Re: Nutritional Equilibrium

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

VERY interesting stuff.

In addition to pointing out that the percentage of weight lost that

is lean body mass increases as weight and body fat decrease, Forbes'

data also seem to suggest that it is essential, after body fat

percentage drops to 15%, to lose weight SLOWLY. I.E. to run only a

small caloric deficit.

The reason is that Forbes also found, apparently, that you lose more

lean body mass when weight is lost rapidly than if weight loss is

slow.

Lose weight slowly and most of the loss is fat. Lose weight rapidly

and much of the weight lost is muscle, etc. that you do not want to

lose.

So what kind of numbers are we talking about here for weight loss

from 15% BF% down? Half a pound a week? Quarter pound per week?

One tenth of a pound per week?

This is a new perspective to me and much appreciated, Tony. Thanks.

I had been getting a bit impatient to get down to BF = 10% and had

been thinking of doing it more quickly. This has persuaded me to do

it EVEN more slowly.

'Mother Francesca' was right, again!

Rodney.

>

> wrote an insightful message about CR and the process of

> achieving nutritional equilibrium. I have tried to crunch some

> numbers in a spreadsheet in order to get a better perspective of

what

> is in store for us.

>

> >>>===Message 15853

> From: " " <crjohnr@b...>

> Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:05 pm

> Subject: RE: Osteoporosis in CRON

> ... If we accept as a given that CR involves energy restriction

below

> some poorly defined prior equilibrium point ( " set-point " ), a

sustained

> energy deficit will consume energy stores typically adipose. CR

> involving significant " R " and of adequate duration will not only

> deplete such energy stores, but at some point also consume LBM. We

are

> aware of cases where improper dieting led to dangerous loss of heart

> muscle, even properly executed there is expectation that adult onset

> of significant CR will result in remodeling of LBM.

> ... I would be surprised if low, but adequate %BF is not one such

> mechanism. While it also appears obvious that adequate raw materials

> must be ingested to support LBM at whatever equilibrium level after

> remodeling. If we don't support maintenance and we can't remodel

> lower, we will suffer systemic failures in bone integrity, organ

> function, or in extremis life. I recall one CR'd individual who

> reports losing inches of height.

>

> JR 55YO/22BMI/10%BF

> >>>

>

> In Message 14169 I posted equations to predict Lean Mass gain and

> loss. The equations are important to bodybuilders because they want

> to maximize muscle growth and decrease the percentage of body fat.

> The equations are applicable to people practicing CR because they

> provide some perspective on the weight-loss process. Notice that

the

> formula requires weights in Kg). In my spreadsheet I converted the

> formulas to pounds.

>

> Lean Mass Gain/Weight Gain = 10.4/(10.4 + initial fat weight (kg))

>

> Lean Mass Loss/Weight Loss = 10.4/(10.4 + initial fat weight (kg))

>

> If your initial weight is 140 lb, and you lose ten pounds, the

amount

> of lean body mass that you lose increases as your percentage of body

> fat decreases.

>

> At 15% Body Fat, over half of the weight that you lose is lean body

> mass (~52%).

>

> At 10% Body Fat, 62% of the weight that you lose is LBM.

>

> %BF . . . . lb LBM loss (%)

> 30 . . . . . 3.53 (35.3%)

> 25 . . . . . 3.95 (39.5%)

> 20 . . . . . 4.50 (45.0%)

> 15 . . . . . 5.21 (52.1%)

> 10 . . . . . 6.20 (62.0%)

> 5 . . . . . 7.66 (76.6%)

>

> When I compared these percentages with my own losses in body weight

> and %BF calculated by the Navy method, the results were within a few

> percent of the actual numbers.

>

> It is beneficial to know that once you get down to 15 percent

> body fat, any further weight losses will start to affect your

muscles,

> although I recognize that not all lean body mass is muscle.

>

> Seniors who exercise build muscle and strength that enable them to

> live more independent lives. But wouldn't it be better to conserve

> the muscles that we have by not dieting too agressively?

>

> Tony

>

> http://nihseniorhealth.gov/exercise/benefitsofexercise/03.html

> Transcript: " Why Older Adults Should Exercise "

>

> J. Hodes, M.D.

