14 ms·

The secret to a long and healthy life? Eat less

332 points by DiabloD3 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Mikeb85 9y ago
Doesn't really seem like calorie restriction. The monkeys who died younger would have definitely been considered unhealthy and gluttonous. And it's no secret that being overweight causes premature aging, health problems and eventually premature death.
- defterGoose 9y ago
  They controlled for diet, natural feeding tendencies, etc. presumably to match conditions in the wild. They never said the monkeys who "naturally" ate the most DIDN'T die first; they probably did. But that certainly doesn't mean that calorie restriction below the "average" feeding tendency doesn't provide benefit.
- jm2721 9y ago
  Totally agree. If you look at the two parallel studies, it seems like diet had a huge effect on the outcome. The NIA study found no significant difference in both groups, and fed the monkeys varied source of protein. The UW study found health improvements in the CR monkeys but fed them 'significantly higher amount of sucrose compared to the NIA diet'. https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2017/01/calorie-restriction-improves-health-survival-rhesus-monkeys https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2017/01/calor... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28094793 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28094793 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14063 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14063
dom0 9y ago
A remarkably click-baity food "science" head line, especially for the BBC. Edit: "Permanently [...] may turn out to have a profound effect on your future life, according to [...] scientific studies." And that's a Bingo, folks.
BelleMe 9y ago
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521567476?ref_=pe_870760_150889320 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521567476?ref_=pe_870760_15088932...
BelleMe 9y ago
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521567476?ref_=pe_870760_150889320 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521567476?ref_=pe_870760_15088932...
caub 9y ago
if people could also consume less, stop having useless pets, stop smoking, etc.. that would help increasing the life expectancy on this planet too
- nightski 9y ago
  Hmm. It seems like countries that are more well off and have a much higher amount of excess consumption also have better life expectancy. This sounds like a personal ramble instead of being based on actual data.
- orangecat 9y ago
  Pet ownership is generally believed to increase life expectancy, for example http://animals.howstuffworks.com/pets/live-longer-with-a-pet.htm http://animals.howstuffworks.com/pets/live-longer-with-a-pet...
  - caub 9y ago
    I mean the expectancy of the planet, not of their stupid owners
ericjang 9y ago
Does that imply that lifting, building up one's body and consuming excess calories to bulk up is somehow stressful for the body's metabolic aging process?
- resu_nimda 9y ago
  In a sense, yes - to build up your muscles they must first be broken down, a cycle which is going to create some amount of stressful churn. If you think about any machine, a higher operating energy/intensity generally correlates to faster breakdown. At the same time, humans in good shape are definitely healthier, and too much calorie restriction can lead to malnourishment. There's a sweet spot somewhere, proponents of calorie restriction are basically saying to err on the side of eating less.
  - ianai 9y ago
    I think it's the sort of activity that matters. Low impact exercise wears on your joints/etc less than higher intensity stuff (think swimming or walking compared to running).
- j7ake 9y ago
  whether you are muscular or skinny, you have the same set of organs. The fact you are 30 percent bigger in mass means all your organs (heart, liver, kidney, muscles, ...) are working much harder than if you had less mass.
  - gragas 9y ago
    >your organs are working much harder That's very misleading logic. You make it out that your organs working much harder is a bad thing in all cases. That's not true. When you exercise, your organs work much harder. Yet it is much better to exercise and have your organs work harder than to not exercise at all.
    - havetocharge 9y ago
      It's probably not so simplistic one way or the other. However, some organs do function as filters, so overloading them would be detrimental.
lazyjones 9y ago
Perhaps eating is just one of the most common ways of getting dangerous toxins into our body?
- jeffdavis 9y ago
  What toxins?
  - hellofunk 9y ago
    Pesticides are showing increased evidence of hurting society through the foods they protect. In fact there was a post here on HN today regarding this.
- quickben 9y ago
  Look up what sugar does and why diabetics lose nerves and legs.
louprado 9y ago
My father has had a low calorie diet all of his life. At 78, he is in perfect physical and mental condition. His doctor had only one concern; he is slowly losing weight each year and needs to reverse that. The doctor wanted to prescribe an appetite enhancing drug but my father explained he can not simply gain weight by eating more. It's as if his digestive system is already at a maximum threshold. I wonder if habitual CR inevitably trains the body to stabilize its weight and if that can not be undone if practiced too long. That then put you at increased mortality risk when you start losing body mass in old age. Caged animal studies might miss this risk because a valued lab rat won't suffer sudden injuries and the resulting prolonged hospital visits.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ak39 9y ago
  Does your father do any resistance training? He should. Strength training stops muscle loss and improves bone density.
  - magic_beans 9y ago
    That's not the easiest thing to just pick up at 78.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >The doctor wanted to prescribe an appetite enhancing drug but my father explained he can not simply gain weight by eating more. It's as if his digestive system is already at a maximum threshold. Well, actually he can. It's not 100% just calories in/calories out, but it's very much that. If he eats potato chips and fries and lard every day he WILL gain weight.
  - aianus 9y ago
    Although this is true, I can say from personal experience that my body will ramp up the vomiting and diarrhea to keep the weight gain to a minimum.
bonniemuffin 9y ago
I checked out the recipes on the iDiet website recommended in the article, and I'm feeling sad and deprived just reading them. I'm willing to suffer for better health, but I'd hate to suffer through a life of egg whites and margarine and then discover in the end that the science was wrong.
- sporkenfang 9y ago
  Even if it means dying a year earlier I'm going to eat salted butter and drink red wine and enjoy it. Better to enjoy less than to have more you don't enjoy?
  - marricks 9y ago
    I think the dynamics are more complicated than that. Some diseases seriously mess with your quality of life, whether it be chemo for cancer or blood pressure medicine with nasty side effects for heart disease. Or my least favorite, a decade of Alzheimer's. I heard the ideal death described as pretty solid health up to a very rapid decline, healthy food probably helps that.
    - AznHisoka 9y ago
      Yep, totally agree. If you got acid reflux, you cant enjoy coffee or spicy foods at all. If only if it was as simple as enjoy junk food and your life and die a few years younger.
      - esolyt 9y ago
        Exactly. The first 70 years of a 75-year life is probably more enjoyable than a 70-year old life.
  - imsofuture 9y ago
    It probably doesn't mean that anyway.
  - rokhayakebe 9y ago
Vitaly 9y ago
I can't find the study right now, but from what I understand it is only really beneficial to animals the size of a mice, as soon as you move to bigger animals the effect is sharply reduced, and experiments with monkeys (or was it even primates? I don't remember) didn't find any real life prolonging effect. So you might be subjecting yourself to not enjoying food for no real benefit after all.
- louprado 9y ago
  I recall watching a video of an engineer practicing CR. He looked miserable and older than his years. He was constantly cold and had chronic sore feet because the soles of his feet were too thin. When I don't eat enough, I don't get hungry, and I don't loose much weight, but I do have trouble sleeping which results in daytime fatigue and depression. For me the happiness/sleep threshold is sharp, so I eat just above that threshold.
  - vlasev 9y ago
