Is metabolic slowdown really a bad thing?

(KM) #1

So, I’ve been maintaining a weight that’s apparently where my body wants to be, even though I’m not eating all that much. I assume that I’ve created something of a metabolic slowdown. Oh no!

But this morning I was staring at my grocery budget and realizing that if I can be optimally healthy and maintain a good weight with the amount of food I’m eating, I can afford much higher quality food. Yay!

Assuming that’s the case, that I’m eating a nutrition dense, “pristine” ketovore diet with enough protein and I’m not hungry or feeling deprived at the calorie level that maintains my current weight, is there a downside to slow metabolism?

(Caveat, I’m not in metabolic derangement, putting on fat no matter how little I eat and still always hungry. Just a slow down in which 1000-1200 calories a day seems to keep me where I am and comfortable.)

I know we tend to think that being able to eat whatever we want or at least however much we want, emotionally, is a good thing. Glorious plate after plate of food with no obesity. Food is an emotionally joyous thing to indulge in. But really, is that the only healthy mindset to have - “as much as I want without consequences?”

(Michael) #2

Good question. I would think that a healthy person would exercise and therefore a higher rate is better. https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases/Benefits-of-exercise-on-metabolism-more-profound-than-previously-reported#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20major%20benefits,during%20metabolism%20are%20called%20metabolites.

Then again, the brighter the flame the shorter the lifespan https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20704872/#:~:text=That%20is%2C%20metabolic%20rate%20is,rate%20live%20slower%20and%20longer.

I will be interested in hearing other thoughts.

(Doug) #3

I think it’s a hard and complex question. Food/Calorie restriction does seem to extend lifespans, but so do having relatively high grip strength and all or most of your teeth, for example.

Being somewhat muscular - at least enough to do what one wants to do - that’s important to me. And these things are not usually mutually exclusive, i.e. most times one can be fairly ‘strong’ and still fast occasionally, or eat one or two meals per day, etc.

If there are no bad consequences, then… there are no bad consequences. :slightly_smiling_face: Same with a ‘slow metabolism’ - if one isn’t feeling uncomfortably cold, can do one’s chosen activities, etc., then what the hey?

I think that happiness is the greatest genius. How to be happy - that’s a heck of a question for some of us. Most of us on this forum are on that questioning journey, some admirably far along, and others (like me) are still trying to find their way. Even where there are consequences, we sometimes still give in to temptation, compulsion, greed or outright fantasy.

Course corrections, positive reinforcement, raw guesswork - it’s all here. The effects of some of what we do won’t be apparent for years. Truly being honest with ourselves is often hard, but it’s a place to start.

#4

In short: YES if you ask me :smiley:

Of course it’s not THAT simple but almost, to me.
I don’t think the body is wasteful. It doesn’t use a lot of energy just because. If the body is forced to use less, it typically causes some kind of problems. Like, lower body temp and feeling cold all the time, it’s quite common. Less quick healing and whatever else. So that’s no good.

If it’s possible to be more efficient without any downsides… Then I can imagine some people can see it as a good (or at least neutral) thing. Not me, I just can’t handle small meals but energy need isn’t super low either.

Another though i have sometimes when someone eats little is getting enough nutrients. But if one eat really nutritious food, it’s a smaller potential problem. I just say one need to be more mindful to the nutritiousness of their food when eating little. Sometimes I look at certain items wondering how people can fit them into their life when it’s easy and for many, it’s typical to eat a lot of it but the nutritional value is low… Someone with a small energy need may have problems.

I personally work on raising my metabolism but it’s not just because I eat much anyway and need to lose a lot of fat but I want to be more muscular and active. IDK what changes I can expect, the body likes to be effective but surely I won’t have a really small energy need for some decades at least…

(KM) #5

Yes, I’m turning it over from both angles. Is it actually healthier to have a lower metabolism, or at least not less healthy.

And also the idea of which trade off is better in terms of life fulfillment - being able to eat without many limits, or being able to maintain perfect health with a much smaller investment of money on food, that freed up income for other things.

#6

I’d say so, if I was limited to 1000-1200cals, that wouldn’t even allow me to eat what I’d call 3 adult sized meals. My protein requirements alone would almost destroy all of that. Then you have the fact that almost any snack, even a good healthy one would most likely take away a meal for me, and to top of off it would be far easier to put fat on when you’re burning almost half of the “normal” everyday.

At 1000-1200cals, I’d absolutely call that being in the calorie trap, just because people don’t starve themselves, or over cardio themselves there doesn’t matter, it ends in the same place. No room to go anywhere.

#7

I couldn’t eat a single decent meal… I just finished my dinner, it was about 2000 kcal. I barely got satiated. My Monday lunch was 1800 kcal. Both days were OMAD days, fortunately…

But it’s just me (and zillion other people, of course). We have a higher energy (and maybe protein) need, some of us just can’t get satiated by small meals (like a 1200 kcal one) so of course a low-cal diet wouldn’t do.

(Chuck) #8

I followed the low calorie diet for years, and it wrecked my health, it has taken me almost a year to get my health back and to be able to eat the amount that my body now requires. I am still not able to eat what so many my age and size eat and not gain weight but I am seeing improvements all the time.
I am not yet able to handle the OMAD plan but I am able to handle the Fast5 plan. I have been able to increase my appetite to almost 2000 calories a day and still not gain weight. Last year at this time I was eating less than 1500 and gained weight. I am wanting to get more exercise and active but the weather here is still too much rain and almost cold. But the long range forecast is for warmer and drier weather to come, that means more hiking and and more yard work. I am so looking forward to it.

