One thing is for sure, the average Western diet has so many calories than most people could probably do with a little restriction. (Not even to do anything special, just to return to a healthy state.)
In the West? Men? I'd love to see statistics for that.
In general, being overweight is a far, far larger problem in the West, and being underweight is extremely rare outside of eating disorders like anorexia. There are people who are naturally skinny due to how their metabolism works, but they are rarely truly underweight.
Depends on the country, I suppose. I'm having a hard time finding stats for US that compare underweight and overweight % of population in one study.
Anecdotal evidence from Europe: in our industry, culturally associated with obesity, I meet roughly equal amount of obese and underweight people. And I seriously doubt those underweight people spend time in the gym.
There's a difference between weight gain strategies to build muscle and eating because you're "underweight." People not working out and eating normally will be less bulky than people who work out and eat comparatively more. But they won't be "underweight."
Sure it's a thing for a reason... the reason is guys who are into body lifting that was an easy source of calories and protein. It has nothing to do with your narrative.
Costco pizzas are $10 and over 4000 calories, eat one of those a day and if you don't get fat then you probably have a tapeworm in you or something. Or you're Michael Phelps during training season.
This has to do with mitochondrial metabolic processes being the most efficient to break down smaller quantities of sugar. There are mitochondrial mechanisms to break down a lot at once that are turned on in the presence of more sugar but they just aren’t as finely tuned and thus generate free radicals which can cause cellular problems. There really wasn’t a point throughout evolutionary history where there was a prolonged abundance of sugar available to the degree it is today. Because of that, the mechanisms to break down a lot of carbohydrates/sugars at the same time just did not evolve to be as operationally efficient. Free radicals can cause DNA/RNA disruptions and also damage other processes. Source: father is a dedicated microbiologist
Interesting to know about free radical creation when mitochondria are overwhelmed. I’m sure there’s a lot more factors involved in aging however, not the least of which would be senescent cells. Telomeres only allow cells to divide ~50 times before they’re unable to replicate further.
Before they start eating their own instructions. Every chromosome will become a Y chromosome some time in the future if we do not invent the necessary means.
Unfortunately free radical aging theories are not enough. It's a tiny piece of a picture, because effectively immortal organisms still use the same mechanisms.
And it's not for some magic scavenging either.
Even telomere bound is not enough.
It's likely a set of advanced repair and local homeostasis so that feels still execute the complex maturing program correctly.
Too many senescent or damaged cells might just break the conditions... And mitochondria and cells have excellent mechanisms of dealing with reactive species they make, but sometimes chemicals leak in.
I'd be more concerned with infections and resulting damage at this point, plus toxic damage.
Including endogenous like glycation.
Ask your father about drug induced mitochondrial dysfunction. I had ciprofloxacin 4 years ago and my exercise tolerance swiftly dropped in the months afterward. Research tells me this is due to mtdna depletion and dna damage and I just want to know how to get better. I now have stage 1 diastolic dysfunction and a plethora of seemingly unrelated problems, coming from none before.
It's probably not fixable if it's really that. Even if mtDNA is fine the mitochondria have their own mechanism for senescence based on other damage, just like cells.
It does not even have to be caused by radicals.
And would there be a way you think to test if that's really the case?
I have talked with some people who had like severe reactions to the drug who managed to get some kind of mitochondria testing and it would say stuff like "30% of the active sites are blocked on the mitochondria"
Agree with the sentiment. But in this instance the data, preliminary as it is, is pointing towards "no effect" in humans.
This is true of both animal studies, and preliminary statistical data on the few humans that have been trying CR for a few decades now. There is health improvement, but that's because CR is watching your diet, which is generally good for you. You correct for those factors and the effect basically disappears, at least into the high level of noise that comes with low sample sizes.
But if you still believe in CR, even easier is taking resveratrol. My understanding is that the caloric restriction basically causes the production of resveratrol which is the cause of the beneficial effects in mice. So take resveratrol and eat a normal amount of healthy food should have the same result.
I had never heard of that term but now that I know what it is, I think you’re right. There are so many very strong opinions about diet here and very little quality data to back it up (because for the most part it doesn’t exist).
What? I guess you haven't seen normal people then. Compared to HN, normies seem to have "orthorexia" up to ridiculous levels. Hardly a day goes by without hearing a genpop opinion on what I or someone else should eat, or why $whatever-I-just-looked-at will give me cancer - all of it being regurgitated garbage from the magazines and news sites they read, without them realizing that those sources are not science, but entertainment.
(My gripe is less with individuals, who are inconsiderate - it's primarily with aforementioned entertainment sources that purposefully twist and misrepresent actual research and play on people's fears.)
On a weekly basis someone tells me one of the following things: I'm not eating enough (I'm a healthy weight) , I'm eating too much junk food and not getting enough "nutrients" (they never seem to know which nutrients exactly, but they're sure I'm missing some), I spend too much time sitting down and that's why my back hurts, or I'm standing up too much and thats why my leg hurts. Of course they're well meaning, but I think it's funny to say that tech people are too health obsessed. Sleep obsessed, maybe.
>Calorie restriction is well known slowing biological aging process
Cut calories and you cut the amount of cardio and strength training you can do. This cuts muscles mass, bone density, and takes away the IQ-increasing brain simulation factors away. I am not sold at all.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction