Originally Posted by LoveOurBabies
The low calorie debate is intriguiging to me. This is purely observational, but every person I know that is well into their 70's and 80's eats low calorie naturally.
My husband and I practice paleoesque-CRON, which in some ways is merely adapting to the portion sizes of 75 years ago. We are low-carb and high-fat (which is not the way CRON is broadly presented; it is presented as a carb-based low-fat diet).
CRON is basically to cut out superfluous calories (mostly from starches such as potatoes, pasta, and bread; and sugar) and shoot for a basic diet 300-500 calories per day lower than "recommended." For me, I am recommended to have around 2000 calories per day; I eat around 1700 per day.
My husband eats about 500 calories per day less than his recommendation. I think that women can't cut it that low until they are much older (70+ years).
Instead of lots of vegetables as recommended by CRON, I eat an equivalent of meat and fat: hence "paleoesque."
I don't think that food was "traditionally" as abundant as it is now, and so much more work (calorie expenditure) went into acquiring it.
I think that it's perfectly normal and acceptable to actually feel hunger a few times a week. Not gnawing pains, but to feel hungry.
My dog has been fed paleoesque-CRON for all her life and she is nearly 20 and still walks and runs over a mile a day. She is slim and healthy. She has no grey hairs and good vision and hearing. This is the aim of calorie-restriction: to spare wear and tear on the organs and increase satiation when food is consumed for health and longevity.
Growing persons (up to age 25-28) and preganant/nursing women should not practice CRON. For adults, I do agree that it's natural and healthy. Good for the environment, the budget, and the body.
Edited by PumaBearclan - 5/25/13 at 7:10am