Re: Ideal CR-ON

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeff:

I do not think we can know which of your examples is more healthy (or

even if they are materially qualitatively different) until we have

large studies of the health/lifespans of people at many different

places on the BMI curve. I posted about this here a year ago, hoping

someone had data that delineated, even if only for mice, the exact

shape of the curve of maximal lifespan vs BMI (or whatever variable

is chosen). We will not have these studies for a VERY long time.

Although we may have cell proliferation and lipids data for such

groups a lot sooner (but probably not soon) which may give us a

hint.

There are some recent dutch data which show that, in the case of

humans, going from a BMI of 30 down to 25 and then in the direction

of 20, the gains in lifespan are relatively modest. (IIRC, seven

years more after spending a lifetime at a BMI of 22 compared with

30). Certainly NOT of a magnitude that suggests that at a BMI of 18

some would live to an age of 165. So does the curve suddenly steepen

dramatically below a BMI of 22? Or are the percentage gains in

maximum lifespan in mouse studies not applicable to humans?

What I find interesting about your data is what they seem to imply

about fat loss/gain for a given weight change at very low levels of

body fat.

Between your examples 1 and 3 there is an 18 pound weight change

(between 104 pounds and 122), and a 4.5% change (from 4.5% to 9.0%)

in body fat percentage. That is a 0.25% change in body fat

percentage per pound of weight change.

For me, in the first stage of my move from my 'fit 22 year old' set

point toward CRON - from a BMI of 24.5 to 22.7 - the ratio was 0.29%

change in BF, per pound of weight lost. That is not hugely different

from your data at much lower BMIs - between ~17 and ~20.

But clearly there are certain subjective criteria that have to be

satisfied to make life worth living for the hoped-for extended

lifespan. Some level of comfort, endurance, strength, flexibility,

libido, etc. are desirable. Perhaps the 40% CR mice, which live so

much longer, if they could, would be telling us they would be happier

if they lived less long and had more libido?

Perhaps the longest maximal lifespan for humans is at a BMI of 15,

but perhaps no one would be prepared voluntarily to subject

themselves to it?

Rodney.

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

wrote:

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

you be ~125 with more fat?

>

> I thought about this some more and while I again dont think the 2

options apply to the info i posted or to me as neither one

represented my experiences that I shared, I thought I would take the

actual info I did post about my actual weights, and ask you the same

questions.

>

> Here are the options (based on actual numbers) and you tell me

which is better for CR-ON. (I have acheived these " points " both on

the way down and the way up with both aerobic and resistance training

involved) (FFM - Fat Free Mass, BMI- Body Mass Index, BF- Body Fat)

>

> 1) 104 lbs, BMI 16.78, BF 4-5%, 5.2 lbs fat, 98.8 lbs FFM

>

> 2) 117 lbs, BMI 18.88, BF 7-8%, 9.4 lbs fat, 107.6 lbs FFM, which

is similar to what you seemed to recommend which is scenerio one,

with 9 lbs (not 5 lbs) of muscle added and 4 lbs fat. Its hard to

add one without the other.

>

> 3) 122 lbs, BMI 19.68, BF 8-10%, 12.2 lbs fat, 109.8 lbs FFM

>

> So, if I stopped halfway between scenerio 1 and 2, , I would have

Scenerio 1B, and would have been 111 lbs, BMI 17.9, BF 6 % (?), 6.66

lbs fat, 104.34 lbs FFM, which would have been scenerio one with 5

lbs muscle and 1.5 lbs fat added, which is exactly what you

recommended

>

> So, would model do you think would be better for CR-ON, 1, 2, 3 or

the halfway between 1 & 2, which I called 1B?

>

> Rodney and Tony have had many discussions about how much muscle vs

fat people lose on the way up and the way down, and i Have seen some

formulas posted, so I dont know if these fit the models or the

formulas in their discussions, but your comments are also welcome, as

anyone else.

>

> Thanks

>

> Jeff

[Guest guest]

Hi Rodney

I may have posted this before, but if not, here it is...

Thanks for your comments.

Jeff

" Impact of Overweight on the Risk of Developing Common Chronic Diseases

During a 10-Year Period

Alison E. Field, ScD; Eugenie H. Coakley; Aviva Must, PhD; L.

Spadano, MA; Nan Laird, PhD; H. Dietz, MD, PhD; Rimm, ScD;

Graham A. Colditz, MD, DrPH

Background: Overweight adults are at an increased risk of developing

numerous chronic diseases.

