
The secret to a long and healthy life? Eat less - DiabloD3
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170601-the-secret-to-a-long-and-healthy-life-eat-less
======
cyrusshepard
Good overview of the benefits of calorie restriction, but doesn't touch on two
of the most important schools of thought of the past couple years.

1\. Calorie restriction is almost impossible for most humans to follow long
term

2\. Many of the same benefits of calorie restriction may be achievable through
intermittent fasting, which is much easier for people to follow. I've been
experimenting with a daily 16 hour fast (all calories consumed within an
8-hour window) and have seen small improvements in my energy and general well-
being, although it's decades too early to say how this will impact my
longevity.

Relevant articles:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/srep33739](https://www.nature.com/articles/srep33739)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622429/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622429/)
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-hunger-
gains-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-hunger-gains-
extreme-calorie-restriction-diet-shows-anti-aging-results/)

~~~
listentojohan
Have thought about the fasting as well, but isn't it basically the same as
skipping breakfast?

~~~
hanoz
Fasting is by definition skipping break fast.

~~~
stefs
technically correct and also not very helpful :)

------
chiefalchemist
A few thoughts.

It seems that "calorie restriction" is a misleading term. If these funds are
correct, CR should be considered the norm/ideal. That means the majority,
currently, over-consume.

That aside. I wonder if it's also related to modern food, and the production
there of. If inflammation is the root of most disease, and CR, I presume,
reduces inflammation, then what is it about our foods that trigger so much
inflammation?

Finally, when all said and done, I predict this will be found to connect with
gut bacteria in some way. That is, CR effects the gut, and that effect is
ultimately a positive for the whole body.

~~~
dghughes
A CRON or calorie restriction optimal nutrition diet is a thing, not only
eating fewer calories but what you do eat has to be absolutely perfect in
nutrition.

Micheal Mosley on BBC interviewed a CRON advocate he are an apple peel but
threw away the inner part.

I've read that a rumbling stomach is necessary for gut health without it your
microbiome suffers, CR may incidentally do that.

~~~
kyle-rb
>he ate an apple peel but threw away the inner part

I can do reduced calories, but that right there just sounds miserable.

~~~
rukuu001
I saw the program, the guy actually had a giant bowl of fruit, mostly frozen
berries(!), and yes, apple peel. He seemed pretty cheerful, and it didn't look
like privation.

I do remember reading the blog of some guy way back around 2007 or so who was
on a 1000 calorie per day diet. One of the most miserable things I ever read.
The highlight of his week was 1 square of 100% cacao chocolate.

------
stevewillows
About five years ago I switched to one large meal per day (dinner) with a
snack or two. Prior to this I lost nearly 40lbs by shifting my diet toward
dominant protein and smaller portions. I also added in a good 30+ minutes of
walking per day. Nothing fancy.

I also dropped almost all of my sugar intake. I drink about 3L of water per
day and have one cup of coffee in the morning.

I've been able to maintain a healthy weight (6'4" tall, ~185lbs) and I rarely
feel truly hungry. On the days where I have more than one large meal, I tend
to feel tired and foggy.

Its completely anecdotal, but this pattern has worked out well for me.

The main issue with articles like this is that they propose lame diets that
strip out enjoyment. If you want to eat eggs basted in butter, do it -- but
balance that out with exercise or somewhere else in your diet. No use
suffering so you can live a few extra years at the tail end of your life.

~~~
siliconc0w
I've settled into a similar pattern and have found it the most sustainable out
of all the diets I've tried. I also recommend a few multi day water fasts a
year as a sort of 'soft-reset' of your appetite/digestive system. You learn
the difference between cravings and hunger and how marvelously tuned your body
is for dealing with caloric deficiencies. People get so anxious and scared of
hunger when it's no big deal. You're basically asking it to 'garbage collect'
to conserve the energy you're burning which it doesn't seem to do normally
when food is coming in every few hours.

~~~
pitaj
Also, most hunger is really thirst, but your body will output the same
sensation.

------
bonniemuffin
I checked out the recipes on the iDiet website recommended in the article, and
I'm feeling sad and deprived just reading them. I'm willing to suffer for
better health, but I'd hate to suffer through a life of egg whites and
margarine and then discover in the end that the science was wrong.

~~~
sporkenfang
Even if it means dying a year earlier I'm going to eat salted butter and drink
red wine and enjoy it. Better to enjoy less than to have more you don't enjoy?

