RE: Re: Natural diet, fats, startch etc,

[Guest guest]

I too was surprised. IMHO why skirt on the edge of 18.5 BMI (the lowest

that has been shown to be optimal for health) rather than weigh a few pounds

more? Just in case of illness or accident (or tsunami striking ) which

could cause weight loss. Why flirt with the lower end of what is considered

safe?

My own BMI is about 19.

on 1/4/2005 5:26 PM, citpeks at citpeks@... wrote:

>

> Jeff,

>

> I was surprised by your intention to " drop to 117-122 and keep my BMI

> around 18.6-19.4 this year " considering that you have had hypothermia,

> sexual, and mental/psychological problems at lower weight.

>

> Putting your numbers (age:45, height:66.5, weight:122) in the

> -Benedict equation, I get the following:

> BMR: 1364,

> Sedentary calorie requirements: 1637,

> Lightly active: 1876

> Moderately active: 2115

>

> So if you are eating 1500 calories and you are sedentary, your diet is

> already 8.4% CR. If you are lightly active your degree of CR is 20%.

> If you are moderately active your degree of CR is 29%.

>

> One of the topics we discussed last year was that 15% CR may be

> optimum in terms of longevity. You state the case for quality of life

> over longevity eloquently in your note below and conclude that it

> would not be worth living a long life if you have no joy. Before

> embarking on a lower calorie diet, re-read your own words.

>

> Tony

>

[Guest guest]

Tony

Thanks for your input.

However, the problem I see is not with my numbers, but it is with the HB

equation (as there is with most equations). I can even post one study

done on the HB by and U Penn, where they tested people of

similar ht, age, wt, gender, and came out with readings around 1700 for

most of them with the HB equation(as the variables were similar). Yet

when tested on a metabolic cart, the actual RMRs came out for some as

low as 1200 and for some as high as 2200. Lots of variance in the HB.

The same variance would apply for the activity categories. While I know

these formulas are great to be used in general, they don't always apply

to indivudals.

Also, the negative effects were at the wt of 104, BMI of 16.5, which I

would never return to voluntarily. The 117-122 is a BMI around 18.6

-19.4 which I spent around 5 years at and had none of the problems and

felt strong and healthy.

Besides, right now, its only a thought.

Regards

Jeff

PS Age = 46 now.

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

From: citpeks [mailto:citpeks@...]

Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 5:26 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Natural diet, fats, startch etc,

Jeff,

I was surprised by your intention to " drop to 117-122 and keep my BMI

around 18.6-19.4 this year " considering that you have had hypothermia,

sexual, and mental/psychological problems at lower weight.

Putting your numbers (age:45, height:66.5, weight:122) in the

-Benedict equation, I get the following:

BMR: 1364,

Sedentary calorie requirements: 1637,

Lightly active: 1876

Moderately active: 2115

So if you are eating 1500 calories and you are sedentary, your diet is

already 8.4% CR. If you are lightly active your degree of CR is 20%.

If you are moderately active your degree of CR is 29%.

One of the topics we discussed last year was that 15% CR may be optimum

in terms of longevity. You state the case for quality of life over

longevity eloquently in your note below and conclude that it would not

be worth living a long life if you have no joy. Before embarking on a

lower calorie diet, re-read your own words.

Tony

===

Message 16885

From: " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

Date: Tue Jan 4, 2005 3:07 pm

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Natural diet, fats, startch etc, was

(Rules of the road)

>>And you do the lot on 1500 calories and its low glycemic (don't know

what your height is but it looks like your going to be at least 30%

Calorie restriction, maybe 40% if your near six foot on those calories).

I am around 5'6 (.5) " (at my height, every 1/2 inch counts!) .

Now, I have never been very large at any size or weight throughout my

life but I figure it to be about 10-15% CR, with 20% CR at most. I have

been at a much lower weight and BF in the past but was not comfortable

with my QOL at those times. I have weight as little as 104 with around

5% body fat for an extended period. I was always cold.

Felt weak. Couldn't sit for long as it hurt. Had no libido. Felt

irritated often. No clothes would fit as I was buying kids clothes, and

looked very gaunt, and all the other " side effects " you hear about with

extreme CR. It wasn't fun. And the irony is, that if that is what it

takes to extend my life without disease, than who would want to live

long like that?

I have some problems with the whole concept of " set point " and how you

deduce your " usual " weight. We are not rats in cages and have many other

variables that come into play just to survive. So, how much is typically

available and how much is the typical amount of activity/exercise we

get? This all matters.

And, In observing this ongoing human experiment here on earth, it seems

that " most " humans, given free access to readily available food, will

eat as much as they can. We are a rare group. Perhaps it's a built in

survival mechanism but there are now more adults over 300 lbs and over

350 lbs than ever before, and even more over 500 than ever before and

some upward of a 1000. As the food industy makes more and more food

available, and cheaper and more concentrated, we humans (at least those

humans) just keep getting heavier and heavier. Its seems that the human

" race " is now to obesity.

But, if I was to use some of the concepts, my typical weight as an adult

was around 135-140. I don't ever remember being over 140 (142) and at my

height, that is only a BMI Of 22.3. SO that was my heaviest.

Well take 10% off of that, and you get to 122-126, which is right around

where I am most of the time these days. That's a BMI of 19.4 - 20.0. I

may drop to 117-122 and keep my BMI around 18.6 -19.4 this year. I think

18.5 is the safest and healthiest that we have data to support.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

>>I too was surprised. IMHO why skirt on the edge of 18.5 BMI (the lowest

that has been shown to be optimal for health) rather than weigh a few pounds

more? Just in case of illness or accident (or tsunami striking ) which

could cause weight loss. Why flirt with the lower end of what is considered

safe? My own BMI is about 19.

It isn't yet an " intention " , but only a " thought " I was considering and

expressed out loud. I appreciate the concerns/input. I have no plans or

interest in pushing the envelope anymore. A wt of 104 and BMI of 16 is not

fun. And it doesnt impress the chicks.

Thanks!!

jeff

[Guest guest]

I think the comparison of RMR to HB's BMR is maybe a misunderstanding. We know from reports in the 2 cr groups that some persons experience a lower "metabolism". RMR could be lower in a person who eats less calories and "operates" at a "slower" pace. While the higher level is achieved with more calories, maybe more protein (and burning it), or maybe more fat intake and exercising at a higher work rate.

The higher level allows people to "perform" greater physical feats at times, but maybe creates more free radicals and more athero.

I think the HB is probably a good estimate of the people that HB evaluated at the time it was developed. Those with typical jobs - not endurance athletes, maybe. Those with typical food intake patterns - not fast foods, eg.

So if I view the HB as accurate and see the RMR as deviations due to calorie intake, it makes sense.

So what do I use? I use the HB to establish my required level and then I incur some errors. Estimating true work output is not easy, and the efficiency with which I do that work is errored. And the environment is a variable. So I have to compare that with ingested calories to get a feeling how to use the HB. But also calculating the weight loss overnight, as a function of work, calories burned (fat and carbs/protein) and compensating for water loss as well, is tricky, because of the uncertainty in work performed. If I do it long enough I get a handle on the relationships.

So what's at stake is the calculation of the heat generated by the person at rest, not running, eg. If I do work at a slow rate carrying 100# 50 ft in a minute, that will produce less waste body heat than running that 50 ft. I just don't see how measured RMR can NOT be different in those two cases. But neither represents the heat dissipated by that person, say lying in bed.

The other side is that HB is something I can calculate every day without any support systems.

Regards.

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

From: Jeff Novick

Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 4:50 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Natural diet, fats, startch etc,

TonyThanks for your input. However, the problem I see is not with my numbers, but it is with the HBequation (as there is with most equations). I can even post one studydone on the HB by and U Penn, where they tested people ofsimilar ht, age, wt, gender, and came out with readings around 1700 formost of them with the HB equation(as the variables were similar). Yetwhen tested on a metabolic cart, the actual RMRs came out for some aslow as 1200 and for some as high as 2200. Lots of variance in the HB.The same variance would apply for the activity categories. While I knowthese formulas are great to be used in general, they don't always applyto indivudals. Also, the negative effects were at the wt of 104, BMI of 16.5, which Iwould never return to voluntarily. The 117-122 is a BMI around 18.6-19.4 which I spent around 5 years at and had none of the problems andfelt strong and healthy. Besides, right now, its only a thought. RegardsJeffPS Age = 46 now.