Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Hi folks: Now a comparison between Biosphere and Hollosz's macronutrient percentages: protein% fat% carbs% -------- -------- -------- Biosphere 14% 10% 76% Hollosz 26% 28% 46% Note the much lower carbohydrates in this latest group, which apparently explains the much better HDL number in the latest group compared with Biosphere. (It also explains, I now realize, my low HDL). (Thank you Dr. Hollosz!) Rodney. > Here are some data for the average of all eighteen subjects for > before they started CR; one year after starting; and current (three > to fifteen years after starting): > > before 1 year now > ------ ------ ----- > BMI 24.5 20.9 19.6 > Tchol 194 161 158 > LDL-C 122 89 86 > HDL-C 43 58 63 > > (This probably isn't going to format well as the tab key doesn't work) > > It is interesting to note that the average BMI of this group (with > stunningly good test results, and on full CR for years) is not much > under 20. Presumably the group on average has about average bone > mass and muscle mass. > > Also notable is that most of the improvement in many of the numbers > in this study occurred in the first year. > > Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 This would be good to know. I don't know whether Al has posted any DEXA scan results? Rodney wrote: > Presumably the group on average has about average bone >mass and muscle mass. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Hi All, The CRers studied seemed to me to exercise more than the controls probably did. Our bone health was compromised. I posted some results reported previously at our meeting of mid 2003 below apricot's message below. Cheers, Al Pater. > > > Presumably the group on average has about average bone > >mass and muscle mass. Apr. 17, 2004. Luigi Fontana (Wash. U.) – Metabolic and Cardiovascular effects of Human CR -------------------------------------------------------------------- Exercise increases average lifespan by 10-20% in rodents, but not maximal. Being lean isn't enough – you need to eat less to gain maximal lifespan. Physiological findings in CR monkeys: • Less trunk fat • Low fasting glucose and insulin • Improved insulin sensitivity • Insulin secretion attenuated • Reduced triglycerides • Lower cholesterol Human groups studied: • CRonies • Raw foodists – partially calorie restricted • Vegans – eat cooked foods • Standard American Diet (SAD) people – controls SAD people, all have BMI below 30, but most between 25-30 BMI (overweight) All groups had average age around 50. He combined raw foodist and CRonies in some cases, since they eat similarly. BMI of two groups: • CR and raw foodist people = 20 • Vegans = 22 • Controls = 25 CR people dropped weight from around 24 to just below 20. Body fat difference: • CR = 10% [8.2] • Control = 20% • CR people quite a bit lower than raw foodist Trunk body fat: • CR ~4% [5.3] • Control 22% Fat/lean mass ratio and leg lean mass/fat ratio much lower in CR than controls. 40.5% of people in western culture die because of heart disease, cerebro-vascular disease, diabetes and hypertension. Total cholesterol: • CR around 150, raw 147, and vegan around 150 [103] • Control: 205 LDL: • CR = ~82, raw foodists 75, vegans 90 [48] • Control 126 HDL • Non-statistically higher in CR, raw foodist and vegans relative to controls Total Cholesterol/HDL • CR 2.5, vs. 4 in controls [2.1] Triglycerides: • CR = 40 [35] • Controls = 120 TG/HDL • 0.75 CR vs. 2.5 controls [ 0.7] Systolic BP • 100 CR vs. 140 controls [83] Diastolic BP • 60 CR vs. 85 controls [59] But baroreceptors adjust, so we don't get dizzy despite low BP. Heart rate: • 52 CR vs. 64 controls [54] C-Reactive Protein – heart disease/inflammation marker: * 0.5 CR vs. 2.25 controls [?] OGTT: • Fasting glucose better in CR than controls • But many CRonies and raw foodists show reduced glucose clearance rate • CRonies are worse at glucose clearance than athletic people on a " normal " diet My data was very representative of this anomaly - Large peak in formal OGTT but low daytime glucose levels during normal living. CRonies have very low fasting insulin, and are slow to release insulin Hypothesis: Because our diet never has large glucose challenges, we may have down-regulated our pancreatic insulin release, or other glucose clearance helper molecules. So we don't react to glucose challenge very well. Glucose exposure wasn't normalized for body weight – could have been an explanation. Luigi