RE: Who is Caloric Restriction?

August 1, 2004

Perhaps this is an opportunity to better define or clarify the goals and

appropriate discussions for the sundry CR lists.

I am familiar with Dean Pomerleau and Rae. While I wouldn't

characterize either as moderate I'm not ready to label either as fanatical.

I consider both to be in honest pursuit of scientific knowledge and how it

relates to practice of CR.

I will leave it to Francesca to define where the " support " list fits in the

grand scheme of all things " CR " , but I agree it is probably not " the " forum

for rehashing technical questions that have been previously well explored on

the science list. While CR may be fresh and new to many, the classic

questions (like " how " ) have been explored for years. While I don't pretend

all (or any) of the answer are final, these issues have been long debated by

wiser than I.

JR

PS: for the record I hold Dean and in high regard. Both are more

rigorous than I in research before making posts and in general conservative

about offering advice. They have both advanced our understanding of CR

science greatly.

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

From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@...]

Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 8:26 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] What is Caloric Restriction?

My point is that that we don't all hold in such awe that we take

every word he speaks as gospel. As said recently (something

like): " If you think you know everything about CR or the human body,

you're just kidding yourself " : (or something like that).

Both Dean and are (or at least used to be) quite fanatical in their

CR agendas - by their own definitions. That alone is a turn off for me (and

probably a few others). But of course we won't know who's right for a long

time (unless some of us get sick or drop dead before that).

on 8/1/2004 6:07 AM, Dowling at dowlic@... wrote:

> True, Francesca, it would be more direct of me to directly quote the study

> or analysis thereof that led to 's statement, rather than quote

him.

> I do think, however, that much of what members of other CR organizations

> have offered regarding information pertinent to CR is rather relevant to

us

> all.

August 2, 2004

I have an old e-mail in my archives which states that is 6 feet tall

and weighs 115 lbs (unless he's gained some weight since then). What would

it take to be fanatical? (A rhetorical question).

on 8/1/2004 10:59 AM, john roberts at johnhrob@... wrote:

> I am familiar with Dean Pomerleau and Rae. While I wouldn't

> characterize either as moderate I'm not ready to label either as fanatical.

> I consider both to be in honest pursuit of scientific knowledge and how it

> relates to practice of CR.

>

August 2, 2004

Hi folks:

I guess it is nice to have people like that around. Makes me think

of the canaries in the coal mine.

Rodney.

>

> > I am familiar with Dean Pomerleau and Rae. While I

wouldn't

> > characterize either as moderate I'm not ready to label either as

fanatical.

> > I consider both to be in honest pursuit of scientific knowledge

and how it

> > relates to practice of CR.

> >

August 2, 2004

I guess I was reacting to what seemed (to me) like a pejorative

characterization of an individual who wasn't even posting here. I guess we

could " all " be considered fanatical for actually considering eating " less "

food than normal.

I consider 115 @ 6' well below what I would personally be comfortable with,

but as long as he is healthy, and afaik his practice hasn't led to ER

visits, I respect his right to pursue his beliefs and perhaps in so doing

expand our knowledge of what the practical limits may be.

I consider like the strict mentor who doesn't suffer fools kindly

but is willing to share what he knows with those willing to present

thoughtful questions. I don't know or care what he weighs as long as he

lives longer than me and I can continue to benefit from his knowledge.

I very much appreciate the work you do here, I also see value in the other

list(s).

JR

FWIW I have actively lobbied at least one individual who does appear to be

hurting himself with his version of CR (without apparent success).

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

From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@...]

Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 8:00 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Who is Caloric Restriction?

I have an old e-mail in my archives which states that is 6 feet tall

and weighs 115 lbs (unless he's gained some weight since then). What would

it take to be fanatical? (A rhetorical question).

________________________________________________________

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@...

________________________________________________________

August 2, 2004

I have a son 6-2 175# - he's skinny - naturally.

Son-in-law 6-1 175# - he's skinny - naturally.

Another son 6' - always been 135# - skinny - naturally.

Another son got up to 225# - not skinny - not "fat" - presses 350#. Now 204# - still presses a lot. He's a big guy - not the biggest, but nobody messes with him (except women). That's important to some guys.

I was 234# fat, now a sure 175# as of this morning. Not skinny ( I used to be) - not fat - I can pick up MR AND Dean and I can carry Dean up the stairs easily (not bad for 68yo?). It's all about what you want your body to be.

I kinda like Micky who is proud of his physique, and does it on CR.

I heard a guy , this morning on CSP2 - Weiner, a Princeton scientist, talking about his book "His Brothers Keeper". He was emphatic about how complicated things get at the cellular level (that in 2004).

