Re: Comparative Calorie Intake

[Guest guest]

In trying to explain CRONing to others, I've tried to demonstrate that CRONing is not deprivation, but the way that many other societies naturally eat. The examples I've been using have been US vs. Japan vs. Okinawan. Does anyone know what the average calorie intakes are in these three societies?

Bernadette

[Guest guest]

" The Japanese district of Okinawa has the longest average lifespan in the

world [42] and the highest percentage of centenarians -- people living to a

100 or more -- ever documented from reliable records. [43] Consistent with

CR-induced life extension, Okinawans also eat up to 40 percent fewer

calories than Americans [44] and 17 percent fewer calories than the Japanese

average. [45] The caloric intake of Okinawan children is 36 percent below

the Japanese recommended intake. [45] And yet, satisfying a necessary

ingredient for CR-induced life extension, Okinawans have adequate nutrition.

[45] "

From Ian Goddard's website

References:

[42] Investigating the world's longest-live people. Okinawa Centenarian

Study.

[43] Willcox BJ, et al. (2001). Evidence-based Extreme Longevity: The Case

of Okinawa, Japan. Presidential Poster Session of the American Geriatrics

Society Annual Meeting.

[44] Okinawa Centenarian Study data presented at the American Geriatrics

Society annual meeting, 2001; cited by McCord H, & McVeigh G, (2002).

NutritionNews: " Magic " Appetite Shutoff from the Orient. Prevention,

January, pages 52-3.

[45] Kagawa Y. (1978). Impact of Westernization on the nutrition of

Japanese: changes in physique, cancer, longevity and centenarians.

Preventive Medicine, June, 7(2), pages 205-17.

[46] Lane MA. (1999). Nutritional modulation of aging in nonhuman primates.

Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 3(2), pages 69-76.

[47] Email response from NIA researcher Roth

(geor@...), January 1, 2002.

[48] Warshofsky F. (1999). The Methuselah Factor. Modern Maturity,

November-December.

>From: bernadettepawlik@...

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Comparative Calorie Intake

>Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:05:01 EDT

>

>In trying to explain CRONing to others, I've tried to demonstrate that

>CRONing is not deprivation, but the way that many other societies naturally

>eat.

>The examples I've been using have been US vs. Japan vs. Okinawan. Does

>anyone

>know what the average calorie intakes are in these three societies?

>

>Bernadette

[Guest guest]

" How many calories are people in the U.S. consuming?

On average— • Males consume 2,475 calories daily and females consume 1,833

calories. "

From

Total calorie intake and major sources of calories for U.S. population,

NHANES 1999–2000

>From: " Dowling " <dowlic@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Comparative Calorie Intake

>Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:56:46 +0000

>

> " The Japanese district of Okinawa has the longest average lifespan in the

>world [42] and the highest percentage of centenarians -- people living to a

>100 or more -- ever documented from reliable records. [43] Consistent with

>CR-induced life extension, Okinawans also eat up to 40 percent fewer

>calories than Americans [44] and 17 percent fewer calories than the

>Japanese

>average. [45] The caloric intake of Okinawan children is 36 percent below

>the Japanese recommended intake. [45] And yet, satisfying a necessary

>ingredient for CR-induced life extension, Okinawans have adequate

>nutrition.

>[45] "

>

>From Ian Goddard's website

>

>References:

>

>[42] Investigating the world's longest-live people. Okinawa Centenarian

>Study.

>

>[43] Willcox BJ, et al. (2001). Evidence-based Extreme Longevity: The Case

>of Okinawa, Japan. Presidential Poster Session of the American Geriatrics

>Society Annual Meeting.

>

>[44] Okinawa Centenarian Study data presented at the American Geriatrics

>Society annual meeting, 2001; cited by McCord H, & McVeigh G, (2002).

>NutritionNews: " Magic " Appetite Shutoff from the Orient. Prevention,

>January, pages 52-3.

>

>[45] Kagawa Y. (1978). Impact of Westernization on the nutrition of

>Japanese: changes in physique, cancer, longevity and centenarians.

>Preventive Medicine, June, 7(2), pages 205-17.

>

>[46] Lane MA. (1999). Nutritional modulation of aging in nonhuman primates.

>Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 3(2), pages 69-76.

>

>[47] Email response from NIA researcher Roth

>(geor@...), January 1, 2002.

>

>[48] Warshofsky F. (1999). The Methuselah Factor. Modern Maturity,

>November-December.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> >From: bernadettepawlik@...

> >Reply-

> >

> >Subject: [ ] Re: Comparative Calorie Intake

> >Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:05:01 EDT

> >

> >In trying to explain CRONing to others, I've tried to demonstrate that

> >CRONing is not deprivation, but the way that many other societies

>naturally

> >eat.

> >The examples I've been using have been US vs. Japan vs. Okinawan. Does

> >anyone

> >know what the average calorie intakes are in these three societies?

> >

> >Bernadette

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Bernadette:

I wouldn't want to go hog-wild on the Okinawa example. As I recall

they are not a good example of the benefits of CR. Whatever their

caloric intake may be, the average lifespan for males in Okinawa is

only a couple of years (perhaps three?) more than in the US. I

posted the numbers here probably six months ago from data in the

files (left margin). Both below 80, if I remember correctly.

There are a few possible ways the anomaly might be explained, either:

their caloric intake numbers are wrong; extension of maximum lifespan

by CR does not work in humans (japanese?); or the Okinawans must be

making some very big (health) mistakes (eating too much tofu? ;

^ )))).

The mice that have their calories restricted by 40% live 40% longer.

That should equate in human terms to the occasional case of people

aged 154 (110 x 1.4). Is there even a single case in Okinawa of

anyone over the age of 110? Scant evidence for extension of maximum

lifespan. Certainly there are none over 120.

I do not have the answer to this anomaly. Many months ago I posed

this question by email to Weindruch. I didn't get an answer.

All fwiw.

Rodney.

> In trying to explain CRONing to others, I've tried to demonstrate

that

> CRONing is not deprivation, but the way that many other societies

naturally eat.

> The examples I've been using have been US vs. Japan vs. Okinawan.

Does anyone

> know what the average calorie intakes are in these three societies?

>

> Bernadette

[Guest guest]

OTOH, maybe about 3 more years is all CR will yeild in humans. I believe

Aubrey de Grey has stated this is all he believes CR can do to extend life

span in humans.

>From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Comparative Calorie Intake

>Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:08:07 -0000

>

>Hi Bernadette:

>

>I wouldn't want to go hog-wild on the Okinawa example. As I recall

>they are not a good example of the benefits of CR. Whatever their

>caloric intake may be, the average lifespan for males in Okinawa is

>only a couple of years (perhaps three?) more than in the US. I

>posted the numbers here probably six months ago from data in the

>files (left margin). Both below 80, if I remember correctly.

>

>There are a few possible ways the anomaly might be explained, either:

>their caloric intake numbers are wrong; extension of maximum lifespan

>by CR does not work in humans (japanese?); or the Okinawans must be

>making some very big (health) mistakes (eating too much tofu? ;

>^ )))).

>

>The mice that have their calories restricted by 40% live 40% longer.

>That should equate in human terms to the occasional case of people

>aged 154 (110 x 1.4). Is there even a single case in Okinawa of

>anyone over the age of 110? Scant evidence for extension of maximum

>lifespan. Certainly there are none over 120.

>

>I do not have the answer to this anomaly. Many months ago I posed

>this question by email to Weindruch. I didn't get an answer.

>

>All fwiw.

>

>Rodney.

>

>

> > In trying to explain CRONing to others, I've tried to demonstrate

>that

> > CRONing is not deprivation, but the way that many other societies

>naturally eat.

> > The examples I've been using have been US vs. Japan vs. Okinawan.

>Does anyone

> > know what the average calorie intakes are in these three societies?

> >

> > Bernadette

>

[Guest guest]

De Grey on CR:

" De Grey notes, however, that the implications of Yoda's longevity

may not be much for human longevity. " Those of us who have the

misfortune to be already alive can't take advantage of the genetic

modifications that Yoda had, " he says. " We have the option to do it

the hard way, of course, by restricting our calories, but even there

it's not clear what we would gain: there is no reason why restricting

calories should give the same proportional life extension in humans

as in mice, and in fact there are good evolutionary reasons to think

it will give us only a few years at most. " "

So, maybe 3 years is all one should expect?

