Re: CR, CRON, and set point defs

[Guest guest]

Hi Alan,

In "Beyond the 120 year diet", pg 5-6, Walford states "The CRON diet emphasizes food combinations ......so that RDAs of all important nutrients are approximated with minimal caloric intake". That can be achieved with ~600 calories, so added energy is required. There is nothing in that statement that says eat the minimum calories, or eat more than the RDAs. That leaves me free to eat about 1200 kcals of fat or carbos as I choose to maintain whatever weight I choose.

If I can maintain say 180# with 1800 calories instead of 3200 calories, I'm eating less calories and doing ON, although I may not be doing as much CR, because Walford also implies a weight less than "set point" to get CR. And I have no idea how to determine "set point" even if it's the same for any age.

So as a technical point based on pg 6, I think Francesca is correct, that folks should try ON first and migrate into CR. I may not be doing CR even with cutting calories 40%. But then I really expected to get to < "set point" eating 1800 kcals, since some others eat more than that. If I cut to 1500 and migrate to 165# is that CR? My 20yo weight was 135#. I really don't see how I'd get to 10% less than that = 120#.

If I chose my "best weight" (fit weight) of 185# in 1973, I find that a lot more reasonable - set point = 170. But with these uncertainties, how is one to choose, and how can we argue about what CR and ON are, when we're eating 40% less calories and getting the RDAs?

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: old542000

Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 6:46 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: newbee wannabe

Hi All,In my opinion, Francesca stating that ON = moderate CR is incorrect. The Walford quotes states this. Many scientific reports support this contention.Raw foodists practice ON and some are CR.Other issues arose from the raw foodist discussion.Cheers, Al.> Alan, > Respectfully I can't figure out what you're talking about and I do want to know, because that is not what I'm gonna do.> Good luck.> ----- Original Message ----- > From: old542000 > > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 1:33 PM

[Guest guest]

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

> Hi Alan,

> In " Beyond the 120 year diet " , pg 5-6, Walford states " The CRON

diet emphasizes food combinations ......so that RDAs of all important

nutrients are approximated with minimal caloric intake " . That can be

achieved with ~600 calories, so added energy is required. There is

nothing in that statement that says eat the minimum calories, or eat

more than the RDAs. That leaves me free to eat about 1200 kcals of

fat or carbos as I choose to maintain whatever weight I choose.

>

> If I can maintain say 180# with 1800 calories instead of 3200

calories, I'm eating less calories and doing ON, although I may not

be doing as much CR, because Walford also implies a weight less

than " set point " to get CR. And I have no idea how to determine " set

point " even if it's the same for any age.

>

> So as a technical point based on pg 6, I think Francesca is

correct, that folks should try ON first and migrate into CR. I may

not be doing CR even with cutting calories 40%. But then I really

expected to get to < " set point " eating 1800 kcals, since some others

eat more than that. If I cut to 1500 and migrate to 165# is that CR?

My 20yo weight was 135#. I really don't see how I'd get to 10% less

than that = 120#.

>

> If I chose my " best weight " (fit weight) of 185# in 1973, I find

that a lot more reasonable - set point = 170. But with these

uncertainties, how is one to choose, and how can we argue about what

CR and ON are, when we're eating 40% less calories and getting the

>RDAs?

Hi All,

Do not Spindler's late-life CR animals do well on the human

equivalent of RDAs?

Cheers, Al.