RE: CR - Calorie Reduction Relative To What?

[Guest guest]

CRAN "Caloric restriction with adequate nutrition". IMO adequate to prevent bad stuff from happening. That includes adequate energy intake too..... Defining adequate will be hard enough, thinking we know what optimum might be is borderline delusional. Optimal for what: LE, QOL, vigor, mental clarity, creativity, pleasure, attractiveness, ?? (end rant)....

JR

-----Original Message-----From: Easy [mailto:Easy@...]Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 4:38 PM Subject: [ ] CR - Calorie Reduction Relative To What?Is it that CR - calorie reduction is relative to a ""typical 'American'"" diet?For me it seems that optimum nutrition with optimum calories ONOC is a more accurate way to characterize the intent of CRON.Instead of using a typical 'American' diet as a base line it would seem a diet of typical people (from all over the planet) that have what is considered optimal health (and long life) would be a more sensible base line.An optimal long and healthy life seems to be what CRON is about. Which certainly is less, a lot less calories than a typical 'American' and a lot better nutrition too - not emaciated thin or excessively obese.Or am I missing 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]

Hi Easy:

After trying hard to get a grasp of this stuff the past nine months,

the following is my take. Most of the studies that have suggested a

benefit from CR have been done in animals.

The degree of restriction imposed on the animals in CR studies has

typically been 40% (sometimes more, sometimes less) RELATIVE TO THE

AMOUNT OF ENERGY THE ANIMALS ARE USUALLY (CONVENTIONAL WISDOM)

CONSIDERED TO NEED TO MAINTAIN A 'NORMAL' WEIGHT.

Often the control group has been placed on 10% restriction so that no

one can say after the fact that 'the only reason the restricted mice

lived longer was because the control group was overweight'. So the

benefits then demonstrated are for 40% restriction compared with 10%

restriction. They would have been still greater if they had been

compared with zero percent restriction.

Transferring this to humans, it most likely means that whatever

number for your caloric needs you get out of some website calculation

based on your height, age, etc., your CR caloric intake would,

eventually, be about 40% less than that.

But in my case, it seems to me that I have always been 'restricted'

almost 20% relative to what the standard calculations suggest. This

causes me to wonder whether they are designed intentionally to err on

the high side.

As Francesca will tell you it is likely not a good idea to suddenly

cut your calories cold turkey by 40%. Just drop your caloric intake

to 100 - 300 less than your caloric expenditure and you will lose

weight at a rate of about half a pound a week. Then as your weight

drops so will your caloric requirement, so you will need to drop your

intake gradually as time goes by to maintain the 100 - 300 deficit.

Eventually, after losing half a pound a week for perhaps a couple of

years, both your weight and caloric intake will be appreciably

reduced compared with their starting values. Then various measures

can be used: BF%; WC/H; BMI; WBC; BP; lipids; body temperature; etc,

to decide when you have gone far enough and it is time to stabilize

your weight, with caloric intake = caloric expenditure. You then

might be considered to be 'established in CRON'

It is also very important to check, one way or another, that you are

getting at least the RDAs for the key nutrients. I have used

Fitday.com for that, although some of their data have some really

strange characteristics. There is plenty of advice here about the

best foods to ensure this. Green vegetables are at the top of the

list of most people here.

It has been posted here that, so long as the RDAs are satisfied, in

some studies (in mice?) the benefits in health and lifespan continued

to increase up to 60% restriction. But I have not personally seen

those studies.

Just my take from what I think I have learned about this here the

past nine months. If anyone disagrees I have no doubt they will say

so. I certainly hope they will. ; ^ )))

Rodney.

>

> Subject: CR - Calorie Reduction Relative To What?

> Is it that CR - calorie reduction is relative

to " " typical 'American' " " diet?

> For me it seems that optimum nutrition with optimum calories

ONOC is a more accurate way to characterize the intent of CRON.

> Instead of using a typical 'American' diet as a base line it would

> seem a diet of typical people (from all over the planet) that have

> what is considered optimal health (and long life) would be a more

> sensible base line.

> An optimal long and healthy life seems to be what CRON is about.

> Which certainly is less, a lot less calories than a

> typical 'American' and a lot better nutrition too - not emaciated

> thin or excessively obese.

> Or am I missing something?

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

>

> It has been posted here that, so long as the RDAs are satisfied, in

> some studies (in mice?) the benefits in health and lifespan

continued

> to increase up to 60% restriction. But I have not personally seen

> those studies.

Hi All,

Please see:

http://deanpomerleau.tripod.com/CR/merry1.htm = Lifespan increase by

% CR.

http://deanpomerleau.tripod.com/CR/merry2.htm = Lifespan increase by

length of the CR.

Cheers, Al Pater.

PS: I believe that Fancesca would not advocate 40% CR.