> > In trying to explain CRONing to others, I've tried to demonstrate

> that

> > CRONing is not deprivation, but the way that many other societies

> naturally eat.

> > The examples I've been using have been US vs. Japan vs.

Okinawan.

> Does anyone

> > know what the average calorie intakes are in these three

societies?

> >

> > Bernadette

[Guest guest]

Hi :

So three years tacked on to maximum lifespan = 113 years, plus for

most of us a fair degree of rectangularizing of the curve too,

hopefully.

But in addition there will be new technologies developed during the

years we each add to our individual lifespans via CRON, and who knows

how much further those new technologies will extend our lives. So CR

may enable us to live until we can take advantage of them. I believe

Roy Walford expressed that view - that CR is just a stepping stone to

the next major ageing innovation.

Rodney.

> > > In trying to explain CRONing to others, I've tried to

demonstrate

> >that

> > > CRONing is not deprivation, but the way that many other

societies

> >naturally eat.

> > > The examples I've been using have been US vs. Japan vs.

Okinawan.

> >Does anyone

> > > know what the average calorie intakes are in these three

societies?

> > >

> > > Bernadette

> >

[Guest guest]

> " How many calories are people in the U.S. consuming?

>

> On average- . Males consume 2,475 calories daily and females consume 1,833

> calories. "

>

>

How can that be? If:

" In the United States, the average adult man has a BMI of 26.6 and the

average adult woman has a BMI of 26.5. "

http://www.cdc.gov/od/spotlight/nwhw/pubs/overwght.htm

Or are people just lying or just simply not realizing how much they're

eating?

Jody

[Guest guest]

The last study I looked at awhile back showed the calories people

reported and remembered as having ate is a very minor difference

compared to actual calories ingested by direct measurement, so it's

ulikely to be that factor.

I think Americans eat too much insulin-spiking, nutritionally-

depleted carbohydrates in conjunction with their continuous age-onset

metabolism slowdown. They continue to eat and increase calories as

if they're sprinting gazelles instead of inactive cows in a feedlot

getting fattened up for slaughter.

Logan

> How can that be? If:

>

> " In the United States, the average adult man has a BMI of 26.6 and

the

> average adult woman has a BMI of 26.5. "

>

> http://www.cdc.gov/od/spotlight/nwhw/pubs/overwght.htm

>

> Or are people just lying or just simply not realizing how much

they're

> eating?

[Guest guest]

An average-height inactive male (5'8 " ) should consume 2,200 calories,

according to the Institute of Medicine. By consuming 275 calories

extra per day, the average couch potato can put on an extra 20 pounds

of weight per year, and as Logan states, the wrong foods can worsen

the situation.

Tony

>>>

From: " Jody Mack " <jdmac@t...>

Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 9:27 pm

Subject: Re: Comparative Calorie Intake

> " How many calories are people in the U.S. consuming?

> On average- . Males consume 2,475 calories daily and females consume

1,833

> calories. "

How can that be? If:

" In the United States, the average adult man has a BMI of 26.6 and the

average adult woman has a BMI of 26.5. "

>>>

From: " loganruns73 " <loganruns73@y...>

Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 3:39 am

I think Americans eat too much insulin-spiking, nutritionally-

depleted carbohydrates in conjunction with their continuous age-onset

metabolism slowdown. They continue to eat and increase calories as

if they're sprinting gazelles instead of inactive cows in a feedlot

getting fattened up for slaughter.

Logan

>>>

[Guest guest]

Tony wrote...>>>By consuming 275 calories extra per day, the average couch potato can put on an extra 20 pounds of weight per year, and as Logan states, the wrong foods can worsen the situation.AndLogan wrote...>>>I think Americans eat too much insulin-spiking, nutritionally- depleted carbohydratesThere are comments about this often on this list, like these 2 recent ones, that I don’t always have time to respond to them. My question is........In the absence of increasing the calorie deficit, how could "wrong foods" worsen the weight situation?Gerald Reaven, MD, who actually coined the term "Syndrome X" has served as director of the Division of Endocrinology & Metabolism & the Division of the Gerontology at Stanford University School of Medicine. He is now professor of medicine at Stanford and is the author of more then 500 scientific papers. In a recent interview with him.......Q. Does insulin resistance cause obesity, as many diet books claim?Gerad Reaven: Absolutely not. Years ago, we put people with dfferent degrees of insulin resistance on dramatically different diets - in one study carbohydrates were either 85 or 17 % of calories. The only thing that affected their wt was how many calories they ate. More recently, we have published long- term studies showing that weight gain is unrelated to how insulin resistant people were when the studies began. And weight loss with the low calories diets is also unrelated to the degree of insulin resistance. So there is not one shred of evidence that insulin resistance cause obesity or weight gain.So, outside of the popularity of the concept as promoted in many well intentioned but inaccurate fad diet books, I know of no scientific evidence supporting the above comments/claims in relation to weight and weight gain.

Does anyone else?

[Guest guest]

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

From: Jeff Novick

Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 1:50 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Comparative Calorie Intake

Tony wrote...>>>By consuming 275 calories extra per day, the average couch potato can put on an extra 20 pounds of weight per year, and as Logan states, the wrong foods can worsen the situation.AndLogan wrote...>>>I think Americans eat too much insulin-spiking, nutritionally- depleted carbohydratesThere are comments about this often on this list, like these 2 recent ones, that I don’t always have time to respond to them. My question is........In the absence of increasing the calorie deficit, how could "wrong foods" worsen the weight situation?Gerald Reaven, MD, who actually coined the term "Syndrome X" has served as director of the Division of Endocrinology & Metabolism & the Division of the Gerontology at Stanford University School of Medicine. He is now professor of medicine at Stanford and is the author of more then 500 scientific papers. In a recent interview with him.......Q. Does insulin resistance cause obesity, as many diet books claim?Gerad Reaven: Absolutely not. Years ago, we put people with dfferent degrees of insulin resistance on dramatically different diets - in one study carbohydrates were either 85 or 17 % of calories. The only thing that affected their wt was how many calories they ate. More recently, we have published long- term studies showing that weight gain is unrelated to how insulin resistant people were when the studies began. And weight loss with the low calories diets is also unrelated to the degree of insulin resistance. So there is not one shred of evidence that insulin resistance cause obesity or weight gain.So, outside of the popularity of the concept as promoted in many well intentioned but inaccurate fad diet books, I know of no scientific evidence supporting the above comments/claims in relation to weight and weight gain.

Does anyone else?

Thanks for that tidbit.

NO.

I think a human can eat anything that doesn't eat him first. And if he eats too much he gains weight over time, although he may not absorb, in fact he can't absorb everything he might eat. There has to be limitations on absorption like any chemical process - a function of enzyme production, and receptors capabilty to absorb it, etc.

The odd thing I've noticed is that a change in the level of intake is not immediately met with weight increases/decreases - it might take several years after increasing intake 1000 kcals. Then when I'm overweight it will take several months of undereating to start reducing.

But I seriously doubt the average American male eats less than 3000 kcals per day. I mean that's only 3 1500 kcal meals (ha).

Regards

[Guest guest]

>> Thanks for that tidbit.

Here is one more on the same topic about some of these claims from some

best selling diet book that have become very popular but have no

scientific support....

.

" There Is No Evidence That a Higher Protein Intake With A Protein to

Carbohydrate to Fat Ratio of 40/30/30 Reduces Insulin Response & May

Potentially Produce a larger Response. The Scientific Literature Is

In The Opposition To The Purported Benefits Of The Zone Diet For

Improved Health. "

S. . Cheuvront, PhD, RD. The Zone Diet Phenomenon:A Closer Look At The

Science Behind The Claims. Journal Of The American College Of

Nutrition., Vol. 22, No. 1, 9-17 (2003)

[Guest guest]

No, but that isn't the (or my) issue with insulin.