(Bob M) #9

It’s not a big deal if you can’t do OMAD. Some people even do 3MAD (three meals a day) and do fine. I do more 2MAD, only because I’m not hungry in the morning, and even if I was hungry, I have no time for breakfast.

#10

This idea that caloric restriction extends lifespan in humans has not been proven and there are zero studies on humans that prove this. The main reason why there are no human studies directly on caloric restriction to extend lifespan is you would never get approval for ethical reasons and you do not have the time (8-9 decades and too many variables) The most cited studies (2) on fasting for longer periods of time were done on mice and showed a 40% increase in lifespan. The problem is we do not know if this would work for humans, also it would equate to about a 14-day fast at best guess. Two other studies on primates (closest to humans) showed mixed results. Furthermore, for ethical reasons, primates can no longer be used.

(Doug) #11

It would indeed take a long time to really study humans, here. :smile: Studies on mice do have their limitations, but most of the cells in a mouse do the same thing as cells in a human. But it’s not just mice that display longer lifespans with calorie restriction - it’s a whole bunch of different animals. In mice, humans, etc., it’s the epigenetic systems that turn genes on and off, i.e. is the gene being expressed or not. This is the primary if not the total driver of the aging process, and it’s affected by diet, exercise, environment, etc.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #12

I guess if we’re going to really restrict our caloric intake, is it going to make us live longer, or is the constant hunger simply going to make it feel longer? :grin:

#13

very interesting post on ‘who we are’ and how we eat and what it takes for each of us at what point in our life. Alot of variables per individual to take into acct. but also remember that a slow metabolism isn’t ‘always’ a bad thing.

from the net: In simple terms, metabolism is the internal process by which your body expends energy and burns calories. It runs 24/7 to keep your body moving, even when you’re resting or sleeping, by converting the food and nutrients you consume into the energy your body needs in order to breathe, circulate blood, grow and repair cells, and everything else it does to survive.

This process works at different intensities in different people. How fast your metabolism works is determined mostly by your genes.

-------------------If one is doing fine on XYZ food then have at it :slight_smile: But always be aware how one eats might not be the same, say 3 months from now if one increases activity level by alot or if one starts to eat ‘less quality good food’ that works for them and lets more crap foods into their menu etc etc etc.

So one’s personal metabolism is gonna follow one’s life force and aging process and more individual process…how we live our daily lives also.

Being on my carnivore plan for alot of years, I had times I ate barely nothing for months on end cause I didn’t need it in any way. Then a flip comes and boom I am eating big kcal days of good dense meat. Then a flip comes and eating alot less again and also alot of this can be thru season changes which can easily be about my activity levels in those seasons also.

You do you any way you feel best. Not a doubt on that one but also allow for changes when your body is asking for changes too.
To box yourself in and not listen to what your body is asking for is a reason people do actually ‘wreck’ a perfectly good metabolism, be it fast, medium or a bit slow but it still suits their needs :slight_smile:

(KM) #14

Yes, this is basically what I’m saying. I would not intentionally restrict calories, that’s a total rookie mistake, but I’m comfortable and satiated with my food. It’s just a somewhat small quantity of food. I’m a small older woman, and at the moment relatively sedentary, so 1200 calories a day is perhaps 400 calories less than the charts might tell me is reasonable. Not like I’m halving my intake. Obviously I would increase my intake if I increased my activity level and that made me hungry.

I got talked into trying $26 per pound organic grass-fed regenerative farmed sirloin steak by my butcher. It was so incredibly good and I’ve been trying very hard to be environmentally responsible, this seemed like the best I could possibly do. I started out thinking hmm, I’m pretty sure my budget won’t support $30+ per day of steak. But then I realized that a 6 oz steak actually felt reasonable to me. That’s still not going to be a daily menu item by a long shot, but the idea that it was an occasional possibility got me going with the idea of being happy with my small calorie need rather than trying to boost it.

(Doug) #15

I think this is it - we’re not talking about “deprivation.” I hope you continue to report about this as it would be interesting to see what happens over time. I’ve had plenty of days where I ate nothing until late afternoon or evening, and then it ended up only being 600 or 1000 calories; just wasn’t worried about food until then, and on that day I felt full pretty fast. It’s certainly going to be a weight-loss day, there, since I’m making up any energy shortfall by burning stored fat. But if someone is staying at the same weight, then what will happen?

#16

Not so. Both studies were done only on male Lab mice and the equivalent fasting time related to humans would be about 14 days.

(Doug) #17

There are other studies on other animals.

#18

Chimpanzee who are closest to humans were also studied but the two studies showed “Mixed results.” in addressing longevity. Furthermore, chimpanzees have been virtually banned from all testing.

(Philip H Kern) #19

As someone else commented, I cut my calories several years ago and am now paying the price. If I knew what I know now, I’d have changed the content of my food but not the calories.

(KM) #20

I’m not intentionally cutting calories, I’m just not that hungry, also not losing weight, which is within a normal range at this point. What happened to you?