Live data from Hacker News

New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

salk.edu

41–50 of 102 posts

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#41

The only reason a study like this works is because it takes place in a controlled environment where they can actually starve the rats (or sometimes make genetic changes that reduce the rats hunger.) 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…

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

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#42

The only reason a study like this works is because it takes place in a controlled environment where they can actually starve the rats (or sometimes make genetic changes that reduce the rats hunger.) 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…

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.

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#43
post #26
post #4

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…

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…

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.

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#44

The only reason a study like this works is because it takes place in a controlled environment where they can actually starve the rats (or sometimes make genetic changes that reduce the rats hunger.) 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…

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.

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#45

The only reason a study like this works is because it takes place in a controlled environment where they can actually starve the rats (or sometimes make genetic changes that reduce the rats hunger.) 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…

> 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.

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#46

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?

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-…

>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.

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#47
post #23

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?

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#48
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?

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#49
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

Re: New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats

#50

The only reason a study like this works is because it takes place in a controlled environment where they can actually starve the rats (or sometimes make genetic changes that reduce the rats hunger.) 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…

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…

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

Post reply on HN