Dr. Walford's caution about severe restriction

[Guest guest]

Recently Rodney asked where Dr Walford stated that severe calorie

restriction was not a good idea. While cleaning out my mailbox I came upon

an old post citing more sections in BT120YDiet than was posted a few weeks

ago in answer to Rodney:

----------

From: Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...>

Reply-

Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 12:45:05 -0400

< >

Subject: Re: [ ]Dr. Walford's caution about severe restriction

Suz, Micky and all: I have found some passages in which Dr. W does caution

against extremism. In fact he seems, if anything, much more conservative

than even I would expect:

1) in BT120YD, on page 43, Dr Walford mentions that the Biospherans were on

a " severly reduced-calorie diet " ...... This however, is nowhere near what

we would expect " severly restricted " to be. From Anti-Aging Plan pg 19 -

the Biospherans diet (and Dr W's notion of severly restricted) was : " 1800

calories per person for the first five or six months, gradually increasing

to 2200 by the end of the two year period " .

2) On page 19 of " Anti-Aging Plan " Dr W states clearly in italics:

" ........Any greater restriction (than 20%) may have dangerous adverse

effects on your health and is not recommended and 20% is only safe if you

are very careful about quality food. "

on 9/4/2002 11:53 AM, Suzanne Cart at massuz@... wrote:

> CORRECTION:

>

> I wrote, " Walford says a man's bodyfat should not drop below 5%, and a woman

> should go below 10 to 15%. That's actually a broad range for women. "

>

> It's been been pointed out that I meant to say, " ...a woman should NOT go

> below 10 to 15%. "

>

> Duh

> Suz

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

You say that " ... I surely have quite a lot more weight to lose,

since my BF% seems to be about 15%... "

I was looking at your data in the database links and it seems that you

and I are comparable in age (62), BMI (~23), WC/H (.47). Your %BF is

around 15% and mine is about 13.2%. As I mentioned in a previous

post, athletes have 6-13%BF and the range 14-17%BF is considered

" fitness " , and 18-25%BF is considered acceptable.

I have found out that the only way to lower the percent body fat is to

do resistance exercises to stimulate muscle growth which requires a

Zone-like high protein diet (30%p, 30%f, 40%c). However, if you

restrict your calories too much, then your muscles cannot grow and

your %BF does not diminish. There are two ways of reducing your %BF:

1) reduce the fat, 2) increase the lean body mass. Once you get to

around 14%BF there is not much fat to lose, so you only have option

#2.

During the last year I only lost 5 pounds and 1% body fat:

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/pictures.html

However, I feel that the change in %body fat is mostly due to

increased muscle size. Take a look again at Message 15864 for

equations to help you calculate how much lean body mass you will lose

if you try to get your %BF to a lower level. Put the equations on a

spread sheet and crank out several scenarios. I don't think that it

is wise to lose a lot of lean body mass for the goal of achieving 6

%BF which may not really provide longevity. If it were so, all

bodybuilders would be centenarians and I only know of Jack La Lanne

who just became 90. But he is 5'4 " and weighs 152 pounds (BMI 26.1).

Tony

>>>

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

Date: Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:49 pm

Subject: Re: Dr. Walford's caution about severe restriction

It seems to me there are two possible interpretations of the

terms 'extreme' or 'severe' when applied to CRON. And it may be

helpful to have an appreciation of the distinction. One of them

refers to too rapid a rate of weight loss. The other, a too low

final body weight, or BF%, or WC/H, or BMI, or whatever parameter is

chosen.

....

By " getting there slowly " , perhaps, for a number, what is meant is

rates of weight loss of half a pound a week initially, and perhaps

one quarter of a pound a week as body fat begins to approach true

CRON levels. Or, what amounts to the same thing, a daily caloric

deficit of 250 initially, and 125 later.

But for me, quoting a number like " 1800 calories " as being extreme

does not seem to make much sense. I do not lose weight at an intake

of 1800 calories. And I surely have quite a lot more weight to lose,

since my BF% seems to be about 15%.

