Cutting Calories May Slow Aging In Humans, Study Suggests (nbcnews.com) 114
NBC News reports:
Eating fewer calories appears to slow the pace of aging and increase longevity in healthy adults, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Nature Aging.
The study, which was funded by the National Institute on Aging, part of the National Institutes of Health, is the first-ever randomized controlled trial that looked at the long-term impact of calorie restriction. It adds to an already large body of evidence that a calorie-restricted diet can provide substantial health benefits, including delayed aging, said the study's senior author, Dan Belsky, who is assistant professor of epidemiology at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health in New York City. "The main take-home of our study is that it is possible to slow the pace of biological aging and that it may be possible to achieve that slowing through modification of lifestyle and behavior," Belsky said.
In a phase 2 clinical trial, which ran for two years, 220 adults were randomized to cut their caloric intake by as much as 25% — 500 calories for people who generally consume 2,000 calories a day — or to make no changes to their diet. The participants had a body mass index, or BMI, ranging from 22 to 27.... Dr. Evan Hadley, director of the geriatrics and clinical gerontology division at the National Institute of Aging, said that most people in the calorie-restriction group only ended up cutting their daily caloric intake by about 12%. "But that 12% was enough to have significant changes," he said....
The researchers found that people who cut their calories slowed the pace of their aging by 2% to 3%, compared to people who were on a normal diet. That translates, Belsky said, to a 10% to 15% reduction in the likelihood of dying early. "We all have the power to change the trajectories of aging," he said.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for submitting the story.
The study, which was funded by the National Institute on Aging, part of the National Institutes of Health, is the first-ever randomized controlled trial that looked at the long-term impact of calorie restriction. It adds to an already large body of evidence that a calorie-restricted diet can provide substantial health benefits, including delayed aging, said the study's senior author, Dan Belsky, who is assistant professor of epidemiology at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health in New York City. "The main take-home of our study is that it is possible to slow the pace of biological aging and that it may be possible to achieve that slowing through modification of lifestyle and behavior," Belsky said.
In a phase 2 clinical trial, which ran for two years, 220 adults were randomized to cut their caloric intake by as much as 25% — 500 calories for people who generally consume 2,000 calories a day — or to make no changes to their diet. The participants had a body mass index, or BMI, ranging from 22 to 27.... Dr. Evan Hadley, director of the geriatrics and clinical gerontology division at the National Institute of Aging, said that most people in the calorie-restriction group only ended up cutting their daily caloric intake by about 12%. "But that 12% was enough to have significant changes," he said....
The researchers found that people who cut their calories slowed the pace of their aging by 2% to 3%, compared to people who were on a normal diet. That translates, Belsky said, to a 10% to 15% reduction in the likelihood of dying early. "We all have the power to change the trajectories of aging," he said.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for submitting the story.
2 or 3 percent? (Score:2)
You can cut your risk of dying a lot more than that with simple common-sense rules, like avoiding lifestyle diseases, and driving slower. And getting a dog. Get a Jack Russell and, between your extra energy output from walking them all the time, and their ability to snatch food off you betwixt the plate and your mouth, your extra calorie intake is just a dream.
Re:2 or 3 percent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except a Jack Russel's incessant yipping will either drive you crazy or drive your neighbor crazy enough to come over and shoot your ass. So much for longevity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:2 or 3 percent? (Score:4, Insightful)
I want to like dogs but nothing is more annoying then hearing one dog in the neighborhood bark, then each house with a dog joining in until every dog is barking at nothing.
I definitely think dog owners see this as a feature and not a bug. I'll stick to my cats.
Re: (Score:2)
There's another dog directly under me that barks for a few hours when left alone. My dog doesn't react at all. The other dog is an 11-year-old dog that they just adopted, so it's understandable. My Jack Russell (died July 2nd 2021) also barked whenever I left, until I sat down with the two of them to watch cartoons for half an hour before leaving. I had tried everything else, nothing worked. Only stumbled on this by accident when I noticed he liked Marvel movies - very colourful.
The only negative afterwa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and these are mutually exclusive choices. Good thing is that this insight sure makes you look smart.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And getting a dog.
My family had a dog back when I was a teenager, some sort of Spaniel mix. She constantly begged for treats, and hell, if the dog gets a snack, I deserve one too. As for exercise, that dog also was as lazy as I was. I'd try taking her for walks and she'd just sit in the grass, enjoying the Florida sun.
Dogs make great pets, but terrible personal trainers.
This again (Score:2)
It seems like I have been reading this same revelatory study for decades now.
Why don't they conclude: Over-consuming calories accelerates the aging process!
I don't want to look up this paper to read it. I have done it too many times. Do they say anything about what the "right" amount of calories is other than something like "RDA recommendation?"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Why don't they conclude: Over-consuming calories accelerates the aging process!"
Because they aren't stupid?
"I don't want to look up this paper to read it."
Because you are.
Re: (Score:1)
Also check how much sugar is in what you are eating. It can stimulate you to feel hungry when you aren't. Check EVERYTHING for sugar. You will likely find surprising amounts of sugar in things that you think should have none.
Numbers seem unimpressive. (Score:5, Interesting)
The 2% to 3% by which the pace of aging was slowed (which, in and of itself could mean a few different things, but I assume it means 2% to 3% longer lifespan) does not seem all that impressive, really. The 10% to 15% reduction in the "likelihood of dying early" is pretty much just a statistical trick to produce some bigger numbers. If you have a set average lifespan, then a very small increase in average lifespan is going to be magnified into a relatively large percentage of the group that dies above the average. Looked at another way, that group still has a 40% to 35% chance of dying early.
Don't get me wrong, this information is useful to know, but articles like this always seem to be presented as if they have found the secret to eternal life or something. I think the reality is that most people are going to consider the quality of life question. If eating the calorie restricted diet makes them unhappy, they would rather die a little earlier and enjoy their lives. For the majority of people, this information just will not be helpful unless it can be translated into treatments that do not require a special diet.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed they made me squint. And aren't what I care about changing.
What percentage of people who attempted the change could stick with it? And of those that did, how many said it was worth it?
Too often this sounds like whipping myself through my whole life to get a slightly better chance to die 'really' infirm, rather than only 'sort of' infirm.
Re: (Score:2)
Denis Leary
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, for smoking, you probably have those worst ten years as well, just shifted a little sooner. Let's face it, people with lung cancer and/or emphysema, etc. tend to die in a fairly ugly way.
It is an interesting argument though. If filling an addiction makes your life happier and more fulfilled while you are alive, does it matter if it makes it a little shorter? If it is not hurting anyone else, that is (I have known a few people with really bad asthma and bronchitis who never smoked themselves but d
Re: (Score:1)
It appears that humans are evolved for a feast or famine cycle. "Designed" to store up fat in the good times to keep us alive through the lean times constantly cycling from one to the other. Most westerners are permanently in the feast cycle. Is it healthy to ALWAYS carry an extra 20-60 pounds? Likely not. Is it healthy to be under by 20 pounds almost certainly not. How to keep on the "sweet spot" of neither too much or too little is an issue and a question, namely is it healthy to have a stable weigh
Re: (Score:2)
Is it healthy to be under by 20 pounds almost certainly not. How to keep on the "sweet spot" of neither too much or too little is an issue and a question, namely is it healthy to have a stable weight considering our "design" for up and down weight cycles?
I would say that, for the majority of the population, the only really viable option is more advanced medicine. Any number of doctors will tell you that it is much better to eat healthy and exercise than take medications to regulate body weight and get surgeries. Which is all well and good and qualifies as medical advice, but it's also literally something you can get from the back of a cereal box. It is not _bad_ advice, it's just that everyone already knows it and that isn't working.
It also seems like a lot
Re: (Score:2)
The required eating habits might be fine for some people, but some people are sure to feel unhappy with a restricted diet.
Re: (Score:1)
Partly that is because it is a change in diet from what you were raised eating. If you were raised eating that way it would be normal to you. No reason to be unhappy.
Belushi? (Score:5, Funny)
Thin, hungry, and anti social is no way to go through life son....
Re: (Score:2)
And then Flounder said, "I can't believe I threw up in front of Dean Wormer."
"Face it. You threw up on Dean Wormer."
Screw it... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...while driving is more concerning than 2% shorter lifespan by eating plant-based meat substitutes and having to hage some ginormous bowel movement every day.
Thinking like this is likely a big part of the reason we have so many obese people in this country who are far more likely to die a very early death from being fat than anyone is for any of the reasons you list elsewhere in your post.
In other words, you don't need to eat meat substitutes to be healthy dumbass. Nor do you need kale smoothies or any other trendy and expensive "get fit quick" health fad. On the other hand, regularly eating meals with a higher caloric count than your entire day should have as
Re: (Score:2)
If that stuff makes you feel good and increases your quality of life, go for it. There is nothing worse than living a long, healthy, _miserable_ life.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to go get my bacon double cheeseburger, chili fries, cookie dough blast, and mozzarella sticks from Sonic now. Maybe I'll even get a 44 oz drink with some of those Nerdz candy add-ins! My likelihood of dying from someone doing something stupid like starting World War III, a stray bullet, or being run off the road by some psychotic driver texting on his cell phone or farding (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fard) while driving is more concerning than 2% shorter lifespan by eating plant-based meat substitutes and having to hage some ginormous bowel movement every day.
Yeah, except, you know, actual statistics, say that deaths due to obesity-related diseases (heart disease, diabetes, covid (yes, most people didn't die just from covid, they died from covid AND being a fat lard), lot of kidney disease) account for like 60% of deaths. Accidents (your texting or uhhhh... "farding", whatever that is) are about 5%, violence, including gun-related (but excluding suicide), that "stray bullet" of yours didn't even make it into any list I've seen. The big non-modifiable killer bein
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a high level of physical activity you'll burn through those calories anyway. The problem is people that eat all that crap and do nothing. I just ate a pint of B&J ice cream (never do that but damn it was good) but I also walked 2 miles after breakfast and rode my bicycle 6 miles to go get the ice cream. No idea how many calories I burned but imagine if I just drove my car for those 8 miles instead and then ate the ice cream?
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a high level of physical activity you'll burn through those calories anyway. The problem is people that eat all that crap and do nothing. I just ate a pint of B&J ice cream (never do that but damn it was good) but I also walked 2 miles after breakfast and rode my bicycle 6 miles to go get the ice cream. No idea how many calories I burned but imagine if I just drove my car for those 8 miles instead and then ate the ice cream?
Nope. Pint of ice cream is about 1000 cal. Two miles walked is about 150 cal, 6 miles biked is about 300. That was a pretty hefty lot of physical activity, and it's not even half of that icecream.
You can't outexercise a lousy diet, period.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, but damn that was awesome ice cream. And you were spot on with the calorie count for that pint. As I said, I can't remember the last time I even had ice cream so I just had the craving.
Re: Screw it... (Score:1)
Re:Screw it... (Score:5, Informative)
Written by a real youngin'. Let me explain what happens when you age. You hurt. Your bones, muscles, ligaments, etc. all decide to take in turn to cause pain. They have a meeting while you are asleep and decide who gets to play Beelzebub the following day. A new pain every day, you cannot miss it for the world. Then there are diseases you are courting, especially the ones that don't kill you outright but rather take their sweet time doing it so that you achieve maximal suffering.
Then to add insult to injury, the American medical system treats any malady you have as PayDay. Yes, you get to ail and be penniless.
Re: Screw it... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't really have politicians that want us to have healthcare by the state. They say they do but even when they have a super majority they don't give us single payer. Remember when they passed Romneycare (I mean Obamacare) with zero Republican support? Why didn't they just pass single payer since they had the votes? Gonna go out on a limb and say it's because the Democrats are just as bought and paid for as the Republicans are.
Even when we have the votes we can't have nice things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Screw it... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Single payer healthcare is not the same as free healthcare. Going bankrupt because of health issues is a moronic system.
Re: (Score:2)
Single payer healthcare is not the same as free healthcare.
Forgive me, I don't see your point.
Re: (Score:2)
Single payer healthcare is not the same as universal free healthcare. Universal free healthcare paid via tax system is the way to go rather than pay $800B to military each year, we should take out $100B and put it in improving health outcomes, reducing obesity, shafting the health insurance industry, making becoming a doctor cheaper and more noble, reducing costs of medications etc. That's what I meant. What is the point of making F-22 raptors that sit in a hangar and are just used for test enjoyments for p
Re: (Score:2)
Also, nothing will be able to be done regarding obesity because that takes personal effort, something most are not good at.
Amurica (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Amurica (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Amurica (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Point is 20 years of no booze, no sweets, no motorcycles, no fast women, and 6am "hikes" at 25-45 is not worth 2 years at 85. Normalize your life 50-65, keep moving, keep laughing and keep dogs and women in your life and enough motivation to keep moving at sunrise seems to be there. The thing to do 25-45 is protect you knees, you hip and your head. 45-65 you can actualy up your risk tolerance as your kids dont need a breadwinner without a limp, and life insurance pays big for your spouse. 65-80 it becomes hard to recover from injuries. 80 onwards is bonus time if you saved enough.
Posting AC to avoid burning mod points.
The problem with the "I demand to live forever ppeople is that it has a really big problem.
Life extension comes at the worst possible time.
Ever see those pictures of the 100 year old person? Bedridden, no teeth, and suffering from all manner of ailments. Yet the Health police would claim the oldster had won the game of life.
Cold hard truth is most all of your lifespan is based on genetics. Yes, you will expire early if you shoot your weight up to incredible
Re: (Score:2)
My grandfather is 93 this year. I've never seen him ever be anything but overweight in my 39 years. He didn't smoke or drink but I can't say I ever saw him exercise or necessarily eats healthy. Possibly a balanced diet but he definitely eats red meat and pasta. Shrugs, genetics has a lot to do with things I think. The no drinking or smoking or drug use probably helped a lot too.
P.S. He's a pretty health 93 but he still sleeps/naps often, gets tired, has hearing issues but still has good vision. Shrugs.
Re: Amurica (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What nonsense advice is this? And the constant shit about women? When has anyone ever said one needs to be gay to live healthy?
Re: (Score:2)
No, "winning" is more like not living with all the negatives of being obese like being able to see your own dick when you piss and not getting winded doing every day things like walking up stairs.
Your lettuce comment made me laugh though. As if developing impulse control means giving up everything good in ones life.
Re: (Score:2)
No, "winning" is more like not living with all the negatives of being obese like being able to see your own dick when you piss and not getting winded doing every day things like walking up stairs.
Your lettuce comment made me laugh though. As if developing impulse control means giving up everything good in ones life.
Ah, forgive me, I forgot the other staple food in Yurupan diet: smug feelings.
Hmmm... Allow me to let you in on a little secret: when you idiots visit US portals and try to compensate for your inferiority complex by telling everyone and their mother how much better you idiots think you are, contrary to what you probably imagine we do not read and "wallow in our inferiority".
We laugh at you.
HARD.
Have a nice day, soyboy XDDDD
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, born and bred American here. Your stupid continues to track though.
And I mean really, "soyboy"? The incels from the 2010s want their insult back.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, born and bred American here. Your stupid continues to track though.
And I mean really, "soyboy"? The incels from the 2010s want their insult back.
Cool. Replace "Yurupan" with "Yurupan-wannabe" then. Makes that even more pathethic XD
Re: (Score:2)
Says the obese incel.
