RE: Re: fasting for long periods (was Re: Your Daily eating Habits)

[Guest guest]

Correction, my last post should have read " I CANT speak for Dr Fuhrman " .

Also,I am not Fuhrman fan, I am a fan of the evidence. Not anyone in

particular regardless of who that may be, furman, pritikin, ornish, walford or

anyone. I am constantly reviewing all the new data and meet with a local team

to discuss its relevance once a week and a national team of highly respected

researchers once a month. Unfortuantley for all of us, Walford has passed on

and what becomes of his data, and how it is interpreted will be left up to those

of us who remain. I personally would be hesitant to lock myself into the

constraints of what his data showed up untill his death, and be open to new data

as it is produced, as was he. Remember, there is NO " hard scientific evidence "

of successful CRON in humans, just us guinea pigs!

I dont know of any evidence, let alone hard scientific evidence, that digestion

puts a strain on your body, and the data supporting small frequent meals over

less frequent larger meals is not very strong. Very large meals will produce

larger glucose and insulin response most of the time and if done regularly, that

could be a problem.

However, there is some good evidence, that longterm consistant overuse by the

pancreas (diets causing high output of insulin) can lead to beta cell

destruction, on long overuse (strain?) of the kidneys (diets very high in

protein) can lead to kidney degeneration.

Also, fasting does not lead to rapid weight loss. Thats just an assumption.

Thats why most fasting advocated do not recommend it for weight loss. In 2

weeks of juice fasting, i lost a few lbs at most. During water fasting, maybe

5-8 lbs at most. Studies have shown that weight loss during a fast, a low

calore diet and a hi protein diet are all very similar. Now, during the first

few days, one may experience some extra weight loss due to the depletion of

glycogen stores (~4 lbs) but this is not fat nor " wieght " in the true sense .

It will come back as soon as carbohyrdates are ingested again. You cant force

the body to lose weight or burn fat and faster than it should.

Outside of Walfords studies on rats, and than trying to apply those studies to

humans, does anyone know of any studies showing rapid weight loss is unhealthy?

I posted recent data showing that yo-yo dieting, if done on healthy foods, is

not unhealthy or increase morbidity or mortality.

Also, if you read Fuhrmans book, the one thing he advocated above and beyong

everything else is Do NOT try this at home!!.

I beleive his book is advocated on some other CRON sites, if I am not mistaken.

There are many topics that I will adddress as time allows that are discussed

here, but have little good evidence to support them, ie: Glycemic Index,

i also find the debate and peoples contributions on exercise and daily meals

fascinating

In Health

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Hopefully we're all fans of the evidence. And hopefully open to new

evidence and not " locked in " (or we wouldn't have much to discuss on this

list).

At least one person I know (myself) would lose lots of weight on a 2 week

fast. During times in my life when I had little appetite for example, I

dropped scads of weight . I did not look upon this as beneficial for my

health, but admittedly those were times of ill health and not necessarily

the same as a period of intentional fasting. I become sick to my stomach if

I fast so I interpret this as a body signal that it doesn't take kindly to

fasting.

In the spirit of healthy debate, you can't dismiss Walford's studies on

rats and then mention that " bears hibernate " (and that they fast during

their hibernation) to bolster the argument that it's beneficial for humans

to fast.

on 6/9/2004 9:42 AM, Jeff Novick at jnovick@... wrote:

I am a fan of the evidence. Not anyone in

> particular regardless of who that may be, furman, pritikin, ornish, walford or

> anyone. I am constantly reviewing all the new data and meet with a local

> team to discuss its relevance once a week and a national team of highly

> respected researchers once a month. Unfortuantley for all of us, Walford

> has passed on and what becomes of his data, and how it is interpreted will be

> left up to those of us who remain. I personally would be hesitant to lock

> myself into the constraints of what his data showed up untill his death, and

> be open to new data as it is produced, as was he. Remember, there is NO " hard

> scientific evidence " of successful CRON in humans, just us guinea pigs!

>

> I dont know of any evidence, let alone hard scientific evidence, that

> digestion puts a strain on your body, and the data supporting small frequent

> meals over less frequent larger meals is not very strong. Very large meals

> will produce larger glucose and insulin response most of the time and if done

> regularly, that could be a problem.

>

> However, there is some good evidence, that longterm consistant overuse by the

> pancreas (diets causing high output of insulin) can lead to beta cell

> destruction, on long overuse (strain?) of the kidneys (diets very high in

> protein) can lead to kidney degeneration.

>

> Also, fasting does not lead to rapid weight loss. Thats just an assumption.

> Thats why most fasting advocated do not recommend it for weight loss. In 2

> weeks of juice fasting, i lost a few lbs at most. During water fasting, maybe

> 5-8 lbs at most. Studies have shown that weight loss during a fast, a low

> calore diet and a hi protein diet are all very similar. Now, during the

> first few days, one may experience some extra weight loss due to the depletion

> of glycogen stores (~4 lbs) but this is not fat nor " wieght " in the true sense

> . It will come back as soon as carbohyrdates are ingested again. You cant

> force the body to lose weight or burn fat and faster than it should.

>

> Outside of Walfords studies on rats, and than trying to apply those studies to

> humans, does anyone know of any studies showing rapid weight loss is

> unhealthy? I posted recent data showing that yo-yo dieting, if done on

> healthy foods, is not unhealthy or increase morbidity or mortality.

>

> Also, if you read Fuhrmans book, the one thing he advocated above and beyong

> everything else is Do NOT try this at home!!.

>

> I beleive his book is advocated on some other CRON sites, if I am not

> mistaken.

>

> There are many topics that I will adddress as time allows that are discussed

> here, but have little good evidence to support them, ie: Glycemic Index,

>

> i also find the debate and peoples contributions on exercise and daily meals

> fascinating

>

> In Health

> Jeff

>

>

[Guest guest]



Well Jeff,

there are several folks who have done the search for data, but clear and simple this group is the folks that are trying Walford's CR because it is the only thing shown to extend life in animals.

If "starvation" is as you say is not for weight loss, then it's not a "weight loss diet". Neither is CR. CR is eating fewer calories, starvation is eating NO calories.

In the CR groups we constantly stress getting enough of the right vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and fatty acids plus a lot of other nutrients. Tell me how I do that if I don't eat anything? A little incongruent, wouldn't you say?

On the one hand, the RDA for calcium is 1240mg and you're saying, or Fuhrman's saying, that they don't really mean that?

Regards.

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

From: Jeff Novick

Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 8:42 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: fasting for long periods (was Re: Your Daily eating Habits)

Correction, my last post should have read "I CANT speak for Dr Fuhrman". Also,I am not Fuhrman fan, I am a fan of the evidence. Not anyone in particular regardless of who that may be, furman, pritikin, ornish, walford or anyone. I am constantly reviewing all the new data and meet with a local team to discuss its relevance once a week and a national team of highly respected researchers once a month. Unfortuantley for all of us, Walford has passed on and what becomes of his data, and how it is interpreted will be left up to those of us who remain. I personally would be hesitant to lock myself into the constraints of what his data showed up untill his death, and be open to new data as it is produced, as was he. Remember, there is NO "hard scientific evidence" of successful CRON in humans, just us guinea pigs! I dont know of any evidence, let alone hard scientific evidence, that digestion puts a strain on your body, and the data supporting small frequent meals over less frequent larger meals is not very strong. Very large meals will produce larger glucose and insulin response most of the time and if done regularly, that could be a problem. However, there is some good evidence, that longterm consistant overuse by the pancreas (diets causing high output of insulin) can lead to beta cell destruction, on long overuse (strain?) of the kidneys (diets very high in protein) can lead to kidney degeneration. Also, fasting does not lead to rapid weight loss. Thats just an assumption. Thats why most fasting advocated do not recommend it for weight loss. In 2 weeks of juice fasting, i lost a few lbs at most. During water fasting, maybe 5-8 lbs at most. Studies have shown that weight loss during a fast, a low calore diet and a hi protein diet are all very similar. Now, during the first few days, one may experience some extra weight loss due to the depletion of glycogen stores (~4 lbs) but this is not fat nor "wieght" in the true sense . It will come back as soon as carbohyrdates are ingested again. You cant force the body to lose weight or burn fat and faster than it should. Outside of Walfords studies on rats, and than trying to apply those studies to humans, does anyone know of any studies showing rapid weight loss is unhealthy? I posted recent data showing that yo-yo dieting, if done on healthy foods, is not unhealthy or increase morbidity or mortality. Also, if you read Fuhrmans book, the one thing he advocated above and beyong everything else is Do NOT try this at home!!. I beleive his book is advocated on some other CRON sites, if I am not mistaken. There are many topics that I will adddress as time allows that are discussed here, but have little good evidence to support them, ie: Glycemic Index, i also find the debate and peoples contributions on exercise and daily meals fascinating In Health Jeff

[Guest guest]

>> there are several folks who have done the search for data, but clear and

simple this group is the folks that are trying Walford's CR because it is the

only thing shown to extend life in animals.

I agree. Thats my point. We are the guniea pigs. So, be fair. There may not

he hard scientific data on everything but that doesnt render it useless. Nor

does anmal data always extrapolate equally to humans. And as others have

mentioned, there is great variance on how people interpret and apply CR-ON.

>> In the CR groups we constantly stress getting enough of the right vitamins,

minerals, amino acids, and fatty acids plus a lot of other nutrients. Tell me

how I do that if I don't eat anything? A little incongruent, wouldn't you say?

No, that is one of the things that are monitored in longterm fats. The body

seems to have a unique way of using its stores and recycling its breakdown and

waste material to its benefit. But remember, fasting is not F-ON. It doesnt

exist for the long haul, even if the body has stores. Two different issues for

2 different things.

>> On the one hand, the RDA for calcium is 1240mg and you're saying, or

Fuhrman's saying, that they don't really mean that?

Again, I dont know what he is saying but I know what I am saying and in this

example.. yes, they dont really mean it. The RDA for calcium is the US is 2-3x

the RDA for calcium as set by the WHO. Now, why is that? why do I need 3x the

calcium if i live in the US but less if I live in Africa or Japan?

The RDA for protein in the US is around .8 gm/kg IBW but the WHO sets it much

lower. How come? Especially considering that according to most nutritionists,

te quality of protein in the US Is higher than that eaten in some of these less

developed countries. So why would it be higher if the quality is also higher?

Using the RDAs as reference points may have some benefit, but we need to

realize these difference and why they exist.

Jeff

[Guest guest]



You're right about RDA, it's set for the average person by adding 2 standard deviations to the average requirement to cover all of the set. Sometimes the set is very skewed, as in protein. And sometimes we are able to find the value that is right for us as an individual. The assumption is made that an excess is not bad.

What I'd like to see is the specific reasons why a "fast" is good, and I define a "fast" as more than 1 or 2 days, because the body reserves short term stores. And I can't find anything specific to say about a 10 day fast other than generalized terms like detoxification (something the body does anyway). I'd like to know if any changes occur in blood test data, urinalysis, muscle mass, BMD, etc., other than that reported in "modern nutrition in health and disease". How much hydroxyproline in the urine, eg?

Plot curves of fasting data from Fuhrman's clinic and compare those with Duke's to see if fasting is better or worse than a 700 kcal diet.

Maybe in 2014.

Regards.

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

From: Jeff Novick

Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 2:52 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: fasting for long periods (was Re: Your Daily eating Habits)

Again, I dont know what he is saying but I know what I am saying and in this example.. yes, they dont really mean it. The RDA for calcium is the US is 2-3x the RDA for calcium as set by the WHO. Now, why is that? why do I need 3x the calcium if i live in the US but less if I live in Africa or Japan? The RDA for protein in the US is around .8 gm/kg IBW but the WHO sets it much lower. How come? Especially considering that according to most nutritionists, te quality of protein in the US Is higher than that eaten in some of these less developed countries. So why would it be higher if the quality is also higher? Using the RDAs as reference points may have some benefit, but we need to realize these difference and why they exist. Jeff

[Guest guest]

This article addresses US influence on WHO, driven by economic factors.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18903

Jeff Novick wrote:

>Again, I dont know what he is saying but I know what I am saying and in this

example.. yes, they dont really mean it. The RDA for calcium is the US is 2-3x

the RDA for calcium as set by the WHO. Now, why is that? why do I need 3x the

calcium if i live in the US but less if I live in Africa or Japan?

>

>The RDA for protein in the US is around .8 gm/kg IBW but the WHO sets it much

lower. How come? Especially considering that according to most nutritionists,

te quality of protein in the US Is higher than that eaten in some of these less

developed countries. So why would it be higher if the quality is also higher?

>

>Using the RDAs as reference points may have some benefit, but we need to

realize these difference and why they exist.

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>You're right about RDA, it's set for the average person by adding 2 standard

deviations to the average requirement to cover all of the set.

This is the rationale for most nutrients and explains the ~30% " buffer " built

into most of the numbers. But it doesnt explain why the US protein and

calcium are 2-3x the WHO guidelines and also zinc is much higher. Personally,

I trust the WHO guidelines much more than I do the US RDAs or RDIs.

>The assumption is made that an excess is not bad.

For most nutrients from food, probably true. But many nutrients do have safe

" upper limits' set for them. Granted, most ULs cant be reached without the use

of supplements. Calcium has an upper limit and intakes of over 2000 mgs in men

has been associated with increased risks of prostate cancer.

Jeff

[Guest guest]



As for protein, there's:

J Nutr. 2000 Jul;130(7):1841S-9S.

Nitrogen and amino acid requirements: : the Massachusetts Institute of Technology amino acid requirement pattern.

The free full article is at:

http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/7/1841S

I think it was the basis for a large part of the IOM.

I'm sure you're familiar with: Food and Nutrition Board (FNB), Institute of Medicine (IOM)

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309085373/html/55.html#pagetop

Gives a lot of explanation how the RDAs are determined. When I read through these, I realized how "flaky" the process is. Also, MNHD lists 5 ways to determine protein requirements. MIT used a diff method.

"It is further concluded that it would be difficult to argue for the continued use of the amino acid requirement values proposed by FAO/WHO/UNU in 1985 in the planning and assessment of dietary protein intakes for population groups worldwide."

That implies that the WHO requirements have not been updated and may explain why IOM is now higher.

But the science of weight loss is not all that exact. We know how to lose weight - eat less calories, but the ramifications of an obese person losing weight, I.e., the long term effects are not determined that precisely. We also know that too much zeal in losing weight is disastrous (anorexia, osteoporosis), and this happens in even well educated scientists.

So the bottom line is what do we use? I have to influenced by Rae's (crsociety) perception of protein requirements for the average CR person. And you can believe I probably put a lot of stress on MR for his opinion, (I notice he cusses a lot more).

His last ref to me was the FNB/IOM.

BTW, I'm not a great fan of excess protein because I know I need less, but I also have to make sure I get enough calories that I don't burn the protein.

Regards.

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

From: Jeff Novick

Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 7:02 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: fasting for long periods (was Re: Your Daily eating Habits)

>>You're right about RDA, it's set for the average person by adding 2 standard deviations to the average requirement to cover all of the set. This is the rationale for most nutrients and explains the ~30% "buffer" built into most of the numbers. But it doesnt explain why the US protein and calcium are 2-3x the WHO guidelines and also zinc is much higher. Personally, I trust the WHO guidelines much more than I do the US RDAs or RDIs. >The assumption is made that an excess is not bad. For most nutrients from food, probably true. But many nutrients do have safe "upper limits' set for them. Granted, most ULs cant be reached without the use of supplements. Calcium has an upper limit and intakes of over 2000 mgs in men has been associated with increased risks of prostate cancer. Jeff

[Guest guest]

thanks. I saw the info arguing against the WHO protein requirements. Seems

like after years of them arguing " downwards " they are know beginning to argue

for slightly " higher " recommendations. So, we will see where it falls soon.

its probably better to ere on the side of slightly high than slightly low

especially in a CR diet. however we have to make sure we get in enough

carbs/calories to spare the protein. . There have been studies done on endurance

athletes that showed when they increased the percent carb in their diet, so more

was available,without increasing caloric content, they burned less protein

during their competitions. So, maybe, some of us burn more protein, as you

said, cause we take in insufficient carb or calories.

Jeff