Reduced Calories = Average Life Span of 107

PBS today had a spot today on reduced calorie diets for several
animal species. Using the ratio of average life expectancy of one of
the mammal groups tested, white rats, that benefitted LESS than others
species, indicate that human males on average on such a restricted
calorie diet will live to be 107 instead of 74.5.

Of course, that says to me that these extra years will be extremely
trouble free, active and healthy too.

What are you waiting for?

The first step for you, is to absolutely forget any advice you've
ever heard indicating that starvation mode is bad or slowed metabolism
is bad. Not so. It's only bad if you want to kill yourself by
stuffing your fat face.

Good Luck.
PJ

On 1 Mar 2005 01:00:54 GMT, Ignoramus2026
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:53:01 -0600, PJ wrote:
The first step for you, is to absolutely forget any advice you've
ever heard indicating that starvation mode is bad or slowed metabolism
is bad. Not so. It's only bad if you want to kill yourself by
stuffing your fat face.

Finally, the voice of reason. Thanks for saying this. Starvation mode,
which is slowing down of various body processes, is a highly
beneficial adaptation. And it does not make anyone stop losing, given
calorie deficit.

The only warning the experts give is NOT to reduce calories below 50%
of normal. But then, we don't really know what normal is. I suspect
it is that number of calories in a healthy well balanced diet that
prevents us from gaining weight (or losing).

Assuming that works out to be 1600 calories for a particular person,
then that person should be doing 900 calories a day - for life, for
maximum benefit. Of course, the diet should be extremely well
balanced and carefully planned.

PJ

PJ wrote:
:: PBS today had a spot today on reduced calorie diets for several
:: animal species. Using the ratio of average life expectancy of one
:: of the mammal groups tested, white rats, that benefitted LESS than
:: others species, indicate that human males on average on such a
:: restricted calorie diet will live to be 107 instead of 74.5.
::
:: Of course, that says to me that these extra years will be extremely
:: trouble free, active and healthy too.

Now, please explain exactly what in the first paragraph you wrote above says
to you what you wrote in the second one? Don't you see the huge leap you
have made from a study to what will happen in a human male? Who says living
to be 107 on a restricted calorie diet (whatever that is) will lead to a
better overall life than eating at maintenance?

::
:: What are you waiting for?
::

What are you waiting for? Are you on a "restricted calorie diet" yourself?
Please explain what that is and tell us how you intend to stay on it for
life.

:: The first step for you, is to absolutely forget any advice you've
:: ever heard indicating that starvation mode is bad or slowed
:: metabolism is bad. Not so. It's only bad if you want to kill
:: yourself by stuffing your fat face.

Thanks for your wonderful wisdom. You went from slowed metabolism to
stuffing your fat. No middle ground there, huh?

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:52:47 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:

PJ wrote:
:: PBS today had a spot today on reduced calorie diets for several
:: animal species. Using the ratio of average life expectancy of one
:: of the mammal groups tested, white rats, that benefitted LESS than
:: others species, indicate that human males on average on such a
:: restricted calorie diet will live to be 107 instead of 74.5.
::
:: Of course, that says to me that these extra years will be extremely
:: trouble free, active and healthy too.

Now, please explain exactly what in the first paragraph you wrote above says
to you what you wrote in the second one? Don't you see the huge leap you
have made from a study to what will happen in a human male? Who says living
to be 107 on a restricted calorie diet (whatever that is) will lead to a
better overall life than eating at maintenance?

Who? Just every scientist in the last 30 to 40 years that has
studied this. Actually, no one with a brain has disputed it yet.

It's a fact, Jack!

Answer this.
Which is a better overall life?
Dying a wretched death with cancer/heart disease at the age of 69
or
Dying a wretched death with cancer/heart disease at the age of
107? ( I'm assuming lots of sex and golf at 70 and 80 and 90.)

This diet is the best cancer fighter ever discovered.


PJ





::
:: What are you waiting for?
::

What are you waiting for? Are you on a "restricted calorie diet" yourself?
Please explain what that is and tell us how you intend to stay on it for
life.


:: The first step for you, is to absolutely forget any advice you've
:: ever heard indicating that starvation mode is bad or slowed
:: metabolism is bad. Not so. It's only bad if you want to kill
:: yourself by stuffing your fat face.

Thanks for your wonderful wisdom. You went from slowed metabolism to
stuffing your fat. No middle ground there, huh?

