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
New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats
31–40 of 102 posts
Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats
#32Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the motive is to make it easy. I think the motive is to make it highly profitable for someone.
Making hard things easy can be lucrative. Markets work because they align incentives like that.
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.
Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats
#34Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats
#35I'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 m…
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.
Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats
#36Study 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 :)
Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 o…
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.
Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-…
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 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.
Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats
#39Since 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 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...
Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats
#40this may or may not generalize.