Could you eat at a calorie deficit for the rest of your life

cmayfield3

Reading this article from NYT Magazine from a couple of years ago... in a nutshell, it is about a controlled experiment in which subjects of normal weight to slightly overweight reduce their calorie intake to 75% of TDEE for two years. During those two years, various vital signs are measured. The purpose of the experiment is to see whether calorie restriction reduces disease and increases longevity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/magazine/11Calories-t.html?pagewanted=all

(I know this just scratches the surface of the literature out there on calorie restriction.)

Subjects lose about 15% of their body weight in the first year, and then the loss starts to taper off. But supposedly the longevity benefits come from eating reduced calories over a lifetime--not just two years. And all the subjects the interviewer talked to said they planned to continue eating reduced calories after the study is over.

Could you eat this way for the rest of your life? Would you? The interesting thing to me is that most of the subjects didn't so much struggle with hunger as just with the tedium of having to measure and log everything they ate. I can see how that would really affect your lifestyle. On the other hand, it's what we're doing here, and after a while it becomes second nature.

cmayfield3

Bump

cmayfield3

Well, I thought it was an interesting topic anyway!

holthaus30

Once I have gotten to my desired weight and look then I wont be so crazy about what I eat. I also plan to do a bulk phase so I can eat more calories. So no I could not eat at a deficit for the rest of my life, that would suck

LorinaLynn

What would be the benefit of eating at a deficit when I'm at my goal weight? Wouldn't I just continue to lose until I got to the weight where that deficit was no longer a deficit?

Seems to me that if you're eating "at a deficit" to maintain your weight, then you're either trying to be a weight that's too low and you're fighting to stay there, or you've slowed your metabolism to the point where your maintenance appears to be a caloric deficit. Neither of those sound like fun to me.

Meaganandcheese

Wouldn't you eventually have to go into maintanance?

ElizabethRoad

Eating at a deficit, by definition, means you would keep losing weight. For the rest of your life. No thanks.

SueInAz

It seems to me that there would come a point where that deficit is no longer technically a deficit. You can't keep losing weight forever. Your body will eventually get used to being underfed and you'd hit a balance point where you maintain a specific weight. The problem is, if you decided to eat more calories later, you'd start putting on weight pretty quickly.

ElizabethRoad

It seems to me that there would come a point where that deficit is no longer technically a deficit. You can't keep losing weight forever. Your body will eventually get used to being underfed and you'd hit a balance point where you maintain a specific weight. The problem is, if you decided to eat more calories later, you'd start putting on weight pretty quickly.

You'd have to keep lowering it as you lose weight, but you can always eat less than you burn. Of course at some point you'd just die.

IveLanded

I'm sick and tired of reading here and hearing in real life "oh but I can't do that forever" or "oh that's not sustainable" or like has been said in this thread that by eating in deficit I'm "underfed" or depriving myself.

Hell yes I can continue to eat like this. I LOVE it. Hell yes I can work out daily for the rest of my life (as long as my body will let me!).

If you can't that's on you.......don't apply that to the rest of us.

ninerbuff

Our ancestors did it and survived or we wouldn't be here. The body is smart, so if it was taken up, one would somehow adapt.

A.C.E. Certified Personal & Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

spngebobmyhero

Restricting calories sometimes can be good for you, like with fasting, but wouldn't you waste away to nothing if you ate a deficit for your entire life?

Also, if a certain number of calories is a deficit at 400 pounds, its not longer a deficit at 200 pounds. That is why MFP reduces calories as you lose weight. I wonder how they accounted for this in the study?

0EmmeNicole0

Quite honestly i plan to eat at a deficit till i lose weight, then i plan to eat maintenance calories for the rest of my life. Hopefully after about two years or so I will know what 4 oz of meat looks like without having to measure it. After doing it for so long it's probably a lot easier to be able to properly eyeball measure so that it's not so tedious. I also plan to exercise on a regular basis for the rest of my life. But i also plan to eat cookies, and ice cream and movie theater buttery popcorn! In moderation you can still have whatever you want. There's nothing wrong with two cookies here or a scoop of ice cream there. So yes i have it in mind that i will be restricting my calories for the rest of my life, I'm just not going to obsess over it or talk about it with everyone. I'm not trying to be annoying about it.

cmayfield3

You don't keep losing weight until you waste away to nothing... read the article or the OP... the goal is disease prevention and longevity, not weight loss. After a year or so of restricted calories, your weight stabilizes.