Have fun thinking about how unAmerican it is to be a proper body weight during your retirement as you waste away sitting in a chair all day because you cant move under your own weight anymore. You'll have worked hard your entire life and when you retire it will feel like punishment because you couldnt take charge of your health when you had the chance. When they cut off one of your legs due to diabetes you can even call whats left a Freedom Stump, that will really show all those unAmeri
Re: (Score:2)
Says the obese incel.
Have fun thinking about how unAmerican it is to be a proper body weight during your retirement as you waste away sitting in a chair all day because you cant move under your own weight anymore. You'll have worked hard your entire life and when you retire it will feel like punishment because you couldnt take charge of your health when you had the chance. When they cut off one of your legs due to diabetes you can even call whats left a Freedom Stump, that will really show all those unAmerican jerks spending their retirement traveling the world and living life.
I mean shit, you probably havent seen your own dick in 20 years and you're making fun of me? Oh man you make me laugh.
That's some imagination you have. Still, even if I was forced into a choice between being you, and your imaginary vision of me... The choice between having to use a mirror and having to use a microscope is quite easy.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a small wiener! ROLFLOLOL!!!
It's funny because I don't really have a small penis but you really will have an unpleasant retirement because you are incapable of taking care of basic life skills like managing your weight to the point that you've claimed its unAmerican to not be a fatass. Our founding fathers would be proud!
Re: (Score:2)
I have a small wiener! ROLFLOLOL!!!
It's funny because I don't really have a small penis
Yeah? Because obviously you're overcompensting for something. Normal people do not feel the need to build up their self-worth based on their lifestyle choices. Brain then?
but you really will have an unpleasant retirement because you are incapable of taking care of basic life skills like managing your weight to the point that you've claimed its unAmerican to not be a fatass. Our founding fathers would be proud!
No. I claimed sticking your nose in other people's life choices is uhhhh... "unAmerican" (please learn how capitalization works in English, BTW). But you'd have to have more than half a brain cell to understand that actually not-so-subtle distinction. I'm actually normal weight, thank you very much, the difference being I'm not an asshole
Delaying aging, not living longer (Score:2)
Yurup thinks that this is some sort of competition where by having better longevity numbers they somehow "win", and it doesn't matter the price is being miserable. Feel free to never eat anything other than lettuce if you think the extra 2 years are worth it, but know that other people might make different choices.
That's a dumb statement. People don't want to live 2 years longer. They want their last years not to suck. They want to be healthy and run with their grandchildren in the park, not just tag along in a wheelchair. Science has shown us there's little you can do to live longer...nearly everyone dies between 80 and 100 and nothing will change that...given current medicine. What longevity research does is ensure aging is delayed...so the 50yo has the body and health of a 35yo. Yeah, in your 90s, you'll sti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1 week of not eating? That is called 'Fasting', which is a common tradition amongst the major religions all over the world.
Fasting actually has been proven to be good for your health. Likely to add months if not years to your lifespan. Fasting is anything but fun and after 3 days, you'll get pretty irritable too. After 5 days you'll feel much less irritable.
It takes about 3 to 4 weeks of no food intake before a healthy and well fed person will die from starvation, if thirst is not an issue. You can shorten
Or not (Score:4, Insightful)
Semes to me quite a few morons waste much more time on efforts that may allot them to live longer (or not) than they actually gain in time by these questionable approaches. You are going to die. It will probably happen somewhere between 70 years and 90 years. Accept it and stop wasting time and energy to shift that time. Yes, take reasonable care of your health, but as soon as it becomes obsessive or impacts your quality of life, stop. You are making things worse.
