CR diets--my thoughts
Recently in my online poking about, I've come across a few articlesabout "Calorie Restricted" Eaters. The premise of this diet is that by eating a diet that is just about starvation levels, one can extend their lifespan, reaching ages of 100 years+ easily. These individuals eat roughly 1100-1300 calories for women and rougly 1500-1800 calories per day, measured with the aid of postal scales and computer software. It's important to note these individuals are not anorexic; rather, they focus on the maximum nutritional value and the practice is based in self-love rather than self-hatred. These individuals love the way they look.
Pretty much all the writers agree with me: I'd rather shave a decade off my life and eat what I want than spend the time and thought it would take to get my caloric intake down while still getting enough nutrients, not to mention the financial infeasability of me eating such a diet, which often consists of Quorn and fresh produce. I don't want to measure arugala out on a postal scale; I'm of the opinion it's fine to eat as much arugala as I want...it's a leafy green, how bad can an extra helping be for me? Plus, I'm not alright with the idea of being constantly a little hungry. While I appreciate the Buddhist notion of eating till one is 80% full, sometimes I want to eat until I'm completely stuffed and contemplating letting out my belt a notch. Simply being vegetarian caused me problems with wanting to eat constantly, I can only imagine subsiding on a diet focused on eating so little that I never feel full. I like being full.
Another issue I have the the CR diet is that food is such a social activity, especially for a foodie such as myself. I'm not too crazy about eating alone. There are few things I enjoy more than a good meal with friends with a bottle of wine. This is not something I'd get to enjoy on a CR diet, and I'd gladly shave a few years off my projected lifespan in order to enjoy. One of the articles I've read on the topic mentions the frustrations that CR dieters suffer as they are not able to dine out with friends, tending instead to dine with other CR dieters (which, aside from the fact I don't know anyone on a CR diet, I'm not sure I'd be able to spend that much time around people who are high strung as to measure out their meals with a postal scale and a calculator). Give me my pinot noir and fried chicken and a friend or four to share them with: I don't need that ancient, arthitic last decade anyway.
Not to mention the prospect of eating so little and so alone for 20 years only to die an accidental death by something that diet would not have any impact upon such as being hit by a bus or attacked by a rabid nutria.
*edit* A comment about the NY Times article...in some respects, I'd say the NY Times article linked about is a little extreme, especially by the comparison here of the two diets: the "regular" meal is not necessarily what I'd consider a normal intake of food, though I might be a little biased by my own eating habits. Note the complete and utter lack of green things in the "regular" meal for example. And there is absolutely no way I'm eating fermented soybeans with garlic for breakfast (though the other meals look pretty good).
For chuckles, I entered my own intake from yesterday to see where I stand calorie-wise, and clocked in at 1800 calories...about 100 shy of where I'm supposed to be (I've gotten really bad about not eating breakfast). Yesterday's meals included lots of beans, a ton of steamed brocoli (love that stuff!), pan-fried steak (a bit of a splurge), my first Clementine of the season, two kinds of cheese (though not much...I'm not getting enough calcium with recent mild lactose intolerance and really need to start taking suppliments), trail mix, an indeterminate amount of candy pilfered from coworkers' candy bowls, 3 cups of coffee and 2 1/2 glasses of pinot noir. And I enjoyed every bit of it. I can only imagine what I'd feel like if I cut my food intake down by a third, but I'm pretty sure I'd be cranky.
Pretty much all the writers agree with me: I'd rather shave a decade off my life and eat what I want than spend the time and thought it would take to get my caloric intake down while still getting enough nutrients, not to mention the financial infeasability of me eating such a diet, which often consists of Quorn and fresh produce. I don't want to measure arugala out on a postal scale; I'm of the opinion it's fine to eat as much arugala as I want...it's a leafy green, how bad can an extra helping be for me? Plus, I'm not alright with the idea of being constantly a little hungry. While I appreciate the Buddhist notion of eating till one is 80% full, sometimes I want to eat until I'm completely stuffed and contemplating letting out my belt a notch. Simply being vegetarian caused me problems with wanting to eat constantly, I can only imagine subsiding on a diet focused on eating so little that I never feel full. I like being full.
Another issue I have the the CR diet is that food is such a social activity, especially for a foodie such as myself. I'm not too crazy about eating alone. There are few things I enjoy more than a good meal with friends with a bottle of wine. This is not something I'd get to enjoy on a CR diet, and I'd gladly shave a few years off my projected lifespan in order to enjoy. One of the articles I've read on the topic mentions the frustrations that CR dieters suffer as they are not able to dine out with friends, tending instead to dine with other CR dieters (which, aside from the fact I don't know anyone on a CR diet, I'm not sure I'd be able to spend that much time around people who are high strung as to measure out their meals with a postal scale and a calculator). Give me my pinot noir and fried chicken and a friend or four to share them with: I don't need that ancient, arthitic last decade anyway.
Not to mention the prospect of eating so little and so alone for 20 years only to die an accidental death by something that diet would not have any impact upon such as being hit by a bus or attacked by a rabid nutria.
*edit* A comment about the NY Times article...in some respects, I'd say the NY Times article linked about is a little extreme, especially by the comparison here of the two diets: the "regular" meal is not necessarily what I'd consider a normal intake of food, though I might be a little biased by my own eating habits. Note the complete and utter lack of green things in the "regular" meal for example. And there is absolutely no way I'm eating fermented soybeans with garlic for breakfast (though the other meals look pretty good).
For chuckles, I entered my own intake from yesterday to see where I stand calorie-wise, and clocked in at 1800 calories...about 100 shy of where I'm supposed to be (I've gotten really bad about not eating breakfast). Yesterday's meals included lots of beans, a ton of steamed brocoli (love that stuff!), pan-fried steak (a bit of a splurge), my first Clementine of the season, two kinds of cheese (though not much...I'm not getting enough calcium with recent mild lactose intolerance and really need to start taking suppliments), trail mix, an indeterminate amount of candy pilfered from coworkers' candy bowls, 3 cups of coffee and 2 1/2 glasses of pinot noir. And I enjoyed every bit of it. I can only imagine what I'd feel like if I cut my food intake down by a third, but I'm pretty sure I'd be cranky.