Reduced Calories = Average Life Span of 107

On 1 Mar 2005 21:51:27 GMT, Ignoramus12015
wrote:

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:53:55 -0500, Roger Zoul wrote:
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?

People who restrict calories, finally arrive at [low] weight at which
they are in equilibrium with their eating.

I've only seen a few on TV who have been following this 'CR' woe.
One guy had to move his percentage up from 50% to something higher
because his spouse complained about how gaunt he looked. But he and
the others were still very skinny.

I suppose those that work out regulary with weights (which is
recommended) would suffer little bone loss and maintain adequate body
tone and shape.

With the rats and monkeys, it is easy, they are just fed half the
normal diet. With humans, I don't know...

PJ

Ignoramus12015 wrote:
:: On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:53:55 -0500, Roger Zoul
:: wrote:
::: 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?
::
:: People who restrict calories, finally arrive at [low] weight at which
:: they are in equilibrium with their eating.

??? Then they stopped restricting calories. Maybe this should be called
being really, really skinning (RRS) or underweight rather than CR.

Ignoramus12015 wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 18:42:43 -0500, Roger Zoul
wrote:
Ignoramus12015 wrote:
:: On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:53:55 -0500, Roger Zoul
:: wrote:
::: 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?
::
:: People who restrict calories, finally arrive at [low] weight at
:: which they are in equilibrium with their eating.

??? Then they stopped restricting calories. Maybe this should be
called being really, really skinning (RRS) or underweight rather
than CR.



I need about 2500 calories per day, give or take, to maintain my BMI
of 23-24. If I "restricted" my calories to 2,000 per day, I would get
to, perhaps, 140 lbs and stabilize there. With continued restriction,
I will probably stay at this weight.

So, the reason you don't weigh 50 lbs more than you do now is about you're
in "continued restriction," right? Uh-huh.

Ignoramus12015 wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 19:43:01 -0500, Roger Zoul
wrote:
Ignoramus12015 wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 18:42:43 -0500, Roger Zoul
wrote:
Ignoramus12015 wrote:
:: On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:53:55 -0500, Roger Zoul
:: wrote:
::: 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?
::
:: People who restrict calories, finally arrive at [low] weight at
:: which they are in equilibrium with their eating.

??? Then they stopped restricting calories. Maybe this should be
called being really, really skinning (RRS) or underweight rather
than CR.



I need about 2500 calories per day, give or take, to maintain my BMI
of 23-24. If I "restricted" my calories to 2,000 per day, I would
get
to, perhaps, 140 lbs and stabilize there. With continued
restriction,
I will probably stay at this weight.

So, the reason you don't weigh 50 lbs more than you do now is about
you're in "continued restriction," right?

Right. I eat less now. And that calorie restriction (which is an
effect of my normalized appetite) is, I hope, beneficial to my health.

Then a 500 lb person who could weigh 700 lbs is on calorie restriction too.


To weigh 140 lbs, I would need a much more serious effort, which I do
not think is something I am capable of.

If you weigh 140 lbs your appetite will decrease drastically.

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:53:55 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:
:: 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?

Well... a good question is - can we 'trick' the body to get the
benefits of calorie restriction without really, truly restricting
calories in the long term?

Sounds weird, I know. But here's how it _might_ work (and there are a
couple study to support this).

2 groups of rats.
Group A eats a 'normal' amount of calories per day, every day
(ie. Monday 1000 calories, Tue 1000c, Wed 1000c, Thur 1000c...)

Group B alternates between eating 40% less calories one day, and
eating 40% more calories the next day.
(ie. Monday 600 calories, Tue 1400c, Wed 600c, Thur 1400c...)

The total number of calories consumed over in the long run are the
same, but 'Group B' has improved health and longevity...