[None of the methods I have used to calculate my BF% gives me a

number below 14% - a couple were MUCH higher; my BMI is between 22

and 23; no one I know considers me to be extremely thin; most places

I squeeze I still have about half an inch of fat reserves, i.e. two

thicknesses totalling half an inch squeezed between my thumb and

index finger].

So I do need to lose more weight, and a 125 daily caloric deficit for

me must be somewhere between 1600 and 1700 calories which, based on

the dictum of gradualness, cannot, I believe, be described as extreme.

So my conclusion from this is that each of us has to work things out

for ourselves, finding by experiment what intake produces the

desirable rate of weight loss, until we gradually reach 5% to 10%

body fat - or whatever other target is chosen.

As I said earlier, please feel free to disagree with any of this if

you think I am mistaken.

Rodney.

>>>

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony, You have not experienced the problem of losing fat

mass at age, yet.

And let me say politely, that 1 and 2 below are not " ways "

to do it, but goals.

In the last 2 years, I've experimented with ways to lose

" fat that won't come off " .

I have found no method to lose that fat. When I lost from

206 to 175#, I lost muscle as well - that's normal. And I

lost visceral fat, I believe. The result was a loose flab,

maybe a 1/2 " thick that persists.

That adipose fat - that just under the skin is a diff

problem. It seems to me when I was younger say 45, I could

lose that fat and reshape. If I start lifting weights (gym),

I build muscle and gain weight, but I don't lose that fat.

It's not all that bothersome - just a little nagging

problem, but the ideas of losing %BF that have been

expressed simply don't work, so far.

Regards.

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

From: " citpeks " <citpeks@...>

< >

Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:26 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Dr. Walford's caution about

severe restriction

>

>

> Rodney,

>

>

> I have found out that the only way to lower the percent

body fat is to

> do resistance exercises to stimulate muscle growth which

requires a

> Zone-like high protein diet (30%p, 30%f, 40%c). However,

if you

> restrict your calories too much, then your muscles cannot

grow and

> your %BF does not diminish. There are two ways of

reducing your %BF:

> 1) reduce the fat, 2) increase the lean body mass. Once

you get to

> around 14%BF there is not much fat to lose, so you only

have option

> #2.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

I do appreciate your input on this topic, especially the 'warning'

aspect of it. But my plan, for now, is to continue restricting

calories by 100 to 200 a day and see what my situation is a few

months from now.

In a few months I will again check all my measurements for ten

consecutive days (since there are sizeable fluctuations in the daily

measurements which cause appreciable variations in the calculated

values) and do all the calculations for BF% etc and take the average

of the ten days to see what has happened to my body fat content from

15% on down.

There are quite a few people here and elsewhere who claim to have

body fat below 10%. (Indeed some of them had their body fat measured

by WUSTL at well below 10%). If on the way down from 15% BF only ten

percent of the weight they lost had been fat, then by now they would

weigh around zero pounds. (Because if your lean mass is falling nine

times as fast as your fat mass then your BF% will go UP, not down,

right?)

Whatever the outcome, whether 10% of the weight I lose turns out to

be fat, or 50%, or 70%, at least I will then know how my body

responds at these levels. And so will the rest of us here!!!

Because I will post about it!

(I guess you could say that I do not think that that formula you

posted will reflect what happens to my body fat in the next few

months. But I am more than willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Especially by personal empirical evidence.)

Again, thanks for all input, guys.

Rodney.

>

> Rodney,

>

> You say that " ... I surely have quite a lot more weight to lose,

> since my BF% seems to be about 15%... "

>

> I was looking at your data in the database links and it seems that

you

> and I are comparable in age (62), BMI (~23), WC/H (.47). Your %BF

is

> around 15% and mine is about 13.2%. As I mentioned in a previous

> post, athletes have 6-13%BF and the range 14-17%BF is considered

> " fitness " , and 18-25%BF is considered acceptable.

>

> I have found out that the only way to lower the percent body fat is

to

> do resistance exercises to stimulate muscle growth which requires a

> Zone-like high protein diet (30%p, 30%f, 40%c). However, if you

> restrict your calories too much, then your muscles cannot grow and

> your %BF does not diminish. There are two ways of reducing your %

BF:

> 1) reduce the fat, 2) increase the lean body mass. Once you get to

> around 14%BF there is not much fat to lose, so you only have option

> #2.

>

> During the last year I only lost 5 pounds and 1% body fat:

>

> http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/pictures.html

>

> However, I feel that the change in %body fat is mostly due to

> increased muscle size. Take a look again at Message 15864 for

> equations to help you calculate how much lean body mass you will

lose

> if you try to get your %BF to a lower level. Put the equations on a

> spread sheet and crank out several scenarios. I don't think that it

> is wise to lose a lot of lean body mass for the goal of achieving 6

> %BF which may not really provide longevity. If it were so, all

> bodybuilders would be centenarians and I only know of Jack La Lanne

> who just became 90. But he is 5'4 " and weighs 152 pounds (BMI

26.1).

>

> Tony

>

> >>>

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

> Date: Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:49 pm

> Subject: Re: Dr. Walford's caution about severe restriction

>

> It seems to me there are two possible interpretations of the

> terms 'extreme' or 'severe' when applied to CRON. And it may be

> helpful to have an appreciation of the distinction. One of them

> refers to too rapid a rate of weight loss. The other, a too low

> final body weight, or BF%, or WC/H, or BMI, or whatever parameter is

> chosen.

> ...

>

> By " getting there slowly " , perhaps, for a number, what is meant is

> rates of weight loss of half a pound a week initially, and perhaps

> one quarter of a pound a week as body fat begins to approach true

> CRON levels. Or, what amounts to the same thing, a daily caloric

> deficit of 250 initially, and 125 later.

>

> But for me, quoting a number like " 1800 calories " as being extreme

> does not seem to make much sense. I do not lose weight at an intake

> of 1800 calories. And I surely have quite a lot more weight to lose,

> since my BF% seems to be about 15%.

>

> [None of the methods I have used to calculate my BF% gives me a

> number below 14% - a couple were MUCH higher; my BMI is between 22

> and 23; no one I know considers me to be extremely thin; most places

> I squeeze I still have about half an inch of fat reserves, i.e. two

> thicknesses totalling half an inch squeezed between my thumb and

> index finger].

>

> So I do need to lose more weight, and a 125 daily caloric deficit

for

> me must be somewhere between 1600 and 1700 calories which, based on

> the dictum of gradualness, cannot, I believe, be described as

extreme.

>

> So my conclusion from this is that each of us has to work things out

> for ourselves, finding by experiment what intake produces the

> desirable rate of weight loss, until we gradually reach 5% to 10%

> body fat - or whatever other target is chosen.

>

> As I said earlier, please feel free to disagree with any of this if

> you think I am mistaken.

>

> Rodney.

> >>>

[Guest guest]

>>>

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

Date: Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:39 am

Subject: Re: Dr. Walford's caution about severe restriction

If on the way down from 15% BF only ten

percent of the weight they lost had been fat, then by now they would

weigh around zero pounds. (Because if your lean mass is falling nine

times as fast as your fat mass then your BF% will go UP, not down,

right?)

....

(I guess you could say that I do not think that that formula you

posted will reflect what happens to my body fat in the next few

months. But I am more than willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Especially by personal empirical evidence.)

>>>

A 150-lb person with 15% body fat has 22.5 lb of fat and 127.5 lb of

lean body mass. The person would have to lose 8.3 lb of pure fat

without losing lean body mass to get to 10% body fat. I have not read

anything that says that you can lose only fat.

I suspect that you are joking when you say that it is possible to get

to zero pounds (anorexic cadavers weigh about 85 lbs). Some organs

and tissues remain fairly constant as you lose weight, e.g., bones,

cartilage, skin, blood, tendons, brain, and nerves. When you lose

weight, you lose mostly muscle and adipose tissue. The type of tissue

that you lose will depend on your diet to some degree. A high protein

diet will spare you from losing too much muscle if you exercise.

Exercise stimulates fat burning and muscle building simultaneously.

This is the reason why bodybuilders adopt low calorie diets that are

very high in protein for about 12 weeks prior to competition (that's

how they get to 6% body fat for a few days). People who have

substantial weight loss are often afflicted with flabby skin which has

to be removed surgically because it is not absorbed by the body in the

same way as adipose tissue.

With regard to the formulas (Message 15864) and their reliability, I

applied them to my weight loss and got results within a few percentage

of my actual figures. I doubt that you are so unique that formulas

that were developed based on a large number of cases would not be

applicable to you, but we will see.

Tony

===

PMID: 12630623

Psychosocial consequences of weight loss following gastric banding for

morbid obesity.

Most patients (87%) were happy with the extent of weight loss. Weight

loss, however, was connected with negative consequences for the body

such as flabby skin (53%), abdominal skin overhang (47%) and pendulous

breasts (42%).

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

Well it would be nice if in the real world things were as cut-and-

dried as that formula suggests. If you lose weight while your body

fat is 20% you will lose almost exactly 55% as fat .......... if

your BF is 15% almost exactly 48% of the weight lost will be fat.

My experience has already been different, going from 20% BF to 15%

while losing over 70% of the weight as fat - not the 50% to 55%

predicted.

But also, and likely more convincing to you, will be the fact that in

that very same article for which you were kind enough to provide a

link, there is a table which purports to show that the amount of lean

body mass that will be lost can be varied ***by a factor of 3***

simply based on the rate at which the weight is lost - a factor which

that neat little formula ignores completely.

So, *if* that article is correct, that there is a huge direct

relationship between the rate of weight change and the proportion of

LBM lost or gained - losing or gaining a lot of LBM if the rate of

change is rapid, and losing or gaining much less LBM (one-third as

much) if the rate of change is slow - then therein resides a

delightfully simple solution to the body fat issue. The following is

the solution:

Lose five pounds slowly, then gain five pounds rapidly. Then do the

same again. And if you like, again. And again, perhaps? If that

article is correct then each time you lose slowly you will not lose

much LBM. But each time you gain rapidly you will put on a large

amount of LBM. After a few cycles even the couch potatoes among us

should all be fat-free and bulging with LBM. (I can just imagine the

picture of us all at the next get-together!!!)

Do you believe the article's analysis? If you do then that is the

logical conclusion to be drawn from it. What is more, it is very

much easier to lose weight slowly than quickly. And it is dead easy

to put weight on fast!!! So it shouldn't be too difficult.

Are you gonna try it? : ^ )))))

Rodney.

PS: I may try it sometime, but not before I am down to 10% BF%.

Then take a ten day all-you-can-eat vacation in Mexico and go from my

10% BF weight up five pounds very quickly, and when I get back home

drop back to my 10% BF weight again at a rate of one-fifth of a pound

a week. (Put it on in ten days, and take it back off in six

months). As I said, I ***may*** try it.

If anyone has other scientific information that sheds more light on

whether or not this makes sense, PLEASE post it.

I wonder why they don't do it with cattle - if it is true.

==============================================================

>

> >>>

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

> Date: Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:39 am

> Subject: Re: Dr. Walford's caution about severe restriction

>

> If on the way down from 15% BF only ten

> percent of the weight they lost had been fat, then by now they would

> weigh around zero pounds. (Because if your lean mass is falling nine

> times as fast as your fat mass then your BF% will go UP, not down,

> right?)

> ...