    I'm not sure if you skip breakfast, but if you do, you are missing a strong signal to your circadian rhythm. What happens is you end up sleeping later and waking up later as the rhythm shifts towards your first meal of the day.
    - quickben 9y ago
      Interesting. How much time after wakeup should the breakfast be? I'm usually 1-2 hours after, and I find that I tend to wake up later and later.
    - oh_sigh 9y ago
      Do you have any source of proof of any of this? I have no problem waking up at 630am after 7 hours of sleep and not eating anything until after noon. Thinking to premodern humans, do you think they would frequently have food waiting for them as soon as they awoke? Some days maybe, but then other days probably not.
      - 9y ago
jksmith 9y ago
Drift: Maybe a longer life of great experiences is better than a shorter life of great experiences, but a longer life at the price of greater experiences? Nah, hope I die before I get old. Case in point: http://io9.gizmodo.com/men-can-live-20-years-longer-but-theres-a-high-cost-1678274234 http://io9.gizmodo.com/men-can-live-20-years-longer-but-ther...
rubicon33 9y ago
Most articles on eating tend to focus on weight, drawing the conclusion that weight (fat) is the problem, not eating. This article provides a refreshing perspective: > But the latest results suggested that significant health benefits can be garnered in an already healthy body – a person who isn’t underweight or obese. The take away here is that the problem with excessive eating isn't just the weight gain. There's something about eating itself which is stressful. Restricting calories is good for you even if you're already within a healthy BMI. This means that just because you can eat anything, doesn't mean you should.
- justboxing 9y ago
  > Restricting calories is good for you even if you're already within a healthy BMI. How much of this study, and your statement, applies to highly active individuals, and atheletes? I box and train 5 - 7 times a week, and spar (high intensity with protective gear) twice a month. I tried restricting calories to lose fat and "lean out" but I find that I am constantly hungry (even after consuming proteins) and like someone else has mentioned here, I don't get good sleep when I eat less...
  - cjhanks 9y ago
    Probably not much. But really think back on your training arc in the past. When I am in my training phase doing krav-maga, lifting weights, biking... yeah, I need thousands of calories to feel healthy (I never really counted how much). But immediately after (assuming the muscle you built is not just inflated and is comprised of lean strength), I have personally found I can get away with very few calories/day for several months.
  - rubicon33 9y ago
    If you're highly active you will definitely need to eat more to support the repair of muscle and bone. Assuming you're already within healthy BMI (don't need to lose fat) then I doubt anyone would suggest you restrict calories while physically active. You need food to support the repair of muscle and bone - there's no getting away from that. What is up for consideration is how MUCH food do you really need? The general takeaway from the article which can be broadly applied, is that less food is probably better for you. So if you have a large need for nutrient restoration (from high intensity sports) then try to eat nutrient dense, quality food.
reasonattlm 9y ago
Some references for those who want to dig in. Will calorie restriction work in humans? http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/aging.100581 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/aging.100581 Caloric restriction improves health and survival of rhesus monkeys https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14063 https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14063 In general, the consensus in the research community is that we shouldn't expect more than an additional ~5 years from the life-long practice of calorie restriction. The evolutionary argument is that the calorie restriction response evolved very early on in as a way to enhance fitness given seasonal famines. A season is a long time for a mouse, not so long for a human, so only the mouse evolves a very plastic lifespan. The practical argument is that 5-10 years is about the largest effect that could exist and still be hard to pull out from existing demographic data of restricted calorie intake in a bulletproof, rigorous way. Obviously any much larger effect would have been discovered in antiquity and be very well known and characterized by now. So that said about longevity, it is very clear that calorie restriction does better and more reliable things for health in ordinary humans in the short term of months and mid-term of few years than any presently available enhancement technology can replicate. A good deal of research into aging is focused on trying to recreate the calorie restriction response. So far this has consumed billions with little of practical use to show for it beyond increased knowledge of some thin slices of cellular biochemistry relating to nutrient sensing and energy metabolism. It has proven to be very hard and very expensive to get anywhere here. So calorie restriction itself is free and reliable in its effects. Everyone should give it a try. There are, however, far more important areas of aging research to direct funding to instead of trying to recreate this effect with pharmaceuticals. In an age in which meaningful rejuvenation is possible to create in the years ahead (see, for example, clearance of senescent cells, something that calorie restriction can only slightly achieve in a very tiny way, while drug candidates are managing 25-50% clearance) it seems just plain dumb to instead be chasing expensive, hard ways to only slightly slow down aging.
Theodores 9y ago
Assume that you had a garden with acres of produce all perfectly grown and in season. If you wanted orange juice all you would need to do is walk out into this garden, pick some oranges, bring them back to the kitchen and manually squeeze them into a glass. Now imagine if you wanted to have a bit of toast, maybe with some chocolate-hazelnut spread. All you would need to do is walk into the garden, grab some hazelnuts off the tree and some cocoa beans, perhaps with some cane sugar for good measure. Some blender in the kitchen would be able to make your hazelnut spread, just so long as you shelled the nuts first. Similarly with the bread, in this garden, free for the taking would be some strong wheat that you can put through some kitchen appliance, then after a few hours with the breadmaking machine the bread would be good to eat. Butter would be equally simple too, you just needed to milk a cow, put the milk in some glorified washing machine with a bit of salt, then wait a while to get the freshest butter ever tasted. Would you be able to complete all of these tasks by breakfast? Would you really bother to shell all of those hazelnuts? Would you question why it is that you have juiced 14 oranges when actually just the one orange, non-juiced was satisfying enough and didn't require all that effort dicking about with juicing? Of course people have allotments and smallholdings so this does happen, albeit with greenhouses instead of some magic 'always in season' aspect. But my office workmates of the obese variety have no idea of the effort needed to get their food, even if it is healthy food. The connection is not there. One of my dream is to rock up at the doctors one day having eaten too much fruit and veg. For the doctor to recommend me to stay off the veggies and eat some sugary snacks instead. I am fairly sure that no amount of fruit and veg would age me, not in the way that sugary snacks, beef products and everything processed would.
mrb 9y ago
I wonder if Americans' declining life expectancy¹ is due to them eating more and more. ¹ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-life-expectancy-declines-for-the-first-time-since-1993/2016/12/07/7dcdc7b4-bc93-11e6-91ee-1adddfe36cbe_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-li...
- collyw 9y ago
  My guess is that excising less and less will also be a factor.
- bluedino 9y ago
  There's eating less, and there's eating to obesity.
- quickben 9y ago
  Also stress. Or maybe all of it caused by work stress.
cyrusshepard 9y ago
Good overview of the benefits of calorie restriction, but doesn't touch on two of the most important schools of thought of the past couple years. 1. Calorie restriction is almost impossible for most humans to follow long term 2. Many of the same benefits of calorie restriction may be achievable through intermittent fasting, which is much easier for people to follow. I've been experimenting with a daily 16 hour fast (all calories consumed within an 8-hour window) and have seen small improvements in my energy and general well-being, although it's decades too early to say how this will impact my longevity. Relevant articles: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep33739 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep33739 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622429/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622429/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-hunger-gains-extreme-calorie-restriction-diet-shows-anti-aging-results/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-hunger-gains-...
- microcolonel 9y ago
  I'm settling into IF as well, seems to be working okay. It is surprisingly alright to not eat for a considerable number of hours, and extending that period seems to make me less hungry instead of more.
- dpark 9y ago
  > Many of the same benefits of calorie restriction may be achievable through intermittent fasting, which is much easier for people to follow. I've been experimenting with a daily 16 hour fast Citation? I can't get the NIH study to load, but the other two are wildly different from 16/8 IF. IF proponents like to look at alternate day fasting or periodic weekly fasting and claim evidence for the effectiveness of 16/8 fasting, but going without food for >24 hours is definitely not the same as skipping breakfast, which is all 16/8 really is. 16/8 probably helps with weight loss for many people, because it shortens the eating window, which will make it easier to reduce caloric intake. But I have never seen a study that indicated 16/8 had effects similar to 24/24 or the other IF patterns typically studied.
  - Cyph0n 9y ago
    How about skipping breakfast and lunch, as done by Muslims during Ramadan? In general, Islam recommends voluntary fasting for 2 days every week (traditionally Monday and Thursday).
doener 9y ago
If you haven’t watch this documentary on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihhj_VSKiTs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihhj_VSKiTs
stevewillows 9y ago
About five years ago I switched to one large meal per day (dinner) with a snack or two. Prior to this I lost nearly 40lbs by shifting my diet toward dominant protein and smaller portions. I also added in a good 30+ minutes of walking per day. Nothing fancy. I also dropped almost all of my sugar intake. I drink about 3L of water per day and have one cup of coffee in the morning. I've been able to maintain a healthy weight (6'4" tall, ~185lbs) and I rarely feel truly hungry. On the days where I have more than one large meal, I tend to feel tired and foggy. Its completely anecdotal, but this pattern has worked out well for me. The main issue with articles like this is that they propose lame diets that strip out enjoyment. If you want to eat eggs basted in butter, do it -- but balance that out with exercise or somewhere else in your diet. No use suffering so you can live a few extra years at the tail end of your life.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- siliconc0w 9y ago
  I've settled into a similar pattern and have found it the most sustainable out of all the diets I've tried. I also recommend a few multi day water fasts a year as a sort of 'soft-reset' of your appetite/digestive system. You learn the difference between cravings and hunger and how marvelously tuned your body is for dealing with caloric deficiencies. People get so anxious and scared of hunger when it's no big deal. You're basically asking it to 'garbage collect' to conserve the energy you're burning which it doesn't seem to do normally when food is coming in every few hours.
  - pitaj 9y ago
    Also, most hunger is really thirst, but your body will output the same sensation.
  - stevewillows 9y ago
    Back in 2013 when I finally made the full switch away from cigarettes and into vaping, one of the main benefits was my increase on water consumption. Vaping is naturally dehydrating (the propylene glycol in the liquid). Drinking about 2.5L or so per day really cut down on what I felt was a need to eat several times per day, like @pitaj said. Fasting is also fantastic. Its one of the few positive habits I have left over from my days in religion. The garbage collection analogy is an excellent way to describe it.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
A few thoughts. It seems that "calorie restriction" is a misleading term. If these funds are correct, CR should be considered the norm/ideal. That means the majority, currently, over-consume. That aside. I wonder if it's also related to modern food, and the production there of. If inflammation is the root of most disease, and CR, I presume, reduces inflammation, then what is it about our foods that trigger so much inflammation? Finally, when all said and done, I predict this will be found to connect with gut bacteria in some way. That is, CR effects the gut, and that effect is ultimately a positive for the whole body.
- dghughes 9y ago
  A CRON or calorie restriction optimal nutrition diet is a thing, not only eating fewer calories but what you do eat has to be absolutely perfect in nutrition. Micheal Mosley on BBC interviewed a CRON advocate he are an apple peel but threw away the inner part. I've read that a rumbling stomach is necessary for gut health without it your microbiome suffers, CR may incidentally do that.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    Yes. The arc of my point, kinda, was that we eat for what we perceive as nutritional. When we should really focus (more) on eating for our gut.
  - kyle-rb 9y ago
    >he ate an apple peel but threw away the inner part I can do reduced calories, but that right there just sounds miserable.
    - rukuu001 9y ago
      I saw the program, the guy actually had a giant bowl of fruit, mostly frozen berries(!), and yes, apple peel. He seemed pretty cheerful, and it didn't look like privation. I do remember reading the blog of some guy way back around 2007 or so who was on a 1000 calorie per day diet. One of the most miserable things I ever read. The highlight of his week was 1 square of 100% cacao chocolate.
pors 9y ago
There is lots of proof now that obesity is not caused by "more calories in than calories out", it is caused by hormone reactions to what you eat (esp. insulin). Just read the books by Gary Taubs for zillions of details and references to studies. So the "eat less" claim in this article is again back to the old MD advice, "eat less and move more". Not going to work if you don't look at your macronutrients.
- SwellJoe 9y ago
  That's an oversimplification. Hormone response is not well-understood enough to make blanket statements like that, as far as I know. There's been tons of research on diets. Low-carb high-protein diets certainly do work, but so do several other diets, including some of the traditional "eat less calories" diets (the research I've seen indicates those diets are on par with Atkins and keto in terms of long-term weight loss, and they all work when consistently/correctly applied). Reducing calories below resting metabolic rate demonstrably causes weight loss. It's almost impossible for it not to. And, there are ways to manipulate insulin response without going to a high-protein/fat low-carb diet. I've been experimenting with intermittent fasting; where I eat mostly freely, but responsibly, for ~8 hours out of the day and fast the other ~16. This has been shown to improve insulin response, in similar ways to low-carb diets. I've lost about 16 pounds over three months. Every few weeks, I change the diet, to see how my body responds, in terms of energy, weight, etc. And, also because I love food and really like variety (lots of weight loss programs suggest a very regimented diet of the same thing every day for months or years, but that's not for me). I've found that when my calories are below my MR, I lose weight, no matter what I'm stuffing my face with. I did a couple of weeks of bread and pie and ice cream every day (to the point where I got tired of bread and pie and ice cream), and still lost weight during that time; calories were consistently below my MR. And, I did nothing but proteins, and healthy fats, and greens for a few weeks, too...also lost weight, but not notably more than the "bread and pie and ice cream" weeks. I've kept logs of my weight and caloric intake for a couple of months, and it's pretty consistent. A couple days after I eat more calories than my MR, my weight either stabilizes or increases. And, a couple days after I return to below-MR, I see the weight dropping again. I will say that I've had better luck with intermittent fasting than with portion control as a means to achieve below-MR caloric intake; so maybe there's something to the insulin response theory since there's evidence fasting helps with that. There may also be an argument to be made about cravings (sugar+fat can cause cravings; there's decent science on that), and that may lead to problems managing portions and caloric intake. And, there's certainly evidence that protein and fat calories are more satisfying than sugar or simple carb calories. It may very well be easier to lose weight on a high-protein and high-fat diet. But, when I was on the high-protein/high-fat diet, my cravings for fruit were pretty intense, and the weight loss was not measurably better than the other macronutrient mixes I've tried. I didn't find it valuable enough to continue, so I went back to eating rice, bread, and having dessert sometimes. But, "eat less" still works, and always will. That's not really negotiable. The basic physics of the thing require it to work. It's just that a lot of folks have no idea what "eat less" really entails and don't keep track of what they eat well enough to know they're not actually doing it. When losing weight, you're going to experience hunger sometimes, which is not a thing modern people are accustomed to.
tsao 9y ago
What if you're already eating less? It should say: eat the right amount.
tammer 9y ago
I eat a protein & fat heavy breakfast & dinner, & skip "lunch". I find it to be highly effective at keeping me productive through the day (both more time & more steady energy cycle).
jimjimjim 9y ago
anecdotal datum: A few years ago I lost about 40 pounds (230->190ish) in a little over a year by limiting the amount of food and not caring about the type of food. steak, sandwiches, cheese, potatoes, all good. salad, bananas, cereal, all good. I had to make sure to look at the nutritional info. If the food was small but energy dense you have to eat less of it.
notadoc 9y ago
Does this surprise anyone? Humans did not spend millions of years eating 6000 calorie hyper refined lab perfected highly processed meals three times per day. We did evolve foraging, hunting, gathering, and eventually and much more recently farming, all of which would naturally include a ton of physical activity and occasional bouts of not eating if a meal was yet unavailable, which we now call "fasting" as if it is some harsh or deprivational activity.
Area12 9y ago
Investigation into calorie restriction isn't at all new. Roy Walford wrote five books about it, dating back to 1983. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Walford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Walford
dirkg 9y ago
It is pretty ironic and sad that following a healthy diet, including CR, is much harder in Western nations and esp in the US. - Processed food costs less than fresh food. - Multiple generations of people have been conditioned to eat processed and junk food. - People believe in the myth that 'cooking takes too long' - People are lazy and don't want to spend any time on cooking/food even when living a life of luxury compared to the rest of the world. All of which is the opposite of most developing countries. US and UK are very close in this respect. Even many European countries value shopping for and eating fresh food much more. CR, and eating in general should be about buying nutrient dense but low caloric foods - which is a mostly plant based diet of fresh food. The exact kind of food which is artificially expensive and considered a 'fad'.
- Qub3d 9y ago
  If you're concerned about the "Western Diet", Michael Pollan wrote an interesting treatise on it, called In Defense of Food. His arguments are very similar to yours.
pavement 9y ago
One detail that isn't explicitly stated, but seems like a bit of a blind spot, is whether there's an age-appropiate aspect to this behavior. Do non-growing adults (30+ years old) enjoy greater benefits than small children who have faster metabolisms and growth spurts ahead of them? My inutition says that even if the concept still fits well with growing children, that their cycles are different, and closer together in frequency. Maybe they don't eat more calories, but eating several times a day might possibly tie into cycles of blood serum nutrient levels properly based of weight and activity.
m3kw9 9y ago
Maybe the more you eat the more chance you eat crap that is adverse to your health hence the variations
pascalxus 9y ago
Due to social conditioning, It's not commonly known, but you don't actually need to eat every day. You could lose 10 lbs in just a couple of weeks of not eating any calories, but I would recommend eating 1 lbs of spinach and maybe a combination of other green, red and orange vegetables: that will keep your calorie count under 200 for the day. Drink lots of water. I know the hunger will drive you crazy in the first few days, but your body gets used to it and it's not so bad, after 3 days. The first time you do it, perhaps start off with some 16 hour fasts at first for a few months till your used to that, then you can increase it.
- exolymph 9y ago
  This kind of aggressive diet is usually followed by gaining back the weight.
  - moochachana 9y ago
    I have to agree with this. However it's not because it's aggressive. It's because he's recommending eating at all. When you eat very little, your body's metabolism drops to match the new standard energy intake. A much preferable recommendation would be to simply water fast for the same time. Lose even more weight (mostly water weight), then eat normally. Much more natural in the context of evolution. Periods of eating, periods of fasting. The practice is as old as time itself.
    - ashark 9y ago
      I've found that I can manage a day without taking in any calories, if I'm willing to feel really tired and have a moderate headache by ~1pm, and be horribly brain-fogged and useless by ~2pm. I've got a job and kids to take care of—I can't afford to have days like that very often. The hunger's not a problem—it's that I feel rather ill by mid-afternoon. FWIW I rarely eat breakfast, so I guess I'm usually doing the (lame, IMO) "16/8" fasting pattern, though I'm skeptical that has any benefit.
      - moochachana 9y ago
TheRealmccoy 9y ago
While eating less and having CR and IF is important, equally important is the actual process of eating. Most of the articles focus on results, but not on the actual process. If one is eating sitting on the couch, watching television, completely oblivious of the activity, it is not going to help. There is nothing absolute in nature, everything is connected. How do we eat is far more important than how much we eat. One simple experiment one can do at dinner is to sit alone, without any distraction with the dinner plate and for every morsel one takes in, chew it till you count 20 and then swallow. Notice what happens...
adambmedia 9y ago
In addition to differences in recommended calorie intake, is there a good, scientific, international comparison that puts dietary guidelines side-by-side, nutrient guidelines, balanced meal? It's amazingly difficult to find clear information anywhere. For instance, CDC Nutrition guidelines?! It's an example of something that, in trying to be comprehensive, results in a mess of awkwardly qualified terms and difficult to digest (couldn't help it) high-level recommendation. USDA Food Patterns, Healthy US-Style Eating Pattern. https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-3/ https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendi... Meat poultry and eggs in the same line? They are completely different foods with wildly varying nutrients. [UPDATED: good start] - Pictorial Nutrition Guidelines: http://www.fremont.k12.ca.us/cms/lib04/CA01000848/Centricity/Domain/189/pictorials_nutrition_guides.pdf http://www.fremont.k12.ca.us/cms/lib04/CA01000848/Centricity... - Comparison of International Dietary Guidelines and Food Guides in Twelve Countries across Stages of the Nutrition Transition http://www.fasebj.org/content/29/1_Supplement/898.36.short http://www.fasebj.org/content/29/1_Supplement/898.36.short
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
There's an old joke about eating etc habits and longevity, it goes like this: - Doctor, if I don't eat any sugar or salt, don't smoke, don't drink, don't have any sex, will I live a hundred years? - Well, even if you don't, it will sure feel like a hundred. Meaning: food is one of the pleasures of life. What the hell is the point of living to a ripe old age if your life is going to simply suck for longer? And then of course you read some interview with a super-centenarian who goes "my secret is that I drink a small glass of wine after lunch and smoke a cigarette before going to bed" and realise that it really doesn't matter what you do, you just won't live forever, so enjoying your limited time on the earth is a much more realistic goal.
petraeus 9y ago
CR Red Wine and Weed are the secrets to a long and healthy life.

332 points by DiabloD3 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Doesn't really seem like calorie restriction. The monkeys who died younger would have definitely been considered unhealthy and gluttonous. And it's no secret that being overweight causes premature aging, health problems and eventually premature death.

defterGoose 9y ago
They controlled for diet, natural feeding tendencies, etc. presumably to match conditions in the wild. They never said the monkeys who "naturally" ate the most DIDN'T die first; they probably did. But that certainly doesn't mean that calorie restriction below the "average" feeding tendency doesn't provide benefit.
jm2721 9y ago
Totally agree. If you look at the two parallel studies, it seems like diet had a huge effect on the outcome. The NIA study found no significant difference in both groups, and fed the monkeys varied source of protein. The UW study found health improvements in the CR monkeys but fed them 'significantly higher amount of sucrose compared to the NIA diet'. https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2017/01/calorie-restriction-improves-health-survival-rhesus-monkeys https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2017/01/calor... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28094793 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28094793 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14063 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14063

dom0 9y ago

A remarkably click-baity food "science" head line, especially for the BBC. Edit: "Permanently [...] may turn out to have a profound effect on your future life, according to [...] scientific studies." And that's a Bingo, folks.

BelleMe 9y ago

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521567476?ref_=pe_870760_150889320 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521567476?ref_=pe_870760_15088932...

BelleMe 9y ago

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521567476?ref_=pe_870760_150889320 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521567476?ref_=pe_870760_15088932...

caub 9y ago

if people could also consume less, stop having useless pets, stop smoking, etc.. that would help increasing the life expectancy on this planet too

nightski 9y ago
Hmm. It seems like countries that are more well off and have a much higher amount of excess consumption also have better life expectancy. This sounds like a personal ramble instead of being based on actual data.
orangecat 9y ago
Pet ownership is generally believed to increase life expectancy, for example http://animals.howstuffworks.com/pets/live-longer-with-a-pet.htm http://animals.howstuffworks.com/pets/live-longer-with-a-pet...
- caub 9y ago
  I mean the expectancy of the planet, not of their stupid owners

ericjang 9y ago

Does that imply that lifting, building up one's body and consuming excess calories to bulk up is somehow stressful for the body's metabolic aging process?

resu_nimda 9y ago
In a sense, yes - to build up your muscles they must first be broken down, a cycle which is going to create some amount of stressful churn. If you think about any machine, a higher operating energy/intensity generally correlates to faster breakdown. At the same time, humans in good shape are definitely healthier, and too much calorie restriction can lead to malnourishment. There's a sweet spot somewhere, proponents of calorie restriction are basically saying to err on the side of eating less.
- ianai 9y ago
  I think it's the sort of activity that matters. Low impact exercise wears on your joints/etc less than higher intensity stuff (think swimming or walking compared to running).
j7ake 9y ago
whether you are muscular or skinny, you have the same set of organs. The fact you are 30 percent bigger in mass means all your organs (heart, liver, kidney, muscles, ...) are working much harder than if you had less mass.
- gragas 9y ago
  >your organs are working much harder That's very misleading logic. You make it out that your organs working much harder is a bad thing in all cases. That's not true. When you exercise, your organs work much harder. Yet it is much better to exercise and have your organs work harder than to not exercise at all.
  - havetocharge 9y ago
    It's probably not so simplistic one way or the other. However, some organs do function as filters, so overloading them would be detrimental.

lazyjones 9y ago

Perhaps eating is just one of the most common ways of getting dangerous toxins into our body?

jeffdavis 9y ago
What toxins?
- hellofunk 9y ago
  Pesticides are showing increased evidence of hurting society through the foods they protect. In fact there was a post here on HN today regarding this.
quickben 9y ago
Look up what sugar does and why diabetics lose nerves and legs.

louprado 9y ago

My father has had a low calorie diet all of his life. At 78, he is in perfect physical and mental condition. His doctor had only one concern; he is slowly losing weight each year and needs to reverse that. The doctor wanted to prescribe an appetite enhancing drug but my father explained he can not simply gain weight by eating more. It's as if his digestive system is already at a maximum threshold. I wonder if habitual CR inevitably trains the body to stabilize its weight and if that can not be undone if practiced too long. That then put you at increased mortality risk when you start losing body mass in old age. Caged animal studies might miss this risk because a valued lab rat won't suffer sudden injuries and the resulting prolonged hospital visits.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ak39 9y ago
Does your father do any resistance training? He should. Strength training stops muscle loss and improves bone density.
- magic_beans 9y ago
  That's not the easiest thing to just pick up at 78.
coldtea 9y ago
>The doctor wanted to prescribe an appetite enhancing drug but my father explained he can not simply gain weight by eating more. It's as if his digestive system is already at a maximum threshold. Well, actually he can. It's not 100% just calories in/calories out, but it's very much that. If he eats potato chips and fries and lard every day he WILL gain weight.
- aianus 9y ago
  Although this is true, I can say from personal experience that my body will ramp up the vomiting and diarrhea to keep the weight gain to a minimum.

bonniemuffin 9y ago

I checked out the recipes on the iDiet website recommended in the article, and I'm feeling sad and deprived just reading them. I'm willing to suffer for better health, but I'd hate to suffer through a life of egg whites and margarine and then discover in the end that the science was wrong.

sporkenfang 9y ago
Even if it means dying a year earlier I'm going to eat salted butter and drink red wine and enjoy it. Better to enjoy less than to have more you don't enjoy?
- marricks 9y ago
  I think the dynamics are more complicated than that. Some diseases seriously mess with your quality of life, whether it be chemo for cancer or blood pressure medicine with nasty side effects for heart disease. Or my least favorite, a decade of Alzheimer's. I heard the ideal death described as pretty solid health up to a very rapid decline, healthy food probably helps that.
  - AznHisoka 9y ago
    Yep, totally agree. If you got acid reflux, you cant enjoy coffee or spicy foods at all. If only if it was as simple as enjoy junk food and your life and die a few years younger.
    - esolyt 9y ago
      Exactly. The first 70 years of a 75-year life is probably more enjoyable than a 70-year old life.
- imsofuture 9y ago
  It probably doesn't mean that anyway.
- rokhayakebe 9y ago

Vitaly 9y ago

I can't find the study right now, but from what I understand it is only really beneficial to animals the size of a mice, as soon as you move to bigger animals the effect is sharply reduced, and experiments with monkeys (or was it even primates? I don't remember) didn't find any real life prolonging effect. So you might be subjecting yourself to not enjoying food for no real benefit after all.