PJ wrote:
:: On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:52:47 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
:: wrote:
::
::: PJ wrote:
::::: PBS today had a spot today on reduced calorie diets for several
::::: animal species. Using the ratio of average life expectancy of
::::: one of the mammal groups tested, white rats, that benefitted LESS
::::: than others species, indicate that human males on average on such
::::: a restricted calorie diet will live to be 107 instead of 74.5.
:::::
::::: Of course, that says to me that these extra years will be
::::: extremely trouble free, active and healthy too.
:::
::: Now, please explain exactly what in the first paragraph you wrote
::: above says to you what you wrote in the second one? Don't you see
::: the huge leap you have made from a study to what will happen in a
::: human male? Who says living to be 107 on a restricted calorie diet
::: (whatever that is) will lead to a better overall life than eating
::: at maintenance?
::
:: Who? Just every scientist in the last 30 to 40 years that has
:: studied this. Actually, no one with a brain has disputed it yet.

Really? Every scientist in the last 30 to 40 years has? Do you know what a
scientist is?

Back when people thought the earth was flat, it took a while for anyone to
dispute that.

::
:: It's a fact, Jack!
::
:: Answer this.
:: Which is a better overall life?
:: Dying a wretched death with cancer/heart disease at the age of
:: 69 or
:: Dying a wretched death with cancer/heart disease at the age of
:: 107? ( I'm assuming lots of sex and golf at 70 and 80 and 90.)

Are you sure you can do that if you're on a calorie restricted diet for your
entire life?

What if no one whats to have sex with you because you're too skinny and
frail? What if you break like a twig while some babe who's not on a 50%
calorie restricted diet is going for her good-time ride? (okay, I'd like
a shot at going out like that, I admit!)

::
:: This diet is the best cancer fighter ever discovered.
::

Whatever are say, PJ. Are you on a calorie restricted diet or not. What is
that, anyway?


::
:: PJ
::
::
::
::
:::
:::::
::::: What are you waiting for?
:::::
:::
::: What are you waiting for? Are you on a "restricted calorie diet"
::: yourself? Please explain what that is and tell us how you intend to
::: stay on it for life.
::
:::
::::: The first step for you, is to absolutely forget any advice
::::: you've ever heard indicating that starvation mode is bad or slowed
::::: metabolism is bad. Not so. It's only bad if you want to kill
::::: yourself by stuffing your fat face.
:::
::: Thanks for your wonderful wisdom. You went from slowed metabolism
::: to stuffing your fat. No middle ground there, huh?

Perdu wrote:
:: On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:07:16 -0600, PJ Cried out
:: loud...
:::
::
::: Answer this.
::: Which is a better overall life?
::: Dying a wretched death with cancer/heart disease at the age of
::: 69 or
::: Dying a wretched death with cancer/heart disease at the age of
::: 107? ( I'm assuming lots of sex and golf at 70 and 80 and 90.)
:::
::: This diet is the best cancer fighter ever discovered.
::
:: What I don't want, is to be dying in a hospital bed of Nothing one
:: day. I want to earn at least some of the reason I'm dying.
::



Is dying of nothing the same as dying of no food?

PJ wrote:

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:52:47 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:


PJ wrote:
:: PBS today had a spot today on reduced calorie diets for several
:: animal species. Using the ratio of average life expectancy of one
:: of the mammal groups tested, white rats, that benefitted LESS than
:: others species, indicate that human males on average on such a
:: restricted calorie diet will live to be 107 instead of 74.5.
::
:: Of course, that says to me that these extra years will be extremely
:: trouble free, active and healthy too.

Now, please explain exactly what in the first paragraph you wrote above says
to you what you wrote in the second one? Don't you see the huge leap you
have made from a study to what will happen in a human male? Who says living
to be 107 on a restricted calorie diet (whatever that is) will lead to a
better overall life than eating at maintenance?


Who? Just every scientist in the last 30 to 40 years that has
studied this. Actually, no one with a brain has disputed it yet.

It's a fact, Jack!

Hey guys, hold on a minute. It's a study. The 107 number is projected. People
MAY ON AVERAGE live longer by doing CR, but will YOU live longer on CR? I don't
think there is any conclusive answer on whether calorie restrictive diet makes
people live longer, and no one has yet provided a figure on how well it works
(at what percentage?) I personally possibly can't deal with the suspense of it
all - theoretically there is no way to know whether CR "sort of" works until you
got to the moment you die. Even if you die, you don't know whether you actually
lived longer. It's the Schrodinger's Cat diet. I mean if it's fool-proof and
99.9% certain, then I'll consider it. What are your criteria?

