An Upside Down Approach to Eating?

(Fiddlestix H. McWhiskers) #1

I’m fairly certain I haven’t shred this idea before, but I could be wrong. Like I always say, I’m kinda smart, but I’m also stupid.

I was thinking about what people usually say about why over eating is more difficult to stop than alcohol, smoking, drugs, &c., because we can just quit those sorts of things completely; we don’t need them. But we can’t just stop eating food. I’ve never had that problem with food, but some very close friends of mine have and do.

I recently successfully completed my first 72 hour water fast and loved the experience. I was rather bummed out having to resume eating because I was enjoying the effortless experience I was having by not consuming anything other than water. I only relented and resumed eating because I didn’t want to over do it for my first time and do more harm than good.

But it got me wondering… what if, instead of setting an upper limit on food intake, what if there could be a lower limit, a healthy minimum requirement of nourishment that must be met in order to maintain a healthy constitution? To approach it as if you would rather never have to eat food again, but you are willing to eat a minimum. Not in an unhealthy manner; like I said, just enough to maintain a healthy body.

Just kind of thinking out loud. Any thoughts?

#2

In the format of a customised, well-formulated ketogenic diet it would work well to have a foundational plan that was dynamic enough to respond to the ups and downs of daily life.

(KM) #3

I had a similar thought a few years ago when I was doing a lot of fasting. There is a lot of talk that if you simply “under eat” rather than follow a meticulous fasting schedule of fast and feast, you will reset your metabolism to be lower.

Turning that inside out, I wondered why that would really be a problem, assuming I got enough nutrition to keep my cells happy. Not eating as much saves money and effort, and at least in mice a significant calorie reduction resulted in life extension.

If I recall, the primary downside is probably temptation. As @FrankoBear puts it, the ups and downs of daily life. If you have a metabolism that underutilizes calories and then you binge (or even return to your old normal meal size), you may put on a whole lot of weight and be very challenged to get it off again.

(KM) #4

Also, I suppose it’s possible that if you reset your metabolism and you still have additional weight to lose, you will stall out your weight loss journey. My physiology doesn’t seem affected in that way, but I was never diabetic or clinically obese.

(John) #5

It can be a pretty challenging lifestyle to maintain, though. It’s one thing to get past that hormonal urge to eat in the first day of a fast and then just go into cruise control for a couple more days. But having to deal with those hormones signaling for more food each day could get exhausting. We get fooled during a fast into thinking that it’s easy to refrain from eating, but that’s a hormonal effect - ghrelin production decreases while GLP-1 and others increase. That’s not what would happen if you were eating regularly but less quantity so it could be tough to sustain. Plus, RMR would eventually lower. I prefer to keep mine as high as I can get it.

(KM) #6

Why? I’m not challenging you, it’s just always been the question in my mind, what is gained by a higher RMR?

#7

I don’t think the human body uses up so much energy just for fun, it’s needed. Lowered metabolism must result in a worse functioning. Slower healing, being too cold, weak, tired, whatever, I don’t really know, I never underate for longer term and I had no symptoms short term.
I had your thoughts about how neat and economic is living from less but it can’t be as good quality as using the normal amount of energy.

Sadly, I typically overeat, temptation is way too great so I can’t even try undereating. But I would be wary anyway because of the above. I can afford a decent deficit as I have plenty of bodyfat and I am very well-fed anyway so I could risk a big deficit too (even if my metabolism slows down, it should quickly quicken up if I don’t do undereating for too long. I trust my health and the feedback system of my body. I wouldn’t risk losing a not minuscule amount of muscle though)…

In short, in my opinion,

means eating at normal lower maintenance (I mean, the bottom of our maintenance range, my range is apparently quite big now).

By the way, if I just wanted to make eating simpler, quicker and cheaper, I would work on lowering my protein intake. I actually try but not hard enough. Fasting helps a lot, even OMAD if I am careful not overeating protein in my single meal… Fat fast OMADs are the best, almost no protein and a very, very tiny, very cheap but satisfying meal.
I do enjoy eating but I enjoy the chill of fasting too.

(Bob M) #8

If you’re a calories-are-everything person, then a higher RMR would mean you could lose weight because you’re burning more calories per day.

The data is all over the map for this, especially for fasting. I think the problem with fasting is that if you don’t feast, the body will slow down. If you fast “correctly”, I think it’s okay. I’m planning a 4.5 day fast soon, although maybe not until mid November.

(John) #9

In addition to a high RMR being good for energy production when I’m not doing any work, it’s good for building and preserving lean muscle mass (super important to me especially as I’m aging). Also promotes optimal hormone production and perhaps mood stability along with it, seems to strengthen immunity, improve sleep quality and recovery, create more healthy hair and skin growth from more rapid cell turnover, as well as helping to regulate body temperature more effectively. I’ve not seen much upside in the science to support a lower RMR and eating less.

P.S. I don’t mind being challenged. We seem to be a pretty civil and supportive group here :blush: