Slate’s fascinating two-part story “Eating for Fewer Than One” examines similarities between being anorexic and being part of the “calorie-restricted lifestyle.” Part one introduces the overall thesis: The similarities between the two conditions, according to writer Kate Taylor, are numerous. Both anorexics and those on a calorie-restricted diet have a slower metabolism. It’s just that for the former, that’s described as “bad” or a symptom, and for the latter, it’s a sign that the diet is working toward its eventual goal of prolonging life spans.
Part two revolves around a few somewhat-harrowing interviews with folks from the Calorie Restriction Society’s email list.
Taylor also brings her own perspective into the ongoing story. As a former anorexic, she’s particularly attuned to the emotional changes (some would say damage) that come from being consistently hungry. And these are changes she notes among those undergoing the CR lifestyle.
One quibble: When you emerge from a cult or a damaging addiction, you’re probably qualified to testify against it in public. But you might not be the best choice to write about it objectively and dispassionately—Taylor’s piece often reads more like an op-ed than reportage. But her background is front and center, and if readers want the pro-CR perspective on things, it’s definitely out there.
I can’t take credit for this, I read it somewhere else, but it said:
“If you eat a CR diet you won’t live forever, it will just feel that way.”
Check out the page on their website that lists some of the risks involved with this diet.
http://www.calorierestriction.org/Risks
The thing I never get about this is what exactly is the benefit of living a really long time? I mean, it might be nice to get to hang out longer with your grandchildren, but is it really necessary to get to know your great-great grandchildren, especially if you can’t taste their birthday cakes? Even if you’re fairly healthy at the age of 100, there’s going to be plenty of problems anyway involved in living that long.