When I say " insulin-spiking carbohydrates " I mean exactly this:

calories consumed in such a form along with fat shifts the body

composition towards increasing fat mass rather than muscle mass, at

least for the 4-6 hour or so window after ingestion. The more

calories eaten in this combination, the worse the body composition

will become. Excess calories will accelerate the situation.

If you don't eat excess calories and don't get visibly fatter such as

with vegaterians/vegans, you'll get Type II diabetes instead. Either

way, it's a no-win situation to eat the garbage.

Logan

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

wrote:

> So, outside of the popularity of the concept as promoted in many

well

> intentioned but inaccurate fad diet books, I know of no scientific

> evidence supporting the above comments/claims in relation to

weight and

> weight gain.

>

> Does anyone else?

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

wrote:

> Here is one more on the same topic about some of these claims from

some

> best selling diet book that have become very popular but have no

> scientific support....

Hi All,

Please see:

J Am Coll Nutr. 2003 Feb;22(1):9-17.

The Zone Diet phenomenon: a closer look at the science behind the

claims.

Cheuvront SN.

The purported health benefits of low-carbohydrate diets have been

advocated intermittently over the last century and have enjoyed

increasing popularity over the last decade. Although most revolve

around the emphatic theme that carbohydrates are to blame for many

chronic diseases, their specific ideologies are more variable and in

some cases quite sophisticated. The Zone Diet phenomenon represents a

new generation of modern low carbohydrate food fad with sales placing

it among the most popular diet books in recent history. The Zone is a

40% carbohydrate, 30% protein and 30% fat eating plan that advocates

only sparing use of grains and starches. The precise 0.75 protein to

carbohydrate ratio required with each meal is promoted to reduce the

insulin to glucagon ratio, which purportedly affects eicosanoid

metabolism and ultimately produces a cascade of biological events

leading to a reduction in chronic disease risk, enhanced immunity,

maximal physical and mental performance, increased longevity and

permanent weight loss. There is presently little scientific support

for the connections made between diet, endocrinology and eicosanoid

metabolism. In fact, a review of the literature suggests that there

are scientific contradictions in the Zone Diet hypothesis that cast

unquestionable doubt on its potential efficacy. The purpose of this

review is to evaluate the scientific merit of the Zone Diet and its

health claims in an effort to help delineate what is and what is not

sound nutrition science.

PMID: 12569110 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Cheers, Al Pater.

[Guest guest]

And your credible scientific sources for these statements?

on 8/26/2004 9:03 PM, loganruns73 at loganruns73@... wrote:

> No, but that isn't the (or my) issue with insulin.

>

> When I say " insulin-spiking carbohydrates " I mean exactly this:

> calories consumed in such a form along with fat shifts the body

> composition towards increasing fat mass rather than muscle mass, at

> least for the 4-6 hour or so window after ingestion. The more

> calories eaten in this combination, the worse the body composition

> will become. Excess calories will accelerate the situation.

>

> If you don't eat excess calories and don't get visibly fatter such as

> with vegaterians/vegans, you'll get Type II diabetes instead. Either

> way, it's a no-win situation to eat the garbage.

>

> Logan

>

>

>> So, outside of the popularity of the concept as promoted in many

> well

>> intentioned but inaccurate fad diet books, I know of no scientific

>> evidence supporting the above comments/claims in relation to

> weight and

>> weight gain.

>>

>> Does anyone else?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jeff,

You assumed that I meant that the " wrong foods " worsen the *weight*

situation, whereas I meant that the wrong foods worsen the health

situation. When people eat the " insulin-spiking,

nutritionally-depleted carbohydrates " like sugar coated doughnuts or

Mc's fries, they are also ingesting trans fats from the

hydrogenated oils that these foods are fried in. I don't think

anybody doubts that trans fats are bad for health with the studies

done by Willett(1) and everyone who has followed him. Have you looked

at food labels lately? It is almost impossible to find crackers,

pastries, candy bars, peanut butter, and prepared foods (TV dinners)

that do not have hydrogenated fats. The latest ploy by manufacturers

is to avoid listing fats (triglycerides) in the labels by adding

" mono- and diglycerides " , which may be produced by partial

hydrogenation and bypass FDA regulations to keep consumers in the dark

about what they are eating.

