Guest guest Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 Rodney: the BMI's seem rather high by CR standards, don''t they? Mine is 20, and I'm not one of the extremely thin CRONIES by any means. According to this, I'm under the optimum for long life (that is if I calculated correctly). Whereas, by CRONIE standards, I'm not anywhere near what some might consider " thin " or low BMI. Also one also wonders if they lump the feeble, the sick and the frail (who usually are very thin) into these factors. (They really shouldn't be because that skews the healthy thin numbers). on 3/8/2004 6:54 AM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote: > Hi folks: > > Take a look at the two charts shown here: > > http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/hliving/BMIwords.html > > or at: http://snipurl.com/4y94 > > Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 Hi Francesca: " ... with no history of disease " . So counting in the sick does not explain it. But possibly in those who are intrinsically thin and apparently healthy, their thinness (perhaps because of the lack of a 'healthy' appetite) is a symptom of some as yet undiagnosed problem? It would be interesting to know what the causes of death were among the low body mass individuals. Or ......... if we believe both this and Walford then the issue may be how to maintain higher body mass with lower caloric intake ........... calcium supplements and lean-body-mass-building exercise? Rodney. > Also one also wonders if they lump the feeble, the sick and the frail (who > usually are very thin) into these factors. (They really shouldn't be > because that skews the healthy thin numbers). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 Just like obesity is the result of multiple factors (activity level, consumption, and conversion efficiency or ability to extract energy from calories consumed), thinness will also be caused by come combination of these same factors. Trying to extract simple conclusions from multiple causal factors is never easy. IMO BMI is too conflicted to be a very reliable metric. Perhaps more meaningful might be %BF as researchers continue to find hormonal influences from our adipose mass. Also calories expended in work and normal bodily functions might eliminate conversion efficiency as an error term. It is very likely that favorable results are the combination of multiple factors. Our best guess is that DR (eating less) is the most powerful " common " factor. How much, and how to is still a work in process and not likely to result in one answer fits all. My personal choice is to not lose sleep over perfecting an answer but practice moderation with continuous incremental improvement. I've seen too many precise answers discredited over time to think we now know all the answers. IMO, based on our current level of understanding, extreme practice has as much chance of doing harm as doing good. Don't ask me to define what extreme is. I can't, but like pornography I know it when I see it..... JR -----Original Message----- From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 8:24 AM Subject: [ ] Re: BMI and Mortality Hi Francesca: " ... with no history of disease " . So counting in the sick does not explain it. But possibly in those who are intrinsically thin and apparently healthy, their thinness (perhaps because of the lack of a 'healthy' appetite) is a symptom of some as yet undiagnosed problem? It would be interesting to know what the causes of death were among the low body mass individuals. Or ......... if we believe both this and Walford then the issue may be how to maintain higher body mass with lower caloric intake ........... calcium supplements and lean-body-mass-building exercise? Rodney. > Also one also wonders if they lump the feeble, the sick and the frail (who > usually are very thin) into these factors. (They really shouldn't be > because that skews the healthy thin numbers). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 What it doesn't say is what happens if I drop from BMI 27 to 24, by whatever means other than illness. Do I get the benefits of the 24 group? Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Francesca Skelton Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 8:01 AM Subject: Re: [ ] BMI and Mortality Rodney: the BMI's seem rather high by CR standards, don''t they? Mine is20, and I'm not one of the extremely thin CRONIES by any means. Accordingto this, I'm under the optimum for long life (that is if I calculatedcorrectly). Whereas, by CRONIE standards, I'm not anywhere near what somemight consider "thin" or low BMI.Also one also wonders if they lump the feeble, the sick and the frail (whousually are very thin) into these factors. (They really shouldn't bebecause that skews the healthy thin numbers).on 3/8/2004 6:54 AM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:> Hi folks:> > Take a look at the two charts shown here:> > http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/hliving/BMIwords.html> > or at: http://snipurl.com/4y94> > Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 Hi folks: Perhaps this is the way to think about these data: One can speculate that among a group of mice that have access to lots of very tasty and calorically dense foods (as humans do these days) the majority will be overweight and a few thin, just like the present north american human population. So in this situation, as in the case of humans, not many will be thin 'voluntarily'. Most will be overweight. But when a group of mice are all subjected to CR not only are the 'voluntarily thin' ones thin, even those with a 'healthy appetite' who would like to be fat, are thin also. Forcibly so. Perhaps it is the mice with a big appetite, those that would like to be fat if they were not constrained by food shortage, that account for the benefits seen in CR mice. While the few who would be voluntarily thin even with high availability of food, do not benefit because of some cause (problem) of which their voluntary thinness is a marker. The thin individuals in the human case I linked earlier, were thin because of what might be called the 'voluntary marker' (i.e. problem). This is one possible way to reconcile the data sets we are talking about. Rodney. > > > Hi folks: > > > > Take a look at the two charts shown here: > > > > http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/hliving/BMIwords.html > > > > or at: http://snipurl.com/4y94 > > > > Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.