~~~
marricks
I think the dynamics are more complicated than that. Some diseases seriously
mess with your quality of life, whether it be chemo for cancer or blood
pressure medicine with nasty side effects for heart disease. Or my least
favorite, a decade of Alzheimer's.

I heard the ideal death described as pretty solid health up to a very rapid
decline, healthy food probably helps that.

~~~
AznHisoka
Yep, totally agree. If you got acid reflux, you cant enjoy coffee or spicy
foods at all.

If only if it was as simple as enjoy junk food and your life and die a few
years younger.

~~~
esolyt
Exactly. The first 70 years of a 75-year life is probably more enjoyable than
a 70-year old life.

------
louprado
My father has had a low calorie diet all of his life. At 78, he is in perfect
physical and mental condition. His doctor had only one concern; he is slowly
losing weight each year and needs to reverse that. The doctor wanted to
prescribe an appetite enhancing drug but my father explained he can not simply
gain weight by eating more. It's as if his digestive system is already at a
maximum threshold.

I wonder if habitual CR inevitably trains the body to stabilize its weight and
if that can not be undone if practiced too long. That then put you at
increased mortality risk when you start losing body mass in old age. Caged
animal studies might miss this risk because a valued lab rat won't suffer
sudden injuries and the resulting prolonged hospital visits.

~~~
pharrlax
>The doctor wanted to prescribe an appetite enhancing drug but my father
explained he can not simply gain weight by eating more. It's as if his
digestive system is already at a maximum threshold.

It's more likely that his weight set point has been lowered, and now his
hormonal hunger indicators are defending that set point.

He needs to power through it and eat more, even though it's going to feel like
he's uncomfortably full all the time. I went through the same thing. It's all
mental. It has nothing to do with the digestive system.

~~~
taneq
Note that he doesn't need to eat _much_ more. A few hundred kilojoules a day
will do the trick over time - he could reverse such a slow trend by something
as small as switching from low fat to full cream milk, or having a couple of
Tim Tams with his morning coffee.

------
Theodores
Assume that you had a garden with acres of produce all perfectly grown and in
season. If you wanted orange juice all you would need to do is walk out into
this garden, pick some oranges, bring them back to the kitchen and manually
squeeze them into a glass.

Now imagine if you wanted to have a bit of toast, maybe with some chocolate-
hazelnut spread. All you would need to do is walk into the garden, grab some
hazelnuts off the tree and some cocoa beans, perhaps with some cane sugar for
good measure. Some blender in the kitchen would be able to make your hazelnut
spread, just so long as you shelled the nuts first. Similarly with the bread,
in this garden, free for the taking would be some strong wheat that you can
put through some kitchen appliance, then after a few hours with the
breadmaking machine the bread would be good to eat. Butter would be equally
simple too, you just needed to milk a cow, put the milk in some glorified
washing machine with a bit of salt, then wait a while to get the freshest
butter ever tasted.

Would you be able to complete all of these tasks by breakfast? Would you
really bother to shell all of those hazelnuts? Would you question why it is
that you have juiced 14 oranges when actually just the one orange, non-juiced
was satisfying enough and didn't require all that effort dicking about with
juicing?

Of course people have allotments and smallholdings so this does happen, albeit
with greenhouses instead of some magic 'always in season' aspect. But my
office workmates of the obese variety have no idea of the effort needed to get
their food, even if it is healthy food. The connection is not there.

One of my dream is to rock up at the doctors one day having eaten too much
fruit and veg. For the doctor to recommend me to stay off the veggies and eat
some sugary snacks instead. I am fairly sure that no amount of fruit and veg
would age me, not in the way that sugary snacks, beef products and everything
processed would.

------
ericjang
Does that imply that lifting, building up one's body and consuming excess
calories to bulk up is somehow stressful for the body's metabolic aging
process?

~~~
j7ake
whether you are muscular or skinny, you have the same set of organs. The fact
you are 30 percent bigger in mass means all your organs (heart, liver, kidney,
muscles, ...) are working much harder than if you had less mass.