louprado 9y ago
I recall watching a video of an engineer practicing CR. He looked miserable and older than his years. He was constantly cold and had chronic sore feet because the soles of his feet were too thin. When I don't eat enough, I don't get hungry, and I don't loose much weight, but I do have trouble sleeping which results in daytime fatigue and depression. For me the happiness/sleep threshold is sharp, so I eat just above that threshold.
- vlasev 9y ago
  I'm not sure if you skip breakfast, but if you do, you are missing a strong signal to your circadian rhythm. What happens is you end up sleeping later and waking up later as the rhythm shifts towards your first meal of the day.
  - quickben 9y ago
    Interesting. How much time after wakeup should the breakfast be? I'm usually 1-2 hours after, and I find that I tend to wake up later and later.
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    Do you have any source of proof of any of this? I have no problem waking up at 630am after 7 hours of sleep and not eating anything until after noon. Thinking to premodern humans, do you think they would frequently have food waiting for them as soon as they awoke? Some days maybe, but then other days probably not.
    - 9y ago

jksmith 9y ago

Drift: Maybe a longer life of great experiences is better than a shorter life of great experiences, but a longer life at the price of greater experiences? Nah, hope I die before I get old. Case in point: http://io9.gizmodo.com/men-can-live-20-years-longer-but-theres-a-high-cost-1678274234 http://io9.gizmodo.com/men-can-live-20-years-longer-but-ther...

rubicon33 9y ago

Most articles on eating tend to focus on weight, drawing the conclusion that weight (fat) is the problem, not eating. This article provides a refreshing perspective: > But the latest results suggested that significant health benefits can be garnered in an already healthy body – a person who isn’t underweight or obese. The take away here is that the problem with excessive eating isn't just the weight gain. There's something about eating itself which is stressful. Restricting calories is good for you even if you're already within a healthy BMI. This means that just because you can eat anything, doesn't mean you should.

justboxing 9y ago
> Restricting calories is good for you even if you're already within a healthy BMI. How much of this study, and your statement, applies to highly active individuals, and atheletes? I box and train 5 - 7 times a week, and spar (high intensity with protective gear) twice a month. I tried restricting calories to lose fat and "lean out" but I find that I am constantly hungry (even after consuming proteins) and like someone else has mentioned here, I don't get good sleep when I eat less...
- cjhanks 9y ago
  Probably not much. But really think back on your training arc in the past. When I am in my training phase doing krav-maga, lifting weights, biking... yeah, I need thousands of calories to feel healthy (I never really counted how much). But immediately after (assuming the muscle you built is not just inflated and is comprised of lean strength), I have personally found I can get away with very few calories/day for several months.
- rubicon33 9y ago
  If you're highly active you will definitely need to eat more to support the repair of muscle and bone. Assuming you're already within healthy BMI (don't need to lose fat) then I doubt anyone would suggest you restrict calories while physically active. You need food to support the repair of muscle and bone - there's no getting away from that. What is up for consideration is how MUCH food do you really need? The general takeaway from the article which can be broadly applied, is that less food is probably better for you. So if you have a large need for nutrient restoration (from high intensity sports) then try to eat nutrient dense, quality food.

reasonattlm 9y ago

Some references for those who want to dig in. Will calorie restriction work in humans? http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/aging.100581 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/aging.100581 Caloric restriction improves health and survival of rhesus monkeys https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14063 https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14063 In general, the consensus in the research community is that we shouldn't expect more than an additional ~5 years from the life-long practice of calorie restriction. The evolutionary argument is that the calorie restriction response evolved very early on in as a way to enhance fitness given seasonal famines. A season is a long time for a mouse, not so long for a human, so only the mouse evolves a very plastic lifespan. The practical argument is that 5-10 years is about the largest effect that could exist and still be hard to pull out from existing demographic data of restricted calorie intake in a bulletproof, rigorous way. Obviously any much larger effect would have been discovered in antiquity and be very well known and characterized by now. So that said about longevity, it is very clear that calorie restriction does better and more reliable things for health in ordinary humans in the short term of months and mid-term of few years than any presently available enhancement technology can replicate. A good deal of research into aging is focused on trying to recreate the calorie restriction response. So far this has consumed billions with little of practical use to show for it beyond increased knowledge of some thin slices of cellular biochemistry relating to nutrient sensing and energy metabolism. It has proven to be very hard and very expensive to get anywhere here. So calorie restriction itself is free and reliable in its effects. Everyone should give it a try. There are, however, far more important areas of aging research to direct funding to instead of trying to recreate this effect with pharmaceuticals. In an age in which meaningful rejuvenation is possible to create in the years ahead (see, for example, clearance of senescent cells, something that calorie restriction can only slightly achieve in a very tiny way, while drug candidates are managing 25-50% clearance) it seems just plain dumb to instead be chasing expensive, hard ways to only slightly slow down aging.

Theodores 9y ago

Assume that you had a garden with acres of produce all perfectly grown and in season. If you wanted orange juice all you would need to do is walk out into this garden, pick some oranges, bring them back to the kitchen and manually squeeze them into a glass. Now imagine if you wanted to have a bit of toast, maybe with some chocolate-hazelnut spread. All you would need to do is walk into the garden, grab some hazelnuts off the tree and some cocoa beans, perhaps with some cane sugar for good measure. Some blender in the kitchen would be able to make your hazelnut spread, just so long as you shelled the nuts first. Similarly with the bread, in this garden, free for the taking would be some strong wheat that you can put through some kitchen appliance, then after a few hours with the breadmaking machine the bread would be good to eat. Butter would be equally simple too, you just needed to milk a cow, put the milk in some glorified washing machine with a bit of salt, then wait a while to get the freshest butter ever tasted. Would you be able to complete all of these tasks by breakfast? Would you really bother to shell all of those hazelnuts? Would you question why it is that you have juiced 14 oranges when actually just the one orange, non-juiced was satisfying enough and didn't require all that effort dicking about with juicing? Of course people have allotments and smallholdings so this does happen, albeit with greenhouses instead of some magic 'always in season' aspect. But my office workmates of the obese variety have no idea of the effort needed to get their food, even if it is healthy food. The connection is not there. One of my dream is to rock up at the doctors one day having eaten too much fruit and veg. For the doctor to recommend me to stay off the veggies and eat some sugary snacks instead. I am fairly sure that no amount of fruit and veg would age me, not in the way that sugary snacks, beef products and everything processed would.

mrb 9y ago

I wonder if Americans' declining life expectancy¹ is due to them eating more and more. ¹ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-life-expectancy-declines-for-the-first-time-since-1993/2016/12/07/7dcdc7b4-bc93-11e6-91ee-1adddfe36cbe_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-li...

collyw 9y ago
My guess is that excising less and less will also be a factor.
bluedino 9y ago
There's eating less, and there's eating to obesity.
quickben 9y ago
Also stress. Or maybe all of it caused by work stress.

cyrusshepard 9y ago

Good overview of the benefits of calorie restriction, but doesn't touch on two of the most important schools of thought of the past couple years. 1. Calorie restriction is almost impossible for most humans to follow long term 2. Many of the same benefits of calorie restriction may be achievable through intermittent fasting, which is much easier for people to follow. I've been experimenting with a daily 16 hour fast (all calories consumed within an 8-hour window) and have seen small improvements in my energy and general well-being, although it's decades too early to say how this will impact my longevity. Relevant articles: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep33739 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep33739 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622429/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622429/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-hunger-gains-extreme-calorie-restriction-diet-shows-anti-aging-results/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-hunger-gains-...

