Calorie restriction always works in the short run. The trick is how to maintain the caloric deficit in the long run, while satisfying hunger and maintaining metabolic rate.
Nobody is obese because they enjoy being obese, or dislike being lean and healthy. People are obese because hunger (eventually) overrides conscious motivation. Any diet approach that ignores hunger is doomed to fail.
As the saying goes in the 12 Step Programs: It's simple but not easy.
We can eat a little less to weigh less.
Not in faddish ways but with the changes that many people have suggested here.
1
Bulletproof coffee in morning heavy cream, intermittent fast skip lunch, eat a low carb dinner. Works for me. A1C dropped four points, gained no weight two years, HDL 127.
Americans overeat. Food companies want you to eat a grain laden breakfast, then snack , then lunch, then snack, then dinner, then dessert , then snack. No wonder this country has people with weight and health issues.
8
Why is this a news? Isn't everyone know it already -- less food in will help with losing weight whether you are in normal or excess weight category?
The mother of all question is why we don't do what makes sense for our health improvement. From CDC to the little town newspaper, we are still talking about 'Just Do It. Just look at the latest obesity numbers in the US by CDC: Up again in a decade from 33% to 40%.
Maybe a generation from now, people will laugh at us for assuming humans are like machines who will change lifelong behavior JUST because it's good for our health.
1
This is great; but in a long-term sense, it’s not really calorie restriction (beyond the first week or weeks), but really calorie reduction... which also makes it sound far less onerous!
4
Sugar substitudes can help control weight. Usinskim milk can cut down on cholesterol numbers.
2
Cutting calories leads to weight loss. Duh. Is this really a new finding and worthy of a story?
6
Cut your caloric intake. You may not live longer but it will seem like it.
10
To read more on this topic (without hitting a pay wall), follow the hyperlink in the article to the NIH On Caloric Restriction, here. https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/calorie-restriction-and-fasting-diets-what-do-we-know#should
Note that the NIH article concludes with this question (and the following advice).
Should You Try Calorie Restriction or a Fasting Diet?
There's insufficient evidence to recommend any type of calorie-restriction or fasting diet. A lot more needs to be learned about their effectiveness and safety, especially in older adults.
You may be tempted to try one of these eating patterns. It's important to make sure that whatever you try provides you with a safe level of nutrition. Talk with your healthcare provider about the benefits and risks before making any significant changes to your eating pattern.
Meanwhile, there's plenty of evidence for other actions you can take to stay healthy as you age:
Eat a balanced diet with nutritious food in moderate amounts.
Engage in regular physical exercise.
Drink alcohol in moderation or not at all.
Don't smoke.
Maintain an active social lifestyle.
Get a good night's sleep.
Read more about healthy eating for older adults.
[Thanks for the links, NYT.]
7
The math, she no reconcile. 3500 calories per pound of human weight, or so says existing science. 300 calories per day average reduction, or so says the article. 2 year study period, or so says the article, 18 pound average weight loss, or so says the article. 365 days per year, we all stipulate to this convention currently.
Math 365 days/year x 2 years x 300 calories per day reduction = 219,000 total calorie reduction / 3500 calories per pound = 62.57 pounds of reduction.
Something is profoundly off. Either dramatically reduced activity by the participants burning less calories, or dramatically reduced base metabolic calorie burn by the participants.
The latter is very worrisome. Studied have shown that those with very large weight loss permanently reset their base metabolic rates lower, and thus universally regain their lost weight over time. If his is occurring at minimal calorie reductions, no wonder that people stay overweight forever once they gain any weight. Dieting is futile over the long term, as the results in America that everyone is on a diet and everyone is overweight seem to prove.
3
That is why we need a major research program for the number one health problem in America obesity. Calorie restriction is a virtually impossible task for most people, it is basically torture and to do it for a lifetime?
1
@drcmd
I don't think it's necessarily what you fear. It seems more likely that after the 18 lb loss, people just leveled off. So, what started as a 300-cal deficit, just became a maintenance diet.
1
A consistent exercise program also helps when dieting. I walk 4 miles most mornings. I'm down about 20 pounds net since mid-April. Going for 15 more.
11
I lost 20 pounds this last year by consuming leafy greens, other unprocessed food, cut out dairy, and most importantly almost all alcohol.
Saving lots of money and ditched the gym membership too. I do Bikram yoga every morning before breakfast.
Also important to quit eating after 7 pm until 9 am.
Henry Thoreau was right after all...
12
Ok, here we go again---a "study" of 143 people in which only 12% met the goal, and presto! the conclusion in a headline that calorie restriction is a viable weight-loss/health enhancement strategy. Huh? And besides the sheer bogusness of the study, it has now long been known that it is the quality (carbs) rather than the quantity of calories that makes the difference; carbs matter, caloric intake for the most part appears to be beside the point..
Since we live in a country where most people do not have access to good medical care, we have to work harder to try and stay healthy.
Eat early, drink plenty of water and walk after every small meal. Its not easy but remember being sick in this country is a living nightmare.
17
Intermittent Fasting, folks.
If you normally eat between 8am and 10pm.... but then cut that window down to noon until 8pm... you have 6 hours less time to eat all the food that you usually ate in 14 hours.
Go ahead. Try to down the same amount of calories in 8 hours as you normally do in 14 hours. You're gonna fade. Trust me.
Result --> Caloric Restriction.
15
Well, once again, we have a taxpayer funded study that only has men as subjects. Talk to me when we spend the same amount of time AND money on a study that only has women as subjects. This study is useless to me.
3
@Jean West - this is a concern of mine, also, but this study did have men and women:
"In the new study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published this month in the Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, researchers looked at a group of 143 healthy men and women who ranged in age from 21 to 50."
7
it clearly says both genders were included in the study
4
@kch What does this study have to do with gender identity? It's important that both sexes are represented; gender is irrelevant here. Please try not to conflate the two.
3
CI < CO = recipe for success. Lost 1/3 of my bodyweight at my advanced age.
8
Check out my story in Discover Magazine on caloric restriction versus intermittent fasting. A lot of overlap, and several studies do show longevity benefits to caloric restriction.
http://discovermagazine.com/2018/oct/not-so-fast
5
I try to walk the much debated 10,000 steps a day. That takes about one hour and fifteen minutes of your time and equals about four plus miles of distance depending on your speed. That amount of walking burns over 400 calories to boot. Even with that level of exercise I have to monitor my intake because I will gain weight unless I maintain the discipline of regulating intake. In other words, it ain't easy but I sincerely hope the effort results in better health and longevity.
23
Near the end of the article, it says, "more people dropped out of the diet group than the control group...the calorie-restricted group reported better sleep, increased energy and improved mood. Compared to the control group, they did not have significant increases in hunger or food cravings either." I'm all in favor of eating that provides all the good things described; however, what if the dropouts from the diet group dropped out precisely because they had worse sleep, decreased energy, worsened mood, increased hunger and food cravings, which doesn't require much of a leap to believe is true. The ones in the experimental group who didn't experience the negative subjective effects would remain in the study and dramatically skew the study's results and conclusions. What would be the conclusions if the authors readmit the dropouts into the statistical analysis as diet failures for the reasons they dropped out, as the diet may have produced sufficient negative results in them, subjective and objective, to warrant different conclusions?
10
@Edward
What you are describing is a form of survivorship bias.
2
@Edward There are ways to assess the potential impact of different drop-out rates in studies of this nature. The article also says that participation rates for the diet group were considered good. It takes a lot to move an average, and from a career in research I would say that the completion difference that bothers you is unlikely to make any difference substantively.
2
@bellboy
I looked that up, and you are exactly correct.
1
Yes-cut out that after dinner snack. I lost 30 pounds by cutting out the empty calories from snacks, sugar-added drinks, daily desserts, and so forth. I was determined not to diet because that leads to bingeing. I eat three modest meals a day, and if I get hungry between meals I have a piece of fruit.
28
Thanks, I am inspired to continue my efforts. The after-dinner snack is my nemesis. I had to substitute an evening stroll around the neighborhood.
21
Dr. Valter Longo has been doing a lot of work on this area, and his research into this, both with actual experiments with animals and studying the so called "blue zones", shows that calorie restrictions do help with longevity. In his book "The Longevity Diet" he also points out that calorie restriction is difficult, and more importantly, he says you don't need to do this all the time to gain health effects. What he has found is that to achieve the desired results people should fast anywhere between 2-4 times a year for 5 days or so. He also acknowledges how difficult this is, and created a low calorie diet he calls the fasting mimicking diet to get the benefits without fasting.
The thing this article doesn't mention is that calorie restriction isn't enough, that what you eat matters, too. The other side is what you are eating, that the optimal nutrition for longevity is a mostly plant based diet with some healthy oils like nuts and olive oil, Dr. longo advocates eating a limited amount of seafood as well. Eating fewer calories of food with saturated fats or processed foods (like *gasp* "vegan" meat and the like), isn't going to have the benefits as much, it isn't just how much you eat, but what.
4
@music observer, I’ll save readers the trouble of looking up the “fasting mimicking diet”:
“The (FMD) program...high quality foods that provide 1,100 calories on the first day and 800 calories the next four days. The nutrients...include meals of plant-based whole foods like nuts, olives, teas, and soup mixes. Overall...about 60% of calories from fats, 10% from protein, and 30% from complex carbohydrates. The program is gluten free and without added sugars or animal proteins...exercise and alcohol are omitted and coffee is limited or eliminated. The program contains nuts so it’s not appropriate for those with a nut allergy.” (medium.com)
Not what I call fasting, but more like a five-day diet. Intermittent calorie restriction. It’s an interesting eating pattern, but the high fat bothers me as well as the fact that the “diet” is sold as portioned, expensively packaged meal kits. And I think the gluten thing is nonsense.
5
@Passion for Peaches
The gluten free thing is there for people who have problems with gluten sensitivity, it isn't promoting the gluten isn't healthy.
As far as the packaged foods go,the reason that was created is because the fasting mimicking diet is not a low calorie diet, if you read Longos book he has sample menus for doing this, and it isn't easy. It is about what you are eating, eating simply an 800 calorie a day diet won't work, what this is supposed to do is trigger the same thing you would get if you water fasted for 5 days, which he recognizes many/most people can't do.
As far as it being high fat, remember this is for 5 days a couple of times a year, this isn't how you eat all the time. Longo advocates a diet that is basically a relatively low protein, plant based diet that allow reasonable amount of fat from nuts and olive oil and fish, this isn't the regular diet and you do it anywhere from 2-4 times a year. This isn't the vegan equivalent of Keto, which is a disaster area, eating a high fat diet, even healthy fats like this, is not healthy.
3
@music observer, yes, I caught that detail. But my concern is that the jump to an extremely high-fat, high fiber diet for five days can cause diarrhea. And if you are following a diet of declining calories (800 calories a day is extreme calorie restriction) for four more days after the first 50% reduction day, you could run into electrolyte problems. Causing fainting. I wonder whether the salty olives are in there for that purpose?
I know that many people like a good interior scouring, but I don’t. ;-)
Anyway, I think that someone starting up this FMD practice should make sure they are in prime health first.
5
Shop the OUTSIDE aisles of a grocery store...enter the innards and there lies the problematic foods.
Soda and Chip companies could care less about your health...and you "can't eat just one" for a reason.
I mean Frito Lay is like trump...comes right out and says it...
13
It's all about calories and its numeric.
There are 3500 calories in a pound!
I require 2100 calories a day to maintain my weight!
Eat more than 2100, I gain weight. Eat less than 2100, my body burns off fat to maintain my 2100, and I lose weight. That excess fat is also a Triglyceride!
If I reduce my calorie count by 250 calories a day that's 1750 a week, or a half pound weight loss per week. 26 lb weight loss per year, 52 lb weight loss over two years. I did it, and it works.
I also make my calories healthy and nutritious. Eggs, chicken, fish, love salmon fillet, fruits with yogurt, veggies. Have an occasional 8oz Sirloin burger plain. I put fat free mayo and sliced olives on top, Better than any fast food burger.
My parting thought is cook fresh at home and DON"T EAT FAST FOODS! I am a 75 year old male and take ZERO medications and my LIPID panel is fantastic.
28
Everyone is different. Different ages, body sizes, cultures. Know thy self. Sugar and high carbs are the killers and we all face the marketing push of the huge corporations with all their processed foods at cheap prices. Living healthy is not cheap. But drugs are more expensive and the side effects are horrible and life shortening.
Notice the difference that you body feels when you make the decision to live differently for a better mind and body.
11
@Gordon
Carbs are not just tauted by chip companies and other big corporations. Traditional diets are mostly carb heavy --- rice in Asian foods, potatoes and wheat all over the world and corn in Latin American countries. For those of us who love traditional foods it is difficult to leave out all those carbs. But this study provides incentive to do so even if it is difficult.
High carb traditional diets were necessary when people did heavy physical work and when they walked everywhere. But carb heavy foods are no longer necessary since most of us don't get much exercise. We are changing a long standing traditions when we cut out the carbs, but we must do so to be healthy in this day and age. Still it is a major chore to adapt to a new reality.
9
@Pajaritomt
Fat was cut more than carbohydrates in this dietary intervention, which might lead one to a different conclusion. However, the study was not designed to compare varying macronutrient composition. No conclusions can be drawn about "carb heavy foods", only about calories. Calories can be reduced by decreasing portions sizes, decreasing number of meals, or decreasing energy density of meals.
The average American drinks 1.5 cans of soda a day. Each can has about 150 calories (some more, some less). So just dropping the soda would go an awful long way to getting on top of weight control.
It's not the burgers and fries, but the sugar that will get you.
16
My mother had a wonderful plan that worked for her:
She always said "everything in moderation" and never denied herself anything. She would simply have a very, very small slice of pie or piece of cake. She also rode her bike every evening after dinner. Her and I had some of our best conversations trekking through the peaceful, cool, and beautiful town cemetery.
But in the end, she died of lung cancer at the young age of 65. She never smoked. She always exercised and was mindful of what she ate and the amount.
What is paramount for me is to enjoy food AND dessert, but in moderation like my mother always suggested.
No one gets out alive. However, denying any one particular food group never worked for me. I constantly struggle with weight issues but keep moving and biking and walking because exercise truly does make me feel better. But nothing does more for my soul than savoring a piece of chocolate cake with a scoop of vanilla ice cream.
I think most people know what works for them and what doesn't when it comes to diet, exercise and foods that create a trigger. But I also enjoy reading everyone's comments because I always learn something from someone. Thanks commenters for sharing your intel!!
38
@Marge Keller, there are forms of lung cancer that are partially determined by hereditary (inherited mutations). From what I understand, environment still plays a role in the expression of the disease even with that genetically determined propensity, but it helps to explain how someone who was never a smoker, and did not live in a household of smokers, develops lung cancer. And, of course, there are other things in the environment that can promote cancer in the lungs. Radon, for example.
4
@Passion for Peaches
You are absolutely spot on! Of the six children in my mother's family, all but one died from some form of cancer. Her youngest brother, the last survivor, slipped down a marble staircase in a church and died from head trauma.
My mother and her siblings clearly had a propensity for cancer. Who knows from what or why.
Because of those unknowns and many more, I say enjoy a treat everyday and rejoice in life! Just don't eat an entire 3-layer chocolate cake every day for obvious reasons.
Thank you very much for sharing your perspective. I always enjoy reading your comments because I always learn something!!!!
8
@Marge Keller I completely agree with your mother! A wise woman!
I'm only sad that it took me 62 years to come to this conclusion and figure out some kind of 'structure' for myself to make it happen. You can read my letter in the 'reader's picks' above yours...
Now I am just patiently waiting for my second hip surgery and I'm longing to get back on my bike again!
This resonates with me. I have struggled with my weight my entire life. I've dieted madly (and weirdly) and always gained it back. This really got out of hand after late pregnancies (40 and 43) and rapid onset of end stage osteoarthritis in both hips at age 60.
Uncompromising advice from the ortho clinic to get the weight off permanently meant I had to rethink my relationship to food.
My husband and 2 children are people who can eat virtually anything and not gain any weight. I had to find a way to eat/live with them that did not generate self pity and a perpetual sense of grievance - AND that would enable me to loose weight while being unable to exercise significantly while waiting for my surgery.
I made 4 rules for myself.
1. Choosing to not eat between 6 pm and 11 am. (intermittent fasting)
2. Cut out refined sugar. (Losing the taste for sugar can take some time....!)
3. I don't cut out food groups - it's counterproductive and creates cravings.
4. Serve tiny portions, eat slowly and mindfully. WAIT 20 MINUTES after finishing and honestly assess fullness. I am often full after that time and I have concluded that I was a gobbler whose body signals could not keep up with my rate of intake!! If I am still hungry I have more without guilt.
The year before my surgery I lost 47 lbs just following these rules. And no, it was not instant but it was oh so sustainable and doable!
I'm continuing to live this way even as I regain my ability to exercise after my surgery.
39
Also I might add, I saw a movie from the 60s - and the actors are having drinks at a state fair. Their fingers almost cover the entire drinking cup. Looks like about 4 - 6 ounces. Not a monstrous size one might be served today.
9
The movie was The Courtship of Eddie's Father. It is on again this week. Smallest cups ever!
5
I cut out 200 calories a day and lost 20 lbs in less than one year (at about 2 lbs per month). It is possible. Years ago my father had suggested the diet to me (that cutting out 100 calories per day amounts to 10 lbs per year) and even Jane Brody writes it. I cut out one glass of wine each night, no sodas (I had one on a weekend now and then), and no chips (these I had to take an average because I did not eat them every day, but when I did they were high in calories). I also cut out one of the two pieces of bread I had with a sandwich. Otherwise I ate a healthy breakfast, lunch and dinner. The first month was miraculous. I lost 2 pounds. And each month I lost a little over two pounds each month from January to October. Ended up it tapered off before a year. So it was actually 24 lbs in 10 months. I kept it off for years. But now 10 years later I know I should do it again. I guess this really boils down to three square meals and no snacks.
15
@EL Like mom used to say - 'Don't eat between meals', and 'Soda is for treats'.
1
@EL
It takes a calorie deficit of 3500 calories from steady state caloric intake (usually assumed to be 2000 calories roughly) to lose a pound, so your numbers are accurate.
Keep in mind that losing weight like that, while healthy in of itself, doesn't mean that longevity will come just by doing that. Not commenting on what you eat (since I don't know), someone who let's say was eating 2000 calorie a day maintaining their weight but is eating a diet high in processed foods, saturated fats and the like and continues to eat that way but 200 calories less is not going to achieve all the benefits.
3
Don’t eat so much. There you go...
7
When you look at old newsreels or crowd pictures, (anywhere from the 1930's to the 1960's), there are few overweight people in the shot - the men all have flat stomachs and the women, trim waists. Looking at video or crowd pictures today - or being anywhere IN a crowd, it's hard to find normal weight, fit adults. What's changed? People sit all day at their jobs, sit hours behind the wheel of a car, sit for hours in front of the TV and, like the article states, eat calorie-dense, low nutrition foods. I'm not judging, I struggle with it too.
21
@MD
Reduced physical exercise accounts for only about 20-33% of weight gain compared to 1950 for the average American. The rest is all in increased caloric consumption.
We move a little less than we used to...but we eat a LOT more.
6
@MD
The lady of the house was home, cooking, in those days. Also, people worked closer to home. I didn't know anyone who commuted a long way--so less tress, less need to eat junk along the way. My dad worked 5 miles from home, my mother cooked, canned and gardened, keeping a sharp eye on what we ate. I, on the other hand, worked shifts most of my life, stopping along the way to fortify myself with donuts and coffee-that was usually my supper. I had no chance to eat at work, and when I got home, I was so tired I just went to bed. No, I'm not fat but it wasn't healthy, either.
8
@MD
I think your summation is very accurate. It's been a shift in the economy to a more service oriented one- computers and software- that means workers don't have to physically exert. Tough to burn calories just sitting.
1
Being mindful of what/when/how much you eat can improve your life now.
"They lost weight and body fat. Their cholesterol levels improved, their blood pressure fell slightly, and they had better blood sugar control and less inflammation."
The goal is increased health spans.
The last time I saw my 93 year old great-grandfather was from my grandmothers front porch. He descended the stairs with a quick wave and as he approached the curb, saw a car approaching half block away, and jogged across the street to his car. Why was he in a hurry? After surviving three wives he was on his way to his girl friends house! (We joke that we know what killed the first three).
That was 40 years ago and I hope that in another 40 years I am running to meet my lover.
19
@exhausted by it all
I love this post! It highlights something that the medical industry and the government and everyone else wants to duck, and that is it isn't just about longevity, it is about the quality of life as well. I think the typical person at age 70 or more is taking something like 5 kinds of medications, and worse, as the population has gotten heavier and heavier the number of people taking multiple medications has increased for people even much younger than that. The sad truth of medical costs is we spend many hundreds of billions each year on on keeping people alive as they age and almost nothing on preventing the need for that. The major problems older people face, arthritis, diabetes, kidney disease, heart disease, and especially cancer, are all tied to nutrition (as smoking rates have plummeted, less and less incidences of things like heart disease and cancer are caused by smoking), and one of the characteristics of the so called blue zones is that people live to extended ages and are still active and aren't on a cocktail of drugs and treatments.
3
I have been using Noom for the past week and am surprised how interested and dedicated I have become. It is psychologically educational and so manageable. It is based on caloric intake and exercise. You'd think I work for their marketing department, but I don't! I've lost 2 1/2 pounds this first week and feel so motivated to keep learning and following the guidelines.
5
I think it does work. I was 240 lbs just a few months ago and when I began the lower calorie regiment, I lost another 15 lbs, and now down to 225 lbs.
Calorie in, Calorie out works for me.
9
I do "fast Mondays". No food from after dinner Sunday until mid morning-noonish Tuesday. Works well for me.
6
After reaching an all time high in weight, my wonderful Brooklyn doctor told me I needed to cut 400 calories a day from my diet. I eat healthy but have heart problems.
As June began, I cut out all processed sugar, didn't eat anything before 8:00am or after 8:00pm, no snacking (except for a piece of fruit if needed), smaller portions, no beer, little bread, etc. I lost 13 pounds in a month!
I'm continuing with this regiment, along with my usual Mediterranean diet, and hope to loose a few more pounds over the summer.
This "diet" works, and is easy to maintain. Try it. You'll feel better.
15
Ugh all this restriction and calorie counting has ruined my family mealtime. There isn’t one thing we can eat together. Among us four we have an orthorectic, a vegan, a vegetarian, a faster. One person is normal and another is affected by the obsessive eating patterns of others. Our dinner table has disappeared. It’s so sad. I can’t help but think the media’s obsession with measuring and critiquing food has something to do with it.
18
@Jeanine
I can relate. Food is more than just calories, and meals are fundamental to family life. They're the most regular of rituals and the best place to socialize your children.
That said, I found that I could restrict my calories sufficiently to lose 14 pounds in 3 weeks -- without any suffering. I replaced my breakfast and lunch with fruit, and eat normally at family dinners. I don't eat to excess, but neither do I restrict myself. So far, it's given me the best of both world.s
3
@Jeanine
Restriction and calorie counting can be applied to any diet preference, so don’t blame them for your family’s choices.
7
Those cookies look really good though.
30
@SF
Thank you to NYT editors who choose chocolate chip cookie photos to illustrate an article on healthy eating and weight loss.
Not only do you lose weight by eating no junk food, your grocery bills slim down also. If it's not in your house, you won't have it handy to grab at night.
For the rest of us, there's Food Addicts in Recovery, a 12 step program. They help you get serious about eating the right stuff for the rest of your life.
2
While the conditions of this study seem a little spotty, I inadvertently proved its conclusion that caloric restriction can be achieved easily.
Doubling the size of your daily dinner salad has the effect of crowding out the higher calorie portions of a meal (meat and dairy). If you also eliminate the oil source in the salad dressing, the calorie reduction is surprisingly large.
Those who track their weight daily under the same circumstances begin to see a consistent pattern of weight loss during the 2d week ... whether or not weight loss is the goal.
Salads just have fewer calories than entrees, and when expanded with new ingredients, are just as satisfying.
12
I'm all for a better quality of life by cutting back on junk and I do just that, but as I contemplate the future, increased longevity doesn't seem as desirable as it's always made out to be. Remember that if a systemic disease like cancer or heart trouble doesn't take you down, you get to dwindle away slowly. I've seen that happen to a number of 90+ persons and it isn't all that great. And for them that occurred during a still relatively stable climate and economy. Just saying to watch what you wish for.
27
@RAC Yup, I'm not so excited about living longer if it means moving to an underground bunker during the climate apocalypse. I'll take those cookies now, thank you.
11
I suppose I'm kind of doing this already, by realizing that at my advanced age in order to maintain my reasonably trim weight I pretty much have to stick to about 1,600 calories per day. I've done the 5:2 diet for the last four years to compensate for the fact that certain social situations or other dynamics often shoot my caloric intake above 2,000 on any particular day.