insatiable_need

Am I understanding correctly that the 25% reduction in calories was from what they needed to maintain their current weights at the time the study started? So that set number of calories is their deficit and that set number of calories would be what they would eat the rest of their lives, which would be attainable. Now if they kept reducing their intake by 25% every time it was no longer a deficit, then they would starve to death. Given that most people (those who do not suffer from some form of mental illness) will not do such a thing, then yes I could eat a 25% deficit until I reach that stabilized weight. But at that point, it would not be a deficit. It would be maintenance.

katysmelly

Reading this article from NYT Magazine from a couple of years ago... in a nutshell, it is about a controlled experiment in which subjects of normal weight to slightly overweight reduce their calorie intake to 75% of TDEE for two years. During those two years, various vital signs are measured. The purpose of the experiment is to see whether calorie restriction reduces disease and increases longevity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/magazine/11Calories-t.html?pagewanted=all

(I know this just scratches the surface of the literature out there on calorie restriction.)

Subjects lose about 15% of their body weight in the first year, and then the loss starts to taper off. But supposedly the longevity benefits come from eating reduced calories over a lifetime--not just two years. And all the subjects the interviewer talked to said they planned to continue eating reduced calories after the study is over.

Could you eat this way for the rest of your life? Would you? The interesting thing to me is that most of the subjects didn't so much struggle with hunger as just with the tedium of having to measure and log everything they ate. I can see how that would really affect your lifestyle. On the other hand, it's what we're doing here, and after a while it becomes second nature.

It's interesting that you posted this! I was just thinking about this earlier today. I think I read a similar article, and then I saw a brief mention of it somewhere this morning.

I don't think I could do it, no. I couldn't handle the tedium of it all. And, I think I'd have trouble coping with all the many key social situations that centre on food.

MelissaGraham7

You don't keep losing weight until you waste away to nothing... read the article or the OP... the goal is disease prevention and longevity, not weight loss. After a year or so of restricted calories, your weight stabilizes.

Precisely - and the article that said eventually after the first year or so, the weight loss tapered off (i.e. what we call plateau but that may be a misnomer). I do exactly plan to keep on with my healthy lifestyle forever - including eating at a deficit and staying active and fit. That's why I won't try any type of "fad" plan that is not sustainable for the long term. I"m in this for EVER as I don't plan to ever put the weight back on. Technically, the "plateau" that I hit for the past year is just maintenance and I"m cool with that.

sweet110

*sigh*. No, you wouldn't eventually die. Calorie counting may be a decent rule of thumb, but really people. Really? You think you'd die eating a little less than normal? No---your metabolism (the very important "calories out" part of the equation) would just adjust...downward.

But as to the original question....no. I couldn't do it for the rest of my life. My goal in being healthy is to be happy and functional (and yes...look good!) while I'm alive. I accept that I will eventually die. So to eat a pretty stringent diet (and I've seen the plates of these calorie restricters...its pretty sparse), forever, in order to live a little longer? No thanks. I'd rather die sooner and enjoy food.

Marll

Nope, because there is no reason to eat a deficit in the first place.

buzzcogs

I could get used to it I guess. I'm still struggling with getting used to it but the whole point is that very thin people are pretty much eating a calorie deficit all the time so it would just be a change in habits. I would get sick of measuring out my food however! ;-)

cmayfield3

Also, if a certain number of calories is a deficit at 400 pounds, its not longer a deficit at 200 pounds. That is why MFP reduces calories as you lose weight. I wonder how they accounted for this in the study?

That's a good question. I don't know how they accounted for this in the CALERIE study.

If TDEE were linear, then if they lost 15% of body weight but ate at a 25% deficit based on original body weight, then they would still be eating at a deficit after the 15% loss, just a smaller one. Of course TDEE is likely not linear in this case.

According to the article, 50% is the number at which lab animals begin to starve to death.

LorinaLynn

The point at which the weight stabilized is where you'd no longer be in a deficit.

If by restricting calories you mean I'm not going to mindlessly eat everything I want... then, yeah, I can do that forever.

But calling it a calorie deficit means that it's less than my body needs to maintain my weight, so anything less than maintenance would mean that I would either be losing weight and/or slowing my metabolism until I reach the pint where what was initially a deficit is now maintenance.

Marll

According to the article, 50% is the number at which lab animals begin to starve to death.

