Re: Diet >>> Blood Pressure

[Guest guest]

Rodney: I hope I'm not understanding you correctly. According to Walford,

if you eat ON-like and eat as much as you want, you will STILL be much

healthier than you were before you started ON. With CR you get the added

benefit of life-extension. IMHO, that makes sense. But what you state

below is that even eating a bit less of the worst kind of food such as

Mc's will give you benefits.

From the many posts to this board about the benes of certain foods - some

are health enhancing, others are the opposite. Fatty red meat for example

(which is served at Mc's) is detrimental to health. If you eat less

of the Mc's hamburger, it may still end up being the same % of total

food ingested for that person and their diet.

Although strictly anecdotal, I've known too many thin people (i.e. people

who didn't eat much) who died young. It just doesn't add up. They ate less

but did not practise sound nutrition

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your post.

on 7/9/2004 11:49 AM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Hi JW:

>

> I would like to quote an excerpt from what you said in your post

> #13417 to reinforce my point about your WC/H ratio:

>

>>

>

>> ................................. are trying to deal with a

>> metabolic problem that probably all of us have, some more, some less

>

> I entirely agree that we all have a 'metabolic problem' to some

> degree or other, " some more, some less " as you said. In other words,

> I am confident that EVERY ONE OF US is susceptible. I suggest the

> degree to which each of us EXHIBITS that problem depends on HOW MUCH

> WE EAT, and that it is that - how much we eat - that causes our

> resulting physiological data, like WC/H, BMI, WBC, BP, BF% and LDL-C

> etc. etc..

>

> Take the example of the guy who decided he wanted to 'do a number' on

> Mcs by eating 5000 calories a day of their food for a month.

> He was (comparatively) healthy before he started. After a month he

> was demonstrably a lot less healthy. Of course he wanted to blame

> that on Mcs food. But he proved nothing of the kind. Eating

> 5000 calories a day of **anything** for a month straight while

> avoiding exercise, as he did, is likely to make anyone thoroughly

> unhealthy.

>

> Had he instead eaten a 40% restricted number of calories of Mcs

> food for thirty days he might have started to show benefits of CR

> (although I do not doubt that Mcs' fare is deficient in some

> key nutrients, but the signs of that would likely not show up in just

> one month).

>

> So I believe that in your case your physiological data are simply

> evidence that you are eating too many calories. Just like the

> TV 'documentary' reporter was - but clearly not in so extreme a

> fashion as he was. If the reporter were now to restrict his calories

> to 40% below maintenance level, his signs of ill health will, almost

> certainly, promptly disappear.

>

> I believe that if you continue to restict your calories to a level a

> little below what you are burning off each day your 'signs of ill

> health' (BP) will disappear also.

>

> If you take another look at the data in Francesca's WC/H table in the

> database, your numbers do stick out from the crowd. Both your WC/H

> and BMI are way higher than any others on that list. And some on

> that list are not especially slim! Naturally, I may be mistaken.

> But to me the conclusion seems obvious. You are still eating far too

> much! My bet is that your WC/H ratio (as well as all the others)

> will tell you when you are not.

>

> Hope this is helpful. It is meant to be!

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

No argument.

Perhaps, losing too slowly.

Visualize a 46" waist, 234# where I started. I don't "stick out" as much as I did.

1800 kcals is what I eat. I use exercise to cause the weight loss, rather than cutting calories more. exercise is -100 to -300 kcals.

I have targets: 175 this year, 165 next year. My target weight is to stay within what I guess is my cardiac capacity. I figure quick weight may lose some heart muscle. Granted, with time the calories to support the reduced weight have to decline or my exercise increase (not likely). So at age 100, I'll weigh 141, maybe, with a 17% margin (WAG). If I stay at 175# I run out at 90yo. at 165# I run out at 100yo.

Of course that's a WAG, but it illustrates to me, that weight may not be the critical factor.

MR's take is that it's "calories, calories, calories".