thinks insulin/glucose is just a marker Fasting insulin in athletes low (like CR). Fasting insulin growth factor (IGF)-1 in athletes can be pretty high (unlike CR). He's adding another group to study – marathoners who are very thin, but eat a lot. Should be very interesting to compare with these people. He thinks growth factors (e.g. IGF-1) important. Carotid arteries thickness – less on CR, raw foodists, and vegans than controls – lower risk of heart disease. CR people (but not vegans or raw foodists) have significantly lower artery stiffness than controls. Blood urea nitrogen is lower in raw food people, but not in CRonies – indicates high protein intake in CRonies. Plasma protein lower on CR. Liver enzymes in blood ALT and AST higher in CRonies – matches CR rodents and primates Blood ALP liver enzyme lower in CR Hematrocrit and hemoglobin – tendency to be lower in CR White blood cells – all lower in CR, raw foodists and vegans, by a lot Lymphocytes change in step with degree of CR. More restriction, lower lymphocytes. In animals, lymphocytes are lowered by CR, but they are more efficient. CRonies more efficient (in immune system) so we don't need as many WBC's. He thinks it may explain why autoimmune problems less. Platelets lower in CR – help stop bleeding. Could explain slow wound healing in CRonies. Platelets have growth factors (PDGF) in them. May be bad for longevity in cancer, so low may be good. Cells cultured in our plasma increase apoptosis a lot – which will reduce cancer risk. We kill off bad white blood cells well. When fibroblasts are cultured in our plasma, they proliferate better. Stem cells proliferate better with our plasma. Increased BMI => more cancer IGF-1 positively correlated with cancer. IGF-1 appears lower, but he's redoing the test. Testosterone lower in CR Cortisol is same (repeating – test suspect) – may be higher in CR. Leptin – very low on CR. Not surprising due to low body fat. Bone density data – BMD a lot lower for CR, average -2.standard deviations. CTX – marker of bone resorption (loss) higher in CRonies BAP – marker for bone deposition (addition) lower in CRonies CRonie men may be loosing bone mass. But despite low bone mass, it may be they have better bone quality - *maybe*. Walford has very low BMD, but does Yoga that puts a lot of stress on spine – without fracture. Energy intake comparisons meaningless, due to propensity of people to misrepresent calorie intake, especially the standard diet people. CR people get more protein than raw foodists or vegans. CR lower in saturated fat intake, cholesterol, and trans fats. CR has a lot higher fiber than controls. Phytic acid and oxalic acid (anti-nutrients) lots higher in CR. Intake of vitamin A (equvilants) and K from diet higher in CR. B6 and B12 lower in raw foodists. Sodium and calcium lower in raw foodists. Calcium intake higher in CRonies. Luigi believes the important factors for a healthy life: • Serene mind • Diet • Exercise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Hi All, I thought that this other web site on the study may interest you. The blurb below seems to me accord with what Francesca advovates. Cheers, Al Pater. http://mednews.wustl.edu/medadmin/PAnews.nsf/0/F76B2638BDB6CAE786256E7 6005D51F6 ...the calorie restriction group ate between about 1,100 and 1,950 calories per day .... and these calories consisted of about 26 percent protein, 28 percent fat and 46 percent complex carbohydrates. In contrast, the comparison group consumed between about 1,975 and 3,550 calories per day, with only 18 percent of their calories from protein, 32 percent from fat and 50 percent from carbohydrates, including refined, processed starches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Hi Al: Thanks for that link. It gets curiouser and curiouser. Or perhaps clearer and clearer. So for protein/fat/carb percentages: CRON Group: -- 26%/28%/46% Controls--: -- 18%/32%/50% And the CRON group was enormously much healthier as measured by all the tests. QUESTION: So, are the CRONies healthier because of their higher protein intake? The lower fat? Or the lower carbs? ANSWERS: No. No. No. Why? ........... The Biosphere group's percentages were: Biosphere: -- 14%/10%/76% !!!!!! So the Biospherians had even lower protein than the controls! And they had even higher carbs than the controls! And, despite way lower fat than either group, they were not materially healthier than the CRONies in the Hollosz study. Do we need any more evidence to conclude that the macronutrient ratios are irrelevant? Of course JR commented here to this effect some time ago! Macronutrient ratios are followed because they are easy to calculate. Not because they have any relevance : ^ ))) Rodney. --- In , " old542000 " <apater@m...