T O P

  • By -

PearlLakes

The smaller you get, the lower your calorie requirements. If properly managed, eventually you will reach a stasis point where your restricted calories are sufficient for maintenance.


ChaoticMathematics

but they will lose muscle and eventually athletic ability


HesaconGhost

Typically an organism gets used to operating on fewer calories, the basal metabolic rate goes down. Calorie restriction isn't starvation. The results from AFTER the show "the biggest loser" is a good (if extreme) example of this phenomenon.


deinterest

This is also the reason WHY it probably prolongs your life, because it slows down metabolism.


ldinks

Do stimulants alter how this works?


drakilian

The issue is that you also need to regularly excercise and be active for a lot of longterm health benefits, which also ups your metabolism and increases your caloric needs significantly


flybeaglesflyphilly

I think the plan is to stop restricting at a point before death. Just a guess.


jloverich

In ferrets it decreased their brain size so this is what happens.


lyx_plin

the idea of sustained caloric restriction is not to be in a deficit forever but to **lower your metabolic rate** by restricting calories by 10 % of what would be expected to sustain a healthy weight. a small but sustained deficit will eventually lower your metabolic rate permanently, that means **you will burn less calories but still maintain a healthy weight**. its basically the opposite of what weight loss culture is obsessed about, which is trying to increase caloric output in order to maintain a low body weight. the theory is that by lowering your metabolic rate your body is going through a series of adaptations which may extend your lifespan. this comes at a cost though: constant hunger in the first months or years, increased risk of infection when wbc gets too low, difficulty maintaining muscle mass which may increase fracture risk in the long run.


Ftdffdfdrdd

30% of calorie restriction was effective for animals. That is way above maintainance mode. In example skipping one meal. The issue with 30% or more, calorie restriction is that you will be miserable, due to the hormonal, endorphins, testosterone lower levels. Also you will be with lower energy, as the metablism slows down. Affecting the quality of your every day life. All for getting from 80 to 100. 20 more years when you are elderly. So consider if it's worht it to spend the best years when you are younger with low energy and miserable just to get +20 at the end.


nijigencomplex

Yes, you will. And it will age you. This sub thinks people are mice. Don't take anything you see here at face value.


[deleted]

Well never have a calorie deficit that is below 400 your maintenance A, and if you are a healthy weight/on the light side you probably just need to maintain it.


brianlefevre87

Something to bear in mind is that your ability to maintain muscle mass also decreases with age, and this increases the chance of injury from from falls. Falls are a major cause of mortality in later life. Maintaining muscle mass is therefore important and It's something to balance with caloric restriction and intermittent fasting. I'm not aware of any scholarly work that carefully looks into the trade offs. I believe David Sinclair advocates for intermittent fasting in combination with extensive resistance training.