More Popular Misconceptions

[Guest guest]

With all due respect, I beg to differ. While there may be *some* overweight

people who are overweight in spite of not consuming excess calories (I've

never met one, but anything is possible, and I'm sure that someone has some

study that says that they exist), my opinion is that these people are by and

large mythical.

Perhaps these people are consuming an " average " number of calories, but

obviously this " average " number is far too many for them. I think anyone on

CR has been able to verify that if you limit calorie intake enough you will

lose weight.

I think that otherwise healthy people who consider themselves victims of the

" fat gene " that has fated them to be overweight in spite of their most

concerted effort simply aren't trying hard enough. Put them on real CRON

for a year and see what happens.

I understand that this is not a politically correct attitude in the United

States, but with the obesity epidemic reaching epic proportions there, I

think it is time to admit that the " old " attitudes have been killing people,

and have to go.

(|-|ri5

>

> Maybe I'm not reading this clearly, but do you know how absurd this

> sounds to all the overweight people who cannot lose their relativley

> high fat mass on a calorie restricted diet? There's plenty of

> overweight people that do not consume excess calories and cannot

> morph into a skinny body composition.

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi Chris:

I must say I sympathize with your view. There are quite a few

supposed anomalies to equation: change in weight (pounds) =

(calories eaten minus calories burned) / 3500.

One anomaly is that of people who claim to eat enormous amounts of

food and not gain weight. Others claim to eat minute amounts of food

and still gain weight. But the laws of physics are involved here and

it is highly unlikely they are being violated.

One issue I have never seen discussed anywhere is the efficiency of

different people's intestines at absorbing the calories in the food

they ingest. My bet is that those who eat enormous quantities of

food without gaining weight have very inefficient (and my guess is

unhealthy) intestines. That could be verified by an examination of

their feces.

I can also believe that some people may have very efficient

intestines and low body temperatures. They will, naturally, find it

less easy to maintain a stable weight than those in the former

category. They will need more (intestinal?) fortitude to maintain a

stable weight.

But that does NOT mean that if they consumed a chemically defined

diet (like Spindler's mice) that contained all the required nutrients

in 600 kcal of food, they would still not be able to lose weight.

For me to believe such people exist I would have to see a study which

retained absolute control of the food intake of the subjects and

analyzed the caloric intake and weight change over a period of

months. As I understand it *reported* food intakes are highly

unreliable measures of the actual amount of food eaten, especially in

people who are over weight.

And as for the 'fat gene' .......... will someone please explain

to me where these people with the fat gene got it from. Not from

their parents, apparently, or the percentage of obese people in the

community would not have tripled in the past thirty years.

I remain open-minded about this but, until I see real evidence

indicating otherwise, you can see I have a bias. (If someone can

post a link to such evidence it would be very helpful).

Rodney.

>

> With all due respect, I beg to differ. While there may be *some*

overweight

> people who are overweight in spite of not consuming excess calories

(I've

> never met one, but anything is possible, and I'm sure that someone

has some

> study that says that they exist), my opinion is that these people

are by and

> large mythical.

>

> Perhaps these people are consuming an " average " number of calories,

but

> obviously this " average " number is far too many for them. I think

anyone on

> CR has been able to verify that if you limit calorie intake enough

you will

> lose weight.

>

> I think that otherwise healthy people who consider themselves

victims of the

> " fat gene " that has fated them to be overweight in spite of their

most

> concerted effort simply aren't trying hard enough. Put them on

real CRON

> for a year and see what happens.

>

> I understand that this is not a politically correct attitude in the

United

> States, but with the obesity epidemic reaching epic proportions

there, I

> think it is time to admit that the " old " attitudes have been

killing people,

> and have to go.

>

> (|-|ri5

>

> >

> > Maybe I'm not reading this clearly, but do you know how absurd

this

> > sounds to all the overweight people who cannot lose their

relativley

> > high fat mass on a calorie restricted diet? There's plenty of

> > overweight people that do not consume excess calories and cannot

> > morph into a skinny body composition.

> > >

[Guest guest]

There have been comments either here or on other lists that I follow

regarding the length of individual's intestines which apparently varies

widely and logically will impact the efficiency of extracting energy and

nutrients.

I also have met individuals who claim to gain weight on minimal calories.

Like you I find such claims suspect but don't doubt in the short term: water

balance, and drawing upon various energy stores can make for confounding

observations. AFAIK all scientific studies have confirmed the simple energy

in minus energy out equals weight gain or loss. Of course the devil is in

the details.

We are all different, viva la difference. Leave micromanagement to the

accountants.

JR

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

From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...]

Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 10:10 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: More Popular Misconceptions

Hi Chris:

I must say I sympathize with your view. There are quite a few

supposed anomalies to equation: change in weight (pounds) =

(calories eaten minus calories burned) / 3500.

One anomaly is that of people who claim to eat enormous amounts of

food and not gain weight. Others claim to eat minute amounts of food

and still gain weight. But the laws of physics are involved here and

it is highly unlikely they are being violated.

One issue I have never seen discussed anywhere is the efficiency of

different people's intestines at absorbing the calories in the food

they ingest. My bet is that those who eat enormous quantities of

food without gaining weight have very inefficient (and my guess is

unhealthy) intestines. That could be verified by an examination of

their feces.

