Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 Hi Tom: That seems to be a pretty fairly worded article on CR. (In other words ........... it is not the usual sensationalized " these guys are nuts " type of article.) No one knows how much 'lifespan benefit' humans will derive from different degrees of CR. The reason is that it takes 70 to 100 years to conduct a study of the effects of **any** influence on lifespan in humans. That said, we do know for certain that CR produces truly **huge** reductions is all heart disease risk factors in humans, a species for which, as you will know, heart disease is by far the largest cause of death. We also know for certain that CR dramatically reduces the incidence of cancer in mice (which are also mammals) at ages up to the equivalent of 100 years in humans. And cancer, of course, is the second most frequent cause of death in humans. We also know for certain that CR dramatically lengthens lifespan in numerous other organisms - in fact every species fully tested - from yeast up through fruit flies, worms, spiders, dogs and others. Studies demonstrating these effects have been posted here in the past couple of years. We also know, from studies started eighteen years ago, that ***all the signs are*** that CR monkeys similarly will see extended lifespans. But these monkey experiments will require a few more years before we can know for certain that the CR subjects are surviving significantly longer than their ad-lib siblings, since the ad libbers are only due shortly to start 'dropping like flies'. But, based on their apparent present health, it seems clear the restricted monkeys will live a lot longer. Given the above it seems highly likely that human lifespan will also be appreciably extended by CR but no one will be able to say, one way or the other, or by how much, until another fifty years are past. It seems safe, though, to say that based on current evidence, those on CR can reasonably expect to experience dramatically lower rates of heart disease and cancer than those eating the standard north american number of calories - let alone those on the standard number of calories of the typical, dreadful, foods eaten by the average north american. Hence the reason for the " ON " in the expression CR- ON. And as far as I am aware there is no reason to believe there are any causes of death that CR would be expected to increase. In other words, IMO, CRON is worth the effort! Rodney. --- In , <tomrscott@w...> wrote: > Hi all, > > This following article mentions a possible 2-3 year longevity > extension with CR. Is anyone hoping for more? I will be satisfied if > I can just live longer than the average life span (whatever that is > at present). > > http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,68562,00.html?tw=rss.TEK > > Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 Hi Tom: That seems to be a pretty fairly worded article on CR. (In other words ........... it is not the usual sensationalized " these guys are nuts " type of article.) No one knows how much 'lifespan benefit' humans will derive from different degrees of CR. The reason is that it takes 70 to 100 years to conduct a study of the effects of **any** influence on lifespan in humans. That said, we do know for certain that CR produces truly **huge** reductions is all heart disease risk factors in humans, a species for which, as you will know, heart disease is by far the largest cause of death. We also know for certain that CR dramatically reduces the incidence of cancer in mice (which are also mammals) at ages up to the equivalent of 100 years in humans. And cancer, of course, is the second most frequent cause of death in humans. We also know for certain that CR dramatically lengthens lifespan in numerous other organisms - in fact every species fully tested - from yeast up through fruit flies, worms, spiders, dogs and others. Studies demonstrating these effects have been posted here in the past couple of years. We also know, from studies started eighteen years ago, that ***all the signs are*** that CR monkeys similarly will see extended lifespans. But these monkey experiments will require a few more years before we can know for certain that the CR subjects are surviving significantly longer than their ad-lib siblings, since the ad libbers are only due shortly to start 'dropping like flies'. But, based on their apparent present health, it seems clear the restricted monkeys will live a lot longer. Given the above it seems highly likely that human lifespan will also be appreciably extended by CR but no one will be able to say, one way or the other, or by how much, until another fifty years are past. It seems safe, though, to say that based on current evidence, those on CR can reasonably expect to experience dramatically lower rates of heart disease and cancer than those eating the standard north american number of calories - let alone those on the standard number of calories of the typical, dreadful, foods eaten by the average north american. Hence the reason for the " ON " in the expression CR- ON. And as far as I am aware there is no reason to believe there are any causes of death that CR would be expected to increase. In other words, IMO, CRON is worth the effort! Rodney. --- In , <tomrscott@w...> wrote: > Hi all, > > This following article mentions a possible 2-3 year longevity > extension with CR. Is anyone hoping for more? I will be satisfied if > I can just live longer than the average life span (whatever that is > at present). > > http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,68562,00.html?tw=rss.TEK > > Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> wrote: > > And as far as I am aware there is no reason to believe there are > any causes of death that CR would be expected to increase. > Death rates are generally U-shaped for " good " things. Too little water and you die... too much water and you also die. You have to find the happy medium. The same applies for cholesterol or CR. Too much CR can inadvertently result in inadequate consumption of essential nutrients which shorten life, rather than increase it. We have all heard the horror stories about anorexia, osteoporosis, the gray zone, etc., which are the consequence of obsessive emphasis on caloric restriction without adequate nutrition. Caloric Restriction as a method for increasing life span needs to be evaluated in the context that the BMIs of centenarians are generally in the lower half of the normal range (18.5 to 22), as we discussed recently. Caloric Restriction beyond what is needed to maintain the proper BMI may not be optimum. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> wrote: > > And as far as I am aware there is no reason to believe there are > any causes of death that CR would be expected to increase. > Death rates are generally U-shaped for " good " things. Too little water and you die... too much water and you also die. You have to find the happy medium. The same applies for cholesterol or CR. Too much CR can inadvertently result in inadequate consumption of essential nutrients which shorten life, rather than increase it. We have all heard the horror stories about anorexia, osteoporosis, the gray zone, etc., which are the consequence of obsessive emphasis on caloric restriction without adequate nutrition. Caloric Restriction as a method for increasing life span needs to be evaluated in the context that the BMIs of centenarians are generally in the lower half of the normal range (18.5 to 22), as we discussed recently. Caloric Restriction beyond what is needed to maintain the proper BMI may not be optimum. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 If we live as long as the Okinawans (which on average is only a few years longer), but reach old age in the shape they are in, that's worth it to me. on 8/26/2005 10:49 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote: And as far as I am aware there is no reason to believe there are any causes of death that CR would be expected to increase. In other words, IMO, CRON is worth the effort! Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 If we live as long as the Okinawans (which on average is only a few years longer), but reach old age in the shape they are in, that's worth it to me. on 8/26/2005 10:49 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote: And as far as I am aware there is no reason to believe there are any causes of death that CR would be expected to increase. In other words, IMO, CRON is worth the effort! Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 It seems we discussed the centenarian's BMI in the last few months and it was higher than that per that study, which we didn't believe all that much. This one has only one male in the group and he's 23.8 near the group average: http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/2_2000/281-292s.pdf Mean 23.15 +/- 5.21 I think I need a lot more data on centi's before I commit to forcing to a diff BMI. Regards. [ ] Re: CR Article --- In , "Rodney" <perspect1111@y...>wrote:> > And as far as I am aware there is no reason to believe there are> any causes of death that CR would be expected to increase.> Death rates are generally U-shaped for "good" things. Too littlewater and you die... too much water and you also die. You have tofind the happy medium. The same applies for cholesterol or CR.Too much CR can inadvertently result in inadequate consumption ofessential nutrients which shorten life, rather than increase it. Wehave all heard the horror stories about anorexia, osteoporosis, thegray zone, etc., which are the consequence of obsessive emphasis oncaloric restriction without adequate nutrition.Caloric Restriction as a method for increasing life span needs to beevaluated in the context that the BMIs of centenarians are generallyin the lower half of the normal range (18.5 to 22), as we discussedrecently. Caloric Restriction beyond what is needed to maintain theproper BMI may not be optimum.Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 It seems we discussed the centenarian's BMI in the last few months and it was higher than that per that study, which we didn't believe all that much. This one has only one male in the group and he's 23.8 near the group average: http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/2_2000/281-292s.pdf Mean 23.15 +/- 5.21 I think I need a lot more data on centi's before I commit to forcing to a diff BMI. Regards. [ ] Re: CR Article --- In , "Rodney" <perspect1111@y...>wrote:> > And as far as I am aware there is no reason to believe there are> any causes of death that CR would be expected to increase.> Death rates are generally U-shaped for "good" things. Too littlewater and you die... too much water and you also die. You have tofind the happy medium. The same applies for cholesterol or CR.Too much CR can inadvertently result in inadequate consumption ofessential nutrients which shorten life, rather than increase it. Wehave all heard the horror stories about anorexia, osteoporosis, thegray zone, etc., which are the consequence of obsessive emphasis oncaloric restriction without adequate nutrition.Caloric Restriction as a method for increasing life span needs to beevaluated in the context that the BMIs of centenarians are generallyin the lower half of the normal range (18.5 to 22), as we discussedrecently. Caloric Restriction beyond what is needed to maintain theproper BMI may not be optimum.Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 I must admit I never liked the 'BMI " . What of a slender, yet muscular, robust, fit 18.5? Are we to believe he or she is at greater risk of dying than the avg sedentary 22 that possess more adipose and less functional tissue?? Why? A little hard to believe. Anyone with opinion to the contrary, please try to persuade me. > > > > And as far as I am aware there is no reason to believe there are > > any causes of death that CR would be expected to increase. > > > > Death rates are generally U-shaped for " good " things. Too little > water and you die... too much water and you also die. You have to > find the happy medium. The same applies for cholesterol or CR. > > Too much CR can inadvertently result in inadequate consumption of > essential nutrients which shorten life, rather than increase it. We > have all heard the horror stories about anorexia, osteoporosis, the > gray zone, etc., which are the consequence of obsessive emphasis on > caloric restriction without adequate nutrition. > > Caloric Restriction as a method for increasing life span needs to be > evaluated in the context that the BMIs of centenarians are generally > in the lower half of the normal range (18.5 to 22), as we discussed > recently. Caloric Restriction beyond what is needed to maintain the > proper BMI may not be optimum. > > Tony > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 I must admit I never liked the 'BMI " . What of a slender, yet muscular, robust, fit 18.5? Are we to believe he or she is at greater risk of dying than the avg sedentary 22 that possess more adipose and less functional tissue?? Why? A little hard to believe. Anyone with opinion to the contrary, please try to persuade me. > > > > And as far as I am aware there is no reason to believe there are > > any causes of death that CR would be expected to increase. > > > > Death rates are generally U-shaped for " good " things. Too little > water and you die... too much water and you also die. You have to > find the happy medium. The same applies for cholesterol or CR. > > Too much CR can inadvertently result in inadequate consumption of > essential nutrients which shorten life, rather than increase it. We > have all heard the horror stories about anorexia, osteoporosis, the > gray zone, etc., which are the consequence of obsessive emphasis on > caloric restriction without adequate nutrition. > > Caloric Restriction as a method for increasing life span needs to be > evaluated in the context that the BMIs of centenarians are generally > in the lower half of the normal range (18.5 to 22), as we discussed > recently. Caloric Restriction beyond what is needed to maintain the > proper BMI may not be optimum. > > Tony > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 If you happen to be moving forward when you fall your bench press strength may be of help. Here's a question for you. Why carry around a 25 BMI? Adipose tissue requires additional energy to sustain it. Energy that you must consume. To minimize energy consumption (CR) isn't it wise and reasonable to rid the body of non-functional calorie hungry tissue first? Get the fat down to low level. It is non-functional tissue that burns energy, why have it draped over your frame? As a cushion to absorb the impact of potential falls at an advanced age that may never come? Not enough reason for me. I prefer to be of very low BF, slender, muscular, extremely lithe, flexible, fit. I like the model " Rodney's dancers " portray! Would you consider they to be frail?? > > > > > > And as far as I am aware there is no reason to believe there > are > > > any causes of death that CR would be expected to increase. > > > > > > > Death rates are generally U-shaped for " good " things. Too little > > water and you die... too much water and you also die. You have > to > > find the happy medium. The same applies for cholesterol or CR. > > > > Too much CR can inadvertently result in inadequate consumption of > > essential nutrients which shorten life, rather than increase > it. We > > have all heard the horror stories about anorexia, osteoporosis, > the > > gray zone, etc., which are the consequence of obsessive emphasis > on > > caloric restriction without adequate nutrition. > > > > Caloric Restriction as a method for increasing life span needs > to be > > evaluated in the context that the BMIs of centenarians are > generally > > in the lower half of the normal range (18.5 to 22), as we > discussed > > recently. Caloric Restriction beyond what is needed to maintain > the > > proper BMI may not be optimum. > > > > Tony > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 If you happen to be moving forward when you fall your bench press strength may be of help. Here's a question for you. Why carry around a 25 BMI? Adipose tissue requires additional energy to sustain it. Energy that you must consume. To minimize energy consumption (CR) isn't it wise and reasonable to rid the body of non-functional calorie hungry tissue first? Get the fat down to low level. It is non-functional tissue that burns energy, why have it draped over your frame? As a cushion to absorb the impact of potential falls at an advanced age that may never come? Not enough reason for me. I prefer to be of very low BF, slender, muscular, extremely lithe, flexible, fit. I like the model " Rodney's dancers " portray! Would you consider they to be frail?? > > > > > > And as far as I am aware there is no reason to believe there > are > > > any causes of death that CR would be expected to increase. > > > > > > > Death rates are generally U-shaped for " good " things. Too little > > water and you die... too much water and you also die. You have > to > > find the happy medium. The same applies for cholesterol or CR. > > > > Too much CR can inadvertently result in inadequate consumption of > > essential nutrients which shorten life, rather than increase > it. We > > have all heard the horror stories about anorexia, osteoporosis, > the > > gray zone, etc., which are the consequence of obsessive emphasis > on > > caloric restriction without adequate nutrition. > > > > Caloric Restriction as a method for increasing life span needs > to be > > evaluated in the context that the BMIs of centenarians are > generally > > in the lower half of the normal range (18.5 to 22), as we > discussed > > recently. Caloric Restriction beyond what is needed to maintain > the > > proper BMI may not be optimum. > > > > Tony > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 The table lists their BMIs at the time of the study but who knows what their lifetime BMI histories were. In my case, for example, I'm at a relatively low BMI (20.5) now but most of my life I was at various BMIs; mostly higher. If I died today, I imagine someone would (probably incorrectly) conclude that a low BMI was harmful. However, since I have only been at this BMI for several months (as opposed to many years at a higher BMI) the conclusion would not be justified. Likewise, it could be that these centenarians were at lower BMIs during much of their lives. TomOn Aug 27, 2005, at 1:01 PM, jwwright wrote:It seems we discussed the centenarian's BMI in the last few months and it was higher than that per that study, which we didn't believe all that much.This one has only one male in the group and he's 23.8 near the group average: http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/2_2000/281-292s.pdf Mean 23.15 +/- 5.21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 The table lists their BMIs at the time of the study but who knows what their lifetime BMI histories