Re: willpower?

[Guest guest]

Most CRONIES have researched the topic, read Walford etc.etc. In that

sense they are intellectually driven. The science points to longer,

healthier life if one practises CRON. So determination to lead such a life

is important. An " instant gratification " personality is probably

incompatible with successful CRON.

There are many CRONIES who have had scary brushes with health issues. That

of course puts enough fear into them to practise CRON.

In the face of a society where food is abundant, advertising is heavy, and

where food companies put any old garbage into processed food, one must of

course have willpower. As a rule, we try to eat mostly unprocessed foods.

Barring that we read ingredients carefully. OTOH, I don't let my diet stop

me from enjoying an occasional straying at a social function (even Walford

did that) or a dinner out with friends. But I do try not to go overboard

when away from home.

I hope you've read the files. We have one file under " Beginning CRON " ,

called " CR Made Easy " . It discusses " fooling the body " via the kinds of

foods we eat which are low cal, high nutrient and high fiber (which helps

give a " full " feeling). I'm convinced that if one eats the right things, CR

follows.

on 1/6/2005 12:24 PM, Filice at cubit@... wrote:

>

> In CRON, is the key to achieving and maintaining a low BMI (19 or so)

> the use of willpower, or is it a set of techniques? I've read on

> here about the use of frequent small meals, and also about the use of

> fiber. Yet, overall, it sounds like willpower is dominant.

>

> In the context of dieting for the obese, I have come to believe that

> willpower tends to fail in the face of hunger. Thus, techniques of

> fooling the body seem important. Yet, my impression is that CRON

> practitioners are following an intelectually driven regimen. I don't

> seem to see posts about failed willpower or " cheating " here. Failed

> willpower and cheating are recurring themes among obese dieters.

>

> For the obese, regain of weight is almost universal. I've read

> statistics claiming a 95% regain rate. Do CRON dieters have a regain

> to normal problem?

>

[Guest guest]

The best thing, IMO, regardless of weight, is try to find out how much food you really require.

First I determined how much I was eating - relatively simple - I just started counting calories because I really didn't know. It was in excess of 3000 kcals, so as a second step I determined to rigidize the calories at 3000 and see what happened.

Nothing happened. So I dropped the calorie intake to 2500 kcals. Recognize I'm not the type to hurt myself. I did that for maybe a month.

Again nothing happened. So I dropped to 2000 kcals.

I began to find a little hunger now and then and I could satiate with certain foods, like peanut butter was my favorite, or if at work peanuts. Something about that food that worked for me. One day at work lunch I went to the store and bought several items trying to find the magic food. Peanuts it was.

But again, sadly I didn't lose a lot of weight. I did that for about a year because I was sure I was eating too little.

Again nothing happened, so in frustration I decided to eat nothing and then realizing that would hurt, I decided to eat something bland, which was steamed rice, fruit and milk, three times per day. I set the calories at 1800 mostly because it wasn't hard to do that. At that level I began to lose, and it wasn't that uncomfortable.

I think the willpower comes from deciding to do something. The plan is to make it easy - something you can eat forever, something that doesn't taste like an artgum eraser, eg. The next thing is to look askance at everyone else who is eating the "wrong" foods. things like hollandaise sauce and they play like they enjoy it.

Well you get the idea. Everyone is different in what they can tolerate. I'm a scientist and I think there's always a way to make things easy if we examine the alternatives, after all, hauling around 60 extra pounds everywhere I went was not that much fun either. And I don't think we need to get in a hurry to lose 50 # of fat it took maybe 10 years to accumulate. If it takes you 5 years to lose it, maybe you adapt to the new diet.

It's more than willpower, IMO. I really don't miss KFC, big macs, hot wings, etc.

I think if you find the right selection of foods, hunger is minimized, indigestion goes away, no reflux, I feel a lot better, there's a lot of benefits I won't give up now. I can't imagine gaining back the weight.

Just my take.

Regards.

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

From: Filice

Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 11:24 AM

Subject: [ ] willpower?

