Reduced-calorie diet shows signs of slowing ageing in people | Hacker News Reader

Reduced-calorie diet shows signs of slowing ageing in people

nature.com

133 pointsonuralp74 comments

So far in 2018 I have had one ~1300-1500 calorie meal per day for all except maybe ten days (where I have gone out for drinks or have extra food late in the evening with friends).

The strangest thing so far is how much my body has adapted to this - I skip breakfast and lunch every day, yet don't feel particularly restricted (save socially), hungry, or weak.

I am just one person, but I now intuitively feel that whatever passes for a "reduced-calorie diet" these days is what used to pass for normal. It feels normal, at least.

I had a same experience... decided at the start of January to cut out almost all sugar (and the nutritionally empty foods that delivered it).

Once I decided that, it was surprisingly easy to say 'no danish mid-morning, KitKat after lunch, or candy mid-afternoon'. When the hunger pangs came, I'd go for a 5 minute walk or head up to the work gym for a quick 30 minute session. Then in the evenings, I found I was still much less hungry. Dinner was 2/3 the size as before, and no desire for dessert afterwards.

I was surprised how my body felt this new routine was perfectly fine!

I lost a steady 2 lbs a week through January and February, and am now back to the weight I had 25 years ago.

Whether or not this qualifies as a "reduced-calorie diet", it feels great!

This calorie amount cannot possibly apply to everyone. For example, if I spend an hour weight training and then later in the day go for a 1-hour job...I'd be in a calorie deficit for that day.

Similar for me, doing low calorie intake for most days and it feels norm now. Inconvenient downside I feel more in social domain than in physical domain.

How much weight have you lost? Were you somehow obese? Were you fit? Have you lost muscle mass?

Sorry if I'm getting too personal, genuinely interested.

I have lost ~10lbs, but I was not overweight (on the high side of normal BMI, but I also lift weights). My muscle mass seems unaffected (or even slightly greater) - these days at the gym I only aim to maintain what I have, and my lifts have even improved slightly.

What prompted you to go for just one meal a day?

I lift as well but I only eat larger amounts during recovery. I am also training less as my priorities have shifted for a period of time.

I see, thanks.

I have a few questions to put this in context: How often do you work out and at what intensity? Do you have a desk job? How many hours do you sleep per day?

(sorry for this becoming an AMA)

I lift weights three times a week to medium-low intensity (squat/deadlift/bench). I sit/stand and code full time. I sleep at least eight hours a day (sometimes more).

I have recently started doing something similar. One longer-term concern for me is non-macro nutrients (i.e vitamins/minerals). Have you had any thoughts about doing supplements?

I'm also somewhat worried about the bioavailability of supplements...

Couldn't you just eat more nutrient dense (but low calorie) foods at your one meal? Veggies are a prime example.

You must either be quite short or female. The average healthy male would be losing weight very quickly at such a large deficit.

I am 5’8, and if you are familiar with studies of someone similar doing the same thing, I would love to see them. :)

I imagine you are still losing weight? Otherwise eating like 1000kcal below maintenance would be defying thermodynamics.

What are you basing this assumption on?

The point of the study was that reduced calory intake seems to reduce metabolism, which is already vastly varied between two individuals.

If you're basing your assumption on internet TDEE calculators those are often wildly misleading, and generally overestimate values.

But on the other hand it's extremely hard to know how many kcal you eat, so if he's basing his intake on labels, those are usually too low (within regulation guidelines) because manufacturers want to sound "healthier" than they are.

But to my main point: If you keep as even intake as you can for a few weeks, and you don't lose weight, that is your maintenance, no ifs or buts.

How were the first few days though?

Tough. I stopped eating breakfast (for the most part) a couple years ago, so this time it was just skipping lunch and eating an early dinner. Still, it took less than a week for this to become normal for me, and it has not been difficult to maintain (except socially).

I have a similar diet.

In the morning, I drink a slimfast. The high protein helps keep my hunger quenched. I'll eat a small bar for lunch. Then, I'll have a normal dinner.

Also, I've cut out all soda and sugar from my diet.

I've lost almost 50 pounds so far.

I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, and since changing my diet and losing weight, by blood sugar is that of a normal healthy person.

Being diagnosed has blessed me with the motivation to not just "go on a diet", but to change my life.

Taking out the bulk of the sugar you take in regularly is a helpful preparation for that kind of diet. Sugar creates short spikes and constant appetite. When you get rid of that, the longer distances of not eating become much less of an issue.

I skio brrakfast and eat a single larger lunch. If feel it’s easier to skip dinner this way since I get hungry right around when I go to to bed. No acis reflux this way either.

How do you even deal with that? I'm on the lower end of BMI (still in the normal/healthy range). I am constantly in a state of starvation. My body burns through food like it's nothing. I have to eat 2 main meals per day to even sustain myself properly. The thing about low calorie intake increasing your lifespan freaks me out.

Relax. Exercise will do more for you than restricting you diet will. Eat healthy (whole grain, lots of fiber, and greens, and drink water) and don't skip exercise for a long period.

Just fast metabolism. Consult your doctor and adjust it.

In India, there are monks who live without any food (and water as well) for more than a month or so. Initially, I did not believe but then I confirmed from many people and it was true. They basically do meditation during that period and gain their energy from nature.

Send them to famine struck countries, get them to teach people how to get by without food and "gain energy from nature". I mean it. It would save lives. Over 20 thousand people die EACH DAY from hunger and malnutrition. Do they need a better incentive for sharing the trick? And if it can't and won't be done, then at least out of respect for the starving, let's zip it please.

Fasting for a month is possible, but not drinking water will probably kill you within a few days. Here is a medically-supervised fast of over 300 days.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/pos...

I've done a lot of fasting, and the main cause of failure on a fast for me is not drinking enough water.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families...

That would be the only 10 hour youtube video I would pay for. A timelapse of anyone doing that.

Some proof for down voters:

1) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Jain-monk-co...

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prahlad_Jani

Your second link points to:

> Prahlad Jani (Gujarati: પ્રહલાદ જાની), also known as "Mataji", (born Chunriwala Mataji, 13 August 1929) is an Indian breatharian sadhu who claims to have lived without food and water since 1940

Since 1940? This link just substracts credibility from your initial post.

It's going to take more than some news article and some heavily criticized studies to establish such an improbable claim.

Watch this documentary and see what people say. Hey HN folks, Sometimes science does not explain everything.

http://www.lightdocumentary.com/ Trailer: https://youtu.be/Ul82-jaDmlY

These people still exhale CO2 and water vapor. Unless you believe that matter spontaneously appears inside their bodies they have to lose weight.

No, only the things which can be explained.

No one's going to mention that the title is wrong? The experiment showed that a calorie reduced diet slows metabolism in humans. The researcher specifically says that a long term study that follows participants until their death would be required to see if they live longer.

> to see if they live longer.

This is quite subtle, but whether or not people live longer is not the same as speed of ageing. Still, it could be argued that this subtlety makes the title misleading, which is also "wrong" in a way.

If metabolism is tied to speed of ageing (don't know if that is established or not) then the title would be technically correct.

That’s great and all, but you cannot build muscle unless you’re on a caloric surplus. Good bye resistance weight training with the goal of having more muscle.

The irony is that having more muscle would also increase the amount of calories you need to maintain (not get bigger/fatter, not get smaller).

What I’m trying to say is that a “deficit” completely depends on what your current lean body mass is. If I want to go on a 15% calorie deficit, I have to eat 2200 calories a day. A much smaller person would probably GAIN weight at that caloric intake.

That's a good point. One of the dangerous of calorie restriction or any type of weight loss diet is, it seems, losing muscle mass instead of fat mass.

A reasonably developed muscle mass has shown many health benefits in age related diseases, such as preventing osteoporosis, diabetes and high blood pressure.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041123162138.h...

https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20110728/building-muscle...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4101790/

IANA scientist, but the article claims new evidence that a reduced calorie diet can slow metabolism, which would impact the “surplus” side of that equation.

But if you don't fulfil the daily macro requirements then from what exactly does the muscle builds?

We were talking about caloric surplus, not macro nutrients.

Couldn't using intermittent fasting solve this problem? So having "caloric surplus days" for building muscle, basically.

That's what they suggest at the end of the article.

IIRC the big problem with calorie restriction is that it brings along a greater susceptibility to infectious disease. After all if it were a cost-free win, a gradient-descending (is that the right term?) optimization process like evolution would have implemented it already.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/jul/14/ageing-...

Regarding suggestions made in another comment that calorie restriction represents the preindustrial norm, I don't think this is something modern nutritional science would have missed, considering the amount of research performed into the diets of extant nomadic and otherwise primitive cultures.

I've been experimenting with it for two years, along with a high-nutrient diet based on vegetables (almost no refined foods). I just did about two weeks at 1,000 calories per day and am on day 3 of a water fast. I'll increase the caloric intake next week.

I hope it's safe. Some else posted this link in a comment, and it's worth reading too:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/jul/14/ageing-...

Fasting is largely safe, but you have to monitor your weight loss. If you lose weight too quickly, you're losing a lot of muscle mass and this can adversely affect your heart.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/chest-pain-recent...

Keep up some cardio and exercise to keep heart's muscle mass and dial down calories slowly.

Thanks for the heads-up. I lost ten kilos of weight last year without trying due a mix of medication reducing my hunger and a sudden development of lactose intolerance (so "accidental fasting" I guess), and didn't particularly do any exercise. I was aware that I might lose muscle mass but hadn't considered the effects it might have on my heart.

IIRC, I lost 65 pounds at a rate of about 8-10 pounds per month.

Personal anecdote : I always ate little and spend most of my life underweight. I look extremely young for my age. I estimate I rarely eat more than 1500 kcal a day

When I think about it, most visibly underweight people I know tend to look young. Does anyone have the same observation?

Humm not really. In my perception, as you age and lose collagen, it seems to be that thinner people tend to show more wrinkled skin on their faces.

A good example to me is Anthony Bourdain. Here's a picture of him in 2014 and four years later:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Bourdain#/media/File:A...

http://www.bravotv.com/blogs/anthony-bourdain-comic-book-hun...

Don't believe four years alone does that to someone's face skin.

He doesn't look terrible for being over 60. Don't forget that the restaurant industry is a stressful job with long hours, and he's known for his incessant smoking, drinking, and drug use. Neither of those things lead to a youthful appearance.

Not saying he looks terrible for his age. Just the fact that his face looks way more wrinkled and the biggest factor seems to be weight loss, as not so many years have passed from one photo to another. Also, he doesn't work in the restaurant industry for a long time and enjoys what seems to be a very comfortable life doing nice TV shows.

https://www.instagram.com/anthonybourdain

I'm guessing it's less comfortable than you're led to believe from the TV show.

Inverse, Skinny all my life until I was around 21, then started steadily (slowly) gaining weight. Now I'm classified as "Overweight" but I'm not outwardly fat looking.

However, I do look quite old for my age, I'm 28 and could easily pass for 35. I had/have a high metabolism all my life.

I lost ten kilos last year and my friends have been asking me how I managed to look like I'm getting younger while they are getting older (for the record, I'm also in my mid-thirties and one of the few who has yet to have children).

Yes, I have the same observation. I do my own version of "intermittent fasting" diet since 3 years ago and I get the same observation from people, they say I look younger. I feel great :)

Based on your height & gender, 1500 kcal is either a normal caloric intake or a significant deficit.

