New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats(salk.edu)
salk.edu
New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats
https://www.salk.edu/news-release/eat-less-live-longer/
101 comments
To echo other replies, ketogenic and other diets diets with specific protocols (IF) do work, but primarily for behavioral reasons. That is, you’re just not that hungry. Or if you eliminate an entire meal (IF), you ”save” a ton of calories.
Yes there are subtleties around actual macronutrient composition and gut flora, but the effect appears to be minimal. Find a keto person eating 5000 calories of bacon per day and I guarantee they’re not losing weight.
For what it’s worth: I’m a big fan of keto for cuts.
Yes there are subtleties around actual macronutrient composition and gut flora, but the effect appears to be minimal. Find a keto person eating 5000 calories of bacon per day and I guarantee they’re not losing weight.
For what it’s worth: I’m a big fan of keto for cuts.
This actually isn’t entirely true. You’re operating under the “energy in-energy out” theory of weight loss, but human regulation of body fat is more complicated than that.
Specifically, we store energy in adipose tissue in the form of body fat after a meal (think of it like storing data on disk) and then when we are low on energy we burn that fat (load that data “in-memory”). However, a lot regulates when we burn fat. Blood sugar and insulin levels signal to the body not to burn fat and those come directly from carbohydrates. Additionally, carbohydrates are the initial energy source that is turned to fat. So with no carbs all your body knows how to do is burn fat for energy, and no additional intake of carbs means that there is no excess energy to store as fat to begin with. So, actually, even with a 5000 calorie diet you might see some weight loss... because your body has literally nothing (no carbs) to store as fat.
However, keto and low carb diets do have the benefit of the fact that they are entirely sustainable (unless you’re really addicted to bread) so I agree in that way they are behavioral :P
Specifically, we store energy in adipose tissue in the form of body fat after a meal (think of it like storing data on disk) and then when we are low on energy we burn that fat (load that data “in-memory”). However, a lot regulates when we burn fat. Blood sugar and insulin levels signal to the body not to burn fat and those come directly from carbohydrates. Additionally, carbohydrates are the initial energy source that is turned to fat. So with no carbs all your body knows how to do is burn fat for energy, and no additional intake of carbs means that there is no excess energy to store as fat to begin with. So, actually, even with a 5000 calorie diet you might see some weight loss... because your body has literally nothing (no carbs) to store as fat.
However, keto and low carb diets do have the benefit of the fact that they are entirely sustainable (unless you’re really addicted to bread) so I agree in that way they are behavioral :P
> You’re operating under the “energy in-energy out” theory of weight loss, but human regulation of body fat is more complicated than that.
I hear the "energy in-energy out" being dismissed like this often, and while I do agree with you that our bodies are more complex than that, I want to say that in practice this adage more or less just works, indeed to the degree that it's valuable to have in common knowledge to inspire folks to lose fat.
Particularly, if you want to lose fat, you reduce your caloric intake (and what you are consuming, shoot for higher protein intake and lower carb intake). In addition to this, do some aerobic exercises. This is really it. If you do this you're nearly guaranteed to lose fat. I did this, my peers did this, it's really simple, the only hard part is finding the motivation to start and having faithful long-term committal to a routine.
I hear the "energy in-energy out" being dismissed like this often, and while I do agree with you that our bodies are more complex than that, I want to say that in practice this adage more or less just works, indeed to the degree that it's valuable to have in common knowledge to inspire folks to lose fat.
Particularly, if you want to lose fat, you reduce your caloric intake (and what you are consuming, shoot for higher protein intake and lower carb intake). In addition to this, do some aerobic exercises. This is really it. If you do this you're nearly guaranteed to lose fat. I did this, my peers did this, it's really simple, the only hard part is finding the motivation to start and having faithful long-term committal to a routine.
The thing is that "energy in-energy out" works if you make some changes while keeping everything else constant.... and we're really, really bad at keeping everything else constant.
Add extra activity, and the natural effect will be an increased appetite that'll nudge you to eat more calories - and it's not a given the effect of that extra activity will be a calorie deficit, the increase in appetite can easily be more than what you spent in those exercises.
If you try to reduce caloric intake, that's a very different beast than actually reducing caloric intake - if you try to reduce caloric intake by skipping carbs at lunch, it can result in reduced activity (so less calories out) and a strong nudge to "cheat" at other meals or snacks; and again it's plausible to get to a situation where the unintended compensation is larger (and opposite) than the behavior modification that you made.
That is the problem with the "energy in-energy out" model - one does not simply change the 'energy in' or 'energy out' part and expect that other things will stay constant either magically or through sheer willpower.
Add extra activity, and the natural effect will be an increased appetite that'll nudge you to eat more calories - and it's not a given the effect of that extra activity will be a calorie deficit, the increase in appetite can easily be more than what you spent in those exercises.
If you try to reduce caloric intake, that's a very different beast than actually reducing caloric intake - if you try to reduce caloric intake by skipping carbs at lunch, it can result in reduced activity (so less calories out) and a strong nudge to "cheat" at other meals or snacks; and again it's plausible to get to a situation where the unintended compensation is larger (and opposite) than the behavior modification that you made.
That is the problem with the "energy in-energy out" model - one does not simply change the 'energy in' or 'energy out' part and expect that other things will stay constant either magically or through sheer willpower.
So, yes and no. That's why I said "primarily." It's wayyyyy more complicated than calories-in vs calories-out. But 90% of it does come down to that. More importantly though, you need to define what "calories-in" means.
I like to think of a silly extreme. If I drink a gallon of gasoline, I've technically consumed what, a billion calories? But I won't gain a single gram.[1] Why? There's no metabolic pathway to convert gasoline to ATP.
If you take that silly example and moderate it, you can see how different factors, including genetics, gut flora, adaptation, etc could affect what is even processed and thus part of the "in" variable.
More concrete, well known examples:
- If you consume 5000 calories of just protein, the metabolic pathway to convert to lipids is extremely inefficient. You will mostly excrete the excess. - Similar with pure ethanol. If you drank just alcohol (and nothing else), there is no metabolic pathway to convert this to fat. - Even carbs. If you just ate 5000 calories of pure carbs, de novo lipogenesis (metabolic pathway for carbs -> fat) is rather inefficient. You will gain weight but less than the 5000 - expenditure. A lot of it is burnt off as heat. - Sadly, for ketoers: the dietary fat to lipid pathway is extremely efficient. Almost 90% of excess will be stored as fat.[2]
See a pattern here? The reality of the typical diet is that we don't just eat one macronutrient. We mix them. And specific ratios are what make food hyper palatable and thus so easy to overeat. Once you start mixing things up, it basically - and I mean basically - comes down to calories in vs calories out.
[1] In fact, I would likely die. [2] As another commenter mentioned, there was one guy who just ate fat and well in excess of his BMR and apparently lost weight. I'm skeptical, but could believe it simply because it follows the trend: consuming just one can "bend" the rules.
I like to think of a silly extreme. If I drink a gallon of gasoline, I've technically consumed what, a billion calories? But I won't gain a single gram.[1] Why? There's no metabolic pathway to convert gasoline to ATP.
If you take that silly example and moderate it, you can see how different factors, including genetics, gut flora, adaptation, etc could affect what is even processed and thus part of the "in" variable.
More concrete, well known examples:
- If you consume 5000 calories of just protein, the metabolic pathway to convert to lipids is extremely inefficient. You will mostly excrete the excess. - Similar with pure ethanol. If you drank just alcohol (and nothing else), there is no metabolic pathway to convert this to fat. - Even carbs. If you just ate 5000 calories of pure carbs, de novo lipogenesis (metabolic pathway for carbs -> fat) is rather inefficient. You will gain weight but less than the 5000 - expenditure. A lot of it is burnt off as heat. - Sadly, for ketoers: the dietary fat to lipid pathway is extremely efficient. Almost 90% of excess will be stored as fat.[2]
See a pattern here? The reality of the typical diet is that we don't just eat one macronutrient. We mix them. And specific ratios are what make food hyper palatable and thus so easy to overeat. Once you start mixing things up, it basically - and I mean basically - comes down to calories in vs calories out.
[1] In fact, I would likely die. [2] As another commenter mentioned, there was one guy who just ate fat and well in excess of his BMR and apparently lost weight. I'm skeptical, but could believe it simply because it follows the trend: consuming just one can "bend" the rules.
Would be curious about the evidence you have that dietary fat is stored as (noticeable) body fat? 70% of the body is fat. Specifically, what evidence is there that dietary fat stored in a way that makes it so that it appears as noticeable body fat and causes meaningful weight gain?
This is a great read:
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
Never mind the clickbait-ey domain. Lyle McDonald is a nutrition authority and well respected. Though on forums he’s self-admittedly volatile.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
Never mind the clickbait-ey domain. Lyle McDonald is a nutrition authority and well respected. Though on forums he’s self-admittedly volatile.
Lyle's (science) problem is that he runs with every new paper, ignoring the fact that it directly contradicts the paper he touted last year.
21 years ago (I mean this literally, I read him then) he was touting on MFW how the discovery of leptin was going to render dieting obsolete in less than a decade.
He has a lot of good content, but it's always decisive, even when some is rong.
21 years ago (I mean this literally, I read him then) he was touting on MFW how the discovery of leptin was going to render dieting obsolete in less than a decade.
He has a lot of good content, but it's always decisive, even when some is rong.
Fair enough, I think nutritional science is in its nascent stages, so the whole thing is pretty vague and on shaky ground. However, some cursory empirical evidence does back most of his claims around fat gain. At least to my armchair-nutritionist satisfaction.
Anecdata, everyone's favorite - I've seen someone gain no weight eating near 100% protein, while way over their TDEE. Kid you not, 4000 kcal of lean protein and mustard.
Also morbidly, you've got alcoholics (spirits), also traditionally under weight while consuming far in excess of their TDEE in ethanol (7 kcal per gram).
So some of it can be tested in the field!
Anecdata, everyone's favorite - I've seen someone gain no weight eating near 100% protein, while way over their TDEE. Kid you not, 4000 kcal of lean protein and mustard.
Also morbidly, you've got alcoholics (spirits), also traditionally under weight while consuming far in excess of their TDEE in ethanol (7 kcal per gram).
So some of it can be tested in the field!
He was always big on pure caloric arithmetic, insisting that microbiome, macronutrient ratios, feeding/fasting timing, etc. couldn't possibly matter because no papers he liked said so.
>I like to think of a silly extreme. If I drink a gallon of gasoline, I've technically consumed what, a billion calories? But I won't gain a single gram.[1] Why? There's no metabolic pathway to convert gasoline to ATP.
26579 kcal
26579 kcal
You did the math!
How can the body, given 5000 kcal in fat not store any of that fat in the adipose tissue?
Your body responds to the intake of carbohydrates by creating insulin which regulates the storage of carbohydrates as “body fat” (see: glycogen). Overall, your body is 70% fat (cell membranes, for example). In other words, dietary fat != body fat and there is no reason that your body would store it as such (in adipose tissue), it actually, mechanistically, as far as I know, cannot.
As other commenters have pointed out, the pathway of converting dietary fat to body fat is extremely efficient compared to the ones for carbs and proteins. The body has ways to store or convert most of the macro nutrients to fat when needed, insulin spikes help with that but aren't the only mechanism to trigger fat storage.
Is that a typo? Glycogen is not a lipid. Do you mean glycerol?
But glycogen is not fat in the adipose tissue. Glycogen goes into muscles and is a ready fuel, fuel ready for fast metabolic burn. The metabolism to turn carbohydrates and protein into fat is insanely inefficient compared to just storing fat as fat.
And fat is the first thing to get stored when there's an insulin spike, not to mention the carbs+fat combination is the thing that creates insulin resistance exactly because of the fat messing everything up.
So I'm thinking, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you are just repeating some keto "truth" that does not really make sense. Because when I googled that, the only sources were pretty much some keto promoting pages.
And fat is the first thing to get stored when there's an insulin spike, not to mention the carbs+fat combination is the thing that creates insulin resistance exactly because of the fat messing everything up.
So I'm thinking, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you are just repeating some keto "truth" that does not really make sense. Because when I googled that, the only sources were pretty much some keto promoting pages.
One other practical aspect of this: it is largely unpalatable to eat exclusively protein and fats in large quantities. It is easy to load up on carbs.
Keto works well in my opinion because of the way humans self negotiate. It's far easier to have a list of yes/no items. No fries, bread, burgers versus calorie counting every food (even in simplified systems like weight watchers). Sure eat all the bacon you want, but it works to limit eating out and limits unhealthy fried foods and take out.
Personal anecdote: my bread tolerance dropped dramatically on a 6 month keto stint. Sandwiches were gross there's just Soo much bread! Yuck! Then I got used to it again but now I stick with mostly rice/beans and have maintained my weight loss which is great
Personal anecdote: my bread tolerance dropped dramatically on a 6 month keto stint. Sandwiches were gross there's just Soo much bread! Yuck! Then I got used to it again but now I stick with mostly rice/beans and have maintained my weight loss which is great
You may be on to something there. I lowered carbs to well below the typical American diet, but nowhere near were the popular low carb diets go. I aimed for at most 40% of calories from carbs, and actually came in at 30-35%.
It's perhaps not as easy as a yes/no list, but 40% is very easy to figure out from the nutrition label:
max_carbs = calories x 1 g carbs / 10 calories
For example, a Sausage McMuffin w/Egg at McD is 480 calories, so as long as it has no more than 48 g of carbs, it's OK. (It has 28 g).
Make every item on your meal satisfy the 40% criteria, and the meal as a whole will.
Slightly up the effort scale, you can keep a running total of how much you are over or under for the day. Say you are going to get the Sausage McMuffin w/Egg for breakfast. That puts you 20 g of carb ahead. How about adding some McD Donut Sticks to the meal? 280 calories, 33 g of carb. That's 5 g too many carbs for the item to be 40%. But the McMuffin is putting you 20 g ahead, so losing 5 g won't mess up your overall meal. Go ahead and have those Donut Sticks if you like them.
It's perhaps not as easy as a yes/no list, but 40% is very easy to figure out from the nutrition label:
max_carbs = calories x 1 g carbs / 10 calories
For example, a Sausage McMuffin w/Egg at McD is 480 calories, so as long as it has no more than 48 g of carbs, it's OK. (It has 28 g).
Make every item on your meal satisfy the 40% criteria, and the meal as a whole will.
Slightly up the effort scale, you can keep a running total of how much you are over or under for the day. Say you are going to get the Sausage McMuffin w/Egg for breakfast. That puts you 20 g of carb ahead. How about adding some McD Donut Sticks to the meal? 280 calories, 33 g of carb. That's 5 g too many carbs for the item to be 40%. But the McMuffin is putting you 20 g ahead, so losing 5 g won't mess up your overall meal. Go ahead and have those Donut Sticks if you like them.
>That is, you’re just not that hungry. Or if you eliminate an entire meal (IF), you ”save” a ton of calories.
Or you replace high calorie food with food that does not have much calories. Like lettuce salad, which has like 17kcal. Then you would need to eat over 10kg lettuce salad to get the required 2000 kcal. That is hard to do and hard to overeat
Or you replace high calorie food with food that does not have much calories. Like lettuce salad, which has like 17kcal. Then you would need to eat over 10kg lettuce salad to get the required 2000 kcal. That is hard to do and hard to overeat
I remember reading about a guy who did just this (eat bacon every day and only bacon) and lost a bunch of weight. I can't vouch for the truth, safety, or context of this though. Googling turns it up, fwiw.
> Can you imagine being at least a little hungry for 20 years
But think of how that discomfort will make time pass more slowly. It'll be like adding two years to your life!
But think of how that discomfort will make time pass more slowly. It'll be like adding two years to your life!
That’s a bit of BS. You don’t loose weight magically because of macronutrients. Bollocks.
You loose weight, because you burn your excess fat. Without restricting your intake, there is no reason for your body to burn your fat reserves and that’s why you won’t loose weight just with low carb and same total calories.
(You may loose some water, but not fat).
On a ketogenic diet, your body is constantly using fat as fuel, which makes it easier to eat less calories and be less hungry. Also ditching carbs prevents insulin spikes, which impact a lot how you feel and act.
I lost +30kg with restricting my calory intake by ~25% (calculated on the energy value of the fat loss per month) and keto helped me to not feel hungry and also skip a meal or two without any impact on my energy level.
You loose weight, because you burn your excess fat. Without restricting your intake, there is no reason for your body to burn your fat reserves and that’s why you won’t loose weight just with low carb and same total calories.
(You may loose some water, but not fat).
On a ketogenic diet, your body is constantly using fat as fuel, which makes it easier to eat less calories and be less hungry. Also ditching carbs prevents insulin spikes, which impact a lot how you feel and act.
I lost +30kg with restricting my calory intake by ~25% (calculated on the energy value of the fat loss per month) and keto helped me to not feel hungry and also skip a meal or two without any impact on my energy level.
I don't think you can really dismiss macro-nutrient allocation as a factor. The metabolic pathways for fats and carbohydrates are just way different. For some reason people think that this stuff works like a gas tank, where all that matters is how much fuel you pour in, but the evidence clearly shows that what kind of fuel you pour in is incredibly important.
If you think about how incredibly complicated things like nutrients and proteins are, and how insanely complicated the body is, it makes sense. We've evolved so that we can eat almost anything, but that doesn't mean that we should eat anything. The evidence seems to point towards carbohydrates being something that should be eaten when there's a large energy demand and otherwise should be kept low.
If you think about how incredibly complicated things like nutrients and proteins are, and how insanely complicated the body is, it makes sense. We've evolved so that we can eat almost anything, but that doesn't mean that we should eat anything. The evidence seems to point towards carbohydrates being something that should be eaten when there's a large energy demand and otherwise should be kept low.
It really is like a gas tank. Just like everything else in the universe, we are regulated by the laws of physics. You can't move (live) without expending energy, and all energy put in must be transformed or stored. It's thermodynamics.
Science says you're wrong:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28765272
"risk for obesity is primarily determined by total calorie intake"
The macro nutrients certainly matter in the details, but not so much in the overall picture. It does mostly work like a gas tank, and the energy content in good is literally measured in [kJ].
Fat has a lot of stored energy, why on the planet, do people believe the body is able to create and store energy out of thin air?
And it exactly works the opposite way, the body will use the stored energy in the fat if there's not alternative.
"risk for obesity is primarily determined by total calorie intake"
The macro nutrients certainly matter in the details, but not so much in the overall picture. It does mostly work like a gas tank, and the energy content in good is literally measured in [kJ].
Fat has a lot of stored energy, why on the planet, do people believe the body is able to create and store energy out of thin air?
And it exactly works the opposite way, the body will use the stored energy in the fat if there's not alternative.
> "Science says you're wrong"
Please don't use dismissive internet tropes like that on HN. It's of course fine to cite a study, but no single study is "Science".
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please don't use dismissive internet tropes like that on HN. It's of course fine to cite a study, but no single study is "Science".
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[deleted]
> If you’re skeptical of this try dropping your caloric intake by 30% for two weeks and tell me how you feel :)
I’ve done so for three weeks this month because of money issue (only one real very balanced meal a day, few biscuits on the evening) while also increasing physical exercise (walking between 5 to 7km a day) and I plan to adopt a similar diet for a longer time. The hunger was not very hard the manage and I even felt better than before. Overall I feel I have been more productive than usual. I also have sleep issue but I felt consistently less sleepy during the day than previously when eating a lot.
I’ve done so for three weeks this month because of money issue (only one real very balanced meal a day, few biscuits on the evening) while also increasing physical exercise (walking between 5 to 7km a day) and I plan to adopt a similar diet for a longer time. The hunger was not very hard the manage and I even felt better than before. Overall I feel I have been more productive than usual. I also have sleep issue but I felt consistently less sleepy during the day than previously when eating a lot.
Agreed, although I also think intermittent fasting is a good way to reduce calories. Its a lot easier to skip a meal than it is to plan out 3 meals a day with like 20% less calories
Not hard using IF, you could cut 30% and still feel full at least once a day.
Somewhat tangential. I often see people treating different diet restrictions that make you healthier as if they were competitors. Low carb/high fat, versus low calories, versus intermittent fasting. They imagine the different orientations as startups in a winner-takes-all market and pump their preferred one against the others.
I think a better way to frame a healthy diet is that you should aim to follow all three and realize that they (obviously) help each other work. These are collaborative orientations, not competitive.
You can control i) what you eat (low carb/high fat), ii) when you eat (intermittent fasting), and iii) how much you eat (low calories).
You should be following at least one of them at all times, two of them often, all three of them sometimes.
I think a better way to frame a healthy diet is that you should aim to follow all three and realize that they (obviously) help each other work. These are collaborative orientations, not competitive.
You can control i) what you eat (low carb/high fat), ii) when you eat (intermittent fasting), and iii) how much you eat (low calories).
You should be following at least one of them at all times, two of them often, all three of them sometimes.
I agree, there's different strategies for different scenarios. However your 3 scenarios don't take into account highly active people who are in shape. When losing fat, I ate less carbs, and did intermittent fasting. But once I had built muscle and kept exercising I need those carbs as short-term energy.
Carbs are fuel, if you're not exercising you don't need much fuel, and can probably run on your fat reserves. I'm on a high carb, high protein, low fat diet now, which wouldn't be viable if I stop exercising.
Carbs are fuel, if you're not exercising you don't need much fuel, and can probably run on your fat reserves. I'm on a high carb, high protein, low fat diet now, which wouldn't be viable if I stop exercising.
Another thing to consider is that everyone are different. Some respond well on low-carb even when building muscle, while it never work for others.
I am not advocating the author nor the diet but there was a book on blood types diet that proposes certain foods are better or worse based on our blood types.
As with methods for sharpening knives, the best diet is the one you actually do
Totally agree. Each diet may affect different pathways; we probably want to engage in all of them to a degree.
Recently I have been pondering how we should eat if higher protein increases all-cause mortality and higher carb diets increase all-cause mortality, so I've come up with my seasonality hypothesis: basically we would experience periods of lower carb or lower protein diets historically, which would engage each of these various beneficial pathways we have.
For instance, and this is my hypothesis: we wouldn't eat wooly mammoth for breakfast lunch and dinner every day, we would eat nothing but it for three days, once a month. Dense carbs would come sporadically ("yay, we found a bee hive" twice a year) and fruits (carbs) would blossom in either only spring or fall.
Recently I have been pondering how we should eat if higher protein increases all-cause mortality and higher carb diets increase all-cause mortality, so I've come up with my seasonality hypothesis: basically we would experience periods of lower carb or lower protein diets historically, which would engage each of these various beneficial pathways we have.
For instance, and this is my hypothesis: we wouldn't eat wooly mammoth for breakfast lunch and dinner every day, we would eat nothing but it for three days, once a month. Dense carbs would come sporadically ("yay, we found a bee hive" twice a year) and fruits (carbs) would blossom in either only spring or fall.
While you are possibly correct that those may be somewhat realistic historic diets, why do you think they would be favorable to a longer, healthier life?
Evolution doesn't generally optimize for longevity, it only optimizes for reproduction. The lifespan of most animals in the wild is much shorter than what can be achieved with a carefully controlled diet.
Evolution doesn't generally optimize for longevity, it only optimizes for reproduction. The lifespan of most animals in the wild is much shorter than what can be achieved with a carefully controlled diet.
Humans have a long childhood and even the availability of the grandparents can increase the chances of survival of the child. So we adapted to live longer.
Reminds me of cephalopods and their outright suicidal reproduction in contrast. It involved a specific gland and when removed they would starve themselves to death anyway.
Granted it is a very different niche in the ecosystem but it hints that it is a matter of self-perpetuation where longer lifespan in this case is a side effect.
Granted it is a very different niche in the ecosystem but it hints that it is a matter of self-perpetuation where longer lifespan in this case is a side effect.
Is there any proof that more primitive humans (ones who ate a more natural diet, I mean) lived longer or had other benefits (e.g. seem younger at older ages)?
Fat. Why not consider the third macronutrient?
I've done strict calorie tracking for restriction, keto as well as IF.
The best I've ever felt was keto, the easiest for me to adhere to was calorie tracking. It's marginally harder if you eat out a lot, but if you cook for yourself and can throw everything on a food scale for a week or so until you get an idea of what's servings of your most commonly-eaten foods looks like, tracking calories made losing weight for me and reducing my daily eating almost comically easy. There's a switch in my brain somewhere that works really well when I have to enter the calories of everything that goes in my mouth into an app....suddenly that cookie or those chips that were so hard to resist aren't a thing for me at all....my brain manages to yell "200 calories for THAT?? Nope." I found myself eating more at the end of the day just to hit my total calories and macros.
The best I've ever felt was keto, the easiest for me to adhere to was calorie tracking. It's marginally harder if you eat out a lot, but if you cook for yourself and can throw everything on a food scale for a week or so until you get an idea of what's servings of your most commonly-eaten foods looks like, tracking calories made losing weight for me and reducing my daily eating almost comically easy. There's a switch in my brain somewhere that works really well when I have to enter the calories of everything that goes in my mouth into an app....suddenly that cookie or those chips that were so hard to resist aren't a thing for me at all....my brain manages to yell "200 calories for THAT?? Nope." I found myself eating more at the end of the day just to hit my total calories and macros.
The easiest way I found to stay on a diet as a lifestyle (instead of dieting for a bit and then stopping and regaining the weight) is alternate day fasting.
I found I can't just decide never again to eat the things I like and never again feel sated. Feeling hungry constantly isn't exactly my idea for the rest of my life.
Alternate day fasting lets me survive a day with no calories knowing that the next day I can be sated and eat (almost) whatever I want.
I have also found that when I eat every other day I put much more attention to what I eat on those days -- I mean, if I just did not eat yesterday and I won't eat tomorrow I want to eat well today. Even if I am going to eat sweets -- I will try to go for something better and not feed myself with garbage.
I also found that alternate day fasting is good willpower training. Being able to restrict myself from eating for an entire day somehow trains me to be better at other things that require willpower.
I found I can't just decide never again to eat the things I like and never again feel sated. Feeling hungry constantly isn't exactly my idea for the rest of my life.
Alternate day fasting lets me survive a day with no calories knowing that the next day I can be sated and eat (almost) whatever I want.
I have also found that when I eat every other day I put much more attention to what I eat on those days -- I mean, if I just did not eat yesterday and I won't eat tomorrow I want to eat well today. Even if I am going to eat sweets -- I will try to go for something better and not feed myself with garbage.
I also found that alternate day fasting is good willpower training. Being able to restrict myself from eating for an entire day somehow trains me to be better at other things that require willpower.
So are you saying that you continually eat only every other day? Or is this just something you do time to time? Curious as much as anything. How long have you been doing this?
I have lost 25kg (55 pounds) over a course of a year. Half of that was intermittent fasting (one day eating for about 10 hours, then no calories for the rest, about 38 hours) but accounts for 3/4 of results.
When not eating I would not eat or drink anything that has any calories in it. I typically drink water, black coffee or green tea.
I have also tried longer fasts from time to time (2-7 days typically, 2 weeks once) and then I would supplement with vitamins, l-tryptophan and lean broth/bone broth in moderate quantities (a cup a day), just for safety and general well-being (l-tryptophan is precursor to serotonin and mildly anti-depressant).
Intermittent fasting is hard at the beginning but after about 2 weeks I get used to new regime. It seems it is the same every time I start it anew. It might be getting easier but I think that's because I already know what to expect.
Also, when intermittent fasting it is much easier to start longer fast. I find, when fasting for more than 2 days first two days to be the hardest.
When not eating I would not eat or drink anything that has any calories in it. I typically drink water, black coffee or green tea.
I have also tried longer fasts from time to time (2-7 days typically, 2 weeks once) and then I would supplement with vitamins, l-tryptophan and lean broth/bone broth in moderate quantities (a cup a day), just for safety and general well-being (l-tryptophan is precursor to serotonin and mildly anti-depressant).
Intermittent fasting is hard at the beginning but after about 2 weeks I get used to new regime. It seems it is the same every time I start it anew. It might be getting easier but I think that's because I already know what to expect.
Also, when intermittent fasting it is much easier to start longer fast. I find, when fasting for more than 2 days first two days to be the hardest.
That's interesting, because while I think keto is great in a lot of ways, I've never felt my best on it. It just doesn't give me the energy I need to be effective in the gym.
What I've discovered doing 72 hour fasts is that what I eat when I refeed matters a lot less than when I'm eating throughout the day. Keto made a big difference in my initial weight loss journey, but I find it to be somewhat miserable for maintenance. Yet, with fasting at least 48 hours, I discovered that the macro composition matters a lot less in relation to ketosis. In my eating window, I can eat rice, fruit, etc., and it will knock me out of ketosis for a short while but I'll usually be right back in ketosis between 24 and 48 hours from then. I feel much better in general getting a small amount of calories in, and it hasn't significantly effected my weight loss. In fact, when I was sick a few weeks ago, I stopped fasting and basically ate berries all week. The following week, I went back into a 72 hour fasting routine and still managed to lose a few pounds from where I was at before I got sick.
Put simply, I think the longer a fast is, the less that the need for keto matters. Keto combined with IF can work for a lot of people, and in a lot of ways they are complimentary in their benefits, but people can also tip the balance in favor of either more keto or more fasting and find their own combination that achieves their goals.
What I've discovered doing 72 hour fasts is that what I eat when I refeed matters a lot less than when I'm eating throughout the day. Keto made a big difference in my initial weight loss journey, but I find it to be somewhat miserable for maintenance. Yet, with fasting at least 48 hours, I discovered that the macro composition matters a lot less in relation to ketosis. In my eating window, I can eat rice, fruit, etc., and it will knock me out of ketosis for a short while but I'll usually be right back in ketosis between 24 and 48 hours from then. I feel much better in general getting a small amount of calories in, and it hasn't significantly effected my weight loss. In fact, when I was sick a few weeks ago, I stopped fasting and basically ate berries all week. The following week, I went back into a 72 hour fasting routine and still managed to lose a few pounds from where I was at before I got sick.
Put simply, I think the longer a fast is, the less that the need for keto matters. Keto combined with IF can work for a lot of people, and in a lot of ways they are complimentary in their benefits, but people can also tip the balance in favor of either more keto or more fasting and find their own combination that achieves their goals.
I've found this to be the case too. Been on mostly keto for roughly 2-3 years, done several short and long fasts, and I test my blood daily. There were days after fasting and then eating something that really should've knocked me out of ketosis where it barely made a dent. The whole thing is really very interesting.
Since people are sharing anecdotes I might as well share mine. I’ve personally tried IF, keto, calorie counting, and various combinations of all three. I’ve only ever lost weight when doing some form of calorie counting, and since that’s easiest for me without putting other restrictions on my diet, I’ve settled on just tracking calories long term.
I have a lot of success with high fat / high protein diets because they let me function better with lower calories.
I subscribe to the church of keto / slow carb in broad strokes. I think there is a hormonal element that we don’t fully appreciate that relates to our ability to lose weight effectively.
My frustration with pure calories in / calories out is the rumination I do with how much calories we really extract from certain foods. I am convinced (as some science agrees) 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of bacon aren’t handled the same. I also wonder about how some people must have faster digestive systems and if it moves through faster are you still extracting the same calories as someone else...
I subscribe to the church of keto / slow carb in broad strokes. I think there is a hormonal element that we don’t fully appreciate that relates to our ability to lose weight effectively.
My frustration with pure calories in / calories out is the rumination I do with how much calories we really extract from certain foods. I am convinced (as some science agrees) 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of bacon aren’t handled the same. I also wonder about how some people must have faster digestive systems and if it moves through faster are you still extracting the same calories as someone else...
From what I understand, 100 calories of bacon and 100 calories of sugar is the same. Though there are other compounds in those that may trigger effects in your body.
That said, how calories are measured is from an average approximation. It is true that different people may yield slightly more or less calories from the same foods. Calories are what your body extracts from the food post digestion.
That said, I've never seen strong indicators that the maximum and minimum are that far apart. So it could be that you are a huge outlier and your body extracts way more calories from food A then the average person, or way less. But I think those chances are slim, that is, for you to be such an outlier.
That said, how calories are measured is from an average approximation. It is true that different people may yield slightly more or less calories from the same foods. Calories are what your body extracts from the food post digestion.
That said, I've never seen strong indicators that the maximum and minimum are that far apart. So it could be that you are a huge outlier and your body extracts way more calories from food A then the average person, or way less. But I think those chances are slim, that is, for you to be such an outlier.
Do we actually know whether these effects are triggered by calorie restriction in general, as opposed to restriction of some specific nutrient that's happening incidentally to the calorie restriction protocol? I seem to remember some reports from ~10 years ago that protein restriction, and possibly even restriction of specific amino acids, has shown similar effects.
I think it’s very clear that is the calorie restriction that’s increasing lifespan. It’s worked across many studies on almost every organism tested
Have we ever gotten clarity on whether these are starvation diets pushing the subjects below what would normally be considered healthy weight? Vs reining in over-eating behavior?
E.g. if we imagine running this on humans, are we talking about a BMI of 20, or 16?
E.g. if we imagine running this on humans, are we talking about a BMI of 20, or 16?
If I'm remembering correctly, it's been replicated from rats to yeast cells, so there's probably a mechanism that goes beyond what's eaten.
Many of the observed effects at least distantly remind me of the known effects of exercise.
I wonder if there's an intersection, e.g. without adjusting your eating habits, exercise results in an effectively calorie-restricted diet?
If there is no intersection, I wonder which is more valuable than the other? Not much exercise is going to be happening on a starvation diet.
I wonder if there's an intersection, e.g. without adjusting your eating habits, exercise results in an effectively calorie-restricted diet?
If there is no intersection, I wonder which is more valuable than the other? Not much exercise is going to be happening on a starvation diet.
I think during physical work your muscles consume glucose. Potentially large amounts. The liver gives up it's stores of glycogen. Afterwords the liver will efficiently take up glucose to replenish it's stores of glycogen. I think that dynamic is a lot better than the insulin mediated glucose to fat conversion dynamic you get with sedentary people.
I don't think I'm mentally capable of following this kind of diet for a very long time. It just makes you hungry and less productive. It also weakens you in terms of physical strength.
That's why I go to gym at least 3 times a week. I build muscle to increase my "static" calories burn - and obviously burn calories while lifting weight. I kicked sugar as well.
especially in lab rats, the null hypothesis is that lab rats eat too much and too regularly.
this may or may not generalize.
this may or may not generalize.
I watched part of Aubrey de Gray on Joe Rogan yesterday. He said that fasting (which is caloric restriction if not identical to it) has a smaller effect on lifespan for animals of greater mass:
Roughly
- worm: 5x longer lifespan by fasting
- mouse: 50% longer
- dog: 10% longer
- human: 1-2% longer
I'd be interested to hear support or refutations of this. It seems like something that should be pretty well studied by now.
Roughly
- worm: 5x longer lifespan by fasting
- mouse: 50% longer
- dog: 10% longer
- human: 1-2% longer
I'd be interested to hear support or refutations of this. It seems like something that should be pretty well studied by now.
I wish that it was possible to do a caloric restriction study on people who work out. I spent most of my 20s eating roughly twice as much as average and hitting the gym 3-4 times per week and I never felt better, especially after 20 rep squat sessions that naturally raise hormones like testosterone and HGH.
I occasionally cut calories to lose weight or train my metabolism to be "ready" for emergency situations (which was honestly camping or going broke, not exactly military excursions), but in my experience it basically felt like death. Like I could feel my body catabolizing muscle and I had flu-like symptoms if I took it too far for too many weeks.
Anecdotally, my parents' boomer generation felt that bodybuilding was generally a waste of time. If you watch old movies from the 60s and 70s, people were especially lean. And then unfortunately juicers in the 70s, 80s and 90s ruined the reputation of bodybuilding so everyone figured that being strong meant taking steroids. It's only been in the last 5-10 years or so that I've noticed a resurgence in natural bodybuilding (check out Jeff Nippard, Steve Cook and Mike O'Hearn for examples of what's possible natty).
So personally I really feel that lifting weights from about 15-16 years of age for life probably replicates many of the health effects of calorie restriction. Like, Arnold Schwarzenegger did some of his best work in his 40s when he was in better shape than most people in their 20s. Many athletes in their 70s and 80s look like they're 50.
An untrained human bench presses about 100 pounds. When I was growing up, a 300 pound bench was considered mastery. Today with YouTube and better workout programs and supplements, that's probably 400-500 pounds. I personally would choose to have 3-5 times average strength (anything above 4 is metahuman IMHO) rather than spend my life at a withered calorie restricted strength of 1/2.
Of course ethically, it would be better for the planet if nobody worked out I guess. That's a separate discussion though, and I feel that some of the downside could be alleviated if the extra calories came from relatively benign sources like rice and beans. So my question is, is this all just vanity? Or would a diet/exercise approach be comparable to calorie restriction?
I occasionally cut calories to lose weight or train my metabolism to be "ready" for emergency situations (which was honestly camping or going broke, not exactly military excursions), but in my experience it basically felt like death. Like I could feel my body catabolizing muscle and I had flu-like symptoms if I took it too far for too many weeks.
Anecdotally, my parents' boomer generation felt that bodybuilding was generally a waste of time. If you watch old movies from the 60s and 70s, people were especially lean. And then unfortunately juicers in the 70s, 80s and 90s ruined the reputation of bodybuilding so everyone figured that being strong meant taking steroids. It's only been in the last 5-10 years or so that I've noticed a resurgence in natural bodybuilding (check out Jeff Nippard, Steve Cook and Mike O'Hearn for examples of what's possible natty).
So personally I really feel that lifting weights from about 15-16 years of age for life probably replicates many of the health effects of calorie restriction. Like, Arnold Schwarzenegger did some of his best work in his 40s when he was in better shape than most people in their 20s. Many athletes in their 70s and 80s look like they're 50.
An untrained human bench presses about 100 pounds. When I was growing up, a 300 pound bench was considered mastery. Today with YouTube and better workout programs and supplements, that's probably 400-500 pounds. I personally would choose to have 3-5 times average strength (anything above 4 is metahuman IMHO) rather than spend my life at a withered calorie restricted strength of 1/2.
Of course ethically, it would be better for the planet if nobody worked out I guess. That's a separate discussion though, and I feel that some of the downside could be alleviated if the extra calories came from relatively benign sources like rice and beans. So my question is, is this all just vanity? Or would a diet/exercise approach be comparable to calorie restriction?
While I agreed on everything you said - I simply cannot get over the fact you mentioned Mike O'Hearn as someone who is natty. While this definitely is not a place for arguing about someone's physique or what's attainable naturally, I do not think duck eggs make you get and maintain that much muscle with height of 190cms and sub 10% body fat year around. Do not get me wrong, I have nothing against someone using steroids, but lying about is a bit unethical.
Ya I'm torn about him. I'm about the same height and weight as he is, although he is big-boned while I started out built like Doogie Howser. So when he graduated high school, he was already as heavy as I was at my prime and probably stronger too. He's 100-200 pounds stronger on every single compound lift than I am. But, ironically I've been using some of his powerbuilding and Mark Bell's powerlifting techniques to make gains even though I'm 42 years old.
I started lifting at 21 after 4 years of college drinking. I've been lifting for 20 years, all natty, but it was a struggle to make gains. Meanwhile I've met 18-19 year olds at my gym benching, squatting and deadlifting the same weight as me because they simply have more testosterone.
It turns out that literally all that matters in bodybuilding is consistency and periodicity. Mike O'Hearn is so strong primarily because as a celebrity, he had access to all the best food and supplements and never stopped training. He also had Robby Robinson, who introduced him to connective tissue training by alternating weeks of 2-3 sets of 12 with 7 sets of 3 using a full range of motion. The standard 8-12 rep workout pitched by gyms is only for hypertrophy and unfortunately is the worst for strength and power that I know of.
My feeling is that Mike MAY have dabbled in steroids early in his career, but there's no way to prove it. He almost certainly took testosterone boosters like horny goat weed or Robbie's TestoFuel during his 30s and 40s. And I guarantee that he has tried every supplement there is so he knows exactly how to get the coveted "dry" look that typically only people on performance enhancing drugs achieve. I've seen him eating tupperwares of just meat in his videos, and he has talked about eating several pounds of fruit before bed, so I think his diet also isn't typical. So to me, he is the gold standard of natural lifter, even though I'm only 70% sure that he never did steroids.
Incidentally, I also feel that most of Arnold's numbers were achievable individually without steroids, except his 22.5" arms, 57" chest and 27" shoulder span. Those would probably be about 20-21", 52" and 24" respectively for someone with the right genetics. My thighs for example are the same size as his, and Mike's are quite a bit bigger than either of ours. But most people can only get to 19" biceps without drugs.
I've already said too much about this, but if anyone wants to really gain mass as a natty, the only way that worked for me was to eat at least 4000 calories (4-5 full meals) per day, plan to gain at least 30 pounds over your target weight (bench press gains are proportional to body weight gains), and then DO NOT use a 5 day bro split. The best workout I found was a 4 day split of: legs, chest and bis, back and tris, shoulders. Also known as a push-pull workout. Unfortunately I didn't know about periodicity, so I did 5x5 over longer than 6 weeks cycles and wound up with injuries and tendonitis (so watch your elbows). Today I can only do 3-4 week cycles with a 1 week deload, alternating grips frequently with lots of narrow/wide and reverses to prevent injury.
I'm curious to hear other perspectives on this though.
I started lifting at 21 after 4 years of college drinking. I've been lifting for 20 years, all natty, but it was a struggle to make gains. Meanwhile I've met 18-19 year olds at my gym benching, squatting and deadlifting the same weight as me because they simply have more testosterone.
It turns out that literally all that matters in bodybuilding is consistency and periodicity. Mike O'Hearn is so strong primarily because as a celebrity, he had access to all the best food and supplements and never stopped training. He also had Robby Robinson, who introduced him to connective tissue training by alternating weeks of 2-3 sets of 12 with 7 sets of 3 using a full range of motion. The standard 8-12 rep workout pitched by gyms is only for hypertrophy and unfortunately is the worst for strength and power that I know of.
My feeling is that Mike MAY have dabbled in steroids early in his career, but there's no way to prove it. He almost certainly took testosterone boosters like horny goat weed or Robbie's TestoFuel during his 30s and 40s. And I guarantee that he has tried every supplement there is so he knows exactly how to get the coveted "dry" look that typically only people on performance enhancing drugs achieve. I've seen him eating tupperwares of just meat in his videos, and he has talked about eating several pounds of fruit before bed, so I think his diet also isn't typical. So to me, he is the gold standard of natural lifter, even though I'm only 70% sure that he never did steroids.
Incidentally, I also feel that most of Arnold's numbers were achievable individually without steroids, except his 22.5" arms, 57" chest and 27" shoulder span. Those would probably be about 20-21", 52" and 24" respectively for someone with the right genetics. My thighs for example are the same size as his, and Mike's are quite a bit bigger than either of ours. But most people can only get to 19" biceps without drugs.
I've already said too much about this, but if anyone wants to really gain mass as a natty, the only way that worked for me was to eat at least 4000 calories (4-5 full meals) per day, plan to gain at least 30 pounds over your target weight (bench press gains are proportional to body weight gains), and then DO NOT use a 5 day bro split. The best workout I found was a 4 day split of: legs, chest and bis, back and tris, shoulders. Also known as a push-pull workout. Unfortunately I didn't know about periodicity, so I did 5x5 over longer than 6 weeks cycles and wound up with injuries and tendonitis (so watch your elbows). Today I can only do 3-4 week cycles with a 1 week deload, alternating grips frequently with lots of narrow/wide and reverses to prevent injury.
I'm curious to hear other perspectives on this though.
Since most people aren't going to commit to bodybuilding 3-4x a week for life, I'd imagine a calorie-restricted diet is the superior option for them. Eating a lot and working a lot, might be superior to eating little and working out little, but eating a lot and working out little has to have the worst outcomes.
Seems to me like working out you just naturally need more calories. So it's the same thing - you use more calories than you eat. Like how Michael Phelps are something ridiculous like 10,000 calories a day while training.
You can eat like a pig and perform de facto caloric restriction if you work out hard enough. No need to subscribe to whatever diet religion is in vogue on instagram; just burn more calories than you take in and you will loose weight. It's a basic physics equation.
Original title:
“Eat less, live longer
Salk scientists show how caloric restriction prevents negative effects of aging in cells”
What it should have been: Are you a lab rat? Eat less, live longer! Salk scientists show how caloric restriction prevents negative effects of aging in cells of rats
What it should have been: Are you a lab rat? Eat less, live longer! Salk scientists show how caloric restriction prevents negative effects of aging in cells of rats
I have read that calorie restriction can "reset" the immune system. How do you eat calorie restricted diet without getting very thin?
If you eat 30% less than you should calories do you not eventually get so thin that you die from under nutrition?
If you eat 30% less than you should calories do you not eventually get so thin that you die from under nutrition?
It was 30% below a "normal diet" (presumably some reference diet for lab rats), not 30% below maintenance. Weight loss wouldn't continue indefinitely.
That would take literally months, or years. You don't need to do it for months at a time, just a few days/a week per month I believe
so how does this translate to my day to day?
can i skip breakfast and eat whatever i want for 6-8 hours, ala IF?
does the window of consumption not matter, and i just need to eat fewer calories on the day?
can i skip breakfast and eat whatever i want for 6-8 hours, ala IF?
does the window of consumption not matter, and i just need to eat fewer calories on the day?
I don't have any formal education on this topic, but I did lose a bunch of weight and keep it off, partly thru intermittent fasting, so I can offer anecdotal evidence.
For me, simply, it's easier to eat less calories if I intermittent fast. For some reason, if I don't eat breakfast or lunch, I find my hunger is actually sometimes lower, and I don't need to eat a bigger dinner to make up for it.
Certainly eating low-g.i\high-carb foods seems to make me get hungry again very easily.
I also had really good luck with keto, and sometimes a combination of both.
I believe the reason is something to do with blood sugar and insulin not spiking as much, but I'm not a biologist in the slightest.
For me, simply, it's easier to eat less calories if I intermittent fast. For some reason, if I don't eat breakfast or lunch, I find my hunger is actually sometimes lower, and I don't need to eat a bigger dinner to make up for it.
Certainly eating low-g.i\high-carb foods seems to make me get hungry again very easily.
I also had really good luck with keto, and sometimes a combination of both.
I believe the reason is something to do with blood sugar and insulin not spiking as much, but I'm not a biologist in the slightest.
>For me, simply, it's easier to eat less calories if I intermittent fast. For some reason, if I don't eat breakfast or lunch, I find my hunger is actually sometimes lower, and I don't need to eat a bigger dinner to make up for it.
That has been my experience as well. I feel full a lot more quickly with IF. Even if I fall off the wagon sometimes, I can count on IF as a quick way to fix overeating.
That has been my experience as well. I feel full a lot more quickly with IF. Even if I fall off the wagon sometimes, I can count on IF as a quick way to fix overeating.
Eat less & eat often - doctor recommended me once. And its works fine.
He also said fasting and "don't eat breakfast or lunch" are destructive, regular feeding matters.
That does sound like the "old" advice. Most of the work on IF that I've followed implicates insulin spikes as cutting of cellular "cleanup" mechanisms. Insulin spikes happen after meals. Eating less (less insulin), intermittent fasting (a break from insulin), and low carb (less insulin), all have shown to be effective ways to improve longevity, and all can be at least partially (perhaps mostly) explained by reducing insulin load. But perhaps that is simply one of the many effects.
Here's a guide that's not bad. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-gu...
Here's a guide that's not bad. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-gu...
Coming from a fasting fanatic, eating often but less can work for some people, but I don't think it works well for people who need to lose weight, whom make up a significant portion of the population. If you eat a small amount but eat often, you're less likely to put yourself into autophagy where your body will actually be using an appreciable amount of body fat to power itself. In order for a "grazing" diet to work for weight loss, people have to burn excess calories through exercising or eat very minimally. The average person won't keep up exercising for very long, especially when they aren't eating food that will give them the explosive energy that they need, and eating lots of low calorie food ends up making people miserable and causes yo-yo dieting.
There's nothing destructive about fasting, as long as the person isn't starving. A lot of people confuse fasting with starvation, but they're not the same thing. Body fat is food. As long as you have fat to burn, you're not starving. Few people are going to starve doing even 72 hour long fasts. The human body just doesn't require that many nutrients on an hourly basis. You won't die or get hurt by not eating kale for a few days.
It was common wisdom that skipping a meal was destructive, but it's becoming more accepted that it simply isn't true. It doesn't really make sense that we require the sheer amounts of food that we're eating on a regular basis. Most omnivores and carnivores aren't eating the equivalent of 3 meals a day, and are effectively practicing some form of fasting. If we're supposed to not skip breakfast, then all our ancestors must have been pretty unhealthy, yet fossil evidence doesn't really demonstrate this.
A grazing type diet can be perfectly fine for someone at a healthy weight, but they're not really benefiting from it in any way besides the enjoyment of eating. Even so, it depends on what the person is eating in the first place. If someone eats toast with jelly for breakfast, it's highly questionable whether they're getting any long term health benefit from that at all.
There's a plethora of information about this subject, and I don't have the time to cite it all here. I encourage you to update your knowledge here. Most general practitioners aren't well educated in nutrition, nor are they versed in the latest research, so your doctor may be operating on old wisdom that hasn't panned out.
There's nothing destructive about fasting, as long as the person isn't starving. A lot of people confuse fasting with starvation, but they're not the same thing. Body fat is food. As long as you have fat to burn, you're not starving. Few people are going to starve doing even 72 hour long fasts. The human body just doesn't require that many nutrients on an hourly basis. You won't die or get hurt by not eating kale for a few days.
It was common wisdom that skipping a meal was destructive, but it's becoming more accepted that it simply isn't true. It doesn't really make sense that we require the sheer amounts of food that we're eating on a regular basis. Most omnivores and carnivores aren't eating the equivalent of 3 meals a day, and are effectively practicing some form of fasting. If we're supposed to not skip breakfast, then all our ancestors must have been pretty unhealthy, yet fossil evidence doesn't really demonstrate this.
A grazing type diet can be perfectly fine for someone at a healthy weight, but they're not really benefiting from it in any way besides the enjoyment of eating. Even so, it depends on what the person is eating in the first place. If someone eats toast with jelly for breakfast, it's highly questionable whether they're getting any long term health benefit from that at all.
There's a plethora of information about this subject, and I don't have the time to cite it all here. I encourage you to update your knowledge here. Most general practitioners aren't well educated in nutrition, nor are they versed in the latest research, so your doctor may be operating on old wisdom that hasn't panned out.
I think a lot things have changed since that recommendation. And maybe your doctor has not kept themselves up to date with the new research. I am particularly referring to "don't eat breakfast is destructive".
IMO, nutrition is such a complex topic and I feel like we have only begun to start peeling the layers.
As an aside, did you know that the saying "Breakfast is the most important meal of the day" was invented by the founders of the Kellogs cereal?
IMO, nutrition is such a complex topic and I feel like we have only begun to start peeling the layers.
As an aside, did you know that the saying "Breakfast is the most important meal of the day" was invented by the founders of the Kellogs cereal?
I don't believe the research and evidence are going that way.
That being said, I will concede that specifically for some (not all) people with some eating disorders, restricting intake can be detrimental to recovery as it increases the chance of a binge later in the day. If you have binge eating disorder, be aware of that if you're considering intermittent fasting.
That being said, I will concede that specifically for some (not all) people with some eating disorders, restricting intake can be detrimental to recovery as it increases the chance of a binge later in the day. If you have binge eating disorder, be aware of that if you're considering intermittent fasting.
> That being said, I will concede that specifically for some (not all) people with some eating disorders, restricting intake can be detrimental to recovery as it increases the chance of a binge later in the day. If you have binge eating disorder, be aware of that if you're considering intermittent fasting.
This is exactly why I don't do that well with fasting, and I don't even have an eating disorder. With anything more than 16:8, it's very easy for me to start binge eating, so the whole thing becomes counterproductive.
Every time I seriously lose weight (usually twice a year, once after winter and once after Christmas), it's eating small, high protein/low-carb meals every 3 hours or so. That puts just enough volume into my stomach to keep the hunger pangs at bay.
This is exactly why I don't do that well with fasting, and I don't even have an eating disorder. With anything more than 16:8, it's very easy for me to start binge eating, so the whole thing becomes counterproductive.
Every time I seriously lose weight (usually twice a year, once after winter and once after Christmas), it's eating small, high protein/low-carb meals every 3 hours or so. That puts just enough volume into my stomach to keep the hunger pangs at bay.
Note: that advice is countered by modern nutrition that sees insulin spikes and serum insulin as a bad thing.
That's seems like outdated info.
[deleted]
Echoing TheRealSteel's comment: IF with a reduced carb diet has worked for me and was easy to adapt to and to follow.
That last point is the key: it's a lifestyle change, not a diet, so you need a regimen that is acceptable enough to actually make it a daily routine.
Fasting for a day or three is worth exploring as well and is much easier to do if you're already doing the aforementioned time/carb restricted approach.
That last point is the key: it's a lifestyle change, not a diet, so you need a regimen that is acceptable enough to actually make it a daily routine.
Fasting for a day or three is worth exploring as well and is much easier to do if you're already doing the aforementioned time/carb restricted approach.
1. Day to day, you can incorporate it many ways, preferably by intermittent fasting, but you don't _need_ to do intermittent fasting for caloric restriction, which means just eating less. (30% fewer calories according to this study)
2. Yes, it's what I do and I find it works well. If you love breakfast, skip dinner. If you say I love breakfast and I love dinner, well you just won't have the appetite for one of them because of your new ruitine, so it won't really matter. If you start eating at 12pm, you'll want to stop eating by 8pm. If you start eating at 6 am, you'll have your last meal of the day by like 3pm.
3. See above, but as soon as you start eating, the window is now open for business and you may indulge. Ideally, you'll want to compound all of this with a healthy, balanced diet with lots of water, good nights rest, exercise, and limiting stress.
It's basically applying a bunch of very simple principles, and sticking with it. The results will show, for sure. The biggest thing is getting in tune with your body and seeing what works best.
2. Yes, it's what I do and I find it works well. If you love breakfast, skip dinner. If you say I love breakfast and I love dinner, well you just won't have the appetite for one of them because of your new ruitine, so it won't really matter. If you start eating at 12pm, you'll want to stop eating by 8pm. If you start eating at 6 am, you'll have your last meal of the day by like 3pm.
3. See above, but as soon as you start eating, the window is now open for business and you may indulge. Ideally, you'll want to compound all of this with a healthy, balanced diet with lots of water, good nights rest, exercise, and limiting stress.
It's basically applying a bunch of very simple principles, and sticking with it. The results will show, for sure. The biggest thing is getting in tune with your body and seeing what works best.
I recently read a copy of Isaac Asimov's "The Chemicals of Life." Written in 1954, the book talks about how and why our bodies work. It hardly mentions DNA and focuses on the larger structures of enzymes, proteins, vitamins, and hormones. Some of the information is outdated in its presentation, but the book still holds up in almost all areas. (Also, I had never realized Asimov was a Professor of Biochemistry. He knew his stuff in this area.)
The first chapter of the book is titled, "The All-Important Protein." This struck my 2020, DNA-oriented mind as an odd starting point, yet Asimov was very clear: "all life is protein." The book is remarkably lucid, and here's one of the best portions of the book:
"Suppose the food you ate contained very little fat. That wouldn't bother your body a bit. It would take the carbohydrate you eat and turn it into fat. It happens all the time. Everyone knows what starchy foods will do for the waistline.
"If both fats and carbohydrates are low, the body is still not at a loss. It can manufacture both out of the proteins of the diet.
"Where the body does get stuck is in the case of a shortage of proteins. It cannot manufacture proteins out of fats and carbohydrates. Proteins require nitrogen, and neither fats nor carbohydrates have any. So proteins can only be obtained for the body by making certain that protein is in the food. It is impossible to live on a diet of starch, butter and sugar. You can get all the energy you need, but you can't build tissue."
Asimov places heavy emphasis on the two primary categories of what our body cannot naturally produce: essential amino acids and vitamins. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. The human body cannot produce nine of these amino acids, and we term these to be "essential" (Asimov said there were only eight; the necessity of histidine for adults was not yet established in 1954.) We must acquire the essential amino acids from a source outside our body. If we don't acquire these essential amino acids, our bodies will fall apart. Wikipedia says "protein deficiency has been shown to affect all of the body's organs and many of its systems" [1]. Asimov later discusses the importance of vitamins, or "atom groupings, which the body cannot make for itself and must get from the food it eats." Without vitamins, we cannot produce certain coenzymes and will fall ill and possibly die.
Essential amino acids and vitamins. I've been focusing my diet on the acquisition of those in correct quantities. My diet-optimizing function seeks to minimize sugar, maximize protein, and moderate the rest. So far, it seems to be working well; I still build muscle at the gym and fat stays off. Wonder if this is what keto basically optimizes for as well.
So many articles about bodily function I've seen online jump straight to considerations of DNA. Certainly, this approach is more accurate, though I do wonder if we the layperson are approaching health issues with too much detail. To analogize to software, it's like we're trying to debug our complex C++ program by pouring over the binary. The issues are far more likely to be with what we're putting in than what's already there.
Sources:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_amino_acid
The first chapter of the book is titled, "The All-Important Protein." This struck my 2020, DNA-oriented mind as an odd starting point, yet Asimov was very clear: "all life is protein." The book is remarkably lucid, and here's one of the best portions of the book:
"Suppose the food you ate contained very little fat. That wouldn't bother your body a bit. It would take the carbohydrate you eat and turn it into fat. It happens all the time. Everyone knows what starchy foods will do for the waistline.
"If both fats and carbohydrates are low, the body is still not at a loss. It can manufacture both out of the proteins of the diet.
"Where the body does get stuck is in the case of a shortage of proteins. It cannot manufacture proteins out of fats and carbohydrates. Proteins require nitrogen, and neither fats nor carbohydrates have any. So proteins can only be obtained for the body by making certain that protein is in the food. It is impossible to live on a diet of starch, butter and sugar. You can get all the energy you need, but you can't build tissue."
Asimov places heavy emphasis on the two primary categories of what our body cannot naturally produce: essential amino acids and vitamins. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. The human body cannot produce nine of these amino acids, and we term these to be "essential" (Asimov said there were only eight; the necessity of histidine for adults was not yet established in 1954.) We must acquire the essential amino acids from a source outside our body. If we don't acquire these essential amino acids, our bodies will fall apart. Wikipedia says "protein deficiency has been shown to affect all of the body's organs and many of its systems" [1]. Asimov later discusses the importance of vitamins, or "atom groupings, which the body cannot make for itself and must get from the food it eats." Without vitamins, we cannot produce certain coenzymes and will fall ill and possibly die.
Essential amino acids and vitamins. I've been focusing my diet on the acquisition of those in correct quantities. My diet-optimizing function seeks to minimize sugar, maximize protein, and moderate the rest. So far, it seems to be working well; I still build muscle at the gym and fat stays off. Wonder if this is what keto basically optimizes for as well.
So many articles about bodily function I've seen online jump straight to considerations of DNA. Certainly, this approach is more accurate, though I do wonder if we the layperson are approaching health issues with too much detail. To analogize to software, it's like we're trying to debug our complex C++ program by pouring over the binary. The issues are far more likely to be with what we're putting in than what's already there.
Sources:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_amino_acid
[deleted]
“This gives us targets that we may eventually be able to act on with drugs to treat aging in humans.”
Oy. Why do we do this nonsense? Why can't it just be research that helps us better understand how to eat healthy?
/pet peeve
Oy. Why do we do this nonsense? Why can't it just be research that helps us better understand how to eat healthy?
/pet peeve
Because eating healthy is not a full solution to aging, and we can do much better.
Would you rather we don't have medication for (type II) diabetes and instead just went around telling people to eat better?
Would you rather we don't have medication for (type II) diabetes and instead just went around telling people to eat better?
Two reasons. First the drug could provide better results than the most perect diet it is worth researching period. It is under fewer constraints than an organic system.
Second, because the theoretical good and the actual results don't align. We could end many STDs by only monogamously coupling for a generation but that isn't going to happen and virginity pledges haven't helped at all.
If "the right way" doesn't actually help in practice can it even be called right?
Second, because the theoretical good and the actual results don't align. We could end many STDs by only monogamously coupling for a generation but that isn't going to happen and virginity pledges haven't helped at all.
If "the right way" doesn't actually help in practice can it even be called right?
The problem with virginity pledges is that it's a policy of "just don't find any way whatsoever to meet your needs." Generally speaking, dietary advice doesn't boil down to "All food: bad! People who eat are all going to hell! Stop desiring food at all, you evil sinner you!"
I don't think research into how to eat well really compares one-for-one to morality policies of "sex is always bad and we will allow for one and only one right way to ever get laid while still making you feel like shit for wanting it at all."
I don't think research into how to eat well really compares one-for-one to morality policies of "sex is always bad and we will allow for one and only one right way to ever get laid while still making you feel like shit for wanting it at all."
Why would you do something hard if we could make it easy?
I don't think the motive is to make it easy. I think the motive is to make it highly profitable for someone.
I feel like both can be true – the motivation here is likely to both solve a real problem (aging and all that's associated with it) and to make some profit as a result.
This is ultimately a product like any other. Like a SaaS product making any hard process easy, you wouldn't expect the solution to be wholly free. People would still have the option to take a different route (caloric restriction) to accomplish the same, but it's clear many people struggle with that.
This is ultimately a product like any other. Like a SaaS product making any hard process easy, you wouldn't expect the solution to be wholly free. People would still have the option to take a different route (caloric restriction) to accomplish the same, but it's clear many people struggle with that.
Making hard things easy can be lucrative. Markets work because they align incentives like that.
If your goal is actually improving the health of people, making money on it can be a case of not aligning incentives. It can be a case of actively undermining your stated goal.
X solution: Actually makes people healthy, doesn't make you rich. Gets no press because it's not making you rich.
Y solution: Kind of, sort of addresses some health issue, but at the price of terrible, horrifying side effects. Also: Makes someone rich. Gets all the promotion while no one hears anything about the cheap solution that doesn't come with horrifying side effects and a huge literal price tag.
X solution: Actually makes people healthy, doesn't make you rich. Gets no press because it's not making you rich.
Y solution: Kind of, sort of addresses some health issue, but at the price of terrible, horrifying side effects. Also: Makes someone rich. Gets all the promotion while no one hears anything about the cheap solution that doesn't come with horrifying side effects and a huge literal price tag.
Study after study and clinical experience shows that low calorie diets are really hard for humans “in the wild” to maintain in practice. People who are on them constantly complain of hunger (in the mid-20th century these were actually called “semi-starvation” diets), and go back to their previous weight as soon as they are done. That’s why a lot of modern dieting has oriented around low carb / high fat because it means that you get enough calories, but the composition of your macronutrients causes you to lose weight. You don’t have to go as low as Keto to get these effects (that’s 5-10% carbs) and certainly don’t need to entirely cut out fruit, etc. And the results have been observed clinically for 100+ years.
This, however, hasn’t prevented academic nutritionist after academic nutritionist from pushing these narratives without any clinical experience. Can you imagine being at least a little hungry for 20 years... the equivalent time span in humans to get the effect reserved here in rats? That’s insane. And, more bluntly, probably not doable.
If you’re skeptical of this try dropping your caloric intake by 30% for two weeks and tell me how you feel :)