RE: Re: Natural diet, fats, startch etc, was(Rules of the road)

[Guest guest]

>>Do you ever get hungry on this diet?

Occasionally. I find if I stay busy, which I usually do, I don't think

about it and/or it doesn't bother me. Somedays, I actually have to make

a point to stop and eat as I can easily go to about 3 or so without

eating or stopping to eat. The only time it might bother me is in the

evening when I am home relaxing.

>>If so, what do you do to abate your hunger? (If I had to guess, I'd

say you probably just eat more salad).

I do keep extra grapefruits, apples, cucumbers and celery around as

I find snacking on those two are both filling and satisfying to me.

Sometimes I will water down some almond butter so its thin and use it as

little as a dip for the apples or celery.

I am very fortunate to work at a place that keeps trays of fresh raw and

steamed veggies and also baskets of fresh fruit out all day. So, during

the day, if I am ever hungry, there is those choices readily available

to me.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

>>>Musclebuilding or seeing how low one can go weightwise is not the

goal. Calories and the kind of calories eaten are what's important

here.

Agreed.

To me, the issue with CR-ON is the " CR " and the " ON " and doing them

together.

I agree that activity/exercise is important to a limited extent, (as

Walford has also pointed out) and have thoroughly explained my thoughts

on it here, (even recently) though I do not believe it is the most

important criteria. I have more than enough strength for most any

activity I can think of, and can still do more chin ups than most people

I know and still walk around the room on my hands. I don't think

" absolute " strength is as important as " relevant " strength. And, if my

memory serves me right, the BodyBuilders and Olympic Weightlifters who

are considered the strongest based on relevant strength, are not the

ones who are the biggest or have the most muscle, but some of the

smaller/lighter competitors.

I think Rodney has asked this, or maybe it was JR, but can anyone post

any evidence of the value of bodybuilding and increased muscle mass to

longevity? And if so, which I doubt, where is the trade off between the

amount of energy expenditure needed to build and maintain the extra

muscle mass vs benefit from the reduction in calories? In the longevity

studies and research, and in the studies and data on centarians, where

is the data on strength and muscle mass? Will the Okinawins do better

if they each add 5 lbs of muscle?

From what I understand, CR Is not about creating a calorie deficit, per

see, as one can do this at almost any caloric output, but more about

creating a calore deficit, in light of the amount of typical

activity/exercise one needs to survive and have a decent QOL. So, is

this about laying in bed all day with as little movement as possible and

hiring someone to feed us at the minimal amount needed to maintain that

level of movement and call that CR-ON? Of is it about spending lots of

time and effort and energy exercising to be a top speciman in physical

fitness and sport and strength and than create a defecit from that

energy output level and call that CR-ON?

What if we were unable to measure fitness levels, caloric values,

caloric intake, caloric output, body weight, body fat etc etc, how would

you decide when you were on CR-ON or following the healthiest lifestyle?

> Jeff, if you add 5-6 lbs of MUSCLE when you low body weight of 104

> (keep 5% bodyfat!), you think you do better CRON and feel less weak at

> ~110lbs with more 5-6 lb more muscle than now at 122-126 and with more

> % fat?

Maybe the issue isnt BF or muscle mass at that level. Maybe the issue

is starvation and malnutrition. Maybe the issue is inadequate caloric

intake to achieve the ON part or CR-ON.

Also, dO you assume that you can control the amount of BF and Muscle

mass that someone puts on and loses as their weight goes up and down?

I know it has been discussed here and some formulas have been presented,

but I havent seen anyone whose experience follows them like that.

> 5lb muscle is good gain. Make big difference in strength!

I am sure if everyone could go out to the gym and somehow just add 5 lbs

of muscle, without adding any fat, they would be somewhat " stronger " . I

am sure if I added 5 lbs of muscle right now, I would be " stronger " .

However, I am not sure that they would be healthier, or live longer or

improve their QOL? How much effort would it take to put on that 5 lb

and to maintain it? I have seen no evidence of a relationship between

" increased " strength or muscle mass (outside of aneroxia) and longevity.

Adding 5 lbs of muscle would also raise my BMI about 1 point. Now, I

do know of increased health risks from increased BMIs, even as little as

1 or 2 points, even within the " healthy " range. So, where is the logic

and science/data behind wanting to increase my BMI 1 point? I would

rather look to drop it another point or two, and as there is a minimum

of BF that the human body needs to function in health, how do you

achieve it elsewise?

> Which model better for CRON: you be 110lbs with more muscle or you be

> ~125 with more fat?

The problem is with the question as it has too many limitations and

missing information, so I will choose not to pick between the two.

Hwoever, removing the limitations and missing information, the best

answer we have in science now is to achieve a BMI of around 18.5-22

(maybe lower if you dare) with a BF of around 5-10% and consuming

the least amount of calories to achieve that, while also eating the

foods that give you the most amount of nutrients for those calories.

That I can support with science.

To me, that is CR-ON, which I why I am here.

Thanks

Jeff