~~~
gragas
>your organs are working much harder

That's very misleading logic. You make it out that your organs working much
harder is a bad thing in all cases. That's not true.

When you exercise, your organs work much harder. Yet it is much better to
exercise and have your organs work harder than to not exercise at all.

~~~
havetocharge
It's probably not so simplistic one way or the other. However, some organs do
function as filters, so overloading them would be detrimental.

------
adambmedia
In addition to differences in recommended calorie intake, is there a good,
scientific, international comparison that puts dietary guidelines side-by-
side, nutrient guidelines, balanced meal?

It's amazingly difficult to find clear information anywhere. For instance, CDC
Nutrition guidelines?! It's an example of something that, in trying to be
comprehensive, results in a mess of awkwardly qualified terms and difficult to
digest (couldn't help it) high-level recommendation.

USDA Food Patterns, Healthy US-Style Eating Pattern.
[https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendi...](https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-3/)

Meat poultry and eggs in the same line? They are completely different foods
with wildly varying nutrients.

[UPDATED: good start] - Pictorial Nutrition Guidelines:
[http://www.fremont.k12.ca.us/cms/lib04/CA01000848/Centricity...](http://www.fremont.k12.ca.us/cms/lib04/CA01000848/Centricity/Domain/189/pictorials_nutrition_guides.pdf)

\- Comparison of International Dietary Guidelines and Food Guides in Twelve
Countries across Stages of the Nutrition Transition
[http://www.fasebj.org/content/29/1_Supplement/898.36.short](http://www.fasebj.org/content/29/1_Supplement/898.36.short)

------
rubicon33
Most articles on eating tend to focus on weight, drawing the conclusion that
weight (fat) is the problem, not eating. This article provides a refreshing
perspective:

> _But the latest results suggested that significant health benefits can be
> garnered in an already healthy body – a person who isn’t underweight or
> obese._

The take away here is that the problem with excessive eating isn't just the
weight gain. There's something about eating itself which is stressful.
Restricting calories is good for you even if you're already within a healthy
BMI. This means that just because you can eat anything, doesn't mean you
should.

~~~
justboxing
> Restricting calories is good for you even if you're already within a healthy
> BMI.

How much of this study, and your statement, applies to highly active
individuals, and atheletes? I box and train 5 - 7 times a week, and spar (high
intensity with protective gear) twice a month.

I tried restricting calories to lose fat and "lean out" but I find that I am
constantly hungry (even after consuming proteins) and like someone else has
mentioned here, I don't get good sleep when I eat less...

~~~
rubicon33
If you're highly active you will definitely need to eat more to support the
repair of muscle and bone. Assuming you're already within healthy BMI (don't
need to lose fat) then I doubt anyone would suggest you restrict calories
while physically active. You need food to support the repair of muscle and
bone - there's no getting away from that.

What is up for consideration is how MUCH food do you really need? The general
takeaway from the article which can be broadly applied, is that less food is
probably better for you. So if you have a large need for nutrient restoration
(from high intensity sports) then try to eat nutrient dense, quality food.

------
dirkg
It is pretty ironic and sad that following a healthy diet, including CR, is
much harder in Western nations and esp in the US.

\- Processed food costs less than fresh food. \- Multiple generations of
people have been conditioned to eat processed and junk food. \- People believe
in the myth that 'cooking takes too long' \- People are lazy and don't want to
spend any time on cooking/food even when living a life of luxury compared to
the rest of the world.

All of which is the opposite of most developing countries. US and UK are very
close in this respect. Even many European countries value shopping for and
eating fresh food much more.

CR, and eating in general should be about buying nutrient dense but low
caloric foods - which is a mostly plant based diet of fresh food. The exact
kind of food which is artificially expensive and considered a 'fad'.

~~~
Qub3d
If you're concerned about the "Western Diet", Michael Pollan wrote an
interesting treatise on it, called _In Defense of Food._

His arguments are very similar to yours.