microcolonel 9y ago
I'm settling into IF as well, seems to be working okay. It is surprisingly alright to not eat for a considerable number of hours, and extending that period seems to make me less hungry instead of more.
dpark 9y ago
> Many of the same benefits of calorie restriction may be achievable through intermittent fasting, which is much easier for people to follow. I've been experimenting with a daily 16 hour fast Citation? I can't get the NIH study to load, but the other two are wildly different from 16/8 IF. IF proponents like to look at alternate day fasting or periodic weekly fasting and claim evidence for the effectiveness of 16/8 fasting, but going without food for >24 hours is definitely not the same as skipping breakfast, which is all 16/8 really is. 16/8 probably helps with weight loss for many people, because it shortens the eating window, which will make it easier to reduce caloric intake. But I have never seen a study that indicated 16/8 had effects similar to 24/24 or the other IF patterns typically studied.
- Cyph0n 9y ago
  How about skipping breakfast and lunch, as done by Muslims during Ramadan? In general, Islam recommends voluntary fasting for 2 days every week (traditionally Monday and Thursday).

doener 9y ago

If you haven’t watch this documentary on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihhj_VSKiTs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihhj_VSKiTs

stevewillows 9y ago

About five years ago I switched to one large meal per day (dinner) with a snack or two. Prior to this I lost nearly 40lbs by shifting my diet toward dominant protein and smaller portions. I also added in a good 30+ minutes of walking per day. Nothing fancy. I also dropped almost all of my sugar intake. I drink about 3L of water per day and have one cup of coffee in the morning. I've been able to maintain a healthy weight (6'4" tall, ~185lbs) and I rarely feel truly hungry. On the days where I have more than one large meal, I tend to feel tired and foggy. Its completely anecdotal, but this pattern has worked out well for me. The main issue with articles like this is that they propose lame diets that strip out enjoyment. If you want to eat eggs basted in butter, do it -- but balance that out with exercise or somewhere else in your diet. No use suffering so you can live a few extra years at the tail end of your life.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
siliconc0w 9y ago
I've settled into a similar pattern and have found it the most sustainable out of all the diets I've tried. I also recommend a few multi day water fasts a year as a sort of 'soft-reset' of your appetite/digestive system. You learn the difference between cravings and hunger and how marvelously tuned your body is for dealing with caloric deficiencies. People get so anxious and scared of hunger when it's no big deal. You're basically asking it to 'garbage collect' to conserve the energy you're burning which it doesn't seem to do normally when food is coming in every few hours.
- pitaj 9y ago
  Also, most hunger is really thirst, but your body will output the same sensation.
- stevewillows 9y ago
  Back in 2013 when I finally made the full switch away from cigarettes and into vaping, one of the main benefits was my increase on water consumption. Vaping is naturally dehydrating (the propylene glycol in the liquid). Drinking about 2.5L or so per day really cut down on what I felt was a need to eat several times per day, like @pitaj said. Fasting is also fantastic. Its one of the few positive habits I have left over from my days in religion. The garbage collection analogy is an excellent way to describe it.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

A few thoughts. It seems that "calorie restriction" is a misleading term. If these funds are correct, CR should be considered the norm/ideal. That means the majority, currently, over-consume. That aside. I wonder if it's also related to modern food, and the production there of. If inflammation is the root of most disease, and CR, I presume, reduces inflammation, then what is it about our foods that trigger so much inflammation? Finally, when all said and done, I predict this will be found to connect with gut bacteria in some way. That is, CR effects the gut, and that effect is ultimately a positive for the whole body.

dghughes 9y ago
A CRON or calorie restriction optimal nutrition diet is a thing, not only eating fewer calories but what you do eat has to be absolutely perfect in nutrition. Micheal Mosley on BBC interviewed a CRON advocate he are an apple peel but threw away the inner part. I've read that a rumbling stomach is necessary for gut health without it your microbiome suffers, CR may incidentally do that.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Yes. The arc of my point, kinda, was that we eat for what we perceive as nutritional. When we should really focus (more) on eating for our gut.
- kyle-rb 9y ago
  >he ate an apple peel but threw away the inner part I can do reduced calories, but that right there just sounds miserable.
  - rukuu001 9y ago
    I saw the program, the guy actually had a giant bowl of fruit, mostly frozen berries(!), and yes, apple peel. He seemed pretty cheerful, and it didn't look like privation. I do remember reading the blog of some guy way back around 2007 or so who was on a 1000 calorie per day diet. One of the most miserable things I ever read. The highlight of his week was 1 square of 100% cacao chocolate.

pors 9y ago

There is lots of proof now that obesity is not caused by "more calories in than calories out", it is caused by hormone reactions to what you eat (esp. insulin). Just read the books by Gary Taubs for zillions of details and references to studies. So the "eat less" claim in this article is again back to the old MD advice, "eat less and move more". Not going to work if you don't look at your macronutrients.

SwellJoe 9y ago
That's an oversimplification. Hormone response is not well-understood enough to make blanket statements like that, as far as I know. There's been tons of research on diets. Low-carb high-protein diets certainly do work, but so do several other diets, including some of the traditional "eat less calories" diets (the research I've seen indicates those diets are on par with Atkins and keto in terms of long-term weight loss, and they all work when consistently/correctly applied). Reducing calories below resting metabolic rate demonstrably causes weight loss. It's almost impossible for it not to. And, there are ways to manipulate insulin response without going to a high-protein/fat low-carb diet. I've been experimenting with intermittent fasting; where I eat mostly freely, but responsibly, for ~8 hours out of the day and fast the other ~16. This has been shown to improve insulin response, in similar ways to low-carb diets. I've lost about 16 pounds over three months. Every few weeks, I change the diet, to see how my body responds, in terms of energy, weight, etc. And, also because I love food and really like variety (lots of weight loss programs suggest a very regimented diet of the same thing every day for months or years, but that's not for me). I've found that when my calories are below my MR, I lose weight, no matter what I'm stuffing my face with. I did a couple of weeks of bread and pie and ice cream every day (to the point where I got tired of bread and pie and ice cream), and still lost weight during that time; calories were consistently below my MR. And, I did nothing but proteins, and healthy fats, and greens for a few weeks, too...also lost weight, but not notably more than the "bread and pie and ice cream" weeks. I've kept logs of my weight and caloric intake for a couple of months, and it's pretty consistent. A couple days after I eat more calories than my MR, my weight either stabilizes or increases. And, a couple days after I return to below-MR, I see the weight dropping again. I will say that I've had better luck with intermittent fasting than with portion control as a means to achieve below-MR caloric intake; so maybe there's something to the insulin response theory since there's evidence fasting helps with that. There may also be an argument to be made about cravings (sugar+fat can cause cravings; there's decent science on that), and that may lead to problems managing portions and caloric intake. And, there's certainly evidence that protein and fat calories are more satisfying than sugar or simple carb calories. It may very well be easier to lose weight on a high-protein and high-fat diet. But, when I was on the high-protein/high-fat diet, my cravings for fruit were pretty intense, and the weight loss was not measurably better than the other macronutrient mixes I've tried. I didn't find it valuable enough to continue, so I went back to eating rice, bread, and having dessert sometimes. But, "eat less" still works, and always will. That's not really negotiable. The basic physics of the thing require it to work. It's just that a lot of folks have no idea what "eat less" really entails and don't keep track of what they eat well enough to know they're not actually doing it. When losing weight, you're going to experience hunger sometimes, which is not a thing modern people are accustomed to.