Methods: Ten-year follow-up (1986-1996) of middle-aged women in the

Nurses' Health Study and men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study

to assess the health risks associated with overweight.

Results The risk of developing diabetes, gallstones, hypertension, heart

disease, and stroke increased with severity of overweight among both

women and men. Compared with their same-sex peers with a body mass index

(BMI) (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height

in meters) between 18.5 and 24.9, those with BMI of 35.0 or more were

approximately 20 times more likely to develop diabetes (relative risk

[RR], 17.0; 95% confidence interval [CI],

14.2-20.5 for women; RR, 23.4; 95% CI, 19.4-33.2 for men). Women who

were overweight but not obese (ie, BMI between 25.0 and 29.9) were also

significantly more likely than their leaner peers to develop gallstones

(RR, 1.9), hypertension (RR, 1.7), high cholesterol level (RR, 1.1), and

heart disease (RR, 1.4). The results were similar in men.

Conclusions: During 10 years of follow-up, the incidence of diabetes,

gallstones, hypertension, heart disease, colon cancer, and stroke (men

only) increased with degree of overweight in both men and women. Adults

who were overweight but not obese (ie, 25.0BMI29.9) were at

significantly increased risk of developing numerous health conditions.

Moreover, the dose-response relationship between BMI and the risk of

developing chronic diseases was evident even among adults in the upper

half of the healthy weight range (ie, BMI of 22.0-24.9), suggesting that

adults should try to maintain a BMI between 18.5 and 21.9 to minimize

their risk of disease.

Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:1581-1586

[Guest guest]

Greeting Jeff! One question before I answer: How you determine % body

composition at each level? Hydrostatic weighing? I ask because this

only accurate way. I also ask becuase I have hard time believing you

add 11 lb muscle (FFM) in 18 lb gain of bodyweight (104 to 122)! (no

offense!) I think you add much less muscle and much more fat in this

transition. Again, What way you know you % body composition?

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

you be ~125 with more fat?

>

> I thought about this some more and while I again dont think the 2

options apply to the info i posted or to me as neither one represented

my experiences that I shared, I thought I would take the actual info

I did post about my actual weights, and ask you the same questions.

>

> Here are the options (based on actual numbers) and you tell me which

is better for CR-ON. (I have acheived these " points " both on the way

down and the way up with both aerobic and resistance training

involved) (FFM - Fat Free Mass, BMI- Body Mass Index, BF- Body Fat)

>

> 1) 104 lbs, BMI 16.78, BF 4-5%, 5.2 lbs fat, 98.8 lbs FFM

>

> 2) 117 lbs, BMI 18.88, BF 7-8%, 9.4 lbs fat, 107.6 lbs FFM, which

is similar to what you seemed to recommend which is scenerio one, with

9 lbs (not 5 lbs) of muscle added and 4 lbs fat. Its hard to add one

without the other.

>

> 3) 122 lbs, BMI 19.68, BF 8-10%, 12.2 lbs fat, 109.8 lbs FFM

>

> So, if I stopped halfway between scenerio 1 and 2, , I would have

Scenerio 1B, and would have been 111 lbs, BMI 17.9, BF 6 % (?), 6.66

lbs fat, 104.34 lbs FFM, which would have been scenerio one with 5 lbs

muscle and 1.5 lbs fat added, which is exactly what you recommended

>

> So, would model do you think would be better for CR-ON, 1, 2, 3 or

the halfway between 1 & 2, which I called 1B?

>

> Rodney and Tony have had many discussions about how much muscle vs

fat people lose on the way up and the way down, and i Have seen some

formulas posted, so I dont know if these fit the models or the

formulas in their discussions, but your comments are also welcome, as

anyone else.

>

> Thanks

>

> Jeff

[Guest guest]

>>How you determine % body composition at each level? Hydrostatic

weighing? I ask because this only accurate way.

My BF numbers were done on Hydrostatic weighing usually at the Exercise

Physiology department of Indiana State University under supervision of

the Dept Chair, who was my graduate advisor at the time. I was a subject

in several studies. Other times, at local Ex Phys labs. Each time,

the result was the average of 5-10 weighings (which is one of the

standards used for Hydrostatic weighing in research).

Hydrostatic Weighing is no longer considered the gold standard as there

are many variables (hence the average of 5-10x for research). The DEXA

is now considered the standard and very recently I began being tested

using a DEXA. There was a slight variance between the two numbers, but

not much.

Not to sound " anal " about it all, but I have also used a home

bioimpendence BF scale for most all of the years as a home " monitoring "

back up, and I also have my BF checked with calipers by collegues in Ex

Phys, so I know those numbers and the consistancy/variance between them.

The numbers I posted are by the same method. As with my food, I am not

as " anal " about any of it anymore (though my fiancee might tell you

otherwise) as after so many years of monitoring everything, I have a

good " feel " of where I am at and what I am doing.

The muscle is not hard to believe if you know my history, which includes

competitive wrestling for many years. I had that much muscle, if not

more, before, so regaining it is a lot easier, if you have had it

before, than gaining it for the first time. If you are famaliar with

the example of Casey Viator, which is often used in BodyBuilding

circles, this is also what happened to him. It was either Ellington

Darden or Arthur who did the experiement but whichever it was,

they had Casey gain a huge amount of muscle in a short time, which was a

highly debated issue at the time in body building. Turns out, he was

just regaining lost muscle which is much easier than building new

muscle.

>>I also ask becuase I have hard time believing you add 11 lb muscle

(FFM) in 18 lb gain of bodyweight (104 to 122)! (no offense!) I think

you add much less muscle and much more fat in this transition.

No offence taken, but I am surprised that you would encourage me to gain

5 lbs of muscle and than question my ability to gain 11. I agree, you

cant gain muscle without gaining fat, and the periods I posted were at

the stable point of various times of which there were several years

between each point. None of this was overnight or a simple jump from

one to the other. It would be foolish for me to think I couldn't put on

11 lbs of muscle today from where I am and wouldn't begin to think I

could. Different scenrio between gaining and " re " gaining.

Hope that helps

Jeff

PS, Oh, so of those options, which one do you think is the best for

CR-ON?

[Guest guest]

The ratio of Fat Free Mass (FFM) reported by Jeff seems to be in

agreement with the equations that were posted in Message 15864.

>>>

From: " chuinyun " <chuinyun@a...>

Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 2:16 pm

Subject: Re: Ideal CR-ON

Greeting Jeff! One question before I answer: How you determine % body

composition at each level? Hydrostatic weighing? I ask because this

only accurate way. I also ask becuase I have hard time believing you

add 11 lb muscle (FFM) in 18 lb gain of bodyweight (104 to 122)!

>>>

Here is Jeff's data processed using the equations in Message 15864:

1) 104 lbs, BMI 16.78, BF 4-5%, 5.2 lbs fat, 98.8 lbs FFM

2) 117 lbs, BMI 18.88, BF 7-8%, 9.4 lbs fat, 107.6 lbs FFM

3) 122 lbs, BMI 19.68, BF 8-10%, 12.2 lbs fat, 109.8 lbs FFM

From 104 to 117 there is an increase of 13 pounds and an increase of

8.8 pounds of FFM which constitutes 68% of the weight gain. Notice

the table below from message 15864. 68% gain/loss of FFM is in the

range of what you would expect when the percent body fat is from 5% to

10%.

From 117 to 122 there is an increase of 5 pounds and an increase of

2.2 pounds of FFM which constitutes 44% of the weight gain. According

to the equations, we would expect the gain of FFM to be around 62% of

the total weight gain (3.1 pounds instead of 2.2).

The equations provide good ballpark estimates of the amount of FFM

that you can gain or lose based on the total weight of your body fat.

My own weight losses were also closely matched by the equations.

Tony

====

Message 15864 [excerpt]

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 (LBM) (~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%)

[Guest guest]

Tony

Thanks. I knew I had seen a formula in some of the posts between you

and Rodney.

I don't know if you posted this, but can you tell me where you got the

formula from, and the reference if there is one as I am going to see

about testing it against some of our results here.

Thanks

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Jeff,

The formula to predict gain/loss of Lean Body Mass was originally

posted in Message 14169 with a reference to the article that had it:

http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/qa/afc/afc_jul272001.htm

The formula is from a paper by G.B. Forbes (Ann N Y Acad Sci 2000

May;904:359-65) describing weight gain and weight loss experiments.

The conclusions are that you gain more muscle than fat when you are

lean (low % body fat), and that when dieting you will lose more muscle

than fat if you restrict your calories too much.

Tony

[Guest guest]

Esteemed Dr. Walford assert this:

" How people feel depends on (a) how much restriction they undertake,

( the characteristics of the individual person, and © the

" quality " of the diet they were on compared to the " quality " of the

restricted diet.