------
Vitaly
I can't find the study right now, but from what I understand it is only really
beneficial to animals the size of a mice, as soon as you move to bigger
animals the effect is sharply reduced, and experiments with monkeys (or was it
even primates? I don't remember) didn't find any real life prolonging effect.
So you might be subjecting yourself to not enjoying food for no real benefit
after all.

~~~
louprado
I recall watching a video of an engineer practicing CR. He looked miserable
and older than his years. He was constantly cold and had chronic sore feet
because the soles of his feet were too thin.

When I don't eat enough, I don't get hungry, and I don't loose much weight,
but I do have trouble sleeping which results in daytime fatigue and
depression. For me the happiness/sleep threshold is sharp, so I eat just above
that threshold.

~~~
vlasev
I'm not sure if you skip breakfast, but if you do, you are missing a strong
signal to your circadian rhythm. What happens is you end up sleeping later and
waking up later as the rhythm shifts towards your first meal of the day.

~~~
oh_sigh
Do you have any source of proof of any of this? I have no problem waking up at
630am after 7 hours of sleep and not eating anything until after noon.

Thinking to premodern humans, do you think they would frequently have food
waiting for them as soon as they awoke? Some days maybe, but then other days
probably not.

~~~
dpark
> _Do you have any source of proof of any of this?_

Of course not. There's never been any significant evidence of health benefits
from breakfast.

~~~
sudojudo
Why the snark? No need for that. There are many studies that show a link
between meals, especially breakfast, and our circadian clocks.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4078443/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4078443/)

[http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2013/03/05/eating-times-
affect...](http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2013/03/05/eating-times-affect-
circadian-rhythm-study-finds/)

Here's a HN discussion regarding a Harvard study on the subject, from 7 years
ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=199394](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=199394)

Please provide some evidence that these studies are insignificant and
incorrect.

~~~
dpark
Because people have claimed for decades that breakfast is the most important
meal and that you have to eat breakfast and made all sorts of unfounded claims
with no evidence.

I have no trouble believing that breakfast is relevant to circadian rhythms.
This is far different from saying that skipping breakfast inevitably results
in "sleeping later and waking up later as the rhythm shifts towards your first
meal of the day." This is a very strong claim that demands strong evidence.
Some studies linking circadian rhythm to meals is not sufficient.

------
pavement
One detail that isn't explicitly stated, but seems like a bit of a blind spot,
is whether there's an age-appropiate aspect to this behavior.

Do non-growing adults (30+ years old) enjoy greater benefits than small
children who have faster metabolisms and growth spurts ahead of them?

My inutition says that even if the concept still fits well with growing
children, that their cycles are different, and closer together in frequency.
Maybe they don't eat more calories, but eating several times a day might
possibly tie into cycles of blood serum nutrient levels properly based of
weight and activity.

------
YeGoblynQueenne
There's an old joke about eating etc habits and longevity, it goes like this:

\- Doctor, if I don't eat any sugar or salt, don't smoke, don't drink, don't
have any sex, will I live a hundred years?

\- Well, even if you don't, it will sure feel like a hundred.

Meaning: food is one of the pleasures of life. What the hell is the point of
living to a ripe old age if your life is going to simply suck for longer?

And then of course you read some interview with a super-centenarian who goes
"my secret is that I drink a small glass of wine after lunch and smoke a
cigarette before going to bed" and realise that it really doesn't matter what
you do, you just won't live forever, so enjoying your limited time on the
earth is a much more realistic goal.

------
Mikeb85
Doesn't really seem like calorie restriction. The monkeys who died younger
would have definitely been considered unhealthy and gluttonous.