> (I guess you could say that I do not think that that formula you

> posted will reflect what happens to my body fat in the next few

> months. But I am more than willing to be persuaded otherwise.

> Especially by personal empirical evidence.)

> >>>

>

> A 150-lb person with 15% body fat has 22.5 lb of fat and 127.5 lb of

> lean body mass. The person would have to lose 8.3 lb of pure fat

> without losing lean body mass to get to 10% body fat. I have not

read

> anything that says that you can lose only fat.

>

> I suspect that you are joking when you say that it is possible to

get

> to zero pounds (anorexic cadavers weigh about 85 lbs). Some organs

> and tissues remain fairly constant as you lose weight, e.g., bones,

> cartilage, skin, blood, tendons, brain, and nerves. When you lose

> weight, you lose mostly muscle and adipose tissue. The type of

tissue

> that you lose will depend on your diet to some degree. A high

protein

> diet will spare you from losing too much muscle if you exercise.

> Exercise stimulates fat burning and muscle building simultaneously.

> This is the reason why bodybuilders adopt low calorie diets that are

> very high in protein for about 12 weeks prior to competition (that's

> how they get to 6% body fat for a few days). People who have

> substantial weight loss are often afflicted with flabby skin which

has

> to be removed surgically because it is not absorbed by the body in

the

> same way as adipose tissue.

>

> With regard to the formulas (Message 15864) and their reliability, I

> applied them to my weight loss and got results within a few

percentage

> of my actual figures. I doubt that you are so unique that formulas

> that were developed based on a large number of cases would not be

> applicable to you, but we will see.

>

> Tony

> ===

>

> PMID: 12630623

> Psychosocial consequences of weight loss following gastric banding

for

> morbid obesity.

> Most patients (87%) were happy with the extent of weight loss.

Weight

> loss, however, was connected with negative consequences for the body

> such as flabby skin (53%), abdominal skin overhang (47%) and

pendulous

> breasts (42%).

[Guest guest]

Hi MM: In view of what I quoted from Dr W;s book, I would be surprised if

he only ate 1600 cal daily. Instead of relying on memory, exactly where

does Dr W say this?

on 11/25/2004 2:53 AM, m m at crsgmailings@... wrote:

> If memory serves Walford consumed 1600 calories daily and maintained a BMI of

> a bit below 20.

>

[Guest guest]

It's possible at 130#. H-B estimate:

AGE

68.96

height

69

weight

130

bmr=13.7*wt(kg) + 5*ht(cm) - 6.8*age + 66

bmr=

1282.89

activity

300.00

TOTAL

1582.89

protein

228

fat

451.631

carbo

903.261

AGE

50.00

height

69

weight

130

bmr=13.7*wt(kg) + 5*ht(cm) - 6.8*age + 66

bmr=

1411.85

activity

300.00

TOTAL

1711.85

protein

228

fat

494.615

carbo

989.23

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

From: m m

Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 12:40 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Dr. Walford's caution about severe restriction

Hi Francesca. I remembered it from an article called 'Staying Alive' from Discover Magazine. Vol. 21 No. 02 February 2000. (see the end of the first paragraph in the first link below) I also heard the figure mentioned in a NY Times article as well. (see second link below) I was certainly not implying that a 1600 calorie level is appropriate for everyone, but was just trying to illustrate that caloric level can vary from person to person.

http://www.cron-web.org/CR_pop_media/CRPM1.htmhttp://wwwpathnet.medsch.ucla.edu/department/news_announcements/walford_endowedlectureship/NYTimes.htm

Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...> wrote:

Hi MM: In view of what I quoted from Dr W;s book, I would be surprised ifhe only ate 1600 cal daily. Instead of relying on memory, exactly wheredoes Dr W say this?on 11/25/2004 2:53 AM, m m at crsgmailings@... wrote:> If memory serves Walford consumed 1600 calories daily and maintained a BMI of> a bit below 20. >