* (a) The degree of life span extension, and other benefits, is

proportional to the degree of restriction. Even 10% restriction will

lead to a mild increase in life span and other benefits. That's not at

all difficult. Maximal life extension would be achieved at about 50%

restriction, and would be quite difficult to keep up (and should not

be undertaken unless under close medical supervision). Over 50%

restriction will lead to caloric starvation. So you should settle on

whatever is comfortable for you. 30% is better than 20% is better than

10% but don't go overboard, and you should lose weight slowly. It's

not a crash diet. "

http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/3_ask/archive/qna/32103_walford.html

And Phil Graves says this: (who Phil Graves?)

" There are proven health benefits and quality-of-life concerns, that

for most, offset what are minor CR negatives (the maximum lifespans of

the exercised CR rats are nearly as long as the unexercised, and

sometimes the average age at death is higher, despite not raising the

maximal lifespan). "

http://spot.colorado.edu/%7Egravesp/DietHealthandLongevity.html -

" Role of Exercise "

Ok, two consideration from this:

More CRON benefits may forthcome in rodents and perhaps primate with

greater calorie restriction up to certain limit (ie, greater benefit

with 20% restriction than 10% etc); (PS. group here NOT advice severe

calorie restriction of 50%!).

AND exercised rodents may extend average lifespan but not hurt maximal

lifespan much.

We all may agree with these two assertions?

Then, I submit, as person do CRON and calorie restricts, person should

adopt exercise protocol that maximize contractile proteins, bone &

connective tissue while minimize energy expenditure. Adaptation =

Stimulus. Proper stimulus will accomplish this I believe is very hard

brief weight training. Intense Stimulus = Brief stimulus = Minimal

energy Expenditure = Improved Adaptation. HARD is key! High stimulus =

high adaptation!

More calorie restriction, the more important person maintain muscle,

bone & connective tissue with optimal protocol, ie hard brief weight

training! This spares protein, maximizes adipose loss, minimize energy

expediture!

So, (short ) answer to your question:

I like 104 lb, <5% bodyfat, AND brief infrequent high intensity weight

train ALL muscle groups (all limbs and spine) which make (previous

sedentary person) to 109-110 lbs total body weight. Aerobic can not so

this.

..

> >>How you determine % body composition at each level? Hydrostatic

> weighing? I ask because this only accurate way.

>

> My BF numbers were done on Hydrostatic weighing usually at the Exercise

> Physiology department of Indiana State University under supervision of

> the Dept Chair, who was my graduate advisor at the time. I was a subject

> in several studies. Other times, at local Ex Phys labs. Each time,

> the result was the average of 5-10 weighings (which is one of the

> standards used for Hydrostatic weighing in research).

>

> Hydrostatic Weighing is no longer considered the gold standard as there

> are many variables (hence the average of 5-10x for research). The DEXA

> is now considered the standard and very recently I began being tested

> using a DEXA. There was a slight variance between the two numbers, but

> not much.

>

> Not to sound " anal " about it all, but I have also used a home

> bioimpendence BF scale for most all of the years as a home " monitoring "

> back up, and I also have my BF checked with calipers by collegues in Ex

> Phys, so I know those numbers and the consistancy/variance between them.

> The numbers I posted are by the same method. As with my food, I am not

> as " anal " about any of it anymore (though my fiancee might tell you

> otherwise) as after so many years of monitoring everything, I have a

> good " feel " of where I am at and what I am doing.

>

> The muscle is not hard to believe if you know my history, which includes

> competitive wrestling for many years. I had that much muscle, if not

> more, before, so regaining it is a lot easier, if you have had it

> before, than gaining it for the first time. If you are famaliar with

> the example of Casey Viator, which is often used in BodyBuilding

> circles, this is also what happened to him. It was either Ellington

> Darden or Arthur who did the experiement but whichever it was,

> they had Casey gain a huge amount of muscle in a short time, which was a

> highly debated issue at the time in body building. Turns out, he was

> just regaining lost muscle which is much easier than building new

> muscle.

>

> >>I also ask becuase I have hard time believing you add 11 lb muscle

> (FFM) in 18 lb gain of bodyweight (104 to 122)! (no offense!) I think

> you add much less muscle and much more fat in this transition.

