot be questioned and even challenged. After all, just about everyone who has "defended" them are "friends" of them, are also probably people who practice CR themselves. That is to say: while you may have crucial insights into CR as a healthy lifestyle, you may also be too close to the situation to see it in a completely unbiased way.

[Judith]

While I am someone who eats a very healthy diet, I am not a CR practitioner. I AM someone who has known Michael for a very long time (since birth, actually -- I'm his mother). As such, I am exceedingly concerned for his welfare and continued good health and by extension, that of April. Unbiased, perhaps, but if Michael's CR practice were negatively affecting his health in any way, I'd be the first to find fault. I cannot. They're very healthy as evidenced by both extensive objective medical test results and by subjective observation: they just don't get sick! JD

[Judith]

While I am someone who eats a very healthy diet, I am not a CR practitioner. I AM someone who has known Michael for a very long time (since birth, actually -- I'm his mother). As such, I am exceedingly concerned for his welfare and continued good health and by extension, that of April. Biased, perhaps, but if Michael's CR practice were negatively affecting his health in any way, I'd be the first to find fault. I cannot. They're very healthy as evidenced by both extensive objective medical test results and by subjective observation: they just don't get sick! JD

[Noah]

Interesting.

Hope they comment on the psychological value of wanting to extend life, as most CRON practitioners experience. I am not sure that they (I am not a CRON practitioner) all want to live "forever". Also would like to know more about research, or interpretations of CRON research, that demonstrate human CRON practice to be unlike CRON practiced on lab mice.

[Shefaly]

Noah, I do not think it is about living forever. It is about 'negligible senescence' which means reduced effects of ageing on the body. This has more to do with bodily functions starting to get slower or less efficient etc. The idea is part of the Methuselah Foundation research (which is about longevity and not living forever). One key leader in this area is Aubrey de Grey at Cambridge (my University in the UK).

[Noah]

Yes, Shefaly, I am willing to believe that. However, I would like to hear from a prominent member of the CRON community. The concept of "negligible senescence" is slippery. Is the concept that once you hit 120, you just fall over dead, after 120 years of perfect health?

Maybe CRON practitioners would like to argue against moral, pragmatic, psychological reasons why people should not pursue immortality. However, I am interested in a statement about the intentions of the community, direct from the community. Then I can make my own conclusions, or ask more questions.

[Mara]

"They're very healthy as evidenced by both extensive objective medical test results and by subjective observation: they just don't get sick! JD"

This, more than anything Robin has said, makes an impact on me - especially because you are Michael's mother (although, of course, not only does this mean you know him better than many, but also that you Do have a strong bias, as you admit, yourself).

I will strive to keep as open a mind as I can about CR - but I will also continue to question CR in terms the aspects I find disturbing and/or potentially unhealthy about it. I find it interesting and stimulating to talk about CR, as it represents an extreme of dieting - no matter what the reasons are for it (ie: long life and/or improved health). I think both motivations are mentioned by the CR society.

[Mara]

Here is an interesting article from Slate magazine by a writer who was once Anorexic. She talks about the similarities between CR and her disease:

http://www.slate.com/id/2164436/

[Mara]

I went to this website:

http://web4health.info/en/answers/ed-dia-weight-bmi-calc.htm

To calculate Michael Rae's (the CR praciticing man profiled in Julian Dibbel's article in New York magazine) height and weight to determine if, by his BMI, *alone*, (not even factoring in obsessiveness and other psychological issues, for example) Rae could be considered to possibly have Anorexia. Michael Rae, according to Dibbel's article, is 6ft tall and weighs 115 pounds.

Michael Rae's BMI is 15.4 according to the website I've cited(I've also seen his BMI calulated as 15.6 at some other websites) which says:

BMI interpretation for people 16 years or older:

"below 16 (=) serious anorexia"

To declare, as Judith, his own mother does, that:

"they definitely do not have an eating disorder" -

well, I can't quite agree with her.

She insists that her son is "stuffing" his face, yet he only eats precisely 1,913 calories a day.

I respect Judith's tone of civility but I cannot accept her interpretation of her son's lifestyle if I look beyond what the CR society insists is correct eating for a healthy body.

[Matthew Lake]

Michael has extensive rounds of tests every year which shows he is healthy. In anorexia, this is not the case.

[Mara]

Well, maybe Michael Rae is not the typical anorexic. But that does not mean he is totally healthy either, regardless of what tests say. I think he putting his body and mind under great stress to try to achieve his end of longer life. Perhaps his innate health is carrying him through so far - but that might not last.

[Ralph]

"Well, maybe Michael Rae is not the typical anorexic"

Mara, even if you were a physician, you cannot diagnose someone with anorexia based only on knowing their height and weight.

I suspect you wouldn't like it if I diagnosed you as having a psychological disorder based on your posts...