We were discussing average people who eat 2475 calories a day of

products from supermarket shelves and are overeating by 275 calories

per day because they don't exercise. Will they get fat? Yes. Is

their health worse because they are eating the wrong foods? Yes. It

is not as if they are eating 275 calories extra of leafy green

vegetables. They are eating foods that will damage their

cardiovascular system and make them more prone to heart attacks, etc.

I did not think that we were discussing the question of whether you

were going to gain more weight by eating 275 calories of lettuce or

275 calories of doughnuts. We are not trying to redefine the laws of

biochemistry or the laws of thermodynamics.

Tony.

1) Willett WC, Ascherio A. Trans fatty acids: Are the effects only

marginal? Am J Public Health 1994; 84:722-724.

>>>

From: " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:50 pm

Subject: Re: Comparative Calorie Intake

Tony wrote...

>>>By consuming 275 calories extra per day, the average couch potato

can put on an extra 20 pounds of weight per year, and as Logan states,

the wrong foods can worsen the situation.

My question is........In the absence of increasing the calorie

deficit, how could " wrong foods " worsen the weight situation?

>>>

[Guest guest]

>>If you don't eat excess calories and don't get visibly fatter such as with

vegaterians/vegans, you'll get Type II diabetes instead.

Most data I see on vegetarians/vegans such they have " less " incidence of Type II

DBs, especially if the dont eat excess calories and/or dont get fat.

[Guest guest]

>>You assumed that I meant that the " wrong foods " worsen the *weight* situation,

whereas I meant that the wrong foods worsen the health

situation.

Your right. I agree, it wont effect " weight " but it can effect health. Sorry.

[Guest guest]

Well, I read all of you know who's books and couldn't figure out how to do the zone, because it centered around 1500 kcals and I needed 1800, and he doesn't include the protein in veggies in the magic ratio. So I was left wondering at the time, how to do it. I even talked to people face-to-face that were doing it and losing weight which was their prime objective, but not, I think the author's objective. (silly, of course the authors objective is/was to sell books). But I couldn't figure out what those people were doing either - seemed closer to atkin's.

Anyway, perusing all the great literature (which does not include common library books), I found diets that spanned from a 75% carbo all the way to atkin's. It occurred to me that no one could know what the right diet is, if they couldn't have reached a concensus in the 100 yrs since dr Kellogg.

So I found my own diet.

The "ideal" diet, if there is one has got to be close to DASH, Ornish.

But controlling weight and hopefully longevity has to be caloric intake. If I spend too much of my 1800 kcals on protein I lose weight and have to eat more calories to hold it.

I just like 56 grams for me to hold 175# at 1800 kcals (actually 1770 today with minimum exercise). That's about 12% P, 27% F, 61% C. Even with a lot of veggies and fruit, that C has to be supplied by rice or corn or potatoes.

Regards.

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

From: Jeff Novick

Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 6:02 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Comparative Calorie Intake

>> Thanks for that tidbit. Here is one more on the same topic about some of these claims from somebest selling diet book that have become very popular but have noscientific support....."There Is No Evidence That a Higher Protein Intake With A Protein toCarbohydrate to Fat Ratio of 40/30/30 Reduces Insulin Response & MayPotentially Produce a larger Response. The Scientific Literature IsIn The Opposition To The Purported Benefits Of The Zone Diet ForImproved Health."S. . Cheuvront, PhD, RD. The Zone Diet Phenomenon:A Closer Look At TheScience Behind The Claims. Journal Of The American College OfNutrition., Vol. 22, No. 1, 9-17 (2003)

[Guest guest]

Even the " junk food " vegetarians/vegans?

Logan

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

wrote:

> >>If you don't eat excess calories and don't get visibly fatter

such as with vegaterians/vegans, you'll get Type II diabetes

instead.

>

> Most data I see on vegetarians/vegans such they have " less "

incidence of Type II DBs, especially if the dont eat excess calories

and/or dont get fat.

