A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Calorie
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Maybe dieting for long periods of time is healthier in some ways than stable weight...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 16th, 2007, 07:09 AM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-calorie
Caleb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 434
Default Maybe dieting for long periods of time is healthier in some ways than stable weight...

This was the first article in Science News this week. Very interesting
article, and it may well be that regular dieting and weight loss is
not such a bad thing -- it might even be better in some ways than
maintaining a stable weight.

Very interesting descriptions and the follow-ups will be intriguing.

Yours,

Caleb

************************************************** ****
from: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070310/fob1.asp

Week of March 10, 2007; Vol. 171, No. 10 , p. 147
Living Long on Less? Mouse and human cells respond to slim diets

Patrick L. Barry

Scientists have known since the 1930s that mice and other animals live
30 to 50 percent longer when placed on a diet that's low in calories
yet nutritionally complete. The unanswered question has been whether
calorie restriction has the same life-extending effect on people.

Direct proof of a payoff for human longevity would take decades. But
scientists have now shown that people on a calorie-restricted diet
experience many of the cellular changes reported in mouse studies.

"The experimental results [in mice] mirror the results we found," says
Anthony E. Civitarese of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in
Baton Rouge, La. Whether those changes would extend a person's life
remains uncertain, he notes.

As people get older, energy-converting organelles called mitochondria
decrease in number and generate greater amounts of harmful by-products
called free radicals. Many scientists hypothesize that DNA damage from
these by-products can cause chronic diseases of old age such as
cancer.

Civitarese and his colleagues randomly assigned 36 overweight people
to one of three groups. The first group was instructed to follow a
diet with 25 percent fewer calories than the individuals' initial
energy expenditures. Each participant in the second group followed a
diet with 12.5 percent fewer calories than he or she had initially
expended, while exercising to burn another 12.5 percent. Both diets
contained adequate nutrition. People in the third group ate a weight-
maintenance diet, the researchers report in the March PLoS Medicine.

During the 6-month study, participants in both calorie-restricted
groups showed a 20 to 35 percent increase in the number of
mitochondria in their muscle cells and a 60 percent decrease in DNA
damage. The mitochondria appeared to become more youthful and
efficient.

People in the calorie-restricted groups also showed increased activity
of several genes related to mitochondrial function. Scientists have
long considered one of these genes, SIRT1, to be crucial for animals'
responses to calorie restriction.

"Not only is it a good study, but it's the only kind that we can do"
practically, comments David Sinclair of Harvard Medical School in
Boston. Several companies, including one cofounded by Sinclair, are
developing drugs to activate SIRT1.

"It's exciting to see SIRT1 in the middle of this," says Leonard
Guarente of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a cofounder of
a competing company. However, he says that interpretation of the
results of the Baton Rouge study is limited because the participants
were overweight, a condition that can accelerate tissue aging.

The researchers enrolled overweight people in part because they would
be motivated to follow a strict diet, Civitarese says. His team is
planning a test that will focus on people of normal body weight and
last 2 years.

  #2  
Old March 16th, 2007, 04:57 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-calorie
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Maybe dieting for long periods of time is healthier in some ways than stable weight...

"Caleb" wrote:

This was the first article in Science News this week. Very interesting
article, and it may well be that regular dieting and weight loss is
not such a bad thing -- it might even be better in some ways than
maintaining a stable weight.


With a misrepresentation like your subject line, no wonder you
are called a troll and blown off by many. The permanent lifelong
calorie restriction shown cause longer lifespans in mice and many
other types of animals is absolutely NOT related to your history
of yoyo dieting. It *does* result in a stable weight for the simple
reason that it never ends until the subject animal dies.

You find a way to stay low calorie unendlingly for the rest of your
life without a pattern of yoyoing and you may well accure the same
benefits as the mice.

And just for fun, check out the level of caloric restriction imposed
on those mice. Is it a level that triggers rapid loss or slow loss?
Oh right. It's a level that triggers slow loss.

What I found interesting - If the mice are put on low calorie after
they are adults, it still seems to work.

  #3  
Old March 16th, 2007, 05:45 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-calorie
Caleb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 434
Default Maybe dieting for long periods of time is healthier in some ways than stable weight...

On Mar 16, 8:57 am, "Doug Freyburger" wrote:
"Caleb" wrote:

This was the first article in Science News this week. Very interesting
article, and it may well be that regular dieting and weight loss is
not such a bad thing -- it might even be better in some ways than
maintaining a stable weight.


With a misrepresentation like your subject line, no wonder you
are called a troll and blown off by many. The permanent lifelong
calorie restriction shown cause longer lifespans in mice and many
other types of animals is absolutely NOT related to your history
of yoyo dieting. It *does* result in a stable weight for the simple
reason that it never ends until the subject animal dies.

You find a way to stay low calorie unendlingly for the rest of your
life without a pattern of yoyoing and you may well accure the same
benefits as the mice.

And just for fun, check out the level of caloric restriction imposed
on those mice. Is it a level that triggers rapid loss or slow loss?
Oh right. It's a level that triggers slow loss.

What I found interesting - If the mice are put on low calorie after
they are adults, it still seems to work.



Doug --

There are many questions that spring from this research. Bottom line
-- we just don't know.

Mark Mattson, PhD, neuroscientist, said that eating every other day
appears to convey to mice and rats a resistance to the effects of head
injuries, alzheimers like events, etc. He is engaged in human studies
now.

These two lines of research suggest that calorie restriction (and
certainly not eating to maintenance multiple times in the course of a
day) may be more healthy than three squareas a day, 5 lighter meals a
day, etc. Further there is something in actually going for longer
periods of time without eating that may be health-inducing.

Overall such research helps remind people that just because some
people "know" certain things, that doesn't make them true.

The article also notes that overweight is a condition that can
accelerate tissue aging. So clearly I dunno the final outcome.

I guess you're quibbling with the word "maybe" in the header of this
post. Seems to me to be a reasonable qualifier for the speculation.

I'm sure not advocating weight fluctuations in people but neither do I
think they are necessarily worse than cancer, etc. And clearly this
current research suggests that there may be some advantages to periods
of losing weight. People on this list have often bemoaned loss of
muscle, increased lassitude, etc., but this is a very interesting
byproduct of this weight loss process.

Within the evolutionary framework, perhaps organisms have been favored
that accomodate intermittent food sources, that would be able to eat a
lot and then shut down their bodies for a while to allow them to
improve aspects of their functioning. Certainly this is compatible
with the findings of Mattson and also the more recent findings I cited
above. Also this is compatible with the real world. 4000 years ago
food was a pretty iffy thing, and it remains so in many portions of
the world today. If stable weight were a requirement for longevity,
the human race would have died out long ago.

Am I claiming that these are strong effects? No, not at all and
certainly not at this point. But they certainly question the basis of
continuous eating.

The above research suggests that this is another reason to lose weight
through calorie restriction (be it lowered calorie, Atkins, Zone,
etc., etc.).

But I think we should remember Hamlet's words to Horatio: "There are
many things between heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your
philosophy."

Yours,

Caleb

  #4  
Old March 16th, 2007, 05:51 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-calorie
Caleb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 434
Default Maybe dieting for long periods of time is healthier in some ways than stable weight...

On Mar 16, 9:45 am, "Caleb" wrote:

Snip

But I think we should remember Hamlet's words to Horatio: "There are
many things between heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your
philosophy."

Yours,

Caleb


Oops! I omitted a word ("more") and found Hamlet's words on the
Internet:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt
of in your philosophy."

Yours,

Caleb

  #5  
Old March 16th, 2007, 09:15 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-calorie
Willow Herself
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,887
Default Maybe dieting for long periods of time is healthier in some ways than stable weight...

Muscle loss and other "bad effects" of weight loss are discussed here as a
result of abnormally fast weight loss... not as a result of weight loss in
itself..


"Caleb" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 16, 8:57 am, "Doug Freyburger" wrote:
"Caleb" wrote:

This was the first article in Science News this week. Very interesting
article, and it may well be that regular dieting and weight loss is
not such a bad thing -- it might even be better in some ways than
maintaining a stable weight.


With a misrepresentation like your subject line, no wonder you
are called a troll and blown off by many. The permanent lifelong
calorie restriction shown cause longer lifespans in mice and many
other types of animals is absolutely NOT related to your history
of yoyo dieting. It *does* result in a stable weight for the simple
reason that it never ends until the subject animal dies.