In CRON, is the key to achieving and maintaining a low BMI (19 or so) the use of willpower, or is it a set of techniques? I've read on here about the use of frequent small meals, and also about the use of fiber. Yet, overall, it sounds like willpower is dominant.In the context of dieting for the obese, I have come to believe that willpower tends to fail in the face of hunger. Thus, techniques of fooling the body seem important. Yet, my impression is that CRON practitioners are following an intelectually driven regimen. I don't seem to see posts about failed willpower or "cheating" here. Failed willpower and cheating are recurring themes among obese dieters.For the obese, regain of weight is almost universal. I've read statistics claiming a 95% regain rate. Do CRON dieters have a regain to normal problem?

[Guest guest]

Hi :

A few thoughts about this:

First, everyone, I believe, is addicted to food. We much enjoy

eating. Left to my own devices, with no attempts to restrict how

much, or what, I eat, I would have no trouble consuming 1000 calories

a day more than I need. (That translates into an annual weight gain

of more than 100 pounds). And I could easily eat more than that. I

assume this is true of pretty much all people not (yet) showing

obvious signs of ill health. And it harks back to the fact that

those of our ancestors who did not pig out when the opportunity

arose, died in the next period of seriously adverse climate, or

locust plague or whatever. So the only ones who survived to pass on

their genes (to us) were those whose genes told them to pig out

whenever possible.

So, now that there seems to be no likelihood, short of an asteriod

strike or a truly huge volcanic eruption, that there will again be a

shortage of food, we have to fight against what our genes are telling

us to do. This could be called willpower.

However, there are techniques that can be used to reduce the amount

of willpower needed. Anyone who eats a lot of highly calorically

dense foods with low nutritional value (sugar, fats, oils; I believe

someone showed that you could eat more calories of pizza before

feeling 'full' than pretty much anything else) will need to exercise

enormous willpower because their stomach will only be half full when

they have swallowed their day's allotment of calories.

But those doing the opposite of the above - those eating foods that

have very high bulk and micronutrient value per calorie - will need

to exert much less willpower, perhaps even none at all, because they

will feel full much much sooner. As an example, I have an entirely

vegetarian thick soup recipe a large bowl of which provides 30% of

the RDAs of all the micronutrients (except a couple, of course) in

only 160 calories. This is FILLING!!! It is also quite tasty, but

certainly not Cordon Bleu. So it would be difficult to over eat if

one only ate this soup and took supplements to make up the couple of

deficiencies.

So perhaps the MOST important need for 'willpower' is to have what it

takes to eat HEALTHY foods and ignore the rest. Because anyone who

insists on eating pizza every night, or who covers everything they

eat with sugar or oily dressings, will have a hopeless time trying to

muster the degree of restraint required to keep caloric intake down

to appropriate levels.

This, I think, is what Francesca is talking about when she

says: " First cut out the junk " . She doesn't only mean that junk is

unhealthy to eat - which of course it is. She also means you will be

a lot less hungry after eating 2000 calories of healthy (high bulk,

high nutrient) food than you will be after eating 2000 calories of

high calorie, low nutrient, 'junk'.

Now, on a slightly different slant ............. Over many years I

have found that if I try to lose weight, no matter how hard I seem to

try (without going to extremes) to restrict I lose no weight for the

first three months. But after that initial period it seems as if my

stomach has shrunk, and I find that just a moderate amount of effort

to restrict is effective. Of course when I decide to stabilize at a

lower weight I have to eat more to do that. Then my stomach capacity

expands again, so futher efforts to lose more weight will require

another three month period of no progress.

I mention the above because it is easy to become demoralized that the

efforts are no working. But for me, this has now happened often

enough that I know all I have to do is persist for the three months

and then the weight loss will require rather minimal willpower.

[NOTE: Purists here will say that CRON is not about weight loss, it

is about eating fewer calories. In reply I would say that, imo, they

are one and the same thing. We all know that a heavier person needs

more calories to satisfy their RMR - -Benedict or whatever - so

for each of us, for any given body weight, stable weight will imply a

corresponding caloric intake. A lower stable weight implies a lower

caloric intake. So they are two sides of the identical coin.]

Rodney.

--- In , " Filice " <cubit@t...>

wrote:

>

> In CRON, is the key to achieving and maintaining a low BMI (19 or

so)

> the use of willpower, or is it a set of techniques? I've read on

> here about the use of frequent small meals, and also about the use

of

> fiber. Yet, overall, it sounds like willpower is dominant.

>

> In the context of dieting for the obese, I have come to believe

that

> willpower tends to fail in the face of hunger. Thus, techniques of

> fooling the body seem important. Yet, my impression is that CRON

> practitioners are following an intelectually driven regimen. I

don't

> seem to see posts about failed willpower or " cheating " here.

Failed

> willpower and cheating are recurring themes among obese dieters.

>

> For the obese, regain of weight is almost universal. I've read

> statistics claiming a 95% regain rate. Do CRON dieters have a

regain

> to normal problem?

[Guest guest]

I'm currently reading " The Okinawa Program " . As most of us know that's an

entire population who have passed on to each generation their excellent

eating habits and that you eat til only 80% full. It would be interesting if

we knew where/how they developed/incorporated these wonderful habits into

the customs that observe.

As we've noted here, the younger generation is now adapting the bad eating

habits of the west.

on 1/7/2005 8:35 AM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> I

> assume this is true of pretty much all people not (yet) showing

> obvious signs of ill health. And it harks back to the fact that

> those of our ancestors who did not pig out when the opportunity

> arose, died in the next period of seriously adverse climate, or

> locust plague or whatever. So the only ones who survived to pass on

> their genes (to us) were those whose genes told them to pig out

> whenever possible.

[Guest guest]

I suppose that everything that you want to attain in life requires

determination and effort. My own path to CR dawned when I looked in

the mirror and I realized that I did not have my youthful shape any

more. A calculation of my BMI confirmed that I was indeed overweight,

and I decided to do something about it. You have to have an inner

motivation to be successful at anything that you do.

I had to come to grips with the fact that as you age, your metabolic

requirements decrease and you have to change your eating habits

accordingly. I found success by shifting the quantities and the

ratios of macronutrients that I was eating. I now avoid pastries,

sweets, soft drinks, and fried foods. I also have adopted a philosphy

of avoiding snacks between meals and a policy that requires that I

have to be hungry before I eat moderate portions of well-balanced

meals. I try to live a structured schedule so that it is easy to

maintain a good nutritional discipline. When you have a regular

schedule and plan your menus in advance you don't feel any

deprivation.

I only restrict my calories by 10%, because I want to be in good

health, but at the same time enjoy life. I know that life is

eventually fatal, so I am not going to make huge dietary sacrifices

for the prospect of extra years of starvation.

Tony

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

Interesting point. As time goes by and I gradually get a better

perspective of CRON I am coming to the following conclusion:

The truly huge increases in lifespan found in the CRON mice are most

likely not relevant to 99% of those who will embark seriously on

CRON. The typical mouse experiment reduces caloric intake by 40% and

expands maximum lifespan by 40%. But the punchline is that it

entails a 50% reduction in body weight. Now how many people here

would be prepared to endure a 50% reduction in body weight (from

a 'normal' set point level, NOT from an overweight or obese level)

and put up with all the symptoms they would have?

For me it would mean having to reduce my weight from my 174 pound set

point to 87 pounds. Ridiculous. And from the symptoms described

here by and Jeff, at less extreme degrees of restriction, I

can see that that would not be acceptable.

So, instead of 'hoping for'/'relying on' a 40% expansion in maximum

lifespan from CRON I am more than happy to take a more moderate

expansion of lifespan coupled with the dramatic reduction in heart

disease risk factors shown in the WUSTL study, and a substantial

decline in cancer susceptibility as indicated in mouse studies and

the recent cell proliferation study. (Not forgetting the 80%

reduction in mortality experienced by fruit flies even when not

subjected to CR until 'human age 60'. And similar mortality data for

older mice also).

So perhaps what we can realistically rely on is ten to fifteen years

of additional maximum lifespan in excellent health. And by that time

additional discoveries will have been made that will enable attentive

people like those who are members here (!) to extend our lives even

further, and by then perhaps the cure for aging may have arrived.

As I recall, Dr. Walford alluded in 'Beyond' (p.137, final paragraph)

to CRON as a sort-of bridge to future life-extension techniques.

Rodney.