I can also believe that some people may have very efficient

intestines and low body temperatures. They will, naturally, find it

less easy to maintain a stable weight than those in the former

category. They will need more (intestinal?) fortitude to maintain a

stable weight.

But that does NOT mean that if they consumed a chemically defined

diet (like Spindler's mice) that contained all the required nutrients

in 600 kcal of food, they would still not be able to lose weight.

For me to believe such people exist I would have to see a study which

retained absolute control of the food intake of the subjects and

analyzed the caloric intake and weight change over a period of

months. As I understand it *reported* food intakes are highly

unreliable measures of the actual amount of food eaten, especially in

people who are over weight.

And as for the 'fat gene' .......... will someone please explain

to me where these people with the fat gene got it from. Not from

their parents, apparently, or the percentage of obese people in the

community would not have tripled in the past thirty years.

I remain open-minded about this but, until I see real evidence

indicating otherwise, you can see I have a bias. (If someone can

post a link to such evidence it would be very helpful).

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@...

________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

>>>

There are quite a few

supposed anomalies to equation: change in weight (pounds) =

(calories eaten minus calories burned) / 3500.

One anomaly is that of people who claim to eat enormous amounts of

food and not gain weight. Others claim to eat minute amounts of food

and still gain weight. But the laws of physics are involved here and

it is highly unlikely they are being violated.

>>>

From personal experience I know that as the organism ages, it becomes

more efficient at storing fat. Or conversely, less efficient at

burning food consumed. The result is the same -- increased body fat.

At age 59, I had to change my diet substantially to keep from gaining

weight. It was strange to me to be able to eat 2/3 of what I ate

previously just to be able to remain at a constant weight keeping the

same level of physical activity. I think that these differences in

metabolism are related to the levels of peptide hormones and

androgenic or estrogenic hormones in the body. As I have matured, my

emotions have mellowed and I no longer feel the " rage " of hormones

that could make my face flush, or make me perspire and tremble.

Obviously, a lot of energy was spent in these processes and consumed

a lot of calories which ended up as heat, body oils, etc. I think

that if all inputs and outputs were measured, there would be material

balance and a general balance of energy, except for that needed to

decrease the entropy of the organism. (This may give the appearance

of violating the laws of thermodynamics, but the body is not a system

in equilibrium, so the laws are not really applicable). Many of the

biomarkers of aging in BT120YD, e.g., kidney function, vital

capacity, and DHEA, decrease after age 30, so it is inconceivable

that all these changes would not affect our metabolism. What we need

is to study 30-year olds and measure their metabolic efficiency until

they reach the age of 60.

AZ

[Guest guest]

A perhaps contributory mechanism at play wrt aging and energy requirements

is LBM. For similar activity levels, as we age we lose muscle mass ( due to

less growth hormone, etc). Weight and appearance can be deceiving as even

folks who are pleased to maintain their youthful weight without obvious

adipose mass, will have fat embedded in their muscles. Fat weights less than

muscle so such changes do not show up on a bathroom scale. Since the energy

required to maintain fat is much lower than muscle, these changes will

reduce energy requirements.

I personally find resistance training is required just to break even. Energy

restriction makes it that much harder to maintain muscle mass. I have to go

lift now... :-)

JR

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

From: citpeks [mailto:citpeks@...]

Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 11:42 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: More Popular Misconceptions

>>>

There are quite a few

supposed anomalies to equation: change in weight (pounds) =

(calories eaten minus calories burned) / 3500.

One anomaly is that of people who claim to eat enormous amounts of

food and not gain weight. Others claim to eat minute amounts of food

and still gain weight. But the laws of physics are involved here and

it is highly unlikely they are being violated.

>>>

>From personal experience I know that as the organism ages, it becomes

more efficient at storing fat. Or conversely, less efficient at

burning food consumed. The result is the same -- increased body fat.

At age 59, I had to change my diet substantially to keep from gaining

weight. It was strange to me to be able to eat 2/3 of what I ate

previously just to be able to remain at a constant weight keeping the

same level of physical activity. I think that these differences in

metabolism are related to the levels of peptide hormones and

androgenic or estrogenic hormones in the body. As I have matured, my

emotions have mellowed and I no longer feel the " rage " of hormones

that could make my face flush, or make me perspire and tremble.

Obviously, a lot of energy was spent in these processes and consumed

a lot of calories which ended up as heat, body oils, etc. I think

that if all inputs and outputs were measured, there would be material

balance and a general balance of energy, except for that needed to

decrease the entropy of the organism. (This may give the appearance

of violating the laws of thermodynamics, but the body is not a system

in equilibrium, so the laws are not really applicable). Many of the

biomarkers of aging in BT120YD, e.g., kidney function, vital

capacity, and DHEA, decrease after age 30, so it is inconceivable

that all these changes would not affect our metabolism. What we need

is to study 30-year olds and measure their metabolic efficiency until

they reach the age of 60.

AZ

________________________________________________________

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@...

________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/20/2004 8:00:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, perspect1111@... writes:

new equilibrium point where caloric intake again

equals caloric expenditure.

Remember, another important factor is advancing age. For every year after age 40 one's calorie needs decrease. You can count on it Take if from the 71-year-old runner and gym rat. Peg.

[Guest guest]

It's not mythical, but seeing as you're not living in the USA, I can

understand your viewpoint.

If an overweight person eats 1200 calories a day, THEY'RE ON A

CALORIE RESTRICTED DIET (!!!), but they're not going to just lose

weight as a consequence, what with their increasingly reducing

metabolism. If losing weight was as simple as just eating less

calories, we'd ALL have become uber-skinny during the past 30 years.

How many people do you can eat less than 1200 calories a day? I

don't care about being politically correct or inane excuses for being

fat, but there is theory and then there are empirical evidence. Lack

of will power isn't simply going to explain the latter.

Warren would have us be fat on 1200-1500 calories a day and claim

this extends our maximum lifespan, when this condition is exactly

identical to many overweight Americans. I simply don't buy it as

there's no evidence to back it up.

Logan

>

> With all due respect, I beg to differ. While there may be *some*

overweight

> people who are overweight in spite of not consuming excess calories

(I've

> never met one, but anything is possible, and I'm sure that someone

has some

> study that says that they exist), my opinion is that these people

are by and

> large mythical.

>

> Perhaps these people are consuming an " average " number of calories,

but

> obviously this " average " number is far too many for them. I think

anyone on

> CR has been able to verify that if you limit calorie intake enough

you will

> lose weight.

>

> I think that otherwise healthy people who consider themselves

victims of the

> " fat gene " that has fated them to be overweight in spite of their

most

> concerted effort simply aren't trying hard enough. Put them on

real CRON

> for a year and see what happens.

>

> I understand that this is not a politically correct attitude in the

United

> States, but with the obesity epidemic reaching epic proportions

there, I

> think it is time to admit that the " old " attitudes have been

killing people,

> and have to go.

[Guest guest]

Hi Ben:

Well do we have serious evidence (I.E. where caloric intake has been

rigidly measured in a laboratory setting) of normal-height people

with body fat 25% or higher, who do not lose weight after three

months on a 1200 kcal diet? (Day to day and week to week

fluctuations in weight are so large that it is difficult to draw firm

conclusions in periods much shorter than three months). One source

of such information could be from inmates of prisons who are

individually fed a known amount of nutrients. Are there substantial

differences in weight observed among prison inmates when caloric

intake is controlled?

If there is credible evidence of that, then it is fascinating that

these people are able to function so well on such a minimal number of

calories. From the CR point of view that would be a tremendous

advantage - maintaining fat reserves while processing very few

calories compared with the rest of us.

And if this phenomenon exists it should not be too difficult to

determine the reason(s) for it. If they have a lower metabolic rate

that must show up somewhere - in body temperature, O2 intake, CO2

emissions or the loss of heat from their skin, or whatever. If they

have superlatively efficient intestines then their feces should be

demonstrably different from those of the rest of us. If it is

because they are unusually inactive ........... etc..

I have HEARD (so not authoritative) that studies have been done on

some of these people. The explanation of the anomaly was determined

to be that when asked to voluntarily keep a log of what they had

eaten, they simply forget to list many of the items they had

consumed. (That is easy enough to do. When I was keeping close

track of my nutrient intakes, I found myself suddenly remembering

items I had not written down during the day). So their beliefs about

what their caloric intakes had been, were simply inaccurate.

................ but if there is good evidence that there are

significant numbers of people whose caloric needs are so much less

than the rest of us it would be a major revelation, in my opinion.

The only information of this kind that I have heard has all been

anecdotal.

Rodney.

> If an overweight person eats 1200 calories a day, THEY'RE ON A

> CALORIE RESTRICTED DIET (!!!), but they're not going to just lose

> weight as a consequence.

[Guest guest]

Hi Ben:

Well do we have serious evidence (I.E. where caloric intake has been

rigidly measured in a laboratory setting) of normal-height people

with body fat 25% or higher, who do not lose weight after three

months on a 1200 kcal diet? (Day to day and week to week

fluctuations in weight are so large that it is difficult to draw firm

conclusions in periods much shorter than three months). One source

of such information could be from inmates of prisons who are

individually fed a known amount of nutrients. Are there substantial

differences in weight observed among prison inmates when caloric

intake is controlled?

If there is credible evidence of that, then it is fascinating that

these people are able to function so well on such a minimal number of

calories. From the CR point of view that would be a tremendous

advantage - maintaining fat reserves while processing very few

calories compared with the rest of us.

And if this phenomenon exists it should not be too difficult to

determine the reason(s) for it. If they have a lower metabolic rate

that must show up somewhere - in body temperature, O2 intake, CO2

emissions or the loss of heat from their skin, or whatever. If they

have superlatively efficient intestines then their feces should be

demonstrably different from those of the rest of us. If it is

because they are unusually inactive ........... etc..

I have HEARD (so not authoritative) that studies have been done on

some of these people. The explanation of the anomaly was determined

to be that when asked to voluntarily keep a log of what they had

eaten, they simply forget to list many of the items they had

consumed. (That is easy enough to do. When I was keeping close

track of my nutrient intakes, I found myself suddenly remembering

items I had not written down during the day). So their beliefs about

what their caloric intakes had been, were simply inaccurate.

................ but if there is good evidence that there are

significant numbers of people whose caloric needs are so much less

than the rest of us it would be a major revelation, in my opinion.

The only information of this kind that I have heard has all been

anecdotal.

Rodney.

> If an overweight person eats 1200 calories a day, THEY'RE ON A

> CALORIE RESTRICTED DIET (!!!), but they're not going to just lose

> weight as a consequence.