You find a way to stay low calorie unendlingly for the rest of your
life without a pattern of yoyoing and you may well accure the same
benefits as the mice.

And just for fun, check out the level of caloric restriction imposed
on those mice. Is it a level that triggers rapid loss or slow loss?
Oh right. It's a level that triggers slow loss.

What I found interesting - If the mice are put on low calorie after
they are adults, it still seems to work.



Doug --

There are many questions that spring from this research. Bottom line
-- we just don't know.

Mark Mattson, PhD, neuroscientist, said that eating every other day
appears to convey to mice and rats a resistance to the effects of head
injuries, alzheimers like events, etc. He is engaged in human studies
now.

These two lines of research suggest that calorie restriction (and
certainly not eating to maintenance multiple times in the course of a
day) may be more healthy than three squareas a day, 5 lighter meals a
day, etc. Further there is something in actually going for longer
periods of time without eating that may be health-inducing.

Overall such research helps remind people that just because some
people "know" certain things, that doesn't make them true.

The article also notes that overweight is a condition that can
accelerate tissue aging. So clearly I dunno the final outcome.

I guess you're quibbling with the word "maybe" in the header of this
post. Seems to me to be a reasonable qualifier for the speculation.

I'm sure not advocating weight fluctuations in people but neither do I
think they are necessarily worse than cancer, etc. And clearly this
current research suggests that there may be some advantages to periods
of losing weight. People on this list have often bemoaned loss of
muscle, increased lassitude, etc., but this is a very interesting
byproduct of this weight loss process.

Within the evolutionary framework, perhaps organisms have been favored
that accomodate intermittent food sources, that would be able to eat a
lot and then shut down their bodies for a while to allow them to
improve aspects of their functioning. Certainly this is compatible
with the findings of Mattson and also the more recent findings I cited
above. Also this is compatible with the real world. 4000 years ago
food was a pretty iffy thing, and it remains so in many portions of
the world today. If stable weight were a requirement for longevity,
the human race would have died out long ago.

Am I claiming that these are strong effects? No, not at all and
certainly not at this point. But they certainly question the basis of
continuous eating.

The above research suggests that this is another reason to lose weight
through calorie restriction (be it lowered calorie, Atkins, Zone,
etc., etc.).

But I think we should remember Hamlet's words to Horatio: "There are
many things between heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your
philosophy."

Yours,

Caleb



  #6  
Old March 17th, 2007, 12:38 AM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-calorie
Caleb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 434
Default Maybe dieting for long periods of time is healthier in some ways than stable weight...

On Mar 16, 1:15 pm, "Willow Herself"
wrote:
Muscle loss and other "bad effects" of weight loss are discussed here as a
result of abnormally fast weight loss... not as a result of weight loss in
itself..

"Caleb" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 16, 8:57 am, "Doug Freyburger" wrote:
"Caleb" wrote:


This was the first article in Science News this week. Very interesting
article, and it may well be that regular dieting and weight loss is
not such a bad thing -- it might even be better in some ways than
maintaining a stable weight.


With a misrepresentation like your subject line, no wonder you
are called a troll and blown off by many. The permanent lifelong
calorie restriction shown cause longer lifespans in mice and many
other types of animals is absolutely NOT related to your history
of yoyo dieting. It *does* result in a stable weight for the simple
reason that it never ends until the subject animal dies.


You find a way to stay low calorie unendlingly for the rest of your
life without a pattern of yoyoing and you may well accure the same
benefits as the mice.


And just for fun, check out the level of caloric restriction imposed
on those mice. Is it a level that triggers rapid loss or slow loss?
Oh right. It's a level that triggers slow loss.


What I found interesting - If the mice are put on low calorie after
they are adults, it still seems to work.


Doug --


There are many questions that spring from this research. Bottom line
-- we just don't know.


Mark Mattson, PhD, neuroscientist, said that eating every other day
appears to convey to mice and rats a resistance to the effects of head
injuries, alzheimers like events, etc. He is engaged in human studies
now.


These two lines of research suggest that calorie restriction (and
certainly not eating to maintenance multiple times in the course of a
day) may be more healthy than three squareas a day, 5 lighter meals a
day, etc. Further there is something in actually going for longer
periods of time without eating that may be health-inducing.


Overall such research helps remind people that just because some
people "know" certain things, that doesn't make them true.


The article also notes that overweight is a condition that can
accelerate tissue aging. So clearly I dunno the final outcome.


I guess you're quibbling with the word "maybe" in the header of this
post. Seems to me to be a reasonable qualifier for the speculation.


I'm sure not advocating weight fluctuations in people but neither do I
think they are necessarily worse than cancer, etc. And clearly this
current research suggests that there may be some advantages to periods
of losing weight. People on this list have often bemoaned loss of
muscle, increased lassitude, etc., but this is a very interesting
byproduct of this weight loss process.


Within the evolutionary framework, perhaps organisms have been favored
that accomodate intermittent food sources, that would be able to eat a
lot and then shut down their bodies for a while to allow them to
improve aspects of their functioning. Certainly this is compatible
with the findings of Mattson and also the more recent findings I cited
above. Also this is compatible with the real world. 4000 years ago
food was a pretty iffy thing, and it remains so in many portions of
the world today. If stable weight were a requirement for longevity,
the human race would have died out long ago.


Am I claiming that these are strong effects? No, not at all and
certainly not at this point. But they certainly question the basis of
continuous eating.


The above research suggests that this is another reason to lose weight
through calorie restriction (be it lowered calorie, Atkins, Zone,
etc., etc.).


But I think we should remember Hamlet's words to Horatio: "There are
many things between heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your
philosophy."


Yours,


Caleb



Willow --

Thanks for the clarification!

I guess this article also supports the proposition that if one is
overweight, one should lose the weight, rather than than maintaining
it. That is, there seems to be a positive effect of an important type
in restricting one's calories. Whether or not weight gain has a
greater negative impact on the cellular activity than weight loss has
a positive effect is not clear. I'd really like to see animal research
results on these topics, as well as human research.

Many football players put on and lose a lot of weight each year -- 30
to 40 pound yearly fluctuations are not that uncommon among the big
players, I believe. It would be interesting to replicate this research
on them.

Yours,

Caleb

  #7  
Old March 18th, 2007, 06:50 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-calorie
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default Maybe dieting for long periods of time is healthier in some ways than stable weight...

On Mar 16, 12:09 am, "Caleb" wrote:
This was the first article in Science News this week. Very interesting
article, and it may well be that regular dieting and weight loss is
not such a bad thing -- it might even be better in some ways than
maintaining a stable weight.

Very interesting descriptions and the follow-ups will be intriguing.

Yours,

Caleb

************************************************** ****
from:http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070310/fob1.asp

Week of March 10, 2007; Vol. 171, No. 10 , p. 147
Living Long on Less? Mouse and human cells respond to slim diets

Patrick L. Barry

Scientists have known since the 1930s that mice and other animals live
30 to 50 percent longer when placed on a diet that's low in calories
yet nutritionally complete. The unanswered question has been whether
calorie restriction has the same life-extending effect on people.

Direct proof of a payoff for human longevity would take decades. But
scientists have now shown that people on a calorie-restricted diet
experience many of the cellular changes reported in mouse studies.

"The experimental results [in mice] mirror the results we found," says
Anthony E. Civitarese of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in
Baton Rouge, La. Whether those changes would extend a person's life
remains uncertain, he notes.

As people get older, energy-converting organelles called mitochondria
decrease in number and generate greater amounts of harmful by-products
called free radicals. Many scientists hypothesize that DNA damage from
these by-products can cause chronic diseases of old age such as
cancer.

Civitarese and his colleagues randomly assigned 36 overweight people
to one of three groups. The first group was instructed to follow a
diet with 25 percent fewer calories than the individuals' initial
energy expenditures. Each participant in the second group followed a
diet with 12.5 percent fewer calories than he or she had initially
expended, while exercising to burn another 12.5 percent. Both diets
contained adequate nutrition. People in the third group ate a weight-
maintenance diet, the researchers report in the March PLoS Medicine.

During the 6-month study, participants in both calorie-restricted
groups showed a 20 to 35 percent increase in the number of
mitochondria in their muscle cells and a 60 percent decrease in DNA
damage. The mitochondria appeared to become more youthful and
efficient.

People in the calorie-restricted groups also showed increased activity
of several genes related to mitochondrial function. Scientists have
long considered one of these genes, SIRT1, to be crucial for animals'
responses to calorie restriction.

"Not only is it a good study, but it's the only kind that we can do"
practically, comments David Sinclair of Harvard Medical School in
Boston. Several companies, including one cofounded by Sinclair, are
developing drugs to activate SIRT1.

"It's exciting to see SIRT1 in the middle of this," says Leonard
Guarente of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a cofounder of
a competing company. However, he says that interpretation of the
results of the Baton Rouge study is limited because the participants
were overweight, a condition that can accelerate tissue aging.

The researchers enrolled overweight people in part because they would
be motivated to follow a strict diet, Civitarese says. His team is
planning a test that will focus on people of normal body weight and
last 2 years.


Too much of a good thing, might not be good overall however. The mice
in question living longer is one thing, but the kind of restriction
they use for mice can result in decreased development, including
smaller BRAIN size. That is not one trade off most people would chose
for living longer. Probably, a restrictive diet is ok for adults
though as long as you are within the healthy medical weight range for
your height. Some of us even feel it might be best to be near the
bottom of that range, but like you say we won't know the answer to
that until after many years of study. dkw

  #8  
Old March 20th, 2007, 06:16 AM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-calorie
Caleb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 434
Default Maybe dieting for long periods of time is healthier in some ways than stable weight...

On Mar 18, 10:50 am, " wrote:
On Mar 16, 12:09 am, "Caleb" wrote:



This was the first article in Science News this week. Very interesting
article, and it may well be that regular dieting and weight loss is
not such a bad thing -- it might even be better in some ways than
maintaining a stable weight.


Very interesting descriptions and the follow-ups will be intriguing.


Yours,


Caleb


************************************************** ****
from:http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070310/fob1.asp


Week of March 10, 2007; Vol. 171, No. 10 , p. 147
Living Long on Less? Mouse and human cells respond to slim diets


Patrick L. Barry


Scientists have known since the 1930s that mice and other animals live
30 to 50 percent longer when placed on a diet that's low in calories
yet nutritionally complete. The unanswered question has been whether
calorie restriction has the same life-extending effect on people.


Direct proof of a payoff for human longevity would take decades. But
scientists have now shown that people on a calorie-restricted diet
experience many of the cellular changes reported in mouse studies.


"The experimental results [in mice] mirror the results we found," says
Anthony E. Civitarese of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in
Baton Rouge, La. Whether those changes would extend a person's life
remains uncertain, he notes.


As people get older, energy-converting organelles called mitochondria
decrease in number and generate greater amounts of harmful by-products
called free radicals. Many scientists hypothesize that DNA damage from
these by-products can cause chronic diseases of old age such as
cancer.


Civitarese and his colleagues randomly assigned 36 overweight people
to one of three groups. The first group was instructed to follow a
diet with 25 percent fewer calories than the individuals' initial
energy expenditures. Each participant in the second group followed a
diet with 12.5 percent fewer calories than he or she had initially
expended, while exercising to burn another 12.5 percent. Both diets
contained adequate nutrition. People in the third group ate a weight-
maintenance diet, the researchers report in the March PLoS Medicine.


During the 6-month study, participants in both calorie-restricted
groups showed a 20 to 35 percent increase in the number of
mitochondria in their muscle cells and a 60 percent decrease in DNA
damage. The mitochondria appeared to become more youthful and
efficient.


People in the calorie-restricted groups also showed increased activity
of several genes related to mitochondrial function. Scientists have
long considered one of these genes, SIRT1, to be crucial for animals'
responses to calorie restriction.


"Not only is it a good study, but it's the only kind that we can do"
practically, comments David Sinclair of Harvard Medical School in
Boston. Several companies, including one cofounded by Sinclair, are
developing drugs to activate SIRT1.


"It's exciting to see SIRT1 in the middle of this," says Leonard
Guarente of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a cofounder of
a competing company. However, he says that interpretation of the
results of the Baton Rouge study is limited because the participants
were overweight, a condition that can accelerate tissue aging.


