Do any people purposely try to slow their metabolism?

rubadub

You always hear of people wanting to increase metabolism. You also hear of peoples system going into "starvation mode" as though it is a really terrible thing. But do any people out there purposely try to go into such a "starvation mode"?

You could look at it another way, being more energy efficient, a "miles per gallon" for the body, many choose a car based on efficiencey. You hear of studies showing that animals who have a lower calorie intake live longer. So is it an advantage to have a slowed down metabolism, you ingest less so could live longer, you spend less time eating (though minimal and most enjoy eating), you spend less money on food too. Are there other downsides to a slow metabolism other than not being able to eat as much?, possibly it is harder to get all your nutrients from smaller amounts of food.

Pherekydes

rubadub wrote:

Are there other downsides to a slow metabolism other than not being able to eat as much?

You get fat.

Coconut

Yep, some people do.

The practice is called "calorie restriction".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction

Link given for information only! Its quite an extreme way of life, and not proven to be effective in humans.

t-ha

Of course there are advantages. We currently live in a situation where all our houses are warm, we have as much food as we can eat and many of us don't even need to walk or even stand much during the course of the day. But how long has that been the case?

What if you were in a situation where there wasn't enough food, where being cold was par for the course & where daily energy output (exercise) had to be alot higher if you wanted a chance to find food. Then obviously it helps to be someone who efficiently stores as much of their food intake as possible - no point heating up dramatically and/or shaking after eating meals the way some people with high metabolisms do.

In fact, I believe it's a current theory that the reason why we were successful at survival while neaderthal's became effectively extinct was because we had a 'starvation mode' and cut back our calorie requirements in hard times by reducing muscle, and hanging onto our fat stores. Neanderthals didn't, and therefore required more calories to survive.

quozl

That sounds miserable. I remember not being able to eat enough for a few weeks after having with my jaws wired shut after an accident.

I was freezing cold the entire time. There's a major disadvantage to your metabolism slowing right down - you have to wear woolly jumpers and hats indoors!

rubadub

Slow coach wrote:

You get fat.

But if your basal metabolism is lower you should not be as hungry. If you continue to eat the same portions out of habit then yes of course you will get fat. If you buy a more fuel efficient car and still stick in the same old 10 gallons every week it will overflow too...


That wikipedia link is interesting.

Recent research has suggested (see Matthias Bluher, C. Ronald Kahn, Barbara B. Kahn, et al.) that it is not reduced intake which influences longevity. This was done by studying animals which have their metabolism changed to reduce insulin uptake, consequently retaining the leanness of animals in the earlier studies. It was observed that these animals can have a normal dietary intake, but have a similarly increased lifespan. This suggests that lifespan is increased for an organism if it can remain lean and if it can avoid any excess accumulation of adipose tissue:

Seems to suggest you could get away with high calories if you had a lot of muscle that needed "feeding" and low fat.

Another NIA study indicates that intermittent fasting may be more beneficial than cutting calorie intake. The researchers fed one group of mice 40% of the calories given to a control group. A third group was fasted for 24 hours, then permitted to free-feed. According to an Associated Press article (29 April 2003), the fasting mice "didn't cut total calories because they ate twice as much on days they weren't fasting. Both the fasting mice and those on a restricted diet had significantly lower blood sugar and insulin levels than the free-fed controls. A toxin that damages hippocampal cells was injected in all of the mice. Hippocampal damage is associated with Alzheimer's. Interestingly, the scientists found less damage in the brains of the fasting mice than in those that ate either a restricted or a normal diet. The NIA is planning a human study that will compare a group eating three meals a day with a group eating the same diet and amount of food within four hours and then fasting 20 hours."

Seems a bit similar to what some practice here, eating less on off days and eating lots on training days.

alienhead

i remember seeing a documentary on Caloric restriction.

while they said it "may" increase life span, you'd be living in a constant state of hunger, foooooook that.

t-ha

I also read a study on the potential benfits of caloric restriction for increased lifespan which showed that up-day down-day dieting was likely to be as effective. It didn't really influence the writing of the Anacat protocol, but it was nice to read.

@alienhead, generally it takes me about 2 - 3 days to adjust to a lower calorie intake. After that it's not so bad. Also, choosing the right foods can make low calorie dieting alot easier.

Supercell

When I was on Lipotrim I was on a severely calorie restricted diet for a long time.
Did loose lots of weight etc, but jebus, mentally was like being behind a fog for the duration - was sleepy a lot of the time, extremely forgetful, and found my attention span was close to that of a 2 month old puppy. Also was constantly cold and shivery.

After a while that did feel normal but when the diet ended it was like a light bulb just got switched on.
Severe calorie restriction (500 calories a day) is not good imho, however am certain that a "ordinary" 2000-3000 calorie diet in the west could be trimmed substantially.