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

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.

LilRedRooster

I don't know about a calorie deficit, because a true deficit, where you're constantly eating under what you need, would mean that you would eventually die, because you'd have to consistently adjust that amount down.

Now, restricted calories are doable. There have been studies with restricted calorie diets, where the total net of calories is lower than recommended average, but is maintainable, and that has actually been shown to have huge benefits, with lowered cardiac diseases to reduced risks of cancer. I don't know if I could do it personally, because for me, that could lead to issues with disordered eating, but it's an interesting idea. I just don't think society today caters to it.

cmayfield3

I don't know about a calorie deficit, because a true deficit, where you're constantly eating under what you need, would mean that you would eventually die, because you'd have to consistently adjust that amount down.

Now, restricted calories are doable. There have been studies with restricted calorie diets, where the total net of calories is lower than recommended average, but is maintainable, and that has actually been shown to have huge benefits, with lowered cardiac diseases to reduced risks of cancer. I don't know if I could do it personally, because for me, that could lead to issues with disordered eating, but it's an interesting idea. I just don't think society today caters to it.

This is a great response. Yeah, I don't know if this is talking about a deficit in that the calorie consumption number is periodically adjusted downward... I have emailed the study coordinator to find out. If it's not, though, then this is just about losing weight and maintaining it, which isn't anything new, so I tend to think there's more to it than that.

spngebobmyhero

Sorry, I didn't actually read the article :blushing: I'm at work and didn't want to open the link!

amyy902

yep easy. im not a big foooody i wish i was!!!!

alexandria412

Thanks for sharing this article; I found it to be really interesting, especially:

I asked Holloszy why he thought some members of the Calorie Restriction Society succeeded for years with a restriction diet. “Fear of death,” he said. The flip side of that, of course, would be love of life, which seemed closer to the sentiments of the Calerie subjects I met.

This is totally how it is for me. This may sound obnoxious, but I have a really awesome life and I want to do everything I can to keep the gears running as smoothly as possible for as long as possible. For me, this means counting, measuring and working out. I agree with you - it does become second nature. Either way, I think it's 100% worth it.

Could I eat this way for the rest of my life? Absolutely. Perhaps it's because I'm at a healthy weight and simply trying to lose vanity pounds, perhaps it's because I'm a long-time vegetarian and I'm used to "look before you eat," but I think this lifestyle is a small price that I'll gladly pay for a few more years.

...and if I do someday get womped by some unforseeable illness/injury, at least I'll know that I gave everything my best shot.

cmayfield3

Great post, Alexandria. And it doesn't sound obnoxious at all!

kiminikimkim

The only benefit to that diet is prolonging the aging process and living longer. Processing calories is costly work on the body. Human cells divides itself up to 52 times before degradation sets in (30s, 40s +). The telomeres (the ends of our DNA structure) shortens after ever cell division, until it is too short to properly divide to make a new cell (skin, organ, bone degradation sets in).

By living on a calorie deficit, it is less work for the body to process calories so the body begins to run more efficiently with less energy and the cell's life cycle slows down. Theoretically, by the age of 50, the cell cycle could be at the same stage as a 35-year-old person with a normal calorie diet.

PROS: The only benefit is slowing down the cell division rate, living longer.
CONS: missing out on enjoying foods, eating for pleasure. Eating at a calorie deficit for life....is a life sentence.

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.

SueInAz

PROS: The only benefit is slowing down the cell division rate, living longer.
CONS: missing out on enjoying foods, eating for pleasure. Eating at a calorie deficit for life....is a life sentence.

I have to agree with this. Who was it that said "Eat well. Stay fit. Die Anyway"? I don't think a life of restricted food choices is worth a few extra years of life. I was actually thinking of something similar to this a few days ago. I'd rather live well, keep myself healthy while enjoying myself on occasion, and enjoy the years I have to their fullest.

mojo75

being a person that was really big, lost to goal then gained it back I plan to continue to log my foods after I hit goal.

bunny1006

bump for later