New report on the cellular effects of a calorie-restricted diet in rats • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by nmfisher » Sun, Mar 01, 2020, 6:10 PM UTC

TheRealSteel wrote: post #38

paulcarroty wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

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

#52

Post by overgard » Sun, Mar 01, 2020, 6:14 PM UTC

fearface wrote: post #42

adamgluck wrote: post #36

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,…

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.

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

#53

Post by chubot » Sun, Mar 01, 2020, 6:23 PM UTC

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.

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

#54

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Mar 01, 2020, 6:23 PM UTC

fearface wrote: post #42

adamgluck wrote: post #36

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,…

[deleted]

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

#55

Post by jotm » Sun, Mar 01, 2020, 6:28 PM UTC

zackmorris wrote: post #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…

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.

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

#56

Post by jotm » Sun, Mar 01, 2020, 6:30 PM UTC

acd wrote: post #8

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?

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

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

#57

Post by dehrmann » Sun, Mar 01, 2020, 6:30 PM UTC

adamgluck wrote: post #36

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…

> 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!

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

#58

Post by adamgluck » Sun, Mar 01, 2020, 6:32 PM UTC

silviogutierrez wrote: post #44

adamgluck wrote: post #36

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…

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

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

#59

Post by superpermutat0r » Sun, Mar 01, 2020, 6:54 PM UTC

adamgluck wrote: post #58

silviogutierrez wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

How can the body, given 5000 kcal in fat not store any of that fat in the adipose tissue?

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

#60

Post by war1025 » Sun, Mar 01, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

lmilcin wrote: post #25

ruminasean wrote: post #17

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 m…

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 s…

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?