13 ms·

It is thought to be (but not proven) to be a tradeoff between maximum achievable age and maximum achievable healthy age. You need to consume less calories to h

It is thought to be (but not proven) to be a tradeoff between maximum achievable age and maximum achievable healthy age. You need to consume less calories to have longest maximum achievable age (again, not proven in humans). You need to move more to have longest achievable healthy age (this is much better documented). Personally, I prefer to be healthier for longer even if it means I will live shorter in absolute terms. I am running every day which hopefully will help me have denser and more robust bones and joints and tendons. And I am lifting weights so that I still have some muscle into old age when they inevitably start to shrink. Core muscles are important to prevent fragility as we age.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> tradeoff between maximum achievable age and maximum achievable healthy age What is this based on? The evidence I’ve seen is calorie restriction and exercise both increase one’s healthspan.
- onetimeuse92304 3y ago
  Calories can only be restricted temporarily. Your body has finite stores of energy until you run out of it and die of starvation. So over long periods of time, you consume almost exactly as much calories as you use. The only way to consume less calories over your lifetime is to use less calories over your lifetime. And for this you need to move less. So "calorie restriction" is opposite from higher activity levels (exercise).
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > only way to consume less calories over your lifetime is to use less calories over your lifetime. And for this you need to move less Outside elite athletes, most people burn a significant minority of calories on physical activity [1]. Again, we have actual research around calorie restriction + exercise. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6003580/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6003580/
    - onetimeuse92304 3y ago
      Again, this is wrong way to think about it. All people have a huge static component to the calories that are used by our bodies. But this component is pretty much the same for all people. Our livers, our hearts, our brains are all constructed the same and use the same amounts of energy. Where our bodies differ for the static component is based on our activity levels. Our Basal Metabolic Rate is higher when we have active lifestyle and tend to be lower when we are sedentary. So, again, to use less energy you have to move less because regular exercise will increase your BMR or (depending how you think about it) prevent it from dropping. You can't have low basal metabolic rate AND be regularly exercising.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > this component is pretty much the same for all people We have evidence time-restricted feeding reduces basal metabolic rates [1]. > to use less energy you have to move less Most of us carry a lot of fat, particularly around the organs, that makes all sorts of processes from physical activity to the mundane inefficient. The point of calorie restriction, nutrition and exercise is to cut out that inefficiency. We have strong evidence it can be done. Per the article and reams of research. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27737674/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27737674/
    - vkazanov 3y ago
      Just walking around burns quite a lot of calories. 10-15k steps a day can burn up to 500-600 kcal. That's like 20-30% of a recommended daily intake! Note that this is the least traumatic way of calorie usage.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > 20-30% of a recommended daily intake Between junk calories and inefficient metabolism from a sedentary lifestyle, almost everyone has this surplus in their energy balance.
      - xvector 3y ago
        It is thought that our bodies compensate to regain calories expended via exercise in other mechanisms (through hunger, metabolism adjustments, and other mechanisms.)
- vkazanov 3y ago
  I think what people usually miss about statistical results is that it's just a corelation. The conclusion should be: 1. Eating less leads to better body composition and less internal organ strain in general. 2. Reasonable amounts of physical activity leads to better calorie utilisation and improved body composition. 3. It is absolutely possible to both eat less and do more sports. 4. Both eating less and doing more sports can damage the body. Say, running can damage one's joints, and undereating leads to muscle loss. As in most things in life it's the balance that is important to get right, not just blindly following statistical insights that are mostly useless on an individual's level.
  - onetimeuse92304 3y ago
    > I think what people usually miss about statistical results is that it's just a corelation. It is not (just) a correlation. There is direct relation between what your body needs as energy and what calories are in your food. It is true for each and every single person, not just statistically over entire population. Our bodies are physical entities that follow physical laws of conservation of energy. Because we can't create energy from nothing, every calorie expended as heat or work has to be consumed. The only way to eat less calories is to expend less heat and work.
- JeffSnazzy 3y ago
  > The evidence I’ve seen is calorie restriction and exercise both increase one’s healthspan. Calorie restriction compared to what? You need calories to live.
ekianjo 3y ago
Running everyday is probably not good for your knee joints and may lead to OA but... up to you
- onetimeuse92304 3y ago
  Running every day is excellent for your knees. Regular stress is causing things to get stronger. Running every day can be not good for the knees, if you increase the volume too quickly without giving the joints and tendons necessary time to strengthen up, if you suddenly introduce too much stress (try to sprint when you have never done it before), if you don't sleep well or give time for them to recover, if you have bad diet or if you are sick for some reason and your body has impaired ability to recover.
  - scotty79 3y ago
    My personal observation is that I also need to eat a piece of beef every other day at least because body doesn't have dedicated store for protein and if I forget to deliver it my body seems to take it from places like my joint and tendons.
    - onetimeuse92304 3y ago
      You want to eat protein every day to be efficient at building tissue. By eating every other day you cut ability to build stuff. Yes, the body does not have stores of protein other than your other tissue. It can decompose for example muscle and other connective tissue (which actually is quite important to be healthy), but it does limit ability to build tissue. Lesson from bodybuilding crowd is that you need to eat protein with every meal if you are serious about building anything. They want to build muscle but it really extends to all tissues of our body.
      - XorNot 3y ago
        Agreeing with this: please track your protein and check it against your weight. You can eat quite a large excess of protein safely, so it's not a hard quota to hit (and if you're having trouble, protein powder is great as a booster in things - I have it with breakfast cereal to give me a morning kick).
lifeisstillgood 3y ago
I do t think that people who “over eat” Do so by so much that calries themselves count. It’s the “strain” on the body by the excess fat that counts (heart pumping / clogged arteries etc) So, let’s say someone over consumes 500 calries per day, or 3500 per week which is a 1lb of fat. Over one year that’s 52lbs or 3.7 stone - over 6 years that’s 300 extra lbs. There are very very few people who consume even at that level. Over a 60 year lifetime there is not a lot of wriggle room if we think calries restriction is the way to go I suspect it’s part of the “food is a class issue / some people are genetically disadvantaged / social taste as gatekeeper of power “ morass
- onetimeuse92304 3y ago
  I was obese before I lost weight (now BMR 21). I calculated, that my obesity amounted to 1 teaspoon of sugar extra, every day. Our bodies are excellent, miraculous regulating machines if they can stay within those tolerances regardless of what kind of shit we put in. The bad news is, for everybody who wants to lose weight, that we have much less free will when it comes to eating than we think. To lose weight long term we need to fix whatever caused the regulating machinery to malfunction as we can't really eat less (over long term).
  - XorNot 3y ago
    I have no idea how you determined this: 16 calories a day (1 teaspoon of sugar) would make no difference either way. Your day to day metabolism is not that precise, nor are calorie counts on packaging.
    - onetimeuse92304 3y ago
      I think you misunderstood. I don't count calories. It does not work most of the time. What I mean I calculated that amount of extra fat I gained over so many decades and divided it by the number of days and converted to amount of teaspons of sugar.
      - helboi4 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> tradeoff between maximum achievable age and maximum achievable healthy age What is this based on? The evidence I’ve seen is calorie restriction and exercise both increase one’s healthspan.

