Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MushroomNovaCat t1_j7vykcw wrote

A while ago I saw an interview with a group of seniors who practiced calorie restriction for health reasons. They all moved and spoke like they lacked energy and looked generally miserable though that might have been the upper middle-class snobbery.

Given the poor quality of most Western diets which have been well established as conducive to inflammatory diseases, the results of this study might be a good example of correlation not indicating causation. Eating less food might improve health because of a reduction in inflammation caused by a poor quality diet, not necessarily because less calories are consumed. To my knowledge, calorie restriction has not been associated with longevity or any positive health outcomes in so-called blue zones:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone#/media/File:3_blue_zones_venn_diagram.svg

We're at a point where we know what leads to healthy, long lives, there's no need to rewrite the alphabet in that sense, or more precisely, to eat less calories than we should, we simply need to restructure society so that we can practice what we know is good for us.

−28

_smooth_talker_ t1_j7w3tin wrote

Did you just refute this research with an anecdote about a conversation with hungry seniors and a venn diagram in a Wikipedia article?

45

alpacasb4llamas t1_j7wce30 wrote

At least that's more evidence than most politicians use to form major policies

2

JaelPendragon t1_j7wfa9o wrote

Personal anecdotes have no value

6

[deleted] t1_j7wzgc3 wrote

[removed]

−6

JaelPendragon t1_j7x3pk3 wrote

I feel better when I'm slightly hungry, there you go with another pointless personal anecdote. Bring data or shut up

1

[deleted] t1_j7x4n05 wrote

[removed]

0

JaelPendragon t1_j7x9eqs wrote

Irrelevant whether I'm in the minority or not (and congrats for failing to read and understand my pointless personal anecdote claim, where I mention being slightly hungry but whatever), it is still a personal anecdote which has no value. Just like yours. Go educate yourself about how science works

2

radischen2 t1_j7w6q3e wrote

The developed world is suffering from severe overeating. So seeing that calorie restriction can actually have beneficial effects on top of losing fat is great to hear isn't it, why would you want less of that?

5

MushroomNovaCat t1_j7w9959 wrote

Because the diets of the participants were not analyzed, only a caloric deficit was tracked, and the results therefore can't be used to claim that sustained caloric restriction itself is a necessary predictor of better health outcomes. Someone eating an appropriate amount of calories from a good diet might have the same or better health than someone eating an unhealthy calorie restricted Western diet. In other words, it's not necessary to eat less calories than recommended to be healthy, calorie restriction is not practiced in areas known for health and longevity. There are various factors that go into good health and a long life that have been identified in blue zones but calorie restriction is not one of them.

−8

radischen2 t1_j7wefor wrote

What does healthy or unhealthy mean in this regard? The researchers made sure that the participants were a randomized group of people in a CR and with all of their nutrients met. So that points to a really strong association between CR and this slowing in aging. Thats all this study was saying really. Of course there are various factors that go into good health and now we have potentially found an additional factor, which is why I'm suprised by your opposition to it.

7

MushroomNovaCat t1_j7x4cjp wrote

A healthy diet is one which contains a low amount of animal products and highly processed foods along with a good amount of fiber. In recent years we have become aware of the effects of highly processed foods in our gut microbiome and how chronic diseases are linked to inflammation caused by poor diets.

Calories being equal, a serving of plainly cooked farro is healthier than a serving of white bread in the same manner that a serving of grapes is healthier than a serving of wine, etc. because of the inflammatory effects and associated chronic diseases linked to highly processed foods.

We have known for a while that calorie restriction works, we don't know why it works, there are various competing theories. People do not like to be hungry, it affects their mood and their cognitive abilities. The point of my comment was to stress that it may not be necessary to restrict calories in order to promote health, that link has not been definitively established because the cause for improved health and longevity through caloric restriction has not been determined.

−1

dreamlike_poo t1_j7wd5qf wrote

The scientific community has known for decades that calorie restriction increases longevity in mammals, but the exact mechanisms weren't well understood. It seems like we might be narrowing down the way it works.

5

MushroomNovaCat t1_j7x2276 wrote

Yes, we know caloric restriction works, my point wasn't to point out that it doesn't work, my point was to point out that we don't know that it leads to better health because of the lower caloric intake or because of other associated factors as was profusely discussed in the study you linked.

Your second link discussed research suggesting that when we eat is important as well, which we have also known for a while, but this has nothing to do with determining the reason why caloric restriction leads to better health and longevity. We still don't know if it's the associated factors that are responsible rather than the lower intake of calories itself.

2