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

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

alexandria412

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.

Really interesting, thanks!

Stacyanne324

Well 75% of my TDEE is about 1500 calories so I probably could (this is also my BMR). But, once I get to my goal weight I don't want to lose any more so eating at a defecit won't be the goal. Right now I'm doing the Spike diet plan but slightly modified so I restrict my calories more during the week and bump them up over both weekend days (only to bmr one day and a full two times bmr spike the second) just becaues it fits my lifestyle much better. Once I hit my goal I'll probably eat to around bmr Mon-Fri and Spike all weekend to maintain and keep my metabolism humming along.

Bentley2718

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.

Not really, and the OP notes, for whatever reason after a while people's weights settle down despite the deficits. You see this in dieters, we call it a "plateau" people are still eating at a deficit, they just aren't losing more weight for whatever reason. Anyway, they do this in mice and other animals as well. It turns out they live (statistically) significantly longer than animals not on restricted calorie diets.

Personally, I'm not sure I'm willing to do this to live longer, but it's an interesting idea.

KareninCanada

I wouldn't really call a calorie reduction of 25% a "spartan diet", nor is a weight loss of 30 pounds over six months all that unusual. *shrug* Sounds like normal "dieting" to me.

But as to the question? No, I wouldn't want to eat at a deficit forever. The idea is to make the current deficit get gradually smaller until I'm at that happy place known as maintenance and have learned what my body needs.

Although technically speaking, I would still be living at a deficit compared to what I started out at, which I gather from the article is what the participants were doing. It just said they assigned people a calorie amount.

LishaCole

I learned in one of my metabolism classes that calorie restriction diets increase the amount of the metabolite oxaloacetate (3-carboxy-3-oxopropanoic acid) which has been show to increase life span, and decrease muscle fatigue (among other things).

There is actually a supplement company that that provides a lot of research and peer-reviewed scientific articles on the subject on their website (of course they are trying to sell the stuff! but the articles should be unbiased.)

http://www.aor.ca/html/products.php?id=31

AdelaDi

This is an interesting point that you are making:) I think that what we should take from all these studies (I have seen a documentary about similar studies) is that if you are normal/slim and not overweight, your health will only benefit from that.

Personally, I don't think I could constantly monitor my caloric intake for the rest of my life. That would just take up too much time and effort and I'd wind up obsessing about it. What I want to do is stay fit and keep an active exercise schedule, because that makes me feel good and look better.

The way I see it, it would be best to take an example from people I know who are quite slim and healthy. In my family for instance (yeah, I'm the only one far off on the fluffy side..*sigh*), I notice that they are eating very little food; small portions, non-fatty foods, home-cooked. They don't count calories, but they do monitor their weight. That's pretty much what I also plan on doing.

elizamc

Bump - got to read the article!

InnerFatGirl

Hell no :P

I can't wait to reach my goal weight so I can eat a whole pack of cookies without feeling guilty.

Not that I intend to ever be fat again.

70davis

bump

katysmelly

For people who really won't read the article or seem to be confused:

The people in this study (and I assume the people who do this as a lifestyle) are not overweight when they start. That's the difference between the restricted calorie lifestyle and a regular weight-loss diet. This is about someone with a low-end BMI - perfectly healthy - who would maintain on the "typical" 2000-calorie-a-day standard dropping down to 1500 a day and then staying there. THAT is what is going on, here. They lose a bunch of weight. They go from being slim to being noticeably skinny, then they stay that way.

At that point, things within the body and cells seem to change and it affects ageing. Scientists are studying this in order to learn more about ageing. They see the weight-loss as almost a side-effect of what is going on, and it's not really what they're focusing on.

Hathorsmuse

I read the article and was quite alarmed and I am frankly feeling the same way towards the responses here. I've lived in a calorie deficit for several years; it's called an eating disorder. At it's worst I was trying to burn a pound a day and I nearly died. Living in a calorie deficit is dangerous and addictive and I can tell you from first hand experience that your muscles will melt, your metabolism slows to a screeching halt and hangs onto fat and you will feel absolutely awful and not be able to function. No, our bodies are not meant to live at a deficit and if you take a second to think about it; you will realize it makes no sense at all. Can a car run without gas, can animals, plants or anything live without food and water? Can anything grow or survive without nutrients? No and I have the health problems to prove it. If by any chance you think your are that special someone that the rules of living don't apply too; go get help because there is a better way to live than starvation. As for all those people who think your body is a math calculation and you can get the results you want through a perfect diet and obsessive exercise; they're wrong. Do and eat what you love and I promise you will find a happy balance with your body; stop trying to impose rules on it.

Adrienneburrows1

How do you know how many calories you should be eating? I am 5ft 6 and 175