onetimeuse92304 3y ago
Calories can only be restricted temporarily. Your body has finite stores of energy until you run out of it and die of starvation. So over long periods of time, you consume almost exactly as much calories as you use. The only way to consume less calories over your lifetime is to use less calories over your lifetime. And for this you need to move less. So "calorie restriction" is opposite from higher activity levels (exercise).
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > only way to consume less calories over your lifetime is to use less calories over your lifetime. And for this you need to move less Outside elite athletes, most people burn a significant minority of calories on physical activity [1]. Again, we have actual research around calorie restriction + exercise. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6003580/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6003580/
  - onetimeuse92304 3y ago
    Again, this is wrong way to think about it. All people have a huge static component to the calories that are used by our bodies. But this component is pretty much the same for all people. Our livers, our hearts, our brains are all constructed the same and use the same amounts of energy. Where our bodies differ for the static component is based on our activity levels. Our Basal Metabolic Rate is higher when we have active lifestyle and tend to be lower when we are sedentary. So, again, to use less energy you have to move less because regular exercise will increase your BMR or (depending how you think about it) prevent it from dropping. You can't have low basal metabolic rate AND be regularly exercising.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > this component is pretty much the same for all people We have evidence time-restricted feeding reduces basal metabolic rates [1]. > to use less energy you have to move less Most of us carry a lot of fat, particularly around the organs, that makes all sorts of processes from physical activity to the mundane inefficient. The point of calorie restriction, nutrition and exercise is to cut out that inefficiency. We have strong evidence it can be done. Per the article and reams of research. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27737674/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27737674/
  - vkazanov 3y ago
    Just walking around burns quite a lot of calories. 10-15k steps a day can burn up to 500-600 kcal. That's like 20-30% of a recommended daily intake! Note that this is the least traumatic way of calorie usage.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > 20-30% of a recommended daily intake Between junk calories and inefficient metabolism from a sedentary lifestyle, almost everyone has this surplus in their energy balance.
    - xvector 3y ago
      It is thought that our bodies compensate to regain calories expended via exercise in other mechanisms (through hunger, metabolism adjustments, and other mechanisms.)
vkazanov 3y ago
I think what people usually miss about statistical results is that it's just a corelation. The conclusion should be: 1. Eating less leads to better body composition and less internal organ strain in general. 2. Reasonable amounts of physical activity leads to better calorie utilisation and improved body composition. 3. It is absolutely possible to both eat less and do more sports. 4. Both eating less and doing more sports can damage the body. Say, running can damage one's joints, and undereating leads to muscle loss. As in most things in life it's the balance that is important to get right, not just blindly following statistical insights that are mostly useless on an individual's level.
- onetimeuse92304 3y ago
  > I think what people usually miss about statistical results is that it's just a corelation. It is not (just) a correlation. There is direct relation between what your body needs as energy and what calories are in your food. It is true for each and every single person, not just statistically over entire population. Our bodies are physical entities that follow physical laws of conservation of energy. Because we can't create energy from nothing, every calorie expended as heat or work has to be consumed. The only way to eat less calories is to expend less heat and work.
JeffSnazzy 3y ago
> The evidence I’ve seen is calorie restriction and exercise both increase one’s healthspan. Calorie restriction compared to what? You need calories to live.

ekianjo 3y ago

Running everyday is probably not good for your knee joints and may lead to OA but... up to you

onetimeuse92304 3y ago
Running every day is excellent for your knees. Regular stress is causing things to get stronger. Running every day can be not good for the knees, if you increase the volume too quickly without giving the joints and tendons necessary time to strengthen up, if you suddenly introduce too much stress (try to sprint when you have never done it before), if you don't sleep well or give time for them to recover, if you have bad diet or if you are sick for some reason and your body has impaired ability to recover.
- scotty79 3y ago
  My personal observation is that I also need to eat a piece of beef every other day at least because body doesn't have dedicated store for protein and if I forget to deliver it my body seems to take it from places like my joint and tendons.
  - onetimeuse92304 3y ago
    You want to eat protein every day to be efficient at building tissue. By eating every other day you cut ability to build stuff. Yes, the body does not have stores of protein other than your other tissue. It can decompose for example muscle and other connective tissue (which actually is quite important to be healthy), but it does limit ability to build tissue. Lesson from bodybuilding crowd is that you need to eat protein with every meal if you are serious about building anything. They want to build muscle but it really extends to all tissues of our body.
    - XorNot 3y ago
      Agreeing with this: please track your protein and check it against your weight. You can eat quite a large excess of protein safely, so it's not a hard quota to hit (and if you're having trouble, protein powder is great as a booster in things - I have it with breakfast cereal to give me a morning kick).

lifeisstillgood 3y ago

I do t think that people who “over eat” Do so by so much that calries themselves count. It’s the “strain” on the body by the excess fat that counts (heart pumping / clogged arteries etc) So, let’s say someone over consumes 500 calries per day, or 3500 per week which is a 1lb of fat. Over one year that’s 52lbs or 3.7 stone - over 6 years that’s 300 extra lbs. There are very very few people who consume even at that level. Over a 60 year lifetime there is not a lot of wriggle room if we think calries restriction is the way to go I suspect it’s part of the “food is a class issue / some people are genetically disadvantaged / social taste as gatekeeper of power “ morass

onetimeuse92304 3y ago
I was obese before I lost weight (now BMR 21). I calculated, that my obesity amounted to 1 teaspoon of sugar extra, every day. Our bodies are excellent, miraculous regulating machines if they can stay within those tolerances regardless of what kind of shit we put in. The bad news is, for everybody who wants to lose weight, that we have much less free will when it comes to eating than we think. To lose weight long term we need to fix whatever caused the regulating machinery to malfunction as we can't really eat less (over long term).
- XorNot 3y ago
  I have no idea how you determined this: 16 calories a day (1 teaspoon of sugar) would make no difference either way. Your day to day metabolism is not that precise, nor are calorie counts on packaging.
  - onetimeuse92304 3y ago
    I think you misunderstood. I don't count calories. It does not work most of the time. What I mean I calculated that amount of extra fat I gained over so many decades and divided it by the number of days and converted to amount of teaspons of sugar.
    - helboi4 3y ago