were. In my case, for example, I'm at a relatively low BMI (20.5) now but most of my life I was at various BMIs; mostly higher. If I died today, I imagine someone would (probably incorrectly) conclude that a low BMI was harmful. However, since I have only been at this BMI for several months (as opposed to many years at a higher BMI) the conclusion would not be justified. Likewise, it could be that these centenarians were at lower BMIs during much of their lives. TomOn Aug 27, 2005, at 1:01 PM, jwwright wrote:It seems we discussed the centenarian's BMI in the last few months and it was higher than that per that study, which we didn't believe all that much.This one has only one male in the group and he's 23.8 near the group average: http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/2_2000/281-292s.pdf Mean 23.15 +/- 5.21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 Well if the extra weight is being carried, is it not extra exercise? BMI tissues can be a 46" muscled chest. But the centi's lived because of another factor, I think, and it's a gene. Extra exercise -> extra GH -> extra IGF-1 Regards. [ ] Re: CR Article If you happen to be moving forward when you fall your bench pressstrength may be of help.Here's a question for you. Why carry around a 25 BMI? Adipose tissuerequires additional energy to sustain it. Energy that you mustconsume. To minimize energy consumption (CR) isn't it wise andreasonable to rid the body of non-functional calorie hungry tissuefirst? Get the fat down to low level. It is non-functional tissue thatburns energy, why have it draped over your frame? As a cushion toabsorb the impact of potential falls at an advanced age that may nevercome? Not enough reason for me. I prefer to be of very low BF,slender, muscular, extremely lithe, flexible, fit. I like the model "Rodney's dancers" portray! Would you consider they to be frail?? > Hello,> > Anyone else notice that from http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/2_2000/281-> 292s.pdf table 1, "Basic characteristics of subjects" that > > average BMI of A's (bedridden but able to sit on bed) = 20.86> > average BMI of B's (unable to go outside without help) = 26.19> > average BMI of C's (free living) = 27.5.> > O.K. I realize this is an extremely small sample size (especially > for the C's :-) but there does seem to be a trend showing that the > more massive individual centenarians seem to be able to get around > better.> > Been thinking about physical prowess at older ages a bit since my > father (90 in October) has now recently completed two impact falls > on concrete, the last which put him in the hospital with four > cracked ribs, a cracked hip, and a dislocated shoulder. Thank > goodness for secondary insurance, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, > in-house physical therapy, and who knows what else.> > My plan (if I am so lucky to reach that age) is to utilize my upper > body strength (way over 200 pounds bench pressing now) to catch > myself if/when I should fall. (And not dislocate my shoulder doing > so.) Also a few Karate katas or some such for maintaining good > balance.> > Think modest CR is OK and ON is great, but seems to me the real > world is just too tough a place to exist in a debilitated and frail > state. Probably will stay around BMI = 25 for the foreseeable > future.> > Just some rambling thoughts.> > Aequalsz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 Well if the extra weight is being carried, is it not extra exercise? BMI tissues can be a 46" muscled chest. But the centi's lived because of another factor, I think, and it's a gene. Extra exercise -> extra GH -> extra IGF-1 Regards. [ ] Re: CR Article If you happen to be moving forward when you fall your bench pressstrength may be of help.Here's a question for you. Why carry around a 25 BMI? Adipose tissuerequires additional energy to sustain it. Energy that you mustconsume. To minimize energy consumption (CR) isn't it wise andreasonable to rid the body of non-functional calorie hungry tissuefirst? Get the fat down to low level. It is non-functional tissue thatburns energy, why have it draped over your frame? As a cushion toabsorb the impact of potential falls at an advanced age that may nevercome? Not enough reason for me. I prefer to be of very low BF,slender, muscular, extremely lithe, flexible, fit. I like the model "Rodney's dancers" portray! Would you consider they to be frail?? > Hello,> > Anyone else notice that from http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/2_2000/281-> 292s.pdf table 1, "Basic characteristics of subjects" that > > average BMI of A's (bedridden but able to sit on bed) = 20.86> > average BMI of B's (unable to go outside without help) = 26.19> > average BMI of C's (free living) = 27.5.> > O.K. I realize this is an extremely small sample size (especially > for the C's :-) but there does seem to be a trend showing that the > more massive individual centenarians seem to be able to get around > better.> > Been thinking about physical prowess at older ages a bit since my > father (90 in October) has now recently completed two impact falls > on concrete, the last which put him in the hospital with four > cracked ribs, a cracked hip, and a dislocated shoulder. Thank > goodness for secondary insurance, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, > in-house physical therapy, and who knows what else.> > My plan (if I am so lucky to reach that age) is to utilize my upper > body strength (way over 200 pounds bench pressing now) to catch > myself if/when I should fall. (And not dislocate my shoulder doing > so.) Also a few Karate katas or some such for maintaining good > balance.> > Think modest CR is OK and ON is great, but seems to me the real > world is just too tough a place to exist in a debilitated and frail > state. Probably will stay around BMI = 25 for the foreseeable > future.> > Just some rambling thoughts.