We're only scratching the surface on knowledge of the human body. No one can be a guru yet. And this health nut business has been going on to my recollection, since 1947 when Gaylord Houser first appeared on TV. He was instrumental in the demise of my aunt at 59yo, who thought he was an expert. Perhaps that's why I'm so critical of the "experts".

Regards.

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

From: Francesca Skelton

Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 8:00 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Who is Caloric Restriction?

I have an old e-mail in my archives which states that is 6 feet talland weighs 115 lbs (unless he's gained some weight since then). What wouldit take to be fanatical? (A rhetorical question).on 8/1/2004 10:59 AM, john roberts at johnhrob@... wrote:> I am familiar with Dean Pomerleau and Rae. While I wouldn't> characterize either as moderate I'm not ready to label either as fanatical.> I consider both to be in honest pursuit of scientific knowledge and how it> relates to practice of CR.>

October 18, 2004

Why would you be uncomfortable at this height/weight ratio if you knew

you were on right track with your CRON?

I ask becuase I don't know.

--- In , " john roberts " <johnhrob@n...>

wrote:

> I guess I was reacting to what seemed (to me) like a pejorative

> characterization of an individual who wasn't even posting here. I

guess we

> could " all " be considered fanatical for actually considering eating

" less "

> food than normal.

>

> I consider 115 @ 6' well below what I would personally be

comfortable with,

> but as long as he is healthy, and afaik his practice hasn't led to ER

> visits, I respect his right to pursue his beliefs and perhaps in so

doing

> expand our knowledge of what the practical limits may be.

>

October 19, 2004

Hi Chris:

Because weighing 115 pounds at six foot tall will seem excessively

thin to many people, including me.

Rodney.

> > I guess I was reacting to what seemed (to me) like a pejorative

> > characterization of an individual who wasn't even posting here. I

> guess we

> > could " all " be considered fanatical for actually considering

eating

> " less "

> > food than normal.

> >

> > I consider 115 @ 6' well below what I would personally be

> comfortable with,

> > but as long as he is healthy, and afaik his practice hasn't led

to ER

> > visits, I respect his right to pursue his beliefs and perhaps in

so

> doing

> > expand our knowledge of what the practical limits may be.

> >

October 19, 2004

Practicing CRAN if we are correct in our assumptions promises to slow aging.

The relationship appears to be pretty linear with more restriction resulting

in slower aging and longer " potential " lifespan. OTOH modest restriction

promises significant benefit in squaring the curve or not killing your self

fast.

About the only downside to modest restriction is that you can't eat

unlimited jelly donuts a non-issue since the vast majority of foods that

made me fat just aren't that appealing anymore. I enjoy eating well a few

times a year. When I do splurge I don't spend the calories I now value

highly on mediocre meals.

Regarding degree of restriction, while eating less and less calories can

drive the body into an even more hungry survival mode there are numerous

strategies to manage that. The real issue for me is philosophical or

perspective.

An interesting mental exercise is to ask yourself what would you do if you

knew you only had 1 day to live (hello jelly donuts). Than ask yourself the

same question for 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? There is not a right or wrong

answer to this exercise, but it should reveal things you really want to do

but have postponed for whatever reason. Now the kicker to this, is the fact

we may actually die tomorrow (me while jogging :-)... but guess what. I

can't think of a much better way to die that doesn't involve a pretty young

blond movie starlet.... oops sorry.

I am trying to hedge my bets. Live my life so if I do die tomorrow I have no

regrets, but not incur any physical debt today my body can't easily pay when

I don't die tomorrow. I recall my shock when I lived past 40. I now

appreciate that I could live twice that or more, but I am not skipping my

Thursday basketball game because of how my knees " may " feel at 100, or

allowing my weight/strength to drop so low I can no longer compensate for

competitors' size advantage while playing ball by knocking down the outside

shot or out-hustling the usually out of breath ad-libbers I match up with.

I'm a few weeks away from 56YO and I don't expect to compete against players

as young as HS forever, but I'm sure going to try.

I am aware of one CR'd individual who started out with my height (5'10 " ) and

has restricted himself down below 100 lbs. He has even lost a few inches of

height in the process. I see that as a clear example of where I could be if

I chose extreme CR. For right now I feel the cost of carrying some 50 more

pounds is well worth the price in the QOL I enjoy from them. Who knows how

I'll feel tomorrow, that's another day.

You must find your own path, as you will have different goals and sources of

pleasure.

JR

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

From: chrisjohns2 [mailto:chrisjohns2@...]

Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 5:38 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Who is Caloric Restriction?

Why would you be uncomfortable at this height/weight ratio if you knew

you were on right track with your CRON?

I ask becuase I don't know.

--- In , " john roberts " <johnhrob@n...>

wrote:

> I guess I was reacting to what seemed (to me) like a pejorative

> characterization of an individual who wasn't even posting here. I

guess we

> could " all " be considered fanatical for actually considering eating

" less "

> food than normal.

>

> I consider 115 @ 6' well below what I would personally be

comfortable with,

> but as long as he is healthy, and afaik his practice hasn't led to ER

> visits, I respect his right to pursue his beliefs and perhaps in so

doing

> expand our knowledge of what the practical limits may be.

>

October 19, 2004

I would say it doesn't just "seem" excessively thin. It may very well be. I calculate that to be a BMI of about 16.53. He may be a bit higher than that, but he is clearly under 17. Bone mass issues come into play before this level, don't they? Also, what about heart muscle mass? Seems a bit dangerous . . .

Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote:

Hi Chris:Because weighing 115 pounds at six foot tall will seem excessively thin to many people, including me.Rodney.> > I guess I was reacting to what seemed (to me) like a pejorative> > characterization of an individual who wasn't even posting here. I> guess we> > could "all" be considered fanatical for actually considering eating> "less"> > food than normal.> > > > I consider 115 @ 6' well

below what I would personally be> comfortable with,> > but as long as he is healthy, and afaik his practice hasn't led to ER> > visits, I respect his right to pursue his beliefs and perhaps in so> doing> > expand our knowledge of what the practical limits may be.> >__________________________________________________

October 19, 2004

Hi folks:

The mice that are put on 40% CR weigh about 50% less than those that

are fully fed, and live about 40% longer. Presumably this is not

translatable to humans. But if it were translatable, can many of us

imagine ourselves weighing 50% less than our set points? GULP!

So perhaps in comparison with the CR mice 115 pounds at 6 foot is not

much out of line. But I would want to see a few more canaries out

there before I would try a 50% weight reduction. In my case I would

have a BMI of 12.3! I seem to remember that that is the level

associated with death from starvation in famines.

Rodney.

> > > I guess I was reacting to what seemed (to me) like a pejorative

> > > characterization of an individual who wasn't even posting here.

I

> > guess we

> > > could " all " be considered fanatical for actually considering

> eating

> > " less "

> > > food than normal.

> > >

> > > I consider 115 @ 6' well below what I would personally be

> > comfortable with,

> > > but as long as he is healthy, and afaik his practice hasn't led

> to ER

> > > visits, I respect his right to pursue his beliefs and perhaps

in

> so

> > doing

> > > expand our knowledge of what the practical limits may be.

> > >

>

October 19, 2004

Correction: I calculate the BMI to be 15.63, a bit under 16. That is quite thin indeed.

I know some people can't help it, even at very moderate calorie restriction, but I wouldn't want to get there myself.

Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote:

Hi folks:The mice that are put on 40% CR weigh about 50% less than those that are fully fed, and live about 40% longer. Presumably this is not translatable to humans. But if it were translatable, can many of us imagine ourselves weighing 50% less than our set points? GULP!So perhaps in comparison with the CR mice 115 pounds at 6 foot is not much out of line. But I would want to see a few more canaries out there before I would try a 50% weight reduction. In my case I would have a BMI of 12.3! I seem to remember that that is the level associated with death from starvation in famines.Rodney.> > > I guess I was reacting

to what seemed (to me) like a pejorative> > > characterization of an individual who wasn't even posting here. I> > guess we> > > could "all" be considered fanatical for actually considering > eating> > "less"> > > food than normal.> > > > > > I consider 115 @ 6' well below what I would personally be> > comfortable with,> > > but as long as he is healthy, and afaik his practice hasn't led > to ER> > > visits, I respect his right to pursue his beliefs and perhaps in > so> > doing> > > expand our knowledge of what the practical limits may be.> > >> > > > >

October 19, 2004

Another possible consideration is that animals CR'd from birth or before

will attain less stature and will have a smaller frame. In absolute caloric

terms the smaller critter may not be as restricted. A human CR'd from birth

may not grow to 6'. This is a complex issue with many considerations.

IMO the bottom line still remains QOL. What is the point of extending life

if we are not living it fully? Postponing present for future gratification

is a characteristic of higher level though, but I wouldn't forgo a vital

middle age for some hypothetical golden years. We should be able to have our

cake and not eat it too..

YMMV

JR

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

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

Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 3:16 PM