> Director, National Institute on Aging:

>

> It's much more than okay for older people to exercise. And

> importantly, that is a conviction that is based not just on

intuition

> but as a result of a good deal of research over the past years. It

was

> judged that exercise was too dangerous, too vigorous and that older

> people, because of frailty, were more likely to be injured or

damaged

> by exercise. However, a number of well-conducted, controlled studies

> have shown that a variety of exercises are not only safe for older

> people but have enormous advantage. This includes aerobic exercise

> that is good for conditioning of heart and lungs as well as rather

> vigorous weight training, (Hodes does bicep curls) which has shown

the

> ability in people in their sixties, seventies, eighties, and even

> nineties, to significantly increase muscle mass, most importantly,

> muscle strength, and most importantly of all, to translate that

> increase in strength into the ability to carry out functions of

daily

> living; to climb stairs, to shop, to carry packages. Things that are

> important to maintaining independence and health throughout the

> lifespan.

[Guest guest]

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

Date: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:50 pm

Subject: Re: Nutritional Equilibrium

In addition to pointing out that the percentage of weight lost that

is lean body mass increases as weight and body fat decrease, Forbes'

data also seem to suggest that it is essential, after body fat

percentage drops to 15%, to lose weight SLOWLY. I.E. to run only a

small caloric deficit.

The reason is that Forbes also found, apparently, that you lose more

lean body mass when weight is lost rapidly than if weight loss is

slow.

Lose weight slowly and most of the loss is fat. Lose weight rapidly

and much of the weight lost is muscle, etc. that you do not want to

lose.

So what kind of numbers are we talking about here for weight loss

from 15% BF% down? Half a pound a week? Quarter pound per week?

One tenth of a pound per week?

>>>

Rodney,

I think a better question would be: " How do you know when to stop

restricting calories to lose weight and start eating to

maintain weight? " (Thereby achieving Nutritional Equilibrium)

To me, the answer of when to stop CR and start maintenance seems to be

the point at which CR eliminates more lean body mass than fat. If

this point is 15% BF for a male, so be it. In my case, I have

stablized at 13.2% BF on 2000 kcal. However, my BMI is 23.0, which

for hard-core CRONers is too high. As long as I keep up an exercise

schedule that stimulates muscle growth, I don't think that my BMI will

drop. I think that without the exercise my %BF might be higher. To

get a BMI of 22 I would have to lose 6 pounds, 4 of which would be

lean body mass. I cannot justify that from anything that I have read.

Right now, I am on a maintenance schedule. If I lose weight and start

feeling hungry, I increase my calories for a several meals. If I gain

weight, I cut back. I check the scale every day to see the trends.

It is a dynamic equilibrium.

Tony

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

Yes, it is difficult to decide at what level to 'level out'. I

certainly don't pretend to have an answer and we will not have

conclusive data for humans, or even monkeys, for a very long time,

especially because it presumably varies with age of onset. You may

be right about 13.2% being the right place, although my target is

still, for now, 10% ....... SLOWLY.

Some people here, I think including , will say that in

animals the benefits continue to accrue all the way down to 60% fewer

calories. But that may not apply to humans, and may apply even less

to humans who start CRON long after weaning or puberty, or at age 50,

or whatever.

There are some data that show sizeable reductions (40%?) in calories

produce considerable benefits even at the equivalent of age 60, but

in mice (Mattson? or was it Spindler?) and fruit flies (University

College, London, UK) not humans. Warren has also posted a chart here

that shows data from a number of different studies that suggests

increasing benefits to 50% CR, and somewhat beyond, in animals. That

is why we all have so much to be thankful for to the 'canaries', many

of whom are participants here. Of course to some extent we are all

canaries. Or will eventually be.

Thanks guys/girls (the canaries).

Rodney.

> I think a better question would be: " How do you know when to stop

> restricting calories to lose weight and start eating to

> maintain weight? " (Thereby achieving Nutritional Equilibrium)

>

> To me, the answer of when to stop CR and start maintenance seems to

be

> the point at which CR eliminates more lean body mass than fat. If

> this point is 15% BF for a male, so be it. In my case, I have

> stablized at 13.2% BF on 2000 kcal. However, my BMI is 23.0, which

> for hard-core CRONers is too high. As long as I keep up an exercise

> schedule that stimulates muscle growth, I don't think that my BMI

will

> drop. I think that without the exercise my %BF might be higher. To

> get a BMI of 22 I would have to lose 6 pounds, 4 of which would be

> lean body mass. I cannot justify that from anything that I have

read.

>

> Right now, I am on a maintenance schedule. If I lose weight and

start

> feeling hungry, I increase my calories for a several meals. If I

gain

> weight, I cut back. I check the scale every day to see the trends.

> It is a dynamic equilibrium.

>

> Tony