[Guest guest]

I do not quite understand this:

beneathremains wrote:

>If an overweight person eats 1200 calories a day, THEY'RE ON A

>CALORIE RESTRICTED DIET (!!!), but they're not going to just lose

>weight as a consequence, what with their increasingly reducing

>metabolism. If losing weight was as simple as just eating less

>calories, we'd ALL have become uber-skinny during the past 30 years.

>

A friend of mine, who has a gastric bypass, eats the equivilant of

about 800kcals/day, per a doctor's regimen. It seems to me that that's

precisely the opposite about what you just stated. It's my

understanding that most weight gain has occoured to do the MENTALITY of

what IS a meal in our culture (i.e. Super Size Me mentality), which in

turn leads to caloric increase. It's simple math, isin't it? Reduce

the calories, reduce the weight? This is why you loose weight during

fasting. I guess I'm not understanding something?

[Guest guest]

Hi Ben:

Here's something you might find interesting. It is a report of a

study done by the Centers for Disease Control - author CDC

epidemiologist . It took a look at the average

caloric intake of americans in the years 1971 and 2000. Men's

average daily intake had increased from 2450 kcal to 2618 kcal. A

rise of 168. For women the rise was 335 a day, from 1542 to 1877.

Now people were not super-slim in 1971 as I remember. Most people

even then tended to see their weight increase as time went by. I

remember my doctor pointedly pointing it out to me at the time -

which was helpful advice.

But consider what the increase for men, 168 per day, does to you over

the period of just one year. At that rate, just the increase since

1971, would cause you to put on weight at a rate of more than 17

pounds per year. (168 x 365.25 / 3500). The increase for women is

much greater. It would account for a 35 pound per year increase in

weight. THIRTY-FIVE POUNDS A YEAR. Of course the increase isn't

that large because, as people put on weight, they get an enormous

increase in exercise from just carrying their own weight around. So

their body finds a new equilibrium point where caloric intake again

equals caloric expenditure.

But I don't see a lot of support for your statement that if eating

less made people slim then everyone would " have become uber-skinny

during the past 30 years " . Rather more support, in my opinion, for

the proposition that if eating more made people fat then there should

be an obesity epidemic under way by now.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4184709/

Rodney.

> If losing weight was as simple as just eating less

> calories, we'd ALL have become uber-skinny during the past 30

years.

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

There is said to be a current obesity epidemic.

You appear to leave out many factors in your calculation.

People have become more sedentary in 1971-2000.

People have become taller during the same time.

With excess calories, there is more thermogenesis.

Cheers, Al.

>

> > If losing weight was as simple as just eating less

> > calories, we'd ALL have become uber-skinny during the past 30

> years.

[Guest guest]

Yes, you've got it right... if you consume more calories than you burn, you

will store the excess as fat.

The current epidemic of obesity is due primarily to eating more, and working

(out) less.

Don't be confused by all the haggling over trying to calculate with

precision a rather sloppy process.

JR

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

From: Caroline Tigeress [mailto:c.tigeress@...]

Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 5:50 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: More Popular Misconceptions

I do not quite understand this:

beneathremains wrote:

>If an overweight person eats 1200 calories a day, THEY'RE ON A

>CALORIE RESTRICTED DIET (!!!), but they're not going to just lose

>weight as a consequence, what with their increasingly reducing

>metabolism. If losing weight was as simple as just eating less

>calories, we'd ALL have become uber-skinny during the past 30 years.

>

A friend of mine, who has a gastric bypass, eats the equivilant of

about 800kcals/day, per a doctor's regimen. It seems to me that that's

precisely the opposite about what you just stated. It's my

understanding that most weight gain has occoured to do the MENTALITY of

what IS a meal in our culture (i.e. Super Size Me mentality), which in

turn leads to caloric increase. It's simple math, isin't it? Reduce

the calories, reduce the weight? This is why you loose weight during

fasting. I guess I'm not understanding something?

________________________________________________________

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@...

________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> And as for the 'fat gene' .......... will someone please

explain

> to me where these people with the fat gene got it from. Not from

> their parents, apparently, or the percentage of obese people in

the

> community would not have tripled in the past thirty years.

>

> I remain open-minded about this but, until I see real evidence

> indicating otherwise, you can see I have a bias. (If someone can

> post a link to such evidence it would be very helpful).

>

> Rodney.

The alleged fat gene was hypothesized from studies of obese mice.

Mice that didn't receive a gene from either parent to make leptin

were always hungry regardless of how much they ate and consequently

ended up obese. Turns out that fat people make lots of leptin

although they may not be as sensitive to it as thin folks due to

increased fat mass.

These " mutant " mice are referred to as " ob/ob " mice. Dr. Walford's

research has shown that " ob/ob " mice on a CR diet extended their

maximum lifespan even though they ate more calories and were fatter

than normal mice.

BTW, leptin is a protein that is only produced in fat tissue and

plays an important role in insulin signalling.

Cheers,

[Guest guest]

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I assumed it was well known that 1200

calories is the minimum required to maintain homeostasis. The

benefits of caloric restriction is not dependent upon eating less

than 1200 calories.

As you show by your example, eating less than 1200 calories requires

a radical approach which simply isn't natural or feasible for normal

human beings. It is not just simply a matter of mind over matter, it

is a head-on-collision with the survival instinct.

I understand there to be many complex, interweaving factors as to the

difficult in losing body fat. However, let me restate my original

cause for concern: Warren has claimed that the maximal amount of body

fat per least amount of calories consumed extends maximum lifespan,

rather than other correlations. I merely pointed out there are huge

numbers of overweight people that are maintaining their high body fat

on what is essentially a CR diet. Are these people healthy and are

they going to live as long as Warren claims?

Logan

--- In , Caroline Tigeress > A

friend of mine, who has a gastric bypass, eats the equivilant of

> about 800kcals/day, per a doctor's regimen. It seems to me that

that's

> precisely the opposite about what you just stated. It's my

> understanding that most weight gain has occoured to do the

MENTALITY of

> what IS a meal in our culture (i.e. Super Size Me mentality), which

in

> turn leads to caloric increase. It's simple math, isin't it?

Reduce

> the calories, reduce the weight? This is why you loose weight

during

> fasting. I guess I'm not understanding something?

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

> But I don't see a lot of support for your statement that if eating

> less made people slim then everyone would " have become uber-skinny

> during the past 30 years " . Rather more support, in my opinion, for

> the proposition that if eating more made people fat then there

> should be an obesity epidemic under way by now.

It seems to me you're confusing the average American eating excess

calories with a fat person on a 1200-1500 kcal CR diet, e.g.

essentially a CRON diet (but not necessary with the ON). My

statement pertains to the latter category. As another reminder under

topic, I am challenging Warren's hypothesis that being maximally fat

on a CR diet extends maximum lifespan [with apologies to Warren for

abusing his name, this is not a personal vendetta].

I may have been making too many assumptions about the level of

scientific knowledge on this list. It seems to me that a lot of

people still believe a " calorie is a calorie " and the well-meaning

advice about losing body fat simply requires one to " eat less

calories " , the same kind of useless and trite advice that's been

given out during the past 30 years to dieters.

As an example (I don't have the reference handy at the moment), there

was a study to compare the effects of 12 weeks of a moderate

hypocaloric (high protein) diet and weight training in male police

officers. There were three groups, one control that didn't exercise

and two that did exercise, but ate different protein supplements.

Both Exercise Groups: Before the study began, these subjects diets

were hypocaloric (15% protein, 60% carbohydrate, 25% fat). Yet

despite the CALORIE DEFICIT below their calculated caloric needs,

their body fat was between 22%-35% and had been gaining weight over

the previous five years! They were not getting leaner and losing

body fat if a " calorie is a calorie " .

Control Group: Same macronutrient composition as before the study,

but subjects made smarter food choices (ate less simple, more complex

carbs). They also ate less food before sleep and more during the

active hours of the day. Yet, these simple changes led to an average

5.5 pound weight loss and an average 2.5% decrease in body fat,

despite the assumption that a " calorie is a calorie " .

Differences between Both Exercise Groups: Both groups ate same exact

calories as before the study, ate same exact macronutrient ratios as

each other (26% protein, 52% carbs, 20% fat) and did same exact

exercise routines. Yet, the subjects consuming casein and milk

proteins lost almost 6.5 pounds more fat and gained nearly 4.5 pounds

more muscle than the subjects consuming whey.

Not only was body composition changed, but the casein/milk protein

subjects had a 31% improvement in muscle strength over the whey-only

subjects. If a " calorie is a calorie " , the two groups should have

the same exact results.

Relating all this to Warren's hypothesis, the only way to become

maximally fat on a CRON diet would be to eat high insulinic carbs and

high insulinic proteins for the minimal amount of calories consumed.

Is anyone willing to gamble on that?

Logan

[Guest guest]

Logan, thanks for your response. Rodney put it all better than I can, but I

wanted to put in my own two cents.

>

> If an overweight person eats 1200 calories a day, THEY'RE ON A

> CALORIE RESTRICTED DIET (!!!), but they're not going to just lose

> weight as a consequence, what with their increasingly reducing

> metabolism. If losing weight was as simple as just eating less

> calories, we'd ALL have become uber-skinny during the past 30 years.

Yes, 1,200 calories is a CR diet by anyone's measure. Do you actually know

of an otherwise healthy overweight person who consumed this number of

calories for a period of time and didn't lose weight? This would be a

fascinating person to study, because he differs so much from what is

typical.

I think your last statement there reveals that you might be laboring under

the misapprehension that people have been consuming fewer calories in the

last thirty years, when all evidence is to the contrary. My own personal

experience is that over the last 15 years (my adult life) almost all the

push has been toward exercising more, and cutting back on fat. I tried to

follow this advice, but without restricting calories, it worked somewhat to

my detriment because I felt justified in overeating because I had exercised.

I have observed the same effect in other people.

As Rodney said, and I agree, most people who *think* they are restricting

calories are not, and don't find out their error until they actually sit

down and log every single thing they eat during the day. Then, in almost

every case, they realize that they were actually consuming a lot more than

they thought.

>

> How many people do you can eat less than 1200 calories a day?

Not many, but, then again, it shouldn't be necessary for anyone but the most

petite CRONie.

>

> Warren would have us be fat on 1200-1500 calories a day and claim

> this extends our maximum lifespan, when this condition is exactly

> identical to many overweight Americans. I simply don't buy it as

> there's no evidence to back it up.

Warren can speak for himself, but I think he was just reporting what was

observed in controlled scientific studies, not simply hearsay or anecdotal

reporting.

Again, almost all people who consume 1200-1500 calories daily eventually

become very thin. It is this very thinness that creates a certain risk

factor. Warren was simply pointing out something that seems quite logical

to me, that those who DO NOT become rail thin on a CR diet have a better

chance at long-term survival.

(|-|ri5

[Guest guest]

Hi Logan:

Thanks for the info on that study. However my recollection of it

seems to be different from yours. Mine is that in that study all

three groups lost *exactly* the same amount of weight while consuming

*exactly* the same number of calories.

If that is correct (perhaps my recollection is faulty, perhaps not)

then it certainly appears to support the idea that a calorie is a

calorie as regards the ability of a hypocaloric diet to effect weight

loss.

If that is not your impression then we need to resolve the matter by

finding a copy of the study.

Thnaks for the input.

Rodney.

> --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

> > But I don't see a lot of support for your statement that if

eating

> > less made people slim then everyone would " have become uber-

skinny

> > during the past 30 years " . Rather more support, in my opinion,

for

> > the proposition that if eating more made people fat then there

> > should be an obesity epidemic under way by now.

>

> It seems to me you're confusing the average American eating excess

> calories with a fat person on a 1200-1500 kcal CR diet, e.g.

> essentially a CRON diet (but not necessary with the ON). My

> statement pertains to the latter category. As another reminder

under

> topic, I am challenging Warren's hypothesis that being maximally

fat

> on a CR diet extends maximum lifespan [with apologies to Warren for

> abusing his name, this is not a personal vendetta].

>

> I may have been making too many assumptions about the level of

> scientific knowledge on this list. It seems to me that a lot of

> people still believe a " calorie is a calorie " and the well-meaning

> advice about losing body fat simply requires one to " eat less

> calories " , the same kind of useless and trite advice that's been

> given out during the past 30 years to dieters.

>

> As an example (I don't have the reference handy at the moment),

there

> was a study to compare the effects of 12 weeks of a moderate

> hypocaloric (high protein) diet and weight training in male police

> officers. There were three groups, one control that didn't

exercise

> and two that did exercise, but ate different protein supplements.

>

> Both Exercise Groups: Before the study began, these subjects diets

> were hypocaloric (15% protein, 60% carbohydrate, 25% fat). Yet

> despite the CALORIE DEFICIT below their calculated caloric needs,

> their body fat was between 22%-35% and had been gaining weight over

> the previous five years! They were not getting leaner and losing

> body fat if a " calorie is a calorie " .

>

> Control Group: Same macronutrient composition as before the study,

> but subjects made smarter food choices (ate less simple, more

complex

> carbs). They also ate less food before sleep and more during the

> active hours of the day. Yet, these simple changes led to an

average

> 5.5 pound weight loss and an average 2.5% decrease in body fat,

> despite the assumption that a " calorie is a calorie " .

>

> Differences between Both Exercise Groups: Both groups ate same

exact

> calories as before the study, ate same exact macronutrient ratios

as

> each other (26% protein, 52% carbs, 20% fat) and did same exact

> exercise routines. Yet, the subjects consuming casein and milk

> proteins lost almost 6.5 pounds more fat and gained nearly 4.5

pounds

> more muscle than the subjects consuming whey.

>

> Not only was body composition changed, but the casein/milk protein

> subjects had a 31% improvement in muscle strength over the whey-

only

> subjects. If a " calorie is a calorie " , the two groups should have

> the same exact results.

>

> Relating all this to Warren's hypothesis, the only way to become

> maximally fat on a CRON diet would be to eat high insulinic carbs

and

> high insulinic proteins for the minimal amount of calories

consumed.

> Is anyone willing to gamble on that?

>

> Logan

[Guest guest]

>

> It seems to me you're confusing the average American eating excess

> calories with a fat person on a 1200-1500 kcal CR diet, e.g.

> essentially a CRON diet (but not necessary with the ON).

And it seems to me that you still haven't shown us this fat person. Who is

this person you keep referring to as if there were so many representatives

that there is no possible doubting their existence?

>

> I may have been making too many assumptions about the level of

> scientific knowledge on this list.

Sorry to disappoint you. Let me be the first to thank you for waiving your

consulting fee.

> It seems to me that a lot of

> people still believe a " calorie is a calorie " and the well-meaning

> advice about losing body fat simply requires one to " eat less

> calories " , the same kind of useless and trite advice that's been

> given out during the past 30 years to dieters.

Not only useless and trite, it's ungrammatical! Whatever shall we do?

(OK, sorry, all the sarcasm is out of my system now.) I don't recall any

recent post claiming that " a calorie is a calorie " . If you read that in any

of my posts, I didn't intend to convey that. Obviously, it is more

complicated than that, but not much more. Of course, there are a myriad

factors that speed up or slow down, or even prevent weight loss under

certain conditions. BUT, it is a question of simple physics that you cannot

materialize energy where there is none. Perhaps it isn't a " fat gene " at

all, but a wormhole in space/time that funnels energy out of skinny people

into fat ones! (Oops, there goes the sarcasm again, sorry.) My point is

that IF (a big " if " IMO) these people are truly in a calorie deficit, then

it is physically impossible to gain or even maintain weight.

>

> Both Exercise Groups: Before the study began, these subjects diets

> were hypocaloric (15% protein, 60% carbohydrate, 25% fat). Yet

> despite the CALORIE DEFICIT below their calculated caloric needs,

> their body fat was between 22%-35% and had been gaining weight over

> the previous five years! They were not getting leaner and losing

> body fat if a " calorie is a calorie " .

Pardon me for exposing my ignorance (dang, sorry), but isn't it just

possible their caloric needs were miscalculated? That would also explain

the result, but without violating the Laws of Physics.

<<more stuff proving that " a calorie is not always a calorie " snipped>>

Yes, no one, AFAIK, is disputing that. All these studies show are things

which affect the *rate* of loss either positively or negatively. There are

lots of reasons why the body tries to hold weight or drop it in different

circumstances. We are still waiting for proof that an overweight person who

is burning 2,500 calories a day (let's say), but only eating 1,500, can

possibly not lose weight given enough time.

(|-|ri5

[Guest guest]

Hi Logan:

Here is a study in which police officers were kept on 20% hypocaloric

diets and fed whey/casein. I doubt there has been more than one, so

I believe it is the one to which you referred. I only have the

abstract:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=10838463 & itool=iconabst

r

http://snipurl.com/785c

Here is a quote from the abstract: " We found that weight loss was

approximately 2.5 kg in all three groups. "

Now these officers were on a 20% hypocaloric diet. I do not know

what their AL (in energy balance) diet had been before the study

commenced. But if AL had been 3000 kcal, then 20% less would have

been 2400. If AL had been 2500 then 20% less would have been 2000

kcal/day.

And all three groups, on these *only mildly* hypocaloric diets lost

an appreciable amount of weight.

So if you are using this study to bolster your claim that people

eating 1200 calories do not lose weight, I don't personally believe

it does much to help your position.

Rodney.

> --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

> > But I don't see a lot of support for your statement that if

eating

> > less made people slim then everyone would " have become uber-

skinny

> > during the past 30 years " . Rather more support, in my opinion,

for

> > the proposition that if eating more made people fat then there

> > should be an obesity epidemic under way by now.

>

> It seems to me you're confusing the average American eating excess

> calories with a fat person on a 1200-1500 kcal CR diet, e.g.

> essentially a CRON diet (but not necessary with the ON). My

> statement pertains to the latter category. As another reminder

under

> topic, I am challenging Warren's hypothesis that being maximally

fat

> on a CR diet extends maximum lifespan [with apologies to Warren for

> abusing his name, this is not a personal vendetta].

>

> I may have been making too many assumptions about the level of

> scientific knowledge on this list. It seems to me that a lot of

> people still believe a " calorie is a calorie " and the well-meaning

> advice about losing body fat simply requires one to " eat less

> calories " , the same kind of useless and trite advice that's been

> given out during the past 30 years to dieters.

>

> As an example (I don't have the reference handy at the moment),

there

> was a study to compare the effects of 12 weeks of a moderate

> hypocaloric (high protein) diet and weight training in male police

> officers. There were three groups, one control that didn't

exercise

> and two that did exercise, but ate different protein supplements.

>

> Both Exercise Groups: Before the study began, these subjects diets

> were hypocaloric (15% protein, 60% carbohydrate, 25% fat). Yet

> despite the CALORIE DEFICIT below their calculated caloric needs,

> their body fat was between 22%-35% and had been gaining weight over

> the previous five years! They were not getting leaner and losing

> body fat if a " calorie is a calorie " .

>

> Control Group: Same macronutrient composition as before the study,

> but subjects made smarter food choices (ate less simple, more

complex

> carbs). They also ate less food before sleep and more during the

> active hours of the day. Yet, these simple changes led to an

average

> 5.5 pound weight loss and an average 2.5% decrease in body fat,

> despite the assumption that a " calorie is a calorie " .

>

> Differences between Both Exercise Groups: Both groups ate same

exact

> calories as before the study, ate same exact macronutrient ratios

as

> each other (26% protein, 52% carbs, 20% fat) and did same exact

> exercise routines. Yet, the subjects consuming casein and milk

> proteins lost almost 6.5 pounds more fat and gained nearly 4.5

pounds

> more muscle than the subjects consuming whey.

>

> Not only was body composition changed, but the casein/milk protein

> subjects had a 31% improvement in muscle strength over the whey-

only

> subjects. If a " calorie is a calorie " , the two groups should have

> the same exact results.

>

> Relating all this to Warren's hypothesis, the only way to become

> maximally fat on a CRON diet would be to eat high insulinic carbs

and

> high insulinic proteins for the minimal amount of calories

consumed.

> Is anyone willing to gamble on that?

>

> Logan

[Guest guest]

Gentlemen: These kind of statements are discouraged here. They have

nothing to do with the validity of your arguments. In fact if you have to

resort to this, it may be because your argument lacks merit.

Stick to the facts. There is no reason for personal attacks. Let's keep

this list a place where all can post without fear of any kind of put -down.

on 6/21/2004 8:24 AM, chris at motjuste@... wrote:

>>

>> I may have been making too many assumptions about the level of

>> scientific knowledge on this list.

>

> Sorry to disappoint you. Let me be the first to thank you for waiving your

> consulting fee.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The obvious questions:

What is the body composition of the average longest lived CRON rat?

Specifically how much body fat did they have? Was it less than 6

percent, 10, 20, 30 percent or more? Or maybe we need to know the

equivalent rat BMI?

Should one try to mimic that by manipulating macronutrients

combinations, alternatives, and timing?

Clearly a calorie is not a calorie, a protein is not a protein, a

carb is not a carb, and a fat is not a fat. Which ones and in which

ratios are optimal for the results we want to achieve?

If you get the minimum requirements for macronutrients you have room

to play.

..36 grams per pound of body weight protein - 54 grams of protein for

a 150 pound person is 216 kcal.

130 grams of carbohydrates daily (to keep your brain working) 520 kcal

3 - 10 grams of essential fatty acids 90 kcal

If I did my math correctly that totals 826 kcal, which means one has

between 374 to 974 discretionary calories assuming a 1200 - 1800 kcal

upper CR limit boundary.

What's for dinner?

Thanks.

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

> > Relating all this to Warren's hypothesis, the only way to become

> > maximally fat on a CRON diet would be to eat high insulinic carbs

> and

> > high insulinic proteins for the minimal amount of calories

> consumed.

> > Is anyone willing to gamble on that?

> >

> > Logan

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

No problem, but just to be clear. The quote at the bottom of 's

last post was not from me. I believe it was from Logan, whose name

is at the bottom. (But mine is at the top of the quotation).

Rodney.

> The obvious questions:

>

> What is the body composition of the average longest lived CRON rat?

> Specifically how much body fat did they have? Was it less than 6

> percent, 10, 20, 30 percent or more? Or maybe we need to know the

> equivalent rat BMI?

> Should one try to mimic that by manipulating macronutrients

> combinations, alternatives, and timing?

>

> Clearly a calorie is not a calorie, a protein is not a protein, a

> carb is not a carb, and a fat is not a fat. Which ones and in which

> ratios are optimal for the results we want to achieve?

>

> If you get the minimum requirements for macronutrients you have

room

> to play.

>

> .36 grams per pound of body weight protein - 54 grams of protein

for

> a 150 pound person is 216 kcal.

>

> 130 grams of carbohydrates daily (to keep your brain working) 520

kcal

>

> 3 - 10 grams of essential fatty acids 90 kcal

>

> If I did my math correctly that totals 826 kcal, which means one

has

> between 374 to 974 discretionary calories assuming a 1200 - 1800

kcal

> upper CR limit boundary.

>

> What's for dinner?

>

> Thanks.

>

> --- In , " Rodney "

<perspect1111@y...>

> > > Relating all this to Warren's hypothesis, the only way to

become

> > > maximally fat on a CRON diet would be to eat high insulinic

carbs

> > and

> > > high insulinic proteins for the minimal amount of calories

> > consumed.

> > > Is anyone willing to gamble on that?

> > >

> > > Logan

[Guest guest]

Thanks for finding the study! However, I actually didn't describe it

to illustrate the effects of calorie restriction, but that a " calorie

is not a calorie " . I'll concede the point I was mistaken about the

two exercise groups gaining body fat over time (that's what I get for

not quoting the original source!).

Going by memory, I'm only aware of one study that compared groups

eating a 1200 calorie diet with different macronutrient ratios. The

high carb group actually gained weight despite a clear calorie

deficit. Does anyone have a cite for this study? I believe it was

conducted in the early 80's or 90's.

However, empirical evidence will certainly show that such is the case

with many overweight people, giving some credence to the current low-

carb fad. It's an insult to suggest they're all ignorant and don't

track their diet/calories properly, although I have seen head-in-the-

cloud types like that. Different types of food have disproportionate

effects on increasing and decreasing fat mass, irregardless of

calories. The body definitely responds in a manner to maximize

preserving existing fat mass (most especially with women) per the

lesser calories consumed.

Now why I consider all this important is because it was my impression

Warren emphasized an interpretation of a study that the highest fat

mass on the least amount of calories correlated with maximum

lifespan. I don't agree with this interpretation based on my

interpretation of all the life extension research to date. But now,

I'm specifically disagreeing with maximial fat equating to maximum

lifespan, not CR. However, if there is any merit to Warren's

interpretation, then it would behoove us to eat the specific type of

foods that certainly isn't promoted in Walford's book.

I feel like I'm flogging a horse to death. :-)

Logan

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> Hi Logan:

>

> Here is a study in which police officers were kept on 20%

hypocaloric

> diets and fed whey/casein. I doubt there has been more than one,

so

> I believe it is the one to which you referred. I only have the

> abstract:

>

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

>

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=10838463 & itool=iconabst

> r

>

> http://snipurl.com/785c

[Guest guest]

Hi Logan:

I agree about the horse. This issue will, I suspect, only be

resolved by someone doing a *careful* study of over weight people

consuming less than, say, 1400 kcal/day, and showing that some have

not lost weight after three months.

(By 'careful' I mean not relying on individually reported food

intakes, and not indulging in large fluctuations in salt intake,

macronutrient ratios or other similar factors).

Then the question will be " why not " ? But at least we will all then

have concrete information that this phenomenon is for real, or not.

Rodney.

> Thanks for finding the study! However, I actually didn't describe

it

> to illustrate the effects of calorie restriction, but that

a " calorie

> is not a calorie " . I'll concede the point I was mistaken about the

> two exercise groups gaining body fat over time (that's what I get

for

> not quoting the original source!).

>

> Going by memory, I'm only aware of one study that compared groups

> eating a 1200 calorie diet with different macronutrient

ratios. ....................