tsao 9y ago

What if you're already eating less? It should say: eat the right amount.

tammer 9y ago

I eat a protein & fat heavy breakfast & dinner, & skip "lunch". I find it to be highly effective at keeping me productive through the day (both more time & more steady energy cycle).

jimjimjim 9y ago

anecdotal datum: A few years ago I lost about 40 pounds (230->190ish) in a little over a year by limiting the amount of food and not caring about the type of food. steak, sandwiches, cheese, potatoes, all good. salad, bananas, cereal, all good. I had to make sure to look at the nutritional info. If the food was small but energy dense you have to eat less of it.

notadoc 9y ago

Does this surprise anyone? Humans did not spend millions of years eating 6000 calorie hyper refined lab perfected highly processed meals three times per day. We did evolve foraging, hunting, gathering, and eventually and much more recently farming, all of which would naturally include a ton of physical activity and occasional bouts of not eating if a meal was yet unavailable, which we now call "fasting" as if it is some harsh or deprivational activity.

Area12 9y ago

Investigation into calorie restriction isn't at all new. Roy Walford wrote five books about it, dating back to 1983. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Walford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Walford

dirkg 9y ago

It is pretty ironic and sad that following a healthy diet, including CR, is much harder in Western nations and esp in the US. - Processed food costs less than fresh food. - Multiple generations of people have been conditioned to eat processed and junk food. - People believe in the myth that 'cooking takes too long' - People are lazy and don't want to spend any time on cooking/food even when living a life of luxury compared to the rest of the world. All of which is the opposite of most developing countries. US and UK are very close in this respect. Even many European countries value shopping for and eating fresh food much more. CR, and eating in general should be about buying nutrient dense but low caloric foods - which is a mostly plant based diet of fresh food. The exact kind of food which is artificially expensive and considered a 'fad'.

Qub3d 9y ago
If you're concerned about the "Western Diet", Michael Pollan wrote an interesting treatise on it, called In Defense of Food. His arguments are very similar to yours.

pavement 9y ago

One detail that isn't explicitly stated, but seems like a bit of a blind spot, is whether there's an age-appropiate aspect to this behavior. Do non-growing adults (30+ years old) enjoy greater benefits than small children who have faster metabolisms and growth spurts ahead of them? My inutition says that even if the concept still fits well with growing children, that their cycles are different, and closer together in frequency. Maybe they don't eat more calories, but eating several times a day might possibly tie into cycles of blood serum nutrient levels properly based of weight and activity.

m3kw9 9y ago

Maybe the more you eat the more chance you eat crap that is adverse to your health hence the variations

pascalxus 9y ago

Due to social conditioning, It's not commonly known, but you don't actually need to eat every day. You could lose 10 lbs in just a couple of weeks of not eating any calories, but I would recommend eating 1 lbs of spinach and maybe a combination of other green, red and orange vegetables: that will keep your calorie count under 200 for the day. Drink lots of water. I know the hunger will drive you crazy in the first few days, but your body gets used to it and it's not so bad, after 3 days. The first time you do it, perhaps start off with some 16 hour fasts at first for a few months till your used to that, then you can increase it.

exolymph 9y ago
This kind of aggressive diet is usually followed by gaining back the weight.
- moochachana 9y ago
  I have to agree with this. However it's not because it's aggressive. It's because he's recommending eating at all. When you eat very little, your body's metabolism drops to match the new standard energy intake. A much preferable recommendation would be to simply water fast for the same time. Lose even more weight (mostly water weight), then eat normally. Much more natural in the context of evolution. Periods of eating, periods of fasting. The practice is as old as time itself.
  - ashark 9y ago
    I've found that I can manage a day without taking in any calories, if I'm willing to feel really tired and have a moderate headache by ~1pm, and be horribly brain-fogged and useless by ~2pm. I've got a job and kids to take care of—I can't afford to have days like that very often. The hunger's not a problem—it's that I feel rather ill by mid-afternoon. FWIW I rarely eat breakfast, so I guess I'm usually doing the (lame, IMO) "16/8" fasting pattern, though I'm skeptical that has any benefit.
    - moochachana 9y ago

TheRealmccoy 9y ago

While eating less and having CR and IF is important, equally important is the actual process of eating. Most of the articles focus on results, but not on the actual process. If one is eating sitting on the couch, watching television, completely oblivious of the activity, it is not going to help. There is nothing absolute in nature, everything is connected. How do we eat is far more important than how much we eat. One simple experiment one can do at dinner is to sit alone, without any distraction with the dinner plate and for every morsel one takes in, chew it till you count 20 and then swallow. Notice what happens...

adambmedia 9y ago

In addition to differences in recommended calorie intake, is there a good, scientific, international comparison that puts dietary guidelines side-by-side, nutrient guidelines, balanced meal? It's amazingly difficult to find clear information anywhere. For instance, CDC Nutrition guidelines?! It's an example of something that, in trying to be comprehensive, results in a mess of awkwardly qualified terms and difficult to digest (couldn't help it) high-level recommendation. USDA Food Patterns, Healthy US-Style Eating Pattern. https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-3/ https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendi... Meat poultry and eggs in the same line? They are completely different foods with wildly varying nutrients. [UPDATED: good start] - Pictorial Nutrition Guidelines: http://www.fremont.k12.ca.us/cms/lib04/CA01000848/Centricity/Domain/189/pictorials_nutrition_guides.pdf http://www.fremont.k12.ca.us/cms/lib04/CA01000848/Centricity... - Comparison of International Dietary Guidelines and Food Guides in Twelve Countries across Stages of the Nutrition Transition http://www.fasebj.org/content/29/1_Supplement/898.36.short http://www.fasebj.org/content/29/1_Supplement/898.36.short

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

There's an old joke about eating etc habits and longevity, it goes like this: - Doctor, if I don't eat any sugar or salt, don't smoke, don't drink, don't have any sex, will I live a hundred years? - Well, even if you don't, it will sure feel like a hundred. Meaning: food is one of the pleasures of life. What the hell is the point of living to a ripe old age if your life is going to simply suck for longer? And then of course you read some interview with a super-centenarian who goes "my secret is that I drink a small glass of wine after lunch and smoke a cigarette before going to bed" and realise that it really doesn't matter what you do, you just won't live forever, so enjoying your limited time on the earth is a much more realistic goal.

petraeus 9y ago

CR Red Wine and Weed are the secrets to a long and healthy life.