And it's no secret that being overweight causes premature aging, health
problems and eventually premature death.

~~~
jm2721
Totally agree. If you look at the two parallel studies, it seems like diet had
a huge effect on the outcome. The NIA study found no significant difference in
both groups, and fed the monkeys varied source of protein. The UW study found
health improvements in the CR monkeys but fed them 'significantly higher
amount of sucrose compared to the NIA diet'.

[https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2017/01/calor...](https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2017/01/calorie-
restriction-improves-health-survival-rhesus-monkeys)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28094793](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28094793)
[https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14063](https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14063)

------
jksmith
Drift: Maybe a longer life of great experiences is better than a shorter life
of great experiences, but a longer life at the price of greater experiences?
Nah, hope I die before I get old. Case in point: [http://io9.gizmodo.com/men-
can-live-20-years-longer-but-ther...](http://io9.gizmodo.com/men-can-
live-20-years-longer-but-theres-a-high-cost-1678274234)

------
reasonattlm
Some references for those who want to dig in.

Will calorie restriction work in humans?
[http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/aging.100581](http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/aging.100581)

Caloric restriction improves health and survival of rhesus monkeys
[https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14063](https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14063)

In general, the consensus in the research community is that we shouldn't
expect more than an additional ~5 years from the life-long practice of calorie
restriction. The evolutionary argument is that the calorie restriction
response evolved very early on in as a way to enhance fitness given seasonal
famines. A season is a long time for a mouse, not so long for a human, so only
the mouse evolves a very plastic lifespan. The practical argument is that 5-10
years is about the largest effect that could exist and still be hard to pull
out from existing demographic data of restricted calorie intake in a
bulletproof, rigorous way. Obviously any much larger effect would have been
discovered in antiquity and be very well known and characterized by now.

So that said about longevity, it is very clear that calorie restriction does
better and more reliable things for health in ordinary humans in the short
term of months and mid-term of few years than any presently available
enhancement technology can replicate.

A good deal of research into aging is focused on trying to recreate the
calorie restriction response. So far this has consumed billions with little of
practical use to show for it beyond increased knowledge of some thin slices of
cellular biochemistry relating to nutrient sensing and energy metabolism. It
has proven to be very hard and very expensive to get anywhere here.

So calorie restriction itself is free and reliable in its effects. Everyone
should give it a try. There are, however, far more important areas of aging
research to direct funding to instead of trying to recreate this effect with
pharmaceuticals. In an age in which meaningful rejuvenation is possible to
create in the years ahead (see, for example, clearance of senescent cells,
something that calorie restriction can only slightly achieve in a very tiny
way, while drug candidates are managing 25-50% clearance) it seems just plain
dumb to instead be chasing expensive, hard ways to only slightly slow down
aging.

------
mrb
I wonder if Americans' declining life expectancy¹ is due to them eating more
and more.

¹ [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-
li...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-life-
expectancy-declines-for-the-first-time-
since-1993/2016/12/07/7dcdc7b4-bc93-11e6-91ee-1adddfe36cbe_story.html)

~~~
collyw
My guess is that excising less and less will also be a factor.

------
lazyjones
Perhaps eating is just one of the most common ways of getting dangerous toxins
into our body?

~~~
jeffdavis
What toxins?

~~~
hellofunk
Pesticides are showing increased evidence of hurting society through the foods
they protect. In fact there was a post here on HN today regarding this.

------
pascalxus
Due to social conditioning, It's not commonly known, but you don't actually
need to eat every day. You could lose 10 lbs in just a couple of weeks of not
eating any calories, but I would recommend eating 1 lbs of spinach and maybe a
combination of other green, red and orange vegetables: that will keep your
calorie count under 200 for the day. Drink lots of water.

I know the hunger will drive you crazy in the first few days, but your body
gets used to it and it's not so bad, after 3 days.

The first time you do it, perhaps start off with some 16 hour fasts at first
for a few months till your used to that, then you can increase it.

~~~
exolymph
This kind of aggressive diet is usually followed by gaining back the weight.

~~~
moochachana
I have to agree with this. However it's not because it's aggressive. It's
because he's recommending eating at all. When you eat very little, your body's
metabolism drops to match the new standard energy intake.

A much preferable recommendation would be to simply water fast for the same
time. Lose even more weight (mostly water weight), then eat normally. Much
more natural in the context of evolution. Periods of eating, periods of
fasting. The practice is as old as time itself.

~~~
ashark
I've found that I can manage a day without taking in any calories, if I'm
willing to feel really tired and have a moderate headache by ~1pm, and be
horribly brain-fogged and useless by ~2pm. I've got a job and kids to take
care of—I can't afford to have days like that very often. The hunger's not a
problem—it's that I feel rather _ill_ by mid-afternoon.

FWIW I rarely eat breakfast, so I guess I'm usually doing the (lame, IMO)
"16/8" fasting pattern, though I'm skeptical that has any benefit.

~~~
moochachana
The reason you feel sick is because you're body isn't used to the shift from
carbohydrates for energy and ketones as energy (body fat). You get brain fog
because only fat in the form of ketones can cross the blood brain barrier. So
adaptation to ketones are vital. You need to work into it. No different from
exercise, or climate adaptation.

Having cold showers shifts your body into using ketones more and more.

Regarding not eating breakfast, watch these videos from FoundMyFitness:

Dr. Satchin Panda on Time-Restricted Feeding and Its Effects on Obesity,
Muscle Mass and Heart Health

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R-eqJDQ2nU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R-eqJDQ2nU)

Ruth Patterson, Ph.D. on Time-Restricted Eating in Humans & Breast Cancer
Prevention

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qlrB84xp5g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qlrB84xp5g)

Time restricted eating, AKA your 16/8, is VERY important. Even if you don't
immediately notice changes. Those changes could begin to occur 2 to 8 years
later. Depending on adherence. Also based on Dr. Ruth Patterson's advice,
skipping breakfast leads to eating late into the night, which is not good for
your health generally.

------
TheRealmccoy
While eating less and having CR and IF is important, equally important is the
actual process of eating.

Most of the articles focus on results, but not on the actual process.

If one is eating sitting on the couch, watching television, completely
oblivious of the activity, it is not going to help.

There is nothing absolute in nature, everything is connected.

How do we eat is far more important than how much we eat.

One simple experiment one can do at dinner is to sit alone, without any
distraction with the dinner plate and for every morsel one takes in, chew it
till you count 20 and then swallow.

Notice what happens...

------
notadoc
Does this surprise anyone? Humans did not spend millions of years eating 6000
calorie hyper refined lab perfected highly processed meals three times per
day. We did evolve foraging, hunting, gathering, and eventually and much more
recently farming, all of which would naturally include a ton of physical
activity and occasional bouts of not eating if a meal was yet unavailable,
which we now call "fasting" as if it is some harsh or deprivational activity.

------
jimjimjim
anecdotal datum: A few years ago I lost about 40 pounds (230->190ish) in a
little over a year by limiting the amount of food and not caring about the
type of food.

steak, sandwiches, cheese, potatoes, all good. salad, bananas, cereal, all
good.

I had to make sure to look at the nutritional info. If the food was small but
energy dense you have to eat less of it.

------
Area12
Investigation into calorie restriction isn't at all new. Roy Walford wrote
five books about it, dating back to 1983.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Walford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Walford)

------
tammer
I eat a protein & fat heavy breakfast & dinner, & skip "lunch". I find it to
be highly effective at keeping me productive through the day (both more time &
more steady energy cycle).

------
petraeus
CR Red Wine and Weed are the secrets to a long and healthy life.

------
m3kw9
Maybe the more you eat the more chance you eat crap that is adverse to your
health hence the variations

------
tsao
What if you're already eating less? It should say: eat the right amount.

------
doener
If you haven’t watch this documentary on the topic:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihhj_VSKiTs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihhj_VSKiTs)

------
dom0
A remarkably click-baity food "science" head line, especially for the BBC.

Edit: "Permanently [...] may turn out to have a profound effect on your future
life, according to [...] scientific studies."

And that's a Bingo, folks.

------
pors
There is lots of proof now that obesity is not caused by "more calories in
than calories out", it is caused by hormone reactions to what you eat (esp.
insulin). Just read the books by Gary Taubs for zillions of details and
references to studies.

So the "eat less" claim in this article is again back to the old MD advice,
"eat less and move more". Not going to work if you don't look at your
macronutrients.

~~~
codingdave
That doesn't mean that "more calories in than calories out" is wrong... it
means that "calories out" is FAR more complex than people give it credit for.
We don't even know all the variables yet. Taubs' writings do bring to light
some of our unknowns. We keep finding more variables for the equation, but
that doesn't mean the equation is wrong... just incomplete.

~~~
godshatter
Not to mention that if the "more calories in than calories out" people aren't
measuring the calories in their excrement or (in the case of diabetics) the
amount of glucose in their urine, then they aren't getting the complete
picture anyway regardless of what gets stored where. They would also have to
factor in how many calories are burned to process each type of food.

As you say, it appears to be more complex than just watching how much you take
in.

