Calorie Restricted Eating & Without Malnutrition -- How do you do it?

Canadian1970

Hello!

There is a lot of talk on the internet about the lifespan and health benefits of restricting calories 25% below normal while maintaining high nutrition. David Sinclair, Jason Fung, Peter Attia, among others. These are high calibre doctors and scientists. But the question remains, how can this be done best? Has anyone used MFP for this purpose?

unstableunicorn

You won’t maintain if you consume less than your body needs at a given weight/comp, and “normal” doesn’t necessarily mean healthy. (Ex: A “normal” weight range for me would be between 130 & 150, but between frame and my activity & work demands my healthy range is 150-170 when accounting for muscle mass). As for nutrition, eat a balanced diet, adjust for antinutrients as needed, and supplement nutrients you have difficulty maintaining. It’s more common among those with medical conditions impacted by diet, but people on and off MFP journal their food successfully, and have been doing so for a long time.

puffbrat

I don't know about the others but Dr. Fung is not a high caliber doctor as far as diet and nutrition are concerned. https://www.evolvedsportandnutrition.com/blog/why-you-should-think-twice-before-taking-dietary-advice-from-anyone-other-than-a-dietitian

I'm not even sure what your question is. To eat 25% below normal, you need to define "normal". If you eat 25% less than you do now you either gain more slowly, stop gaining and maintain, or lose depending on how much eat now relative to how much you burn. If you eat 25% less than your maintenance, you will lose weight. Weight is lost by burning more calories than you consume. Most people use MFP to track calorie intake and burn to help lose weight and maintain. Don't worry about what Dr. Fung or other fads suggest. Just enter your stats into the MFP setup, log your food, eat back at least 50% of your exercise calories, and be patient.

lemurcat2

You probably mean something like this: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-03/cp-crt031518.php

It was cutting calories by 15% (they've done 25% in non-human animals), and the goal is to decrease the metabolism, although of course there's initial weight loss. I believe the people in the study took vitamins and such, although cutting cals (not by 25% unless one is obese) and maintaining a healthy diet isn't really that hard to do--it's what most people who care about nutrition and who diet try to do, after all. Chronometer is a great site if you want to track really closely to see if your diet is nutritionally complete for a period of time, although I'm not saying you couldn't do it at MFP. You'd have to be super careful about entries, however, and I think not everything you might want to track is.

NovusDies

In addition to what @puffbrat has said high nutrition is also a relative term. There is the amount of nutrition you need, there is too little, and there is too much which usually results in nutrient rich urine. If you are eating below your nutritional needs than "higher" nutrition is a good idea. If you want your eating to be DASH compliant just google DASH diet and work on modifying your habits. I think even that is a bit overkill.

I am not sure why malnutrition is in your title. If you try to eat too little regardless of how nutrient rich it is you will become malnourished because what you need from food first is energy which is measured in calories.

cmriverside

Canadian1970 wrote: »

Hello!

There is a lot of talk on the internet about the lifespan and health benefits of restricting calories 25% below normal while maintaining high nutrition. David Sinclair, Jason Fung, Peter Attia, among others. These are high calibre doctors and scientists. But the question remains, how can this be done best? Has anyone used MFP for this purpose?

If you do that you're going to lose weight. Is that your goal?

At some point a lowered body weight WILL become its own health problem. Being below the calorie needs of the body long-term is not a beneficial thing.

kshama2001

lemurcat2 wrote: »

You probably mean something like this: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-03/cp-crt031518.php

It was cutting calories by 15% (they've done 25% in non-human animals), and the goal is to decrease the metabolism, although of course there's initial weight loss. I believe the people in the study took vitamins and such, although cutting cals (not by 25% unless one is obese) and maintaining a healthy diet isn't really that hard to do--it's what most people who care about nutrition and who diet try to do, after all. Chronometer is a great site if you want to track really closely to see if your diet is nutritionally complete for a period of time, although I'm not saying you couldn't do it at MFP. You'd have to be super careful about entries, however, and I think not everything you might want to track is.

Ah, this concept has finally moved out of rodent studies.

@Canadian1970 why not wait until the science is more established?

AnnPT77

Canadian1970 wrote: »

Hello!

There is a lot of talk on the internet about the lifespan and health benefits of restricting calories 25% below normal while maintaining high nutrition. David Sinclair, Jason Fung, Peter Attia, among others. These are high calibre doctors and scientists. But the question remains, how can this be done best? Has anyone used MFP for this purpose?

They are well-known, popular doctors and scientists. That doesn't necessarily make them high calibre, except in their own or associates' marketing. Caveat emptor.

If you are overweight, there are well-documented lifespan and health benefits (in a "statistical average" sense) of reaching a healthy body weight at a sensibly moderate pace, consistently getting well-rounded nutrition (even on reduced calories during weight loss), and getting regular cardiovascular and strength exercise. Unless you are already doing all those things, why not start there?

Permanently eating 15% let alone 25% below your (evolving) calorie needs will eventually result in an early death. That will be true regardless of nutritional quality. Don't do that.

If you want to reach and maintain a lighter-than-average body weight, somewhere down in the range where people your height/frame statistically tend to be healthy but on the lighter end, do that. That's about as far as it makes sense to go, IMO. There's plenty of research about what body weights and activity levels correlate statistically with better longevity and health outcomes. Maybe give that more weight than a 53-subject study at the bleeding edge?

PAV8888

First of all it is not 25%

Then it is not established, especially in humans.

Further you have to define, and carefully, whether the results you seek are what you expect them to be: for example many middle aged males would probably not be impressed to (using arbitrary numbers for illustration here) trade 50% of their sex drive for an extra 4 months of life at age 80. The answer mind you may be different for a 79 year old!

Basically the whole thing hinges on the concept of adaptive thermogenesis. I.e. that when restricting calories your body goes into a bit of an energy saving mode reducing your NEAT output. Things such as fidgeting and foot tapping reduce. Things such as your core temperature also reduce, making you feel colder all the time. And things such as your nails and hair and other cells growing, repairing, and replacing reduce as compared to their speeds when you're fully fed or overfeeding. The last is where the hoped for increase in longevity gets penciled in.

The core distinction, which I believe Anne hinted at above, is that this is not a 10 or 15% deficit off your changing TDEE, but it is a manipulation of your TDEE to a lower level by continuing to push it down over a long period of time.

Off the top of my head some problems you will run into, other than generally being more lethargic, include potentially being more sickly and injury-prone and slower to heal.

And if you over apply your deficit while at a normal or low normal weight, then you will lose weight that you may be better off not losing including muscle mass, necessary fat, and ultimately you overall health. Given how excess restriction can affect brain chemicals you can also caloricaly restrict yourself into an ED like mindset: nice!

As this is not something that I've particular looked into other than as an explanation as to why people may not be losing weight while reporting themselves to be eating below expected TDEE and while being sickly and injury-prone I might be missing something here! 😉

CSARdiver

There's a distinction on what could be done safely in a clinical setting under close medical supervision and what could be done by an individual in an uncontrolled environment.

I don't doubt that these people are intelligent, but I sincerely question their wisdom.

Canadian1970

lemurcat2 wrote: »

You probably mean something like this: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-03/cp-crt031518.php

It was cutting calories by 15% (they've done 25% in non-human animals), and the goal is to decrease the metabolism, although of course there's initial weight loss. I believe the people in the study took vitamins and such, although cutting cals (not by 25% unless one is obese) and maintaining a healthy diet isn't really that hard to do--it's what most people who care about nutrition and who diet try to do, after all. Chronometer is a great site if you want to track really closely to see if your diet is nutritionally complete for a period of time, although I'm not saying you couldn't do it at MFP. You'd have to be super careful about entries, however, and I think not everything you might want to track is.

Heyyyy, thanks! That website helps greatly! Have to check that out. My main concern is long term nutrition, not weight loss. And this seems to fit the bill.

I've rarely had a problem with weight. You can see my six pack and it's been that way most of my life with growing up on a farm, running, weights, MMA, etc. Although did fine MFP super helpful during a long period of injuries where I yo-yo'ed about 20-25 pounds. It was actually super accurate -- 2lbs per week on the button everytime. Pint and shoot. Great site.

MikePTY

Jason Fung and "high caliber doctor" are not terms that should go in the same sentence.

Canadian1970

Just to be clear y'all, I'm not talking about staying at a CR level 365 days a year. Most protocols call for intermittent fasting. This could mean a weekend or a week of calorie restriction. This would be miserable for me, but skipping breakfast 2 or 3 times week might be enough to trigger the responses needed.

aokoye

MikePTY wrote: »

Jason Fung and "high caliber doctor" are not terms that should go in the same sentence.

Unless there's some sort of negation that is also in the sentence, like "is not".