We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Calorie restriction, fitness and longevity.
Mellouk89
Posts: 469 Member
So according to this article, calorie restriction is good for longevity, leads to less inflammation and a better immune system. But can you restrict calorie for a long period of time while still maintaining a healthy physique, meaning a decent amount of muscles and reasonable body fat? How can you eat under maintenance chronically and not eventually become too skinny/underweight, does your body adapt?
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/calorie-restriction.amp.html
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/calorie-restriction.amp.html
0
Replies
-
I am all about it. The name of the game is caloric restriction for life, with optimal nutrition. Eventually you stabilize, but on a much smaller body frame, and in bonus, superb blood pressure like 110/70, a low BPM of 55 at rest, not forgetting a low total cholesterol if you keep your proteins at 15-20%. Even when aging. It is important to get active.
The downside of doing so is that if you get an infectious disease, you are likely to die quicker. Although the article says otherwise for the covid-19. It is possible that they mean that you are less likely to get the infection, at the first place.
At the same time, some studies suggest that proteins restrictions bring the same kind of improvements in health markers. I can see some people grimacing here.
2 -
Ok and also my question was can still maintain a decent amount of muscle mass while calorie restricting chronically?0
-
No I mean in humans.0
-
Ok and also my question was can still maintain a decent amount of muscle mass while calorie restricting chronically?
If chronically means no more than -30%, in my experience, yes. As long you exercise with intensity, strenght-style. You'll have less muscles because you'll need less, with a smaller body frame. By no mean to the point of being weak, to the contrary. About all studies point to the fact that the subjects become more youthful, nimble, agile and vigourous.
If you want to be a body-builder, it is probably another story, I don't know.
0 -
Firstly, what is a "Normal" diet for a rat, surely by definition a rat in the wild would experience calorie restrictions on a fairly regular basis, some days finding more food than other days. Captive rats however would be being fed the same amount of calories on a regular basis. So to turn it on it's head is it being captive and fed regularly that is shortening the rats life rather than calorie restrictions prolonging it?
Then again a study has shown that I have no idea what I am talking about most of the time due to the amount of calories I consume from alcohol
5 -
I am all about it. The name of the game is caloric restriction for life, with optimal nutrition. Eventually you stabilize, but on a much smaller body frame, and in bonus, superb blood pressure like 110/70, a low BPM of 55 at rest, not forgetting a low total cholesterol if you keep your proteins at 15-20%. Even when aging. It is important to get active.
The downside of doing so is that if you get an infectious disease, you are likely to die quicker. Although the article says otherwise for the covid-19. It is possible that they mean that you are less likely to get the infection, at the first place.
At the same time, some studies suggest that proteins restrictions bring the same kind of improvements in health markers. I can see some people grimacing here.
So basically everything that typically comes with losing weight and maintaining a healthy weight. And the notion that this somehow protects you against COVID-19 is ridiculous. A strong immunity system isn't going to protect and novel strain of virus for which there is no inherent immunity because our systems have never seen this virus strain before.9 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
So basically everything that typically comes with losing weight and maintaining a healthy weight.
Just maintaining an healthy weight according to the recommended ranges won't do that. You have to be more aggressive than that and aim for closer to the lower limit.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
So basically everything that typically comes with losing weight and maintaining a healthy weight.
Just maintaining an healthy weight according to the recommended ranges won't do that. You have to be more aggressive than that and aim for closer to the lower limit.
How did you determine that these benefits aren't available to those who are maintaining a healthy body weight?9 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
So basically everything that typically comes with losing weight and maintaining a healthy weight.
Just maintaining an healthy weight according to the recommended ranges won't do that. You have to be more aggressive than that and aim for closer to the lower limit.
Then how come I have all of those benefits? How come there are like a gazillion people on here who have those benefits without starving themselves down to the lowest end of BMI? Seriously? I must be a magical unicorn. At the lower end of BMI I would be emaciated and would have to also burn up a lot of muscle mass, which is in and of itself unhealthy.
Utter nonsense...8 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »
So basically everything that typically comes with losing weight and maintaining a healthy weight.
Just maintaining an healthy weight according to the recommended ranges won't do that. You have to be more aggressive than that and aim for closer to the lower limit.
Then how come I have all of those benefits? How come there are like a gazillion people on here who have those benefits without starving themselves down to the lowest end of BMI? Seriously? I must be a magical unicorn. At the lower end of BMI I would be emaciated and would have to also burn up a lot of muscle mass, which is in and of itself unhealthy.
Utter nonsense...
And why do I have those benefits and I am right at the line of crossing over from obese BMI to overweight? My BP averages 105/65. My RHR is 48. My inflammation markers are now in normal range. On my last visit to the doctor he was practically doing cartwheels down the hall over my blood results.
I am not terribly interested in longevity. I have seen too many end up in a "better off dead" state of mental or physical health. I am definitely in the quality over quantity camp.5 -
To begin with, I thought the adaptation range was at 20%, not 30%.