I don't recall any that say "weight, weight, weight".

Fran's take is "moderation, moderation, moderation"

I plan to cycle my weight up and down, say down 6 up 5 in a month to "adapt" to the lower level. That's for BP control (creep), not CR.

Also remember that I need a plan I can DO for 30 yrs. If I were to drop to say 155 this year, would I likely stay there as opposed to adjusting weight downward slowly? This year I'll be down 60#, or - 25% weight, - 43% in calories.

Regards.

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

From: Rodney

Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 10:49 AM

Subject: [ ] Diet >>> Blood Pressure

Hi JW:I would like to quote an excerpt from what you said in your post #13417 to reinforce my point about your WC/H ratio:> > ................................. are trying to deal with a > metabolic problem that probably all of us have, some more, some lessI entirely agree that we all have a 'metabolic problem' to some degree or other, "some more, some less" as you said. In other words, I am confident that EVERY ONE OF US is susceptible. I suggest the degree to which each of us EXHIBITS that problem depends on HOW MUCH WE EAT, and that it is that - how much we eat - that causes our resulting physiological data, like WC/H, BMI, WBC, BP, BF% and LDL-C etc. etc.. Take the example of the guy who decided he wanted to 'do a number' on Mcs by eating 5000 calories a day of their food for a month. He was (comparatively) healthy before he started. After a month he was demonstrably a lot less healthy. Of course he wanted to blame that on Mcs food. But he proved nothing of the kind. Eating 5000 calories a day of **anything** for a month straight while avoiding exercise, as he did, is likely to make anyone thoroughly unhealthy.Had he instead eaten a 40% restricted number of calories of Mcs food for thirty days he might have started to show benefits of CR (although I do not doubt that Mcs' fare is deficient in some key nutrients, but the signs of that would likely not show up in just one month).So I believe that in your case your physiological data are simply evidence that you are eating too many calories. Just like the TV 'documentary' reporter was - but clearly not in so extreme a fashion as he was. If the reporter were now to restrict his calories to 40% below maintenance level, his signs of ill health will, almost certainly, promptly disappear.I believe that if you continue to restict your calories to a level a little below what you are burning off each day your 'signs of ill health' (BP) will disappear also. If you take another look at the data in Francesca's WC/H table in the database, your numbers do stick out from the crowd. Both your WC/H and BMI are way higher than any others on that list. And some on that list are not especially slim! Naturally, I may be mistaken. But to me the conclusion seems obvious. You are still eating far too much! My bet is that your WC/H ratio (as well as all the others) will tell you when you are not. Hope this is helpful. It is meant to be!Rodney.

[Guest guest]

And I adjust the calorie intake to fit the Benedict eq for BMR. So calorie intake declines with weight.

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

From: jwwright

Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 12:39 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Diet >>> Blood Pressure

No argument.

Perhaps, losing too slowly.

Visualize a 46" waist, 234# where I started. I don't "stick out" as much as I did.

1800 kcals is what I eat. I use exercise to cause the weight loss, rather than cutting calories more. exercise is -100 to -300 kcals.

I have targets: 175 this year, 165 next year. My target weight is to stay within what I guess is my cardiac capacity. I figure quick weight may lose some heart muscle. Granted, with time the calories to support the reduced weight have to decline or my exercise increase (not likely). So at age 100, I'll weigh 141, maybe, with a 17% margin (WAG). If I stay at 175# I run out at 90yo. at 165# I run out at 100yo.

Of course that's a WAG, but it illustrates to me, that weight may not be the critical factor.

MR's take is that it's "calories, calories, calories".

I don't recall any that say "weight, weight, weight".

Fran's take is "moderation, moderation, moderation"

I plan to cycle my weight up and down, say down 6 up 5 in a month to "adapt" to the lower level. That's for BP control (creep), not CR.

Also remember that I need a plan I can DO for 30 yrs. If I were to drop to say 155 this year, would I likely stay there as opposed to adjusting weight downward slowly? This year I'll be down 60#, or - 25% weight, - 43% in calories.

Regards.

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

From: Rodney

Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 10:49 AM

Subject: [ ] Diet >>> Blood Pressure

Hi JW:I would like to quote an excerpt from what you said in your post #13417 to reinforce my point about your WC/H ratio:> > ................................. are trying to deal with a > metabolic problem that probably all of us have, some more, some lessI entirely agree that we all have a 'metabolic problem' to some degree or other, "some more, some less" as you said. In other words, I am confident that EVERY ONE OF US is susceptible. I suggest the degree to which each of us EXHIBITS that problem depends on HOW MUCH WE EAT, and that it is that - how much we eat - that causes our resulting physiological data, like WC/H, BMI, WBC, BP, BF% and LDL-C etc. etc.. Take the example of the guy who decided he wanted to 'do a number' on Mcs by eating 5000 calories a day of their food for a month. He was (comparatively) healthy before he started. After a month he was demonstrably a lot less healthy. Of course he wanted to blame that on Mcs food. But he proved nothing of the kind. Eating 5000 calories a day of **anything** for a month straight while avoiding exercise, as he did, is likely to make anyone thoroughly unhealthy.Had he instead eaten a 40% restricted number of calories of Mcs food for thirty days he might have started to show benefits of CR (although I do not doubt that Mcs' fare is deficient in some key nutrients, but the signs of that would likely not show up in just one month).So I believe that in your case your physiological data are simply evidence that you are eating too many calories. Just like the TV 'documentary' reporter was - but clearly not in so extreme a fashion as he was. If the reporter were now to restrict his calories to 40% below maintenance level, his signs of ill health will, almost certainly, promptly disappear.I believe that if you continue to restict your calories to a level a little below what you are burning off each day your 'signs of ill health' (BP) will disappear also. If you take another look at the data in Francesca's WC/H table in the database, your numbers do stick out from the crowd. Both your WC/H and BMI are way higher than any others on that list. And some on that list are not especially slim! Naturally, I may be mistaken. But to me the conclusion seems obvious. You are still eating far too much! My bet is that your WC/H ratio (as well as all the others) will tell you when you are not. Hope this is helpful. It is meant to be!Rodney.

[Guest guest]

slow and steady is OK

JR

-----Original Message-----From: jwwright [mailto:jwwright@...]Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 12:40 PM Subject: Re: [ ] Diet >>> Blood Pressure

No argument.

Perhaps, losing too slowly.

Visualize a 46" waist, 234# where I started. I don't "stick out" as much as I did.

1800 kcals is what I eat. I use exercise to cause the weight loss, rather than cutting calories more. exercise is -100 to -300 kcals.

I have targets: 175 this year, 165 next year. My target weight is to stay within what I guess is my cardiac capacity. I figure quick weight may lose some heart muscle. Granted, with time the calories to support the reduced weight have to decline or my exercise increase (not likely). So at age 100, I'll weigh 141, maybe, with a 17% margin (WAG). If I stay at 175# I run out at 90yo. at 165# I run out at 100yo.

Of course that's a WAG, but it illustrates to me, that weight may not be the critical factor.

MR's take is that it's "calories, calories, calories".

I don't recall any that say "weight, weight, weight".

Fran's take is "moderation, moderation, moderation"

I plan to cycle my weight up and down, say down 6 up 5 in a month to "adapt" to the lower level. That's for BP control (creep), not CR.

Also remember that I need a plan I can DO for 30 yrs. If I were to drop to say 155 this year, would I likely stay there as opposed to adjusting weight downward slowly? This year I'll be down 60#, or - 25% weight, - 43% in calories.

Regards.

________________________________________________________

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]

>>>

From: Francesca Skelton <fskelton@e...>

Date: Fri Jul 9, 2004 12:23 pm

Subject: Re: [ ] Diet >>> Blood Pressure

Rodney: [snip] But what you state below is that even eating a bit less

of the worst kind of food such as Mc's will give you benefits.