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:06:01 -0600, PJ wrote:

I've only seen a few on TV who have been following this 'CR' woe.
One guy had to move his percentage up from 50% to something higher
because his spouse complained about how gaunt he looked. But he and
the others were still very skinny.
Nobody (OK, very few people) want to live like that. However, I
wonder what the 'typical' Okinawan looks like? Supposedly they eat
less calories than their Japanese cousins, and also have greater
longevity.

I suppose those that work out regulary with weights (which is
recommended) would suffer little bone loss and maintain adequate body
tone and shape.
Note that too much exercise can cause free radical damage the
decreases longevity... so I suspect most 'CR' people don't do a whole
lot...

With the rats and monkeys, it is easy, they are just fed half the
normal diet. With humans, I don't know...
There is some epidemology evidence that show benefit in humans...
Japan vs. Okinawa (noted above), various 'deprevation' in humans diets
during wartime, etc.

Not what I'd call a 'clinical trial' but pro'ly the best your going to
get for something like this.

Renegade5 wrote:
:: On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:53:55 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
:: wrote:
::::: 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?
::
:: Well... a good question is - can we 'trick' the body to get the
:: benefits of calorie restriction without really, truly restricting
:: calories in the long term?
::
:: Sounds weird, I know. But here's how it _might_ work (and there are
:: a couple study to support this).
::
:: 2 groups of rats.
:: Group A eats a 'normal' amount of calories per day, every day
:: (ie. Monday 1000 calories, Tue 1000c, Wed 1000c, Thur 1000c...)
::
:: Group B alternates between eating 40% less calories one day, and
:: eating 40% more calories the next day.
:: (ie. Monday 600 calories, Tue 1400c, Wed 600c, Thur 1400c...)
::
:: The total number of calories consumed over in the long run are the
:: same, but 'Group B' has improved health and longevity...

I'd love to see those studies!

Ignoramus24456 wrote:

search medline for "mattson mp intermittent fasting".

M.P. Mattson did a lot of work on this and found great health
improvements in mice fed every other day but ad lib. That is, they
fasted one day and ate all they wanted on another day. I believe that
Mattson himself is doing the same.

What I find interesting is, IIRC the way they measured the health
benefits to the rats was by measuring their insulin levels! The
intermittently fasting rats had insulin levels that were similar to
rats that were constantly calorie-restricted.

Since the low-carb WOE decreases our insulin levels anyway, then maybe
we don't have to fast to gain the life-extension benefits.

========= started 10-99: 163-146-155-139-? =========
Low Carb Savvy Shopper - losing lbs and saving $$$
http://lowcarbshopper.bestmessageboard.com

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
??? Then they stopped restricting calories. Maybe this should be called
being really, really skinning (RRS) or underweight rather than CR.



If you start eating 500 calories less per day than you had previously, lost
weight, and stayed at the same amount of calories, is that stopping? To me,
to stop restricting calories would be to go back to eating like you were
before you lost weight or to at least increase the amount from what you
restricted to.
I think those CR people are restricting calories to the point their
metabolism is slowed down, like they live longer because they are living
slower, (or maybe it just seems longer?)

--
No Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes

None Given wrote:
"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
??? Then they stopped restricting calories. Maybe this should be
called being really, really skinning (RRS) or underweight rather
than CR.



If you start eating 500 calories less per day than you had
previously, lost weight, and stayed at the same amount of calories,
is that stopping?

IMO, yes. It is stopping because you are eating at maintenance for your
current weight and thus are no longer restricting calories.

To me, to stop restricting calories would be to go
back to eating like you were before you lost weight or to at least
increase the amount from what you restricted to.

No...that would be increasing calories. See: restricting, maintaining, and
increasing. That's why I'm saying that CR is a misnomer. One cannot follow
CR indefinitely.


I think those CR people are restricting calories to the point their
metabolism is slowed down, like they live longer because they are
living slower, (or maybe it just seems longer?)

Slowed down relative to some other point, yes. All I'm really saying is
that CR is a misnomer...I'm not really commenting on whether it has some
value.