>

> No offence taken, but I am surprised that you would encourage me to gain

> 5 lbs of muscle and than question my ability to gain 11. I agree, you

> cant gain muscle without gaining fat, and the periods I posted were at

> the stable point of various times of which there were several years

> between each point. None of this was overnight or a simple jump from

> one to the other. It would be foolish for me to think I couldn't put on

> 11 lbs of muscle today from where I am and wouldn't begin to think I

> could. Different scenrio between gaining and " re " gaining.

>

> Hope that helps

> Jeff

>

> PS, Oh, so of those options, which one do you think is the best for

> CR-ON?

[Guest guest]

>>I like 104 lb, <5% bodyfat, AND brief infrequent high intensity weight

train ALL muscle groups (all limbs and spine) which make (previous

sedentary person) to 109-110 lbs total body weight. Aerobic can not so

this.

I guess you missed my question. Or the options. Or misunderstood it. Or maybe

its thw way I asked them.

Either way,

My question to you was that assuming (which it was) that activity level (which

included HIT training) was EQUAL at each of the weights, BMIs, BFs, and FFMs,

which of the options would you prefer?

Those were the options, everything else in regard to exercise and diet (except

for caloric level) was equal. There was no " previous sedentary person " or any

other differences

So, which did you prefer, 1, 2, 3 or 1B?

Thanks

jeff

PS Are you famaliar with either Clarence Bass or Arthur De Vany? Amd if so,

what do you think of their essays on training methods?

PSS You keep promoting Brief, Infrequent Full Body, High Intensity (HIT)

training. Do you have any documented/published evidence of its superiority over

regular weight training in the long run?

[Guest guest]

>>>

From: " chuinyun " <chuinyun@a...>

Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 5:29 pm

Subject: Re: Ideal CR-ON

I like 104 lb, <5% bodyfat, AND brief infrequent high intensity weight

train ALL muscle groups (all limbs and spine) which make (previous

sedentary person) to 109-110 lbs total body weight.

>>>

chuinyun,

You sound like a very determined high-achiever, but be careful.

Humans differ from other animals by having a high ratio of brain to

total body weight, and the brain and nerves are made of sixty percent

(~60%) fat! By reducing body fat below 6% for men or below 14% for

women, the brain and nerves start losing fat (and the corresponding

functionality). This is why extreme CR and anorexia nervosa can cause

irritation, depression, apathy, and other mental problems.

There are several postings about the bad effects of extreme CR in our

archives. You can also research 'anorexia nervosa', which is a

pathological version of CR that results in death more frequently than

in long life.

Tony

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

Message 16885 ===

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.

Message 15791 ===

's excursion into THE GREY ZONE at 1500 calories

I felt less like socialising, I could no longer see the point of

having a drink with friends, I lost interest in sport and exercise,

I spent too much time watching the news which was full death and

war. I just slipped into a grey zone as if a veil had been pulled

over my eyes, as if I were dying.

But probably more disturbing than that was I began to think what was

the point of life, why look after my health, why calorie restrict,

who wants to live to a hundred, just endless years of greyness. I

HAD NEVER HAD THESE THOUGHTS IN MY LIFE and began to realise I was

depressed.

Now I am maintaining around 1800-190 calories and feel normal, happy

and " Male " again. So me at 1500 calories restriction 40% or 50%,

depending what the norm is, is dangerous for mental health. So it

seems that 30% is probably the end point for humans, or at least for

me, anymore and the mental changes will probably kill you earlier in

life than if you had eaten more calories.

Message 15804 ===

In Message 15527, I suggested that to protect the brain, it might not

advisable to get the Percent of Body fat below 6% for men (which is

the minimum of the " athletes " range, (14% for women)).

The average human brain weighs about 1,300 to 1,400 grams

(http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html). At 50% fat this

is 1300g*0.5/(454g/lb) = 1.43 lb of fat just in the brain. Myelin,

the protective sheath that covers communicating neurons, is

composed of 30% protein and 70% fat.

Fat is needed by the body to maintain not only the brain and nerves,

but to create new cell membranes. Phospholipids and cholesterol are

the principal components of nearly all cell membranes. The backbone of

a phospholipid is the same glycerol molecule that forms the backbone

of triglycerides. But instead of 3 fatty acids attached to glycerol, a

phospholipid consists of 2 fatty acids and a phosphoric acid compound.

(See picture of Phospholipids in Cell Membranes at

http://www.benbest.com/health/essfat.html)

At the point where your brain is not working (the GRAY ZONE) due to

caloric restriction, the amount of fat in the body must be so low that

it is stealing fat from the brain. The " bone pains " could also be a

sign of nerve deterioration, rather than of something wrong with the

bones.