> > Aequalsz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2005 Report Share Posted August 28, 2005 Extra exercise also needs more fuel? I want exercise that's controlled, specific, predictable and planned in advance so I can meat it out in proper proportion. Exercise does not consistently raise GH levels. Testosterone, Cortisol , a few others may acutely spike in response to resistance training but not GH. I don't want extra tissue hanging around that serves no useful purpose but needs fuel to survive and makes the functional tissue to work even harder requiring even more fuel consumption. > Well if the extra weight is being carried, is it not extra exercise? > BMI tissues can be a 46 " muscled chest. > But the centi's lived because of another factor, I think, and it's a gene. > Extra exercise -> extra GH -> extra IGF-1 > > Regards. > > [ ] Re: CR Article > > > If you happen to be moving forward when you fall your bench press > strength may be of help. > > Here's a question for you. Why carry around a 25 BMI? Adipose tissue > requires additional energy to sustain it. Energy that you must > consume. To minimize energy consumption (CR) isn't it wise and > reasonable to rid the body of non-functional calorie hungry tissue > first? Get the fat down to low level. It is non-functional tissue that > burns energy, why have it draped over your frame? As a cushion to > absorb the impact of potential falls at an advanced age that may never > come? Not enough reason for me. I prefer to be of very low BF, > slender, muscular, extremely lithe, flexible, fit. I like the model > " Rodney's dancers " portray! Would you consider they to be frail?? > > > > --- In , " aequalsz " <aequalsz@y...> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Anyone else notice that from http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/2_2000/281- > > 292s.pdf table 1, " Basic characteristics of subjects " that > > > > average BMI of A's (bedridden but able to sit on bed) = 20.86 > > > > average BMI of B's (unable to go outside without help) = 26.19 > > > > average BMI of C's (free living) = 27.5. > > > > O.K. I realize this is an extremely small sample size (especially > > for the C's :-) but there does seem to be a trend showing that the > > more massive individual centenarians seem to be able to get around > > better. > > > > Been thinking about physical prowess at older ages a bit since my > > father (90 in October) has now recently completed two impact falls > > on concrete, the last which put him in the hospital with four > > cracked ribs, a cracked hip, and a dislocated shoulder. Thank > > goodness for secondary insurance, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, > > in-house physical therapy, and who knows what else. > > > > My plan (if I am so lucky to reach that age) is to utilize my upper > > body strength (way over 200 pounds bench pressing now) to catch > > myself if/when I should fall. (And not dislocate my shoulder doing > > so.) Also a few Karate katas or some such for maintaining good > > balance. > > > > Think modest CR is OK and ON is great, but seems to me the real > > world is just too tough a place to exist in a debilitated and frail > > state. Probably will stay around BMI = 25 for the foreseeable > > future. > > > > Just some rambling thoughts. > > > > Aequalsz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2005 Report Share Posted August 28, 2005 Extra exercise also needs more fuel? I want exercise that's controlled, specific, predictable and planned in advance so I can meat it out in proper proportion. Exercise does not consistently raise GH levels. Testosterone, Cortisol , a few others may acutely spike in response to resistance training but not GH. I don't want extra tissue hanging around that serves no useful purpose but needs fuel to survive and makes the functional tissue to work even harder requiring even more fuel consumption. > Well if the extra weight is being carried, is it not extra exercise? > BMI tissues can be a 46 " muscled chest. > But the centi's lived because of another factor, I think, and it's a gene. > Extra exercise -> extra GH -> extra IGF-1 > > Regards. > > [ ] Re: CR Article > > > If you happen to be moving forward when you fall your bench press > strength may be of help. > > Here's a question for you. Why carry around a 25 BMI? Adipose tissue > requires additional energy to sustain it. Energy that you must > consume. To minimize energy consumption (CR) isn't it wise and > reasonable to rid the body of non-functional calorie hungry tissue > first? Get the fat down to low level. It is non-functional tissue that > burns energy, why have it draped over your frame? As a cushion to > absorb the impact of potential falls at an advanced age that may never > come? Not enough reason for me. I prefer to be of very low BF, > slender, muscular, extremely lithe, flexible, fit. I like the model > " Rodney's dancers " portray! Would you consider they to be frail?? > > > > --- In , " aequalsz " <aequalsz@y...> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Anyone else notice that from http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/2_2000/281- > > 292s.pdf table 1, " Basic characteristics of subjects " that > > > > average BMI of A's (bedridden but able to sit on bed) = 20.86 > > > > average BMI of B's (unable to go outside without help) = 26.19 > > > > average BMI of C's (free living) = 27.5. > > > > O.K. I realize this is an extremely small sample size (especially > > for the C's :-) but there does seem to be a trend showing that the > > more massive individual centenarians seem to be able to get around > > better. > > > > Been thinking about physical prowess at older ages a bit since my > > father (90 in October) has now recently completed two impact falls > > on concrete, the last which put him in the hospital with four > > cracked ribs, a cracked hip, and a dislocated shoulder. Thank > > goodness for secondary insurance, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, > > in-house physical therapy, and who knows what else. > > > > My plan (if I am so lucky to reach that age) is to utilize my upper > > body strength (way over 200 pounds bench pressing now) to catch > > myself if/when I should fall. (And not dislocate my shoulder doing > > so.) Also a few Karate katas or some such for maintaining good > > balance. > > > > Think modest CR is OK and ON is great, but seems to me the real > > world is just too tough a place to exist in a debilitated and frail > > state. Probably will stay around BMI = 25 for the foreseeable > > future. > > > > Just some rambling thoughts. > > > > Aequalsz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2005 Report Share Posted August 28, 2005 Another thing, it's not really exercise to carry around extra fat otherwise the very obese would be some of the fittest on the planet. Clearly they are not. > Well if the extra weight is being carried, is it not extra exercise? > BMI tissues can be a 46 " muscled chest. > But the centi's lived because of another factor, I think, and it's a gene. > Extra exercise -> extra GH -> extra IGF-1 > > Regards. > > [ ] Re: CR Article > > > If you happen to be moving forward when you fall your bench press > strength may be of help. > > Here's a question for you. Why carry around a 25 BMI? Adipose tissue > requires additional energy to sustain it. Energy that you must > consume. To minimize energy consumption (CR) isn't it wise and > reasonable to rid the body of non-functional calorie hungry tissue > first? Get the fat down to low level. It is non-functional tissue that > burns energy, why have it draped over your frame? As a cushion to > absorb the impact of potential falls at an advanced age that may never > come? Not enough reason for me. I prefer to be of very low BF, > slender, muscular, extremely lithe, flexible, fit. I like the model > " Rodney's dancers " portray! Would you consider they to be frail?? > > > > --- In , " aequalsz " <aequalsz@y...> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Anyone else notice that from http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/2_2000/281- > > 292s.pdf table 1, " Basic characteristics of subjects " that > > > > average BMI of A's (bedridden but able to sit on bed) = 20.86 > > > > average BMI of B's (unable to go outside without help) = 26.19 > > > > average BMI of C's (free living) = 27.5. > > > > O.K. I realize this is an extremely small sample size (especially > > for the C's :-) but there does seem to be a trend showing that the > > more massive individual centenarians seem to be able to get around > > better. > > > > Been thinking about physical prowess at older ages a bit since my > > father (90 in October) has now recently completed two impact falls > > on concrete, the last which put him in the hospital with four > > cracked ribs, a cracked hip, and a dislocated shoulder. Thank > > goodness for secondary insurance, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, > > in-house physical therapy, and who knows what else. > > > > My plan (if I am so lucky to reach that age) is to utilize my upper > > body strength (way over 200 pounds bench pressing now) to catch > > myself if/when I should fall. (And not dislocate my shoulder doing > > so.) Also a few Karate katas or some such for maintaining good > > balance. > > > > Think modest CR is OK and ON is great, but seems to me the real > > world is just too tough a place to exist in a debilitated and frail > > state. Probably will stay around BMI = 25 for the foreseeable > > future. > > > > Just some rambling thoughts. > > > > Aequalsz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2005 Report Share Posted August 28, 2005 Another thing, it's not really exercise to carry around extra fat otherwise the very obese would be some of the fittest on the planet. Clearly they are not. > Well if the extra weight is being carried, is it not extra exercise? > BMI tissues can be a 46 " muscled chest. > But the centi's lived because of another factor, I think, and it's a gene. > Extra exercise -> extra GH -> extra IGF-1 > > Regards. > > [ ] Re: CR Article > > > If you happen to be moving forward when you fall your bench press > strength may be of help. > > Here's a question for you. Why carry around a 25 BMI? Adipose tissue > requires additional energy to sustain it. Energy that you must > consume. To minimize energy consumption (CR) isn't it wise and > reasonable to rid the body of non-functional calorie hungry tissue > first? Get the fat down to low level. It is non-functional tissue that > burns energy, why have it draped over your frame? As a cushion to > absorb the impact of potential falls at an advanced age that may never > come? Not enough reason for me. I prefer to be of very low BF, > slender, muscular, extremely lithe, flexible, fit. I like the model > " Rodney's dancers " portray! Would you consider they to be frail?? > > > > --- In , " aequalsz " <aequalsz@y...> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Anyone else notice that from http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/2_2000/281- > > 292s.pdf table 1, " Basic characteristics of subjects " that > > > > average BMI of A's (bedridden but able to sit on bed) = 20.86 > > > > average BMI of B's (unable to go outside without help) = 26.19 > > > > average BMI of C's (free living) = 27.5. > > > > O.K. I realize this is an extremely small sample size (especially > > for the C's :-) but there does seem to be a trend showing that the > > more massive individual centenarians seem to be able to get around > > better. > > > > Been thinking about physical prowess at older ages a bit since my > > father (90 in October) has now recently completed two impact falls > > on concrete, the last which put him in the hospital with four > > cracked ribs, a cracked hip, and a dislocated shoulder. Thank > > goodness for secondary insurance, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, > > in-house physical therapy, and who knows what else. > > > > My plan (if I am so lucky to reach that age) is to utilize my upper > > body strength (way over 200 pounds bench pressing now) to catch > > myself if/when I should fall. (And not dislocate my shoulder doing > > so.) Also a few Karate katas or some such for maintaining good > > balance. > > > > Think modest CR is OK and ON is great, but seems to me the real > > world is just too tough a place to exist in a debilitated and frail > > state. Probably will stay around BMI = 25 for the foreseeable > > future. > > > > Just some rambling thoughts. > > > > Aequalsz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2005 Report Share Posted August 28, 2005 I suppose no one wants extra stuff hanging on, but, the mechanism by which that stuff gets on and stays on is not well known. If you can keep it off that's great, but it obviously is not easy for a lot of people. But the factor, BMI, is not just stuff hanging on. A guy of 500 # has a little guy inside working his butt off to move that mass. He's getting exercise - he's carrying more weight than I can, so why is there not some limiting factor? Some metabolic factor is messed up. Regards. [ ] Re: CR Article> > > If you happen to be moving forward when you fall your bench press> strength may be of help.> > Here's a question for you. Why carry around a 25 BMI? Adipose tissue> requires additional energy to sustain it. Energy that you must> consume. To minimize energy consumption (CR) isn't it wise and> reasonable to rid the body of non-functional calorie hungry tissue> first? Get the fat down to low level. It is non-functional tissue that> burns energy, why have it draped over your frame? As a cushion to> absorb the impact of potential falls at an advanced age that may never> come? Not enough reason for me. I prefer to be of very low BF,> slender, muscular, extremely lithe, flexible, fit. I like the model > "Rodney's dancers" portray! Would you consider they to be frail??> > > > --- In , "aequalsz" <aequalsz@y...>wrote:> > Hello,> > > > Anyone else notice that from http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/2_2000/281-> > 292s.pdf table 1, "Basic characteristics of subjects" that > > > > average BMI of A's (bedridden but able to sit on bed) = 20.86> > > > average BMI of B's (unable to go outside without help) = 26.19> > > > average BMI of C's (free living) = 27.5.> > > > O.K. I realize this is an extremely small sample size (especially > > for the C's :-) but there does seem to be a trend showing that the > > more massive individual centenarians seem to be able to get around > > better.> > > > Been thinking about physical prowess at older ages a bit since my > > father (90 in October) has now recently completed two impact falls > > on concrete, the last which put him in the hospital with four > > cracked ribs, a cracked hip, and a dislocated shoulder. Thank > > goodness for secondary insurance, hospitals, rehabilitationcenters, > > in-house physical therapy, and who knows what else.> > > > My plan (if I am so lucky to reach that age) is to utilize my upper > > body strength (way over 200 pounds bench pressing now) to catch > > myself if/when I should fall. (And not dislocate my shoulder doing > > so.) Also a few Karate katas or some such for maintaining good > > balance.> > > > Think modest CR is OK and ON is great, but seems to me the real > > world is just too tough a place to exist in a debilitated and frail > > state. Probably will stay around BMI = 25 for the foreseeable > > future.> > > > Just some rambling thoughts.> > > > Aequalsz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2005 Report Share Posted August 28, 2005 I suppose no one wants extra stuff hanging on, but, the mechanism by which that stuff gets on and stays on is not well known. If you can keep it off that's great, but it obviously is not easy for a lot of people. But the factor, BMI, is not just stuff hanging on. A guy of 500 # has a little guy inside working his butt off to move that mass. He's getting exercise - he's carrying more weight than I can, so why is there not some limiting factor? Some metabolic factor is messed up. Regards. [ ] Re: CR Article> > > If you happen to be moving forward when you fall your bench press> strength may be of help.> > Here's a question for you. Why carry around a 25 BMI? Adipose tissue> requires additional energy to sustain it. Energy that you must> consume. To minimize energy consumption (CR) isn't it wise and> reasonable to rid the body of non-functional calorie hungry tissue> first? Get the fat down to low level. It is non-functional tissue that> burns energy, why have it draped over your frame? As a cushion to> absorb the impact of potential falls at an advanced age that may never> come? Not enough reason for me. I prefer to be of very low BF,> slender, muscular, extremely lithe, flexible, fit. I like the model > "Rodney's dancers" portray! Would you consider they to be frail??> > > > --- In , "aequalsz" <aequalsz@y...>wrote:> > Hello,> > > > Anyone else notice that from http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/2_2000/281-> > 292s.pdf table 1, "Basic characteristics of subjects" that > > > > average BMI of A's (bedridden but able to sit on bed) = 20.86> > > > average BMI of B's (unable to go outside without help) = 26.19> > > > average BMI of C's (free living) = 27.5.> > > > O.K. I realize this is an extremely small sample size (especially > > for the C's :-) but there does seem to be a trend showing that the > > more massive individual centenarians seem to be able to get around > > better.> > > > Been thinking about physical prowess at older ages a bit since my > > father (90 in October) has now recently completed two impact falls > > on concrete, the last which put him in the hospital with four > > cracked ribs, a cracked hip, and a dislocated shoulder. Thank > > goodness for secondary insurance, hospitals, rehabilitationcenters, > > in-house physical therapy, and who knows what else.> > > > My plan (if I am so lucky to reach that age) is to utilize my upper > > body strength (way over 200 pounds bench pressing now) to catch > > myself if/when I should fall. (And not dislocate my shoulder doing > > so.) Also a few Karate katas or some such for maintaining good > > balance.> > > > Think modest CR is OK and ON is great, but seems to me the real > > world is just too tough a place to exist in a debilitated and frail > > state. Probably will stay around BMI = 25 for the foreseeable > > future.> > > > Just some rambling thoughts.> > > > Aequalsz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2005 Report Share Posted August 28, 2005 If it were easy to do there wouldn't be so many obesers. The 500#er told me what his doc told him - he had a hormone problem. Of course he ate too much - he had a hormone problem. Eating too many calories is simply too much of a generalization. There's more to it. Figure out the insulin signaling. I know in my case, exercise did not lose me weight. It built muscle. And muscle is very hard to lose. It took me 10 yr to figure out how to lose weight. Exercise burns not very many calories. For one period, I had an aerobics instructor who taught 3 classes twice per week, and she was >30# overweight. Once I actually got the concept of CR, which was before I knew about CR, then I could lose weight. Takes a while to learn. Regards. [ ] Re: CR Article Eating too many calories is how the "stuff" gets on, and eating lessand exercising (resistance and cardio) is how to get the "junk" of andget lean. No, it is not easy for a lot of people but for us it shouldbe. A few simple adjustments and you will become lean in short order. A 500lb guy has the weight distributed all over his body so it's notlike he's carrying all that weight on his shoulders. The physics is alittle different. Secondly, most 500lb people I know are lethargic andmove only with "great" effort. Yes, there is some adaptation in theirmuscles and heart but just enough to move them [slowly] from one placeto another. (I've never seen a 500lb guy sprinting to anywhere)My question remains, why tolerate non-functional calories hungrytissue to remain other than what is necessary for vital function?