Re: (Score:2)
i do agree with that attitude now and for my personal case, but this logic will not hold forever if the days of the "universal great grim equalizer" come to an end. 2% from cutting calories is peanuts (if it's even real, this particular study doesn't seem very conclusive) but it all compounds and it is not unimaginable that you know some living person today, probably a child, that will end up living, say, 300 years, and potentially even "forever" depending on how research in this very hot topic advances dur
Re: (Score:2)
Extending human lifespan is massively subject to diminishing returns. In fact you get the 2% here only if you are doing something wrong with your nutrition and exercise. Those that already take reasonable care of themselves to _not_ get that extension at all. It is not quite clear at the moment were exactly the cut-off lies, but getting over 120 years or so requires massive luck and no currently known actually scientifically sound thing can do anything about that. And no, unless there is some fundamental br
Re: (Score:2)
or not. i'm just speculating that we will control aging at some point. ofc i don't know when, but if there is some breakthrough in the next 50 years that child that is alive today could have indeed a shot at immortality. from there he just would have to survive another 50 years for the next. ofc this is a gross oversimplification, just to make the point. i also assume that humanity will devote significant resources to that research going forward, and 50 years is plenty of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely. The typical span from a successful lab-demo to things working reliably in reality are typically a minimum of 50 years, sometimes a lot longer. The time from having a theory to that lab demo can be shorter (10 years) or massively longer (> 200 years). Lets talk about massive human life extension again in something like 1000 years. That seems to be adequate, given that there is not even a scientifically valid idea at this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but how I live now will strongly effect my quality of life in my final years. I'd like my retirement to be fun and active until I die, not full of dealing with all the ailments that come with obesity and not even being able to walk up a few stairs without getting winded.
Morons are the ones who don't take care of themselves when they're young and then get stuck with a shit end of life where everything hurts and simply walking is a chore.
Maybe there just is a tiny evolutionary edge; (Score:2)
Quality of life, not quantity (Score:5, Interesting)
There's no guarantees for a long life but I think the more important issue is quality of life especially later in life.
I'm now 54 and in an age group that a friend told me was "snipers alley", when I lamented at losing 3 friends of the same age over the last 3-4 years.
I surprised myself by giving up booze about 4 years ago and that helped my health a bit but not as much as a more recent change I made.
About 2 years ago I started getting health issues, minor at first, then more worrying which lead to specialist consultations, MRI's etc etc. Expensive.
Nothing was found that was obvious and it drew a blank while my list of symptoms continued to pile up and worsen.
I got a bit frustrated with the medics who just kept trying different drugs on me to see if anything had an effect.
Now I've never been a fan of the creepy google profiling that knows you better than you know yourself but one day youtube stuck a video in front of me that looked interesting. I'm not going to plug the Dr who made it, so this doesn't look like a promo, but he talked about the problems with sugar and the symptoms of diabetes 2.
Every one of the symptoms he described matched mine. Went back to my quack who tested me but it came back negative for D2.
I decided to quit sugar. Good grief. Giving up booze was easy, real easy, but giving up sugar and trying to avoid it. It's crack cocaine.
However 2 weeks after quitting sugar all my symptoms had almost entirely disappeared.
It's been just over a year now and I've never been as healthy and fit as I am now. All my health problems have gone.
My weight dropped dramatically. I carry no excess body fat and my BMI is around 21.
I've taken up football again and can play with guys 10-20 years younger than myself and I make most of them look unfit.
The addiction to sugar hasn't gone, I had a bit of a craving for booze when I quit that, last a few months, but now I never think of it. No interest in it.
But with sugar that craving is always there, the temptation I sometimes have to endure is enlightening. Makes me realise how hard it is for drug addicts to quit.
I don't believe it is just "cutting calories", but specific calorie sources that need cutting, but that's just my personal experience.
I might not live a long life but I'm now enjoying a quality of life I hadn't enjoyed previously.
Re: Quality of life, not quantity (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I tried cutting out a lot of things as, instinctively, I felt it was something in my diet.
I thought I had a winner with dairy when I cut it out of my diet.
For about 2 weeks things improved but then slid back to where they were.
Told my Dr and the reply I got was "yeah, everyone bounces when they come off dairy". WTF?
I'm fine with dairy now, most fruit seems ok but not bananas. Carbs are fine because I exercise.
With sports uptake I had to increase my protein intake which halted the weight loss.
