4 ms·

> "That has provoked an interest in finding ways to get the benefits of calorie restriction without having to engage in it." And since we're in the western wor

> "That has provoked an interest in finding ways to get the benefits of calorie restriction without having to engage in it." And since we're in the western world of medicine, the answer is of course, pills. Which is disappointing because the first question I would ask is do you need to calorie restrict constantly to get the same benefits? If I restrict for three days a week, eat normally the other three, then add a relative "cheat" day between the two, am I possibly getting most of the same benefit anyways? Anecdotally, I do eat this way, under the logic that our ancestors would have had similar calorie consumption patterns based around the "boom and bust" cycle of hunting, and since I've adjusted my diet I've been incredibly happy with what I perceive to be it's positive impacts on my weight and levels of energy. Anyways.. I don't think our first instinct should be to go "off label" for an answer.

onetimeuse92304 3y ago
> If I restrict for three days a week, eat normally the other three, then add a relative "cheat" day between the two, am I possibly getting most of the same benefit anyways? Unfortunately, we are more slaves to our bodies than one would think. The calories you eat are almost exactly the same as what you burn. And if you do not believe, try dividing the extra weight of a person by the number of days they lived to see how little extra calories they consumed over their lifetime. Only a tiny imbalance is enough for a person to get overweight but it also means that it is really, really hard to eat any more or less than one is actually using for energy. The biggest contributor to how much calories we actually use for energy (and based on above: consume), is our metabolic rates and activity. And metabolic rate does not differ a lot between people, the only thing that differs significantly is activity level. So when somebody says "eat less calories to live longer" what they really are saying you should be less active.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  Your body fat tends to the equilibrium where calories burned is calories consumed (because fat burns calories).
- _cenw 3y ago
  > And metabolic rate does not differ a lot between people, the only thing that differs significantly is activity level. Resting metabolic rates decrease in obese people, and stay lowered even if they lose weight. Combine that with leptin resisance and it really is no wonder why it's so hard to lose weight once you have it and more than 90% of attempts persistently fail. This is why I do not like armchair "pills don't solve everything" takes, because in the case of semiglutide, it does help a lot getting over the leptin resistence induced permanent hunger feeling, just like Metformin improves insulin resistence.
  - onetimeuse92304 3y ago
    > Resting metabolic rates decrease in obese people, and stay lowered even if they lose weight It very much depends on how you lost weight. You can be losing weight while maintaining high BMR. They key is to maintain high activity level and be able to eat to satiety regularly. If you just cut calories consumed the body will try to defend from perceived starvation by cutting on activity and metabolic rate. You become sluggish, you feel cold even on a hot day, etc. But you can also cut average calories consumed in relation to caloric requirements by moving a lot and practicing intermittent fasting where you eat to satiety from time to time (once a day, once every other day, etc.) > (...) and it really is no wonder why it's so hard to lose weight once you have it and more than 90% of attempts persistently fail. This is why I do not like armchair "pills don't solve everything" (...) I had two attempts at losing weight. I lost over 70 pounds both times. After the first time I regained it all within couple of years. For the second time I decided to rethink entire process and treat it as an engineering problem. My results is that, to lose weight permanently, one has to learn new habits and essentially become a person that person that deserves lower body weight. Which is what I did, I learned to eat better (cut all sugar, soft drinks and most carbs), stop snacking, restrict feeding hours, add activity every day throughout the day (running every morning, taking walks in the evening, sprinkling the day with small activities like buying groceries rather than driving to a mall once a week, etc.) It works.
- tempestn 3y ago
  It's clearly true that over the long term, calories taken in will be roughly equal to calories burned, minus a tiny delta reflected in weight change. However, what the parent is asking is whether we know that the longevity effect is due to persistently low calorie intake (which will result in lower body weight, so that an equilibrium can be reached that's sustainable at that lower caloric intake), or if instead it might be sufficient for the body to receive intermittent signals of caloric deficit. Personally I don't know the answer to that question; I'm not sure if it is yet known.