> ............................. I know that life is

> eventually fatal, so I am not going to make huge dietary sacrifices

> for the prospect of extra years of starvation.

>

> Tony

[Guest guest]

Especially since they had a large "cataclysmic" event 60 yrs ago. No mention of WWII in the book. I wonder if the tsunami will produce more 100 yos in their area, 50 yrs from today?

I was told the population was short of food after the conflict, and the military being what they are had excesses of food and literally landed LST's loaded with Spam and left them some there to rust because of the enormous number of ships. Imagine if their longevity is due to eating Spam for many years (ha). After reading about the annual pork (their longevity food) festival, pg 73, I had a dream that the olders had hoarded the Spam in caves for years.

Just musing. Probably just a low sodium diet influence on my dreams.

Regards.

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

From: Francesca Skelton

Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 8:42 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: willpower?

I'm currently reading "The Okinawa Program". As most of us know that's anentire population who have passed on to each generation their excellenteating habits and that you eat til only 80% full. It would be interesting ifwe knew where/how they developed/incorporated these wonderful habits intothe customs that observe.As we've noted here, the younger generation is now adapting the bad eatinghabits of the west.

[Guest guest]

FWIW i doubt if we will ever " cure " aging. It's not a disease. It's a fact

of nature. Take Dr W. For whatever reason (which we can surmise but can't

be 100% positive) he developed ALS and died fairly young by CRON standards.

Personally I'll be happy if I reach an advanced age intact with no chronic

illnesses or debilitations.

Of course we always have war, tsunamis, earthquakes, floods, fires, murder,

car and other accidents etc etc. Just my usual optimistic self :-))

on 1/7/2005 1:41 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> So perhaps what we can realistically rely on is ten to fifteen years

> of additional maximum lifespan in excellent health. And by that time

> additional discoveries will have been made that will enable attentive

> people like those who are members here (!) to extend our lives even

> further, and by then perhaps the cure for aging may have arrived.

>

> As I recall, Dr. Walford alluded in 'Beyond' (p.137, final paragraph)

> to CRON as a sort-of bridge to future life-extension techniques.

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

Correction: Reducing caloric intake of mice by 40% results in a body

weight that is 50% less than normal.

In the actual experiments, the body weights of the restricted mice

always increased because CR started at 9 weeks (right after weaning).

The mice grew to the size supported by their nutrition. There was no

actual REDUCTION of weight. Figure 1 in the paper by Mattson shows

that weights increase with age, but at different rates.

(http://snipurl.com/4d7w)

By contrast, what we are doing is applying CR *after* maturity. We

cannot hope to reduce our bone mass, our brain mass, or our tendons by

50% without harm. I don't think that by severely restricting the

nutrients to already developed organs we can achieve a harmonious

equilibrium. We probably have to settle for 15% CR which was deemed

" optimum for longevity " in a review that we discussed last year.

We also have the problem of trying to determine the degree of CR that

we practice. I feel that the best alternative is to use a measure

like the -Benedict equation, which although not perfect, has

general applicability, and we can use it as a reference point adjusted

for level of activity. I have not seen anything about " set point " or

other subjective factors that convince me that they are satisfactory

for quantifying caloric requirements. The use of the H-B equation

makes it possible to evaluate the adequacy of a diet like I recently

did for Jeff (Message 16891), and the only unkown was the degree of

activity (although we know that Jeff can walk on his hands).

Tony

>>>

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

Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 1:41 pm

Subject: Re: willpower?

....

The truly huge increases in lifespan found in the CRON mice are most

likely not relevant to 99% of those who will embark seriously on

CRON. The typical mouse experiment reduces caloric intake by 40% and

expands maximum lifespan by 40%. But the punchline is that it

entails a 50% reduction in body weight. Now how many people here

would be prepared to endure a 50% reduction in body weight (from

a 'normal' set point level, NOT from an overweight or obese level)

and put up with all the symptoms they would have?

For me it would mean having to reduce my weight from my 174 pound set

point to 87 pounds. Ridiculous. And from the symptoms described

here by and Jeff, at less extreme degrees of restriction, I

can see that that would not be acceptable.

>>>

[Guest guest]

Agree.

But what is 10% CR? Do you view that as 10% less than what the H-B predicts? For what weight?

