Re: What is CRON (was Elle magazine)

[Guest guest]

This seems to be a no brainer -- Benedict is only a population estimated equation and can be SIGNIFICANTLY different on an individual basis. People practicing CRON can have their metabolism measured (both bally total fitness and 24 Hour Fitness now offer this service for $49) to know exactly how many calories your body burns each day. From there, you can lower to achieve the desired deficit you're looking for.

Lorri

[Guest guest]

Again, I want the calories I burn to be lower than that. And I find it simply by eating less. The machine cannot give me a set point. We know that the body lowers metab when we eat less.

Regards.

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

From: lorrcomstock@...

Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:34 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] What is CRON (was Elle magazine)

This seems to be a no brainer -- Benedict is only a population estimated equation and can be SIGNIFICANTLY different on an individual basis. People practicing CRON can have their metabolism measured (both bally total fitness and 24 Hour Fitness now offer this service for $49) to know exactly how many calories your body burns each day. From there, you can lower to achieve the desired deficit you're looking for.

Lorri

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

I certainly agree that we do not have precise specifications for what

constitutes CR or ON. But nutrition is a comparatively young

science. There remains much we do not know. Yet the same is true of

medicine. That does not mean that, because all the answers are not

yet known precisely, we should ignore what medicine has to offer.

Similarly, IMO, for CRON. If much remains to be learned we do know

some very important things that people can act on now and be

confident they will benefit. One is that the vast majority of people

eat too much and should eat an amount that gets their BMI down at

least below 25, and perhaps/probably below 22 and probably not below

18.5. Plenty of people could avail themselves of that advice but

appear not willing, or able to do so.

We also know pretty accurately the nutrients we need and about how

much we need at a minimum. (As proof of this, mice fed essentially a

purely chemical diet survive quite nicely on it. Certainly the same

could be done for humans if there was a demand for it. Perhaps we

should set up a company to do it!). One component of an excellent

way to do this, consistent with not eating too many calories, is to

eat plenty of green vegetables.

In addition, and on much less firm ground, are the substances that,

beyond the basic nutrients we must have, are believed (based on what

we assess to be serious evidence) to help protect against various

diseases - cancer in particular. The foods I am thinking of are

things like cruciferous vegetables, tomatoes, bran, anti-oxidant

containing foods such as berries, pomegranates, prunes and so on.

So above there are three fundamental principles which, while

certainly not the last word, do, IMO, make an excellent start:

A) Do not eat too much. Make sure to get enough of the nutrients

we know for sure we must have. C) Emphasize foods believed to

protect against certain diseases. (Have I missed other major basic

principles????)

It shouldn't be too difficult for people to grasp this. Nor should

it be too difficult for people to implement it - if they have a

little motivation to preserve their health.

Do we have plenty more to learn? Certainly. But does that persuade

me to do nothing and wait until we have perfect knowledge? No.

Others decide differently. As we can readily see.

Rodney.

> Rodney said:

>

> " People who have knowedge of things like CRON can try to send a

> message. But if that message is ignored. If it is (in effect)

> ridiculed. If those on the receiving end of it do not care enough

> about their health to make a little effort to find out the facts for

> themselves and then do something ... then why should the experts,

and

> us here, care? "

>

> One of the problems that I see in getting the message out is that

> nobody can define " CRON " in practical terms. In the laboratory,

> Caloric Restriction (CR) is implemented against a standard: animals

> fed ad libitum. In this way, scientists can say that one group is

> being fed 30% less than the control group. Nothing similar exists

for

> humans. I have tried to convince you that the -Benedict

> equations and a BMI of 22 could be used as an objective reference

> point, but this suggestion has received a lukewarm reception. The

> bottom line is that there is no widely accepted way of measuring

> percent of caloric restriction for humans.

>

> Equally undefined is the term Optimum Nutrition (ON). We can

> theoretically say that ON is a diet that has everything that you

need

> to thrive. So, where are the perfectly balanced chow pellets for

> humans? They don't exist. We tend to put our philosophical ideas

> ahead of our nutritional needs. People who don't eat meats because

of

> religious or ethical principles clearly are in this category. But

> each of us has preferences or idiosyncrasies that may prevent us

from

> getting the perfect balance of nutrients. When was the last time

that

> you ate liver, or kidney pie? Have you ever eaten tripe or brains?

> Yuck! is the typical reaction. Yet, optimal nutrition could require

> something that we avoid because of philosophical or cultural

reasons.

> Our great genetic diversity also contributes to our inability to

> define ON. It is probably impossible to have an optimum diet to

which

> nobody is allergic.

>

> So what possible advise can we give about CRON when we can only talk

> in generalities? How can we not be misunderstood?

>

> I think that we have a better chance of defining CR than ON, but I

am

> not holding my breath.

>

> Tony

[Guest guest]

Not to argue your points.

I see a great deal of merit in the HB, but it doesn't tell me how to lower metab.

Mostly the effect of eating less translates into lower body weight, so I need to know the body weight I desire.

I like the BMI of 22 also, or any between 20 and 24, but I don't know the risks of getting there in say 10 days or 10 years. I'm sure I'll get there sooner or later.

