confused about cron and excercise...

[Guest guest]

hi,

i know this must have been discussed extensively and i'm sorry. i

also understand that in the grand scheme of things, the amount of

excercise we get is a personal choice, and some need it more than

others to feel happy or fulfilled.

from the files and dr walford's book i gather that excercise alone

doesn't prolong maximum life span, though it might increase average

lifespan. also, strenuous physical excercise can lead to oxidative

stress.

on the other hand, in his biosphere experiment, walford allowed his

crew members something averaging 1900 calories a day, and stated

that:

" while the calorie count may not appear very reduced, balanced

against the INTENSE WORK LOAD, it was sufficiently low... "

going on to quote percentage weight reduction in the participants.

i don't understand why he chose to do this, rather than simply

investigate the results of calorie restriction?

and does he therefore suggest that the degree of caloric restriction

can be less if one is excercising, and still result in a longer

maximal life span?

any thoughts on this? if anything, it's something interesting to

discuss.

[Guest guest]

Romi: Walford didn't " choose " to do that Everyone in the biosphere was

required to work intensely to survive. In fact Walford theorized that

perhaps the difficult manual labor, coupled with his age (he was much older

than the other biospherans but was required to do the same amount of work),

and the rapid onset of Calorie Restriction (due to a shortage of food) may

have led to his deteriorating health when he left the biosphere. Another

factor may have been the gases that he inhaled while working.

As we now know, severe CR in later life is not a good idea and shortens

rather than lengthens life.

It's all in our " Dr. Walford " file.

As for the question below that you asked, I don't understand the question at

all. Perhaps someone else does.

" > and does he therefore suggest that the degree of caloric restriction

> can be less if one is excercising, and still result in a longer

> maximal life span? "

on 6/16/2005 10:33 AM, romi_bobbio at romina.dacosta@... wrote:

> " while the calorie count may not appear very reduced, balanced

> against the INTENSE WORK LOAD, it was sufficiently low... "

>

> going on to quote percentage weight reduction in the participants.

>

> i don't understand why he chose to do this, rather than simply

> investigate the results of calorie restriction?

>

> and does he therefore suggest that the degree of caloric restriction

> can be less if one is excercising, and still result in a longer

> maximal life span?

>

> any thoughts on this? if anything, it's something interesting to

> discuss.

>

[Guest guest]

I believe the general consensus is that it is not strictly equivalent wrt to

benefits generated but obviously the energy budget is altered by exercise.

This is also somewhat confounded by the observation that CR'd rats like to run

on their wheels more than AL brethren, so some amount of activity is involved

but I don't believe this is linked.

There appear to be benefits from not carrying excessive adipose, so combining

exercise with CR will make it easier to cover nutritional bases while balancing

energy budgets. This may provide short term health benefit independent of

slowing

aging. Since we will all die of something I wouldn't discount general health

factors.

There is clearly debate over what is a safe minimal %BF but it seems logical

that

it's dangerous to take it too low. Since it's easier to manage things we

can measure (albeit not very accurately), than those we can't (set point?,

%CR?),

moderation seems like a prudent course until we learn more.

JR

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

" > and does he therefore suggest that the degree of caloric restriction

> can be less if one is excercising, and still result in a longer

> maximal life span? "