Let's assume we know perfectly what "exercise" calories are and that H-B works for us.

Mine, eg, is 1562 today, and add 200 for routine mobility.

Would 10% CR be .9*1762 = 1586? I would lose 0.55 # in the next day.

I would lose to 146.7# keeping my age the same in the equation.

Notice the H-B for 146.7 is 1382 + 200 = 1586. So intake is directly associated with weight.

146 is more than my 20yo weight, if we think that's important - I don't. I need to allow for that "growed to" weight as you say.

More to the point, my choice is to pick a weight objective not a % CR, per se. I'm already eating 44% less than what I used to eat.

Regards.

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

From: citpeks

Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 1:51 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: willpower?

Rodney,Correction: Reducing caloric intake of mice by 40% results in a bodyweight that is 50% less than normal. In the actual experiments, the body weights of the restricted micealways increased because CR started at 9 weeks (right after weaning). The mice grew to the size supported by their nutrition. There was noactual REDUCTION of weight. Figure 1 in the paper by Mattson showsthat weights increase with age, but at different rates.(http://snipurl.com/4d7w)By contrast, what we are doing is applying CR *after* maturity. Wecannot hope to reduce our bone mass, our brain mass, or our tendons by50% without harm. I don't think that by severely restricting thenutrients to already developed organs we can achieve a harmoniousequilibrium. We probably have to settle for 15% CR which was deemed"optimum for longevity" in a review that we discussed last year. We also have the problem of trying to determine the degree of CR thatwe practice. I feel that the best alternative is to use a measurelike the -Benedict equation, which although not perfect, hasgeneral applicability, and we can use it as a reference point adjustedfor level of activity. I have not seen anything about "set point" orother subjective factors that convince me that they are satisfactoryfor quantifying caloric requirements. The use of the H-B equationmakes it possible to evaluate the adequacy of a diet like I recentlydid for Jeff (Message 16891), and the only unkown was the degree ofactivity (although we know that Jeff can walk on his hands).Tony>>>From: "Rodney" <perspect1111@y...>Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 1:41 pmSubject: Re: willpower?...The truly huge increases in lifespan found in the CRON mice are mostlikely not relevant to 99% of those who will embark seriously onCRON. The typical mouse experiment reduces caloric intake by 40% andexpands maximum lifespan by 40%. But the punchline is that itentails a 50% reduction in body weight. Now how many people herewould be prepared to endure a 50% reduction in body weight (froma 'normal' set point level, NOT from an overweight or obese level)and put up with all the symptoms they would have?For me it would mean having to reduce my weight from my 174 pound setpoint to 87 pounds. Ridiculous. And from the symptoms describedhere by and Jeff, at less extreme degrees of restriction, Ican see that that would not be acceptable.>>>

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

That is a good point. I don't think I have ever seen data tabulated

to show the varying effects on adult CR body weight for mice put on

CR at various different ages ........ weening; puberty; full

growth; and at '60' years of age. It would be helpful if we had

those data.

But when I said the 40% CRON mice weighed 50% less, this is what I

meant, from the study you linked: " Mice on the LDF regimen consumed

40% less food as provided: this was reflected in their body weights,

which were 49% lower than those of the AL-fed group. "

Now, since these mice were put on CRON at nine weeks of age

(equivalent to age 5 years in humans, possibly?) their weight

difference will have been much greater than that of those put on CR

as fully-grown young adults.

So I take your point. It makes no sense to compare the weight

differences of humans put on CR as adults with those of mice put on

CR at the human equivalent of age 5. Thanks for pointing that out.

So, question: ***** Do we know how the weights of the mice put on

40% CR as fully-grown young adults, differ from those of the ad lib

mice *****, (or, perhaps better, to avoid any possible obesity

issue, compared with those on 10% CR)?

Rodney.

>

> Rodney,

>

> Correction: Reducing caloric intake of mice by 40% results in a body

> weight that is 50% less than normal.

>

> In the actual experiments, the body weights of the restricted mice

> always increased because CR started at 9 weeks (right after

weaning).

> The mice grew to the size supported by their nutrition. There was

no

> actual REDUCTION of weight. Figure 1 in the paper by Mattson shows

> that weights increase with age, but at different rates.