- ljosifov 3y ago
  Quite right on "Only a tiny imbalance is enough for a person to get overweight". Quick mental experiment: say I overeat 1 apple per day, that's ~ 90 kcal, that's ~= 10 grams of fat x 365 days == that's 3.65 kg per year. Over a course of only 10 years, that's extra 36.5 kg of weight I'd put on! From an imbalance of only 1 apple per day.
felipeerias 3y ago
N. N. Taleb reasoned himself into following the same dietary restrictions and fasting periods that his Christian Orthodox ancestors would have followed. His main reason was that such traditional dietary practices are likely to be more reliable and beneficial than modern fads, which lack long-term evidence.
- _glass 3y ago
  This is the luxury of somebody coming from a dietary healthy region. If I would follow the diet of my Protestant peasant ancestors ...
globular-toast 3y ago
What the hell is this obsession with eating what our ancestors did? Are you aware that animals in captivity generally live way longer than animals in the wild? The only thing you really know about your ancestors is they managed to mate a few times. Do you live in a cave too? Are you cold? Do you actually do the hunt or just pretend to do it? I hope you don't drive or use electricity.
- Kbelicius 3y ago
  > What the hell is this obsession with eating what our ancestors did? GP wasn't talking about eating what his ancestors ate but eating in a way that they ate (boom and bust). > Are you aware that animals in captivity generally live way longer than animals in the wild? Are you aware that benefits mostly extend to species whit short life spans, high reproductive rates and high mortality in the wild? That is mostly because being in a zoo offers protection from the things that get these mammals with fast paced lives killed in the wild. Senescence is barely delayed in those mammals and in mammals with slower paced lives there is no effect on senescence and in some senescence starts earlier in captivity. The rest of your post isn't worth addressing.
  - globular-toast 3y ago
    > GP wasn't talking about eating what his ancestors ate but eating in a way that they ate (boom and bust). Ah yes, eating in the way they ate, it suddenly makes so much sense /s > The rest of your post isn't worth addressing. But this is my point. Why not? Why are people picking this one thing (food) to be "more like our ancestors" and not any of the countless other variables? And why is wanting to be like our ancestors even a thing given that they probably had hard lives that would basically be considered poverty by our standards?
    - Kbelicius 3y ago
      > Ah yes, eating in the way they ate, it suddenly makes so much sense /s It certainly does make more sense than what you said. > But this is my point. Why not? Why are people picking this one thing (food) to be "more like our ancestors" and not any of the countless other variables? It seems that you are surprised that people are talking about food on a thread about food. People are also picking those countless other variables, they are just aware of things like context. > And why is wanting to be like our ancestors even a thing given that they probably had hard lives that would basically be considered poverty by our standards? It isn't wanting to be like our ancestors. It is about being healthy.
jbstack 3y ago
"... under the logic that our ancestors ..." I generally find this logic unconvincing. Our ancestors lacked access to modern scientific knowledge and had far shorter average lifespans than us. Here are some examples of things that our ancestors didn't do: (1) perform CPR on cardiac arrest victims, (2) treat cancer with surgery / drugs, (3) engage in studies to determine which foods are healthier than others, (4) sterilize food products to avoid infection. In my opinion it's a fallacy to assert that because pre-historic humans behaved in a certain way, that that way is superior. Pre-historic humans did the best they could with the tools they had and the environment they faced at that time. Gorging on a huge meal every few days made a lot of sense when the alternative was potential starvation. The priority at that time was surviving the next day/week/month, not living 80+ years. Modern humans can do better with more advanced tools and an environment containing a very different set of challenges to deal with. It's also a fallacy to assume that natural > artificial in all cases. While there can often be some truth in that, there's no reason to think that we can't optimise what nature provides, or that we shouldn't try to do that.
- francisofascii 3y ago
  I think looking at our ancestors diet gives us the best place to start. And it gives us insight as to why our bodies might work a certain way. Then we can optimize from there based on scientific knowledge gained going forward.

onetimeuse92304 3y ago

> If I restrict for three days a week, eat normally the other three, then add a relative "cheat" day between the two, am I possibly getting most of the same benefit anyways? Unfortunately, we are more slaves to our bodies than one would think. The calories you eat are almost exactly the same as what you burn. And if you do not believe, try dividing the extra weight of a person by the number of days they lived to see how little extra calories they consumed over their lifetime. Only a tiny imbalance is enough for a person to get overweight but it also means that it is really, really hard to eat any more or less than one is actually using for energy. The biggest contributor to how much calories we actually use for energy (and based on above: consume), is our metabolic rates and activity. And metabolic rate does not differ a lot between people, the only thing that differs significantly is activity level. So when somebody says "eat less calories to live longer" what they really are saying you should be less active.

quickthrower2 3y ago
Your body fat tends to the equilibrium where calories burned is calories consumed (because fat burns calories).
_cenw 3y ago
> And metabolic rate does not differ a lot between people, the only thing that differs significantly is activity level. Resting metabolic rates decrease in obese people, and stay lowered even if they lose weight. Combine that with leptin resisance and it really is no wonder why it's so hard to lose weight once you have it and more than 90% of attempts persistently fail. This is why I do not like armchair "pills don't solve everything" takes, because in the case of semiglutide, it does help a lot getting over the leptin resistence induced permanent hunger feeling, just like Metformin improves insulin resistence.
- onetimeuse92304 3y ago
  > Resting metabolic rates decrease in obese people, and stay lowered even if they lose weight It very much depends on how you lost weight. You can be losing weight while maintaining high BMR. They key is to maintain high activity level and be able to eat to satiety regularly. If you just cut calories consumed the body will try to defend from perceived starvation by cutting on activity and metabolic rate. You become sluggish, you feel cold even on a hot day, etc. But you can also cut average calories consumed in relation to caloric requirements by moving a lot and practicing intermittent fasting where you eat to satiety from time to time (once a day, once every other day, etc.) > (...) and it really is no wonder why it's so hard to lose weight once you have it and more than 90% of attempts persistently fail. This is why I do not like armchair "pills don't solve everything" (...) I had two attempts at losing weight. I lost over 70 pounds both times. After the first time I regained it all within couple of years. For the second time I decided to rethink entire process and treat it as an engineering problem. My results is that, to lose weight permanently, one has to learn new habits and essentially become a person that person that deserves lower body weight. Which is what I did, I learned to eat better (cut all sugar, soft drinks and most carbs), stop snacking, restrict feeding hours, add activity every day throughout the day (running every morning, taking walks in the evening, sprinkling the day with small activities like buying groceries rather than driving to a mall once a week, etc.) It works.
tempestn 3y ago
It's clearly true that over the long term, calories taken in will be roughly equal to calories burned, minus a tiny delta reflected in weight change. However, what the parent is asking is whether we know that the longevity effect is due to persistently low calorie intake (which will result in lower body weight, so that an equilibrium can be reached that's sustainable at that lower caloric intake), or if instead it might be sufficient for the body to receive intermittent signals of caloric deficit. Personally I don't know the answer to that question; I'm not sure if it is yet known.
ljosifov 3y ago
Quite right on "Only a tiny imbalance is enough for a person to get overweight". Quick mental experiment: say I overeat 1 apple per day, that's ~ 90 kcal, that's ~= 10 grams of fat x 365 days == that's 3.65 kg per year. Over a course of only 10 years, that's extra 36.5 kg of weight I'd put on! From an imbalance of only 1 apple per day.

felipeerias 3y ago

N. N. Taleb reasoned himself into following the same dietary restrictions and fasting periods that his Christian Orthodox ancestors would have followed. His main reason was that such traditional dietary practices are likely to be more reliable and beneficial than modern fads, which lack long-term evidence.

_glass 3y ago
This is the luxury of somebody coming from a dietary healthy region. If I would follow the diet of my Protestant peasant ancestors ...

globular-toast 3y ago

What the hell is this obsession with eating what our ancestors did? Are you aware that animals in captivity generally live way longer than animals in the wild? The only thing you really know about your ancestors is they managed to mate a few times. Do you live in a cave too? Are you cold? Do you actually do the hunt or just pretend to do it? I hope you don't drive or use electricity.

Kbelicius 3y ago
> What the hell is this obsession with eating what our ancestors did? GP wasn't talking about eating what his ancestors ate but eating in a way that they ate (boom and bust). > Are you aware that animals in captivity generally live way longer than animals in the wild? Are you aware that benefits mostly extend to species whit short life spans, high reproductive rates and high mortality in the wild? That is mostly because being in a zoo offers protection from the things that get these mammals with fast paced lives killed in the wild. Senescence is barely delayed in those mammals and in mammals with slower paced lives there is no effect on senescence and in some senescence starts earlier in captivity. The rest of your post isn't worth addressing.
- globular-toast 3y ago
  > GP wasn't talking about eating what his ancestors ate but eating in a way that they ate (boom and bust). Ah yes, eating in the way they ate, it suddenly makes so much sense /s > The rest of your post isn't worth addressing. But this is my point. Why not? Why are people picking this one thing (food) to be "more like our ancestors" and not any of the countless other variables? And why is wanting to be like our ancestors even a thing given that they probably had hard lives that would basically be considered poverty by our standards?
  - Kbelicius 3y ago
    > Ah yes, eating in the way they ate, it suddenly makes so much sense /s It certainly does make more sense than what you said. > But this is my point. Why not? Why are people picking this one thing (food) to be "more like our ancestors" and not any of the countless other variables? It seems that you are surprised that people are talking about food on a thread about food. People are also picking those countless other variables, they are just aware of things like context. > And why is wanting to be like our ancestors even a thing given that they probably had hard lives that would basically be considered poverty by our standards? It isn't wanting to be like our ancestors. It is about being healthy.

jbstack 3y ago

"... under the logic that our ancestors ..." I generally find this logic unconvincing. Our ancestors lacked access to modern scientific knowledge and had far shorter average lifespans than us. Here are some examples of things that our ancestors didn't do: (1) perform CPR on cardiac arrest victims, (2) treat cancer with surgery / drugs, (3) engage in studies to determine which foods are healthier than others, (4) sterilize food products to avoid infection. In my opinion it's a fallacy to assert that because pre-historic humans behaved in a certain way, that that way is superior. Pre-historic humans did the best they could with the tools they had and the environment they faced at that time. Gorging on a huge meal every few days made a lot of sense when the alternative was potential starvation. The priority at that time was surviving the next day/week/month, not living 80+ years. Modern humans can do better with more advanced tools and an environment containing a very different set of challenges to deal with. It's also a fallacy to assume that natural > artificial in all cases. While there can often be some truth in that, there's no reason to think that we can't optimise what nature provides, or that we shouldn't try to do that.

francisofascii 3y ago
I think looking at our ancestors diet gives us the best place to start. And it gives us insight as to why our bodies might work a certain way. Then we can optimize from there based on scientific knowledge gained going forward.