Takes a while f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having given up all artificial sweeteners and the vast majority of my refined sugar intake almost a couple decades ago by now (done to keep weight off) it took quite some time for my cravings to go away but they're mostly gone at this point. It just took forever (as in multiple years). Hopefully it will be the same for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Triggering (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like claims connected to better sleep (Score:2)
Lack of adequate sleep causes all kinds of physical illnesses and issues, up to and including heart failure and death. So nutritional supplement makers will put, say, melatonin in their supplement, which is supposed to help you sleep. And then they claim that the supplement has all kinds of benefits for your heart and longer life, etc., because, you know, it helps you sleep, which helps you avoid medical problems.
Most people get too many calories, so reducing them will similarly have a beneficial effect on
Fat shaming (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fat shaming is just common sense, no different from anti-vax shaming. Both "healthy at any size" and vaccine ignorance are promoting deadly diseases for purely political reasons.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
appetite
Appetite doesn't make you fat, eating does.
Like eating, fat shaming should be in moderation (Score:2)
Fat shaming is just common sense, no different from anti-vax shaming. Both "healthy at any size" and vaccine ignorance are promoting deadly diseases for purely political reasons.
Anti-fat-shaming is not a political agenda. It's just empathy. A large percentage of fat people are fat because they're reckless, but a significant percentage are fat because of genetics. For those people, they probably will never be skinny, despite living life more carefully and more responsibly than you ever will. I'm one of the genetic variety. My entire family is fat, including some people that are quite active. ATM, I am a size 34" waist with 25% fat percentage...so borderline...but I've been w
Re: (Score:2)
You lower your BMI by eating less. Exercise or other ways of increasing energy expenditure helps, but that's a drop compared to base metabolism (exercise makes you healthy for other reasons though).
All that "because genetics", "because hormones", "because minority"(WTF?), "because age" are nothing but bullshit excuses. Your body may use energy from food in a less or more efficient manner, but that only shifts the point of "enough food" up or down -- you eat no more than that and that's it.
It's simple phys
Your logic is simplistic and incorrect (Score:2)
You lower your BMI by eating less. Exercise or other ways of increasing energy expenditure helps, but that's a drop compared to base metabolism (exercise makes you healthy for other reasons though).
All that "because genetics", "because hormones", "because minority"(WTF?), "because age" are nothing but bullshit excuses. Your body may use energy from food in a less or more efficient manner, but that only shifts the point of "enough food" up or down -- you eat no more than that and that's it.
It's simple physics. It's possible to have an illness that makes you lose weight despite eating, but not the other way around. You also need to get adequate nutrition besides the energy intake, but eating sugary/etc stuff instead of sane food is your choice.
You couldn't be more wrong. You're assuming determinism in metabolism. Look up insulin resistance factors. For some, every bit of surplus calories are stored as fat and your body will slow down rather than go to fat stores. For most, sure...they eat too much. However, there are many people on the planet who are fatter than you and make better choices, eat less, workout more, etc. You're applying simplistic and incorrect logic. Perhaps for you, that extra 2" on the waistline is from many fun nights of
Re: (Score:2)
You said it yourself (Score:2)
What you mean to say is that genetics, insulin resistance, and stunted metabolism can make it harder for people to lose weight, because their ability to burn calories on a diet may be far more difficult than another person. Or maybe they get hungry and stay hungry longer than other people. But I don't know any human being out there that have restricted themselves to a ~1000 calorie/day diet and has not lost weight. It's literally impossible. In the end, willpower and determination and willingness to suffer some degree of discomfort will guarantee weight loss. And the idea that's somehow impossible bEcAuSe GeNeTiCs is downright stupid, dangerous, and only serves to give people a reason to not even try (or worse, to embrace or celebrate their condition).
Based on genetics, for some, it takes superhuman willpower...or maybe they would greatly benefit from medical assistance. For most, if they just ate responsibly, they'd lose weight. For some eating 1k calories a day leads definitely to weight loss initially, but eventually metabolic slowdown and health consequences...so they'll be a lot less fat, but never skinny. Sure, maybe no one is 400lbs from genetics alone, but a some people are 20% 30% bodyfat not matter what they do....at least among techniques w
Contradictory information (Score:2)
There have been a number of studies conducted on the very old and results have always been strange and orthogonal to common wisdom.