3
The most successful (sustained) weight loss I have seen among friends and acquaintances has been achieved by avoiding sweets, baked goods, alcohol and foods with added sugars (wherever possible). Just cutting out the alcohol will save many people 300 calories a day, or more. Alcohol can trigger an urge for snacks and can increase your appetite, too, so giving it up effects an important, lasting behavioral change. I remember (I no longer drink) eating a lot more at mealtime when I had a couple glasses of wine with my dinner.
Sweet desserts are a habit that is hard to break, but once you get last the initial craving you won’t miss those cookies or cakes.
Healthy eating is about phasing out bad habits and retraining your body. Just putting this out there for anyone who struggles with weight. I find it is easier to assess and change my behavior than it is to keep track of calorie intake. I ask myself whether I really want to eat, or am I reaching for food out of boredom, sadness or habit.
37
@Passion for peaches
For additional sugar reduction, start reading labels. Purchase nothing with added sugar among the top 3 ingredients. For the real serious, buy nothing with sugar among the top 5 ingredients.
If you can't spell or pronounce the ingredient, and sugars hide under many chemical names, don't buy the product - so it never comes enters you home.
Fruit excluded, as fruit sugars are not "added ingredients."
@Passion for Peaches I find that a glass of wine helps me eat less! I never eat dessert. But will never give up my wine!
3
@sue, yes, everyone is different! I posted only because I have seen remarkable, lasting weight loss in others when they cut out alcohol. And I think that is due to it being a behavioral change, related to other food intake. Alcohol can be a snack or overindulgence trigger (it tamps down your body’s signals of satiety). Keep in mind that a drink for many is a between-meal thing. A beer after work every day, for instance, accompanied by a bowl of chips. Not a great habit for one’s health. I’m not beating the drum of temperance here. I stopped drinking because alcohol stopped agreeing with me. And then I noticed that I was eating less without the cocktails and wine. Feeling better, too.
7
Not explained in article: Did the study participants have any weight to lose? Or did they become underweight?
11
@nowadays Does it matter? Weight is weight.
If I'm remembering correctly, it says they were average or overweight but not obese.
This seems like an awfully weak study -- 143 people told to cut 25% of their calories, but it is ALL SELF REPORTED?
How could you know for sure what they cut or not? by their FOOD diaries? such diaries are known to be highly inaccurate, and most people (yes, even thin people ) woefully underestimate their actual caloric intake.
The impression given here is that "dieting is really good for you" and I don't believe that. Every person I have ever known on a diet -- whether obese or slim, anorexic or not, doing it for work or beauty or health -- was wretchedly miserable, hungry, irritable and rage-prone and the long term result was ALWAYS weight gain.
9
@Concerned Citizen, you covered about three logical fallacies there.
5
Hmm, thats really the only way you can do this type of long term study.
anyway, I think the point is this wasn't really a diet, just restricting calories , and that it wasn't that much of a problem for most of the participants, so... not sure where your anti diet rant comes into it
4
@Concerned Citizen I can't imagine how you would do a two-year study that's not to some degree self-reported. And this one had as many mechanisms in place to enhance rigor. You might want to start here in exploring how carefully the study was set up and undertaken: https://calerie.duke.edu/about-the-study/study-design
I've been generally reducing my food intake and it takes little more than just changing old habits. I'm a 67 y/o male and weigh what I did when graduating high school in 1969. I've also been doing light workouts daily at our community fitness center. Three miles on the stationary bike in about a lazy 15 mins. Some light leg presses and same with weights. A leisurely swim a few times a week too. I've found the daily workout helps a lot with weight maintenance. I drink a beer or two daily but really try to stop eating when I'm no longer hungry. I had a small salad tonight with some smoked wild caught salmon and returned the unfinished portion of fish to the fridge when I felt sated. No mom, I'm NOT going to clean my plate.
17
@h king: why are you restricting food, when you clearly are healthy and have never had a weight problem?
6
@Concerned Citizen
I have been overweight in the past. I just view my eating now as "in moderation"...rather than "restrictive" and is not that severe, just more common sense eating. Fifty years ago there were not that many obese people walking around. Something profound has changed in our culture.
15
@h king: I wonder how true that is, or if it is your perception in a diet-crazed society.
Also, it is pretty common for people over 60 to stabilize or lose weight, as they age and lose muscle mass and tend to lose the ability to taste foods intensely.
Obesity rates are higher today than in the past, but there are many causes -- among them, people 50+ years ago mostly all smoked. Today hardly anyone smokes. Smoking PROVABLY decreases appetite and increases metabolism.
1
As it pertains to the dieting/weight loss aspects of the discussion, in our opinion low carb is the way to go for weight loss, mainly because we find that when sugar/carb intake is reduced, so are our cravings, hunger, and desire to snack. (Insulin regulation, anyone?) We have done low-carb a la South Beach/Keto/Atkins since just before Memorial Day. Cravings are gone. Appetite is reduced. We still have a glass of wine with dinner or a low-carb cocktail or beer. We did, unfortunately, have to give up the pasta dinners, the delicious breads, and desserts other than berries or delicious decaf lattes, and the bottle of wine with dinner. We cook and we eat out. We're (ahem) a bit beyond middle age; in good health, and he's lost 24 lbs, while I've lost 18. For a more academic view of things, consider a previous article published in the Times in Oct, 2016, entitled: "Before You Spend $26,000 on Weight Loss Surgery, Do This".
15
@Mrs M: MEMORIAL DAY? you mean like….less than 8 weeks ago?
That's a mere nanosecond in dieting.
Losing that much weight so fast -- 24 lbs in 8 weeks? -- is probably unsustainable.
In a few months, your appetite will come roaring back just as your metabolism starts slowing down.
Good luck.
8
@Concerned Citizen I lost 289 lb. in 9 months. The problem is I gained it all back in a few years and also began shoplifting food to meet my cravings.
4
Can someone explain why, when the study was conducted from 2007-2010, we are just hearing about this? Surely it didn't take nine years to parse the data.
9
55 million $s and if you would like to read the actual study @Lancet it will cost you $31.50
6
Am I going to live longer or will it just seem that way?
30
@mrnmd From what I know, a healthier weight always means longer life span.
2
Calorie deficit=weight loss
5
Whether it extends life or not shouldn’t matter. Your quality of life now matters. And the quality of life as you age, no matter when you die.
13
What exactly does calorie restriction mean? If you start out at a good weight and spend the rest of your life restricting your calories by 25%, you will end up VERY unhealthy and. perhaps. die.
What is it exactly they are recommending we do with our eating habits to live a longer and healthier life?
9
I've started something similar now that I'm metabolism is hitting a middle age slow down. I fast (other than coffee and water) until 10 or 11 and then eat a very, very light lunch. A banana with peanut butter. I can't eat gluten, so finding a healthy, easy lunch is challenging. Snack is some fruit. Dinner I leave myself free to eat what I like.
What I have found makes it work is being boring. Variety is the spice of life but it murder on your waistline. I don't over eat if I eat the same, basic healthy stuff nearly every day, keeping to a routine. Dinner provides enough variety that I don't go crazy.
13
There are flour free breads available. Ezekiel Bread. My local Trader Joe’s has it in the bread aisle and my supermarket has it in the frozen aisle.
2
@Mary
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/ezekiel-bread
Ezekiel bread is not gluten free. Jen says she can't eat gluten.
5
@Mary, yes they are available but they are terrible for you. I had the joy of gluten free + pregnancy + gestational diabetes. Couldn't hardly eat a thing, but I did learn one thing - gluten free substitutes are bad for you. Ounce for ounce, about double the number of carbs and sugars. Special occasion food, not everyday. GF substitutes are by definition highly processed fake food.
I'm already at risk for type 2 diabetes, I don't need to tempt fate by eating junk food that is a poor substitute for the wheat alternative.
Always snicker though about gluten free being "so healthy." Yeah, if you think gluten = carbs and you use GF like a modified low carb diet. World of difference between substituting rice for GF bread.
5
Cutting 300 calories while picturing cookies as the “cutees” and wondering whether there any health benefits in doing so? Let us contemplate that. Cookies are full of sugar, they are a processed, multi-ingredient food, un-nutritious examples of foodstuffs, high in fats, carbohydrates and lacking in protein. What could go wrong?
5
@NOTATE REDMOND. It is possible to make your own cookies with healthy ingredients. Of course, you still have to limit how many you eat.
I appreciated Mona Awad's Breakfast Cookie recipe that appeared in NYT 6/18/19. Fruits are the sweeteners, and spices add good flavor, and oatmeal fills you up.
Try drinking an 8-oz glass of water right before you eat.
Went to Costco this morning. Couldn’t decide so had a hot dog and a pizza and a rotisserie chicken.
11
@Rich Murphy That's some sick sense of humor inside.
Think I'll consume 300 extra calories each day this week, so next week when I restrict my diet by 300 I'll still be a happy camper.
9
I see no spot where 300 calories could be subtracted without intense misery, and no thank you.
5
I'm trying this now: start first meal at 11am and the last by 7 pm. My first meal is 600 calories, mid-day 200 calories, dinner 600 calories. I cave in at 11 pm and have a 100-calorie ice bar. That's 1500 calories a day and I could never sustain that in the past over a 3-meals-2-snacks way. I was never satisfied. But this intermittent way seems doable and I'm feeling better.
7
300 calories less than What ? if you already eat the right foods ? what does that mean?
18
I'd like to hear more about periodic fasting - is it good, and if so, why.
4
@Kai, there are several forms of intermittent fasting, but all of them make it likely that the person following the program will consume fewer total calories than he or she do when eating normally. That usually effects a weight loss in itself. But because of the changes that happen in the body when fasting, you are also more likely to burn your stored fat. Furthermore, I can tell you from personal experience that the more often you fast the less appetite you have when you start eating again. Your satiety level changes. I feel full very quickly when I start eating after a fast.
4
@Passion for Peaches: that is a VERY short term result. After a few weeks, your body and brain (the unconscious parts) do everything possible to slow your metabolism and rev up your appetite, until the lost weight is regained.
1
I don’t think it’s helpful to publish articles that assume that everyone overeats and everyone needs to lose weight. I rarely eat junk food, doing so is not that difficult in Italy. I’m normal weight, postmenopausal, a little cushiony, but if anything I should probably try for being a little “overweight” (according to charts) as it seems to help prevent osteoporosis, rather than lose weight! I wonder if these studies about eating less calories would come to the same conclusion regarding health benefits if people were simply instructed to eat well (including natural fats), avoid junk entirely, and mostly avoid sweets and refined starches.
8
@What time is it? But the whole point of the study is that these people didn't need to lose weight, they were already healthy. According to the study, restricting calories still yielded some health gains. As with any study, they didn't look at the full picture, and certainly not issues most prevalent in women's health. I wonder if bone density among women in this study suffered.
7
@M, woman with severe osteoporosis here. Heredity has a lot to do with bone health, but beyond that it seems that the negative things we do to our bodies have more effect on our bone health than do the positives. So a young woman should certainly be good about consuming a healthy diet full of calcium and vitamin D, but she should also avoid drinking soda pop, limit her alcohol intake, and think twice before buying that triple-shot latte every morning. Those things all impede bone building. She should exercise (bone-impact activities) regularly, and should continue all this as she ages. And hope that she has good genes.
Although severe dieting does have a bad effect on bone health (I was underweight for many years), it’s the quality of diet and not the calories that support bone building and strength. I have seen nothing about “cushiony” women having healthier bones than skinny women in their later years.
@Passion for Peaches: being underweight -- fasting and starving yourself -- also has stunted your bones.
You lay down bone matter in your teens and 20s. After that, you can only protect what you already have.
Also: the reason for "cushion" is to protect you when you fall.
Skinny, bony women have much worse osteoporosis as they age, and are susceptible to falls and hip fractures, which are sure-free ways to end up in a nursing home.
How about: I prefer not to think about calories, all day every day, but pay attention to the people and things in my life that make it worth living at all.
41
@Litewriter Best answer this week!
12
@Litewriter: most of the folks here know the calories and fat and protein and CARBS (*big current fad obsession) of everything….but the VALUE OF NOTHING.
My life has more value than to micromanage every morsel I eat.
I care about my family, my friends, my pets….nature and being out of doors….reading good books and listening to great music….loving and being loved.
Among the things that REALLY MATTER IN LIFE….calories, carbs, diets, weight are probably among the LEAST important.
Our modern obsession with controlling and MICROMANAGING what we eat -- while hating on other people and holding them in contempt -- has to be one of the most counterproductive trends in all of human history.
6
@Concerned Citizen And one of the greatest pleasures - a good meal with family and friends.
3
This article perpetuates a myth that calories are all that matters. The researchers clearly had to choose an objective way to quantify the amount of food intake, so they chose calories. The article's author also mistakes the word 'diet' for something you're temporarily following as opposed to the way you normally eat and choose food.
What IS important is what TYPE OF FOOD you eat, not the caloric content. Research has shown that groups eating the same amount of calories, with one rich in carbs and the other rich in fat, loose weight differently - the carb eating group losing less weight. Read 'Always Hungry?', by David Ludwig.
Many readers (and people we meet in our lives) report having to make an effort to avoid gaining pounds back. I would bet that a good fraction of them have a diet rather rich in carbs, especially processed ones. In this case, it's indeed an uphill battle no doubt; carbs get quickly stored as fat, your body & brain tells you back to eat.
Solution: simply modify your diet, to enjoy good fat, fiber, protein, keeping processed carbs out or to a minimum: olive oil, nuts, full-fat dairy, vegetables, fruits & whole grains. Drop sugar & sodas altogether. Like chocolate? Get the 70% cocoa one. Moderate on (whole wheat) bread & pasta. And so forth.
Eating the same amount (by mass) of food but making this qualitative change will make you lose weight and be more energetic. You'll feel less hungry, so adjust the portions.
Above all: be happy & enjoy your food.
4
@Antonio Mario - In terms of weight management, calories ARE all that matters. If you consistently eat more calories than your Total Daily Energy Expenditure, you will gain weight. Regardless of what you eat. If you consistently eat fewer calories than your Total Daily Energy Expenditure, you will lose weight. Regardless of what you eat.
It really is as simple as that. TYPE of food matters for things like feeling full and whether you're consuming all the nutrients you need. But for weight loss/gain, calories are the thing to monitor.
19
@Kate
We are coming to understand calories are not all that matters. Our physiology is dynamic and the type of food your calories come from determines the calibration of the physiology that control food intake behavior. Calories and the type and quality of the food you eat that will determine whether people can lose or maintain a healthy weight. We are also coming to understand that will power is something of a red herring when it comes to weight loss because without certain food type and quality, the bodies biology will drive behavior that makes calorie restriction without these essential components impossible and so people will fail as so many do.
The person who eat 1500 calories of rice and take a mulitvitamin will be unable to implement such a plan for any length of time and it has little to do with will power and all to do with our biology. The person who has a 1500 calorie day along the lines of what Antonio Mario suggests (and similiar to what works for us) will have little problem eating that way forever, enjoying it a lot, and the weight will come off because this food lifestyle supports the features of our biology necessary for healthy weightloss/maintenance. All calorie sources are not created equal and believing otherwise has lead to a great deal of bad nutrition advice and a lot of sickness.
10
@Kate Thanks for your comment. Sorry, that's not true, Kate.
Whether we like it or not, our body process different types of intake differently. Now, to my point:
Carbs WILL make you fat (due to our genetic programming over the ages).
If you eat the same mass (or calories, at this point) but in the form of good fat, you'll lose weight. (So, calories is NOT everything.) You'll then reach an equilibrium weight that will be less than the weight that would result from a carb rich intake.
At this point of equilibrium then, as you'll feel less hungry with a fat-rich diet, yes, you'll need less food to continue working and you'll have to adjust your intake acc. to your daily activities. Whether you want to quantify your intake FROM THIS POINT FORWARD in terms of calories, kg, pounds, whatever, you're free to do it, but only then you'll be comparing oranges with oranges.
However, and if you read the comments, the main problem people have is striving to lose weight and maintaining that - people are often sacrificing something and stressing out with that. The ONLY way you can, in a healthy manner, lose weight and live a better life, w/o sacrifices but eating pretty much whatever you want (and simply adjusting the intake, as I mentioned, not starving) is by changing the eating habits above all, NOT by just eating less calories. This will NOT work if your diet is carb rich.
Thanks.
6
Well you might not live longer, but it will definitely seem that way. How about we get off the "I'm want to live forever" bandwagon and focus instead on maximizing the number of QUALITY years we can achieve and then live those to the fullest?
6
Why would eating an amount of food that lets you maintain a healthy weight lead you to the conclusion that your not living a quality lifestyle? There is far more to life than food...
8
Julia Child's 4-point plan for weight maintenance: 1) variety of foods; 2) small portions; 3) no seconds; 4) no snacking. That's it. For losing weight, she said she went on what she cheerily called "the diet invented by the doctor who was murdered by the schoolmistress" (aka, the then-popular Scarsdale Diet). Whatever one's method or outcome, a little common sense and humor can't hurt.
19
@MorrisTheCat, she had a good attitude about eating. But keep in mind that she also loved her butter! I saw her interviewed in her later years, when she was living in senior housing in the Santa Barbara area. She commented, with great enthusiasm, on the fabulous bacon the place served. I don't think she was into denying herself pleasure.
3
@Passion for Peaches, yes, she was the queen of cream, butter, etc., savoring every small bite, but with an iron will as to portion size. On some of her old shows-- now 50+ years old-- she'd say something like, "This roast chicken should give you and your guests 6-8 nice, healthy servings!", while you'd be lucky to get 4 servings in 2019-sized portions.
1
So is the premise that most people are overeating by about 300 calories a day? What if one is not overweight? I've been doing a diet paired with the activity tracker on my smart phone/watch. It is working very well, and even on days when I'm allotted more calories based on activity, I still eat less than the total I am allotted. That keeps the weight loss humming along at a nice pace which has helped to keep me motivated. When I reach my goal, in a few weeks, I will keep logging meals and keep track of calories burned vs. calories eaten and see where I feel best and don't gain or lose weight.
1
How about: calorie restriction is healthy for people who aren't already underweight, people who aren't already dieting, people who don't have a history of or genetics that lead to an eating disorder? Having experience with people with eating disorders, I think it's actually dangerous to publish articles that encourage calorie restriction without disclaimers.
12
Other studies have also suggested that calorie restriction is useful to some subset of the population. At the same time, most people who lose weight gain it back in time, including me.
I have found the best way to lose weight is to eat the number of calories my body requires at my ideal weight, then continue eating the same amount when I reach that weight. I kept many pounds off that way for 4 or more years, but the moment I relaxed my viglience, the weight came back and so did knee problems, back problems and hip pain.
5
@Barbara The problem is once you reach your ideal weight, your metabolism slows way down, so those same amount of calories will cause you to gain weight, even though the science says it shouldn't. The body prefer homeostasis and will conspire to force you to regain all the weigh to lost. That is why permanent weight loss is impossible if you have been morbidly obese since early childhood, like me.
2
As a teen and then a young woman, I had about 25 pounds I could not lose to save my life. It blurred my figure, and no dieting worked.
At 21 I injured my knee and spent a week in the hospital for (in 1970), a complex surgery. Afterwards the knee was swollen to football size and healed very slowly. I was in great pain and strong medication (never got addicted --- whew!)
I tried to eat, but the meds and pain spoiled my appetite and I walked with crutches. Some weeks later, my robe dropped open on the way to the bathroom and I got a look at my whole body. I had shed the 25 pounds and even more. I could wear the tiniest bikini. After all those years I loved the way I looked.
I thought, "this is an unxpected gift and I will NEVER gain that weight back!" So when I recovered I monitored everything I ate carefully. I knew my body would try to regain, so I cut my portions by 1/3, salad dressing on the side only etc. Two bites of dessert and that was it. I wanted to be able to ear in restaurants so I made sure to eat only half my portion or less. Sometimes I could FEEL my body demanding more and I fought it because the reward was worth it. By eating 2/3 of what I had before, I stabilized finally at the lower weight and had the delight of a slim figure.
WhenI got got pregnant I gained only 22 pounds and was back in my clothes the week I gave birth (8 pound baby). I never gained that weight back, but it has meant constant vigilance to this day.
70
@Trista
Good for you! Discipline has huge payouts. Good discipline pays off by becoming a good habit. People ask how I’ve maintained weight loss for 15 years, and are usually disappointed when I say that I work at it every. single. day. That work is not nearly as hard as it was ten years ago though, because it has all become normal business by now. Normal business means measuring food, at least periodically, to prevent “creep”. People roll their eyes, but I’m still a size 4 at 70, and they are NOT.
2
@Pundette
Thank you! Every overweight person, especially a teen, knows that lonely pain of watching the slim kids cavort on the beach and wear the latest fashions.
It' was a war with my own healthy appetite and metabolism. I wasn't disordered but there was just a disconnect between the way I wanted to look and what my body demanded.
It ran in the family of course, all of us just loved our Jewish food a little too much. My mother was about 30 pounds overweight all her life, and it made her miserable, though she lived into her nineties.
But my aunt, who is 92 now and still sharp, has lost weight due to her old age, and she told me "I really have a good figure now!" She even confided "I've met a man." Good for her!
As far as losing weight by eating less, I have found that I should not give up hope. Sometimes I will end up being overweight, and it really seems like the battle has been lost, forever.
But I find that if I make an effort, and eat less, after a few weeks I see... no, the battle was not at all lost.
Just don’t give up, and you will probably even see it is easy to lose that extra weight.
7
One could achieve this by substituting calorically dense foods like animal proteins and substituting fruits and vegetables which are predominately water. Each the same volume of food and feel full but eat fewer calories.
I have done this for over a year and lost weight which no effort. It is called Vegan before 6
11
Sigh, I vacillate between "Eat real food, mostly plants, not too much" and "Life is short, have dessert."
218
@Michael, Yes! Exactly! But I try to allow myself indulgences only once a week--and to really concentrate on enjoying them. I also plan for my rare vacations and, other than a high protein-high fiber bar for breakfast, let myself freely enjoy eating restaurant foods. I don't normally eat out and that does help my overall nutrition.
9
@Michael As C. Parks notes, it doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. Savor occasional treats but have most of your days be influenced by the good habits you've created. Enjoy!
8
@Michael "mostly plants" leaves room for "dessert every now and then." :)
10
What's the line between calorie restriction and eating disorder? The origin may differ but not sure about the outcome.
8
@Camper
Caloric restriction, when not severe and not due to emotional distress, but is centered around the maximum intake of nutrient-dense foods, is health-promoting.
By contrast, an eating disorder arises out of psychological issues; and involves potentially harmful measures like the use of laxatives, excess exercise, self-induced vomiting, severe food avoidance, etc, and is not aimed at the maximum consumption of nutrient dense foods.
9
@Oceanviewer, No, the line is finer than that. I have followed a monitored complex carb/ high protein/ low cholesterol diet since I was diagnosed with Type II diabetes over 15 years ago despite being 5'2 and 114 lbs than and now. 2 years ago my husband decided to start Weight Watchers, took over the cooking and shed 75 lbs. I tried to eat along with him to be supportive and gave up the starchy carbs and added more veggies and fruit for I felt guilty for eating what he could not. It quickly devolved into feeling guilty about food and obsession over what should or should not be eaten. I lost almost 10 lbs inadvertently and my doctor sent me off to a dietitian to counsel me and help me find a way of eating that maintains my health and weight. I got back the lost pounds. But my relationship with food is permanently affected and I am still too food-vigilant for my own peace of mind .
5
@Oceanviewer
I think you will find that many under-the-radar, closeted eating disordered people have adopted the same health-wellness vocabulary and self-talk so that determining where restriction ends and disorder pathology begins is not clear, both to the onlooker and the person with the disease.
8
they did eat significantly less fat and slightly fewer carbohydrates. They also consumed more micronutrients like vitamins A, K and magnesium, indicating a big increase in fruits and vegetables,
So were the improved biomarkers the result of the weight loss or the result of eating more fruits and vegetables?
How were the subjects able to succeed in a 12% calorie reduction and 16 lb weight loss over two years? Was it by increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables or reducing sugar and high fat sweets?
Most people know that calorie restriction will lead to weight loss and being healthier. The problem is how to deal with food addictions.
13
@Elizabeth
I don't think these are singular either/or propositions. Protiens and some fat keeps you satified and prevent big swings in blood glucose that cascade of metabolic activity that drives excess eating. Quality micronutrients from veg/fruits are the "glitter" in our physiology supporting function at the cellular level and translating into vitality at the macrolevel. Reducing sugar and cheap carb likewise keeps the metabolism steady and reduces appetite and binge behavior. A little judicially placed healthy carb supports metabolism when energy from protien and fat are waning and let the body know it is not in a state of deprivation that can instigate binging/addictive food behavior.
Had they kept some of that fat while reducing carb further and increasing protien, they could have achieved greater calorie restriction beyond the average 12%, with little discomfort. I suppose it's a mash up of a few popular ideas that work ok separately but combined provide a lifestyle we've found pretty sustainable and weight loss/maintenance friendly.
2
I am 69, a fit, practicing attorney. No one at work knows or cares my age. I have always practiced caloric restriction because I'm on a plant based diet and love to cook healthy home grown foods. It's my passion and part of healthy self-care.
Consequently, I am barely above my high school weight (after 50 years) of 110 pounds at 5'3". I do not have a chronic illness, take no medications except my hormones and have glowing skin and shiny hair. I do look about 20 years younger than my age. I just don't get why no one else cares? I find that I hide my healthy lunches and diet because I feel like such an oddball. Am I just an anomaly? It's so easy, and the food I eat is so delicious. I belong to a CSA and they leave amazing farm produce at my door.
I am right now in the middle of my five-day Mimicking Fasting diet (Victor Longo) so I can enjoy my travel next week where I will splurge a bit.
44
@Mary Rivka
I am right with you, Mary! There is no reason that aging has to mean getting sick. Let's raise a carrot to keeping the life in our years.
People resent the healthy lifestyle because of a popular and twisted trend of taking everything personally. What I eat has no reference to what others are eating!
17
@Mary Rivka
no one wants to listen - to anything really. I think a very small percentage of people are open minded generally....I'm one of them so I feel weird when I look around me...usually the 1st word out of peoples mouths is "no...and as a fellow lawyer, I would lawyers are 10x as negative.
2
@Mary Rivka it is not easy for most people. I am glad you have found something that works well for you.
4
I've mastered calorie restriction, eating 1800 calories a day or less...Mondays until Friday night. Then the weekend Monster shows up.
I haven't lost any weight but haven't gained any either in some years now.
7
The heart of the question is this: do you live to eat or eat to live? And a host of related questions like: what is the meaning of longevity?
14
@Bos
Both: I bet the foods I eat are 100% better than what you eat. My CSA delivers fresh produce. Lunch was fresh corn, squash, potatoes and coconut zucchini bread I made last night to use up the zucchini. I rarely dine out because nothing is as good as what I whip up and could only be found at a pricey nouveau farm-to-market place. Why pay for what I do better?
I think the rest of you are uninformed, ignorant, and lazy.
@Mary Rivka Wow, so this follow up on your humble brag post explains why no one wants to eat with judgy you. Have fun being alone while advertising your virtues. I have colleagues who eat very healthy foods and no one blinks an eye, unless they start acting holier than thou.
11
This has been known for many yrs.
Being overweight (not obese) does not affect life span just quality of life.
You can come up with a million diets, standing on your head, yoga, spiritual healing etc., the bottom line is if you really want to lose weight you will, if not you won't.
12
Geez, they could've gone with Comprehensive Assessment of Long-term Outcomes of Reducing Intake of Energy.
12
@day owl
How right you are!
I am a couple of weeks short of my 79th birthday.
I am obese [203 pounds @ 5'7] and type 2 diabetic.
I have reduced my weight by 20 pounds. and I studiously avoid unnecessary carbs.
I am still alive, thanks be to "higher powers".
Almost half of my age mates are already dead!
I watch apparently healthy baby boomers, ten years younger than I, die, two in the last couple of months.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
As a retired asst. prof. [voluntary] of preventive medicine, of course I support studies like this.
I remember when it was an awful chore to recruit sufficient subjects to find statistically significant populations for scientific studies.
And yet, I ask, where are the IT data sources for large scale longitudinal studies of life style choices?
We are still in the infancy of health care research.
2
What a load of junk. We may be mammals, but we are not rodents. The literature is replete with studies that show calorie restriction does NOT lead to long term weight loss and the basic reason is that the body is a fantastic system that evolution has prepared over a long, long time to resist weight loss by calorie restriction. You ignore all the homeostatic mechanisms when you just reduce calories. And the real truth is, its not too much weight or too many calories that kill people and cause the disease problems like heart failure and diabetes, its the low energy expenditure sedentary lifestyle that is all too common in the modern world. Get up and move and you can have your cookies and health as well.
14
Very sensible. Intuitively satisfying. Probably useful. What happens when we hit menopause?
8
@GWPDA
Don't know about you. But I've been on an estrogen patch, progesterone and topical testosterone for 20 years. I'm in super health and weigh what I did in high school. Also I am on a plant-based diet which helps.
4
@GWPDA I gained a significant amount of weight PRE-menopause due to inactivity from a knee injury, feeling sorry for myself about it, and being a good cook. I finally got tired of it. I'm now 60, and post menopausal, and I just lost 50 pounds with a sensible diet and sensible activity. I'm less than 5 pounds from a healthy weight and normal BMI, and I'll get there in a few more weeks. THAT said, even on days when I was active enough to earn a lot more calories, I stayed right around 1200. When I went higher than that, even though my activity allowed it ,my weight loss would be very slow, or even stop (and I do high intensity interval training and get over 300 minutes of exercise per week). I read an article that past 60, you need at least 150 minutes of pretty vigorous exercise per week AND a 1200 calories per day diet, if you can manage it. Never less than 1200, though. It's worked for me.
2
@Michelle: unless you are extremely short -- under 5' tall and slightly built -- 1200 calories a day is a near-starvation diet.
You don't say how long you have done this, but over time….such a severe deprivation diet will backfire and you'll end up bingeing.
Remember that especially past 60….extreme deprivation is not simply making fat disappear. It is also eating away at your healthy muscles, your heart tissue and other internal organs. It is starving YOUR BONES, so you will get osteoporosis eventually.
2
These studies, in all their various permutations, continue to corroborate my basic philosophy for a healthy life and can be distilled very simply:
Move your body, move your brain, and eat real food. I’d also throw in everything in moderation including moderation because life should be enjoyed.
22
I used to roll my eyes when I heard weight loss consultants tell people to keep a food diary. Well, 2 months ago I broke down and started one. I am OCD so I write down every teaspoon of mayo and drop of olive oil. Amazing, it works. I started it for weight maintenance as I had lost 12 pounds, for the 20th time in my life. Now at 120 lbs. I want to stop the yoyo cycle of regaining weight. Keeping it off is harder than losing it. The diary makes a difference. Also, who knew that one regular M & M is one calorie but 1 peanut M & M is 10 calories. And don't get me started on Chobani yogurt. It is a total sugar bomb at 120 calories for 2 oz. My OCD combined with writing everything down is working.
22
@Just paying attention
Before anyone goes on an M&M binge, it should be pointed out that a single regular M&M actually has closer to 3.5 calories.
I would be extremely happy if eating 100 M&Ms only involved 100 calories, but life is cruel.
33
@Just paying attention congrats! I agree that maintaining weight after weight loss is very difficult.
3
@Just paying attention
I have tried many diets that seem reasonable - nothing crazy like eating nothing but cabbage, mystery shakes, or using diet pills. I tried low carb, low fat (when it was a thing), weight watchers, Jenny Craig, etc.
I did just as you describe (record every.single.calorie including 4 calories in black coffee, 2 calories in a celery stick, relying on scales not portion sizes or volume for accuracy. Only then was I able to determine that Meredith (me) at 5'3" and 160 lbs, walking 3-5 miles EVERY DAY, did NOT need 1600 calories per day as most calorie guides suggest.
Through careful recording of calories and activities I slashed my daily calories to 1100 per day. I am hungry most of the time but have turned to distraction to muster through it. Doing this allowed me to lose 30 lbs in 2 yrs, to keep the lbs off for 3.5 years (so far), and my joints feel better. I slashed calories by cutting portion sizes....in stages. I cut portion sizes to 50% of original for most foods except veggies and salads (which I have always indulged in). I reduced my consumption of nuts (my go to snack); too calorie dense and really, who can eat JUST 5 cashews or pecans? No more nut butters. I cut my fruits down to half portions because they are surprisingly calorie dense (if you use the scale and not the S, M, L method for estimating calories).
Calorie counting is old school and boring but it works.
6
Geez. Our culture is always so focused on weight. No surprise so many people have eating disorders. A cut in calories for everyone would cause death to many anorexics.
13
@Colban Exactly. Thank you. And many people with eating disorders are unable to believe they are ill and will latch onto an article like this as more reason to eat less.
2
$55 million for a study of 143 people who didn’t even meet study goals? Surely NIH has better ways to spend that money.
7
@Jeva Jacobs
I disagree - there was a verifiable positive trend even though the participants only reduced calories by 12% instead of 25%. Had there been NO difference between control and diet-restricted group, your critique might have been valid. Had I been on the trial review board I would have questioned attempting a 25% calorie reduction for so long. I am shocked that so many people were able to keep in the study at 12% reduction!! Kudos to them!
6
Yes, the NIH could have given that money to the Pentagon to build one or two cruise missiles but this is actual research to potentially benefit the lives of real people. (If you want to go after big numbers, you should challenge the $costs of clinical trials of the prescription drugs you take. Those go way beyond $55 million.)
2
The angle of this piece, its headline, and its implications, are all concerning. The research subjects were all "healthy" per the report. So why not trust that for these 143 healthy people, their normal eating habits already reflect relatively healthy practices? We have moved so far away from listening to our bodies for what we should eat, how much we need, what we crave, and what will truly satisfy our bodies.
For "healthy" people we should support intuitive eating processes (listen to your gut, literally: eat when you are hungry, eat what sounds good, and if we take this advice seriously then we will likely land on the right balance of volume and nutrients for our own needs).
For those of us that follow this practice of eating intuitively, being told to arbitrarily cut out 300 calories a day, to improve our health (again, in people already described as "healthy") is irresponsible.
Sure, for folks who routinely struggle with intuitive eating, the advice to pause and ask yourself if you are hungry for that extra cookie, bagel, or other snack item is meeting a food need or some other emotional/physical need is potentially helpful. Merely telling folks to not eat something is not, and is not addressing overall health and well-being.
Please NY Times check your fat-phobia, wellness obsession, and support intuitive eating and health at every size reporting that will combat, not reproduce, disordered eating and thinking.
17
@Elizabeth
I am sorry but for too many people their bodies are telling them to eat eat eat. For others they can only afford to eat the highly processed food that packs on pounds.
And as for being active, that would be fine and dandy if today's jobs were not so sedentary, yet no less exhausting than 100 years ago.
I for one am thankful that the NYT publishes scientifically valid studies, at least within the limits that one can do this with healthy people...that is not cage them up and poke/prod/study them under highly controlled conditions 24-7 for 2 years. These studies may lead to finally cracking the code for what is truly healthy eating...unlike today's mostly anecdotal and faulty guidelines.
10
It’s simple. Fewer calories in leads to weight loss. There’s a lot of hoop jumping and “fat-shaming” rhetoric to make the case that being overweight is a healthy way to exist. It leads to arguments like this attempting to discount the realities of healthy eating. It’s fine if someone is ok with being overweight and staying that way. Nobody else gets hurt. But spreading misinformation that may discourage others who want to lose weight from doing so to feel better about being overweight is not ok.
5
@Jason Owens
Thanks for your thoughts Jason.
Totally agree that eating fewer calories leads to weight loss. But that doesn't mean that all people need to lose weight or are eating too many calories for their body by following their natural eating patterns.
My point was that we should wonder why a study would take ALREADY HEALHTY people, as the article acknowledged they were, and ask those HEALTHY people to restrict their food intake. This is distinct from suggesting dietary changes for people who are having health problems that might benefit from such changes (which is not how this cohort is described).
It is also simply untrue that because a body is higher in weight or BMI that is it necessarily less healthy. To suggest that this premise is true would be to spread misinformation.
Finally, your odd ad hominem point at the end is a fascinating inference that somehow my critique of this article is due to my own feelings about my body. Thanks for trying to psychoanalyze a comment on the NY Times website and also to pass assumed judgement on what you imagine my body looks like! Awesome that women's bodies are not free from male scrutiny even when there is no body present to see! Let's just say that my body does not look like however you imagine it to look, but I don't think I need to preface my comments with my body stats for my ideas to have validity.
2
This is interesting scientific data, and it sheds some light on the physiological changes and health benefits associated with caloric restriction. Unfortunately, I don't think a significant percentage of the population would be willing to make a lifestyle change that involves significant self-denial, at least while they are still healthy. It is often hard to get people who have a disease process that would clearly benefit from weight loss to follow a diet! I am happy for people who have the self-discipline to follow this type of regimen and reap the health benefits associated with caloric restriction. I think, however, that for the majority of the population, this is a non-starter, as compliance will be very low even for those who attempt it.
6
@Len E
I've been doing caloric restriction for most of my life (50 years?). I eat quality food, don't waste calories on junk, and feel amazing. God didn't intend us to feed all day long.
2
Eat less. Lose weight. That will be $1mm please.
24
@Joan1009
OR
Eat a lot of plants and only plant-based food. Eat a lot. Lose weight.
That's free!
1
@Joan1009
Eat better, and eating less comes automatically for most.
We recently returned from a barge and bike trip to France. We unexpectedly had a chef-to-the-stars guesting as our chef for the week. At first we were shocked by the small portions, especially given we were cycling, but by week's end we had adjusted to them. The food was delicious and beautifully presented! We savored each bite and left the table neither starving nor stuffed. Since being home we've maintained the "less is more" mentality -- preparing simple, quality food, but smaller portions. Mind you we are not totally avoiding anything, though reducing grains and sugars. We just realized we were eating huge, unnecessary portions of food.
This was the first vacation I've ever taken where I lost weight and we have not regained any since being home.
One other note: a British friend pointed out that in Europe one never asks for a doggy bag when eating out. It's unnecessary because portions are reasonable.
116
@Observer
We returned from a Holland America cruise on which we were absolutely shocked that the portion sizes were so gigantic that people were throwing away at least half of nearly everything served that whole week.
We will never again give business to such an irresponsible cruise company. ( Not to mention they only recycle paper.)
21
@Jean
We've never been on a cruise like that -- in large part due to my perception of always-available food that I don't need. More than sad to hear about food being thrown away because of serving sizes!
Our chef on the barge "repackaged" leftovers -- uneaten baguettes from breakfast were sliced and toasted to go with homemade hummus. Leftover Roquefort cheese not served on the cheese plate (we had just a taste of it!) was made into delicious dressing on the next day's salad.
I highly recommend patronizing small company barges and the like. It's a different experience. The quarters were small but comfortable and we really got to know the captain and crew (not to mention our fellow travelers) -- they felt like family by the end of the trip!
The cost might be a little more, but I guess I can equate it to eating quality food vs. quantity-- you might pay more and do it less often but it's so much more enjoyable!
15
@Observer
We usually are on small boats of 300 or fewer passengers. Much different environments.
5
I wonder what sells the most at the groc store chips,fruit flav yogurt,ice cream or broccoli,carrots anything in the produce aisle.
I am down 35 # and am constantly still trying to find the perfect eating plan. Something that makes me happy. I just feel there is something wrong with my dopamine receptors and I have to accept that.
3
Amazing. One hundred and forty three subjects and they spent $55m. By my math that is about $383K per subject. Give investigators that kind of money and they had better come up with something. Looking behind the hype, the subjects couldn't even stick to the original diet plan. Any study where the goals weren't achieved should always be looked on with caution. Better markers though normal to start with? So BMI dropped from 23 to 21 and cholesterol from 180 to 170 (just my examples of improvement), are they healthier, will they live longer? How long with they keep up the calorie restriction once they are no longer getting the $383K attention? Both at a nationwide and an individual level we have enough evidence to show that for most people dieting in the long term is a failure. This study doesn't show anything too change my opinion on that.
11
@Michael Feely CALERIE is a major initiative by NIH to understand diet, metabolism, and how our bodies work. The grant that funded this work specifically was way smaller. How do I know? Rather than complain, I looked at the NIH website where they report funded projects.
20
@KM Per NIH Reporter, this was roughly a $3.4M grant, so about $24,000 per subject. It's not unreasonable to ask if the results were worth the investment. It's taxpayer money.
5
@LF
A research grant of that size is usually funding multiple research projects extending over several years. We are hearing a portion of these results while other work is still ongoing and yet to be analyzed and published. A research team will have typically develop a number of research projects, dozens of papers around different facets of the problems they are studying. We are hearing about part of what this team is doing.
3
I have been practicing calorie restriction for some 20 years. I've been a vegetarian for more than 25 years. Initially I did both to get back to a healthy weight as I was at 180 pounds (5'10") which was 40 - 50 pounds heavier than I should have been. I'm now 54 years old and weigh exactly what I did in high school, 130 pounds. I'm healthy and active (ran my 8th Boston Marathon in 2017; currently training to qualify for 2021). My cholesterol was also higher when I was heavier and it returned back to normal once I lost the weight. No statins needed. I tend to eat one meal and snack the rest of the time. I also drink a lot of water. I don't drink alcohol all that much but when I do I limit myself to one drink. I don't think calorie restriction is for everyone but it works great for me.
30
Oh well, I had a more "academic" comment in mind but I see everyone is sharing their personal experience - so, here goes (apologies for the academic stuff mixed in:>)
In 2003, I realized that my blood pressure had soared, since leaving NY City just after 9/11, from average 130/80 to 160/100. (I'm now 67 and am 5'10" tall)
I had also "ballooned" from an average 170 to 200 pounds.
I started an effort to lose weight in August 2003, simply by maintaining a 30 minute exercise routine daily (mixing HIIT with moderate enduring running, including 3 sessions of resistance training) and cutting my calories to about 1500 calories.
I got back to the low 170s in 3 months and have had little difficulty keeping it off since then. My BP has dropped to 120/80 (frequently below), with one 25 mg dose daily of Chlorthaldone (a diuretic)
However!
I remained convinced that losing another 10-15 pounds would get me off meds altogether. But even 2 months of 1200 calories a day would only get 2 pounds off, and they'd come right back if I upped back to 1500/1600 daily.
I knew if I ate 400-600 calories a few days I'd lose a lot of weight but was convinced by all the hype about the dangers.
So in May, I came across Michael Mosley's 800 calorie diet. I find it very easy to follow, and it's the first thing I've found that effortless sheds the weight (i'm at 163 at the moment - I plan to get to the high 150s by my birthday, July 29, and return to normal eating).
www.remember-to-breathe.org
12
@don salmon
Your calculations are correct. If you reduce your calories by 100/per day ,you will lose about 10 pounds in a year.
So by cutting 300 calories per day for 2 months you would expect to lose about 5 pounds. ( 600 is the same as 100 for 6 months or half of 12 months i.e. half of 10 pounds lost is five.)
Of course if you stop eating 1200 calories you will regain the weight.
The lesson is clear. All studies show that long term weight loss requires long term calorie restriction.
This is why diets fail. People go off the diet.
Keep trying but be patient. You can succeed if you do.
Cut back 100 calories per day and you will lose the extra ten pounds in a year.
3
The ages of people in this study 21- 50. Were they obese or at the top of the BMI scale at the beginning of the study? What about exercise? Frankly, most bodies are pretty healthy - except for females with terrible PMS -- until at least 40-- when vision changes first happen. At what ages does diabetes 2, raised cholesterol, high blood pressure (which apparently was less affected) happen(Mostly at age 50 or above from my experience. How many calories per day are we talking about? 1800 or less per female. Any comparison done with Atkins? The diet here seems better described as sort of Mediterranean with fewer starches.
I keep trying to cut my caloric intake, esp. now that I have reached the shrinking stage of life. Control is emotional as well as intellectual... but one can try again with the next meal.
10
The world’s longevity ‘hot spots” or “blue zones” are persuasive. They include Sardinia; Nicola, Costa Rica; Loma Linda, California, Okinawa, etc. Calorie reduction is a common trait among these healthy clusters. Other factors include regular moderate physical activity, a plant based diet, social interaction, low alcohol use, and religion or faith. Calorie reduction is not only what we refuse to eat (processed) but when and how often. Intermittent fasting seems to work well. These people do not drain Medicare or health systems because they practice responsible lifestyles. Laudable.
15
@Jake how do "religion and faith" fit into your comment? My guess is your "responsible lifestyles" comment. I would love to see a correlational study between alcohol consumption and religion. I bet the atheists would come out looking pretty good.
3
@Laura, my guess is that religion adds in more social interaction and a method of personal stress reduction. Other methods of achieving these would likely be beneficial as well.
2
My husband and I live by the AIM diet or lifestyle. It stands for All In Moderation. So far it’s working
24
@Danielle Aristotle lived by the same principle. In the end, it really doesn't matter.
2
Why did my grandmother live to 93 on the more-is-better fat, sugar and salt diet? She ate meat at least once a day, often three times, and if she ever ate anything green, red or yellow I never saw it. I will add she lived downtown in a big city and never drove a car so walked a lot, but did take buses everywhere. I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all approach, and an esteemed doctor told me he thought genetics was the biggest predictor of longevity. Of course, she probably could have lived a lot longer if she had improved her diet.
22
It is not a diet science story without anecdata about a grandparent. Thanks!
19
@kay One person does not provide scientific evidence of anything. This article is about a scientific study, utilizing methods of statistics. For example, some people who eat horribly will die at age 50, others at age 93, the average is somewhere in between. Some people who eat well will die at age 50, others at age 93, the average is somewhere in between... but that average will be higher than the unhealthy eaters.
4
@RwK
I'm not proposing my grandmother as a scientific anything. And you assume her diet was "unhealthy." Perhaps what is unhealthy is this constant obsessive focus on what we eat, and giving in to the latest "scientific" evidence of a particular diet. Remember the margarine advice? Don't eat butter, eat margarine. Now that's been debunked.
There were certainly other factors in my grandmother's life that may have kept her healthy. She never took a pill and only saw a doctor when she had her children. She was a happy person who lived as she chose, and had a huge number of friends. Factors like these are not considered in most "scientific" studies of how food contributes to longevity. Anyway, she had a great life and never thought about what she ate except whether or not she liked it. It worked.
8
Why do so many people want to extend their life? I recently discovered I have the same orthopedic problem as my mother — it was listed as a secondary cause on her death certificate— and while I intend to fully treat my condition in hope of living an active, pain-free life, I have no interest in extending it at the risk of enjoying what I have left. If I want that macchiato, I’ll have it.
81
@Frolicsome Same here. My father is 95 years old. Though he is doing pretty well for his age, seeing his experience has taught me there is no way I want to live to be that old!
24
As someone who is presently 50, I would certainly enjoy living a long life to travel and experience the world, but would prefer—of course—to be vigorous and healthy. Admittedly, I am hoping that the continuing development of advanced medical technology will make this possible, if not easier, but a lot of how my life unfolds will depend on how I treat myself now. As such, I am attempting to move more toward a whole-food diet, snacking on fruits and nuts instead of tempting junk. It’s very challenging to maintain, but repetition should result in habit.
9
It's all about personal choice, right?
4
Jason Fung, M.D. has documented the myriad benefits of eating less through fasting. Calorie restriction often takes the form of skipping meals and/or stretching out the time between meals, i.e., increasing one’s fasted state. The science behind this is fascinating. I highly recommend Dr. Fung’s bestseller, “The Complete Guide to Fasting.”
17
@John: Fasting wouldn't work for me, because I do strength training, and find that if I have a too large gap in my eating, my muscles get consumed, and I'm weaker next session.
Do any athletes or bodybuilders fast?
1
@John Fung's The Obesity Code is also worth reading.
2
@Watercannon
Yes intermittent eating (or intermittent fasting) would benefit you greatly after your body goes through a process of becoming adapted to consuming fat, including one's own body fat, for energy instead of glucose.
You might want to focus on the instructions of Thomas DeLauer.
2
I am older than most, how much less should I eat to live to be 100. Latest experiences indicate that I may spend the next years attending funerals of friends. Not sure a long life is all that it is expected to be. Thoughts?
30
@Caroline M Here’s what 104-year-old David Goodall had to say about it:
Goodall, a botanist and ecologist who was thought to be Australia’s oldest scientist, said on his 104th birthday last month he had simply lived too long.
“I greatly regret having reached that age; I would much prefer to be 20 or 30 years younger,” he told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. during the festivities in April. When asked whether he had a nice birthday, he replied: “No, I’m not happy. I want to die. ... It’s not sad, particularly. What is sad is if one is prevented.”
He died in May at a Swiss clinic, which assisted him in dying.
31
@
My 102.5 year old cousin living independently with her dog comments that she wouldn't wish 102 on anyone. (She complained more vigorously in her late 90s.) I have managed to visit her around the time of Mother's Day for about four years now... Now we no longer say "good-bye" for the last time but why not come for Thanksgiving. BTW she is frail, now has to use a walker, and has never sought out exercise, nor worried much about food. Coffee is important.
11
@Frolicsome
But what did he eat?
2
Eating less results in weight loss. Duh.
27
@JQGALT
Relax. You can stuff yourself silly providing you limit carbs. Carbs are not our friends when going over 40 grams a day.
Eat veggies and fruits. Drink water. Loads of variety and fun in the summertime.
2
Of course eating less results in weight loss, but that was not what the study was about. You missed the point.
3
I guess there’s a shift in thinking at the Times. A few years ago I wrote the health editor. I told her that after my dog died, I gained 10 pounds in a year. I no longer walked my dog a mile every night and did not use up those calories. I suggested that walking just a mile each day could provide a slow and helpful weight loss. She wrote back and told me that nobody would consider that a useful diet help. Now, when the weather is not terrible, I just park farther from the stores I shop at. My weight has been falling about 6 pounds a year and I don’t get dents in my car doors from other drivers. I call it the parking lot diet.
412
@Richard Winchester
I had exactly the same experience... I gained weight after my dog died simply because I was no longer doing morning and evening walks. The walks were usually 20-30 minutes, depending on the weather. I guess this could be the “dog-walking diet”!
67
@Richard Winchester: was that Jane Brody, by any chance?
I have an elderly dog now, with arthritis. She can barely go in and out to do her business anymore.
So like you....my daily exercise went from 3-4 brisk walks in all types of weather....to barely going out to the yard and back. It's no fun to walk WITHOUT a dog.
I think dogs are just wonderful for getting people off the sofa and away from the TV set, and OUTDOORS walking and in nature!
11
@Linda Clayton I am literally realizing this with a Super Senior old dog. She doesn't desire a walk (it was several over her life until about the last 2 years) and now I have to figure out how to add activity (I didn't worry about formal exercise regimens b/c dog) and decrease calories with this massive change in my life.
1
The averages mentioned don’t add up. 300 calories less per day over 700 days in two years is 210,000 calories or 60 pounds, not 16 pounds. For such a small loss the average was 80 calories per day cut from a person’s consumption.
10
There’s no reason to assume that their activity or metabolic level would not drop which would easily account for the difference in weight loss you cite with a 300 calorie intake lowering. Calories-in and calories-out.
8
@Richard Winchester this is why those fitness machines ask for your age, gender and weight when you start your session. Calories cannot be equated with pounds in this way as an absolute.
2
@Richard Winchester: the study almost certainly seems to have relied SOLELY on self-reported "food diaries".
EVERYONE knows such self-reported food diaries are very inaccurate, as most people are just plain terrible at estimating what they eat -- remembering every mouthful, every M&M they nibble in the office, etc.
Also, people in our society are very ashamed of what they eat, so they tend to downplay it to "look good" to the researchers.
I doubt any of this would hold up under scientific scrutiny.
On top of that: yes, if you reduce your caloric intake….your very sophisticated BRAIN reduces your metabolic "burn". So it is very very hard to stay ahead of the very sophisticated UNCONSCIOUS systems that regulate things like weight, fat storage and appetite.
4
Those cookies look delicious.
331
They were all I could think about while trying to read the article! I kept hoping for a recipe even though I knew they were not the point.
64
So crunchy and sweet.
Pass the milk.
16
@Christina
Agreed. They look to be macadamia nut chocolate chunk. Semisweet or milk. I bet the standard Tollhouse recipe would work. From the browning, I bet the baker gave the batter a overnight rest in the fridge.
I'm gonna have a go...
12
I will tell you - I used to have severe skin problems, breaking out in rashes on my chest and other parts of my body, and my eyelids were so red and raw for a few years that I'd put straight vaseline on them.
When I started fasting for a day or longer on water, the inflammation disappeared - and has never come back.
Few physical maladies can be solved with "more food!" but it's been my experience that a lot of them can be solved with less food, or even no food.
Easier to talk about than to implement, I realize. But all I know is I was in agony - taking those "Zitz baths" and applying topical ointment to my red, raw patches of parts of my body - and now I haven't touched 'em in years and consider myself cured.
Less is more, folks.
78
@Zellickson
Sounds like you have food allergies.. possibly to egg white, if you eat a lot of that. It takes only a day or two off the food allergen IMExperience to reverse the process. (Eating two healthy egg white for breakfast for several months, getting asthma then hives, all problems went away two days after I ran out of eggs and had oatmeal instead. Now I watch egg white consumption. Prob. no more than one egg a day for many of us.
8
@Auntie Mame
Or sounds like the fasting reduced overall body inflammation to relieve and reverse the skin issues.
5
Yes, but...
Low weight people, or people who already obsess over every calorie and who are likely to already be restricting are going to interpret this information as permission to further restrict, and risk malnourishment, and the health complications that accompany it.
There's already a massive online obsessive eating culture sharing misinformation constantly, using terms like 'clean eating', 'biohacking', 'detoxing', 'fasting' and 'cleansing' as coded speech for disordered eating.
57
@NG, please don’t buy into the made-up “eating disorder” of being “obsessed” with eating cleaner foods. There is a war on now between those who profit greatly from our chemical-laden and over-processed foods and a public that may finally be getting the hint that our soaring rates of obesity-related illnesses just might be related to our manufactured diet, big pharma and pesticide use. True, not all trends are legit, but follow the science and ignore the push back roar of those invested in our illnesses.
15
@NG In this "obesogenic" society, disordered eating is the norm. You just have to pick if you want to be overweight or obsessive.
11
I’m pretty sure this article isn’t going to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for the already-obsessed... Perhaps it’s for others who are starting from a different point? You know, most people?
1
The problem is portion size and overly processed sugary/high caloric food. This started in the late 1970's. Bagels were 1/3 of the size they are today; it is if they put food on steroids. Most Americans are fat compared to Europeans and Asians and it is not healthy and leads to many disease states. Keep moving and do not gain any weight was my doctor's advice.
56
My own experience - personal motivation can help with any diet change.
My motivation is to avoid prescription medicines when possible. I tend to have bizarre side effects, so I'd rather not start on them for what I call "life-style preventable" causes.
My BMI was 21, I was exercising regularly, and I tried to follow a Mediterranean diet. However, my A1C crept up over into the pre-diabetes range. Yes, I have a family history of type 2, but my mother was overweight/obese. More critically, I have always indulged my sweet tooth, as I've never had a problem with my weight.
Personal motivation - avoid having to go on Metformin. I completely cut out desserts, tried to mix fruit with a protein, increased nut consumption, and - voila - dropped my A1C. I also lost 7-8 pounds, dropping my BMI to below 20.
I'm very excited about this study, as I have probably dropped about 300 calories a day by removing my sweet habit. In addition to my lowered A1C, I hope that my (unmeasured) other metabolic indicators have also improved!
24
what if you're already thin. 30 years old 120 pounds 5 food 7 and some. woman. active eat til I'm full... I'd be under weight if I did that plus who has time to count calories!
11
You won the genetic lottery. I am jealous.
3
@hey I find this post unhelpful. Also perhaps disingenuous. Why are you reading this article and commenting on it if this is really the case?
10
@hey: You're very lucky you have such a subdued appetite. No matter how active I was, if I ate mostly healthy food "naturally", I'd be morbidly obese.
How pleasurable do you find eating? How much of your eating is treats? How fast do you eat?
I think a lot of the difference is one's insulin response. My appetite can be somewhat subdued by avoiding sugar. But one jam/jelly sandwich flips a switch to ravenous.
6
Slow and simple works. Who knew? Isn't this what we've been told for years? I know it worked for me and the reason was that I changed my eating habits (no more cheap but fattening lunch buffets in the university cafeteria complete with dessert), fewer carbs, more lean proteins, and veggies. I gradually adjusted to a new normal. Over the last 20 years I've maintained my weight and made some more cuts in things like wine and have eaten smaller portions. No drama. All the people I know who have struggled have all gone on diets but have not seen weight control as a long term issue.
8
@Ceilidth: but it sounds like you never had a weight problem to being with.
Some people just naturally have no problem maintaining a constant weight, regardless of their eating or exercise habits.
You are apparently among this lucky few.
It's like congratulating yourself for being tall….or having blue eyes.
1
@Concerned Citizen
Disagree!
Have had a weight problem since childhood and am now 69. Fifteen years ago, I started to make slow and steady changes. Took me to the present to drop 60 pounds, from 170 to 110. There were some periods of some weight gain (the last was my Trump weight of 10 pounds!). My tastes have evolved and changed, I do count calories, and consume nutrient dense foods, most of the time. At 5'1" 1000 calories a day maintains my weight, and am no longer fixated on foods, nor are there cravings. Works for me and I love and truly enjoy the foods that I eat.
2
American serving sizes are way out of control, especially in restaurants. Just cutting portion size would go a long way in losing weight. For those that don't think they can do this, I ask, just how important is food to you? I would say, it is too important to you. Are you addicted? Get over it.
27
@CK Share your meal or just eat half and take the rest for tomorrow.
14
@CK Plus salt sugar and fat in these huge portions. Agree that eating half is the answer but many people grew up with the clean plate club practice and they just eat until the food is gone!
8
@CK: well, when you are world dictator….you can decree what everyone can or cannot eat.
Yeesh.
There is no one "portion size" that is right for everyone. A 4'10" woman is not going to eat what a 6'4" man is going to eat.
Also: most big restaurant meals are for show, to justify the very high prices common today. They EXPECT people to take half or more home (or to split an order with another person).
I always see people taking home "doggy bags".
Also: perhaps food is not important to YOU, but it is to almost all other human beings.
3
How much do you have to weigh for this study? It doesn’t say it! So, thin people to live healthier have to disappear? Hmmmm
5
"They also consumed more micronutrients like vitamins A, K and magnesium, indicating a big increase in fruits and vegetables, said Susan B. Roberts, a co-author of the study and a senior scientist at the U.S.D.A. Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University.
“They were eating more healthy foods,” she said. “Things like nuts, whole grains, green vegetables and legumes.”
How do they know that the good health markers weren't a result of eating more fruits, veggies, nuts, and grains instead of the weight loss?
153
@Jacquie Because the meat and dairy industries that lobby in Washington and underwrite many university ag and nutrition programs told them it wasn't.
24
@j-No Yep!
2
@Jacquie
Because it is already known that these markers improve from weight loss. Trust me, you can be a fat vegetarian. Nuts have lots of calories and while healthful, can be the opposite in more than small amounts. Same with whole grains--small portions is the key. Happily, it’s pretty hard to over indulge in vegetables. : )
The key in the article is ‘obesogenic environment’.
It’s all habit and conditioning.
For instance, when my wife leaves the country to visit her family for 3-4 weeks at a time, I automatically lose 10 lbs without even trying. Impossible to keep off once she comes back unless I boycott family meals, leading to tensions.
This will not change until we have sued the food industry out of existence, akin to the tobacco industry.
10
@Kara Ben Nemsi So your wife cooks meals that are too big for you and it's the food industry's fault. Why not just take a smaller serving--assuming you want to keep the weight off.
53
@Kara Ben Nemsi. It is all about the habits. Your mind and body adjust to the habits you choose. Two years ago I adopted a european food style: everything fresh with a huge salad after the main dinner course. This big salad replaces dessert in a wonderful way. Very quickly I got used to the habit and my tastes changed. Now I have almost none of the desire for sweets I developed eating my mother's cooking. Result - lost 10% of my body weight and feel great. I try to be aware of my options and the habits I've developed, and choose the habits (i.e. path) that'll get me where I want to go.
3
If this approach worked, WeightWatchers among other calorie-controlled diet clubs would have worked, and gone out of business years ago.
The report may be academically interesting but without concrete proposals on how people would stick to it... well, it's rather irrelevant.
14
@Sammy Pepys
Weight Watchers has a great plan, common sense, not faddish. But the results are slow (which is much healthier) and you have to commit to a life style change, not dieting. People want quick results without much work. Unfortunately that's not how weight loss/maintenance works.
26
We've known for at least two decades that the touted ideal American diet is too much food for the average semi-sedentary American. Caloric reduction can indeed result in improved vital signs, from blood pressure to cardiac health. There is one known drawback: People on a reduced-calorie diet are more susceptible to respiratory illnesses and do not resist other infections as well as weightier subjects. This can result in a higher mortality rate, but the studies I have seen did not continue long enough to produce any such results. We can definitely live better on less food. Can we be as healthy, live as long? There is no data to suggest that.
7
It works, as I have done it. Dr. Hu is right that it is hard to maintain because delicious food is in abundance, and it seems that every other commercial on TV is about fast food, chips, beer, ice cream, etc. and so, it must be a radical life change, where most of the time, you are constantly denying yourself, but to what end? So, you have to ask yourself if it's worth it because you may not live longer than someone who eats a lot.
6
@Isle: maybe it works for YOU….but dieting and food restoration for weight loss FAILS for 97% of those who try it, and in most cases, causes obesity and weight gain when extreme hunger and deprivation cause people to binge eat.
Maybe you should stop watching so much TV?
Not everyone likes those things. I dislike fast food and rarely eat it. I hate chips and salty snacks. I rarely drink any alcohol, and never beer. Ice cream makes my sensitive teeth ache, so I rarely have it.
I still like to eat and love food though! but don't assume COMMERCIALS are what drives eating.
I had relatives, long ago -- born in the 19th century, in rural Eastern Europe -- who were all morbidly obese despite growing up on remote farms, doing hard physical labor from sun up to sun down and eating organic food -- no pesticides -- no TV! no radio! -- no fast food, soda, restaurants, processed food, etc. Just plain home cooking. And they all were massively obese.
1
Uncertain how calorie restriction can be the only association highlighted by the authors. The journal article is a Pay-for so I haven't read the whole thing, but what is unknown here is what the calorie-restricted group ate - and how it differed from their original diet.
4
I am 76 years old and in the process of retiring from the practice of law. My doctor told me to lose 10 lbs., so I went on a 1400 calorie a day plan. I eat everything, just less. I have lost 27 Lbs since March and I am close to my target weight of 185. It was not very difficult using the calorie counter on Noom. Should have done this years ago. I eat healthy, but have eliminated seconds, snacking, second and third glass of wine. I feel a lot better and I am not driven by hunger. Now the task of keeping the weight off.
174
Good luck.
7
@Jeff Mahl
You can do it! My husband and I recently cut calories and lost weight -- we find if we overindulge one day we make a point of spending a couple of days doing what you noted above. The important thing is to not overindulge day after day feeling your weight go up. And to find ways to control stress if stress-eating is an issue.
9
@Observer: did you NOT READ where his DOCTOR said to lose 10 lbs -- so he fanatically starved himself until he lost almost 3 times that much weight?
1
I would be interested to know the starting point of all these people. I currently work at consuming 1600 calories a day and follow the Mediterranean diet. I believe going to 1300 calories would not only be a physical/psychological hardship, but I would have difficulty getting adequate nutrition. I guess I'm already in the group that has restricted caloric intake.
30
@Katie I am 6 feet tall and currently consume 1400 calories a day or less. This is doable.
9
@Jeff Mahl Why do you assume that she needs to lose weight?
11
@Jeff Mahl It's really not okay to be policing other people's diets or bodies.
13
I have found that a very small dinner, or even no dinner at all is perfect for weight loss. Eat reasonably the rest of the day and have a large late lunch.
153
@J.Sutton This was my go-to lifestyle when I was younger and poorer, and wanted to lose a few pounds. I would have a good-sized late lunch, that more or less carried me through the rest of the day, and skipped dinner. Did I have some evenings where I was kind of hungry? Sure. But I found it pretty effective. It became harder once I had kids, as the evening meal is much more than just eating - it's a chance to catch up and relax,and food gets intertwined in that. But sounds like I should make an effort to eat that way again.
27
@J.Sutton
Whatever works for you is great. For me, I lost 80 lb in 11 months (and have kept my weight a year later) by eating a medium-sized low calorie breakfast, a very light lunch and a regular non-diet early dinner (around 6 pm) with very infrequent deserts and an occasional glass of wine. I usually have a fresh fruit snack in the afternoon and at late night. When dieting, my goal was 1600 calories per day but I actually averaged around 1450. Now, I consume around 1800 per day but I also work out a lot (about 2500 calories worth a week). I'm 64 and 5' 11".
16
@Billy
Indeed, the goal is finding what works for you. I burn between 3200-3500 calories most days. With some weekend days (skiing, hiking, or mountain climbing) it jumps to around 5000. I usually have 2 cups coffee with cream for breakfast most weekdays, a moderate lunch, and moderate dinner. Throw in 2-3 beers and maybe a snack at some point during the day and that's my intake. On those strenuous weekend days I usually force myself to eat a full breakfast too and usually have a large meal for dinner. I lost 75 lbs over three years and am in my second year of keeping it off. Good luck on your journey.
3
I too cut calories by about 300 calories a day and over the course of 2 years lost about 20 pounds. It was an effort but doable. What I would like to know (and would love to get a good in depth article on) is why at a certain weight it becomes nearly impossible to lose more weight. My BMI level wasn't at a level considered "normal" but my appetite kicked in and basically wouldn't let me lose more. Weight loss and weight loss maintenance is more complicated than just eating fewer calories that you use.
In the mean time I count calories and exercise every day to maintain my weight loss.
65
@MSalmon because you keep consuming foods that elevate your insulin, your weight will not go down any more, and with time (just like everyone's) will go back up. Insulin tells your body not to use fat on your body for fuel, but only use what you consume. So, if you even lower your intake, but still keep your insulin going (because of carbs and also protein you consume) your body will bring down your metabolic rate and NOT use fat at that point. What is the solution, you ask? Fast, either daily for 18-20 hours or intermittently for 24-36 once or twice a week(water, tea, coffee no sugar only), remove snacks (which goes with fasting) and no carbs but once a day if you really want to lose weight. Proof? Jimmy Kimmel. He just stopped eating Tuesdays and Thursdays and - poof! Magic! No, not magic - science!
7
@jake d. You are suggesting keto I guess, which I tried last year; If that's the case, I'm going to offer an opinion that keto is extreme to the point of unhealthy. I'm all for low carb, but one thing no one tells you is that keto depletes your liver of glycogen. I found constipation issues weren't just about lack of fiber but lack of liver glycogen. Everyone's different; I quit not only because I couldn't stand to go through the keto flu a 2nd time but also because my snacks went from cantaloupe and blueberries to microwaved almond flour/butter/cocoa/monk fruit powder in a cup. I just don't think that's a healthy change. To me exercise is the key to getting over the hump.
33
@MSalmon, Congrats on the weight loss over a long period. My answer would be that, as you say, at some point weight loss may be more complicated than just cutting calories because the body can adjust metabolic rate (and appetite) in response to various conditions. If you were at a high weight for a long period, your body may have adjusted to that as "what's normal." If you're losing weight due to dieting then you're body may, at some point, see that as "abnormal" and try to counteract the dieting. That doesn't mean you can't eventually lose more weight, it just means that you may have to take additional measures.
This phenomenon also works for people who are normal weight and exercise (I'm one.) I've pretty much always weighed the same. If I tried to lose 30-40 lbs I could do it but the minute I reverted to normal eating (or stopped overexercising) I'd gain back the weight and strength in record time. Sorry to say I've inadvertently done this on occasion.
So it's a question of what your weight historically has been and degree/type of exercise, if any. Ultimately, how much fat you have is determined by what the body thinks it needs, so activation of muscle plays a big role. Even for someone who's been very overweight, use of muscle will eventually dictate fat storage.
In weight loss, just as in muscle building and exercise, people reach plateaus that may need to be addressed. I'd suggest talking with weight loss specialist or a doctor.
8
At 78 years old, I am most interested in enjoying the remaining years of life that I have. I am not interested in life without the simple pleasures including a good meal. Anti-aging is another faddist mantra that belies the genetics we all inherit as well as the choice we make to live as we choose. Aging is a fact of life. Get used to it.
136
@Grieving Mom
A lot of older folks, like my mother, choose the 'last meal' diet of the condemned, believing sweet, salty, animal foods are too pleasurable to give up as they endure their autumn years. They are unable or refuse to recognize diet is the cause of the inflammation that prevents them from enjoying anything else but the savory pleasures of the tongue. As the results of this study demonstrated, eating well and reducing caloric intake reduced the markers of inflammation and increased positive mood. Living longer should not be the goal of improving diet and reducing calories. Living without inflammation in the twilight years is.
139
@idi malink
Like I wrote, we all choose. My choice may not be your choice, but I love the freedom of deciding whether it will be dark chocolate or an apple (organic of course).Cutting 300 calories a day is not going to assuage the grief or resulting inflammation resulting from the death of my precious son. Your Mom is an adult. She chooses, not you. We are all entitled to our own personal democratic destruction.
39
@idimalink; I do not see any evidence in this article that the study PROVED the restriction diet reduced inflammation.
Again: if you live to 75 or 85, I feel you can do what you darn please.
You can eat nothing but chocolate cream pie if you want -- or take up smoking.
The obsession people have with "health" -- at the expense of all pleasure or happiness in life -- is a kind of sickness on its own.
8
Learned more than 15 years ago as I embarked on an anti aging personal crusade. One of the common traits of long living pockets of people were being underweight. Makes a lot of sense to me but hard to do when there is so many temptations around.
18
@Robert Yup. While discussing weight and longevity with a doctor friend several years ago, he asked, "Have you ever seen an overweight old person?"
9
@TBone
Well yeah - my dad was substantially over weight for the last decades of his life and died just short of 94 years old. He never met a candy bar or ice cream or fast food he didn't enjoy. His mind was strong until a month before his death. So being fat isn't an early death sentence and plenty of thin people die quite young. Lots of unknowns and uncontrollable elements in our longevity.
80
@joinparis exactly. There are many obese family members on my paternal side who are living well into their 80's, with some of the thinner one's (to include my relatively athletic father ((dead at age 54)) and his oldest very slender sister dying younger than her younger obese sister,) - while his lifelong morbidly obese sister lived into her late 80's.
Now, as a whole you probably don't see a large number of very old obese people, but there certainly are many around and living well into their 80's.
15
New York Times we need better scientific coverage from you. While the effects of food restriction is fairly well known, this particular presentation of the research is lacking the nuance of the limitations of the scientific method.
It is never made clear how the researchers were able to distinguish between the effects of the weight loss and the effects of the calorie restriction by itself.
It is not made clear how the average for the group is related to the individual. One 300 lb person restricting 10% and losing 50 lbs. vs. one 100 lb person restricting 20% losing 15 lbs. ..
The effects of being in the experimental group and being told to restrict diet may be the key variable here.
This study has little to tell us except it is very very hard to cut our consumption by 25%......
98
@KM You make valid points, but if the article spurs even one person to consider how to adopt a healthier diet I think it deserves publishing. The article (and study) explore a possible avenue to better health, subject to more in-depth analysis - such as yours. As usual, it's up to us as individuals to decide where and how to focus our attention.
19
Agreed. It’s an undisclosed study. Poor show NYT.
3
True. Not including the limitations of the study, some more concrete numbers on the findings or clarifying the difference between correlation and causation are abuses of research findings. The the public needs to be aware of the nuances: the difference between a finding and a fact. I would also suggest more links to academic papers, if the information is used, it should be more thoroughly cited. The NYT can, and should, be leading the way in writing about science in a more clear and honest way.
1
So... when will there be published an article for those who must try to eat MORE, not fewer, calories per day to achieve good health?
6
@fiona
When the US is populated mostly by undernourished skinny people instead of overfed fat people?
13
@fiona
Keep your eyes peeled for news of a famine in Venezuela. It probably won't be the only place, either.
4
@Still Waiting for a NBA Title. @Still Waiting for a NBA Title Your point is good, and I believe most readers naturally intuit it, but I'm thinking of severely compromised children and adults who cannot get enough food due to horrific health-related issues, genetic quirks, or economic devastation.
4
Studies which attribute health gains to reductions in calories or obesity often fail to note that inherent in their calorie reductions is a reduction in carbohydrates. So then, viewed physiologically instead of epidemiologically, the headline might tout the benefits of reducing dietary glucose.
52
They mentioned that they ate the same amount of protein, significantly less fat and slightly less carbohydrates. So it seems like carb consumption was not the dominant factor.
6
@Julie
Had they kept some of that fat while reducing carb further and increasing protien, they could have achieved greater calorie restriction beyond the average 12%, with little discomfort. I suppose it's a mash up of a few popular ideas that work ok separately but combined provide a lifestyle we have found pretty sustainable and weight loss/ maintenance friendly.
From Poulan- lots of veg and low glycemic fruit; we include veg at breakfast all the time and can't do without it now... spinach, sweet potatoe, sugars snap, green beans or whatever is left over from last nights dinner is great beside any breakfast protien. I also like all of the green veg cold too with a lightly flavored vinegarette...I call it morning salad.
From Atkins/Keto- increased but not crazy portions of protiens, fats (enough to keep satiety in check) and reduced carb (keeping some carb like nutrious sweet potatoes, flax and fiber breads, high fiber wraps
Feeding the gut with high fiber foods and cultured products like yogurts and keiffer which I like in small servings bc, while not outright lactose intolerant, I feel better with reduced dairy.
3
@Name
Eating this way has been effective for weightloss/maintenance and is very enjoyable too. All of this with one eye on overall calories, moderate exercise and we can still incorporate pleasures through the week such as some dessert, special events like bbq cookout or enjoy a glass of wine. Not daily obviously but I make sure I eat something like that every week or so to keep me happy, and it seems about once every week I allow (or it works out as such) that calorie intake pops up a few hundred calories... I think this "orchestrated" mini-jump actually keeps my body from down regulating my metabolism which is not desireable. The caveat is that the next day or two may see a change in hunger signalling so I try to be mindful as I step back into my regular eating. Then the appetite recalibrates and I feel very satisfied with what we are eating and it's easy and enjoyable.