That's why animals don't eat at a caloric deficit LOL. They eat what they want, when they are hungry for what they are designed to eat. You'll generally find that cats for example only get fat after they are fixed (hormones) and are fed heavily grain based cat foods. The cat being an obligate carnivore was never designed to eat grains or vegtables (So why the F**K is it in every "healthy" cat food?!) and has odd hormonal reactions to the food. You have a fixed cat that you give nothing but meat, or it hunts on its own may gain a *little* weight but generally will stay skinny. There are certainly exceptions, but the point stands IMO. Cats are lazy little *kitten* too, chances of your average cat expending more calories than they take in is pretty unlikely for a domesticated one.

ElizabethRoad

*sigh*. No, you wouldn't eventually die. Calorie counting may be a decent rule of thumb, but really people. Really? You think you'd die eating a little less than normal? No---your metabolism (the very important "calories out" part of the equation) would just adjust...downward.

The question asked in the title is "Could you eat at a calorie deficit for the rest of your life?" It doesn't say, "Could you eat a small amount of calories?" If your metabolism adjusts down, then to be in a deficit you'd have to eat even less than that. Eating at a deficit means eating less than you are burning. It means calories in < calories out.

cmayfield3

*sigh*. No, you wouldn't eventually die. Calorie counting may be a decent rule of thumb, but really people. Really? You think you'd die eating a little less than normal? No---your metabolism (the very important "calories out" part of the equation) would just adjust...downward.

The question asked in the title is "Could you eat at a calorie deficit for the rest of your life?" It doesn't say, "Could you eat a small amount of calories?" If your metabolism adjusts down, then to be in a deficit you'd have to eat even less than that. Eating at a deficit means eating less than you are burning. It means calories in < calories out.

I've emailed the study coordinator to ask if they adjust the calories downward over the course of the study. My impression is that this IS about eating at a deficit over the course of the study, not just at the beginning until weight stabilizes.

ElizabethRoad

Don't care what they tell you. I'm responding to the title of this thread.

BOLO4Hagtha

Your body will eventually plateau and you will not be loosing weight (you'd be in maintenance).

squishycow7

well currently, I do eat at a deficit... and I RARELY feel hungry. every once and a while it will be a binge/spike/cheat/whatever you call it day, but genearlly speaking.. If I had to keep this up, I think I would be okay!


secondly, I no longer find it tedious to log my food. I like assessing my choices (maybe I'm a little OCD?!) and I like planning my next day's meals ahead of time. I enjoy it!

so maybe I'm crazy, but YES I can live this way the rest of my life.


edited to add - not that it's smart or necessary to eat a deficit forever... I understand the point other posters are making that eventually this deficit would just become your maintenance... but I'm just saying that if I could only eat these calories every day, I wouldn't be depressed about it.

cmayfield3

Don't care what they tell you. I'm responding to the title of this thread.

The funny thing about MFP is they only give you so many characters in the title (mine had a question mark that was cut off), and they don't let you edit it. I wrote an entire post, linked to a detailed article, and you are only going to focus on the title?

iuew

my body has always wanted to be fat. if i eat whenever i'm hungry, i hold pretty solid at 220 pounds. for my height, that's obese.

my solution is to run a slight deficit long term now that i've lost the weight. i try to keep my calories below 2k, and i do 50 to 60 mins of cardio a day. i've maintained the 160 range for years now with a BMI in the 22 range.

am i hungry part of the day? sure. but i'll probably have to do this long term. so i suppose that means i'll be running a deficit and logging for the rest of my life if i want to stay at BMI 22. it's worth it, though, in my opinion. i hated being overweight so much that there isn't an English word that properly reflects the depth of it.

AnnaCVeach

[/quote]

That's why animals don't eat at a caloric deficit LOL. They eat what they want, when they are hungry for what they are designed to eat. You'll generally find that cats for example only get fat after they are fixed (hormones) and are fed heavily grain based cat foods. The cat being an obligate carnivore was never designed to eat grains or vegtables (So why the F**K is it in every "healthy" cat food?!) and has odd hormonal reactions to the food. You have a fixed cat that you give nothing but meat, or it hunts on its own may gain a *little* weight but generally will stay skinny. There are certainly exceptions, but the point stands IMO. Cats are lazy little *kitten* too, chances of your average cat expending more calories than they take in is pretty unlikely for a domesticated one.
[/quote]

LOL!!! You just described all 4 of my cats to a T!!! They are definately lazy little *kitten*! Won't even get off the steps so you can walk.