Calories restricted diets-Do they ensure good quality life also besides longevity?

Man's search for longevity is endless and no one has yet found the magic bullet that will ensure or guarantee a life at least up to 100 years. Among the most talked about regime to live long is the notorious Calorie Restriction diet (CR) being promoted by some segments of health experts  and many consumers seem to be convinced about its efficacy. But CR is not scientifically proved to be capable of extending one's life span without contracting some of the most debilitating diseases that afflict mankind to day. It is true that in animal experiments with short duration using Rhesus monkeys, supposed to be similar in their metabolic system to that of man, the longer life span was reported when CR was used but the same conclusion was also found to be untrue by other similar studies. Here is a critique on this subject which has far reaching implications either way. 

Caloric restriction, defined as reducing calorie intake by at least 30 percent, has gained a cult following since it was first studied in the 1930s. Scores of people swear that by dialing consumption way down, and eating far less, you can gain vitality and longevity. And while studies cited by the National Institutes of Health report that caloric restriction (often referred to as "CR") did have some positive effects on health in rhesus monkeys, the NIH announced in 2012 that it has not been shown to boost overall longevity. (These findings conflicted with those published in 2009, which found that caloric restriction did, in fact, extend life in monkeys.) The final word on these studies has yet to be published. But I don't believe we need to wait for it. If you want to live a longer, better life, portion control plays a role, sure— but the reason I'm not one for the CR diet is because I believe you should be far more focused on what's ON your plate, rather than what isn't. The danger inherent to the idea of caloric restriction is the belief that simply consuming less food is enough to fend off chronic disease and give you optimal health— without much concern for the food itself. If this were true, we'd all be able to eat cheeseburgers and french fries in smaller portions every day and call ourselves healthier. If you put emphasis on what you're not eating rather than what you are, you're missing the mark. A great example of what I mean is the popular diet program Weight Watchers and similar plans such as Nutrisystem, which completely flop in terms of nutritional benefits. They certainly restrict your daily caloric intake and you may lose weight, but with Weight Watchers, you could still end up eating a slice of pizza at each meal and stay within your allotted "points" for the day. You're still consuming a high-carbohydrate, low-nutrient diet— essentially an inflammatory diet— and this puts you at risk of all the top killers, including cancer, heart disease, and even Alzheimer's disease and dementia later in life. Eating a limited number of calories does not necessarily equal a health-promoting, life-extending diet.

The point raised by the above commentator about the inadequacy of many calorie restricted formulated diets with respect to some of the vital nutrients required by the body is very valid. No one can expect to lead a quality life by consuming 30% less calories ( about 1400 calories per day) if the diet is made of junk foods with empty nutrition. After all man does not live on calories alone and nutrients like proteins, essential fatty acids, vitamins and minerals are required at certain minimum levels to ward of ill health and infectious diseases. All said and done there is no effective substitute to living a disciplined life, eating a mixed diet that includes adequate calories, proteins, vitamins, minerals and fiber. Physical activity that moves the limbs and the body regularly besides other routine activity in life is a prerequisite for a good quality life. People must realize without delay the cardinal principle that there is no short cuts to maintain their health and they must go through the drill of adopting balanced diet and regular exercise day in and day out.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

IS THERE A NEED FOR TEETH IN HUMANS?- THANK THE FOOD TECHNOLOGY!

Are the human teeth becoming redundant in terms of their original function of chewing food into more easily assimilable form because of the changed style of living that is in vogue to day? It appears so if modern food anthropological experts are to be believed and what they are saying has lot of logic too. The next question that follows is what role food industry has played in this transformation? It is true that to day's processed foods are more easily consumed with least assistance from the dental system because of the varied operations involved in converting raw food into a more consumer-friendly product but condemning teeth to the role of a personal decoration piece may be too far fetched as it has also a definite function in speech modulation. Here is an interesting critique on the passive role of teeth in food ingestion.

"Experts — including evolutionary biologists, food scientists and dental researchers — noted that our diet is so different from our ancestors' that dental health problems such as cavities, overbite and crooked or crowded teeth are inevitable. The conclusions were based on studies of ancient teeth, explains Simon Hillson, professor of bioarchaeology at University College London, who was there. 'Teeth are tough and survive particularly well — providing us with a wealth of anthropological data.' 'Not only are there exceptionally well-preserved examples of fossilised human ancestors available, we've been able to examine the teeth of people such as the Aboriginals and Kalahari bushmen who ate a hunter-gatherer diet like our pre-agricultural ancestors as recently as the 1950s.' The shift from hunter-gatherers to farmers, which started 13,000 years ago, is central to our modern dental problems. This has a direct effect on the development of our jaws, which are now smaller — too small to accommodate all our teeth. 'Our diets once consisted of everything in raw form — such as seeds, nuts, vegetables, meat and fruit,' explains Professor Jimmy Steele, head of the School of Dental Sciences at Newcastle University. 'Now it consists of foods that are often highly processed, pre-packaged, soft and full of sugar.' Our food is so soft in relation to what it was that our teeth are actually redundant, says Dr Nigel Carter of the British Dental Health Foundation. 'Shocking though it might sound, I'd say that apart from the necessity of teeth for appearance and speech, we probably no longer need them.' The arrival of sugar in Britain, at the start of the 19th century, also had a notable effect, adds Dr Carter: 'From that point, the state of our teeth plummeted.'

The new assertive campaigns by a few "naturalists" who propagate every thing that is anti food industry do not mean that man has to go back to the situation that obtained thousands of years ago when he has to hunt for food in fierce competition with free roaming wild beasts. To day's situation has more to do with man himself who brought about this through reckless and thoughtless actions including over consumption of foods rich in sugar, salt and fat besides promptly forgetting the need for exercise to be healthy. If dental decay and many related diseases have become so rampant, the culprit is none other than man himself, though industry and governments may have to share a portion of the blame for not discouraging "irresponsible" eating that is widely prevalent to day in many affluent societies. The multi billion dollar industry that revolves around "dental hygiene" and "dental decay" has a vested interest in continuing with the present practices and it looks like every body is happy!

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com