Your ability to fight off injury and infection and to recover from same or to perform at optimal athletic ability within your constrains will be negatively impacted.
You're more likely, not less, to get a cold, flu, or pneumonia, so why that would increase your (by definition of novel) nonexistent covid-19 resistance is baffling.
You may or may not be as likely to get some forms of cancer. Probably less likely to have high blood pressure related issues and heart disease. You may or may not be able to survive better or as long if you do get cancer.
Overall, there is no free lunch and very questionable (if any) benefits and some identifiable detriments over normal weight normal maintenance.
So for now... I pass.8 -
So your body will adapt that's what I wanted to know, I think 20% is reasonable but I wouldn't go further than that. I don't think it would make me miserable I feel satieted most of the time.0
-
So your body will adapt that's what I wanted to know, I think 20% is reasonable but I wouldn't go further than that. I don't think it would make me miserable I feel satieted most of the time.
20% may be something to adapt to, or something you don't adapt to and continue to lose on. You have no way of knowing ahead of time. You will certainly NOT "adapt" to it, if it continues to be a 20% off of whatever your then current maintenance is, so you may want to view it as a 10% or what have you below your CURRENT maintenance. Assuming you're not already at the low end of normal weight.
he chances of you ending up malnourished are actually quite high. The chances that slower cellular repair will lead to problems before it leads to longevity is also not zero. Feeling cold continuously (and extremely cold hands and feet to the point of seeing color changes) are also a good chance as your core temperature drops a bit as part of the adaptation. Feeling tired and listless possible too! Hair loss. A lot depends on starting weight of course. Where on the weight continuum you're currently located.3 -
Ok I made this thread in part because my calorie intake is quite low and I maintain my current weight that way. I think it's because I eat energy dense foods with not a lot of fiber and moderate protein. It may be that I don't burn as much energy digesting these foods thus I can sustain myself with lower calories?0
-
Ok I made this thread in part because my calorie intake is quite low and I maintain my current weight that way. I think it's because I eat energy dense foods with not a lot of fiber and moderate protein. It may be that I don't burn as much energy digesting these foods thus I can sustain myself with lower calories?
How active are you currently? How long have you been maintaining? How much lower is your intake than a TDEE estimate for your stats?3 -
Ok I made this thread in part because my calorie intake is quite low and I maintain my current weight that way. I think it's because I eat energy dense foods with not a lot of fiber and moderate protein. It may be that I don't burn as much energy digesting these foods thus I can sustain myself with lower calories?
That just means you are eating maintenance. What happens with those doing the 20% deficit thing (CRON/calorie restriction/optimal nutrition) is they initially lose and then stabilize at a lower body weight. They are trying to lower their TDEE through a combination of weight loss and adaptation to lower cals. (The latter, which most losing weight see as a negative, is actually a goal.)
Of course the "optimal nutrition" part usually means lots of veg, and so not low fiber at all.6 -
Ok I made this thread in part because my calorie intake is quite low and I maintain my current weight that way. I think it's because I eat energy dense foods with not a lot of fiber and moderate protein. It may be that I don't burn as much energy digesting these foods thus I can sustain myself with lower calories?
How active are you currently? How long have you been maintaining? How much lower is your intake than a TDEE estimate for your stats?
I think my activity level is moderate but I could be wrong, I work full time as a custodian and I walk 45 mins to 1 hour a day since I don't have a car. Other than that I don't workout. I've been maintaining for 2-3 months right now, based on my activity level and body weight I should be eating 2500 calories but instead i'm maintaining eating 2100 calories at the most. It's why I thought maybe I can eat less because my diet consists of processed foods that doesn't take a lot of effort to digest.0 -
Ok I made this thread in part because my calorie intake is quite low and I maintain my current weight that way. I think it's because I eat energy dense foods with not a lot of fiber and moderate protein. It may be that I don't burn as much energy digesting these foods thus I can sustain myself with lower calories?
That just means you are eating maintenance. What happens with those doing the 20% deficit thing (CRON/calorie restriction/optimal nutrition) is they initially lose and then stabilize at a lower body weight. They are trying to lower their TDEE through a combination of weight loss and adaptation to lower cals. (The latter, which most losing weight see as a negative, is actually a goal.)
Of course the "optimal nutrition" part usually means lots of veg, and so not low fiber at all.
I may be eating at maintenance but based on the calculator I found I should be eating more.0 -
Ok I made this thread in part because my calorie intake is quite low and I maintain my current weight that way. I think it's because I eat energy dense foods with not a lot of fiber and moderate protein. It may be that I don't burn as much energy digesting these foods thus I can sustain myself with lower calories?
That just means you are eating maintenance. What happens with those doing the 20% deficit thing (CRON/calorie restriction/optimal nutrition) is they initially lose and then stabilize at a lower body weight. They are trying to lower their TDEE through a combination of weight loss and adaptation to lower cals. (The latter, which most losing weight see as a negative, is actually a goal.)
Of course the "optimal nutrition" part usually means lots of veg, and so not low fiber at all.
I may be eating at maintenance but based on the calculator I found I should be eating more.
Online calculators are estimates. You'll always want to compare and validate those estimates against your real life results. No matter what your estimates are for your calories burnt and your calories consumed, if your weight is staying steady over time that means you're eating at maintenance.6 -
It's easy to misjudge cals, though, and the calculators are just estimates (as is your own estimate of activity level, etc).
If you are trying to do this for health, the idea is that you eat fewer cals, but focus on the nutritional content as it's harder to meet nutritional needs when at a lower calorie level.4 -
Ok I made this thread in part because my calorie intake is quite low and I maintain my current weight that way. I think it's because I eat energy dense foods with not a lot of fiber and moderate protein. It may be that I don't burn as much energy digesting these foods thus I can sustain myself with lower calories?
That just means you are eating maintenance. What happens with those doing the 20% deficit thing (CRON/calorie restriction/optimal nutrition) is they initially lose and then stabilize at a lower body weight. They are trying to lower their TDEE through a combination of weight loss and adaptation to lower cals. (The latter, which most losing weight see as a negative, is actually a goal.)
Of course the "optimal nutrition" part usually means lots of veg, and so not low fiber at all.
I may be eating at maintenance but based on the calculator I found I should be eating more.
Online calculators give estimates that are not going to be right for everyone.
Your BMR includes the calories needed for digestion. A low protein diet might skew the numbers slightly but unless I am very mistaken not 400 calories worth.
Usually the easiest answer is the answer. Study after study, including one done on registered dietitians, conclude that people tend to underestimate how much they are eating. I noticed you are not logging your food into MFP, or you haven't done so recently, how are you determining your current calorie intake?0 -
Since I eat mostly processed foods and the calories are listed on the label I just do a quick calculation and I find that on most days I eat 2100 calories. But I also heard that those are not always accurate, I read an article on the news saying that.0
-
Since I eat mostly processed foods and the calories are listed on the label I just do a quick calculation and I find that on most days I eat 2100 calories. But I also heard that those are not always accurate, I read an article on the news saying that.
It depends on the food and the label. Anything that you eat all of that says "About x servings" can be off quite a bit. Anything you eat that you determine the portion by counting can be off quite a bit (like tortilla chips might be 7 for x calories).
There are ways to know for sure but I am not sure how invested you are in knowing the answer since you are maintaining.0 -
Since I eat mostly processed foods and the calories are listed on the label I just do a quick calculation and I find that on most days I eat 2100 calories. But I also heard that those are not always accurate, I read an article on the news saying that.
You method isn't accurate at all. Truth is, you don't really know how many calories you are eating in a day. A quick calculation has a large margin for error. You will only know for certain if you start weighing and logging as accurately as you possibly can. I can't see how you can come to any conclusions of how much you should be eating without that.4 -
People can be outliers both up and down.
Obviously, statistically speaking, most people are NOT outliers.
This doesn't mean that with billions of people in this world that being in the 1% super outlier bracket still gets us a good 7.8 million super outliers, which is just a few thousand more than the totality of MFP account holders! <-- see, we could all be unicorns here: members of the proud 1%
Jokes aside.
You could just be an outlier as discussed above.
Your logging could be affecting things. It is extremely common for people to believe they're eating less than they think. Just an example today from a person who takes pride in his logging... I had forgotten to add a complete 58g mars bar--which weighed more than the packaging indicates.
You could be showing signs of adaptive thermogenesis (which, as mentioned above, is not something that people who want to lose weight want to achieve). If dieting for a long time you may want to look into re-feeds or a diet break.
Incidentally. From what I understand that a custodian does you would probably be on your feet for a good part of the day. Plus deliberate walking back and forth to work. So in actual fact you would be considered more than moderately active based on the standard definitions in use. At least in the active category if you move in a way that conserves energy, if not above that if you're vigorously moving around.
Generally the thermic effect of food (TEF) is a small part of your total daily energy expenditure. Protein has a higher TEF. Fiber may make you feel more full with less calories, but I don't know that it significantly changes TEF.
What are you trying to do? What are you trying to troubleshoot? Are you trying to lose, gain or maintain? What are your current weight, height, age, gender?1 -
Since I eat mostly processed foods and the calories are listed on the label I just do a quick calculation and I find that on most days I eat 2100 calories. But I also heard that those are not always accurate, I read an article on the news saying that.
I eat protein bars and weigh them before I eat them. They can easily be 5 or more grams heavier than indicated on the packaging. If the majority of my food was prepackaged and was not weighed before eating there is a fair chance I'd be eating several hundred calories more than I think I am a day. It is actually not common for there to be a smaller serving than indicated on the packaging but the opposite is regularly the case.1 -
Also a common issue (in US and Canada), maybe less so in other countries, is that the package often lists an imaginary serving size. You know, one package of pop tarts or one packaged cookie, listing calories for HALF the package as a serving size 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.4K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions