A Personal and Professional Review of the Calorie Restriction Diet
by August Johnson McLaughlin, CN

I thought for sure the man had anorexia. I revved up the volume on my TV to hear what the gaunt-looking man had to say. My heart ached for him. Anyone who’s been close to someone suffering from an eating disorder knows the horribleness involved. 

“I feel great!” touted the man. “Like I could live forever.”

“And he plans to,” explained the news correspondent, “with help from CRS, the Calorie Restriction Society.”

I nearly dropped my high calorie sandwich (according to CRS) on the floor.

Before I heard the man out or conducted my own research, I wanted to shout of the diet’s illegitimacy, the harmful risks it poses to those who partake and the negative messages it sends to all.

I was also nervous. What if there was value in this lifestyle? It has, after all, been touted by Dr. Oz and Oprah. Regardless, a lifetime of starvation is not appealing to the food lover or nutritional therapist in me. Keeping in mind that I’m hyper-sensitive to these issues, I set out to research the topic with as little bias as possible.

The intended goal of CR (Calorie Restriction) is to increase longevity and wellness by consuming fewer calories. Studies have proven the diet’s efficiency amongst worms and insects and experts in CR anticipate similar results in humans.

CR encourages nutrient-rich and calorie-poor foods. (In other words, you can’t eat three donuts a day and expect to live to 120.) This notion of nutrient-dense eating is positive. It allows for bigger bang for the nutritional buck by eating a greater bulk of nutrients with fewer empty calories from sugar and refined products. I have to wonder if longevity is enhanced by improved nutrient intake, rather than the number of calories consumed.

The CR follower eats about 1 – 2,000 per day, compared to the 2 – 2,700 recommended for most adults. And the gradual weight loss on CR is 10 – 25% below one’s current set point weight (the weight your body falls around when you eat reasonably). One of the factors used to diagnose anorexia, the psychiatric disorder with the highest fatality rate, is a bodyweight of 15% below one’s healthy range. The similarity here is way too close for comfort.

Though weight loss is a supposed by-product of CR, I suspect that most follow this program for precisely this. (If it were called the “Live Longer but Weigh the Same Diet,” I doubt it would be popular.)

CRS openly speaks of potential risks such as negative appearance, decreased bone health, cold sensitively, “cushion” loss (i.e., no butt to sit on), reduced energy, hunger, infertility, decreased strength and social difficulties. Finally, CRS mentions the development of anorexia, binging or excessive food thoughts and fantasies.

Those who adhere to CR and claim they feel healthier and happier are either lucky or not well, in my opinion. I hope they are the fortunate ones who’ve found a way to eat that genuinely works for them. For the majority of others, I simply feel that life is too short to make it longer by eating in such a high-risk, extremely difficult and unpleasant manner.

photos by d sharon pruitt

anorexia, calorie restriction, calorie restriction society, calories, diet, dr. oz, eating disorder, food, health, hunger, kitchen, longer life, nutrients, Oprah, sugar, weight