This is difficult to follow in daily life although not impossible. Given that food is becoming less nutritious as per [1] taking less food will mean less nutrition which can affect general well-being. Figuring out foods high in nutrients, low in calories will require a lot of discipline.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13179

> Figuring out foods high in nutrients, low in calories will require a lot of discipline.

Will it, really?

1. Skip the snack aisle

2. Visit the fruit and veg aisle

3. Eat meat and replace candy with low-sugar nutrition bars

You are pointing out foods low in calories(which is good) but as per the link I quoted they may not be that nutritious.

I cannot find it right now, but I am quite sure that in last few weeks there was a post on HN with roughly the same statement, but for high protein diet.

No, the evidence for high protein is the opposite - shortening life by increasing cancer risk:

"study cohort aged 50–65 reporting high protein intake had a 75% increase in overall mortality and a 4-fold increase in cancer death risk during the following 18 years"

Levine ME, Suarez JA, Brandhorst S, et al.: "Low protein intake is associated with a major reduction in IGF-1, cancer, and overall mortality in the 65 and younger but not older population" Cell Metab. 2014;19(3):407-417. https://www.naturalmedicinejournal.com/journal/2014-05/high-...

In my opinion it is likely that the higher mortality is not entirely caused by protein intake itself (although there is some evidence that high-protein enviroments are mutagenic in yeasts), but is due to either the increased cancer risk from processed meat (nitrosamines) and/or red meat intake.

From your link, "the subjects consumed 1,823 calories on average per day, of which the majority came from carbohydrates (51%), followed by fat (33%) and protein (16%), with most of it (11%) derived from animal protein. The percent of calorie intake from protein was used to categorize subjects into a high-protein group (20% or more of calories from protein), a moderate-protein group (10–19% of calories from protein), and a low-protein group (less than 10% of calories from protein)."

Strange, that doesn't seem like a high protein diet to me. Athletes, particularly resistance trained athletes, regularly consume 30% or more of their calories in protein.

Further, from your link, "These associations [of protein -> higher mortality] were either abolished or attenuated if the proteins were plant-derived." So protein itself is not the problem, despite the study's authors repeatedly asserting this.

The study suggests plant proteins attenuated that effect. Plant proteins tend to also be accompanied by fiber, while animal protein sources do not contain fiber. In other words, aside from plant protein powder supplements (which still contain some fiber) or tofu, I cannot think of any source of plant proteins that are not accompanied by fiber.

I wonder if that contributes to lower cancer risk, especially colorectal.

What I have read you can basically make a trade off with IGF-1.

You can live more years by lowering IGF-1 but you are going to feel older with lower IGF-1.

I would much rather have a longer period of high IGF-1 than a longer overall total lifespan.

When I was young(er) I did CR for a few years. The first 10kg was easy, the next 5kg hard, and the last 5kg a total struggle. What really got to me is that all I thought and dreamed about was food - I still remember some of my food dreams from this time and this was 20 years ago.

Likely obvious to many in this group, but I think the right phrasing is "ordinary calorie" rather than "reduced-calorie" diet. People routinely eat more than they need and misunderstand that they are burning most of their calories while working out.

I have been on a reduced calorie diet (one meal a day) since the start of february and have lost over 10 kg of both fat and muscle.

10KG? in 6 weeks? that sounds like a dangerously high amount of weight loss.

I went from 66 kg to ~55kg, eating only one lunch a day plus some fruits. I think I've gotten way too thin, that around 58 kg would have been better, and that's why I'm thinking of starting to supplement. I also have kept on exercising plenty, muay thai and boxing, and that might be why I've lost this much weight, even though I wasn't obese when I started.

It's really fast, but it depends what the starting point was. A lot of it could have been just water, if they were obese to begin with.

If you can’t pronounce it, don’t eat it - somebody

Quinoa?

Jesus christ, just 1-2 months ago there was another HN "scientific" post that it actually does not.

Can we make up our minds already?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com

Reduced-﻿calorie diet shows signs of slowing ageing in people

Reduced-calorie diet shows signs of slowing ageing in people