Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Hi folks: And I suggest that before we can sensibly define what LEVEL of CR constitutes extremism we need to have evidence indicating at what point harm occurs, or where the benefits start to diminish. (As far as I know we do not have a good fix on that yet). I say this since we presumably would not describe 50% caloric restricition as extreme **if** we had clear evidence that that was where the greatest health benefit occurs for humans. Whatever the optimal degree of restriction turns out to be (10% ...... 50% or whatever), it would not mean that everyone on CR must adhere to that degree of restriction. We could each (I know JR will like this part!) decide for ourselves, taking everything into consideration, what we feel most comfortable with. Rodney. > > > > > > Excuse me if that longwinded exposition seems like " toying " with you. The > > whole thing was meant honestly, as a set of questions I thought people could > > help me out with. You, Francesca, are the list moderator, so your comment > > strikes me as quite a rebuke--something I might entirely disregard from > > someone else. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 , what *is* " doing better than I did yesterday " ? --- In , " " <crjohnr@b...> wrote: > I am not enthusiastic about attempts to define a concise " safe " lower limit > for CR as that may become a target to meet or beat for goal oriented > individuals (how's that for a kind characterization?). There are overlapping > phenomenon some with J curves and some that continue all the way to the > grave! Another perhaps non-linear metric is safety margin for illness or > injuries which don't come in neat quantifiable packages. The good news is > we're unlikely to starve due to unavailability of food but what if we're too > sick to eat? > > I doubt anyone will come up with a simple answer that isn't based on sundry > assumptions, each capable of swinging the result. BMI is confused by LBM > and/or central adiposity, %BF may be confounded by LBM/activity, etc.... > > I am personally content to focus on doing better than I did yesterday, and > at least doing no worse. I don't mind seeing folks further out on the limb > than me, but I sure don't want to see anyone fall off. > > There already are general guidelines. If you have drifted below them, get > thee to a Dr. for testing and watch your tiny butt. > > Be well... > > JR > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@y...] > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 4:23 PM > > Subject: [ ] Re: What is extreme CR? > > > > > Hi folks: > > And I suggest that before we can sensibly define what LEVEL of CR > constitutes extremism we need to have evidence indicating at what > point harm occurs, or where the benefits start to diminish. (As far > as I know we do not have a good fix on that yet). > > I say this since we presumably would not describe 50% caloric > restricition as extreme **if** we had clear evidence that that was > where the greatest health benefit occurs for humans. > > Whatever the optimal degree of restriction turns out to be > (10% ...... 50% or whatever), it would not mean that everyone on CR > must adhere to that degree of restriction. We could each (I know JR > will like this part!) decide for ourselves, taking everything into > consideration, what we feel most comfortable with. > > Rodney. > > -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 " But I thought Dean was the example quoted here as being six feet tall and 115 pounds??? " > >> I used dean because of the pictures, the example of the 115 pound guy I guess is Rae (as this is his height and weight on the article), see the article and a video clip here, pity he isn't naked, then we would know what extreme CR really looked like. http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/13/sci-tech/calorie040513 No idea who wrote all the below, but here are my answers. So, isn't shooting for <5% or so BF what he had in mind? Is this > extreme? What purpose does more BF serve?? > I don't have a way to measure my body fat but it has been extreme by most peoples standards when I ate 1500 cals (prob 5%) - so for me body fat would be a good measure that I am hitting what Walford would see as CRON if it is done on low calories - but a person could be a marathon runer taking in 3000 calories a day and have that kind of body fact, but the cold hard truth is he/she might think they are incredibly fit but in my opinion they will not do as well in their longevity as a similar 2000 calories moderate exercise person. So why bother about bmi, body fat etc if you can simply manage to keep the calories below whatever the norm is for your height and gender? > > If you get down to 5% BF with good nutrition you are pretty much on > target, right?? > only if your calories are below the norm, if calories too high then BF means nothing for CRON as BF 5% on 3000 cals for a six foot male will not be CRON (even though it could be healthy) What if one was overweight during this period in life? The one has no ready reference to draw from. > in my case I have always been under weight so how the hell can I work out my set point ? - makes the whole set point thing a bit pointless. But low BF level is really what Dr. Walford had in mind ..> no,no,no, CR is about calories, not BF, but the two can be similar if you are not a very energetic person If you get down to 5% BF with good nutrition you are pretty much on > target, right?? > not if you consume 2500-3000 calories, then you are just a normal fir person, not a cronie.. Tony " I tend to agree with Rodney that percent of body fat may be a good indicator of where you are in CRON. " - I think that is true for me and many others, but I get the feeling some of the posters here may be doing a LOT of intense exercise which may mean they can get 5% BF on 2500-3000 cals, so for them, CRON will not work - but while talking about different body types on CR, anybody interested should try and get pics of Micky Snir, he is Mr Beefy and does it on 2000 cals just like Tony. ha, just found a picture of him : http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001789302_agecalorie s12m.html and a bigger picture of micky: http://www.crossfitnorth.com/images/4champ1004.jpg .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 Hi All, http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/toxic-foods/toxic-foods.shtml " The Caloric-Restricter's Regression Equation ALL food is ultimately toxic due to wear and tear on the metabolism. The more you eat, the less long you live, as shown by scientific studies with worms and primates. My weight is 88 lbs (just right for my height of 6'1 " ), my body temperature 95°F, my heartbeat 27 BPM, my blood pressure 40/15, and my hair's rate of growth on average 0.4 inch/month with standard deviation 0.07. Also, would you be so kind as to lift me off the scales when I am done weighing myself here? I am too weak to get off them myself, but even if I were not, the waste of energy would be certain to decrease my lifespan. " Cheers, Al Pater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.