Permanently cutting the daily calories you consume may turn out to have a profound effect on your future life, according to some studies. · 11
·
Is it about caloric restriction or obesity? I could eat 3000 calories a day and burn 3000 calories a day and (hypothetically) be just as skinny as someone who ate 1500 calories a day and burned 1500. The narrative that our metabolism is what kills us would suggest that I'd live longer on the 1500 calorie plan, but everything else I've heard about the benefits of regular exercise would suggest that the 3000 calorie diet would be better. So... which is it?
–
–
I think that might be limitation of animal models, though. At least in the article, it doesn't say anything about whether or not they forced the animals who were fed a non-restricted diet to exercise. In order to isolate the "caloric consumption" variable, I'd want to see a study that compared the same net calorie consumption (food - exercise) on animals that had a sedentary vs moderate vs vigorous exercise routine. Without that sort of study, I don't think it's valid to conclude that caloric restriction has any benefits. This has a lot of potential impact on what we consider healthy. If the caloric restriction advocates really are correct, then marathon runners, bodybuilders, and powerlifters are putting themselves at risk of an early death much like morbidly obese people or smokers. The average fitness junkie probably consumes significantly more calories even than the average obese person, but they end up burning off those calories through exercise so they appear fit and healthy. If it's true that the metabolism kills, we should be actively encouraging people to not do that, to instead limit exercise to 30-60 minutes per day of moderate cardio so that they maintain a healthy body weight while restricting calories.
–
There are a lot of caveats with these studies, however it would be terrible design if they exercised one group and not the other. Here's a study where they found that exercise increased healthspan, but not lifespan in mice: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24472376 It doesn't necessarily follow that if caloric restriction is good for longevity, that extensive exercise is bad. Not all metabolism is equal, and it's not even clear that the CR effect is primarily due to metabolism. It might primarily be due to an up-regulation of genes that promote longevity.If the caloric restriction advocates really are correct, then marathon runners, bodybuilders, and powerlifters are putting themselves at risk of an early death much like morbidly obese people or smokers.
Exercise is bunk. If you are healthy, you don't need it: if you are sick you should not take it. -Henry Ford
–
I don't know about that. It's a fairly good real world analogue to people, and it's just holding a different variable constant. Assuming humans mostly self-regulate in a way that causes them not to gain weight, you'd get a better human analogue from comparing a group that exercises and eats a lot to a group that does neither. Why not? If I restrict myself to 1500 calories a day and also train for marathons, I'd be dead within a year. Vigorous exercise requires excessive calorie consumption to compensate, so it follows that if caloric restriction is good, then vigorous exercise is bad. At the very least, there's an opportunity cost in missing out on the beneficial effects of caloric restriction. Am I missing something here?however it would be terrible design if they exercised one group and not the other
It doesn't necessarily follow that if caloric restriction is good for longevity, that extensive exercise is bad.
–
ButterflyEffect · 364 days ago · link ·
Yeah, good luck training for anything of consequential length and difficulty if you're under caloric restrictions. I lost 3 lbs yesterday from one difficult hike alone and would have lost more / not easily be able to recover under a restriction. Balancing a diet in this situation is, of course, still very important.
Or just cover every option by testing all four possible configurations. High caloric intake + exercise, high caloric intake + no exercise, low caloric intake + exercise, low caloric intake + no exercise. Are there reasons other than shoestring budget to restrict most of these experiment to just ½ of the measured spectrum?you'd get a better human analogue from comparing a group that exercises and eats a lot to a group that does neither.
ThurberMingus · 363 days ago · link ·
I second Odder somewhat on this... Every study of starvation shows that as calories are reduced, voluntary motion reduces too. We know exercise is correlated with calories consumed in animals. This study does not control for both total calories and total energy expenditure, so it isn't correct to say the result is due to one and not the other. Diet studies are super hard because it's impossible to change only one thing and the sheer number of variables is massive.it would be terrible design if they exercised one group and not the other
My father's doctor told him she has old patients, she has fat patients, but she has no old, fat patients. To be fair, the aristocracy lived hella longer. Europe in the Age of Faith was a long litany of peasants that had less-than-even odds of making it to adulthood and Medicis that routinely made it to their 70s and 80s.Although he changed his birthdate as he aged, claiming that he had reached his 98th year, it is thought that he was around 84 when he died – still an impressive feat in the 16th Century, a time when 50 or 60 years old was considered elderly.
–
My mother once told me that the life expectancy was flipped for clergy. Ones who were on various high ranks tended to die sooner than the monks from lower ranks. The rich ones on top could afford much fancier tableware and cutlery than just wood or clay. They got the good stuff made from silver. Or tin. Or lead. Or gilded with gold-mercury amalgam.
flagamuffin · 364 days ago · link ·
what the hell? we have to do longevity studies on obesity now?