Guest guest Posted May 20, 2004 Report Share Posted May 20, 2004 In fact if you do just this and cut out all the junk and change to emphasis on veggies and the other healthy food you read about on this board, you WILL be on CR. And that is because you will be cutting your calories from your ad lib (SAD) eating. Even if you do nothing else. cdonegan264 wrote: On page 219 of BY120YD, Walford says: Assuming your food habits and preferences are not already nutritionally superb, you must first of all change them. That's not actually hard to do if you do it right. In any case, do that first. Before you try reducing calories or losing weight or exercising or getting your biomarkers checked, re-educate, and reprogram your dietary habits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2004 Report Share Posted May 20, 2004 Hi All, This: " > In fact if you do just this and cut out all the junk and change to emphasis > on veggies and the other healthy food you read about on this board, you WILL > be on CR. " contradicts the Walford quotation and my take on the matter. Calorie excess reduction is not seen by me to be calorie restriction. Those who eat less and healthier normally are not CRing, so why should those who reduce excess unhealthy eating with the same be shifting to CR, while those doing so all along do not CR? It was of interest to me that the WUSTL investigation used 6 raw- foodist, who are vegans eating only raw foods, were termed CRers, since their values were similar to those of the 12 CRONers. However, they ate not only excellent diets, but also ate considerably less than the normal healthy diet persons who are present in the population. Related to which, I studied in more detail the WUSTL publication. I am one of the 12 CRONers and the CR2 participant of Table 5. (I wonder who were the others, such as Dean, Khurram, , Meredith and .) In contradiction to the text of the article, I was below the reference range for the serum levels of Vitamins A and E and magnesium. I cannot save the not corrupted pdf of the PNAS article. Cheers, Al Pater. > > On page 219 of BY120YD, Walford says: > > Assuming your food habits and preferences are not already > nutritionally superb, you must first of all change them. That's > not actually hard to do if you do it right. In any case, do that first. > Before you try reducing calories or losing weight or exercising or > getting your biomarkers checked, re-educate, and reprogram your > dietary habits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2004 Report Share Posted May 20, 2004 Al: we all have our own take on the matter. I am a moderate CRONIE who basically has done what I describe below. Of course I now also practise portion control. By all markers and blood tests, as well as appearance and improved health (improved skin and hair, rarely get sick etc) I am on CR. When I was active on the other list, I was one of the test subjects and it was agreed by those keeping the lists that my tests showed that I was on CR. on 5/20/2004 2:33 PM, old542000 at apater@... wrote: > contradicts the Walford quotation and my take on the matter. > > Calorie excess reduction is not seen by me to be calorie > restriction. Those who eat less and healthier normally are not > CRing, so why should those who reduce excess unhealthy eating with > the same be shifting to CR, while those doing so all along do not CR? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2004 Report Share Posted May 20, 2004 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 Subject: [ ] Re: newbee wannabe Hi All,This:"> In fact if you do just this and cut out all the junk and change to emphasis > on veggies and the other healthy food you read about on this board, you WILL > be on CR." contradicts the Walford quotation and my take on the matter. Calorie excess reduction is not seen by me to be calorie restriction. Those who eat less and healthier normally are not CRing, so why should those who reduce excess unhealthy eating with the same be shifting to CR, while those doing so all along do not CR?It was of interest to me that the WUSTL investigation used 6 raw-foodist, who are vegans eating only raw foods, were termed CRers, since their values were similar to those of the 12 CRONers. However, they ate not only excellent diets, but also ate considerably less than the normal healthy diet persons who are present in the population. Related to which, I studied in more detail the WUSTL publication. I am one of the 12 CRONers and the CR2 participant of Table 5. (I wonder who were the others, such as Dean, Khurram, , Meredith and .) In contradiction to the text of the article, I was below the reference range for the serum levels of Vitamins A and E and magnesium. I cannot save the not corrupted pdf of the PNAS article.Cheers, Al Pater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 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. --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote: > 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 > Subject: [ ] Re: newbee wannabe > > > Hi All, > > This: > > " > In fact if you do just this and cut out all the junk and change > to emphasis > on veggies and the other healthy food you read about on > this board, you WILL > be on CR. " > > contradicts the Walford quotation and my take on the matter. > > Calorie excess reduction is not seen by me to be calorie > restriction. Those who eat less and healthier normally are not > CRing, so why should those who reduce excess unhealthy eating with > the same be shifting to CR, while those doing so all along do not CR? > > It was of interest to me that the WUSTL investigation used 6 raw- > foodist, who are vegans eating only raw foods, were termed CRers, > since their values were similar to those of the 12 CRONers. However, > they ate not only excellent diets, but also ate considerably less > than the normal healthy diet persons who are present in the > population. > > Related to which, I studied in more detail the WUSTL publication. I > am one of the 12 CRONers and the CR2 participant of Table 5. (I > wonder who were the others, such as Dean, Khurram, , Meredith and > .) In contradiction to the text of the article, I was below the > reference range for the serum levels of Vitamins A and E and > magnesium. I cannot save the not corrupted pdf of the PNAS article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 ON means " Optimal Nutrition " . CR means " Caloric Restriction " . They are two different metrics. One has to do with whether you are meeting your body's need for nutrients, the other has to do with energy balance. The lower your energy intake the harder it is to meet all nutrition needs. If it was easy, everyone would do it. I still feel getting adequate nutrition is more important than energy restriction but doing both is certainly possible. The difficult part in my opinion is coming up with precise definitions for where on the CR curve we may be. Nutrition is somewhat easier, although probably not as precise as we'd like to believe. JR -----Original Message----- From: old542000 [mailto:apater@...] 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. --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote: > 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 > Subject: [ ] Re: newbee wannabe > > > Hi All, > ________________________________________________________ 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...
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.