Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?

In alt.support.diet Ignoramus14934 wrote:
I am 176 lbs, which makes me within the top of the normal weight
interval.

176 pounds of what?

And that makes sense, given that I still have a decent
amount of fat. Being relatively fit (according to military standards),
I do not feel that having much more muscle would be of benefit to me.

I don't care if you have more muscle, but if you have too much fat then
you either need to lose fat or gain muscle to bring the proportions into
balance.

The question is, given all this, would losing 16 more lbs to reach my
ideal weight make me better off, health wise.

I think the question is fundamentally flawed as you're basing the
"ideal" weight on insurance tables not the ideal proportion of LBM and
fat. No, I don't think losing 16 pounds where 8 are muscle and 8 are fat
would be a good idea. Yes, I think losing 16 pounds of fat could be a
good idea but I think you'll have trouble doing that without losing some
LBM along the way, and that will change the target overall weight.

Also, if the answer is yes, would it be a good idea to lose this
weight extremely slowly, such as 1 lb a month. Since I have "normal"
weight, I do not feel that I should be in a big hurry.

I don't think there's any hurry.

What's your running pace these days?

Wendy

Jayjay wrote:
First of all - why the heck are you cross posting to sci.med...
especially since you KNOW this instills the trolls to visit here.
Are you trolling for trolls?

slaps side of head

Oops! I forgot to trim the headers! Sorry, group!

Wendy

Since you don't LC, why post this here?

Ignoramus14934 wrote:
:: This post is inspired in part by Dr Roy Walford's 120 year diet book.
:: It advocates, based on Roy Walford's and others' exeriments with
:: mammals, that being underweight prolongs life and improves health. He
:: did these experiments at UCLA, where he works. He calls it a fancy
:: name "calorie restriction". The diet that he advocates is high in
:: what he considers valuable nutrients, but low in calories.

Then why does he refer to it as being underweight? It if prolongs life and
improves health, the that is ideal weight, imo.

::
:: I am 176 lbs, which makes me within the top of the normal weight
:: interval. However, based on some ideal weight tables, for a small
:: boned person such as myself, the ideal weight for me would be more
:: like 160 lbs. And that makes sense, given that I still have a decent
:: amount of fat. Being relatively fit (according to military
:: standards), I do not feel that having much more muscle would be of
:: benefit to me.

Good for you.

::
:: To the caliper purists. I agree that I need to measure my body fat
:: and go by bodyfat instead of pounds and BMI. I suspect strongly
:: though (based on the mirror test) that the answer from a bodyfat
:: percentage standpoint would be the same, that I have more fat than
:: ideal.

What does Dr. Roy say?

::
:: The question is, given all this, would losing 16 more lbs to reach my
:: ideal weight make me better off, health wise.

Dr. Roy says it will, right? Why ask here? Do you think there are some
here who have been following calorie restriction and have reached 120 years
in age?

::
:: Also, if the answer is yes, would it be a good idea to lose this
:: weight extremely slowly, such as 1 lb a month. Since I have "normal"
:: weight, I do not feel that I should be in a big hurry.

Well, given that you're looking to be 120 years old one day, you ought to
have plenty of time.

::
:: Any thoughts on it will be appreciated.
::
:: i

This post is inspired in part by Dr Roy Walford's 120 year diet book.
It advocates, based on Roy Walford's and others' exeriments with
mammals, that being underweight prolongs life and improves health. He
did these experiments at UCLA, where he works. He calls it a fancy
name "calorie restriction". The diet that he advocates is high in what
he considers valuable nutrients, but low in calories.

I am 176 lbs, which makes me within the top of the normal weight
interval. However, based on some ideal weight tables, for a small
boned person such as myself, the ideal weight for me would be more
like 160 lbs. And that makes sense, given that I still have a decent
amount of fat. Being relatively fit (according to military standards),
I do not feel that having much more muscle would be of benefit to me.

To the caliper purists. I agree that I need to measure my body fat and
go by bodyfat instead of pounds and BMI. I suspect strongly though
(based on the mirror test) that the answer from a bodyfat percentage
standpoint would be the same, that I have more fat than ideal.

The question is, given all this, would losing 16 more lbs to reach my
ideal weight make me better off, health wise.

Also, if the answer is yes, would it be a good idea to lose this
weight extremely slowly, such as 1 lb a month. Since I have "normal"
weight, I do not feel that I should be in a big hurry.

Any thoughts on it will be appreciated.

i
223/176/180


Every time I reach my 'ideal weight' I get knocked up
HD has asked that I stay at least 10 above ... isn't that sweet of him? LOL
I doubt you will have that problem though!
~Kat


"Rice Krispies. East meets west"
Cosmo Kramer

Jarkat2002 wrote:

Every time I reach my 'ideal weight' I get knocked up
HD has asked that I stay at least 10 above ... isn't that sweet of him? LOL

I'm racking my brain and can't figure out what the "HD" stands for in this
case, assuming it's not "Horny Dude". Care to enlighten me? :-)

Wendy

"Wendy" wrote in message
...
Jarkat2002 wrote:

Every time I reach my 'ideal weight' I get knocked up
HD has asked that I stay at least 10 above ... isn't that sweet of him?
LOL

I'm racking my brain and can't figure out what the "HD" stands for in this
case, assuming it's not "Horny Dude". Care to enlighten me? :-)

Is it HusbanD?

On 5 Nov 2003 13:42:45 -0400, Wendy wrote:

Jarkat2002 wrote:

Every time I reach my 'ideal weight' I get knocked up
HD has asked that I stay at least 10 above ... isn't that sweet of him? LOL

I'm racking my brain and can't figure out what the "HD" stands for in this
case, assuming it's not "Horny Dude". Care to enlighten me? :-)

Wendy

Slysdexic for husband darling. :-)

But I like Horny dude...

I'm racking my brain and can't figure out what the "HD" stands for in this
case, assuming it's not "Horny Dude". Care to enlighten me? :-)

Wendy

LOL
it was a typo .. DH (Dear Husband)
But HD would work as well
~Kat


"Rice Krispies. East meets west"
Cosmo Kramer

Slysdexic for husband darling. :-)

But I like Horny dude...





I like him too!
~Kat


"Rice Krispies. East meets west"
Cosmo Kramer

Once upon a time, our fellow Roger Zoul
rambled on about " Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Dr. Roy says it will, right? Why ask here? Do you think there are some
here who have been following calorie restriction and have reached 120 years
in age?

Anybody expecting to live past the age of 120 belongs on the funny
farm, IMHO.
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life.