The most widely known is some drinking and being fat/overweight later in life is better for you than not being these things. In villages studies those making it the longest were not the health nuts with crazy diets and exercise routines.
Personally I tend to chalk claims like the ones made in TFA up to pathological science and not waste my time on them. I may be wrong but one w
Extend that boring life (Score:2)
I thought that this was already known? (Score:1)
I find it humorous that I have been anecdotally stating this for decades assuming that I had read it somewhere. To my janitor brain the concept that the less you eat the less waste that your body needs to process and therefore the less wear and tear on your system there will be seems pretty obvious.
Delayed Aging + Autophagy + I.F. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a phantom ailment...global chronic pain that sneaked up slowly and seems to get exacerbated by alcohol and caffeine...similar to an allergy. I got tested for lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, etc....couldn't find anything...I'm not young, but far from old enough to be in pain getting out of a chair on a good day. I also had lots of heartburn and life just sucked physically. I was really fit, but all my joints ached, with no obvious reason why. I ate very healthy and in reasonable portions. I have a family predisposition to obesity, so have always been chubby (30% bodyfat 36" waist), despite working out daily for over 20 years, eating healthy, small quantities, barely drinking, etc.
8 months ago, I tried intermittent fasting: 16h fast, 8h feeding window...basically I drink black coffee for breakfast and don't eat after 8pm until noon, earliest. Heartburn went away...phantom ailment went away. I've lost 30 lbs and my bodyfat is a little under 25% bodyfat (according to the scale, but those are inaccurate). I thought it would be something shitty I suffered through short-term to be less fat, but it really was surprisingly easy and pleasant. I no longer get mystery pain and only occasionally take a tums if I eat really stupidly, like spicy nachos...similar to when I was in my 20s. I very much wish I knew about this when I was younger...my life would have been a lot better if I was slender and not insecure about how I looked. Unfortunately, all the diet advice back then was fad diets like Atkins/South-Beach or warning you to eat small frequent meals (which was a disaster for me) and that you were actually harming yourself by inducing hunger...and your body would just aggressively put on fat if you let yourself get hungry. All the advice given out before definitely didn't work for me.
While I am only one anecdote, this very much supports their findings. Fasting cut my calories and made life a lot better. At 8 months, maybe I am still in the honeymoon phase, perhaps, but can't ever picture going back. I actually enjoy it, especially how it makes me feel. I also like that with only 1-2 meals, it's easier to shop and plan a nice enjoyable meal. I actually rarely look forward to eating and want to fast longer, but just decide it's time to eat for scheduling reasons (need to go somewhere or do something ). I just feel better on an empty stomach. My wife lost 100lbs doing the same IF a few years before I did and has kept off the weight for 4 years.
For everyone it's different...maybe IF isn't for you, but it very much was for me, my wife, and about a dozen friends we know. I think we're going to see more studies about the benefits of cutting calories. One theory I've read is that your body is more prone to autophagy: cleaning itself up during a calorie-restricted phase. It could be psychosomatic, but I am very much sold on this and it has made my life a lot better.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to die no matter what, so.... (Score:2)
Steaks are good for you (Score:2)
I'm going to die no matter what, so....I'm still eating my steaks !! Been living, eating healthy and walking, yet medical issues occur. Enjoy life to the end !! :-)
Meat is good for you. Enjoy a nice big steak...and you'll do great...it's more the random snacking of junk food that harms most people. For my unhealthy friends, I worry less about their meat and even their ice cream and cake and more about the cereal, chips, and crackers they consume between big, special meals.
2 simple rules (Score:2)
We kind of knew this (Score:2)
This has already been studied (Score:1)
This has already been studied and its called autophagy, are they trying to re-invent it?
Calorie Shaming (Score:1)
this has nothing to do with aging (Score:2)