Found the CR society...
http://www.calorierestriction.org/

Ada Ma wrote:
:: PJ wrote:
::
::: On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:52:47 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
::: wrote:
:::
:::
:::: PJ wrote:
:::::: PBS today had a spot today on reduced calorie diets for several
:::::: animal species. Using the ratio of average life expectancy of
:::::: one of the mammal groups tested, white rats, that benefitted
:::::: LESS than others species, indicate that human males on average
:::::: on such a restricted calorie diet will live to be 107 instead
:::::: of 74.5.
::::::
:::::: Of course, that says to me that these extra years will be
:::::: extremely trouble free, active and healthy too.
::::
:::: Now, please explain exactly what in the first paragraph you wrote
:::: above says to you what you wrote in the second one? Don't you see
:::: the huge leap you have made from a study to what will happen in a
:::: human male? Who says living to be 107 on a restricted calorie
:::: diet (whatever that is) will lead to a better overall life than
:::: eating at maintenance?
:::
:::
::: Who? Just every scientist in the last 30 to 40 years that has
::: studied this. Actually, no one with a brain has disputed it yet.
:::
::: It's a fact, Jack!
::
:: Hey guys, hold on a minute. It's a study. The 107 number is
:: projected. People MAY ON AVERAGE live longer by doing CR, but will
:: YOU live longer on CR? I don't think there is any conclusive answer
:: on whether calorie restrictive diet makes people live longer, and no
:: one has yet provided a figure on how well it works (at what
:: percentage?) I personally possibly can't deal with the suspense of
:: it all - theoretically there is no way to know whether CR "sort of"
:: works until you got to the moment you die. Even if you die, you
:: don't know whether you actually lived longer. It's the
:: Schrodinger's Cat diet. I mean if it's fool-proof and
:: 99.9% certain, then I'll consider it. What are your criteria?
::
:: Found the CR society...
:: http://www.calorierestriction.org/

So, go hungry your entire life and not know that it made a damn bit of
difference. I think someone is trying to take all the fun out of life. PJ
is their next victom.

Ignoramus12015 wrote:
:: On 1 Mar 2005 21:04:26 GMT, Ignoramus12015
:: wrote:
::: On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:07:47 -0500, Roger Zoul
::: wrote:
:::: So, go hungry your entire life and not know that it made a damn
:::: bit of difference. I think someone is trying to take all the fun
:::: out of life. PJ is their next victom.
:::
::: While I cannot imagine being hungry for life -- and, to speak of my
::: credentials, I tried "eating less" with some success -- not all
::: people
::: are like you and me and some do not care very much about food. Maybe
::: CR is more suitable for them.
:::
::
:: Forgot to say, perhaps for us -- fat people with diabetic tendencies
:: -- low carb IS a way to restrict calories to a tolerable level.
:: Better
:: to be a normal weight person eating modestly, than to be a fat person
:: eating a lot. Maybe the CR perfection of being superslim and eating
:: very little is not attainable for me, but I would take being merely
:: normal weight and eating in a restricted fashion, over being fat.

See....IMO, if you're normal weight over time then you can't be eating in
any restricted fashion. You're eating to maintain that weight. So the
question becomes, what is calorie restriction? If you're not losing weight,
you're not restricting calories. How is it then possible to practice
calorie restriction for a life time?

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 06:13:43 -0600, PJ wrote:

On 1 Mar 2005 01:00:54 GMT, Ignoramus2026
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:53:01 -0600, PJ wrote:
The first step for you, is to absolutely forget any advice you've
ever heard indicating that starvation mode is bad or slowed metabolism
is bad. Not so. It's only bad if you want to kill yourself by
stuffing your fat face.

Finally, the voice of reason. Thanks for saying this. Starvation mode,
which is slowing down of various body processes, is a highly
beneficial adaptation. And it does not make anyone stop losing, given
calorie deficit.

The only warning the experts give is NOT to reduce calories below 50%
of normal. But then, we don't really know what normal is. I suspect
it is that number of calories in a healthy well balanced diet that
prevents us from gaining weight (or losing).

Assuming that works out to be 1600 calories for a particular person,
then that person should be doing 900 calories a day - for life, for
maximum benefit. Of course, the diet should be extremely well
balanced and carefully planned.
CRONS (calorie restriction, optimum nutrition)

Nothing new really... :-)

The big question is how to _practically_ achieve it...