The researchers enrolled overweight people in part because they would
be motivated to follow a strict diet, Civitarese says. His team is
planning a test that will focus on people of normal body weight and
last 2 years.


Too much of a good thing, might not be good overall however. The mice
in question living longer is one thing, but the kind of restriction
they use for mice can result in decreased development, including
smaller BRAIN size. That is not one trade off most people would chose
for living longer. Probably, a restrictive diet is ok for adults
though as long as you are within the healthy medical weight range for
your height. Some of us even feel it might be best to be near the
bottom of that range, but like you say we won't know the answer to
that until after many years of study. dkw


DKW --

Good observations!

It's amazing what we don't know -- or what we know that just ain't so.

Yours,

Caleb

  #9  
Old April 9th, 2007, 12:38 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-calorie
Diva
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Maybe dieting for long periods of time is healthier in some ways than stable weight...

On Mar 16, 11:57 am, "Doug Freyburger" wrote:
"Caleb" wrote:

This was the first article in Science News this week. Very interesting
article, and it may well be that regular dieting and weight loss is
not such a bad thing -- it might even be better in some ways than
maintaining a stable weight.


With a misrepresentation like your subject line, no wonder you
are called a troll and blown off by many. The permanent lifelong
calorie restriction shown cause longer lifespans in mice and many
other types of animals is absolutely NOT related to your history
of yoyo dieting. It *does* result in a stable weight for the simple
reason that it never ends until the subject animal dies.

I don't know who's right here Doug.

I am 76 and lost over 80 pounds over seven years ago. I was a little
too thin as you can see from the after pix and am up a very few pounds
feom there and that is where I hang (I do hang in spots LOL)

http://www.angelfire.com/on4/diva_dog/

I also lost height from osteoporosis. I have to stay within 1200
calories (balanced) to maintain my current weight) If I move upo to
1500 I tend to gain but am stable using 1200.

Using an exercise bike and entering calories burned from other
exercise, it sure takes a lot to compensate for say 200 additional
calories a day!

Diva
219/140

  #10  
Old April 14th, 2007, 04:48 AM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-calorie
Caleb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 434
Default Maybe dieting for long periods of time is healthier in some ways than stable weight...

On Apr 9, 4:38 am, "Diva" wrote:
On Mar 16, 11:57 am, "Doug Freyburger" wrote: "Caleb" wrote:

This was the first article in Science News this week. Very interesting
article, and it may well be that regular dieting and weight loss is
not such a bad thing -- it might even be better in some ways than
maintaining a stable weight.


With a misrepresentation like your subject line, no wonder you
are called a troll and blown off by many. The permanent lifelong
calorie restriction shown cause longer lifespans in mice and many
other types of animals is absolutely NOT related to your history
of yoyo dieting. It *does* result in a stable weight for the simple
reason that it never ends until the subject animal dies.


I don't know who's right here Doug.

I am 76 and lost over 80 pounds over seven years ago. I was a little
too thin as you can see from the after pix and am up a very few pounds
feom there and that is where I hang (I do hang in spots LOL)

http://www.angelfire.com/on4/diva_dog/

I also lost height from osteoporosis. I have to stay within 1200
calories (balanced) to maintain my current weight) If I move upo to
1500 I tend to gain but am stable using 1200.

Using an exercise bike and entering calories burned from other
exercise, it sure takes a lot to compensate for say 200 additional
calories a day!

Diva
219/140


Diva --

Great for you! Also you see 1200 as not something unfair but as a good
goal. And you have the numbers to prove it!

Excellent work and superb self-control!!!

Supah!

Yours,

Caleb

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Maybe dieting for long periods of time is healthier in some ways than stable weight... Caleb General Discussion 33 April 14th, 2007 04:48 AM
7 Ways To Lose Weight Without Dieting jenney Low Carbohydrate Diets 3 November 30th, 2005 05:11 AM
7 Ways To Lose Weight Without Dieting jenney Low Carbohydrate Diets 5 November 25th, 2005 09:34 PM
7 Ways To Lose Weight Without Dieting jenney General Discussion 0 November 25th, 2005 03:52 PM
7 Ways To Lose Weight Without Dieting jenney Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 November 25th, 2005 03:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.