So far in 2018 I have had one ~1300-1500 calorie meal per day for all except maybe ten days (where I have gone out for drinks or have extra food late in the evening with friends).
The strangest thing so far is how much my body has adapted to this - I skip breakfast and lunch every day, yet don't feel particularly restricted (save socially), hungry, or weak.
I am just one person, but I now intuitively feel that whatever passes for a "reduced-calorie diet" these days is what used to pass for normal. It feels normal, at least.
I had a same experience... decided at the start of January to cut out almost all sugar (and the nutritionally empty foods that delivered it).
Once I decided that, it was surprisingly easy to say 'no danish mid-morning, KitKat after lunch, or candy mid-afternoon'. When the hunger pangs came, I'd go for a 5 minute walk or head up to the work gym for a quick 30 minute session. Then in the evenings, I found I was still much less hungry. Dinner was 2/3 the size as before, and no desire for dessert afterwards.
I was surprised how my body felt this new routine was perfectly fine!
I lost a steady 2 lbs a week through January and February, and am now back to the weight I had 25 years ago.
Whether or not this qualifies as a "reduced-calorie diet", it feels great!
This calorie amount cannot possibly apply to everyone. For example, if I spend an hour weight training and then later in the day go for a 1-hour job...I'd be in a calorie deficit for that day.
Similar for me, doing low calorie intake for most days and it feels norm now. Inconvenient downside I feel more in social domain than in physical domain.
I have a few questions to put this in context:
How often do you work out and at what intensity?
Do you have a desk job?
How many hours do you sleep per day?
I have recently started doing something similar. One longer-term concern for me is non-macro nutrients (i.e vitamins/minerals). Have you had any thoughts about doing supplements?
I'm also somewhat worried about the bioavailability of supplements...
How do you even deal with that? I'm on the lower end of BMI (still in the normal/healthy range). I am constantly in a state of starvation. My body burns through food like it's nothing. I have to eat 2 main meals per day to even sustain myself properly. The thing about low calorie intake increasing your lifespan freaks me out.
In India, there are monks who live without any food (and water as well) for more than a month or so. Initially, I did not believe but then I confirmed from many people and it was true. They basically do meditation during that period and gain their energy from nature.
No one's going to mention that the title is wrong? The experiment showed that a calorie reduced diet slows metabolism in humans. The researcher specifically says that a long term study that follows participants until their death would be required to see if they live longer.
This is quite subtle, but whether or not people live longer is not the same as speed of ageing. Still, it could be argued that this subtlety makes the title misleading, which is also "wrong" in a way.
If metabolism is tied to speed of ageing (don't know if that is established or not) then the title would be technically correct.
That’s great and all, but you cannot build muscle unless you’re on a caloric surplus. Good bye resistance weight training with the goal of having more muscle.
The irony is that having more muscle would also increase the amount of calories you need to maintain (not get bigger/fatter, not get smaller).
What I’m trying to say is that a “deficit” completely depends on what your current lean body mass is. If I want to go on a 15% calorie deficit, I have to eat 2200 calories a day. A much smaller person would probably GAIN weight at that caloric intake.
That's a good point. One of the dangerous of calorie restriction or any type of weight loss diet is, it seems, losing muscle mass instead of fat mass.
A reasonably developed muscle mass has shown many health benefits in age related diseases, such as preventing osteoporosis, diabetes and high blood pressure.
IANA scientist, but the article claims new evidence that a reduced calorie diet can slow metabolism, which would impact the “surplus” side of that equation.
IIRC the big problem with calorie restriction is that it brings along a greater susceptibility to infectious disease. After all if it were a cost-free win, a gradient-descending (is that the right term?) optimization process like evolution would have implemented it already.
Regarding suggestions made in another comment that calorie restriction represents the preindustrial norm, I don't think this is something modern nutritional science would have missed, considering the amount of research performed into the diets of extant nomadic and otherwise primitive cultures.
I've been experimenting with it for two years, along with a high-nutrient diet based on vegetables (almost no refined foods). I just did about two weeks at 1,000 calories per day and am on day 3 of a water fast. I'll increase the caloric intake next week.
I hope it's safe. Some else posted this link in a comment, and it's worth reading too:
Fasting is largely safe, but you have to monitor your weight loss. If you lose weight too quickly, you're losing a lot of muscle mass and this can adversely affect your heart.
Personal anecdote : I always ate little and spend most of my life underweight. I look extremely young for my age. I estimate I rarely eat more than 1500 kcal a day
When I think about it, most visibly underweight people I know tend to look young. Does anyone have the same observation?
Inverse, Skinny all my life until I was around 21, then started steadily (slowly) gaining weight. Now I'm classified as "Overweight" but I'm not outwardly fat looking.
However, I do look quite old for my age, I'm 28 and could easily pass for 35. I had/have a high metabolism all my life.
I lost ten kilos last year and my friends have been asking me how I managed to look like I'm getting younger while they are getting older (for the record, I'm also in my mid-thirties and one of the few who has yet to have children).
Yes, I have the same observation. I do my own version of "intermittent fasting" diet since 3 years ago and I get the same observation from people, they say I look younger. I feel great :)
This is difficult to follow in daily life although not impossible. Given that food is becoming less nutritious as per [1] taking less food will mean less nutrition which can affect general well-being. Figuring out foods high in nutrients, low in calories will require a lot of discipline.
I cannot find it right now, but I am quite sure that in last few weeks there was a post on HN with roughly the same statement, but for high protein diet.
No, the evidence for high protein is the opposite - shortening life by increasing cancer risk:
"study cohort aged 50–65 reporting high protein intake had a 75% increase in overall mortality and a 4-fold increase in cancer death risk during the following 18 years"
Levine ME, Suarez JA, Brandhorst S, et al.: "Low protein intake is associated with a major reduction in IGF-1, cancer, and overall mortality in the 65 and younger but not older population" Cell Metab. 2014;19(3):407-417. https://www.naturalmedicinejournal.com/journal/2014-05/high-...
In my opinion it is likely that the higher mortality is not entirely caused by protein intake itself (although there is some evidence that high-protein enviroments are mutagenic in yeasts), but is due to either the increased cancer risk from processed meat (nitrosamines) and/or red meat intake.
When I was young(er) I did CR for a few years. The first 10kg was easy, the next 5kg hard, and the last 5kg a total struggle. What really got to me is that all I thought and dreamed about was food - I still remember some of my food dreams from this time and this was 20 years ago.
Likely obvious to many in this group, but I think the right phrasing is "ordinary calorie" rather than "reduced-calorie" diet. People routinely eat more than they need and misunderstand that they are burning most of their calories while working out.
[+] [-] drewblaisdell|8 years ago|reply
The strangest thing so far is how much my body has adapted to this - I skip breakfast and lunch every day, yet don't feel particularly restricted (save socially), hungry, or weak.
I am just one person, but I now intuitively feel that whatever passes for a "reduced-calorie diet" these days is what used to pass for normal. It feels normal, at least.
[+] [-] stevesimmons|8 years ago|reply
Once I decided that, it was surprisingly easy to say 'no danish mid-morning, KitKat after lunch, or candy mid-afternoon'. When the hunger pangs came, I'd go for a 5 minute walk or head up to the work gym for a quick 30 minute session. Then in the evenings, I found I was still much less hungry. Dinner was 2/3 the size as before, and no desire for dessert afterwards.
I was surprised how my body felt this new routine was perfectly fine!
I lost a steady 2 lbs a week through January and February, and am now back to the weight I had 25 years ago.
Whether or not this qualifies as a "reduced-calorie diet", it feels great!
[+] [-] robodale|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jiri|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snrji|8 years ago|reply
Sorry if I'm getting too personal, genuinely interested.
[+] [-] workenergythrm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] filleokus|8 years ago|reply
I'm also somewhat worried about the bioavailability of supplements...
[+] [-] episteme|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bowmessage|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kenji|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] symbolepro|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nck4222|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vanderZwan|8 years ago|reply
This is quite subtle, but whether or not people live longer is not the same as speed of ageing. Still, it could be argued that this subtlety makes the title misleading, which is also "wrong" in a way.
If metabolism is tied to speed of ageing (don't know if that is established or not) then the title would be technically correct.
[+] [-] laichzeit0|8 years ago|reply
The irony is that having more muscle would also increase the amount of calories you need to maintain (not get bigger/fatter, not get smaller).
What I’m trying to say is that a “deficit” completely depends on what your current lean body mass is. If I want to go on a 15% calorie deficit, I have to eat 2200 calories a day. A much smaller person would probably GAIN weight at that caloric intake.
[+] [-] drukenemo|8 years ago|reply
A reasonably developed muscle mass has shown many health benefits in age related diseases, such as preventing osteoporosis, diabetes and high blood pressure.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041123162138.h...
https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20110728/building-muscle...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4101790/
[+] [-] drewblaisdell|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vanderZwan|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scythe|8 years ago|reply
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/jul/14/ageing-...
Regarding suggestions made in another comment that calorie restriction represents the preindustrial norm, I don't think this is something modern nutritional science would have missed, considering the amount of research performed into the diets of extant nomadic and otherwise primitive cultures.
[+] [-] JoshMnem|8 years ago|reply
I hope it's safe. Some else posted this link in a comment, and it's worth reading too:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/jul/14/ageing-...
[+] [-] naasking|8 years ago|reply
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/chest-pain-recent...
Keep up some cardio and exercise to keep heart's muscle mass and dial down calories slowly.
[+] [-] EZ-E|8 years ago|reply
When I think about it, most visibly underweight people I know tend to look young. Does anyone have the same observation?
[+] [-] drukenemo|8 years ago|reply
A good example to me is Anthony Bourdain. Here's a picture of him in 2014 and four years later:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Bourdain#/media/File:A...
http://www.bravotv.com/blogs/anthony-bourdain-comic-book-hun...
Don't believe four years alone does that to someone's face skin.
[+] [-] dijit|8 years ago|reply
However, I do look quite old for my age, I'm 28 and could easily pass for 35. I had/have a high metabolism all my life.
[+] [-] vanderZwan|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] draxofavalon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antisthenes|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] indogooner|8 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13179
[+] [-] factsaresacred|8 years ago|reply
Will it, really?
1. Skip the snack aisle
2. Visit the fruit and veg aisle
3. Eat meat and replace candy with low-sugar nutrition bars
[+] [-] kornakiewicz|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MagnumOpus|8 years ago|reply
"study cohort aged 50–65 reporting high protein intake had a 75% increase in overall mortality and a 4-fold increase in cancer death risk during the following 18 years"
Levine ME, Suarez JA, Brandhorst S, et al.: "Low protein intake is associated with a major reduction in IGF-1, cancer, and overall mortality in the 65 and younger but not older population" Cell Metab. 2014;19(3):407-417. https://www.naturalmedicinejournal.com/journal/2014-05/high-...
In my opinion it is likely that the higher mortality is not entirely caused by protein intake itself (although there is some evidence that high-protein enviroments are mutagenic in yeasts), but is due to either the increased cancer risk from processed meat (nitrosamines) and/or red meat intake.
[+] [-] danieltillett|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grvdrm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Capaverde|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dijit|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waltherp|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] looeee|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] romanovcode|8 years ago|reply
Can we make up our minds already?