> (http://snipurl.com/4d7w)

>

> By contrast, what we are doing is applying CR *after* maturity. We

> cannot hope to reduce our bone mass, our brain mass, or our tendons

by

> 50% without harm. I don't think that by severely restricting the

> nutrients to already developed organs we can achieve a harmonious

> equilibrium. We probably have to settle for 15% CR which was deemed

> " optimum for longevity " in a review that we discussed last year.

>

> We also have the problem of trying to determine the degree of CR

that

> we practice. I feel that the best alternative is to use a measure

> like the -Benedict equation, which although not perfect, has

> general applicability, and we can use it as a reference point

adjusted

> for level of activity. I have not seen anything about " set point "

or

> other subjective factors that convince me that they are satisfactory

> for quantifying caloric requirements. The use of the H-B equation

> makes it possible to evaluate the adequacy of a diet like I recently

> did for Jeff (Message 16891), and the only unkown was the degree of

> activity (although we know that Jeff can walk on his hands).

>

> Tony

>

> >>>

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

> Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 1:41 pm

> Subject: Re: willpower?

> ...

> The truly huge increases in lifespan found in the CRON mice are most

> likely not relevant to 99% of those who will embark seriously on

> CRON. The typical mouse experiment reduces caloric intake by 40% and

> expands maximum lifespan by 40%. But the punchline is that it

> entails a 50% reduction in body weight. Now how many people here

> would be prepared to endure a 50% reduction in body weight (from

> a 'normal' set point level, NOT from an overweight or obese level)

> and put up with all the symptoms they would have?

>

> For me it would mean having to reduce my weight from my 174 pound

set

> point to 87 pounds. Ridiculous. And from the symptoms described

> here by and Jeff, at less extreme degrees of restriction, I

> can see that that would not be acceptable.

> >>>

[Guest guest]

20/20 had a program last night of two fat families who wanted to lose

weight. One set of parents admitted that they " knew " the right foods to eat

but nevertheless frequented the fast food joints virtually every night. The

kids in these families were grossly overweight as well as the parents.

(Child abuse IMHO).

As they were weighed, the members of the famlies were in disbelief over the

figures on the scales. I was in disbelief over their disbelief. How could

one not know that they're getting fat? Even if you never step on a scale,

clothes stop fitting and there exist such things as mirrors where you can't

deny what your eyes are telling you.

It would be interesting to see if in a year or two these families regain the

weight or stick to the new regimens they were given on the show. Of course

if you " know " you'll be tracked publicly, you might have incentive to not

regain.

There was also a discussion of the obesity epidemic on last nights " Wall St

with Fortune " . It seems that with all this info on diet and health,

Americans are eating more fast food than ever. One of the new trends

predicted was the fast food drive-in window becoming more popular. So you

won't even have to move your tush out of your car for your hamburger, shakes

and fries. And oh yes, the most popular food among men to order at fast

food places was a juicy, fatty caloric laden hamburger. But it was only

second place among women. First among women was fries.

on 1/8/2005 10:32 AM, at crjohnr@... wrote:

> I don't think most ad libbers think about eating it at all.... they get

> hungry, or worse yet are in a situation where food is present and are not

> even hungry when they eat.

>

> A healthy body will encourage us to consume adequate energy plus (the plus

> is the problem) so IMO it takes active effort to manage these mechanisms.

>

> Success at managing these impulses comes from developing good habits and

> strategies. I need to be most diligent when I do my weekly shopping. I find

> it hard to eat food I don't buy. Contrary to the old " wisdom " of not

> shopping while hungry, I often shop 8+ hours since my last meal with

> excellent shopping discipline.

>

> I have infinite respect for the those who can mange CR in a house full of

> food as I generally succumb to the " see-food " diet.

>

> JR

>

>

[Guest guest]

At the risk of lapsing into self analysis. I suspect one factor impacting my

personal success is having a far lower CR target. I

have long bettered pre CR awareness weight loss goals.

So I can fail miserably at reaching a BMI of 12 :-), while being the skinniest

kid on my (MS) block at BMI 21. While this may have

anorectic overtones, the awareness of CR and skinny as a healthy body image

rather than unhealthy may have some subliminal impact.

