starting strength gym
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Calorie Restriction (RC) and Aging

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    58

    Default Calorie Restriction (RC) and Aging

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Hi Jordan,

    There is some evidence that calorie restriction (RC) will slow down aging and reduce the risk of getting an array of diseases.

    Adding ages | The Economist

    Strength training requires calorie surplus.

    1. How do you reconcile the two?

    2. If I'm eager to try weekly fasting (one day per week) and train twice a week, how should I structure my week?

    p.s. I'm male, age 44, 5'8", 150lb, 19% bf, 2 months into SS. I've reduced training from 3 days to 2 days as I had problem recovering even if I ate enough.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,199

    Default

    Eh, the calorie restriction thing is interesting to me though most of the data with respect to survival doesn't really apply to non model organisms, e.g. humans.

    Sure, not becoming over fat decreases risk of plenty of diseases and also, consider the population who will comply with caloric restriction.

    In short, I am not convinced that caloric restriction will improve anyone's health who is not overfat. So, to answer your questions:

    1) I don't.

    2) I wouldn't if you're on LP. Esp. given your demographic. It will not improve your health by any significant measure IMO.

    - I would not recommend reducing training frequency, but just make the 2nd day a light day.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Thanks Jordan.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    2,882

    Default

    Even if the data were clear with respect to eating less and longevity I would still rather be bigger, stronger, more recovered and have life hurt less for 75 years rather than smaller, weaker, less recovered, everything hurts more for 85 years

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Savannah GA, and White Springs FL
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sciomako View Post
    Hi Jordan,

    There is some evidence that calorie restriction (RC) will slow down aging and reduce the risk of getting an array of diseases.

    Adding ages | The Economist

    Strength training requires calorie surplus.

    1. How do you reconcile the two?

    2. If I'm eager to try weekly fasting (one day per week) and train twice a week, how should I structure my week?

    p.s. I'm male, age 44, 5'8", 150lb, 19% bf, 2 months into SS. I've reduced training from 3 days to 2 days as I had problem recovering even if I ate enough.
    Hey man, you are only 150lbs. I am 5-8 and weighed that much when I was in my 30's and running 5 days a week. I am now 68 and weigh 204. In other words you are not eating enough even if you think you are. You have a choice to make: stay skinny fat or get strong and harder to kill.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan Feigenbaum View Post
    Eh, the calorie restriction thing is interesting to me though most of the data with respect to survival doesn't really apply to non model organisms, e.g. humans.

    Sure, not becoming over fat decreases risk of plenty of diseases and also, consider the population who will comply with caloric restriction.

    In short, I am not convinced that caloric restriction will improve anyone's health who is not overfat. So, to answer your questions:

    1) I don't.

    2) I wouldn't if you're on LP. Esp. given your demographic. It will not improve your health by any significant measure IMO.

    - I would not recommend reducing training frequency, but just make the 2nd day a light day.
    My best guess is CR does not work on humans like you say, the effects have not been observed even if they have been studied at least in a couple of papers I've seen over the years. But intermittent fasting people mostly don't claim benefits come from CR but from fasting induced autophagocytosis.

    For general interest: Is there, or do you know of, any *relevant* research regarding fasting-induced autophagocytosis in humans? The intermittent fasting (IF) crowd rants on about how autophagy is very important for immune system etc, I remain unconvinced. Is there any reason to believe that detrimental effects of one 16-24 hour fast per week go beyond the mechanism that calorie/protein intake is bound to be lower? Some IF people claim the deficiency is more than offset by increased efficiency of MPS after fasting, again, I remain unconvinced (you have stated that there is a modest offset) but OP seems to have been "bitten" by their arguably eloquent promises of health and longevity, judging from his suggestions.

    (OP: I tried IF-diets first when I started lifting and they really held me back. My first attempt at a sort of LP under a sort of IF (with net calorie surplus nevertheless) stalled at 120kg squat (260lb) or so, but with regular eating I got to over 300lbs. 1 point of data, not a controlled experiment, but I assume it is not a good idea on LP.)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,199

    Default

    Your body uses autophagy to prune senescent cells each day when you are fasting, which is quite often if you'll think about it. MPS rates may be elevated after a fast, but total fractional synthesis of protein is not increased over a series of days- fasting or not. It all balances out.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan Feigenbaum View Post
    Your body uses autophagy to prune senescent cells each day when you are fasting, which is quite often if you'll think about it. MPS rates may be elevated after a fast, but total fractional synthesis of protein is not increased over a series of days- fasting or not. It all balances out.
    Ok, so I just want to be sure I get this; The total synthesis of protein "catches up" after fasting. Let's say, for argument's sake that Joe trains Mon-Wed-Fri. In Scenario 1, he fasts from Sat 10pm to Sun 2pm (a total of 16hrs) and then eats. In Scenario 2, he eats a total of the same amount of protein. Come Monday morning, his net MPS over the weekend is roughly the same? What about net muscle gain? There is some wastage during the fast, but probably minimal. The IF-crowd seems to say that Scenario 1 is "better" for Joe, because his net MPS is the same, he has had the magical-fairy-dust autophagy clean up his senescent cells and his cellular organelles are in pristine condition for the new week; Be that as it may, there seems to be some detrimental effect to performance on Monday -- I tried this on myself, and I just wasn't recovering as well as when eating full time. It may be though that my total calories and protein were in fact lower, so that may explain it.

    I am curious about this, wonkish that I am on these matters. There seems to be very little in terms of reliable research.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,199

    Default

    No that's not what I said. I said that initial rates post fasting (for MPS) are higher, but slow down such that there is NOT an increase in FSR- likely even less over a week. Net muscle gain may be the same or lower depending on many variables. In any event, IF isn't the trick to getting jacked or strong.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    327

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan Feigenbaum View Post
    No that's not what I said. I said that initial rates post fasting (for MPS) are higher, but slow down such that there is NOT an increase in FSR- likely even less over a week. Net muscle gain may be the same or lower depending on many variables. In any event, IF isn't the trick to getting jacked or strong.
    No, of course not. I was definitely not arguing for that; What I am trying to figure out is to what extent is IF detrimental to gainzZz if done moderately (like OP suggested). I personally tried the one fast-day per week about a year ago, and my lifts stalled immediately. Some IF-enthusiasts have claimed that it was just that I wasn't eating enough in my feeding window, but I don't believe this. Definitely I think it is bullshit to say that IF would be *better* than a more regular eating pattern, but I am trying to figure out whether the claim that it doesn't hurt (much or at all) if you do it right, and that there are other (supposed) benefits like better immune system or whatnots, which the IF crowd seems to say.

    Thanks for finding the time to reply once again.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •