Live data from Hacker News

The secret to a long and healthy life? Eat less

bbc.com

141–150 of 193 posts

Re: The secret to a long and healthy life? Eat less

#141
post #2

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

Totally agree. If you look at the two parallel studies, it seems like diet had a huge effect on the outcome. The NIA study found no significant difference in both groups, and fed the monkeys varied source of protein. The UW study found health improvements in the CR monkeys but fed them 'significantly higher amount of sucrose compared to the NIA diet'.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2017/01/calor... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28094793 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14063

Re: The secret to a long and healthy life? Eat less

#143
post #52

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

Quite the contrary, you can't go against basic physics. Even common wisdom from a lot of Keto diet practitioners (low carb/insulin, see /r/keto and /r/ketoscience) is that for the weight loss aspect it only helps by regulating hunger, studies showed that for the same restricted caloric input, macronutients (low-carb or high-carb) made very little differences (which is expected of course). The "insulin is the root of…

Every time I hear the 'basic physics' or 'first law of thermodynamics' argument in favor of CICO I can't help but remember the joke about 'spherical cows':

"Milk production at a dairy farm was low, so a farmer wrote to the local university to ask for help. A multidisciplinary team of professors was assembled, headed by a theoretical physicist, and two weeks of intensive on-site investigation took place. The scholars then returned to the university, notebooks crammed with data, where the task of writing the report was left to the team leader. Shortly thereafter the physicist returned to the farm, and advised the farmer, “I have the solution, but it only works in the case of spherical cows in a vacuum.”

Human beings aren't black boxes, we are living, breathing organisms, and as complex organisms we can process food differently depending on what it is. For example, cows eat grass, and can survive on a diet of 100% grass, so they must get some calories out of it. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to sustain the energy expenditure necessary to power a ~2000 pound beast, and would die early. Humans, on the other hand, cannot digest cellulose, so it will land in your stomach as indigestible fiber after which you will promptly poop it out. If you were to give a human an all grass diet, he/she would die within weeks.

In a similar vein, a calorie of carbs is not digested the same way as a calorie of protein, which is also not digested in the same way as a calorie of fat. For the studies that you mention, I'm certain that the macronutrient composition made very little difference when it comes to weight loss in the short term, but I am far more skeptical about whether a high carb diet is actually sustainable after your body has adjusted to a lower metabolic rate. Most studies of this type show a bounce back in weight after the initial weight loss. Furthermore, it's not and shouldn't be all about weight loss; if a calorie is just a calorie why don't you just eat 1500 calories of pure sucrose per day? Assuming you were able to stick to it, you'll quickly get fatty liver disease, diabetes, and a ton of visceral fat. The idea that the macronutrient composition is irrelevant as long as calorie restriction is maintained is too simplistic a view, and a dangerous one to spread.

Re: The secret to a long and healthy life? Eat less

#144
post #130
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a relatively typical day https://imgur.com/a/WQeAr I tend to increase my intake right before and after gym sessions. That's why 2nd lunch and Dinner are bigger than the others. And on this particular day I felt like having candy after dinner because I was low on carbs, so midnight meal was slightly smaller than usual.

No green vegetables? Spinach, broccoli, peas...?

Don't track em because they don't add much calories. But yes plenty of those

Re: The secret to a long and healthy life? Eat less

#145
post #131
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But during Ramadan, it's basically all at once. Am I wrong to conclude that more unhealthy food in a shorter time period = more weight problems?

That's the current wisdom, yes. To lose weight, it's recommended to eat many times a day (like 5-6), but limit yourself to small portions.

This hasn't been popular, or accepted, wisdom for a very long time.

Intermediate fasting (discussed elsewhere in this thread) is much closer to being a modern understanding.

Re: The secret to a long and healthy life? Eat less

#146

Good overview of the benefits of calorie restriction, but doesn't touch on two of the most important schools of thought of the past couple years. 1. Calorie restriction is almost impossible for most humans to follow long term 2. Many of the same benefits of calorie restriction may be achievable through intermittent fasting, which is much easier for people to follow. I've been experimenting with a daily 16 hour fast (…

I am on time restricted feeding as well and set a 9h timer after the first thing I consume that's not water. I plan to reduce it to 8h as well but with my current routine this means I have to take my last meal before 5pm which is in the middle of my working schedule.

I didn't notice anything different yet besides that I can more or less eat what I want and not gain any weight.

Re: The secret to a long and healthy life? Eat less

#147
Due to social conditioning, It's not commonly known, but you don't actually need to eat every day. You could lose 10 lbs in just a couple of weeks of not eating any calories, but I would recommend eating 1 lbs of spinach and maybe a combination of other green, red and orange vegetables: that will keep your calorie count under 200 for the day. Drink lots of water.

I know the hunger will drive you crazy in the first few days, but your body gets used to it and it's not so bad, after 3 days.

The first time you do it, perhaps start off with some 16 hour fasts at first for a few months till your used to that, then you can increase it.

Re: The secret to a long and healthy life? Eat less

#148
While eating less and having CR and IF is important, equally important is the actual process of eating.

Most of the articles focus on results, but not on the actual process.

If one is eating sitting on the couch, watching television, completely oblivious of the activity, it is not going to help.

There is nothing absolute in nature, everything is connected.

How do we eat is far more important than how much we eat.

One simple experiment one can do at dinner is to sit alone, without any distraction with the dinner plate and for every morsel one takes in, chew it till you count 20 and then swallow.

Notice what happens...

Re: The secret to a long and healthy life? Eat less

#149

Due to social conditioning, It's not commonly known, but you don't actually need to eat every day. You could lose 10 lbs in just a couple of weeks of not eating any calories, but I would recommend eating 1 lbs of spinach and maybe a combination of other green, red and orange vegetables: that will keep your calorie count under 200 for the day. Drink lots of water. I know the hunger will drive you crazy in the first fe…

This kind of aggressive diet is usually followed by gaining back the weight.

Re: The secret to a long and healthy life? Eat less

#150
post #131
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But during Ramadan, it's basically all at once. Am I wrong to conclude that more unhealthy food in a shorter time period = more weight problems?

That's the current wisdom, yes. To lose weight, it's recommended to eat many times a day (like 5-6), but limit yourself to small portions.

No, they haven't found this to help people lose weight.
Post reply on HN