The ON, I can't figure out how that's diff from CR. I can do ON with 650 kcals if I use the present RDA's. So I need to add 1750 kcals of energy. Should it be carbs or oils? Perhaps french fries (ha)?

Alan (old post) and I have figured out we can't eat too much fiber either. I can't eat 6# of cabbage, eg. So as you say we talk in generalities, but we do have a thing called DASH which is a pretty good Mediterranean based diet. Pretty good, as in tested in humans, admittedly sick humans.

Perhaps we could define a good diet by picking at the supposed best?

I have 's DASH Wednesday example diet in a spreadsheet for starters, and it shows me it's low fat, 100+ grams of protein for the 2000 kcals version, includes meats.

Regards.

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

From: citpeks

Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:21 PM

Subject: [ ] What is CRON (was Elle magazine)

Rodney said:"People who have knowedge of things like CRON can try to send amessage. But if that message is ignored. If it is (in effect)ridiculed. If those on the receiving end of it do not care enoughabout their health to make a little effort to find out the facts forthemselves and then do something ... then why should the experts, andus here, care?"One of the problems that I see in getting the message out is thatnobody can define "CRON" in practical terms. In the laboratory,Caloric Restriction (CR) is implemented against a standard: animalsfed ad libitum. In this way, scientists can say that one group isbeing fed 30% less than the control group. Nothing similar exists forhumans. I have tried to convince you that the -Benedictequations and a BMI of 22 could be used as an objective referencepoint, but this suggestion has received a lukewarm reception. Thebottom line is that there is no widely accepted way of measuringpercent of caloric restriction for humans.Equally undefined is the term Optimum Nutrition (ON). We cantheoretically say that ON is a diet that has everything that you needto thrive. So, where are the perfectly balanced chow pellets forhumans? They don't exist. We tend to put our philosophical ideasahead of our nutritional needs. People who don't eat meats because ofreligious or ethical principles clearly are in this category. Buteach of us has preferences or idiosyncrasies that may prevent us fromgetting the perfect balance of nutrients. When was the last time thatyou ate liver, or kidney pie? Have you ever eaten tripe or brains? Yuck! is the typical reaction. Yet, optimal nutrition could requiresomething that we avoid because of philosophical or cultural reasons.Our great genetic diversity also contributes to our inability todefine ON. It is probably impossible to have an optimum diet to whichnobody is allergic.So what possible advise can we give about CRON when we can only talkin generalities? How can we not be misunderstood?I think that we have a better chance of defining CR than ON, but I amnot holding my breath.Tony

[Guest guest]

Lorri,

Saying that this is a no brainer, does not make it so. What you are

suggesting is to measure your basal metabolism for $49. OK. So now

you know how many calories you burn. What is your percent of Caloric

Restriction measured against? 1) Against your current metabolism?

Or, 2) against the metabolism that you would have had eating ad

libitum? CR should be calculated relative to option 2, which you did

not measure. This is where the problem comes in. If you are already

calorie restricted, your basal metabolism is already different from

what it would be otherwise.

The fact that Benedict provides an average basal metabolism for

a non-calorically restricted general population is what makes it a

good choice as a reference point. Combined with an mid-point normal

BMI of 22, you can set up a " control twin " for your height, weight,

sex, age, and level of activity. The calculated caloric requirements

of this control twin can then be used as the basis for computing your

percent caloric restriction based on your actual food consumption.

Tony

> This seems to be a no brainer -- Benedict is only a

population

> estimated equation and can be SIGNIFICANTLY different on an

individual basis.

> People practicing CRON can have their metabolism measured (both

bally total

> fitness and 24 Hour Fitness now offer this service for $49) to know

exactly how

> many calories your body burns each day. From there, you can lower to

achieve the

> desired deficit you're looking for.

>

> Lorri

[Guest guest]

Agreed, and not only do we not have a clear picture of targets or what we're

trying to do, we're debating how to encourage more pilgrims into the boat with

us.

I have no problem with preaching full nutrition (as we understand it) and

reduced energy intake (compared to eating ourselves to death). Restriction

beyond

normal (whatever that is) is all still part of this grand experiment.

Yes, I'd love more people to be actively participating but not because " I " think

it's promising.

JR

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

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of citpeks

Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:22 PM

Subject: [ ] What is CRON (was Elle magazine)

Rodney said:

" People who have knowedge of things like CRON can try to send a

message. But if that message is ignored. If it is (in effect)

ridiculed. If those on the receiving end of it do not care enough

about their health to make a little effort to find out the facts for

themselves and then do something ... then why should the experts, and

us here, care? "

One of the problems that I see in getting the message out is that

nobody can define " CRON " in practical terms. In the laboratory,

Caloric Restriction (CR) is implemented against a standard: animals

fed ad libitum. In this way, scientists can say that one group is

being fed 30% less than the control group. Nothing similar exists for

humans. I have tried to convince you that the -Benedict

equations and a BMI of 22 could be used as an objective reference

point, but this suggestion has received a lukewarm reception. The

bottom line is that there is no widely accepted way of measuring

percent of caloric restriction for humans.