Just some zero calorie food for thought.

JR

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

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

Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 10:10 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: willpower?

20/20 had a program last night of two fat families who wanted to lose

weight. One set of parents admitted that they " knew " the right foods to eat

but nevertheless frequented the fast food joints virtually every night. The

kids in these families were grossly overweight as well as the parents.

(Child abuse IMHO).

As they were weighed, the members of the famlies were in disbelief over the

figures on the scales. I was in disbelief over their disbelief. How could

one not know that they're getting fat? Even if you never step on a scale,

clothes stop fitting and there exist such things as mirrors where you can't

deny what your eyes are telling you.

It would be interesting to see if in a year or two these families regain the

weight or stick to the new regimens they were given on the show. Of course

if you " know " you'll be tracked publicly, you might have incentive to not

regain.

There was also a discussion of the obesity epidemic on last nights " Wall St

with Fortune " . It seems that with all this info on diet and health,

Americans are eating more fast food than ever. One of the new trends

predicted was the fast food drive-in window becoming more popular. So you

won't even have to move your tush out of your car for your hamburger, shakes

and fries. And oh yes, the most popular food among men to order at fast

food places was a juicy, fatty caloric laden hamburger. But it was only

second place among women. First among women was fries.

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

I believe this to be not true. There are many ONers around that eat

ad lib. Think of the 7th Day Adventists, for one example.

Cheers, Al Pater.

> -----Original Message-----

> From: chris [mailto:ucla_mishka@y...]

> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 9:07 AM

>

> Subject: Re: [ ] Re: willpower?

>

>

> Most ad-libbers eat purely for pleasure, I believe. That is a

very

> dangerous mind-set, and a recipe for disaster eventually.

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

See reference 1.

1: Arch Intern Med. 2001 Jul 9;161(13):1645-52.

Ten years of life: Is it a matter of choice?

Fraser GE, Shavlik DJ.

BACKGROUND: Relative risk estimates suggest that effective

implementation of

behaviors commonly advocated in preventive medicine should increase

life

expectancy, although there is little direct evidence. OBJECTIVE: To

test the

hypothesis that choices regarding diet, exercise, and smoking

influence life

expectancy. METHODS: A total of 34 192 California Seventh-Day

Adventists (75% of

those eligible) were enrolled in a cohort and followed up from 1976

to 1988. A

mailed questionnaire provided dietary and other exposure information

at study

baseline. Mortality for all subjects was ascertained by matching to

state death

tapes and the National Death Index. RESULTS: California Adventists

have higher

life expectancies at the age of 30 years than other white

Californians by 7.28

years (95% confidence interval, 6.59-7.97 years) in men and by 4.42

years (95%

confidence interval, 3.96-4.88 years) in women, giving them perhaps

the highest

life expectancy of any formally described population. Commonly

observed

combinations of diet, exercise, body mass index, past smoking habits,

and

hormone replacement therapy (in women) can account for differences of

up to 10

years of life expectancy among Adventists. A comparison of life

expectancy when

these factors take high-risk compared with low-risk values shows

independent

effects that vary between 1.06 and 2.74 years for different

variables. The

effect of each variable is assessed with all others at either medium-

or

high-risk levels. CONCLUSIONS: Choices regarding diet, exercise,

cigarette

smoking, body weight, and hormone replacement therapy, in

combination, appear to

change life expectancy by many years. The longevity experience of

Adventists

probably demonstrates the beneficial effects of more optimal

behaviors.

PMID: 11434797 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

It is pdf-available.

>

> 7thDA's eat ON? In what sense, Al?

[Guest guest]

In other words, ON alone works!

BTW hormone replacement therapy is no longer recommended. It now appears to

SHORTEN life expectancy.

on 1/9/2005 2:41 PM, old542000 at apater@... wrote:

> CONCLUSIONS: Choices regarding diet, exercise,

> cigarette

> smoking, body weight, and hormone replacement therapy, in

> combination, appear to

> change life expectancy by many years. The longevity experience of

> Adventists

> probably demonstrates the beneficial effects of more optimal

> behaviors.

> PMID: 11434797 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]