> I suppose no one wants extra stuff hanging on, but, the mechanism bywhich that stuff gets on and stays on is not well known.> If you can keep it off that's great, but it obviously is not easyfor a lot of people. > But the factor, BMI, is not just stuff hanging on.> A guy of 500 # has a little guy inside working his butt off to movethat mass. He's getting exercise - he's carrying more weight than Ican, so why is there not some limiting factor? Some metabolic factoris messed up. > Regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2005 Report Share Posted August 28, 2005 If it were easy to do there wouldn't be so many obesers. The 500#er told me what his doc told him - he had a hormone problem. Of course he ate too much - he had a hormone problem. Eating too many calories is simply too much of a generalization. There's more to it. Figure out the insulin signaling. I know in my case, exercise did not lose me weight. It built muscle. And muscle is very hard to lose. It took me 10 yr to figure out how to lose weight. Exercise burns not very many calories. For one period, I had an aerobics instructor who taught 3 classes twice per week, and she was >30# overweight. Once I actually got the concept of CR, which was before I knew about CR, then I could lose weight. Takes a while to learn. Regards. [ ] Re: CR Article Eating too many calories is how the "stuff" gets on, and eating lessand exercising (resistance and cardio) is how to get the "junk" of andget lean. No, it is not easy for a lot of people but for us it shouldbe. A few simple adjustments and you will become lean in short order. A 500lb guy has the weight distributed all over his body so it's notlike he's carrying all that weight on his shoulders. The physics is alittle different. Secondly, most 500lb people I know are lethargic andmove only with "great" effort. Yes, there is some adaptation in theirmuscles and heart but just enough to move them [slowly] from one placeto another. (I've never seen a 500lb guy sprinting to anywhere)My question remains, why tolerate non-functional calories hungrytissue to remain other than what is necessary for vital function?> I suppose no one wants extra stuff hanging on, but, the mechanism bywhich that stuff gets on and stays on is not well known.> If you can keep it off that's great, but it obviously is not easyfor a lot of people. > But the factor, BMI, is not just stuff hanging on.> A guy of 500 # has a little guy inside working his butt off to movethat mass. He's getting exercise - he's carrying more weight than Ican, so why is there not some limiting factor? Some metabolic factoris messed up. > Regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2005 Report Share Posted August 28, 2005 I believe weight management IS just this simple ... calories in, calories out. Period. In the vast vast majority of cases cut calories sufficiently and the weight comes off. I don't buy into those " theories " that many have " insulin signaling " disorders or the like, they simply eat too much. And if they ate less the weight would come off. 10 yrs to figure out how to lose weight?? I don't understand what could have made this so difficult for you. Take in progressively less calories till the weight starts to come off. Resistance exercise to maintain lean body mass. Add cardio if you wish to accelerate the weight loss. Where is it so difficult? > If it were easy to do there wouldn't be so many obesers. > The 500#er told me what his doc told him - he had a hormone problem. Of course he ate too much - he had a hormone problem. > Eating too many calories is simply too much of a generalization. There's more to it. Figure out the insulin signaling. > > I know in my case, exercise did not lose me weight. It built muscle. And muscle is very hard to lose. It took me 10 yr to figure out how to lose weight. Exercise burns not very many calories. For one period, I had an aerobics instructor who taught 3 classes twice per week, and she was >30# overweight. > Once I actually got the concept of CR, which was before I knew about CR, then I could lose weight. > Takes a while to learn. > > Regards. > > [ ] Re: CR Article > > > Eating too many calories is how the " stuff " gets on, and eating less > and exercising (resistance and cardio) is how to get the " junk " of and > get lean. No, it is not easy for a lot of people but for us it should > be. A few simple adjustments and you will become lean in short order. > > A 500lb guy has the weight distributed all over his body so it's not > like he's carrying all that weight on his shoulders. The physics is a > little different. Secondly, most 500lb people I know are lethargic and > move only with " great " effort. Yes, there is some adaptation in their > muscles and heart but just enough to move them [slowly] from one place > to another. (I've never seen a 500lb guy sprinting to anywhere) > > My question remains, why tolerate non-functional calories hungry > tissue to remain other than what is necessary for vital function? > > > > --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote: > > I suppose no one wants extra stuff hanging on, but, the mechanism by > which that stuff gets on and stays on is not well known. > > If you can keep it off that's great, but it obviously is not easy > for a lot of people. > > But the factor, BMI, is not just stuff hanging on. > > A guy of 500 # has a little guy inside working his butt off to move > that mass. He's getting exercise - he's carrying more weight than I > can, so why is there not some limiting factor? Some metabolic factor > is messed up. > > Regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.