Equally undefined is the term Optimum Nutrition (ON). We can

theoretically say that ON is a diet that has everything that you need

to thrive. So, where are the perfectly balanced chow pellets for

humans? They don't exist. We tend to put our philosophical ideas

ahead of our nutritional needs. People who don't eat meats because of

religious or ethical principles clearly are in this category. But

each of us has preferences or idiosyncrasies that may prevent us from

getting the perfect balance of nutrients. When was the last time that

you ate liver, or kidney pie? Have you ever eaten tripe or brains?

Yuck! is the typical reaction. Yet, optimal nutrition could require

something that we avoid because of philosophical or cultural reasons.

Our great genetic diversity also contributes to our inability to

define ON. It is probably impossible to have an optimum diet to which

nobody is allergic.

So what possible advise can we give about CRON when we can only talk

in generalities? How can we not be misunderstood?

I think that we have a better chance of defining CR than ON, but I am

not holding my breath.

Tony

[Guest guest]

JW,

You ask " who cares? " . I care. I think that scientific methodology

and quantification is the difference between art and engineering. Let

us look at your own example:

At your current weight, your BMR is 1595 (not 1578) according to the

Cornell web site:

http://www-users.med.cornell.edu/~spon/picu/calc/beecalc.htm

Using multiplication factors of 1.2, 1.375, and 1.55 for sedentary,

lightly active, and moderately active, your HB caloric requirements

would be 1914, 2193, and 2472 kcal, respectively. So, if you are

eating 1800 calories and are moderately active, your percent CR is

27%, relative to your current weight.

However, you know that this is not the right weight for you. Even in

mice experiments, mice fed ad libitum don't get to eat all they want.

Researchers have been criticized for overfeeding control mice, and

the common practice now is to feed them enough so that they don't get

overweight. I think that a BMI of 22, which is the mid-point of the

normal weight range for humans is a good reference point. Never mind

that at age 20 you weighed 135 and had a BMI of 20.

For this reason, I am advocating calculating %CR relative to a control

twin with a BMI of 22. For your height, a BMI 22 corresponds to a

weight of 149 lb. The BMR of this control twin (male, 149 lb, 5'9 " ,

age 69) is 1408, and the metabolic requirements for sedentary, lightly

active, and moderately active are 1689, 1935, and 2182 kcal,

respectively. If you are eating 1800 calories and are moderately

active, your percent CR is 17% relative to your control twin

((2182-1800)/2182)*100. I think that when we are asked what percent

caloric restriction we practice, this is the figure that we should

report.

Tony

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

> Let me add to that. I use the HB all the time in a spreadsheet.

> Today I'm 69 yo, weight 178#, ht 5' 9 " .

> That gives me a BMR of 1578.69. But I could easily be at 234# and my

BMR would be 1927.42.

> Of course my BMR would be higher with higher weight. So

1578.69/1927.42 is 81.9 or 18 % CR (by one measure). Actually, I was

eating 3000 kcals ad libitum at 234# and growing slowly each year, so

I could say 1578 + 250 kcals activity is 1828/3000 or 39% CR.

> Which is it? Who cares?

>

> 178# is still too heavy by my BMI goal, weight goal, and heart

capacity decreased by aging (the way I figure it). If I want to live

longer I have to keep my weight below what my heart can produce, which

so far, is OK.

>

> The upshot is the HB doesn't tell me what weight I want to be, at

any given age. We all know we will shrink if we live, and the heart

will be challenged to support heavy weights. With any luck we can

lower weight as our heart muscle declines, to whatever.

> If my weight was 135# (my 20 yo wt), my BMR would be 1311, so I can

drop my calorie intake to 1600 now and decline 0.2 # per day (fat,

water, muscle total). I'd get to 135# in about 60 days. So is that a

good thing?

>

> No one knows the rate I should drop, but my gut tells me it's slower

than that. I guarantee it would get the attention of my doctor. How

about 1700 kcals and get to 135# in 107 days? Or 1750, 174 days?

> I like 1800 and 479 days better.

>

> Regards.

>

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

> From: citpeks

>

> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:32 PM

> Subject: [ ] Re: What is CRON (was Elle magazine)

....

>

> The fact that Benedict provides an average basal

metabolism for

> a non-calorically restricted general population is what makes it a

> good choice as a reference point. Combined with an mid-point

normal

> BMI of 22, you can set up a " control twin " for your height,

weight,

> sex, age, and level of activity. The calculated caloric

requirements

> of this control twin can then be used as the basis for computing

your

> percent caloric restriction based on your actual food consumption.

>

> Tony

>

[Guest guest]

> ((2182-1800)/2182)*100. I think that when we are

> asked what percent caloric restriction we practice,

> this is the figure that we should report.

A field should be added to the group's H/W ratio

database to report this number. I average 32% calorie

rrestriction.

One thing that I worry about: is it the degree of

caloric restriction that plays the fundamental

anti-aging role or is it a slower metabolism?

Logan

__________________________________

Mobile

Take with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

http://mobile./learn/mail