[Guest guest]

What happens to your weight if you eat double the RDA in protein but

decrease fat intake as opposed to carbs for the same number of total

calories as before? Are you saying the increased thermogenic effect

of protein is the culprit past a certain point?

So in other words, the majority of your carbs are high-insulinic

which helps support your weight, via either your body fat and/or

halting catabolism. What would happen (or has happened) to your

weight if you substituted only low-insulinic carbs for the same

amount of total calories as before?

Logan

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

> But controlling weight and hopefully longevity has to be caloric

intake. If I spend too much of my 1800 kcals on protein I lose weight

and have to eat more calories to hold it.

> I just like 56 grams for me to hold 175# at 1800 kcals (actually

1770 today with minimum exercise). That's about 12% P, 27% F, 61% C.

Even with a lot of veggies and fruit, that C has to be supplied by

rice or corn or potatoes.

[Guest guest]

" Administration of exogenous insulin, which acts as an anabolic

factor, facilitates adipogenesis. " [PMID: 15297448]

" Insulin is a potent inducer of adipogenesis, and differentiation of

adipocytes requires many components of the insulin signaling pathway,

including the insulin receptor substrate IRS-1 and

phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K). " [PMID: 12807888]

" Insulin is a potent adipogenic hormone that triggers an induction of

a series of transcription factors governing differentiation of pre-

adipocytes into mature adipocytes. " [PMID: 11375992]

" Insulin promotes adipocyte differentiation via a complex signaling

network involving multiple insulin receptor substrates (IRSs). "

[PMID: 14966273]

" Although insulin regulates metabolism in both brown and white

adipocytes, the role of these tissues in energy storage and

utilization is quite different. " [PMID: 11602628]

" The effect of insulin on adipogenesis, both with and without TEA,

was analysed. Four days without insulin and three days with insulin

were necessary to increase the total number of cells in culture by

2.5-fold. Insulin increased the number of differentiated cells by

73.5%. " [PMID: 12176669]

> >> So, outside of the popularity of the concept as promoted in many

> > well

> >> intentioned but inaccurate fad diet books, I know of no

scientific

> >> evidence supporting the above comments/claims in relation to

> > weight and

> >> weight gain.

> >>

> >> Does anyone else?

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

My fat intake is low in any case. Lower than 30 % all the time, most of the time lower than 25%, many times less than 20%. The times fat would be higher is if I'm eating more walnuts, avocados, etc. On a day when my fat intake would be very low like 5%, I would add a tbls of soy to bring it up to ~20%.

Assuming you mean .8 grams per kg = .8 * 175/2.2 = 64 grams Protein RDA, if I doubled that to 128, I'd begin to have a lot of gas. Indicates a lot of pro wasted to bacteria in the gut, to me. Not a useful case, IMO for me.

The effect, as I recall, was stated as thermo something but it really means to me that the body wastes some percentage in converting the pro to glucose. It is a significant effect for weight loss, but it raises the caloric intake for a given weight - no CR friendly, IMO.

I feel "warmer" eating higher pro, something I maybe would rather not do, but it's more comfortable at times than feeling cold.

So those are the reasons behind the "effects" but one still has to find the optimal intake for his body. Mine is not high pro. Bear in mind that I don't force myself to believe or do anything that has been written down for hundreds of years and analyzed to death. A lot of things don't work on my body.

It takes some experimentation to find the best food intake. Mine just happens to be carbos instead of fat, and 56 grams pro.

I can't substitute "low insulinic" carbs for "high insulinic" carbs - oil yes. If I ate 8 pounds of romaine, I'd still need 1200 kcals energy from rice or oil. So the energy is always going to be "high insulinic" or high fat - your choice. I don't do high fat.

Regards.

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

From: loganruns73

Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 12:00 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Comparative Calorie Intake

What happens to your weight if you eat double the RDA in protein but decrease fat intake as opposed to carbs for the same number of total calories as before? Are you saying the increased thermogenic effect of protein is the culprit past a certain point?So in other words, the majority of your carbs are high-insulinic which helps support your weight, via either your body fat and/or halting catabolism. What would happen (or has happened) to your weight if you substituted only low-insulinic carbs for the same amount of total calories as before?Logan