From the many posts to this board about the benes of certain foods -

some are health enhancing, others are the opposite. Fatty red meat for

example (which is served at Mc's) is detrimental to health. If

you eat less of the Mc's hamburger, it may still end up being

the same % of total food ingested for that person and their diet.

[snip]

>>>

I have looked at Mc's menu carefully, and although hard, it is

possible to select some nutritious foods that would not be too

detrimental to health. Much has been said about the bad effects of

saturated fats and the word " saturated " has been equated with animal

fats. However, beef tallow has about equal amounts of saturated and

unsaturated fats, so it is not completely saturated. The major

saturated fatty acid components of beef tallow are 24% of

palmitic acid and 19% of stearic acid. The major unsaturated fat of

beef tallow is 43% oleic acid. By contrast, cocoa butter is

about 2/3 saturated, and coconut oil is about 90% saturated.

I think that eating the hamburgers with side salads, and the

strawberry frozen yogurt (a little too sweet) would be a healthful

meal in *reasonable* quantity. I think this might meet Rodney's

criteria for a CR Mc's meal.

However, you could not eat the whole hamburger. You would have to

avoid the bun because it has hydrogenated fats. Some of the other

foods at Mc's that have hydrogenated fats are all their chicken

dishes (including the grilled chicken), the fried fish, french fries,

and chocolate topping for the sundae.

Tony

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

It is certainly not my view that Mcs' menu represents the

epitome of healthy food. As we know here eating for the most part

carefully selected vegetables and some fruits appears to be by far

the healthiest route. But I AM saying that, imo, the TV reporter's

evident deterioration in his health in thirty days was *principally*

because of the huge number of calories he was eating, while at the

same time intentionally not exercising to make sure he didn't burn

off any of the excess either.

I am saying that I believe his health would have shown no

deterioration (and perhaps some improvement) in those thirty days had

he eaten 100% Mcs food, but 40% less than his 'maintenance'

level. But there are MUCH better ways to eat 40% less, than at

Mcs.

I made the point not to recommend Mcs to those who are

nutrition-conscious, but to draw an analogy with JW's situation,

which I strongly suspect has to do with volume of food, not with some

genetic or historical 'nurture' factor, which seems to be what JW has

believed up to this point. In one of his posts he had said something

to the effect that 'maybe' (or was it 'perhaps'?) he needed to lose a

little more weight. Of course I know only what JW has disclosed

here about his health status and family history. But from the data I

have seen my bet is that weight and volume of food is the issue, just

as it was (principally) I believe with the TV reporter's rapid thirty

day deterioration in health.

Perhaps I can put it this way: If JW's blood pressure is still

excessively elevated when his WC/H is below 0.45 and his BMI is below

22 (these are NOT extreme levels by CR standards) then I will concede

that I am wrong and that food volume is not his only issue.

Does this clarify my position? Thanks for letting me know there was

some ambiguity in my previous post.

Rodney.

> >

> >> ................................. are trying to deal with a

> >> metabolic problem that probably all of us have, some more, some

less

> >

> > I entirely agree that we all have a 'metabolic problem' to some

> > degree or other, " some more, some less " as you said. In other

words,

> > I am confident that EVERY ONE OF US is susceptible. I suggest the

> > degree to which each of us EXHIBITS that problem depends on HOW

MUCH

> > WE EAT, and that it is that - how much we eat - that causes our

> > resulting physiological data, like WC/H, BMI, WBC, BP, BF% and

LDL-C

> > etc. etc..

> >

> > Take the example of the guy who decided he wanted to 'do a

number' on

> > Mcs by eating 5000 calories a day of their food for a month.

> > He was (comparatively) healthy before he started. After a month

he

> > was demonstrably a lot less healthy. Of course he wanted to blame

> > that on Mcs food. But he proved nothing of the kind.

Eating

> > 5000 calories a day of **anything** for a month straight while

> > avoiding exercise, as he did, is likely to make anyone thoroughly

> > unhealthy.

> >

> > Had he instead eaten a 40% restricted number of calories of

Mcs

> > food for thirty days he might have started to show benefits of CR

> > (although I do not doubt that Mcs' fare is deficient in some

> > key nutrients, but the signs of that would likely not show up in

just

> > one month).

> >

> > So I believe that in your case your physiological data are simply

> > evidence that you are eating too many calories. Just like the

> > TV 'documentary' reporter was - but clearly not in so extreme a

> > fashion as he was. If the reporter were now to restrict his

calories

> > to 40% below maintenance level, his signs of ill health will,

almost

> > certainly, promptly disappear.

> >

> > I believe that if you continue to restict your calories to a

level a

> > little below what you are burning off each day your 'signs of ill

> > health' (BP) will disappear also.

> >

> > If you take another look at the data in Francesca's WC/H table in

the

> > database, your numbers do stick out from the crowd. Both your

WC/H

> > and BMI are way higher than any others on that list. And some on

> > that list are not especially slim! Naturally, I may be mistaken.

> > But to me the conclusion seems obvious. You are still eating far

too

> > much! My bet is that your WC/H ratio (as well as all the others)

> > will tell you when you are not.

> >

> > Hope this is helpful. It is meant to be!

> >

> > Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi Rodney,

I'm not sure what "genetic or historical 'nurture' factor" is. Most of my "maybes" and "perhaps" are just that = I'm not positive. If I say "guess" it means just that. If I estimate, I have some method of putting numbers to it. If I say know I don't mean I think - but very few things we know inre CR for humans.

I may say I "believe" and that means I've pretty well analyzed available data, drawn some conclusions and there will be very little anyone can say to alter my opinion.

AFA the BP issue is concerned, there are people with essential HTN at 140#, exercising everyday who can't get it below 140 /90 without drugs. It's an unknown factor. It may be one stupid cell signaling a need for more flow and the CNS, or SNS responds. Aetiology is unknown.

It's probably a combination of diff things, some arteriosclerosis, some food allergy, some other allergies, some kidney aging, some heart aging, some too much fat, some not enough of the right minerals and perhaps their effect on an inherited gene. Can't change all of those.

About 10% of those that might be effected don't get it, at least not right away, and I attribute that to weight/diet control starting in earlier life (<40yo) (a GUESS).

Regards.

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

From: Rodney

Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 1:22 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Diet >>> Blood Pressure

I made the point not to recommend Mcs to those who are nutrition-conscious, but to draw an analogy with JW's situation, which I strongly suspect has to do with volume of food, not with some genetic or historical 'nurture' factor, which seems to be what JW has believed up to this point. In one of his posts he had said something to the effect that 'maybe' (or was it 'perhaps'?) he needed to lose a little more weight. Of course I know only what JW has disclosed here about his health status and family history. But from the data I have seen my bet is that weight and volume of food is the issue, just as it was (principally) I believe with the TV reporter's rapid thirty day deterioration in health.Perhaps I can put it this way: If JW's blood pressure is still excessively elevated when his WC/H is below 0.45 and his BMI is below 22 (these are NOT extreme levels by CR standards) then I will concede that I am wrong and that food volume is not his only issue. Does this clarify my position? Thanks for letting me know there was some ambiguity in my previous post.Rodney.

[Guest guest]

> However, you could not eat the whole hamburger. You would have to

> avoid the bun because it has hydrogenated fats. Some of the other

> foods at Mc's that have hydrogenated fats are all their

> chicken dishes (including the grilled chicken), the fried fish,

> french fries, and chocolate topping for the sundae.

You'd also have to avoid the Grill Seasoning used on all the burgers

(and probably the dressings?). It contains trans-fat. The resulting

burger is not very tasty. Thus, I don't find it worth spending the

money on anything but two or three of the Double Cheeseburgers (with

nothing on it except the veggies) for $1 each.

Logan