Re: Re: Navy Study - Calculating Body Fat - Online calculator

[Guest guest]

Well, all right. That's more like reality. That says that my " ideal

weight " is 189 lbs, and that my lean body mass is 164 lbs. If I listened to

the BMI people I would have to have a BF% of zero before they started

allowing that I might be " fit " .

Still, this is assuming that there wouldn't be any " wasting " effect with CR

(I'm currently averaging 1,500 kcal/d), and that 15% BF is truly the " ideal "

for men. Also, this online calculator says that I need 134 grams of protein

per day, which is more that twice what I usually take in. Why so much

protein, I wonder.

(|-|ri5

>

> The formulas of the paper by Hodgdon and Beckett for Prediction of

> percent body fat for U.S. in navy men and women from body

> circumferences and height have been incorporated into an on-line

> calculator:

>

>

> http://www.he.net/~zone/prothd2.html

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

What is the CR-defined ideal BF?

Thanks

>From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Navy Study - Calculating Body Fat - Online

>calculator

>Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:15:16 -0000

>

>Hi Chris:

>

>'Ideal BF' in what sense? Are you confusing the conventional

>wisdom's view of what is 'ideal body fat' (for which as far as I know

>there is no real evidence) with CR-defined ideal BF - which is based

>on a considerable amount of some fairly serious evidence of extension

>of maximum lifespan?

>

>Take a look at Walford's evidence for the latter and draw your own

>conclusions. Yes, I know, when applied to me these numbers seem

>ridiculous too.

>

>(But all the CR experts tell us it is the daily caloric intake,

>rather than BF%, that is critical, along with optimal nutrition).

>

>Bear in mind also that the standard error for the US Navy BF

>calculation is 3.5 I believe.

>

>Rodney.

>

>

>

>

> >

> and that 15% BF is truly the " ideal "

> > for men.

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Rodney.

It might be interesting to look at the BF% of CR practitioners. My own, by

Tanita anyway is about 6% (set on " Adult " - if set on " Athlete " I get 0%!).

>From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Navy Study - Calculating Body Fat - Online

>calculator

>Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 13:40:07 -0000

>

>Hi :

>

>I was trying to distinguish between conventional wisdom 'ideals' and

>CR 'ideals'. The US Navy's ideal BF% of 15% is of the conventional

>wisdom type, in my opinion.

>

>To the extent there is a CR ideal BF% for males, it is defined (IMO)

>by Walford's " don't go below 6% " . That is a whole lot less than the

>US Navy's 15%. And a whole lot even less than the 21% I get from

>applying some other conventional wisdom methods to my case to

>determine my ideal weight (using wrist circumference as well as

>height in the measurement) and then using the US Navy method to

>determine my BF% at that (supposedly) ideal weight.

>

>I don't think 15% body fat (even less so, 21%) is likely to represent

>CR in any real sense. If calories are genuinely restricted then the

>body is going to burn off excess fat. Fifteen percent sounds like a

>lot of excess to me. But given a 3.5 standard deviation, stopping at

>10%, rather than 6%, might be a safer target, one would think. Of

>course I am no authority on this, as you know. It might be wise,

>if/when one gets down to, say, 12%, to get a proper, immersion,

>measurement of BF%.

>

>I hope this explains where I am coming from.

>

>Rodney.

>

>

> > What is the CR-defined ideal BF?

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> >

> > >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

> > >Reply-

> > >

> > >Subject: [ ] Re: Navy Study - Calculating Body Fat -

>Online

> > >calculator

> > >Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:15:16 -0000

> > >

> > >Hi Chris:

> > >

> > >'Ideal BF' in what sense? Are you confusing the conventional

> > >wisdom's view of what is 'ideal body fat' (for which as far as I

>know

> > >there is no real evidence) with CR-defined ideal BF - which is

>based

> > >on a considerable amount of some fairly serious evidence of

>extension

> > >of maximum lifespan?

> > >

> > >Take a look at Walford's evidence for the latter and draw your own

> > >conclusions. Yes, I know, when applied to me these numbers seem

> > >ridiculous too.

> > >

> > >(But all the CR experts tell us it is the daily caloric intake,

> > >rather than BF%, that is critical, along with optimal nutrition).

> > >

> > >Bear in mind also that the standard error for the US Navy BF

> > >calculation is 3.5 I believe.

> > >

> > >Rodney.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >--- In , " chris " <motjuste@v...>

>wrote:

> > > >

> > > and that 15% BF is truly the " ideal "

> > > > for men.

> > >

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Rodney!

>From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Navy Study - Calculating Body Fat - Online

>calculator

>Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 15:14:38 -0000

>

>Hi :

>

>In the WUSTL study of CR practitioners, the total BF% of the males

>was reported as 6.7% +/- 4.

>

>Rodney.

>

>

>

> > > > What is the CR-defined ideal BF?

> > > >

> > > > Thanks

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

> > > > >Reply-

> > > > >

> > > > >Subject: [ ] Re: Navy Study - Calculating Body

>Fat -

> > >Online

> > > > >calculator

> > > > >Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:15:16 -0000

> > > > >

> > > > >Hi Chris:

> > > > >

> > > > >'Ideal BF' in what sense? Are you confusing the conventional

> > > > >wisdom's view of what is 'ideal body fat' (for which as far as

>I

> > >know

> > > > >there is no real evidence) with CR-defined ideal BF - which is

> > >based

> > > > >on a considerable amount of some fairly serious evidence of

> > >extension

> > > > >of maximum lifespan?

> > > > >

> > > > >Take a look at Walford's evidence for the latter and draw your

>own

> > > > >conclusions. Yes, I know, when applied to me these numbers

>seem

> > > > >ridiculous too.

> > > > >

> > > > >(But all the CR experts tell us it is the daily caloric intake,

> > > > >rather than BF%, that is critical, along with optimal

>nutrition).

> > > > >

> > > > >Bear in mind also that the standard error for the US Navy BF

> > > > >calculation is 3.5 I believe.

> > > > >

> > > > >Rodney.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >--- In , " chris " <motjuste@v...>

> > >wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > and that 15% BF is truly the " ideal "

> > > > > > for men.

> > > > >

> > >

>

[Guest guest]

>From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

>Reply-

>>A further demoralizing aspect of the numbers you mention is what you

>refer to as 'wasting'. I am not sure that that is the best term to

>use. Not if JW's description of the process is accurate. JW's point

>is that lean mass is lost simply because, if you weigh 25% less you

>do not need as much bone mass to support yourself, nor as much muscle

>to do what you need to do moving yourself around.

>

>So, just as with astronauts in 'zero gravity', (of course it isn't

>really zero gravity, but let's not get into that) because there is

>much less stress on their bodies the body simply adjusts to the

>amount of bone and muscle it figures it needs. Of course it doesn't

>know that they will be back down on earth again later when previous

>amounts of lean mass will be needed again...

>

>The reason this may be demoralizing is that your 6%-body-fat-weight

>will be much lower than you think, because the weight loss is not by

>any means all fat.....

Why is this " demoralizing? "

If one has less body mass to move about, one requires less muscle.

[Guest guest]

I think you lose a lot of water also. The 15% as near as I can make it is between the 10% to 20% range.

I would think navy pilots would not want it too low - might have an effect on survival in water.

I'm reminded of a fishing boat that capsized in Seattle ~1980, and the only survivor was the 350# captain, due to the frigid water.

If it's any consolation, I was asking the same questions Feb 03.

Regards.

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

From: Rodney

Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 7:01 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Navy Study - Calculating Body Fat - Online calculator

Hi :Demoralized because my impression was that the author of the original post was relieved to discover (he thought, based on the US Navy article) that the ideal BF% was 15. It seemed he had been daunted by the idea of having to go lower than that, or perhaps even that low. I think my post suggests not only that to get the benefits of real CR (as shown very clearly in the WUSTL study) means going down eventually to below 10% (6.7% average in the WUSTL study) but in addition to that, much of the weight lost in the process would not be fat, which would mean total weight loss would need to be even greater to get down to the apparently typical BF% of full-scale CR, than if all the weight lost was fat weight.(I am not sure I have explained that well. But hopefully you get the gist.)Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Interesting post, Rodney. You make a good point that " wasting " might be an

unduly negative expression. A lighter body has less need for muscle mass.

From that perspective, if I stick to CR, in time I might actually end up in

the 165-170 lb. range, or even less.

I guess I wouldn't mind being really thin, I just don't want to end up a

weakling. It'll be interesting to see how it all turns out.

(|-|ri5

>

>

> Hi Chris:

>

> A further demoralizing aspect of the numbers you mention is what you

> refer to as 'wasting'. I am not sure that that is the best term to

> use. Not if JW's description of the process is accurate. JW's point

> is that lean mass is lost simply because, if you weigh 25% less you

> do not need as much bone mass to support yourself, nor as much muscle

> to do what you need to do moving yourself around.

>

> So, just as with astronauts in 'zero gravity', (of course it isn't

> really zero gravity, but let's not get into that) because there is

> much less stress on their bodies the body simply adjusts to the

> amount of bone and muscle it figures it needs. Of course it doesn't

> know that they will be back down on earth again later when previous

> amounts of lean mass will be needed again.

>

> I do not have good data for the amount of lean mass lost during the

> transition to a CR weight. But I do have two very approximate

> observation points that may be of interest. Positivedennis here gave

> some data for his weight loss recently with accompanying numbers for

> BF%. I also have data for my loss of weight the last few months and

> BF% data based on the US Navy formula.

>

> VERY tentatively, it looks like in the case of Positivedennis - who

> was losing weight from an 'overweight' level - of the weight he lost

> 80% of it was fat and 20% was lean body mass. In my case, losing

> weight from my 'conventional wisdom ideal weight' level, it seems to

> have been only 60% fat and 40% lean body mass. (VERY APPROXIMATE).

>

> The reason this may be demoralizing is that your 6%-body-fat-weight

> will be much lower than you think, because the weight loss is not by

> any means all fat.

>

> If anyone has GOOD data for the proportions of fat and lean lost by

> those transitioning to a realistic CR weight, I sure would be

> interested to see it. TIA.

>

> Rodney.

>

>

> >

> > Well, all right. That's more like reality. That says that

> my " ideal

> > weight " is 189 lbs, and that my lean body mass is 164 lbs. If I

> listened to

> > the BMI people I would have to have a BF% of zero before they

> started

> > allowing that I might be " fit " .

> >

> > Still, this is assuming that there wouldn't be any " wasting " effect

> with CR

> > (I'm currently averaging 1,500 kcal/d), and that 15% BF is truly

> the " ideal "

> > for men.

>

>

>

>

>

>