> wrote: > Hi All, > > I thought that this other web site on the study may interest you. > The blurb below seems to me accord with what Francesca advovates. > > Cheers, Al Pater. > > > http://mednews.wustl.edu/medadmin/PAnews.nsf/0/F76B2638BDB6CAE786256E7 > 6005D51F6 > > ...the calorie restriction group ate between about 1,100 and 1,950 > calories per day .... and these calories consisted of about 26 > percent protein, 28 percent fat and 46 percent complex carbohydrates. > In contrast, the comparison group consumed between about 1,975 and > 3,550 calories per day, with only 18 percent of their calories from > protein, 32 percent from fat and 50 percent from carbohydrates, > including refined, processed starches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Thanks,, glad to hear that I'm getting through. A more appropriate analysis would be a direct comparison of amount or percentage of each macronutrient CRON relative to control. It is very likely that protein intake was not increased, just not reduced as much as fats and carbs were..... This sounds reasonable as protein is not primarily utilized for energy. JR -----Original Message----- From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...] Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 12:51 PM Subject: [ ] Re: Dr. Hollosz's Humans Hi Al: Thanks for that link. It gets curiouser and curiouser. Or perhaps clearer and clearer. So for protein/fat/carb percentages: CRON Group: -- 26%/28%/46% Controls--: -- 18%/32%/50% And the CRON group was enormously much healthier as measured by all the tests. QUESTION: So, are the CRONies healthier because of their higher protein intake? The lower fat? Or the lower carbs? ANSWERS: No. No. No. Why? ........... The Biosphere group's percentages were: Biosphere: -- 14%/10%/76% !!!!!! So the Biospherians had even lower protein than the controls! And they had even higher carbs than the controls! And, despite way lower fat than either group, they were not materially healthier than the CRONies in the Hollosz study. Do we need any more evidence to conclude that the macronutrient ratios are irrelevant? Of course JR commented here to this effect some time ago! Macronutrient ratios are followed because they are easy to calculate. Not because they have any relevance : ^ ))) Rodney. -- ________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by Internet Pathway's Email Gateway scanning system for potentially harmful content, such as viruses or spam. Nothing out of the ordinary was detected in this email. For more information, call 601-776-3355 or email support@... ________________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Within a band, I think they variations are irrelevant. (But the domers ate more carbs, because they are easier to grow, not because it's healthier necessarily. ) The Taller diet was 30%P/ 65%F/ 5%C. (weight reduction) Sears is 30/ 30/ 40 (hormonal) About the highest carb I recall is the HCF diet by MD: 15-20%P / 10-25%F / 70-75%C for diabetes no less. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rodney Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 12:51 PM Subject: [ ] Re: Dr. Hollosz's Humans Hi Al:Thanks for that link. It gets curiouser and curiouser. Or perhaps clearer and clearer. So for protein/fat/carb percentages:CRON Group: -- 26%/28%/46%Controls--: -- 18%/32%/50%And the CRON group was enormously much healthier as measured by all the tests.QUESTION: So, are the CRONies healthier because of their higher protein intake? The lower fat? Or the lower carbs?ANSWERS: No. No. No.Why? ...........The Biosphere group's percentages were:Biosphere: -- 14%/10%/76% !!!!!!So the Biospherians had even lower protein than the controls! And they had even higher carbs than the controls! And, despite way lower fat than either group, they were not materially healthier than the CRONies in the Hollosz study.Do we need any more evidence to conclude that the macronutrient ratios are irrelevant?Of course JR commented here to this effect some time ago! Macronutrient ratios are followed because they are easy to calculate. Not because they have any relevance : ^ )))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.